America’s elite universities have reacted in varying ways to the Trump administration’s use of anti-discrimination legislation in its offensive against campus anti-Semitism. Perhaps most strikingly Columbia seems to have agreed to the administration’s demands while Princeton has resisted them.
The administration’s main weapon in its campaign is to withdraw federal funding from any activities or programmes it deems could facilitate anti-Semitism. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, signed into law by a Democratic President, it can outlaw discrimination on various grounds.
Last month the administration sent a letter to Columbia laying out conditions for the restoration of $400m (£302m) of suspended federal funding. These included banning masked protests and adopting the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance’s definition of anti-Semitism. It also insisted on stern sanctions on students involved in the occupation of Hamilton Hall in the spring of 2024. Perhaps most strikingly it included putting its Middle East, South Asian, and African Studies department into academic receivership. The administration regards the department’s approach to the conflict between Israel and the Palestinians as unbalanced.
Initially, Interim President Katrina Armstrong issued what looked like a holding statement to the Columbia community. Eventually the university complied, thereby incurring much criticism in the media and also at Columbia. Armstrong then resigned from her leadership position and took an academic sabbatical. Claire Shipman, an author and former television journalist, was appointed interim president but there is no doubt that Columbia remains in crisis and internally divided.
Under the Title VI framework what the administration would have to do to win a court case would be to prove that Columbia had allowed discrimination against Jews. That could include by allowing a learning environment that was hostile to Jews to develop. There can be little doubt that Columbia is guilty of such action over many years.
Princeton’s response to the sudden loss of $210m of federal funding offers a striking contrast. President Christopher Eisgruber has made it clear Princeton will offer the administration no concessions. There have been no staff resignations and, while Princeton will obviously feel the loss of research grants, the university is not hopelessly divided.
Its confidence might stem from a belief that a Title VI case against Princeton would fail. Speaking at Princeton’s Centre for Jewish Life (CJL) on Yom Kippur, the Day of Atonement, last year, President Eisgruber said that, although there had been isolated incidents of anti-Semitism at Princeton, Jewish students and staff overwhelmingly felt safe. There has been a disturbance at a speaker event featuring Naftali Bennett, a former Israeli prime minister, at which some anti-Semitic insults were shouted. There was also some disruption caused by a fire alarm being set off. However, this did not stop the event continuing and Jewish attendees reported feeling a great sense of unity by the end.
It is also notable that Princeton seems to have done better at preserving free speech on campus. Unlike at other universities, speakers are not shouted down in debate. In addition, the safety that Jewish students and staff apparently feel does not come at the cost of being sheltered from ideas with which they would presumably feel deeply uncomfortable. For example, on 4 April there was a conference called The anti-Zionist idea: history, theory and politics. CJL head Rabbi Gil Steinlauf was highly critical of the conference. However, allowing the conference to take place and Steinlauf to critique it were regarded as examples of free speech and best academic practice.
Naturally it is vital that Princeton disciplines the people guilty of attempting to disrupt the event featuring Naftali Bennett. It is also important not to get carried away by the better situation at Princeton. Doing better than Columbia is not setting the bar that high. Matters can also deteriorate quickly.
Nevertheless, it looks like Princeton has benefitted from taking a principled and largely constructive approach free of the worst excesses of woke ideas. Princeton has taken a bold stand against what many regard as excessive interference on the administration’s part. This will no doubt be much to Princeton’s credit and win it praise in many circles. Columbia’s indulgence of anti-Semitic tendencies has undermined its ability to defend its own interests and freedoms.
Guy Whitehouse is a member of the Academy of Ideas and the Free Speech Union. His views do not necessarily reflect those of those organisations.
The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect those of the Radicalism of fools project.
PHOTO: "File:Stronghold Princeton University New Jersey, USA.jpg" by carbonnyc is licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0.