Balkinization |
Balkinization
Balkinization Symposiums: A Continuing List E-mail: Jack Balkin: jackbalkin at yahoo.com Bruce Ackerman bruce.ackerman at yale.edu Ian Ayres ian.ayres at yale.edu Corey Brettschneider corey_brettschneider at brown.edu Mary Dudziak mary.l.dudziak at emory.edu Joey Fishkin joey.fishkin at gmail.com Heather Gerken heather.gerken at yale.edu Abbe Gluck abbe.gluck at yale.edu Mark Graber mgraber at law.umaryland.edu Stephen Griffin sgriffin at tulane.edu Jonathan Hafetz jonathan.hafetz at shu.edu Jeremy Kessler jkessler at law.columbia.edu Andrew Koppelman akoppelman at law.northwestern.edu Marty Lederman msl46 at law.georgetown.edu Sanford Levinson slevinson at law.utexas.edu David Luban david.luban at gmail.com Gerard Magliocca gmaglioc at iupui.edu Jason Mazzone mazzonej at illinois.edu Linda McClain lmcclain at bu.edu John Mikhail mikhail at law.georgetown.edu Frank Pasquale pasquale.frank at gmail.com Nate Persily npersily at gmail.com Michael Stokes Paulsen michaelstokespaulsen at gmail.com Deborah Pearlstein dpearlst at yu.edu Rick Pildes rick.pildes at nyu.edu David Pozen dpozen at law.columbia.edu Richard Primus raprimus at umich.edu K. Sabeel Rahman sabeel.rahman at brooklaw.edu Alice Ristroph alice.ristroph at shu.edu Neil Siegel siegel at law.duke.edu David Super david.super at law.georgetown.edu Brian Tamanaha btamanaha at wulaw.wustl.edu Nelson Tebbe nelson.tebbe at brooklaw.edu Mark Tushnet mtushnet at law.harvard.edu Adam Winkler winkler at ucla.edu Compendium of posts on Hobby Lobby and related cases The Anti-Torture Memos: Balkinization Posts on Torture, Interrogation, Detention, War Powers, and OLC The Anti-Torture Memos (arranged by topic) Recent Posts The Tenth Demand?
|
Monday, March 31, 2025
The Tenth Demand?
David Pozen
The latest drama at
Columbia—involving interim President Katrina Armstrong’s “resignation”—has broad implications
for the academy and American democracy. Once unpacked, this episode throws into
sharp relief the issue of whether universities now operate at the pleasure of
the White House. * * * To recap immediately preceding events: On March 7, four federal agencies announced the “cancellation of approximately $400 million in federal grants and contracts to Columbia University due to the school’s continued inaction in the face of persistent harassment of Jewish students.” On March 13, three of those agencies sent President Armstrong a list of nine demands that would need to be met by March 20 “as a precondition for formal negotiations regarding Columbia University’s continued financial relationship with the United States government.” These demands closely tracked lists that had been disseminated in prior weeks by Columbia’s own faculty members and alumni groups concerned that the university was not doing enough to protect Jewish and Israeli students. Between March 13 and March 20, countless people inside and outside Columbia debated how the university should respond to the Trump administration’s unlawful financial threats. Meanwhile, the administration joined those threats to open state violence by targeting at least four noncitizens who had participated in protests at Columbia or Barnard for arrest and deportation. The day after the demand letter arrived, Trump’s deputy attorney general also disclosed that the university (and, by implication, the university’s senior leadership) is under criminal investigation “for harboring and concealing illegal aliens on its campus.” After securing a one-day extension, President Armstrong and the Columbia board of trustees issued the university’s response on March 21. The response agreed to a modified version of the government’s nine demands. Armstrong and the trustees portrayed the agreed-upon steps as ones that were already “underway” and “intended to further Columbia’s basic mission.” No big deal! (And also, no deal, as the steps were merely “preconditions” for potential negotiations to come.) Yet almost universally, Columbia’s response was characterized as a capitulation to Trump, with potentially grave consequences for the future of higher education. During the subsequent weekend, Armstrong met with faculty members around the university to discuss the controversial decision that had just been taken without direct input from any of them. The transcript of one of these meetings was leaked to The Free Press, a media company founded by Columbia alum Bari Weiss, who rose to fame criticizing the anti-Israel politics of Columbia’s Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies faculty. On March 25, The Free Press published a story about the leak titled “Columbia President Says One Thing to Trump Admin—and Another in Private.” It is not clear from the story whether Armstrong’s remarks actually contradicted anything in the university’s public stance—which maintained from the outset that the policy changes were modest measures in line with preexisting plans—so much as they highlighted this stance’s internal contradictions. The story was nonetheless treated as a scandal by anti-student-protester audiences. In seeking to convince the Columbia faculty that institutional autonomy and free speech had not been fatally sacrificed, Armstrong was said to have proved herself “very two-faced,” a “big-time” liar. On the night of March 28, the Columbia trustees announced to a stunned university community that Armstrong “is returning to lead the University’s Irving Medical Center” and that “Board of Trustees Co-Chair Claire Shipman has been appointed Acting President, effective immediately, and will serve until the Board completes its presidential search.” Shortly thereafter, the Trump administration’s Joint Task Force to Combat Anti-Semitism released a statement commending “[t]he action taken by Columbia’s trustees today, especially in light of this week’s concerning revelation.” The only “revelation” plausibly referenced here is the transcript of the closed-door faculty meeting that was shared by someone at Columbia with The Free Press. * * * It doesn’t take much political savvy or hermeneutical skill to draw one conclusion from this sequence of events, although no one thus far seems to have acknowledged the point outright: President Armstrong did not resign voluntarily; she was forced out because she was seen as insufficiently committed to a particular vision of how antisemitism ought to be combated on campus. As far as I am aware, Armstrong had not made any prior statements to suggest that she was contemplating stepping down. And neither the board’s statement nor Armstrong’s contemporaneous statement contains any language indicating that she in fact chose to do so. The Trump administration’s praise for the “action taken by Columbia’s trustees,” on the other hand, plainly implies that the decision to replace Armstrong was made by the board. It is also notable that the story of Armstrong’s departure was first reported by the Wall Street Journal, an outlet that has recently published multiple stories about Columbia, all with the same reporter in the byline, relying on unnamed university sources who appear eager to ensure that Columbia does whatever it takes to restore federal funding. The first question that follows is who, exactly, forced out Amstrong? Perhaps the trustees were so appalled by the leaked transcript that they lost faith in her. That explanation, however, is hard to square with the ambiguous content of the transcript, the trustees’ strong support for Armstrong before last week, and the Joint Task Force’s near-immediate celebration of her departure. It seems far more likely that the trustees were pushed by the Trump administration to fire Armstrong as yet another condition of being eligible to receive funds, regardless of whether the university is legally entitled to them. This condition was, one assumes, communicated explicitly or implicitly in private conversations between government officials and Columbia trustees. Yet even if no such conversations occurred, it would be somewhat immaterial at this point. The Trump administration had already signaled displeasure with The Free Press story earlier in the week. And by committing to a strategy of aiming to satisfy the administration’s demands, even when unlawfully issued, the trustees have committed themselves to a strategic logic within which a Columbia president’s capacity to lead cannot be separated from the pleasures and displeasures of the U.S. President himself. * * * The realization that the Trump administration effectively forced out Columbia’s president leads to many more questions. To name a few, how was this tenth demand conveyed to the Columbia trustees? Secretary of Education Linda McMahon has been quite supportive of Armstrong, so it would appear that McMahon was marginalized in deference to the White House. Is Stephen Miller now setting university policy? Or maybe the decision to remove Armstrong is better understood as having been jointly produced by the Trump team and the Columbia community members who seem to be sending it information and ideas through private channels? Recall that the substance of the government’s initial list of demands was generated from within Columbia. If this is indeed the best interpretation, we are witnessing the conjuncture of (1) the radically undemocratic formal power wielded by Columbia’s board of trustees, a self-perpetuating body of twenty-odd individuals; with (2) the radically undemocratic political power wielded by a small set of university insiders aligned with the White House, at least on this issue. The most important questions prompted by “the tenth demand” are forward-looking. As among the Trump administration, the university trustees, these influential insiders, and major donors, how will the selection of Columbia’s next president be handled? Will anyone else be afforded a meaningful say in the decision? Even if the selection system is set up to include other voices as a procedural matter, at the end of the day will it be the White House itself that determines the outcome? Or maybe the White House won’t dictate a specific selection, so much as make clear which candidates it deems acceptable and which candidates it would “veto” because they appear insufficiently aligned with its preferred approach to policing campus speech? These possibilities ought to be anathema to all who value academic freedom, regardless of views on the recent student protests, the war in Gaza, or the reforms Columbia ought to make. Parochial details aside, everyone concerned about where the Trump administration’s academic agenda might be heading should therefore take note of what just happened here—and ask themselves at least two further questions. If this is a plausible depiction of the situation unfolding at Columbia, are we at the point where universities across the country must have presidents who are agreeable to President Trump or else risk calamitous cuts to their federal funding? And if this, in turn, is a plausible depiction of an authoritarian takeover of higher education, when will university leaders come to the conclusion that they must push back, individually and collectively, to have a chance of stopping it?
Posted 5:04 PM by David Pozen [link]
|
Books by Balkinization Bloggers ![]() Linda C. McClain and Aziza Ahmed, The Routledge Companion to Gender and COVID-19 (Routledge, 2024) ![]() David Pozen, The Constitution of the War on Drugs (Oxford University Press, 2024) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Memory and Authority: The Uses of History in Constitutional Interpretation (Yale University Press, 2024) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Punish Treason, Reward Loyalty: The Forgotten Goals of Constitutional Reform after the Civil War (University of Kansas Press, 2023) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Most Controversial Decision - Revised Edition (NYU Press, 2023) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Burning Down the House: How Libertarian Philosophy Was Corrupted by Delusion and Greed (St. Martin’s Press, 2022) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, Washington's Heir: The Life of Justice Bushrod Washington (Oxford University Press, 2022) ![]() Joseph Fishkin and William E. Forbath, The Anti-Oligarchy Constitution: Reconstructing the Economic Foundations of American Democracy (Harvard University Press, 2022) Mark Tushnet and Bojan Bugaric, Power to the People: Constitutionalism in the Age of Populism (Oxford University Press 2021). ![]() Mark Philip Bradley and Mary L. Dudziak, eds., Making the Forever War: Marilyn B. Young on the Culture and Politics of American Militarism Culture and Politics in the Cold War and Beyond (University of Massachusetts Press, 2021). ![]() Jack M. Balkin, What Obergefell v. Hodges Should Have Said: The Nation's Top Legal Experts Rewrite America's Same-Sex Marriage Decision (Yale University Press, 2020) ![]() Frank Pasquale, New Laws of Robotics: Defending Human Expertise in the Age of AI (Belknap Press, 2020) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Cycles of Constitutional Time (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Taking Back the Constitution: Activist Judges and the Next Age of American Law (Yale University Press 2020). ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Gay Rights vs. Religious Liberty?: The Unnecessary Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Ezekiel J Emanuel and Abbe R. Gluck, The Trillion Dollar Revolution: How the Affordable Care Act Transformed Politics, Law, and Health Care in America (PublicAffairs, 2020) ![]() Linda C. McClain, Who's the Bigot?: Learning from Conflicts over Marriage and Civil Rights Law (Oxford University Press, 2020) ![]() Sanford Levinson and Jack M. Balkin, Democracy and Dysfunction (University of Chicago Press, 2019) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Written in Stone: Public Monuments in Changing Societies (Duke University Press 2018) ![]() Mark A. Graber, Sanford Levinson, and Mark Tushnet, eds., Constitutional Democracy in Crisis? (Oxford University Press 2018) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Heart of the Constitution: How the Bill of Rights became the Bill of Rights (Oxford University Press, 2018) ![]() Cynthia Levinson and Sanford Levinson, Fault Lines in the Constitution: The Framers, Their Fights, and the Flaws that Affect Us Today (Peachtree Publishers, 2017) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, A Realistic Theory of Law (Cambridge University Press 2017) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Nullification and Secession in Modern Constitutional Thought (University Press of Kansas 2016) ![]() Sanford Levinson, An Argument Open to All: Reading The Federalist in the 21st Century (Yale University Press 2015) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Broken Trust: Dysfunctional Government and Constitutional Reform (University Press of Kansas, 2015) ![]() Frank Pasquale, The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information (Harvard University Press, 2015) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution (Harvard University Press, 2014) Balkinization Symposium on We the People, Volume 3: The Civil Rights Revolution ![]() Joseph Fishkin, Bottlenecks: A New Theory of Equal Opportunity (Oxford University Press, 2014) ![]() Mark A. Graber, A New Introduction to American Constitutionalism (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() John Mikhail, Elements of Moral Cognition: Rawls' Linguistic Analogy and the Cognitive Science of Moral and Legal Judgment (Cambridge University Press, 2013) ![]() Gerard N. Magliocca, American Founding Son: John Bingham and the Invention of the Fourteenth Amendment (New York University Press, 2013) ![]() Stephen M. Griffin, Long Wars and the Constitution (Harvard University Press, 2013) Andrew Koppelman, The Tough Luck Constitution and the Assault on Health Care Reform (Oxford University Press, 2013) ![]() James E. Fleming and Linda C. McClain, Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues (Harvard University Press, 2013) Balkinization Symposium on Ordered Liberty: Rights, Responsibilities, and Virtues ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Defending American Religious Neutrality (Harvard University Press, 2013) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Failing Law Schools (University of Chicago Press, 2012) ![]() Sanford Levinson, Framed: America's 51 Constitutions and the Crisis of Governance (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Linda C. McClain and Joanna L. Grossman, Gender Equality: Dimensions of Women's Equal Citizenship (Cambridge University Press, 2012) ![]() Mary Dudziak, War Time: An Idea, Its History, Its Consequences (Oxford University Press, 2012) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Living Originalism (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Jason Mazzone, Copyfraud and Other Abuses of Intellectual Property Law (Stanford University Press, 2011) ![]() Richard W. Garnett and Andrew Koppelman, First Amendment Stories, (Foundation Press 2011) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, Constitutional Redemption: Political Faith in an Unjust World (Harvard University Press, 2011) ![]() Gerard Magliocca, The Tragedy of William Jennings Bryan: Constitutional Law and the Politics of Backlash (Yale University Press, 2011) ![]() Bernard Harcourt, The Illusion of Free Markets: Punishment and the Myth of Natural Order (Harvard University Press, 2010) ![]() Bruce Ackerman, The Decline and Fall of the American Republic (Harvard University Press, 2010) Balkinization Symposium on The Decline and Fall of the American Republic ![]() Ian Ayres. Carrots and Sticks: Unlock the Power of Incentives to Get Things Done (Bantam Books, 2010) ![]() Mark Tushnet, Why the Constitution Matters (Yale University Press 2010) Ian Ayres and Barry Nalebuff: Lifecycle Investing: A New, Safe, and Audacious Way to Improve the Performance of Your Retirement Portfolio (Basic Books, 2010) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, The Laws of Change: I Ching and the Philosophy of Life (2d Edition, Sybil Creek Press 2009) ![]() Brian Z. Tamanaha, Beyond the Formalist-Realist Divide: The Role of Politics in Judging (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Andrew Koppelman and Tobias Barrington Wolff, A Right to Discriminate?: How the Case of Boy Scouts of America v. James Dale Warped the Law of Free Association (Yale University Press 2009) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Reva B. Siegel, The Constitution in 2020 (Oxford University Press 2009) Heather K. Gerken, The Democracy Index: Why Our Election System Is Failing and How to Fix It (Princeton University Press 2009) ![]() Mary Dudziak, Exporting American Dreams: Thurgood Marshall's African Journey (Oxford University Press 2008) ![]() David Luban, Legal Ethics and Human Dignity (Cambridge Univ. Press 2007) ![]() Ian Ayres, Super Crunchers: Why Thinking-By-Numbers is the New Way to be Smart (Bantam 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin, James Grimmelmann, Eddan Katz, Nimrod Kozlovski, Shlomit Wagman and Tal Zarsky, eds., Cybercrime: Digital Cops in a Networked Environment (N.Y.U. Press 2007) ![]() Jack M. Balkin and Beth Simone Noveck, The State of Play: Law, Games, and Virtual Worlds (N.Y.U. Press 2006) ![]() Andrew Koppelman, Same Sex, Different States: When Same-Sex Marriages Cross State Lines (Yale University Press 2006) Brian Tamanaha, Law as a Means to an End (Cambridge University Press 2006) Sanford Levinson, Our Undemocratic Constitution (Oxford University Press 2006) Mark Graber, Dred Scott and the Problem of Constitutional Evil (Cambridge University Press 2006) Jack M. Balkin, ed., What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said (N.Y.U. Press 2005) Sanford Levinson, ed., Torture: A Collection (Oxford University Press 2004) Balkin.com homepage Bibliography Conlaw.net Cultural Software Writings Opeds The Information Society Project BrownvBoard.com Useful Links Syllabi and Exams |