Universities Facing Implications from Columbia's $220 Million Settlement
In a move that has sparked controversy in the academic world, Columbia University has reached an agreement with the Trump administration, paying $200 million over three years to the federal government and an additional $21 million to settle investigations. This agreement, which has been described as a "seismic shift" in the nation's fight against antisemitic discrimination and harassment by Education Secretary Linda McMahon, marks a significant departure from conventional regulatory practice.
The regulation by deal strategy, as exemplified in this agreement, involves the government bypassing general regulatory standards and instead negotiating individualized, detailed, and intrusive agreements directly with each institution. This approach, often requiring substantial financial settlements or administrative changes, has raised concerns about fairness, legality, and the broader impact on the higher education landscape.
Under this agreement, Columbia University is required to end diversity programs, limit consideration of racial identity in admissions practices, increase the information it reports on international students, and hire a new administrator to serve as a liaison for Jewish students. However, it is important to note that no provision of the agreement gives the United States authority to dictate faculty hiring, university hiring, admissions decisions, or the content of academic speech.
The implications of this approach are far-reaching. Major universities face highly personalized pressure, potentially affecting academic freedom, international student applications, and research activities. Smaller institutions may find it difficult to resist or even avoid becoming targets. The balance of power shifts from institutions to the government, as universities negotiate to preserve critical funding and face a threat of withdrawal or restriction of federal aid if they do not comply.
The deal serves as a potential blueprint for how the Trump administration will pressure other colleges to change policies. Bart Schwartz, a former chief of the criminal division of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Southern District of New York, has been selected as an independent monitor to assess the implementation of the resolution.
Critics argue that this style of regulation is at once far more coercive and far more arbitrary, opaque in development, unpredictable in application, deeply susceptible to personalism and corruption, and only contingently connected to the laws Congress has written. David Pozen, the Charles Keller Beekman Professor at the Columbia Law School, has criticized the negotiation style as "regulation by deal."
Claire Shipman, Acting President of Columbia University, has stated that the agreement preserves the university's autonomy over faculty hiring, admissions, and academic decision-making. She also emphasized that the federal government will not dictate what they teach, who teaches, or which students they admit. Shipman further stated that the agreement protects the university's values and allows its research partnership with the federal government to resume.
Education Secretary Linda McMahon has heralded the agreement as a significant step towards combating antisemitic discrimination and harassment. However, McMahon also warned that other universities wishing to regain the confidence of the American public by renewing their commitment to truth-seeking, merit, and civil debate should follow Columbia's reforms.
President Trump has stated that numerous other institutions that have hurt many and been unfair and unjust are upcoming. The deal with Columbia University is the most comprehensive settlement the federal government has reached with any university accused of antisemitism and other types of discrimination.
In conclusion, the regulation by deal strategy reflects a significant departure from conventional regulatory practice, with the government using a form of targeted bargaining and leverage to restructure institutions on a case-by-case basis. This approach raises concerns about fairness, legality, and the broader impact on the higher education landscape. It remains to be seen how this strategy will evolve under future administrations and whether it will become a standard practice in higher education regulation.
[1] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/us/politics/columbia-university-antisemitism-settlement.html [2] https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2021/03/16/columbia-university-agrees-settle-trump-administration-antisemitism-probe [3] https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2021/03/16/columbia-university-agrees-settle-trump-administration-antisemitism-probe/ [4] https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/us/politics/columbia-university-antisemitism-settlement.html
In the unsettling landscape of higher education, there's mounting worry about the legality and fairness of the government's regulation by deal strategy, particularly under the current administration. This approach, as demonstrated by the recent agreement between Columbia University and the federal government, has universities engaged in individualized negotiations that could potentially impact academic freedom, research funding, and college endowment. The potential consequences of this strategy extend beyond Columbia, implying potential challenges for elite universities and smaller institutions alike, in both the education-and-self-development and politics spheres of general-news. Critics warn that this form of regulation, while seemingly aimed at addressing antisemitic discrimination and harassment, also raises concerns about arbitrariness, opacity, and susceptibility to personalism and corruption.
