Tag: columbia university
Why Trump Is Hellbent On Destroying America's Universities

Why Trump Is Hellbent On Destroying America's Universities

The New York Times told readers on Monday that Harvard may be close to a deal with Donald Trump, where it pays $500 million in exchange for continuing to be able to get government grants and admit foreign students. This would likely be similar to a deal Columbia University struck last week where it agreed to pay $200 million.

Some people, notably former Harvard President and top Clinton-Obama economic advisor Larry Summers, urged Harvard to make a similar deal. Fans of academic freedom may not feel the same way.

First, we should be clear about what is going on here. Harvard and other universities have won contracts to do research for the government in health care and other areas. These are not gifts from the government. Harvard faculty won these research contracts through competitive processes, similar to the way military contractors win a contract to build a missile system.

Trump is suddenly saying he doesn’t like the way Harvard is run and saying he will take away the contracts. As a sidebar, he is also threatening to refuse to provide visas to foreign students, taking away a major source of tuition money for Harvard.

Trump’s original complaint centered largely on charges of antisemitism at Harvard. While there is undoubtedly antisemitism at Harvard, just as there is racism directed against Blacks and often very open displays of Islamophobia, that clearly was the not the real issue.

Trump has peppered his administration with neo-Nazis and Holocaust deniers. It is absurd to imagine Trump has any problem with antisemitism. There are many students, faculty, and administrators at Harvard who are harshly critical of Israel’s attacks on the people of Gaza, as well as Palestinians in the West Bank. It is a lie to equate these criticisms with antisemitism, especially since a large share of the critics are Jewish.

The real issue is that Donald Trump doesn’t want Harvard to be able to do research and teaching that conflicts with Donald J. Trump thought. This means first and foremost he doesn’t want the school to be able to tell the truth about the history of slavery and racism in the United States. He doesn’t want it to be able to talk about our treatment of Native Americans. And he certainly doesn’t want honest discussions of the history of U.S. imperialism, such as overthrowing governments that don’t treat U.S. corporations well.

He also doesn’t like scientific research (which should just be called “reality”) which contradicts his claims about the world, most notably Trump’s denial of global warming. However, his problems with research would be far broader.

He surely is unhappy with research showing that his Secretary of Health and Human Services, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., is a complete liar when he talks about the risks and benefits of vaccines, as well as almost any other health-related issue. He also is likely unhappy with research that shows people here pay his import taxes and that his haphazard staffing and budget cuts are already having a large impact on the country.

Trump wants to be able to prevent Harvard and other universities from spreading information that contradicts his claims about the world. It’s not clear how far the deal with Columbia University goes in accomplishing this goal, but at the very least he got the university to pay $200 million in tribute for nothing. Its crime was being a university.

It would be foolish to say that there is nothing wrong with American universities. There are plenty of instances where wealthy donors can buy their children into elite institutions and even create whole areas of study dedicated to their pet interests. Also, some of the government contracts likely did involve corruption, or at least insider dealing, just as is the case with military contracts. And there are foolish lines of research, some of which can be called DEI, but some of which is also carried out in other areas.

But Trump’s efforts are not about making our colleges and universities adhere more closely to their ideals as institutions promoting the free exchange of ideas and pursuing unbiased research; it is about destroying them as centers of independent thinking. This will be a major blow to the country and economy, since our leading industries all derive their strength from work that originated in American universities, although often decades in the past.

But Trump cares little about the future of the country or the world; he wants people who will celebrate him in the same way that North Koreans celebrate their Dear Leader, Kim Jung Un. It apparently doesn’t bother him that we now have the largest measles outbreak in thirty years, even though we developed a completely safe vaccine with near 100 percent prevention rates more than sixty years ago.

It doesn’t bother Trump that increasing temperatures and increased instances of extreme weather are exposing large parts of the country to dangerous heat, storms, and flooding. And it doesn’t bother him that we are letting global warming induced wildfires destroy much of our natural heritage, including our national parks.

Apparently, nearly all Republican politicians are just fine going along for the ride. This is perhaps not surprising with power-hungry younger opportunists like Vice-President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, but it is a bit harder to understand among older politicians at the end of their careers, like Senators Charles Grassley and Mitch McConnell.

But getting back to Harvard, who knows if a Columbia-type deal is the best it can do at this point. We do have to recognize that there may simply be no place for a real university in Donald Trump’s America.

The one thing we do know with certainty is that whatever conditions Harvard accepts will not be the end of its problems. If it intends to function as an honest university, its students will stage a protest, or its faculty will do research that angers Donald Trump.

At that point, Donald Trump will be back with his new list of demands. With Donald Trump, a deal means nothing. Just ask the leaders of Mexico and Canada about the trade deal they signed with him in 2020.

Dean Baker is an economist, author, and co-founder of the Center for Economic Policy and Research. His writing has appeared in many major publications, including The Atlantic, The Washington Post, and The Financial Times.

Reprinted with permission from Substack.

Mahmoud Khalil

I Reject Mahmoud Khalil's Politics -- But His Rights Must Be Respected

Mahmoud Khalil could have been cooked up in a lab to offend — no, worse — to disgust me. And yet, despite temptation, I cannot endorse what the Trump administration is doing to him.

Based upon the postings of his group, Columbia University Apartheid Divest, Khalil, who was born in Syria, seems to hold grotesque opinions. CUAD, a leader of the anti-Israel protests on Columbia's campus, has cheered the October 7 pogrom that killed and maimed more than 1,200 Israelis, writing, "The act of Palestinian resistance on October 7, known as the Al-Aqsa Flood, breached Israeli security and made significant military advances," adding that it was "a day that will go down in history." Not a word of condemnation for the deaths of innocents, the mass rapes, the immolation of whole families, nor the kidnappings.

CUAD has lavished praise on other terrorists and enemies of the United States and Israel, like Ismail Haniyeh and Hassan Nasrallah, leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah respectively, which gives you a flavor of the movement. And while some members of the organization at first distanced themselves from a student, Khymani James, who posted an Instagram video telling university officials that "Zionists don't deserve to live," and "Be grateful that I'm not just going out and murdering Zionists," CUAD's leadership later thought better of it and issued an apology to James and to all individuals involved in the movement for Palestinian liberation it "alienated" by "compromising our values and tailoring our actions and narrative to the mainstream media." In case there was any doubt, the letter also clarified that the group supports "liberation by any means necessary, including armed resistance."

In addition to celebrating the suffering and deaths of Israelis, CUAD has supported acts of domestic terrorism in the United States, praising Casey Goonan, an arsonist who carried out attacks on a federal building and the University of California in 2024.

"CUAD stands in full support of Casey Goonan and all of our comrades who have bravely undertaken the call to escalate for Palestine," the group announced in a statement.

If I were vested with plenary authority to decide who could come to the United States, I would turn away someone like Mahmoud Khalil, who not only participates in but leads an organization that cheers terroristic violence. But no one in America has that plenary authority; we have laws and procedures, and under those laws, Khalil became a legal permanent resident. As such he enjoys most of the rights of a citizen.

As law professor Steve Vladeck has outlined, there are certain rare instances in which a green card-holder can be subject to deportation, as when "an alien whose presence or activities in the United States the Secretary of State has reasonable ground to believe would have potentially serious adverse foreign policy consequences for the United States." But the law goes on to specify that aliens should not be deported for opinions or actions that "would be lawful within the United States" unless "the Secretary of State personally determines that the alien's (continued presence) would compromise a compelling United States foreign policy interest."

Perhaps our Gumby secretary of state would so certify, but that is an abuse of authority and a step toward tyranny. Khalil's views are execrable, but he has committed no crime, and the government has made no showing that his continued presence in the country compromises a "compelling" foreign policy interest. He is being targeted because he's obnoxious and on the left. As Jonathan Chait notes, claims of fighting antisemitism ring a bit hollow from an administration that just intervened to free the Tate brothers, hired a deputy press secretary at the DOD with a history of antisemitic posts, and is led by a man who dined with Ye and Nick Fuentes.

No, this is a salvo in a corrupt plan to punish speech Trump dislikes. Taking a law-abiding legal permanent resident into custody for speech crimes is un-American. Nor is it the only attack on fundamental liberties perpetrated in the past couple of weeks. Trump's executive order targeting the law firm Perkins Coie is another frontal assault. The risible EO attempts to punish the firm for representing "failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton" and hiring the political consultancy Fusion GPS, among other supposed offenses. The order instructs federal agencies to terminate contracts with firm clients and to forbid all employees of Perkins Coie to enter federal buildings.

Or consider the exiling of the Associated Press for declining to abide by Trump's embarrassingly juvenile ukase about the "Gulf of America." Trump has also targeted another law firm, Covington and Burling, for representing Jack Smith. These flagrant assaults on American liberties are coming thick and fast and deserve our attention and alarm.

I won't defend Mahmoud Khalil's despicable views, but I will defend his rights. Though he supports movements and individuals who deny rights to those they oppose, we are not like him.

We live in a country governed by law — or at least, we are supposed to. If Khalil is to be deprived of his liberty, it can only be through due process of law. We defend his rights because if his are not secure, neither are ours.

Mona Charen is policy editor of The Bulwark and host of the "Beg to Differ" podcast. Her new book, Hard Right: The GOP's Drift Toward Extremism, is available now.

Reprinted with permission from Creators.

Clinton Calls For End To ‘Mass Incarceration’ As Riots Become Campaign Issue

Clinton Calls For End To ‘Mass Incarceration’ As Riots Become Campaign Issue

By Evan Halper, Tribune Washington Bureau (TNS)

WASHINGTON — Hillary Rodham Clinton focused her presidential campaign Wednesday on the unrest in Baltimore, vowing to work to upend the criminal justice system by ending the “era of mass incarceration” and equipping every police officer on the street with a body camera.

Her speech at Columbia University in New York City marked the unveiling of Clinton’s first major policy proposal as a presidential hopeful, coming as candidates are under pressure to confront racial disparities in the criminal justice system highlighted by the violence in Baltimore.

“What we have seen in Baltimore should, and I think does, tear at our soul,” Clinton said. “The patterns have become unmistakable and undeniable….We have to come to terms with some hard truths about race and justice in America.”

Baltimore erupted in rioting Monday night, following the funeral of Freddie Gray, an African American man who was mortally injured while in police custody.

Clinton’s plan also stems from the “listening tour” she has been on since launching her campaign this month. In round-table meetings with residents in the early ­voting states of Iowa and New Hampshire, the issue of drug abusers whose troubles were compounded by mental health problems played prominently.

“Our prisons and our jails are now our mental health institutions,” Clinton said. “I was somewhat surprised in both Iowa and New Hampshire to be asked so many questions about mental health.”

Clinton is joining a chorus of politicians demanding that police officers everywhere be equipped with body cameras.

“For every tragedy caught on tape, there surely have been many more that remained invisible,” she said. “This is a common-sense step.”

The sentencing reforms Clinton will champion focus on nonviolent offenders. She said they will include shifting people found guilty of such drug crimes from lockups to treatment and rehabilitation programs. Other alternative punishments would also be explored for low-level offenders, particularly minors, a Clinton campaign aide said.

Sentencing reform has broader political appeal than it once did. Tea party Republicans concerned about government overreach have joined Democrats in raising concern about inequities in the criminal justice system. Sen. Rand Paul, the Kentucky Republican running for president, is among those pushing for sentencing reform. Paul, whose ideology leans libertarian, argues the United States locks up too many people for minor offenses for too long a time.

Clinton alluded to the idea’s inter-party appeal in her speech Wednesday.

“There seems to be a growing bipartisan movement for common-sense reform,” she said. “Without the mass incarceration that we currently practice, millions of fewer people would be living in poverty.”

Clinton repeatedly returned to what she says is racial injustice at the core of the existing policies, citing statistics that highlight how much harder the criminal justice system is on blacks than whites.

“We have allowed our criminal justice system to get out of balance,” she said. “These recent tragedies should galvanize us to come together as a nation to find our balance again.”

Photo: Utility, Inc. via Flickr

Fundraising Ability Key To Winning Obama Library

Fundraising Ability Key To Winning Obama Library

By Dahleen Glanton, Chicago Tribune (TNS)

CHICAGO — While Chicago has been engaged in a heated debate over the use of public parks for President Barack Obama’s library, his selection of a host university may have more to do with which institution can offer the most financial support than which offers the best piece of land.

Obama’s library and museum will be a monument to his eight years in office and the base from which he will launch future initiatives. The university that he partners with must have a solid track record of fundraising and be committed to working with his foundation to raise millions of dollars — not just to build the library but to help fund its long-term programs.

With past presidential libraries, it has been a high-stakes game. Take, for example, the George W. Bush library.

When Bush began the push to build his library in 2004, Texas competitors faced off in a fierce bidding war. The city of Irving, a suburb of Dallas, pledged $50 million if he chose the University of Dallas. Baylor University in Waco offered more than $100 million. And a West Texas coalition of local officials and other supporters topped that with a $500 million pledge if he built it at Texas Tech University in Lubbock.

And those were the losers. The library went to Southern Methodist University in Dallas, a private institution with a $1 billion endowment and where first lady Laura Bush earned her bachelor’s degree. SMU officials have never disclosed the details of their bid, but officials acknowledge that the university’s capacity for fundraising was a strong asset.

“Whenever any entity proposes to be the site for a presidential library, they have to demonstrate that they can raise sufficient funds to build it,” said David Jones, a Houston-based presidential library consultant. “Private universities typically have more history and success in fundraising than do public universities. If the University of Chicago has more than 100 years of fundraising history, it’s not a big stretch for them to say, ‘We can raise this money.'”

This could place the public University of Illinois at Chicago at a disadvantage compared with private institutions such as the University of Chicago and Columbia University in New York, whose billion-dollar endowments are proof of their fundraising prowess.

The University of Hawaii is also a public school, but its bid was set up in a way that relieves the university’s financial pressure. Though the university is leading the bid, it is a joint partnership among the city of Honolulu, the state of Hawaii and local business and civic leaders combined under a nonprofit called Hawaii Presidential Center.

For months, the four universities have been engaged in behind-the-scenes discussions with the Barack Obama Foundation, which is led by Obama’s close friend Martin Nesbitt. He has been charged with overseeing the site selection process and raising money to build the facility. By the time the foundation announces a winner next month, officials likely will know exactly how much fundraising assistance they can expect from the winning university.

Except for UIC’s, the bids have been kept secret, in part because of the competitive nature of the offerings but also because the institutions were required to provide delicate financial information. The foundation required them to include details of the capital commitments they would make to the development and construction of the library, as well as funds available to support its annual operations.

“What the foundation looks for is not just ‘will you give us a good site’, but ‘what kind of support will you give us ongoing?’ That means program support and financial support,” said Anthony Clark, author of The Last Campaign: How Presidents Rewrite History, Run for Posterity & Enshrine Their Legacies. “What kind of symposia will you offer? What kind of financial support will you provide for exhibits?”

While the U. of C. says it has not offered a cash donation, it is unclear whether it or Columbia has committed to raising a specific dollar amount.

That kind of commitment is impossible at UIC, whose $265 million endowment pales in comparison to the U. of C.’s $7.5 billion endowment. In addition, Gov. Bruce Rauner has called for a 31.5 percent budget cut across the University of Illinois system in 2016, amounting to about a $60 million loss to UIC.

UIC librarian Mary Case, who heads the university’s bid, acknowledged that there are limitations. The university would be willing to establish a tax-exempt group that would raise funds to support the institute and academic programs, she said, but no public funds could be spent on the project.

“It will depend on what the president and first lady are trying to achieve and what kind of statement they want to make,” Case said. “We feel like we offer them a very different choice in terms of institution and community that tries to live out the mission and values of what we feel are his goals and policies.

“Will it come down to money or values? We don’t know. It’s something we have to contend with,” she said.

With Honolulu’s distance from the mainland being a serious drawback for landing the library and museum, the university there has made it clear it would accept a consolation prize, such as a presidential center that would complement a library and museum built elsewhere.

After the site selection, the main job of the Obama foundation will be fundraising and developing programming. The foundation already has established a fundraising arm, collecting between $2.9 million and $6.2 million in its first year. Still, the university that is selected as the host is also expected to lend support, from academic expertise to fundraising to sharing its donor list.

With a price tag estimated at up to $500 million, library experts said, Obama’s library is on track to become the costliest so far.

That, in part, is because a new law signed by Bush requires libraries built after his to include an endowment equal to 60 percent of the construction cost — 20 percent more than he and President Bill Clinton were required to provide. The money is used by the National Archives and Records Administration, the federal agency that oversees presidential libraries, to offset the costs of maintaining them.

Obama set fundraising records in his two campaigns for the White House, garnering nearly $750 million in 2008 and $722 million in 2012. According to experts, his ability to raise that kind of money for his library will depend on how willing he is to get out there and ask for it.

Unlike previous presidents, Obama has said he and the first lady will not personally raise funds for his library until he leaves office in early 2017, a decision that library experts said places additional pressure on the foundation — and the host institution — to raise money.

“For a lot of (the presidents), it’s a necessity. At this point, they can’t expect someone to raise it for them,” said presidential library historian Benjamin Hufbauer, author of Presidential Temples: How Memorials and Libraries Shape Public Memory. “They might not like it, but they grit their teeth and do it.”

SMU officials said they never promised a specific dollar amount, but after they were awarded the site, SMU President Gerald Turner joined the foundation’s fundraising coordinating committee, and the university and the foundation collaborated on reaching out to donors.

As a result, Bush raised an unprecedented $500 million before his library opened in 2013, double the $250 million it cost to build it. Clinton had raised only a portion of the cost of his $165 million library by the time it opened in 2004 in Little Rock, Ark.

“We knew that SMU has a strong tradition of support from our constituents and a strong record of fundraising campaigns, and we clearly felt that was an asset,” said Brad Cheves, who coordinated SMU’s bid. “We were already in a billion-dollar campaign separate from the Bush center. We said we felt like this would create energy around our supporters who would want to participate in the library effort.”

Meanwhile, Baylor conducted an unrelenting six-year campaign for the Bush library. In addition to the $114 million fundraising pledge, the Waco university, 20 miles from the Bush family ranch in Crawford, purchased a 150-acre site along the Brazos River to offer for the library. Baylor envisioned a complex that would have included a little league stadium designed for a president who loves baseball, plus a marina, an amphitheater and a lagoon for fishing.

Baylor also hired a fundraising consultant who encouraged the university to reach out to alumni before the finalists were named. It even landed commitments from George and Laura Bush’s friends in the Waco area.

“We left no stone unturned,” said Tommye Lou Davis, the administrator who headed Baylor’s library bid. “Our consultants felt like — and rightfully so — that we needed to prove we had lots of support, not just for building but for maintaining the continuous operation of the library. The fundraising component would never really go away, and we felt strongly that we needed to show we could do it.”

In the end, it came down to Baylor and SMU. That expensive chunk of land on the Brazos River? It’s now the home of Baylor’s new football stadium.

(c)2015 Chicago Tribune, Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC

Land to the north of the South Shore Cultural Center, a landmarked building at 70th Street at the lakefront, is one of the University of Chicago’s three proposed locations for the Obama presidential library. (Michael Tercha/Chicago Tribune/TNS)

Shop our Store

Headlines

Editor's Blog

Corona Virus

Trending

World