Politico reports:

Leaders who once helmed the nation’s most prestigious universities are homing in on a message for their successors: resist, defend and litigate.

That formula, they argue, is the only way to survive an administration eager to extract fundamental concessions from schools that go far beyond addressing stated concerns about antisemitism. In the three months since returning to the White House, President Donald Trump has demanded that some of these private institutions end diversity programming, change admissions requirements, toughen student discipline policies and audit some academic programs.

The sustained scrutiny and public browbeating of Columbia University, Harvard University and other institutions has forced many schools to accept that academia’s relationship with Washington has fundamentally changed — and it will be costly.

That nascent pushback, showcased by Harvard’s decision to reject several proposals from Trump this week, is a notable turnaround from a year ago, when universities appeared more timid about their response to pro-Palestinian campus protests. But what’s unclear is how long even the wealthiest universities can weather a White House and conservative movement so committed to having a public spat with institutions easily branded as elite, exclusive and wealthy.

“Issues of antisemitism and other kinds of discrimination absolutely should be dealt with. But the way in which the government is using that… is really an abridgment of academic autonomy and that needs to be defended,” former Columbia University President Lee Bollinger said. “And I think the way you do that is to go to court.”

Since Trump started his second term, he has punished elite universities for what his administration says is inadequate action on campus antisemitism and weaponizing diversity initiatives. His administration cut more than $2 billion in federal funding to Harvard University and at least $400 million to Columbia University. Columbia has agreed to place its Middle Eastern, South Asian and African Studies Departments and the Center for Palestine Studies under the authority of a new senior vice provost, among other concessions, in an effort to restore their funding. The administration is also reviewing or halting federal funding to other Ivy League schools and prominent campuses.

Bollinger said the universities should consider a collective action and mobilize their defenses in court. But the leadership of the Ivy League has faced significant turnover in recent years, giving the newest presidents little time to find allies within their institutions to help them fight the federal government.

Harvard’s Claudine Gay and Penn’s Liz Magill resigned after public pressure campaigns to step down following a high-profile House antisemitism hearing. Columbia has seen two leaders resign in recent months: Minouche Shafik and Katrina Armstrong. Cornell’s Michael Kotlikoff was officially appointed in March after serving as the interim president since July. And Yale President Peter Salovey stepped down in June and was replaced by Maurie McInnis in July.

Harvard has refused to agree with Trump’s requests, teeing up a fight for their money, while Columbia decided to accept the administration’s demands — though the administration has yet to reinstate their funds. The latter position won’t win, say former leaders of Harvard, Dartmouth College and Columbia. [Continue reading…]

Michael S. Roth, the president of Wesleyan University, writes:

Taking a break from her work dismantling her own department, Secretary of Education Linda McMahon last week threatened roughly $9 billion of grants and contracts with Harvard because of “the school’s failure to protect students on campus from antisemitic discrimination.” As shocking as that threat was, it wasn’t entirely a surprise: Since the Justice Department convened its Task Force to Combat Antisemitism, 60 universities have received notice that they are being monitored or investigated.

With an administration seemingly determined to do everything, everywhere, all at once, discerning its true priorities can sometimes be challenging. But on this one point, Donald Trump wants no ambiguity: “My promise to Jewish Americans is this,” he said on the campaign trail. “With your vote, I will be your defender, your protector, and I will be the best friend Jewish Americans have ever had in the White House.”

As the first Jewish president of a formerly Methodist university, I find no comfort in the Trump administration’s embrace of my people, on college campuses or elsewhere. Jew hatred is real, but today’s anti-antisemitism isn’t a legitimate effort to fight it. It’s a cover for a wide range of agendas that have nothing to do with the welfare of Jewish people.

All of these agendas — from dismantling basic government functions to crushing the independence of cultural and educational organizations to criminalizing political speech to legitimating petty presidential vendettas — endanger the principles and institutions that have actually made this country great. For Jews, a number of these agendas do something more: They pose a direct threat to the very people they purport to help. Jews who applaud the administration’s crackdown will soon find that they do so at their peril. [Continue reading…]