US universities

Subterms

    More stories

    • 125 Shares129 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump unlawfully cancelled $2.2bn in Harvard research grants, judge rules

      by

      A federal judge on Wednesday ruled Donald Trump’s administration unlawfully terminated about $2.2bn in grants awarded to Harvard University and can no longer cut off research funding to the Ivy League school.The decision by US district judge Allison Burroughs in Boston marked a major legal victory for Harvard as it seeks to cut a deal that could bring an end to the White House’s multi-front conflict with the country’s oldest and richest university.The Cambridge, Massachusetts-based school became a central focus of the administration’s broad campaign to leverage federal funding to force change at US universities, which Trump says are gripped by antisemitic and “radical left” ideologies.Three other Ivy League schools stuck deals with the administration, including Columbia University, which in July agreed to pay $220m to restore federal research money that had been nixed because of allegations the university allowed antisemitism to fester on campus.As with Columbia, the Trump administration took actions against Harvard related to the pro-Palestinian protest movement that roiled its campus and other universities after the 7 October 2023 Hamas attack on Israel and Israel’s war in Gaza.Trump during a 26 August cabinet meeting demanded Harvard pay “nothing less than $500 million” as part of a settlement. “They’ve been very bad,” he told education secretary, Linda McMahon. “Don’t negotiate.“Among the earliest actions the administration took against Harvard was the cancellation of hundreds of grants awarded to researchers on the grounds that the school failed to do enough to address harassment of Jewish students on its campus.The Trump administration has since sought to bar international students from attending the school; threatened Harvard’s accreditation status; and opened the door to cutting off more funds by finding it violated federal civil rights law.Harvard has said it has taken steps to ensure its campus is welcoming to Jewish and Israeli students, who it acknowledges experienced “vicious and reprehensible” treatment following the onset of Israel’s war in Gaza.But Harvard president Alan Garber has said the administration’s demands went far beyond addressing antisemitism and unlawfully sought to regulate the “intellectual conditions” on its campus by controlling who it hires and who it teaches.Those demands, which came in an 11 April letter from an administration task force, included calls for the private university to restructure its governance, alter its hiring and admissions practices to ensure an ideological balance of viewpoints and end certain academic programs.After Harvard rejected those demands, it said the administration began retaliating against it in violation of the free speech protections of the US constitution’s first amendment by abruptly cutting funding the school says is vital to supporting scientific and medical research.Burroughs, an appointee of Democratic president Barack Obama, in a separate case has already barred the administration from halting its ability to host international students, who comprise about a quarter of Harvard’s student body. More

    • 150 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Burner phones, wiped socials: the extreme precautions for visitors to Trump’s America

      by

      Keith Serry was set to bring a show to New York City’s Fringe festival this year, but pulled the plug a few weeks out. After 35 years of traveling to the United States, he says he no longer feels safe making the trip.“The fact that we’re being evaluated for our opinions entering a country that, at least until very recently, purported to be an example of democracy. Yeah, these are things that make me highly uncomfortable,” said Serry, a Canadian performer and attorney.“You’re left thinking that you don’t want to leave evidence of ‘bad opinions’ on your person.”Serry is among a substantial cohort of foreign nationals reconsidering travel to the US under the Trump administration, after troubling reports of visitors facing intense scrutiny and detention on arrival.In March, a French scientist who had been critical of Donald Trump was refused entry to the US after his phone was searched. An Australian writer who was detained and denied entry in June said he was initially grilled about his articles on pro-Palestinian protests, and then watched as a border agent probed even the most personal images on his phone. He was told the search uncovered evidence of past drug use, which he had not acknowledged on his visa waiver application, leading to his rejection. German, British and other European tourists have also been detained and sent home.More than a dozen countries have updated their travel guidance to the US. In Australia and Canada, government advisories were changed to specifically mention the potential for electronic device searches.On the advice of various experts, people are locking down social media, deleting photos and private messages, removing facial recognition, or even traveling with “burner” phones to protect themselves.In Canada, multiple public institutions have urged employees to avoid travel to the US, and at least one reportedly told staff to leave their usual devices at home and bring a second device with limited personal information instead.“Everybody feels guilty, but they don’t know exactly what they’re guilty of,” said Heather Segal, founding partner of Segal Immigration Law in Toronto, describing the influx of concerns she’s been hearing.“‘Did I do something wrong? Is there something on me? Did I say something that’s going to be a problem?’”She advised travelers to assess their risk appetite by reviewing both the private data stored on their devices and any information about them that’s publicly accessible, and to consider what measures to take accordingly.US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) has broad powers to search devices with minimal justification. Travelers can refuse to comply, but non-citizens risk being denied entry. CBP data shows such searches are rare; last year, just over 47,000 out of 420 million international travelers had their devices examined. This year’s figures show a significant increase, with the third quarter of 2025 reflecting an uptick in electronic device searches higher than any single quarter since 2018, when available data begins.“Anecdotally, it seems like these searches have been increasing, and I think the reason why that’s true is, undoubtedly, I think they are more targeted than before,” said Tom McBrien, counsel at the Electronic Privacy Information Center.“It seems like they are targeting people who they just don’t generally like politically.”Travelers who are concerned about their privacy should consider minimizing the amount of data they carry, McBrien said.“The less data you have on you, the less there is to search, and the less there is to collect,” he said. Beyond using a secondary device, he suggested securely deleting data, moving it to a hard drive or storing it in a password-protected cloud account.A Department of Homeland Security (DHS) spokesperson rejected claims that CBP had stepped up device searches under the new administration or singled out travelers over their political views.“These searches are conducted to detect digital contraband, terrorism-related content, and information relevant to visitor admissibility, all of which play a critical role in national security,” the spokesperson told the Guardian in a statement.“Allegations that political beliefs trigger inspections or removals are baseless and irresponsible.”The statement acknowledged, however, that there had been heightened vetting under Trump and the homeland security secretary, Kristi Noem.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotion“Under the leadership of the Trump Administration and Secretary Noem, we have the most secure border in American history,” it said. “This has allowed CBP to focus to actually vet and interview the people attempting to come into our country.”Alistair Kitchen, the Australian writer who was denied entry to the US in June, said the DHS’s denial of political targeting directly contradicts what he was told on arrival.Border officials “bragged actively that the reason for my targeting, for my being pulled out of line for my detainment, was explicitly because of what I’d written online about the protests at Columbia University”, he told the Guardian.While he doesn’t plan to return to the US under the Trump administration, Kitchen said that if he ever did, he would either not take a phone or bring a burner.“Under no conditions would I ever hand over the passcode to that phone,” he added. “I would accept immediate deportation rather than hand over the passcode. People should think seriously before booking travel, especially if they are journalists or writers or activists.”Various foreign nationals told the Guardian they are rethinking travel plans for tourism, family visits, academic events and work.Donald Rothwell, a professor who teaches international law at the Australian National University, says he no longer plans to accept speaking invitations to the US over fears of being detained or denied entry – which, he noted, could also trigger red flags on his record for future travel.He’s even considered traveling without a device at all, but is concerned his academic commentary in the media could be used against him regardless.“I might be commenting on matters that could be quite critical of the United States,” he said. “For example, I was very critical of the legal or lack of legal justification for the US military strikes on Iran in June.”Kate, a Canadian whose name has been withheld due to privacy concerns, said she has wrestled with complicated decisions about whether to travel across the border to see American relatives, including for an upcoming wedding. During a trip earlier this year, she deleted her social media apps before going through customs.Despite DHS assurances that travelers are not flagged for political beliefs, she said “it’s hard to believe things that this government is saying”.“It would be really nice to have trust that those kinds of things were true, and that these kinds of stories that you hear, while absolutely horrific, are isolated incidents,” she said.“But I do feel like in many ways, the United States has sort of lost its goodwill.” More

    • 125 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump’s presidential philosophy is government by shakedown | Steven Greenhouse

      by

      Americans have long glorified their constitution and the rule of law. But Donald Trump’s volatile and vindictive presidency has increasingly replaced that philosophy with something very different – call it “governing by shakedown”.Trump has often violated federal law, and sometimes the constitution, as he has sought to throttle his targets – whether universities, law firms or US trading partners – in the hope that they will cry uncle and agree to his demands. This style of governance would make any caudillo proud. But it should make anyone who cares about the rule of law – and avoiding authoritarian rule – very worried.By threatening to cripple this university’s finances or that country’s exports, Trump has become the global emperor of shakedowns. It has been great for him and his ego. He dominates negotiations and news cycles, and his White House cheerleaders rush to proclaim victory whenever he reaches a deal with one of his targets.Claiming that many universities haven’t done enough to combat antisemitism, Trump has demanded that Harvard, Columbia, Brown and other schools submit to his rightwing vision. Furious that some law firms have hired people or filed lawsuits he didn’t like, Trump has taken unprecedented steps to attack them unless they submitted to his demands. Trump has wreaked havoc on global diplomacy and supply chains by threatening America’s trading partners with stratospherically high tariffs unless they reached trade deals with Washington.Far too many Americans – whether senators, the media or the public – fail to realize that Trump’s attacks on these institutions evidently violate the law. Federal district courts have ruled in four cases that Trump’s broadsides against law firms violate their free speech rights. The US court of international trade ruled that Trump’s across-the-board tariffs against dozens of countries were illegal, concluding that Congress hadn’t given him “unbounded authority” to slap tariffs on nearly every country. (The administration is appealing that ruling.)As for Trump cutting off billions in aid and research grants to universities because of their alleged failures in responding to antisemitism, many legal experts say his administration has plainly failed to comply with anti-discrimination laws that require the government to follow specific procedures before penalizing universities, such as giving schools an opportunity for a hearing. Moreover, federal law says the government can halt funding to only particular university programs where noncompliance has been found, and not, for instance, to scientific research far afield from that.Last week, Trump expanded his shakedown efforts. He told the chipmaker Nvidia that he would let it sell high-end AI computer chips to China only if it paid 15% of the revenue from those sales to the US treasury. Nvidia agreed, even though Trump’s demand was of dubious legality; the constitution prohibits the government from placing a tax on exports.Trump also threatened Brazil with a 50% tariff unless it stopped prosecuting its rightwing former president, Jair Bolsonaro, for allegedly seeking to overturn Brazil’s presidential election. When Brazil’s current president rejected that demand, saying that Trump shouldn’t be telling a sovereign democracy how to run its justice system, Trump imposed the 50% tariff. Trump’s move is an outrage because he’s seeking to strong-arm a longtime US ally over how to run its justice system and because, as Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon said, this is “far outside his legal authority”.Many lawyers voiced shock and dismay when the law firm Paul, Weiss, a litigation powerhouse, reached a deal with Trump instead of fighting him. Paul, Weiss promised to provide Trump with $40m in pro bono legal services after he sought to cripple the firm by suspending its security clearances and barring its lawyers from federal buildings. All told, nine law firms have reached deals with Trump, promising nearly $1bn in pro bono services . Some legal experts call these deals illegal – one Yale law professor said “a contract that you make with a gun to your head is not a contract”.Columbia has reached a $221m settlement with the Trump administration, while Brown reached a $50m deal. While denying any liability, Columbia vowed to “work on multiple fronts to combat” antisemitism and other “forms of hatred and intolerance at Columbia”. The university also pledged not to use “race, color, sex, or national origin” in hiring decisions and said its admissions policies would be merit-based and wouldn’t “unlawfully preference applicants based on race, color, or national origin”.Columbia officials hailed one part of the deal – the Trump administration agreed to unfreeze $1.3bn in funding. That freeze was devastating Columbia’s research programs.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionBut David Pozen, a constitutional law professor at Columbia, denounced the deal, saying it “gives legal form to an extortion scheme”. Pozen described it as the “first-ever cutoff of congressionally appropriated funds to a university, so as to punish that university and impel it to adopt sweeping reforms, without any pretense of following the congressionally mandated procedures”. Pozen slammed this deal-by-deal style of governance as “coercive”, “arbitrary”, “deeply susceptible” to “corruption” and “corrosive to the democratic order and to law itself”.We shouldn’t be shocked that Trump acts this way. He loves dealmaking and lording it over others and he has long paid scant heed to following the law. But we should be shocked by the way the two other supposedly co-equal branches of government, Congress and the supreme court, have behaved. They have essentially rolled over in the face of Trump’s ruling by shakedown.Republican lawmakers in Congress have cravenly sat on their hands while Trump has boosted inflation and sabotaged economic growth by forcing tariffs on more than 90 countries, notwithstanding the strict restrictions Congress set on when and how a president can impose tariffs. Republicans have vowed never to raise taxes, but let’s not fool ourselves: Trump’s tariffs are a regressive sales tax that hits non-affluent Americans hardest. Republican lawmakers have also been quiet as mice while Trump has used a wrecking ball to threaten leading universities – institutions that played a vital role in making the US a world leader in medicine and many other fields of research.The supreme court has been strangely, worrisomely silent while Trump rules by shakedown, even as many district court judges have shown plenty of spine, ruling, for instance, that Trump’s across-the-board tariffs and assaults on law firms are illegal. When the supreme court wants to move quickly, it often finds a way. It would be great if the court moved to protect the rule of law, universities and academic freedom from Trump’s shakedowns. The court could and should issue a ruling as soon as possible that Trump violated Title VI of the Civil Rights Act by egregiously failing to follow its requirements before freezing universities’ funding. Similarly, the court could greatly reduce the economic mayhem that Trump’s tariffs are causing by quickly upholding the US court of trade’s ruling that Trump has far overstepped his authority to impose tariffs. But the high court been shamefully passive, even submissive.Congress and the supreme court need to wake up, step up and lay down the law. They must stop Trump’s rule by shakedown, which far too often involves capricious, vindictive dealmaking and ignores our legal rules and standards. Americans need to realize that Trump’s style of governance is dangerously eroding our rule of law and democracy.

      Steven Greenhouse is a journalist and author, focusing on labor and the workplace, as well as economic and legal issues More

    • 125 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump administration demands $1bn from UCLA to restore federal funding

      by

      The Trump administration is seeking a $1bn settlement from the University of California, Los Angeles, a White House official said on Friday.The person was not authorized to speak publicly about the request and spoke on condition of anonymity.The Trump administration has suspended $584m in federal research funding from the National Science Foundation, National Institutes of Health, the Department of Energy and other agencies, the university’s chancellor, Julio Frenk, said in a message to UCLA staff and students this week.Last week, the justice department notified the university that an investigation by the department’s civil right division had “concluded that UCLA’s response to the protest encampment on its campus in the spring of 2024 was deliberately indifferent to a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students” in violation of federal anti-discrimination law.“This disgusting breach of civil rights against students will not stand: DOJ will force UCLA to pay a heavy price for putting Jewish Americans at risk and continue our ongoing investigations into other campuses in the UC system”, the US attorney general, Pam Bondi, said in a statement.UCLA is the first public university whose federal grants have been targeted by the administration over allegations of civil rights violations related to antisemitism and affirmative action. The Trump administration has frozen or paused federal funding over similar allegations against private colleges.The new University of California president, James B Milliken, who oversees a university system of 10 campuses, six academic health centers and three affiliated national laboratories, confirmed on Friday that the university had received notice from the justice department and was reviewing it.“Earlier this week, we offered to engage in good faith dialogue with the Department to protect the University and its critical research mission,” Milliken said. “As a public university, we are stewards of taxpayer resources and a payment of this scale would completely devastate our country’s greatest public university system as well as inflict great harm on our students and all Californians.“Americans across this great nation rely on the vital work of UCLA and the UC system for technologies and medical therapies that save lives, grow the US economy, and protect our national security,” he added.UCLA recently reached a $6m settlement with three Jewish students and a Jewish professor who sued the university, arguing it violated their civil rights by allowing pro-Palestinian protesters in 2024 to block their access to classes and other areas on campus.The university has said it is committed to campus safety and inclusivity and will continue to implement recommendations. More

    • 138 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump signs action forcing universities and colleges to submit admissions data

      by

      Donald Trump signed an executive action on Thursday forcing colleges and universities to submit data to prove they do not consider race in admissions, as the White House intensifies its scrutiny of higher education institutions that receive federal funding.The Trump administration is accusing colleges of using personal statements and other proxies in order to consider race, despite a 2023 supreme court ruling reversing affirmative action, as part of its wider attack on diversity-, inclusion- and equality-related initiatives at American institutions.“Although the Supreme Court of the United States has definitively held that consideration of race in higher education admissions violates students’ civil rights,” the presidential memorandum reads, “the persistent lack of available data – paired with the rampant use of ‘diversity statements’ and other overt and hidden racial proxies – continues to raise concerns about whether race is actually used in practice.”In the memorandum, Trump directs the education secretary, Linda McMahon, to require that higher education institutions submit “the data necessary to verify that their admissions do not involve unlawful discrimination”. McMahon is to overhaul the US higher education database, expand the scope of required admissions reporting and increase accuracy checks to help provide additional “transparency”.In 2023, the conservative-majority US supreme court ruled against the use of affirmative action in admissions, drastically changing the way universities can ensure the diversity of the student body. It allowed only limited use, in that colleges may still consider how race has shaped students’ lives if applicants share that information in their admissions essays.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionConservative activists welcomed the ruling, arguing that affirmative action policies discriminate against white students. But it was heavily criticized by those who argue that race-conscious policies create more equal opportunities for students from marginalized groups, including students of color and those from low-income backgrounds, disadvantaged by historical discrimination in the higher education system, given the country’s history.The action appears to codify for all universities the recent settlement agreements the administration negotiated with Ivy League universities Brown and Columbia, restoring their federal research funding in return for the institutions adopting measures including the release of admissions data, with the institutions required to demonstrate that hiring and admissions are “merit-based” and not based on considerations of diversity and race.The universities agreed to give the government data on the race, grade point average and standardized test scores of applicants, admitted students and enrolled students. The schools also agreed to an audit by the government and to release admissions statistics to the public. More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      ‘Impossible to rebuild’: NIH scientists say Trump cuts will imperil life-saving research

      by

      Last week, the office of management and budget (OMB) revealed plans to freeze all outside funding for National Institutes of Health research this fiscal year, but reversed course later that day, leaving the scientific community in a state of whiplash. A senior official at the NIH who spoke on condition of anonymity said this was just the latest in a “multi-prong” approach by the Trump administration to destroy American scientific research.In July, the National Cancer Institute, which is part of the NIH, updated its website to reflect Trump administration plans to significantly cut cancer research spending as well. Since January, the administration has been cancelling NIH grants, in some cases targeting other specific research areas, such as HIV treatment and prevention.“It’s really, really bad at NIH right now,” said the official, who added that researchers working outside the NIH have been unaware of the severity of the situation until recently, even though they have also faced funding upheaval since the winter.“The Trump administration is, for the first time in history, substantially intervening inside NIH to bring it under political control,” the official said. “That’s what we saw this week with the OMB freeze on funding.”“I think the core of it is that they want to destroy universities, or at least turn them into rightwing ideological factories,” the official said, since the majority of the NIH’s grants are distributed to researchers in universities, medical schools and similar institutions.In 2021, JD Vance gave a speech entitled The Universities Are the Enemy. The official said they were alarmed at how little universities are fighting back – many have settled with the administration, which has “gotten Columbia to completely knuckle under. One of America’s most significant universities and a place that is a worldwide magnet for talents. Same thing at Penn. Now they’re going after UCLA.”Institutions such as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine have also stayed on the sidelines, refusing to sufficiently resist Trump, the official said.If the administration does manage to freeze NIH funding, it will push to rescind the funds permanently using a rescission motion, the official said. This type of motion only requires a simple majority of 50 votes to pass the Senate, instead of the supermajority necessary to beat a filibuster. Republicans would have enough votes to “ram through these motions to effectively cut the budget without Democrats in Congress weighing in. It’s an ongoing disaster.”Researchers at the many universities where the administration has frozen funding, such as Northwestern University in Evanston, Illinois, are starting to feel the gravity of the situation, said the official. Carole LaBonne, a biologist at Northwestern, said “university labs are hanging by a thread”, explaining that even though the OMB reversed its decision to freeze outside NIH funding, “the baseline reality is not much better”.Other recent changes at the NIH include allocating research grants all at once rather than over multiple years, so that fewer projects are funded. Reductions in cancer research funding also mean that only 4% of relevant grant applications will move forward. “This will effectively shut down cancer research in this country and destroy the careers of many scientists. This is devastating,” LaBonne said.The extreme uncertainty surrounding scientific research is also negatively affecting scientists’ mental health. “I do not know any faculty who are not incredibly stressed right now, wondering how long they will be able to keep their labs going and if/when they will have to let laboratory staff go,” LaBonne said. “It also very hard to motivate oneself to write grants, a painstaking and time-intensive processes, when there is a 96% chance it will not be funded.”Ryan Gutenkunst, who heads the department of molecular and cellular biology at the University of Arizona, said: “The chaos at NIH is definitely freaking [faculty and students] out and wasting huge amounts of emotional energy and time. We were emailing about the latest pause, only to find it unpaused hours later.”skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionThe senior NIH official found last week’s events unsurprising, they said: “They’re throwing everything at the wall to stop NIH from spending. What struck me was that many of my colleagues at universities were like, ‘Oh, my God, they’re stopping grants.’ And it really seemed to activate people in a way that I hadn’t seen before, whereas a lot of us at NIH thought, ‘Oh, they just did another thing.’”Science is an engine for American economic dominance, and scientific clusters such as Silicon Valley could not exist without federal funding, the official said. “Once you break them, it will be impossible to rebuild them. We’re on the path to breaking them.”LaBonne said she worried about the impact on progress in cancer specifically. “My own research touches on pediatric cancers. Forty years ago more than 60% of children diagnosed with cancer would have died within five years of diagnosis. Today there is a 90% survival rate. We should not put progress like that in danger,” she said.Although many major scientific institutions have complied with the administration, grassroots organizations and individual scientists, including those within the NIH, are finding ways to resist.The senior NIH official said they were most hopeful about grassroots organizers who are resisting the Trump administration openly, rather than relying on older strategies such as litigation and negotiations with Congress. For example, Science Homecoming, a website to promote science communication, is encouraging scientists to get the word out about the importance of federal funding to their home towns.The Bethesda Declaration, signed by 484 NIH staff, directly accused NIH director Jay Bhattacharya of “a failure of your legal duty to use congressionally appropriated funds for critical NIH research. Each day that the NIH continues to disrupt research, your ability to deliver on this duty narrows.” More

    • 138 Shares179 Views

      in US Politics

      US universities’ settlements with Trump ‘will only fuel his authoritarian appetite’

      by

      With the Trump administration’s campaign to reshape US higher education in full swing, some top universities have agreed to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to settle antisemitism claims; others may soon spend more and submit to major restrictions on their autonomy to avoid billions in funding cuts and other crippling measures.The University of Pennsylvania, Columbia University and Brown University have reached settlements with the government in the past month, seeing millions in federal funding restored in exchange for adopting measures that advocates warn severely undermine their independence. Columbia also agreed to pay more than $220m to settle antisemitism allegations, including an employment discrimination claim that may qualify any Jewish employee who has allegedly experienced antisemitism to get a payout.The University of California, Los Angeles, also agreed last week to pay $6m to settle a lawsuit by Jewish students and a professor over its handling of pro-Palestinian protests – but that did not stop the Trump administration from citing “antisemitism and bias” to freeze more than $300m of the university’s funding.Harvard University is reportedly considering paying as much as half a billion dollars to restore billions in research funds and fend off further attacks by the government – even though the university’s president, Alan Gerber, has denied the reports.The settlements come amid a flurry of cuts, investigations and other measures designed to curtail the independence of universities that the Trump administration has described as “the enemy”.Lynn Pasquerella, the president of the American Association of Colleges and Universities says they mark “a watershed moment for American higher education” and will “further embolden the administration to use coercive tactics against other institutions”.“The weaponization of federal funds in an effort to enforce ideological conformity through the control of campus policies, the curriculum, research, and discourse inside and outside of the classroom poses a threat to the fundamental mission of US colleges and universities,” she said.UPenn, Columbia and Harvard did not respond to the Guardian’s requests for comment. A spokesperson for Brown said the agreement with the administration “preserves the integrity of Brown’s academic foundation and enables us to move forward after a period of considerable uncertainty”.The White House is reportedly negotiating with several other universities. About 60 institutions are under investigation over alleged antisemitism and several have had federal funding cut or threatened. Education advocates warn that with each settlement, more universities risk coming under attack.“When one university capitulates to Trump’s hostage-taking strategies it puts pressure on all institutions because it confirms that this strategy works,” said Isaac Kamola, a professor at Trinity College who studies conservative efforts to undermine higher education. “Every institution is now at risk.”Ripple effectColumbia, where pro-Palestinian students staged a 2024 protest encampment that was soon followed by dozens of others nationwide, was the first university to be targeted by the administration.When it reached a much-anticipated settlement after months of negotiations, the US education secretary, Linda McMahon, boasted that the deal would offer “a roadmap” for other universities. Columbia’s reforms “will ripple across the higher education sector and change the course of campus culture for years to come”, she said.Todd Wolfson, the president of the American Association of University Professors, called the settlement “a disaster” for “the independence of colleges and universities nationwide”. But he echoed McMahon’s prediction: “The settlement will only fuel Trump’s authoritarian appetite.”The deal sees Columbia submitting to the oversight of an independent monitor reporting to the government, and agreeing to review its Middle East curriculum and expand Israel and Jewish studies. That’s in addition to several measures the university had already taken, including the adoption of a controversial definition that conflates antisemitism with criticism of Israel. Notably, the agreement does not preclude the government from issuing more demands in the future.Columbia also agreed to pay $200m to the government over three years, and $21m to settle a class-action lawsuit that the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission described as the “largest such settlement” in two decades. That agreement follows a charge brought on behalf of “all Jewish employees” at Columbia, with the funds intended “to remedy alleged antisemitism harassment that may have been experienced by its employees”, the commission said. It added that a claims administrator would reach out to all “potential aggrieved individuals” with a confidential questionnaire to determine eligibility.A spokesperson for the commission said that all Jewish employees were entitled to part of the settlement “if they experienced discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation” based on their Jewish or Israeli identity, and that they do not need to have previously filed a complaint to be considered. “What matters is their experience with antisemitism at Columbia,” the spokesperson said.Some of Columbia’s Jewish employees questioned the criteria.“Where is my antisemitism money?” James Schamus, a faculty member who previously denounced the university’s actions “in the name of Jewish safety” wrote in a post. He said that he suspected the payouts would be distributed not based on “Jewish-ness” as much as political considerations.But it is Columbia’s agreement to yield to the administration on academic matters that met the fiercest backlash. Last week, the prominent historian Rashid Khalidi announced in an open letter that he would cancel a class he had planned to teach in the fall, citing the settlement and adoption of the IHRA definition, and accusing Columbia’s leaders of having turned the storied institution into “a shadow of its former self” and an “anti-university”.Still, Columbia’s deal with the administration fell short of some of the most restrictive scenarios floated during negotiations, and even those critical of it acknowledge the university found itself in a near-impossible position.“We fully appreciate that the alternatives to settlement would have come with their own formidable costs and risks,” a group of scholars from Columbia’s own Knight First Amendment Institute wrote in an analysis on Monday. “It would be deeply unfortunate, however, if Columbia’s settlement were to become a model for the rest of the academy.”More targetsSo far, that seems to be the case. A week after Columbia’s announcement, Brown followed, reaching a deal with the administration to restore frozen federal funds in exchange for adopting the administration’s definitions of male and female, which advocates say infringe transgender rights. Brown will also pay $50m to Rhode Island workforce development organizations as part of the deal. The university also granted the government access to its admissions data to ensure it is “merit-based”. UPenn made similar concessions when it became the first university to settle in early July.Harvard has been the only university to fight back, suing over $2.6bn in funding cuts and the revocation of its eligibility to host international students. Both cases are proceeding in court, where the university has notched some early victories, even though Harvard is also negotiating with the administration and has passed measures pre-empting some of its demands.At UCLA, part of the largest public university system in the US, administrators also tried to anticipate the administration by issuing a flurry of new policies. They restricted the ability to protest on campus and centralized faculty hiring. A spokesperson for UCLA referred the Guardian to a statement by the university’s chancellor, Julio Frenk, in which he listed a host of measures it had taken to combat antisemitism.But that wasn’t enough to keep UCLA from becoming Trump’s latest target.“Unsurprisingly, the anticipatory obedience of UCLA administrators has not prevented Trump administration attacks,” the UCLA Faculty Association wrote in a statement. “Each university that falters legitimates the Trump administration’s attacks on all of our institutions of higher education and we must stand up now. To protect our democracy we must protect our universities.” More

    • 113 Shares149 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump administration reportedly suspends $200m in grants to UCLA

      by

      The Trump administration is suspending some research grants to the University of California, Los Angeles, claiming “antisemitism and bias”, the school announced in a statement on Thursday.“UCLA received a notice that the federal government, through its control of the National Science Foundation (NSF), the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and other agencies, is suspending certain research funding to UCLA,” Julio Frenk, the university chancellor, said in a letter to the campus. The move means “life-saving research” will be defunded, he said.“It is a loss for Americans across the nation whose work, health, and future depend on the groundbreaking work we do.”Frenk did not say the value of the grants, but the Los Angeles Times reported that roughly 300 grants amounting to nearly $200m were suspended.The federal government has moved to pull billions of dollars from prominent universities across the US after accusing the institutions of failing to adequately respond to antisemitism during pro-Palestinian protests, and referred some to the Department of Justice. In recent weeks, the Trump administration has reached agreements with Brown University and Columbia University to restore funding and close investigations into the schools.The agreement with Brown requires the institution to commit to nondiscrimination in admissions and programs, and allow the administration access to admissions data. Meanwhile, Columbia’s controversial deal requires it pay more than $220m, expand its Institute for Israel and Jewish Studies, review Middle East curriculum and cut programs promoting “unlawful efforts” related to diversity. Harvard remains in a legal fight with the federal government over its move to freeze billions in federal funds.The news out of UCLA comes days after the school reached a nearly $6.5m settlement in a lawsuit by Jewish students and a professor who said the university allowed antisemitic discrimination to take place on campus during protests last year.Earlier this week, the Department of Justice notified the University of California that its investigation found that UCLA’s response to a protest encampment in spring 2024 was “deliberately indifferent to a hostile environment for Jewish and Israeli students” and that students experienced “severe [and] pervasive” harassment.In his statement about the grant cancellations, Frenk said the university had taken steps to combat antisemitism, and ensure the school is safe and welcoming for all, including the creation of a new Office of Campus and Community Safety and an Initiative to Combat Antisemitism.He also highlighted the university’s history of research, including planetary scientists who search for asteroids that could pose a threat to Earth, a Valley Fever Center and the role researchers played in helping create the internet.“This far-reaching penalty of defunding life-saving research does nothing to address any alleged discrimination,” Frenk wrote. More