Columbia’s Agreement: A Win for Authoritarianism

Columbia University made a serious mistake when it agreed this week to pay $200 million to the Trump administration to resolve a dispute over whether it had violated federal anti-discrimination laws. Worse than that, it gave credence to the administration’s cover story that it is only trying to restore freedom and tolerance on university campuses.

That’s malarky, as Joe Biden would say.

Before explaining why, let me acknowledge the limits of my capacity to judge from a distance. I respect the good faith of those at Columbia who made the decision to settle, though I disagree with the results of that decision.

Here’s why.

Based on past experience, no one should trust the Trump administration to keep its word. It is important for other universities to remember that as they contemplate following Columbia’s example.

More than that, Columbia’s folly is to believe that an illiberal, authoritarian regime would use its power or enter into an agreement to promote values and practices, such as freedom and tolerance, that are anathema to it. No piece of paper can get them to do so.

Mathias Risse, faculty director of Harvard University’s Carr-Ryan Center for Human Rights, captures the essence of Trump’s illiberalism in noting that his policies embrace the worldview of Carl Schmitt, who rejected “the importance of humanity and of individuals, as opposed to communities that alone can give meaning to individual lives.” Such communities, in the eyes of an illiberal regime like Trump’s, “work … best when they (are) relatively homogenous and driven by a sense of political friendship internally as well as by a sense of enmity towards other groups externally.”

Risse’s analysis of this politics of division makes sense of the administration’s demand that colleges and universities end diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and denounce critical race theory, to say nothing of its efforts to demonize international students.

Risse also reminds us that, for Schmitt, “Dictatorship is compatible with democratic principles, but not with liberal ideas of rule of law. If the dictator has the people’s confidence, even harsh rule may be appropriate … Trump certainly would want to see himself this way and accuse dissenters [of] being divisive. He is a champion of illiberal democracy and supports other champions of illiberal democracy elsewhere.”

In fact, in all of its dealings with Columbia, the administration has made those principles come to life and pressured the university to become a more authoritarian institution. In classic double-speak, it justifies that pressure in the name of values that it does not practice.

Academics are supposed to be smarter than that. But Columbia has fallen into the trap, taken the bait, had the wool pulled over its eyes: Choose whatever metaphor you like.

American higher education institutions should not bargain, cajole or capitulate in the face of the administration’s threats or illegal actions. They should call them out, rally their alumni and supporters, and set the kind of moral example that they tout in their admissions brochures and commencement ceremonies.

Universities, unlike law firms, are not profit-making enterprises, and, also unlike law firms, are places where truth is supposed to be the only client. Columbia’s motto captures that commitment.

“In Lumine Tuo Videbimus Lumen,” is Latin for “In Thy light shall we see light.” It is a paraphrase of Psalm 36:9 from the Hebrew Bible. Seeking knowledge and understanding under guidance from a higher power—inspiring words.

But I don’t think the higher power referenced is the Trump administration.

The 22-page agreement between Columbia and the United States of America makes clear that the administration was indeed the higher power whose demands the university accepted. It reads more like a ransom note than an agreement between two freely consenting parties.

It culminates (for the moment at least) an Alice-in-Wonderland-like sequence, “sentence first—verdict later,” in which the administration acted illegally and put a financial gun to Columbia’s head. Cutting off hundreds of millions of dollars of federal research funds without following clearly prescribed procedures should not be rewarded.

Doing so only encourages the administration to continue to flout the law in its dealings with colleges and universities everywhere.

The agreement that Columbia signed pays homage in one brief paragraph to academic and institutional autonomy, even as it lays out, page after page, the conditions under which the university must operate.

Let’s look at a few of those conditions.

On page 6, Columbia agreed to maintain a senior vice provost position it created in March to oversee its Middle East-focused programs; the agreement describes that role as one “focused on promoting excellence in regional studies.” Excellence is not defined in the agreement, and what an illiberal regime counts as excellence is unlikely to match what academics think.

The university agreed that the senior vice provost will “review the educational programs to ensure that the educational offerings are comprehensive and balanced.” Here, the patina of liberal tolerance for different points of view masks the illiberal demand that the government have a role in dictating those standards and defining their meaning.

On page 8, Columbia agreed that “all hiring and promotion practices for faculty and administrative roles are grounded solely in individual qualifications and academic and professional merit and shall not use … race, color, sex, or national origin as a factor—implicit or explicit—in hiring decisions across all schools, departments and programs.”

That stipulation, which is paired with requirements to annually submit data on faculty and staff hiring and promotions to a so-called “Resolution Monitor,” goes well beyond anything the Supreme Court has said about the limits of affirmative action.

On page 9, Columbia agreed that it will “undertake a comprehensive review of its international admissions processes and policies and will ensure that international student-applicants are asked questions designed to elicit their reasons for wishing to study in the United States.” On that same page, the university committed itself to establish processes “to provide that all students, international and domestic, are committed to the longstanding traditions of American universities, including civil discourse, free inquiry, open debate, and the fundamental values of equality and respect.”

Sounds suspiciously like a loyalty oath.

Wouldn’t it have been terrific had the agreement bound the Trump administration to ensure that all of its personnel are committed to those same values? Alas, it did not.

On page 13, the university agreed to “establish procedures by which any member of the Columbia community can report allegations of noncompliance with the reforms detailed in this agreement” to the authorities, including the aforementioned “Resolution Monitor.”

Those committed to freedom and tolerance should understand that a community of informants is not a community at all, nor is it a place where freedom can thrive. Moreover, living in the shadow and under the supervision of someone authorized to have access to extensive university-collected data and report any alleged violations to the Trump administration is not a guarantee of university autonomy.

Columbia may think it has satisfied the otherwise insatiable Trump administration. But any peace will only be temporary.

Let me say again that I don’t know how I or anyone else would act in Columbia’s position. But I know that, in return for that temporary and illusory peace, the light that will now guide Columbia’s own quest will come from Washington, DC, not from heaven.