Columbia – and Future – Settlement Agreements Should Transition from Punitive to Partnership

Much was achieved in the long-awaited settlement between Columbia University and the federal government.

It is a relief that the government will now lift the freeze on much of the 1.3 billion dollars that sustain Columbia’s vital research and medical training. That a storied center of learning and research can continue its work is a blessing for everyone.

And while the agreement specifies significant changes that Columbia must make, including many that reformers inside Columbia and beyond have long supported, it does so without breaking the cornerstones of academic freedom and institutional independence that remain critical to the greatness of American higher education. Indeed, the agreement insists upon freedom and non-discrimination in hiring, admissions, and speech.

A third-party Resolution Monitor will oversee the implementation of the terms of the agreement: this is less intrusive than the government’s prior call for a consent decree that would have appointed a federal judge to ensure compliance. 

The agreement secures many salutary reforms. Columbia will fully embrace non-discrimination. It has now clearly committed to implementing the Supreme Court’s decision in SFFA v. Harvard that bans race-based admission practices. Columbia will not allow proxies, such as personal statements, to continue race-based admissions. It will also, appropriately, extend non-discriminatory practices to hiring and promotion. In this, it follows a best practice demonstrated by the Board of Trustees of University of North Carolina – Chapel Hill immediately after the announcement of the Supreme Court decision. 

Following a breakthrough first seen at Purdue University, and adopted elsewhere, Columbia will provide training to students in the values of free inquiry, open debate, and civil discourse. While neither Columbia nor the federal government can insist that students “are committed to the longstanding traditions of American universities,” they can ensure that they have been taught those traditions and abide by the rules and expectations associated with them.

Columbia’s reputation has been stained by decades of antisemitism on its campus. President Lee Bollinger condemned it as far back as 2004, but it continued and grew. One provision of the agreement, proposed by Columbia itself on March 21, to appoint a Senior Vice Provost to oversee reforms in the academic units that address the Middle East, is tantamount to putting the programs into receivership for review, and, as warranted, restructuring. This is a bold and unusual step, and Columbia deserves recognition for suggesting it and making it part of the Resolution Agreement.

And while the agreement indicates that Columbia will hire new faculty members who will “contribute to a robust and intellectually diverse academic environment,” it must be noted that it leaves the details under Columbia’s control. Intellectual diversity is a crucial element in efforts to reform American higher education. Such cultural change works best when it comes from internal resolution rather than governmental mandates, and an objective third party, the Resolution Monitor, can be a good resource. The overwhelming majorities, especially at elite institutions, of left-leaning faculty present a barrier to the intellectual development of both students and faculty.  Public pronouncements affirming freedom of speech in a monoculture signifies very little.  It is very welcome to see Columbia recognize this problem and commit to appointing new faculty at the Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies, who will also hold appointments in economics, political science, and international studies. 

The administration could use this opportunity to build intellectual diversity by forbearing on its punitive and outsized fine of $221 million and, with the review of the Resolution Monitor, allow Columbia to use that vast sum to endow faculty positions throughout the humanities and social sciences with an eye to heterodoxy and a vibrant culture of intellectual exchange. A new institute, such as the new Institute of American Civics at the University of Tennessee-Knoxville could bring about a rebirth of informed patriotism at Columbia. It is not reassuring that President Trump announced that Harvard should pay an even larger fine. The administration’s goal should be reform rather than punishment, moving from prosecution to partnership will establish a better campus culture and intellectual life.

One of the most important long-term benefits to higher education will be the settlement’s power to redefine the role of governing boards. Boards of trustees should take notice from the agonies of Columbia that delegating away their authority to the faculty senate, the student life bureaucracy, and the admissions department, whether directly or indirectly, can have disastrous consequences. “Shared governance” does not mean “no governance.” “Academic freedom” does not mean that trustees keep their hands off academic standards and policies for hiring, promotion, and tenure. If trustees are not proactive in bringing accountability, external entities will fill the void. The continued operational self-governance model that is the lifeblood of colleges and universities depends on the ongoing vigilance of higher education governing boards. Now more than ever is the time for trustees across the nation to take notice of and reform their own institutions as necessary.

None of this is going to be easy. Columbia will be put to the test when students return in the fall and faculty meetings start up again. Both parties to the agreement will need to operate in good faith and with the understanding that there are going to be bumps along the path to forging a campus culture that Columbia needs. 

The burgeoning antisemitism and the anomie that the nation witnessed within a day of the October 7, 2023, Hamas atrocities screamed out for redress and remedy. The shocking reaction brought unavoidable public attention to many of the illiberal maladies afflicting higher education. These are matters that higher education reformers have worked to remedy for many years. The federal government did well to intervene, and the agreement with Columbia is remarkably positive. There is a point, however, when federal intervention will not have a positive outcome. It would be in the best interests of our universities and our country if our institutions of higher education were to take this deal as a model and make appropriate reforms on their own. ACTA and many others have long called on them to do just that.

A Jewish legend provides a warning. The 16^th century Rabbi Loew, the Maharal of Prague, needed to protect the Jewish community from the savage antisemitism it encountered. From clay, he fashioned the figure of a giant creature called Golem, and, with divine help gave it life. Golem effectively fought the enemies of the Jews but was hard to control. In some versions of the legend, Golem rampages out of control, and Rabbi Loew swiftly renders it back to the clay from which it was made.   

We commend Columbia for engaging productively with the administration. We applaud the administration’s success in setting and enforcing policies to end campus antisemitism and all forms of illegal discrimination.  Secretary of Education Linda McMahon expressed hope that the settlement will be a “template for other universities.” More than that, ACTA hopes that the template upon which Columbia’s settlement was built will evolve from a punitive model toward a more collaborative one that will foster positive, enduring change. That is what will fulfill the promise of America’s great colleges and universities.