
Columbia University's $220m Trump settlement exposes the Left's basic hypocrisy
Of the settlement, $200 million will go to the federal government and the remaining $20 million to settle employment discrimination claims. Separately, the university has suspended or expelled students who seized the university library in the name of anti-Zionism.
The headlines imply that Columbia's settlement is unique, but it may not remain that way for long. Harvard's former president, Larry Summers, a former Secretary of the Treasury, has said the deal should set a template for Harvard to settle its own deepening clash with the Trump administration. The issues at the two universities are similar.
Left-wing academics are already furious about the Columbia deal, saying it is pure extortion and an unprecedented intrusion into academic affairs. The 'extortion' charge focuses on the Trump administration's efforts to cut Columbia's huge flow of federal money for research and limit its permission for foreign students to enrol. The issues regarding foreign students involve virtually all universities, and are still being argued in federal court.
But the Left-wing attacks are largely wrong. They are right in saying that the Trump administration's initial demands went too far in seeking to supervise teaching, appointments, and scholarly work. Those would be wholly inappropriate intrusions into areas where university faculty and administrators should have sole control, as long as they comply with federal law. For any university to approve that kind of intrusion would stifle free speech and set a terrible precedent. Fortunately, those excesses are not part of the Columbia agreement.
Where the Leftist criticism is wrong is to call financial threats against universities 'unprecedented' and to say that the Trump administration is using the fight against anti-Semitism as a mask for other punitive policies.
For years, under Democratic administrations, the federal government has threatened severe financial sanctions against universities that did not comply with bureaucratic regulations. Those threats went unnoticed, beyond a narrow circle who were directly involved.
Why didn't you hear about those threats? For two reasons. First, universities caved in very quickly because they were desperate for federal money. Second, most university faculty and administrators actually agreed with the then-government's politicised, progressive agenda. The mainstream media agreed with it, too, so they rarely if ever reported on this bureaucratic overreach.
I saw this supine agreement first hand when federal bureaucrats audited the hiring practices of a major university. The university's DEI administrator told a small, supervisory committee of faculty that the university had completed a federal audit and was in full compliance with all laws and regulations. Then the administrator announced that the federal bureaucrats were demanding 'only a few changes' – demands that went beyond any legal requirements but advanced the bureaucrats' ideological goals.
Faced with those demands, every scientist involved in the decision-making favoured immediate compliance with the government's extra-legal demands. Why? Because their research depended on federal money and they couldn't risk a drawn-out conflict, which could hold up their funding.
The same hidden fist lay behind the government's effort to require the inclusion of biological men in women's collegiate sports. The threat is that the government will cut off money for other grants if you don't buckle to those demands. You never heard about those threats because universities assented to them so quickly.
As for anti-Semitism on campus, it is wilful blindness not to see its pervasive, malign force today. It has been particularly visible and pernicious at Ivy League universities, except for Dartmouth, and at flagship state research universities, except for those in the South.
As anti-Semitism has spread across university campuses, administrators and faculty have done little to stop it. Neither did the Biden administration.
Many university administrators effectively tolerated the harassment of Jewish students and did almost nothing to punish the malefactors, at least until this week at Columbia. In some cases, faculty – especially in the Humanities, some Social Sciences, and some graduate programmes (notably, schools of divinity and social work) – actively supported the disruptions. The rationale is that social justice demands anti-Zionism, and anti-Zionism quickly turns into full-scale anti-Semitism.
If the settlement at Columbia and that university's belated decision to punish students who took over the library sets a precedent for other universities, that's good news and a victory for the basic Western values of religious toleration and civil discourse.
The impact is likely to be felt well beyond Columbia University. Now that the Trump administration has scored a major win in this culture war, expect them to keep pressing other universities.
Two final points about the Trump administration's willingness to confront Columbia and Harvard. First, taking on elite institutions is smart politics for a president who is reshaping his party around populist goals.
Second, Trump is characteristically going head to head with the strongest adversaries he can find, not the weakest. He is not going after some small teaching college, which would undoubtedly cave quickly because it needs the money. He is going after Harvard, which has the deepest pockets of any university and a campus population that generally loathes him. Confronting them is a high risk strategy for Trump, but a high reward one, too. When the top Ivy League schools begin to settle with Trump, as Columbia just has, who else can resist?
That question must be echoing through the ivied halls in Cambridge, New Haven, and Princeton. The answer, they will conclude, is increasingly obvious. It's time to strike a deal.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


The Guardian
an hour ago
- The Guardian
Ghislaine Maxwell is not a victim. And if she is pardoned, it won't be for the sake of justice
Roll up! Roll up! The Ghislaine Maxwell Rehabilitation Tour is coming to town. You may think Jeffrey Epstein's associate and former girlfriend is now behind bars for good reason but, according to some big brains in the Maga-sphere, poor old Maxwell may have suffered a terrible miscarriage of justice. Maxwell 'just might be a victim', Newsmax anchor Greg Kelly mused on air recently. 'She just might be. There was a rush to judgment … All right, granted, she hung out with Jeffrey Epstein, and I know that's apparently not good, but she's in jail. For how long now? Twenty years.' To discuss this further, Kelly brought on Alan Dershowitz, whom he introduced as 'one of the greatest attorneys who ever lived'. Which certainly isn't how I'd describe the retired Harvard professor. Dershowitz, who helped procure a lenient plea deal for Epstein in 2008, also wrote an op-ed for the LA Times in 1997 headlined Statutory Rape Is an Outdated Concept, in which he argued 15 seems 'appropriate' for the age of consent. Dershowitz suggested some 'reasonable people' might even favour 14 – which happens to be the age of some of Epstein's victims. When that op-ed resurfaced in 2019, after Epstein's arrest, Dershowitz defended it, saying he stood by 'the constitutional (not moral) argument' offered. Dershowitz now reckons Maxwell, who was convicted in 2021 on five counts of aiding Epstein in his abuse of underage girls and sentenced to 20 years in federal prison in 2022, has suffered enough. 'She shouldn't have been in jail for five years for what she is alleged to have done,' Dershowitz told Newsmax on Sunday. 'She served more time than anybody has ever served for any comparable offence.' I'm sure I don't need to spell out why others seem to be attempting to rebrand Maxwell as the victim of a stitch-up. The Epstein files have turned into a disaster of Trump's own making. He hasn't been able to distract people from the story, so now there is speculation that he is trying to make some sort of deal with Maxwell. Who, by the way, had secretive conversations with Trump's department of justice last week and, on Monday, asked the supreme court to overturn her conviction, saying she was unjustly prosecuted. One can imagine a scenario in which Maxwell releases a few select details about Epstein that absolve Trump and make his enemies look bad in exchange for a pardon. ('I'm allowed to give her a pardon but nobody's approached me with it,' Trump said on Monday.) However, for that hypothetical strategy to be successful, Maxwell's reputation needs to be rehabilitated. She would need to look like a victim rather than a monster. Which is where Newsmax, and its sudden interest in Maxwell, might help. The cable news channel, which is to the right of Fox News, is essentially a pro-Trump propaganda outlet with strong financial ties to the president. Earlier this month the outlet announced that it had struck a deal for the Trump Media and Technology Group Corp to stream Newsmax on its platform. Which obviously raises a lot of conflict-of-interest questions. 'This is now the Trump network,' one Newsmax insider complained to the Independent last week. 'Even the most conservative people at Newsmax think it's a terrible look and they feel like state-run media.' Also raising questions is the fact that Alex Acosta, the prosecutor who gave Epstein that plea deal in 2008, happens to be on the board of Newsmax. I don't know what will happen next with Maxwell, but I can tell you that I absolutely believe the women Epstein abused over anchors on Trump's propaganda channel. And I believe those women over Maxwell herself. Epstein's accusers have repeatedly been clear that Maxwell was no victim. 'She didn't just procure girls for Epstein – she participated in their abuse,' accuser Annie Farmer told ABC News on Monday. Now it's looking increasingly likely that, instead of releasing the Epstein files, Trump will release Maxwell instead. Arwa Mahdawi is a Guardian columnist


The Independent
3 hours ago
- The Independent
Higher US tariffs part of the price Europe was willing to pay for its security and arms for Ukraine
France's prime minister described it as a 'dark day' for the European Union, a 'submission' to U.S. tariff demands. Commentators said EU Commission chief Ursula von der Leyen's handshake with President Donald Trump amounted to capitulation. The trouble is, Europe depends mightily on the United States, and not just for trade. Mirroring Trump, Von der Leyen gushed that the arrangement she endorsed over the weekend to set U.S. tariff levels on most European exports to 15%, which is 10% higher than currently, was 'huge.' Her staff texted reporters insisting that the pact, which starts to enter force on Friday, is the 'biggest trade deal ever.' A month after NATO Secretary-General Mark Rutte ingratiated himself with Trump by referring to him as 'daddy,' the Europeans had again conceded that swallowing the costs and praising an unpredictable president is more palatable than losing America. 'It's not only about the trade. It's about security. It's about Ukraine. It's about current geopolitical volatility. I cannot go into all the details,' EU Trade Commissioner Maroš Šefčovič told reporters Monday. 'I can assure you it was not only about the trade,' he insisted, a day after 'the deal' was sealed in an hour-long meeting once Trump finished playing a round of golf with his son at the course he owns in Scotland. The state of Europe's security dependency Indeed, Europe depends on the U.S. for its security and that security is anything but a game, especially since Russia invaded Ukraine. U.S. allies are convinced that, should he win, President Vladimir Putin is likely to take aim at one of them next. So high are these fears that European countries are buying U.S. weapons to help Ukraine to defend itself. Some are prepared to send their own air defense systems and replace them with U.S. equipment, once it can be delivered. 'We're going to be sending now military equipment and other equipment to NATO, and they'll be doing what they want, but I guess it's for the most part working with Ukraine,' Trump said Sunday, sounding ambivalent about America's role in the alliance. The Europeans also are wary about a U.S. troop drawdown, which the Pentagon is expected to announce by October. Around 84,000 U.S. personnel are based in Europe, and they guarantee NATO's deterrent effect against an adversary like Russia. At the same time, Trump is slapping duties on America's own NATO partners, ostensibly due to concerns about U.S. security interests, using Section 232 of the Trade Expansion Act, a logic that seems absurd from across the Atlantic. Weaning Europe off foreign suppliers 'The EU is in a difficult situation because we're very dependent on the U.S. for security,' said Niclas Poitiers at the Bruegel research institution in Brussels. 'Ukraine is a very big part of that, but also generally our defense is underwritten by NATO.' 'I think there was not a big willingness to pick a major fight, which is the one (the EU) might have needed with the U.S.' to better position itself on trade, Poitiers told The Associated Press about key reasons for von der Leyen to accept the tariff demands. Part of the agreement involves a commitment to buy American oil and gas. Over the course of the Russia-Ukraine war, now in its fourth year, most of the EU has slashed its dependence on unreliable energy supplies from Russia, but Hungary and Slovakia still have not. 'Purchases of U.S. energy products will diversify our sources of supply and contribute to Europe's energy security. We will replace Russian gas and oil with significant purchases of U.S. LNG, oil and nuclear fuels,' von der Leyen said in Scotland on Sunday. In essence, as Europe slowly weans itself off Russian energy it is also struggling to end its reliance on the United States for its security. The Trump administration has warned its priorities now lie elsewhere, in Asia, the Middle East and on its own borders. That was why European allies agreed at NATO's summit last month to spend hundreds of billions of dollars more on defense over the next decade. Primarily for their own security, but also to keep America among their ranks. The diplomacy involved was not always elegant. 'Europe is going to pay in a BIG way, as they should, and it will be your win,' Rutte wrote in a private text message to Trump, which the U.S. leader promptly posted on social media. Rutte brushed off questions about potential embarrassment or concern that Trump had aired it, saying: 'I have absolutely no trouble or problem with that because there's nothing in it which had to stay secret.' A price Europe feels it must pay Von der Leyen did not appear obsequious in her meeting with Trump. She often stared at the floor or smiled politely. She did not rebut Trump when he said that only America is sending aid to Gaza. The EU is world's biggest supplier of aid to the Palestinians. With Trump's threat of 30% tariffs hanging over European exports — whether real or brinksmanship is hard to say — and facing the prospect of a full-blown trade dispute while Europe's biggest war in decades rages, 15% may have been a cheap price to pay. 'In terms of the economic impact on the EU economy itself, it will be negative,' Poitiers said. 'But it's not something that is on a comparable magnitude like the energy crisis after the Russian invasion of Ukraine, or even COVID.' 'This is a negative shock for our economy, but it is something that's very manageable,' he said. It remains an open question as to how long this entente will last. ___


Telegraph
3 hours ago
- Telegraph
Starmer's charm is lost on Britain, but he has won Trump's heart
You couldn't help but get the impression that Trump found opening a new golf course at least as important as running a country. I can't actually recall any past president combining the launch of his own private business venture with the office of the presidency in this fashion but there we are. It's a new world order. He did make the point in his celebratory speech that stopping a war was, after all, rather more valuable an achievement than creating a golf course so perhaps that's reassuring. What had become clear once again on this visit – which had been described as a private holiday but was, in fact, the scene of some major diplomatic developments – was that our own dear Prime Minister was far and away the US president's favourite foreign leader. We must, of course, be grateful for this fact even if we do find it totally mystifying. Sir Keir's charm may be lost on the home audience but he is the undoubted favourite of the Trump White House and this is not solely because he is the messenger for our Royal family whom the president obviously adores. No, it is the Starmer personality itself which appears to have won Trump's heart. Why? My own guess, borrowing on my recollection of American responses to various brands of foreign behaviour is that Starmer's personality represents what Americans tend to regard as quintessential Britishness: a preternatural calmness in the face of difficulties (which is to say, a face that remains expressionless at all times) and a sycophantic courtesy which somehow manages to remain dignified. We got a hint of this when Trump referred to Sir Keir's 'beautiful accent'. Perhaps the contrast with the Macron vanity and arrogance has helped too, but whatever it is, we must acknowledge that the Starmer magic has pulled off a pretty favourable result. And ironically enough, it is precisely our separateness from the European Union – which Sir Keir is trying to undo – that made this favoured position possible. Rather less happily for the Starmer government, the president offered some advice on how to pull the UK out of its spiral of decline. Stop the boats and cut taxes was the magic formula, Mr Trump suggested presumably in a spirit of helpfulness. The problem with this counsel is that both those things are almost impossible to achieve at the moment and they are, as it happens, precisely what the most threatening Opposition parties are urging. That was rather tactless and it suggests that this alliance with Trump's Right-wing Republicanism is not going to be an easy ride. But whatever it was in Starmer's approach that did it, he is currently able to influence the Trump White House at a time when global affairs are dangerously inflamed. That may or may not be an enviable position to be in. On the Middle East and Ukraine, as well as the economic future of the West, the moral responsibility of being the 'Trump whisperer' is going to be daunting.