Columbia's $200M deal with Trump administration sets a precedent for other universities to bend to the government's will
The Trump administration has cited antisemitism against students and faculty on campuses to justify its broad incursion into the business of universities around the country. Antisemitism is a real and legitimate concern in US society and higher education, including at Columbia.
But the federal complaint the administration made against Columbia was not actually about antisemitism. The administration made a formal accusation of antisemitism at Columbia in May of this year but suspended grants to the university in March. The federal government had initially acknowledged that cutting federal research grants did nothing to address the climate for Jewish students on campus, for example.
When the federal government investigates civil rights violations, it usually conducts site visits and does very thorough investigations. We never saw such a government report about antisemitism at Columbia or other universities. The settlement that Columbia has entered into with the administration also doesn't do much about antisemitism.
The agreement includes Columbia redefining antisemitism with a broader definition that is also used by the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance. The definition now includes 'a certain perception of Jews, which may be expressed as hatred toward Jews' – a description that is also used by the US State Department and several European governments but some critics say conflates antisemitism with anti-Zionism.
Instead, the agreement primarily has to do with faculty hiring and admissions decisions. The federal government alleges that Columbia is discriminating against white and Asian applicants, and that this will allow the government to ensure that everybody who is admitted is considered only on the basis of merit.
The administration could argue that changing hiring practices to get faculty who are less hostile to Jewish students could change the campus climate, but the agreement doesn't really identify ways in which the university contributed to or ignored antisemitic conduct.
Is this a new issue?
There has been a long-running issue that conservatives and members of the Trump administration – dating back to his first term – have with higher education. The Trump administration and other conservatives have said for years that higher education is too liberal.
The protests were the flash point that put Columbia in the administration's crosshairs, as well as claims that Columbia was creating a hostile environment for Jewish students.
The administration's complaints aren't limited to Columbia.
Harvard is in a protracted conflict with the administration, and the administration has launched investigations into dozens of other schools around the country. These universities are butting heads with the administration over the same grievance that higher education is too liberal.
There are also specific claims about antisemitism on university campuses and the privileges given to nonwhite students in admissions or campus life.
While the administration has a common set of complaints about a range of universities, there is a mix of schools that the administration is taking issue with. Some of them, such as Harvard, are very high profile.
The Department of Justice forced out the president at the University of Virginia in January 2025 on the grounds that he had not done enough to root out diversity, equity and inclusion programs at the public university. The University of Virginia may have been a target for the administration because a Republican governor appointed most members of its governance board and agreed with Trump's complaints.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
The chatbot culture wars are here
For much of the past decade, America's partisan culture warriors have fought over the contested territory of social media — arguing about whether the rules on Facebook and Twitter were too strict or too lenient, whether YouTube and TikTok censored too much or too little and whether Silicon Valley tech companies were systematically silencing right-wing voices. Those battles aren't over. But a new one has already started. This fight is over artificial intelligence, and whether the outputs of leading AI chatbots such as ChatGPT, Claude and Gemini are politically biased. Conservatives have been taking aim at AI companies for months. In March, House Republicans subpoenaed a group of leading AI developers, probing them for information about whether they colluded with the Biden administration to suppress right-wing speech. And this month, Missouri's Republican attorney general, Andrew Bailey, opened an investigation into whether Google, Meta, Microsoft and OpenAI are leading a 'new wave of censorship' by training their AI systems to give biased responses to questions about President Donald Trump. On Wednesday, Trump himself joined the fray, issuing an executive order on what he called 'woke AI.' 'Once and for all, we are getting rid of woke,' he said in a speech. 'The American people do not want woke Marxist lunacy in the AI models, and neither do other countries.' The order was announced alongside a new White House AI action plan that will require AI developers that receive federal contracts to ensure that their models' outputs are 'objective and free from top-down ideological bias.' Republicans have been complaining about AI bias since at least early last year, when a version of Google's Gemini AI system generated historically inaccurate images of the American Founding Fathers, depicting them as racially diverse. That incident drew the fury of online conservatives, and led to accusations that leading AI companies were training their models to parrot liberal ideology. Since then, top Republicans have mounted pressure campaigns to try to force AI companies to disclose more information about how their systems are built, and tweak their chatbots' outputs to reflect a broader set of political views. Now, with the White House's executive order, Trump and his allies are using the threat of taking away lucrative federal contracts — OpenAI, Anthropic, Google and xAI were recently awarded Defense Department contracts worth as much as $200 million — to try to force AI companies to address their concerns. The order directs federal agencies to limit their use of AI systems to those that put a priority on 'truth-seeking' and 'ideological neutrality' over disfavored concepts such as diversity, equity and inclusion. It also directs the Office of Management and Budget to issue guidance to agencies about which systems meet those criteria. If this playbook sounds familiar, it's because it mirrors the way Republicans have gone after social media companies for years — using legal threats, hostile congressional hearings and cherry-picked examples to pressure companies into changing their policies, or removing content they don't like. Critics of this strategy call it 'jawboning,' and it was the subject of a high-profile Supreme Court case last year. In that case, Murthy v. Missouri, it was Democrats who were accused of pressuring social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter to take down posts on topics such as the coronavirus vaccine and election fraud, and Republicans challenging their tactics as unconstitutional. (In a 6-3 decision, the court rejected the challenge, saying the plaintiffs lacked standing.) Now, the parties have switched sides. Republican officials, including several Trump administration officials I spoke to who were involved in the executive order, are arguing that pressuring AI companies through the federal procurement process is necessary to stop AI developers from putting their thumbs on the scale. Is that hypocritical? Sure. But recent history suggests that working the refs this way can be effective. Meta ended its long-standing fact-checking program this year, and YouTube changed its policies in 2023 to allow more election denial content. Critics of both changes viewed them as capitulation to right-wing critics. This time around, the critics cite examples of AI chatbots that seemingly refuse to praise Trump, even when prompted to do so, or Chinese-made chatbots that refuse to answer questions about the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. They believe developers are deliberately baking a left-wing worldview into their models, one that will be dangerously amplified as AI is integrated into fields such as education and health care. There are a few problems with this argument, according to legal and tech policy experts I spoke to. The first, and most glaring, is that pressuring AI companies to change their chatbots' outputs may violate the First Amendment. In recent cases like Moody v. NetChoice, the Supreme Court has upheld the rights of social media companies to enforce their own content moderation policies. And courts may reject the Trump administration's argument that it is trying to enforce a neutral standard for government contractors, rather than interfering with protected speech. 'What it seems like they're doing is saying, 'If you're producing outputs we don't like, that we call biased, we're not going to give you federal funding that you would otherwise receive,'' Genevieve Lakier, a law professor at the University of Chicago, said. 'That seems like an unconstitutional act of jawboning.' There is also the problem of defining what, exactly, a 'neutral' or 'unbiased' AI system is. Today's AI chatbots are complex, probability-based systems that are trained to make predictions, not give hard-coded answers. Two ChatGPT users may see wildly different responses to the same prompts, depending on variables like their chat histories and which versions of the model they're using. And testing an AI system for bias isn't as simple as feeding it a list of questions about politics and seeing how it responds. Samir Jain, a vice president of policy at the Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit civil liberties group, said the Trump administration's executive order would set 'a really vague standard that's going to be impossible for providers to meet.' There is also a technical problem with telling AI systems how to behave. Namely, they don't always listen. Just ask Elon Musk. For years, Musk has been trying to create an AI chatbot, Grok, that embodies his vision of a rebellious, 'anti-woke' truth seeker. But Grok's behavior has been erratic and unpredictable. At times, it adopts an edgy, far-right personality, or spouts antisemitic language in response to user prompts. (For a brief period last week, it referred to itself as 'Mecha-Hitler.') At other times, it acts like a liberal — telling users, for example, that human-made climate change is real, or that the right is responsible for more political violence than the left. Recently, Musk has lamented that AI systems have a liberal bias that is 'tough to remove, because there is so much woke content on the internet.' Nathan Lambert, a research scientist at the Allen Institute for AI, told me that 'controlling the many subtle answers that an AI will give when pressed is a leading-edge technical problem, often governed in practice by messy interactions made between a few earlier decisions.' It's not, in other words, as straightforward as telling an AI chatbot to be less woke. And while there are relatively simple tweaks that developers could make to their chatbots — such as changing the 'model spec,' a set of instructions given to AI models about how they should act — there's no guarantee that these changes will consistently produce the behavior conservatives want. But asking whether the Trump administration's new rules can survive legal challenges, or whether AI developers can actually build chatbots that comply with them, may be beside the point. These campaigns are designed to intimidate. And faced with the potential loss of lucrative government contracts, AI companies, like their social media predecessors, may find it easier to give in than to fight. 'Even if the executive order violates the First Amendment, it may very well be the case that no one challenges it,' Lakier said. 'I'm surprised by how easily these powerful companies have folded.'
Indian Express
25 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Who is eligible for US visa interview waiver? Key changes, additional criteria — all you need to know
The US Department of State has unveiled significant changes to its visa interview waiver policy, effective September 2. This would include all non-immigrant visa applicants, including those under the age of 14 and over 79 years, to attend an in-person interview with a consular officer. The non-immigrant visa categories include tourist and business visas (B-1/B-2), student visas (F and M), work visas (H-1B), and exchange visas (J). Diplomatic visas fall under categories A and G. The latest update on July 25, which aims to enhance security, has raised concerns among H-1B visa holders and other nonimmigrant visa categories about increased waiting time and processing delays. All nonimmigrant visa applicants, including applicants under the age of 14 and over the age of 79, will generally require an in-person interview with a consular officer, except for the following categories: To qualify for an interview waiver, applicants must: The US Citizenship and Immigration Services emphasised that even with potential interview waivers, consular officers retained the discretion to interview the applicant on a case-by-case basis for any reason. This supersedes the Interview Waiver Update of February 18, 2025. 'Consular officers may still require in-person interviews on a case-by-case basis for any reason. Applicants should check embassy and consulate websites for more detailed information about visa application requirements and procedures, and to learn more about the embassy or consulate's operating status and services,' the US Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) said in its release. Earlier this month, the US also introduced a new $250 Visa Integrity Fee, which takes effect in 2026. Designed as a form of security deposit, the fee is pegged to inflation and may be refunded if visa holders meet specific compliance criteria. This is part of Trump's sweeping immigration overhaul, under the recently signed One Big Beautiful Bill Act, enacted on July 4.
India Today
36 minutes ago
- India Today
Fiery Op Sindoor debate in Parliament today, Shashi Tharoor unlikely to speak
After a week of disruptions, Parliament will begin debate on the Pahalgam attack and Operation Sindoor on Monday during the Monsoon Session. A key point of interest is whether Congress MP Shashi Tharoor will be allowed to speak. Tharoor led a delegation to the United States and other to Congress sources, Shashi Tharoor is unlikely to speak during the debate. 'Shashi Tharoor unlikely to speak on Operation Sindoor. The MPs, who want to speak on certain issues, have to send their requests to the CPP office, however, Shashi Tharoor hasn't done so far,' Congress sources if Shashi Tharoor skips the debate, it could raise questions, as the Thiruvananthapuram MP has had tensions with his party since leading a government-formed delegation abroad on the India-Pakistan conflict, against the Congress line. Tharoor's public support for the government's stand and the pause in hostilities had led to repeated exchanges with party colleagues critical of the ruling BJP-led NDA and opposition parties are set to field their top leaders for the discussions in both the Lok Sabha and Rajya Minister Amit Shah, Defence Minister Rajnath Singh and External Affairs Minister S Jaishankar are expected to present the government's position on key issues. While there is no official confirmation yet, indications suggest that Prime Minister Narendra Modi may also step remains to be seen who will open the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor debate for the opposition if the chair invites anti-BJP parties to Rahul Gandhi is seen as a possible starter, he has previously allowed others, like his deputy Gaurav Gogoi during the 2023 no-confidence motion, to initiate the government and Opposition agreed to a 16-hour debate in both Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha on the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor on July 25. The discussion will focus on the government's response to the April 22 attack, which killed 26 leaders, including Rahul Gandhi, have criticised the government for alleged intelligence failures and questioned India's international support, especially in light of US President Donald Trump's claims of mediating between India and Pakistan, which the government has denied.- EndsTune InMust Watch IN THIS STORY#Parliament
