Excitement, concern at send-off for S'pore's Columbia-bound freshmen amid US political uncertainty
SINGAPORE - The wide-eyed Ivy League prospects milled about, exchanging pleasantries and exuberant hellos at a Columbia University send-off for Singapore freshmen on Aug 2.
But this year's iteration of the annual tradition, held at the function room of the Horizon Towers condominium in Leonie Hill, differed slightly from past editions.
It took place in the wake of a much-publicised crackdown by the US government on the country's elite universities over accusations of anti-Semitic behaviour on campuses and bias in diversity, equity and inclusivity (DEI) initiatives.
This followed a wave of pro-Palestinian protests on US campuses in 2024, prompted by the outbreak of the Gaza war between Israel and Palestinian militant group Hamas in October 2023.
For Columbia, negotiations with the Trump administration ended on July 23, with the school agreeing to
pay more than US$200 million (S$255 million) to the US government as settlement, in exchange for the re-instatement of federal funding which had been cancelled in March.
But the campus protests and recent political and financial turmoil had no impact on their decision to apply to the New York school, a few students told The Straits Times at the event organised by the Columbia Singapore Students Association (SSA). The event had about 15 attendees.
One outgoing freshman, who did not wish to reveal her name, said: 'I believe that a lot of institutions have recently had massive protests. But at the end of the day, you get the same quality education, world-class professors, and opportunities.
'In the grand scheme of things, these events don't impact your education to a degree that you would think they do.'
Another remained upbeat, saying: 'I'm excited but also nervous about the whole idea of going to college. It's about exposing yourself to new things, new people, new friends, new activities, and stepping outside your comfort zone.'
In May, the Trump administration asked its overseas missions to cease scheduling fresh appointments for student and exchange visitor visa applicants. The move, said Reuters, came as the administration sought to ramp up deportations and revoke student visas as part of its wide-ranging efforts to fulfil the US leader's hardline immigration agenda.
Top stories
Swipe. Select. Stay informed.
Singapore Opening of Woodlands Health has eased load on KTPH, sets standard for future hospitals: Ong Ye Kung
Singapore New vehicular bridge connecting Punggol Central and Seletar Link to open on Aug 3
Singapore New S'pore jobs portal launched for North West District residents looking for work near home
Singapore HSA investigating teen allegedly vaping on MRT train
Asia KTM plans new passenger rail service in Johor Bahru to manage higher footfall expected from RTS
Singapore Tengah facility with over 40 animal shelters, businesses hit by ticks
Business Property 'decoupling' illegal if done solely to avoid taxes: High Court
Singapore 60 years of building Singapore
Part of those efforts also included
tightening the vetting of foreign students' social media accounts in a bid to identify any who may pose a threat to the US' national security.
Two freshmen told ST that they would be switching their Instagram accounts to 'public' before entering the US, to facilitate such checks. They added that they did not mind doing so.
One SSA committee member who is a current Columbia student and did not wish to reveal his name, told ST that some of the matriculating students 'have shared some concerns, including visa and safety issues, and whether or not they may be able to express themselves freely'.
He added that the club is hoping to support them as they navigate the transition to university abroad amid the current climate.
Other American universities, including
Duke University and several campuses in the University of California system, are still being investigated by the Trump administration.
Even at Columbia, the environment remains somewhat cautious ahead of the new academic year which begins in September. The campus is gated and security forces are omnipresent, another SSA committee member who is also a current Columbia student, added.
'Most people know that the situation is very sensitive and tense,' he said. 'It's about juggling that tension, while still being at school and trying to live like a normal university student.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Straits Times
9 minutes ago
- Straits Times
When Trump changes his mind, Republicans find a way to fall in line
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox Mr Donald Trump has a pattern of accepting results that benefit him and denigrating those he dislikes as being rigged or part of a scam. WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump and his top aides used to be all too happy to praise the numbers from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. In February, Mr Trump displayed a chart in the Oval Office showing that the United States had gained an estimated 10,000 manufacturing jobs. When the bureau's March report came out, Ms Karoline Leavitt, the White House press secretary, celebrated the 'GREAT NEWS!' on social media. And as recently as last week, Vice-President J.D. Vance promoted data from the bureau that showed an increase in jobs among US-born residents. That was then. After the bureau put out a less-than-impressive jobs report on Aug 1, Mr Trump fired Ms Erika McEntarfer, the agency's commissioner, and claimed the figures were rigged. (In the way of proof, he said it was 'my opinion'.) Now, many Trump allies who walk in lock step with the president are in an awkward position. They have to justify tarnishing the reputation of the very bureau whose work they had cited freely in the past. Some began arguing that there were too many revisions, long a part of the process in calculating jobs data. Others accused the bureau of lacking transparency. Some simply argued that the president had the right to fire whomever he likes. Still others repeated Mr Trump's claim of rigged data. Senator Markwayne Mullin who voted for Ms McEntarfer's confirmation in 2024, accused her on Fox News of generating 'fake reports'. 'I'm glad she's out of a job,' he said. Senator Roger Marshall who also voted for Ms McEntarfer, accused her of incompetence. 'Legacy media's wrong on why the BLS chief was fired,' Mr Marshall wrote on social media. 'It's not 'bad numbers' – it's incompetence. She inflated job numbers by 800,000 pre-election, then missed by 250,000 last two months. How can the Fed make sound decisions with such flawed data? Trump was right to act.' Labor Secretary Lori Chavez-DeRemer, who in March had hailed the bureau's statistics showing strong job growth, backed Mr Trump's concerns about Ms McEntarfer in a post on social media. A spokesperson for Mr Vance – who had promoted the bureau's work the same day that Mr Trump fired Ms McEntarfer – said he was 'completely aligned with President Trump and was glad to see him dismiss the BLS commissioner'. Appearing on NBC's 'Meet the Press,' Mr Kevin Hassett, the director of the White House National Economic Council, declined on Aug 3 to furnish detailed evidence that would substantiate the president's claims that data had been manipulated. Instead, Mr Hassett, who in the past has cited staff at the bureau as 'professionals', said, 'The president wants his own people there so that when we see the numbers, they're more transparent and more reliable.' On CBS' 'Face the Nation,' Mr Jamieson Greer, the US trade representative, cited the bureau's use of revisions, even though they are part of a normal process of shoring up statistical data to ensure it is accurate. 'There are always revisions, but sometimes you see these revisions go in really extreme ways,' Mr Greer said. 'And it's, you know, the president is the president. He can choose who works in the executive branch.' The White House distributed a document accusing Ms McEntarfer, a Biden appointee who was confirmed by a vote of 86-8 in the Senate, of a 'lengthy history of inaccuracies and incompetence'. 'The fact of the matter is that BLS has had clear problems with the reliability and accuracy of its employment statistics since the start of the Covid pandemic over five years ago,' the White House said in a statement on Aug 4. Mr Trump has a pattern of accepting results that benefit him and denigrating those he dislikes as being rigged or part of a scam. He has objected to the results of the Emmys, falsely claimed that President Barack Obama did not win the popular vote and asserted that his erstwhile rival Senator Ted Cruz of Texas 'stole' a primary victory from him in Iowa in 2016. After losing the 2020 election, Mr Trump spread the lie that the election had been stolen from him. And since returning to office, he has lashed out at the sources of bad news for his administration, including judges who rule against him. In May, when he received a mix of good and bad economic news, Mr Trump said the 'good parts' of the economy were his, while the 'bad parts' belonged to the previous administration. Mr Stephen J. Farnsworth, political science professor at the University of Mary Washington, said even though much of the economic news Ms McEntarfer delivered to the Trump White House was positive, 'that wasn't enough.' 'The firing is a warning to other government officials that Trump pays very close attention to whether the news makes him look good or not,' he said. 'The larger issue is what this means for markets and for investors. If we're talking about an environment where the impartiality or accuracy of government statistics is called into question, it's much harder for people to make rational and informed choices.' While it remains to be seen whom Mr Trump will appoint to the position, the vote will serve as a test for Republican senators. 'The key question for the Congress is: To what extent will they insist on a competent professional to be confirmed for this position going forward?' Prof Farnsworth said. NYTIMES
AsiaOne
9 minutes ago
- AsiaOne
Israel to decide next steps in Gaza after ceasefire talks collapse, World News
JERUSALEM — Benjamin Netanyahu will convene his security cabinet this week to decide on Israel's next steps in Gaza following the collapse of indirect ceasefire talks with Hamas, with one senior Israeli source suggesting more force could be an option. Last Saturday, during a visit to the country, US Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff had said he was working with the Israeli government on a plan that would effectively end the war in Gaza. But Israeli officials have also floated ideas including expanding the military offencive in Gaza and annexing parts of the shattered enclave. The failed ceasefire talks in Doha had aimed to clinch agreements on a US-backed proposal for a 60-day truce, during which aid would be flown into Gaza and half of the hostages Hamas is holding would be freed in exchange for Palestinian prisoners jailed in Israel. After Netanyahu met Witkoff last Thursday, a senior Israeli official said that "an understanding was emerging between Washington and Israel," of a need to shift from a truce to a comprehensive deal that would "release all the hostages, disarm Hamas, and demilitarise the Gaza Strip," — Israel's key conditions for ending the war. A source familiar with the matter told Reuters on Sunday that the envoy's visit was seen in Israel as "very significant." But later on Sunday, the Israeli official signalled that pursuit of a deal would be pointless, threatening more force: "An understanding is emerging that Hamas is not interested in a deal and therefore the prime minister is pushing to release the hostages while pressing for military defeat. Israel's Channel 12 on Monday cited an official from his office as saying that Netanyahu was inclining towards expanding the offencive and seizing the entire Palestinian enclave. "Strategic clarity" What a "military defeat" might mean, however, is up for debate within the Israeli leadership. Some Israeli officials have suggested that Israel might declare it was annexing parts of Gaza as a means to pressure the militant group. Others, like Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich and National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir want to see Israel impose military rule in Gaza before annexing it and re-establishing the Jewish settlements Israel evicted 20 years ago. The Israeli military, which has pushed back at such ideas throughout the war, was expected on Tuesday to present alternatives that include extending into areas of Gaza where it has not yet operated, according to two defence officials. While some in the political leadership are pushing for expanding the offencive, the military is concerned that doing so will endanger the 20 hostages who are still alive, the officials said. Israeli Army Radio reported on Monday that military chief Eyal Zamir has become increasingly frustrated with what he describes as a lack of strategic clarity by the political leadership, concerned about being dragged into a war of attrition with Hamas militants. A spokesperson for the Israel Defence Forces (IDF) declined to comment on the report but said that the military has plans in store. "We have different ways to fight the terror organisation, and that's what the army does," Lieutenant Colonel Nadav Shoshani said. On Tuesday, Qatar and Egypt endorsed a declaration by France and Saudi Arabia outlining steps toward a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which included a call on Hamas to hand over its arms to the Western-backed Palestinian Authority. Hamas has repeatedly said it won't lay down arms. But it has told mediators it was willing to quit governance in Gaza for a non-partisan ruling body, according to three Hamas officials. It insists that the post-war Gaza arrangement must be agreed upon among the Palestinians themselves and not dictated by foreign powers. Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar suggested on Monday that the gaps were still too wide to bridge. "We would like to have all our hostages back. We would like to see the end of this war. We always prefer to get there by diplomatic means, if possible. But of course, the big question is, what will be the conditions for the end of the war?" he told journalists in Jerusalem. [[nid:720969]]
Straits Times
an hour ago
- Straits Times
Trump's deal-making with other elite US schools scrambles Harvard negotiations
Sign up now: Get ST's newsletters delivered to your inbox WASHINGTON – By the start of last week, Harvard University had signalled its readiness to meet President Donald Trump's demand that it spend US$500 million (S$643 million) to settle its damaging, monthslong battle with the administration and restore its crucial research funding. Then, two days after The New York Times reported that Harvard was open to such a financial commitment, the White House announced a far cheaper deal with Brown University: US$50 million, doled out over a decade, to bolster state workforce development programs. The terms stunned officials at Harvard, who marvelled that another Ivy League school got away with paying so little, according to three people familiar with the deliberations. But Harvard officials also bristled over how their university, after months of work to address antisemitism on campus and with a seeming advantage in its court fight against the government, was facing a demand from Mr Trump to pay 10 times more. The people who discussed the deliberations spoke on the condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified discussing talks that are supposed to remain confidential. White House officials are dismissive of the comparison between Brown and Harvard, arguing that their grievances against Harvard are more far-reaching, including assertions that the school has yet to do enough to ensure the safety of Jewish students and their claim that the school is flouting the Supreme Court's ruling on race-conscious admissions. 'If Harvard wants the Brown deal, then it has to be like Brown, and I just think it's not,' Ms May Mailman, the top White House official under Mr Stephen Miller who has served as the architect of the administration's crusade against top schools, said in an interview in the West Wing last week. Ms Mailman, who graduated from Harvard Law School, pointed out that Brown, unlike Harvard, did not sue the administration. She challenged Harvard to reach an agreement that included terms that would allow the government to more closely scrutinise its behaviour. 'If Harvard feels really good about what it's already doing, then great,' she said. 'Let's sign this deal tomorrow.' Harvard said on Aug 4 that it had no comment. But the White House's recent record of deal-making threatens to complicate the settlement talks, according to the people familiar with the talks. University officials were sensitive to the possibility that a deal with the government – after Harvard spent months waging a public fight against Mr Trump – would be seen as surrendering to the president and offering him a political gift. The terms of the Brown agreement, though, added new complexity to Harvard's internal debates about the size of a potential financial settlement. For many people close to those discussions, spending US$500 million is less of a concern than what forking that money over would signal on the Cambridge, Massachusetts, campus and beyond. For those close to the discussions, Mr Trump's demand is far too large and they argue that acquiescing to it would be seen as the university scrambling to buy its way out of Mr Trump's ire. They contend that Harvard has taken far more aggressive steps than Columbia University – which agreed to a US$200 million fine in July – to combat antisemitism. They also note that Harvard, unlike Brown, did not publicly agree to consider divesting from Israel as a condition of ending campus protests lin 2024. (Brown's board ultimately voted not to divest.) Others at Harvard regard Mr Trump's proposal as a bargain for the school to get back billions of dollars in funding that make much of its society-shaping research possible. Before the Brown deal, Harvard leaders and the school's team were studying settlement structures that could insulate the nation's oldest and wealthiest university from accusations that it caved to Mr Trump. In their stop-and-start talks with the White House, they are expected to maintain their insistence on steps to shield the university's academic freedom. To that end, they are also likely to remain equally resistant to a monitoring arrangement that some fear would invite intrusions and stifle the school's autonomy. But Harvard has been exploring a structure in which any money the university agrees to spend will go to vocational and workforce training programs instead of the federal government, Mr Trump, his presidential library or allies, according to the three people briefed on the matter. Harvard officials believe that such an arrangement would allow them to argue to their students, faculty, alumni and others in academia that the funds would not be used to fill Mr Trump's coffers. Harvard's consideration of putting money toward workforce programmes aligns with some of what Mr Trump has espoused. In a social media post in May, the president talked up the prospect of taking US$3 billion from Harvard and 'giving it to TRADE SCHOOLS all across our land. What a great investment that would be for the USA, and so badly needed!!!' But no matter the structure, White House officials have made clear that an extraordinary sum will be required to reach a settlement. Last week, after the Times reported the US$500 million figure, a journalist asked Mr Trump whether that amount would be enough to reach a deal. 'Well, it's a lot of money,' he replied. 'We're negotiating with Harvard.' Although Brown and Harvard are among the nation's richest and most prominent universities, the schools have significant differences, especially around their finances. The Trump administration has repeatedly castigated Harvard for its US$53 billion endowment, which is loaded with restrictions that limit how it may be used, but it has made far less fuss about Brown's similarly tied-up US$7 billion fund. Harvard also has much more federal research money at stake. The Trump administration has warned that it could ultimately strip US$9 billion in funding for Harvard; it threatened US$510 million in funding for Brown. One reason the Brown deal has so miffed Harvard officials is that some terms look much like those they expected for themselves. The government agreed, for instance, that it could not use the deal 'to dictate Brown's curriculum or the content of academic speech.' Brown avoided a monitoring arrangement, and the university won the right to direct its US$50 million settlement payment toward workforce programmes of its choosing. But Harvard has a more antagonistic relationship with the Trump administration, as the university has sued the administration to stop its retribution campaign against the school. That dynamic has fuelled worries at Harvard that the White House is seeking a far higher financial penalty as a punishment for fighting, not because the school's troubles alone warrant US$500 million. After Harvard refused a list of Trump administration demands in April, the university sued. In July, a federal judge in Boston appeared skeptical of the government's tactics when it blocked billions in research funding from Harvard. Before and after the July 21 hearing, the administration pursued a wide-ranging campaign against the university. In addition to its attack on Harvard's research money, the government has opened investigations, sought to block the school from enrolling international students, demanded thousands of documents and tried to challenge the university's accreditation, which is essential for students to be eligible for federal student aid programmes, such as Pell Grants. Last week, the Department of Health and Human Services told Harvard that it had referred the university to the Justice Department 'to initiate appropriate proceedings to address Harvard's antisemitic discrimination.' 'Rather than voluntarily comply with its obligations under Title VI, Harvard has chosen scorched-earth litigation against the federal government,' Ms Paula Stannard, the director of the health department's Office for Civil Rights, wrote on July 31, referring to the section of federal civil rights law that bars discrimination on the basis of race, colour or national origin. 'The parties' several months' engagement has been fruitless.' As Harvard President Alan Garber and other university leaders face the White House's fury, they are also confronting campus-level misgivings about a potential deal with a president many at the school see as bent on authoritarianism. At best, many at Harvard view him as duplicitous and believe it would be risky for the university to enter a long-term arrangement. 'I think even the simplest deals with untrustworthy people can be challenging,' said Professor Oliver Hart, an economics professor at Harvard who won a Nobel Prize for his work on contract theory. 'But a continuing relationship is much, much worse, much harder.' Prof Hart warned that, no matter the written terms of a settlement, the federal government would retain enormous power with effectively limitless financial resources to take on Harvard. Ms Mailman, who recently left the full-time White House staff but remains involved in the administration's higher-education strategy, all but dared Harvard to stay defiant. 'I think there's still a deal to be had, but from our perspective, at the end of the day, Harvard has a US$53 billion endowment,' she said. 'They don't need federal funds. And even if they win a lawsuit, great. But what happens next year? What happens the year after?' NYTIMES
