NEW YORK, NY — Following the Donald Trump Administration’s cancellation of $400 million in grants to Columbia University over campus protests—unless the university complies to demands—is an ultimatum that violates both the First Amendment and federal regulations, according last week to the ACLU of New York’s response letter
NYCLU Executive Director Donna Lieberman and Executive Counsel Arthur Eisenberg charged, “Your March 13 letter now seeks to impose obligations upon Columbia that grossly exceed your authority under the 1964 Civil Rights Act and violate fundamental principles of academic freedom secured by the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution.”
The NYCLU’s letter emphasizes the organization is not speaking on behalf of Columbia University, but stresses the importance of protecting students and faculty from “partisan pandering,” a form of what it calls federal authority abuse.
As stated in the NYCLU’s letter, Title VI of the Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination based on race and ethnicity for recipients of federal funding, including universities.
However, Lieberman and Eisenberg claim the administration’s letter to Columbia regarding Title VI obligations failed to provide examples of specific instances of the reported antisemitic harassment on campus as claimed by the Trump Administration.
The NYCLU maintains an Administration statement “announced that the funding ‘cancellation’ had already been undertaken under Title VI and it asserted that such a drastic measure was necessary because Columbia had been unresponsive ‘in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students’…It did not, however, identify any specific incidents or examples of deliberate indifference on the part of Columbia.”
The NYCLU’s letter acknowledges that, while antisemitism is deeply offensive and unacceptable, the enforcement of Title VI must adhere to constitutional standards, ensuring that only severe or pervasive conduct that creates a hostile educational environment is regulated.
To “satisfy the First Amendment’s ‘narrow tailoring’ requirement and to limit Title VI to its basic interest in securing equal educational opportunity, a claim that verbal or symbolic harassment constitutes a violation of Title VI can be sustained only if the expression is ‘sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to alter the conditions of education and create an abusive educational environment,’” added the NYCLU.
The NYCLU’s letter quotes former Supreme Court Justice Brandeis, who stated “if there be time to expose through discussion the falsehoods and fallacies, to avert the evil by the process of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence . . . . Such must be the rule if authority is to be reconciled with freedom. Such … is the command of the Constitution,” noting offensive speech is to be resolved by correcting errors in inaccurate statements instead of punishment.
The Trump Administration’s letter does not follow this point, explains NYCLU, adding that certain requirements must be satisfied for funding to be withdrawn.
“The termination of federal funds can only occur (1) after the U.S. Department of Education has advised the recipient of funding that the Department has concluded that ‘compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means’…(2) there must be an ‘express finding’ on the record…(3) the requirements of a hearing and an ‘express finding’ of non-compliance must be followed by a Report issued by the Secretary of Education… and (4) the Department of Education must wait 30 days after the filing of the Secretary’s Report with Congress before it can terminate any funding,” the NYCLU wrote.
The NYCLU’s letter claims the Trump Administration did not fully comply with these requirements prior to sending Columbia’s ultimatum.
The NYCLU’s letter also touches upon how Trump’s ultimatum threatens free speech on controversial, but essential topics, such as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has led to debates on campuses across the country.
Columbia University, like other institutions of higher learning, should be a forum for thoughtful, academic discussion—not for political abuse of power, writes NYCLU.
“Your engagement with Columbia could have constructively offered to assist Columbia in moving the bitter and difficult controversy over Palestine and Israel from the streets into the classroom where these complex issues could have been explored more seriously through a process of reasoned discourse,” the NYCLU wrote to the Trump Administration, adding, “Sadly, your heavy-handed intrusion is squandering that opportunity.”
Lastly, the NYCLU letter addressed the violation of basic academic freedom by the Trump Administration to Columbia University, referencing Sweezy v. State of New Hampshire, which laid the groundwork of the four essential freedoms of an academic university.
Quoting former Supreme Court Justice Frankfurt, the letter stated the university is free “to determine for itself on academic grounds who may teach, what may be taught, how it shall be taught, and who may be admitted to study.”
The NYCLU argues these freedoms are repeatedly violated, as the Trump Administration instructed that “Columbia place the Middle East, South Asian and African Studies Department in receivership for a minimum of five years.”
Overall, the NYCLU highlights that the Trump Administration’s actions against Columbia University represent an overreach that endangers academic freedom and free speech. By imposing political demands and threatening to withdraw vital funding, the NYCLU states, the government sends a dangerous message about the direction of higher education in the United States.
“In your zeal to enforce Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, you have a responsibility to do so in conformance with the First Amendment and with federal regulations. We strongly urge that you do so,” contends the NYCLU in its letter to Trump’s Administration.
Columbia should have cracked down on people blocking access, intimidating Jewish students, taking over buildings, and injuring people a long time ago. The anti-mask mandate should have been enforced a long time ago and be national protest policy, though of course the religious and medical exemptions will be abused, especially coming out of the pandemic. Criticizing Israel, as such, should of course still be allowed in literally peaceful protest. None of this ‘exception for violence for mostly peaceful protests’ if they are on the left politically. Disgusting the recent monologue by Jimmy Kimmel, where he as much as wink-winked that it is Ok to vandalize Teslas. Especially odd because until a few years ago it was my far-left friends who drove Tesla’s as a status symbol, and some still have their Tesla’s, and (edited) are attacking Teslas.
” Disgusting the recent monologue by Jimmy Kimmel, where he as much as wink-winked that it is Ok to vandalize Teslas.”
Kimmel is a total piece of ____ (fill in the blank)
Did I say he’s also not funny.
Given that this article doesn’t mention Kimmel, this is not on topic.