Is the administration using Columbia as a test case to enforce its agenda?

Probably, but that's okay as long as the agenda is okay.

The Washington Post complains that the Trump administration is using Columbia University as a “test case to enforce Trump’s agenda.” This may well be true. But if the agenda is simply to end racial discrimination and combat anti-Semitism in higher education, and if Columbia is a major offender, what’s wrong with that?

The Post would have its readers believe that using the threat of funding cutoffs to coerce educational institutions and other entities to conform with Washington’s wishes is a practice dreamed up by the Trump administration. In fact, this practice was used extensively during the Obama and Biden administrations.

It was used to coerce colleges into lessening the due process rights of male students accused of sexual misconduct towards female students. It was used to coerce public schools to discipline black public school students only to the same degree they discipline white students, regardless of the extent to which the two groups violate rules and disrupt classes. And it has been used to coerce cities and towns to impose racial balance in their neighborhoods.

It’s true that Democratic administrations generally were more polite about it. Instead of fanfare and bluster, they quietly sent “Dear Colleague” letters to administrators (a tool the Trump administration also uses at times). But the recipients knew that behind those letters lurked the threat of a funding cutoff.

It’s also true that the Trump administration has gone beyond threats. It has cut off $400 million to Columbia.

But is that an unreasonable response to that university’s failure to protect Jewish students from harassment and discrimination? I don’t think so.

Imagine a university plagued by serial harassment of its black students — so much so that a campus religious leader urged blacks to leave the university for their safety. Imagine, too, that administrators at this university, far from taking meaningful steps to address the discrimination, sent emails back-and-forth ridiculing the blacks who complained about the discrimination.

In this scenario, I doubt that the Post would be bothered if the federal government cut off a portion of its aid to the university.

Nor, in my opinion, would there be anything legitimately to complain about. Taxpayers should not subsidize universities that discriminate against students based on race, ethnicity, sex, or religion — or ones that tolerate discrimination.

It’s possible, though, for the feds to go too far in policing educational institutions. I think Democratic administrations went too far when they tried to dictate regarding disciplinary hearings for male students accused of sexual misdeeds. I think they went too far when they tried to micro-manage discipline in public schools by inferring discrimination from numerical disparities.

It’s also possible that the Trump administration will go too far. For example, in my view federal funding shouldn’t be cut off just because federal officials don’t like what’s being taught in this or that class about race, even if what’s being taught can fairly be characterized as DEI. But it would be reasonable, in my view, to cut off funds if a college prevents or obstructs the airing of different views on the subject.

So far, Columbia’s response to the Trump administration’s pressure has moved the university in the right direction. The University has agreed to a series of measures designed to protect Jewish students and curb over-the-top protests. It has not abolished its judicial review board, as the administration wanted, but has removed students from participating and given the provost oversight. It has not put its Middle East, South Asian and African Studies department in academic receivership but the department will undergo review by the provost.

Has Columbia gone far enough? Probably not. (See Heather Mac Donald’s article on the subject.)

In any case, Team Trump isn’t satisfied. Reportedly, it is seriously considering obtaining a consent decree with Columbia, compliance with which would be monitored by a federal judge.

This novel approach (to say the least) would require a lawsuit by the feds. Columbia could contest the suit, but contesting it would risk the cutoff of more aid. And Columbia might be happier answering to a federal judge than to the Trump administration.

The process would also require that the judge hearing the case approve the decree and take on the role of overseeing enforcement. I suspect many judges would be quite uncomfortable undertaking this role. Indeed, it’s a role the Trump administration might not trust some judges to carry out faithfully.

The notion of having a judge deeply involved in overseeing aspects of a university’s operations strikes me as problematic. But Democrats have been more than happy to give judges a similar role when it comes to overseeing police departments.

Academic freedom is not at stake at police departments. But public safety is.

It shouldn’t be that hard to have a world in which colleges and universities treat all students fairly without regard to race, religion, etc. while retaining their traditional academic freedoms. However, in our dysfunctional world, this might be too much to ask.