Latest news with #MiddleEasternStudies
Time of India
3 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Why is Columbia University's accreditation under threat from the Trump administration?
FAQs Live Events (You can now subscribe to our (You can now subscribe to our Economic Times WhatsApp channel Trump's administration is trying to take away Columbia University's accreditation because it says the university didn't protect Jewish students properly. This move could stop Columbia students from getting federal loans and aid, which would make it super expensive and hard to attend for many students, as per Education Secretary Linda McMahon said Columbia ignored the harassment of Jewish students after the October 7, 2023 Hamas attack on Israel. McMahon called Columbia's actions 'immoral' and 'unlawful', saying the university didn't follow anti-discrimination laws. She wrote a letter to the Middle States Commission on Higher Education, saying Columbia doesn't seem to meet the standards needed to stay accredited, according to an NDTV World accreditation is super important because it decides if a school can get federal money from the US Education Department. Columbia already lost $400 million in federal grants and contracts earlier in February 2025 due to how it handled antisemitism issues. Even though Columbia made changes, like fixing its Middle Eastern Studies department, the Trump team was still not satisfied, as per the report by has also gone after other universities like Harvard, blaming them for not protecting Jewish students during protests over the Israel-Gaza war. The whole situation is part of Trump's bigger fight with top US colleges, accusing them of being unfair and not doing enough to stop antisemitism, as stated in the Trump administration believes that the university failed to curb anti-semitism in the might not get federal loans or aid, making it very expensive to study there.
Epoch Times
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Epoch Times
Harvard Redirects $250 Million to Research Amid Federal Funding Freeze
Harvard University will allocate $250 million over the next year to support campus research, after the Trump administration suspended more than $2.6 billion in federal grants and awards to the Ivy League school. The money will help sustain 'critical research activity for a transitional period,' Harvard President Alan Garber and Provost John Manning said in The money will be drawn from a pool reserved for Harvard's central administration, which includes the offices of the president and provost, rather than from the university's endowment. This supplement adds to the roughly $500 million Harvard allocates to research every year. Still, the university leaders acknowledged that the additional funding will not fully offset the loss of federal dollars. According to Harvard's financial report, in Warning of 'difficult decisions and sacrifices' ahead across Harvard's schools, Garber and Manning said deans and academic leaders have been asked to make 'informed, prudent' decisions to adapt their programs to 'a changing funding environment.' They promised support in helping researchers identify alternative funding sources, but did not outline any specific strategy. 'We understand the uncertainty that these times have brought and the burden our community faces,' they wrote. 'We are here to support you.' Related Stories 5/3/2025 4/25/2025 Wednesday's announcement is the latest in a series of budgetary steps Harvard has taken to manage the fallout from the federal funding loss. In March, the university implemented a hiring freeze, and the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences denied admission to all applicants on its waitlist for admission. In April, Harvard turned to Wall Street to The federal funding freeze stems from escalating tensions between the university and the Trump administration. The dispute initially centered around campus anti-Semitism and later broadened to include concerns over ideological bias and Harvard's commitment to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) goals, which the administration says run afoul of federal anti-discrimination laws. In a The administration also called for an audit of specific programs—most notably the Center for Middle Eastern Studies—that allegedly 'fuel anti-Semitic harassment or reflect ideological capture.' The audit would need to identify any faculty who had 'discriminated against Jewish or Israeli students' or 'incited students to violate Harvard's rules' following the Hamas-led terror attacks on Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, and Israel's response in Gaza, which triggered a wave of campus protests across the United States. On April 16, Harvard publicized both the administration's letter and Garber's response, in which he categorically rejected the proposed conditions, stating that the university 'will not surrender its independence or relinquish its constitutional rights.' That same day, the administration announced it was Harvard has filed a
Forbes
28-04-2025
- Politics
- Forbes
The Fight For Higher Education Will Be Won On Financial Ground
Academic Freedom Is Under Siege getty Although the changes currently shaking American society are being celebrated by some and opposed by others, there is one thing on which we should all be able to agree: the U.S. federal government is not what it was 100 days ago. Over the past few months, we have witnessed two radical trajectories of change, each occurring in opposite directions. On the one hand, the Administration has slashed federal services with a zeal reminiscent of Ronald Reagan. Whole departments have been eliminated or gutted, and major areas of American life, which formerly fell under executive-branch oversight, are now being deregulated. But, at the same time, the Administration has also initiated the most radical expansion of the executive branch since the New Deal, taking major steps to exert control in spaces that previously fell outside the federal government's purview. One such space is the American classroom. Until recently, the federal government respected a basic boundary in its relationship with American schools: it tried to influence policies and programs, but it never tried to interfere with the curriculum itself. Though there have been attempts to standardize performance metrics, as in the case of No Child Left Behind, there has never been a serious attempt by the federal government to control the ideological content of what's actually being taught. States, for their part, were entrusted with full control over public K-12 curricula, while private schools and colleges were considered sacrosanct. Until now, the notion that federal officials might try to dictate what was taught at a private college was simply unthinkable. Then, the unthinkable started happening. First came the infamous "Dear Colleague" letter, which contained the following sentence: The letter focused primarily on policies and programs, but there could be no mistaking the meaning of this line. "Toxic indoctrination" refers to teaching, not policies. "False premise" refers to an argument, not a program. The question of whether the United States was built on 'systemic and structural racism' exemplifies the kind of inquiry worth consideration in a classroom. But all of this was mere rhetoric until the showdown with Columbia University, at which point it became very real. After stripping the school of $400 million in federal grants, the government issued a list of demands, one of which explicitly required changes to the faculty and curriculum of Columbia's Middle Eastern Studies department. In response, Columbia capitulated. To state the obvious, this was the wrong decision. It was wrong from every perspective, and in every sense of that word: In America, free speech is a right, and government control of speech is wrong. Period. Regardless of how harmful or beneficial we may judge the content of that speech to be. This is one of few moral values we've always been united around as a people, perhaps because it was one of the main values that led to the formation of our country to begin with. There is no nuance needed on this particular point, no "both sides" argument to be made. Because this is no longer a battle about any particular issue. It isn't a battle over DEI, or antisemitism, or Title VI compliance, or "wokeness". It is rather a battle over who controls the curriculum in American higher education. And if we lose this battle, we lose the very soul of what makes American colleges and universities a global beacon of free inquiry. Succumbing to government control — even "reasonable" control, even "helpful" control — is simply not an option. So yes, tyranny should be resisted. And yes, Harvard has been making better decisions than Columbia, by fighting instead of caving. But it isn't enough. Fighting back, while necessary, is not sufficient. Resistance alone won't solve the underlying problem. Because thus far, none of us - not Columbia, nor Harvard, nor any other school I can think of - has owned the part that we ourselves played in paving the road to this Orwellian nightmare. The uncomfortable truth is that higher education helped to create the very vulnerability now being exploited. For decades, colleges and universities across the country have relied — increasingly, and in some cases, almost exclusively — on federal dollars to meet their ever-growing budgets. And the dollars to which I'm referring are not those which come in the form of research grants. The explosion in tuition prices over the past 40 years was not market-driven. It was underwritten by federal student loan programs that asked no questions and imposed virtually no limits. Colleges could raise prices endlessly because someone — the federal government — was always willing to foot the bill. Students borrowed sums that would take a lifetime to repay, while schools looked the other way. The reason, of course, was that the schools collected their money upfront, insulating themselves from any long-term risk. It was a tragedy of the commons - a short-term financial arms race whose long-term outcome was always going to be collapse. For most colleges, it is student loan programs and tuition assistance in forms like Pell aid – not research grants – which end up being the primary source of federal revenue. And it is these same aid programs which are providing the government with such tremendous leverage over supposedly independent institutions. The government's interference in the affairs of "private" schools is only half the story; the other half is that all of these schools stopped being "private" quite some time ago. We, America's colleges and universities, made education so expensive that for most of us it isn't possible to operate without government assistance. To move forward, we must therefore tell two truths at once, never sacrificing one for the other. First, it is wrong — deeply wrong — for the government to try to control what schools teach. But second, it's entirely our own fault that the government ever had this leverage to begin with. Recognizing this dual reality will be required if we want to move toward any real solution. Because the real solution isn't just fighting back. The real solution is to rebuild higher education on a more stable foundation. The resources already exist to do this, at least among the wealthiest schools. The Ivy League collectively controls endowments worth hundreds of billions of dollars - enough to provide free tuition to every undergraduate student, forever. Yet those same schools continue to collect billions of dollars each year in tuition and fees, even as they complain about losing federal funding. This is the hypocrisy that has left higher education so vulnerable to political attack. This is why a Nebraska farmer, paying taxes to subsidize Harvard, might become resentful. This is why Trump's attacks, though deeply un-American, have nevertheless found an eager audience. If we want to reclaim the moral high ground, we must do more than just resist government overreach. We must also abandon the broken model that made that overreach possible. We must return to a core value which that same Nebraska farmer would surely celebrate: the value of financial independence. Admittedly, this is easier said than done, especially at schools with smaller endowments. Most of us are facing a significant fundraising challenge, which we must meet head-on. Though the numbers may look daunting, it is doable. Colleges survived without federal funding in the past; we can learn to do it again in the future. At our college, we've been on a path for the last few years to achieve financial independence through a new, pay-it-forward funding model. The idea is simple - students don't pay tuition up front, instead signing a pledge to give to the college after graduation. Right now we only have about 3.5% of our students on this model, but eventually, once we are fully living into it we'll be financially free. Our alumni will be crowd-funding our current students, meaning we won't need government funding in the form of loan programs or tuition is not the only path to financial independence, but it's the one we are attempting. Ultimately, this return to financial independence is about more than just saving the soul of higher ed. It's also about healing our country's wounds – a process which can begin only when colleges themselves own the part that we played in creating this whole mess. It's true that conservatives have been abandoning a number of sacred American values – values that used to be universal, but are now being labeled as "liberal." But it's also true that the same thing has been happening the other way around. Liberals seem increasingly unwilling to live by any value that they now see as "conservative," even if it was previously shared by all. Allow me to suggest one such example: the notion that "freedom isn't free." These days, the only place you'll see that slogan is on a MAGA t-shirt. But that doesn't change the fact that it's still true. If we want to maintain our freedom, it's going to cost us something. The only question is whether we are willing to pay the price and begin the long journey towards financial independence.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's cuts and crackdowns endanger American innovation, experts warn
The White House threatened to prevent Harvard from enrolling international students, sharply escalating its row with the most prestigious US university. The standoff began after Harvard, in a striking act of defiance, rejected President Donald Trump's order that colleges end DEI programs and screen students for antisemitism, among other demands. International students pay higher fees than domestic ones, and excluding them would mark a further financial blow for Harvard following a funding freeze and threat to revoke its tax-exempt status. Trump's crackdown on higher education, federal spending, and immigration could come at the cost of the US losing some of its academic, scientific, and research dominance, especially to China, some analysts warn. Scientific and tech innovation is a critical sphere of US-China competition. For artificial intelligence specifically, the US has remained the main destination for the world's top-tier researchers in recent years. But funding cuts mean many universities are now unable to admit new PhD students, a Duke University professor wrote: 'China is certainly continuing to train PhD scientists while the U.S. is heading towards a future where our country no longer produces new scientists and engineers.' At the same time, foreign countries including China are reportedly trying to recruit US scientists who are out of a job because of funding cuts, efforts that reflect 'a sophisticated understanding of the intersection between economic dislocation and talent acquisition,' a tech market researcher wrote in Fast Company. Chinese students, who have long been central to cultural and academic exchanges between the two superpowers, now find themselves being used as bargaining chips in an escalating trade war. The US has revoked some Chinese student visas, as part of its broader crackdown on international students, The New York Times noted. Now, 'many students, even if they look up to the freedom, tolerance and rich academic resources of the United States, feel they have to change directions,' a Beijing-based study abroad consultant said. The visa fears are prompting more Chinese students to instead opt for the UK, the South China Morning Post reported, while Beijing steps up recruitment efforts to lure overseas Chinese students back home for their PhDs. President Donald Trump's targeting of universities is also endangering their finances, which could hamper research capabilities. In addition to federal funding freezes, the White House plans to target universities' financial investments, particularly in areas disfavored by Trump, like clean energy and China, Semafor's Liz Hoffman reported. 'University endowments may end up being as much of a liability as the DEI programs and Middle Eastern Studies departments they help fund,' Hoffman wrote. Targeting funding for colleges, with their billions in revenue and investments, can have larger economic ramifications, Nature wrote: University research is 'the engine for creating start-ups and jobs,' leading to a 'virtuous circle of discovery and innovation' that is now at risk under Trump.
Yahoo
17-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
White House plans to target university investments
The next phase of the Trump administration's pressure campaign on elite universities will focus on their financial investments, particularly in areas disfavored by the White House like clean energy and China, people familiar with the plans said. The White House's war on top universities, which it accuses of antisemitism and fostering progressive ideology, began two weeks ago with frozen federal funding, and escalated Wednesday to a threat to revoke the nonprofit status of Harvard University and others, a move first reported by CNN. The new acting director of the IRS has been preparing internally to challenge the tax-exempt status enjoyed by universities, even those with huge endowments — Harvard's is $53 billion, Princeton's is $34 billion — that operate more like hedge funds than charities. A third phase would put university endowments themselves under the microscope. White House officials plan to examine investments in China and ESG-related stances inside these investment shops, the people said. Congress is also examining ways to tax endowment profits, some of the people said. 'It is past time for American universities to stop supporting foreign adversaries with their investment decisions, much as they should stop granting university access to supporters of terrorism,' the White House wrote in a February memo on 'America-First Investments.' The memo presaged the coming crackdown, which could extend to include public universities and pensions, some of the people said. An administration official said that any review of a university's tax-exempt status by the IRS are independent and weren't personally directed by the president. Elite universities' endowments are huge and notoriously secretive. Research from Future Union, a bipartisan think tank with a hawkish national-security bent, has tracked hundreds of millions of dollars from university endowments, including Princeton's and Stanford's, into Chinese funds or US funds that invest in China, but the actual number is likely far larger, said Future Union's executive director, Andrew King. Public universities in California and Texas are heavily invested in such funds and 'we would project such investment to be either on par or greater' at private universities, given their bigger emphasis on private and international investments, he said. 'In focusing solely on returns, they have turned a blind eye to the national security ramifications,' he said. University endowments may end up being as much of a liability as the DEI programs and Middle Eastern Studies departments they help fund. At $53 billion, Harvard's endowment would be a whale on Wall Street and free to invest in whatever it wants. Ditto for Yale ($42 billion) and Princeton ($34 billion). But their reliance on two pillars of government support — a tax-exempt status and billions of dollars in federal funding — put those investments under Washington's microscope. Universities are big businesses. Penn has $15.8 billion in annual revenue, profit margins of 4%, a $22 billion investment portfolio, and a hospital system whose identified growth areas, outpatient surgery and infusion therapies, would be indistinguishable from any for-profit healthcare company. As I wrote in late 2023: 'You could argue about what trading multiple it might get in the market — half its revenue comes from healthcare, and 10% from what investors might call a four-year subscription to classes and rent — but it's a serious commercial enterprise.' Back then, universities were caving to their donors. Now the pressure is fromt the White House, and universities may regret having relied so much on federal favor. Endowments may be less of a soft spot than reliance on federal funding, which 'has allowed our research universities to be able to conduct research... that we could not conduct even at a place like Princeton with its endowment resources,' Princeton President Chris Eisgruber told The New York Times last week.
