This week I’m very happy to not be at Columbia, and not in the US, enjoying spending the week at the Perimeter Institute at a conference in honor of Lee Smolin. Since there’s a little bit of Columbia news and I have some free time, here’s an update.
The Trump people have just announced that they have sent a letter to Columbia’s accreditor, the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, accusing Columbia of being in violation of civil rights law. My initial reaction is that this is good news since it implies both that Columbia hasn’t further caved-in yet and makes clear that the Trump people have run out of ammunition.
The two things they have done that are very damaging are taking away grant funding and causing potential problems with foreign student visas. The Columbia trustees learned from the first cave-in that even if you do what he wants, Trump isn’t going to give the money back (he just took more away after the cave-in). Also, the proposed budget eliminates most such funding in the future anyway. Agreeing to more Trump demands seems unlikely to get the university anything other than more humiliation.
On the student visa front, the threat is to all universities, so nothing in particular Columbia can do about it. We’ll find out over the summer what fraction of foreign students who have accepted admission offers will be able to enroll in the fall.
The other Trump threats have turned out to be empty. He threatened to tell the IRS to take away Harvard’s tax exempt non-profit status, but that seems to be so clearly illegal that it won’t happen. Then he tried to take away Harvard’s ability to enroll foreign students, but about 15 minutes later Harvard had a restraining order stopping this and should soon have some sort of injunction. Columbia got a letter saying we’re in violation of Title VI based on bogus accusations, but since they’ve already taken funding away, that was not only done illegally, but also had no effect. Sending a letter to an accreditor telling them about the bogus Title VI accusation seems also something with no effect. Maybe there’s a long-term plan to take over the accreditation agencies and use them to gain control of all US colleges and universities, but that’s both a long ways off and likely to be struck down by the courts.
Harvard two days ago went to court asking for a summary judgment on the funding issues. It remains a huge mystery why the Columbia trustees have not done the same thing.
Remember that all of this is based on the supposed terrible antisemitism problems at Columbia and Harvard, meaning that there have been protests against Israel’s ever more obviously genocidal campaign of killing and starving the Palestinians in Gaza. If you want to know the details of how the starvation program is working, see here. The problem with committing genocide against a helpless population is not that they’ll fight back, but that the international community will turn against you and you’ll become a pariah nation. This is happening, and being met with an ever more frantic campaign of collaborating with our Fascist dictatorship in accusing anyone who points out what is happening of “antisemitism”.
Update: New York Times coverage here, which includes:
“This is another semi-random attack against a celebrity institution,” said Ted Mitchell, the president of the American Council on Education, an association that includes many colleges and universities in its membership. “They are trying once again to skirt due process in order to score political points.”
Antoinette Flores, the director of higher education accountability and quality at New America, a Washington think tank, said she thought the letter was both a threat to Middle States, and to Columbia, about federal aid.
But she said that the Department of Education does not have the authority to determine what violates the accreditation group’s standards. Only the accrediting body can do that, which would require its own review of what is alleged.
The Trump people have this fantasy that they will take control of the accreditation agencies, and through them gain control of the universities. Unlike Columbia, presumably the MSCHE will not just cave-in to Trump, it seems highly unlikely they’ll remove Columbia’s accrediation. The threat is more that Trump may then come after them, but if so, like Harvard, they’ll have no choice but to fight, and likely will do well in court.
Bend the Knee, Columbia as usual is convinced that Columbia must do whatever Trump wants.
Update: The craziness is just endless. No new foreign students at Harvard. A new travel ban. We’ll see what the courts have to say.
Given the travel ban, I hope the IMU has contingency plans for the 2026 ICM, and may even want to start implementing them.
Update: A Forbes article also argues this is really an attack on the accreditor more than on Columbia.
Update: Harvard has amended its complaint about the student visa craziness. I’m betting it won’t be very long before they’ll have an injunction. The courts are not going to rule that nothing can be done about this sort of outrageous attempt to exercise dictatorial powers to try and gain control of or destroy a university.
In any case, Trump seems to have found some other powerful institution to go to war with today, Harvard may just be another TACO.
Update: Again, about 15 minutes for Harvard to get a TRO stopping for now the latest Trump visa illegality. As I’ve written before, one reason I was given for the original Columbia cave-in was that the trustees had legal advice that nothing could be done if Trump went after foreign student visas. I hope the trustees now have some new lawyers…
In addition, Harvard’s lawsuit argues that this is illegal retaliation for their refusal to allow Trump to take over the university. The Columbia cave-in and decision to refuse to go to court but instead to negotiate with the dictator means they don’t have the same grounds for a lawsuit that Harvard has. Columbia needs to change tactics and join Harvard in fighting now.
(Note: the references to “15 minutes” are metaphorical. True times more like a couple hours.)
Don’t forget to report on the conference!!
I’m pretty sure that MIT, Columbia, Harvard, and other top-level universities can basically ignore the accreditation agencies. Several years ago, it looked to me like MIT’s curriculum did not satisfy the criteria of the accreditation agency for a degree in Computer Science. What happened was not that MIT lost its accreditation, but that the accrediting body changed the requirements for accreditation.
I think Columbia can safely ignore any threads to remove its accreditation, especially if it is removed solely on political grounds..
Peter Shor,
I agree. While it would be a big problem for technical reasons (e.g. student loans, Pell grants) if Columbia lost accreditation, for the accreditation agency to say an institution like Columbia doesn’t qualify because Trump tells them to would be essentially to commit suicide. If they did that they would invert their role in the world from maintaining standards to becoming the enforcers for a Fascist dictatorship. I don’t see that happening without a fight, and when there’s a fight, it’s always a TACO.
Bran Raskovic,
The talks are online at Perimeter’s PIRSA website. Most of the topics of the talks are far from my expertise. Also most are short, often specifically aimed at an overlap of interest of the speaker’s with Lee’s. Many if not most speakers have worked with Lee and often credit his encouragement as a decisive factor in their early career. So, I’ve learned a lot about some history I didn’t know, and gotten an overview of things many people are thinking about (unfortunately pretty much all far from my specific current interests).
I’d never been to Perimeter before, so it’s interesting to see the place. Lots of people happily working on a lot of different theoretical topics, seems like a good place to work. Also enjoying talking to a lot of people, some I knew already, some I’m meeting for the first time.
Peter,
I wanted to ask you: have you personally felt any animosity from the Physics / Math community for taking such a vocal stance on Israel-Gaza war? What is the situation when you talk to people like your colleagues, the head of the department and the like?
Do you think it is safe for young folks (in Physics / Math / Engineering) at the beginning of their careers to take such a brave and public stance on the war like you? Or is your recommendation to strictly keep our mouths shut, especially if one is contemplating a career here in the United States? An honest, truthful answer will be very much appreciated.
Peter,
Is it your policy that we can talk about Gaza in the comment section, or not?
And if not: didn’t you make it relevant to the post by making your views on Gaza clear in the post?
Just want clarification on this, thanks.
Anonymous,
I’ve actually gotten much more positive than negative feedback from math/phys people, although I’m sure there are some out there unhappy with me that I haven’t heard from. Among my colleagues, opinions about the Gaza issue range from people with a long history of participating in pro-Palestinian protests to those much more sympathetic to Israel. I’m not aware of any such colleagues with a Scott Aaronson sort of fanatical extremism.
One reason I decided to be very vocal about this is exactly because I’m immune to a lot of the pressures many people have to worry about. I’m a native born citizen, near retirement, no worries about losing my livelihood, working and living in an environment where my views aren’t unusual. If I can’t speak up, just about no one can. If you’re at an early stage in your career that’s very different. The opinion that the Israelis are now doing something terrible in Gaza is widespread and becoming more so all the time, so most people are not going to find whatever you say about this upsetting or care very much. But there are a significant number of Scott Aaronsons out there ready to go ballistic and decide you want to kill their family if you disagree with them. As a general principle, it’s a bad idea in life to make enemies unless you absolutely have to.
My situation is unusual because of the blog and because of being at Columbia. Because of these it seemed to me that I should be accurately explaining what is going on at Columbia, and because of this I ended up deciding that accurately explaining what is happening here required engaging with the Gaza issue. In general I don’t think everyone needs to take public stands on hot-button issues, better everyone try to get along with everyone else, not do divisive things if they don’t have to. The thing about an issue like this is you’re unlikely to change anyone’s mind, so arguing about it normally isn’t a productive thing to be doing. So, I guess I would advise people in a more generic situation not to strictly keep their mouths shut, but also to be sensitive to others and not unnecessarily alienate people. Just reminded of an old saying I always liked: “a gentleman is someone who never unintentionally insults someone else”. So, be a gentleman…
Bailor,
I think it’s important that people understand that the campaign to shut down criticism of what Israel is doing in Gaza is a large part of the story of what has been happening at Columbia, and also that I make clear that I think this campaign is illegitimate, that much of this criticism of Israeli actions is valid.
But, sorry, I’m not going to host a “whose fault is the situation in Gaza?” or “killing and starving Palestinans, good or bad?” discussion here. I try to even-handedly delete all comments on issues like this. Yes, I do say what I think, but that doesn’t mean I’m going to host arguments about everything I think. I already am wasting far too much time on this…