Trump DOE Attacks Columbia Accreditation
The administration's war on higher ed has escalated.

WSJ (“Trump Administration Attacks Columbia’s Accreditation“):
The Trump administration attacked Columbia University’s accreditation, arguing the school is in violation of federal antidiscrimination laws.
The Education Department told the organization through which Columbia is accredited that the school has violated civil rights law over its handling of campus antisemitism, and no longer appears to meet the standards for accreditation.
The move doesn’t revoke Columbia’s accreditation—without which the university would be virtually unable to operate—but is a significant escalation of the government’s battle with the school. The government urged the accreditor to work with the school to make sure it comes into compliance with federal law, and “take appropriate action” if Columbia fails to do so.
“After Hamas’ October 7, 2023, terror attack on Israel, Columbia University’s leadership acted with deliberate indifference towards the harassment of Jewish students on its campus,” said Education Secretary Linda McMahon. “This is not only immoral, but also unlawful.”
The Middle States Commission on Higher Education, which accredits Columbia, said it had received the letter but had no comment. Columbia said it is aware of the government’s concerns and has addressed them directly with the accreditor.
“Columbia is deeply committed to combatting antisemitism on our campus. We take this issue seriously and are continuing to work with the federal government to address it,” a spokesperson said.
[…]
In March, the Trump administration canceled $400 million in federal grants and contracts to the school over antisemitism concerns. The school agreed to an initial list of demands. The government is now pressing to put Columbia under a consent decree, a form of federal oversight that would place a judge in charge of ensuring that Columbia complies with government demands.
Last month, a government investigation found that Columbia had violated federal civil-rights law by ignoring the harassment of Jewish students by classmates. The investigation found that the university didn’t investigate or punish vandalism including the repeated drawing of swastikas; didn’t enforce rules for protests; and didn’t establish ways to combat antisemitism until last summer.
My initial position was that the allegations of antisemitism was, no pun intended, trumped up. However, the report links an August 2024 story in the paper headlined “Columbia Failed to Stop Hate, Violence Against Jews on Campus, New Report Says.” Key bits:
A task force of faculty members set up to address rising antisemitism on campus sharply criticized the school for failing to end widespread antagonism against its Jewish students. The group has offered a new definition of antisemitism, which includes celebrating violence against Jews or Israelis and discriminating against them based on their ties to Israel. If adopted, it could create new avenues to discipline pro-Palestinian protesters. It also recommends bias training to recognize and prevent antisemitism in the future.
[…]
The task force interviewed nearly 500 students across 20 meetings and found antisemitism against students pervasive on the campus grounds—in dormitories, clubs and classrooms—and on social media.
One student, who had placed a mezuza on her dorm room doorway in accordance with Jewish law, was targeted starting in October when people began banging on her door at night, demanding she explain Israel’s actions. She moved out of the dorm, the report said.
Jewish students walking on or near campus reported being followed, stripped of necklaces and pinned against walls. Some were forced out of nonpolitical social and athletic clubs when leaders signed a petition condemning Israel’s war in Gaza.
Ester Fuchs, a professor of international and public affairs and political science, co-chaired the task force and attended some of the listening sessions.
“The kids were frustrated, they were sad, they were angry and they were disappointed,” she said. “Not only did they have these experiences, but what it revealed was a lot of broken systems in the university.”
In the classroom, reports of threats, ridicule and exclusion prompted some Jewish students to avoid particular majors and teachers. At the School of Public Health, a faculty member called Jewish Columbia donors “wealthy white capitalists” who “laundered” money at the university, the report said.
One faculty member told an Israeli veteran she had served in an “army of murderers,” the report said. Another suggested Israeli military veterans shouldn’t be allowed to study on campus. Military service is mandatory for most Israelis.
In April, after pro-Palestinian supporters pitched an encampment on the campus, Jewish students reported the antagonism worsened.
Protesters shouted “October 7th is going to be every day for you,” in reference to the killing of about 1,200 people by Hamas militants on that day last fall.
“People that you sat in class with, you had drinks with, you had lunch and dinner with, the next day they say they hope your entire family dies,” one student told the task force. “If I can put it in one word, it is heartbreaking.”
Reports of this sort of thing happening all across the country, particularly at elite schools, were widespread. Some of the professorial remarks would, under ordinary circumstances, be protected under longstanding notions of academic freedom. But they also create a hostile environment. Beyond that, Jewish students of these professors could not possibly expect fair treatment.
I’m nonetheless skeptical that these incidents warrant stripping one of the most prestigious universities on the planet of its accreditation.A task force whose mission was to find evidence of antisemitism during a particularly high point of tension between Israel and the Palestinians on a campus of some 35,000 students was going to have no trouble finding it. (And, yes, I agree with their conclusion that attacking Jewish-American university students because of outrage over the policies of the government of Israel is antisemitic.) I haven’t and likely won’t read the full report from August, but I can’t imagine university leadership simply ignored these incidents.
Further, it’s rather clear that, while Columbia is the first being targeted, it won’t be the last:
Accreditation is a stamp of approval that empowers universities to participate in the federal student-loan system including accepting Pell Grants. Since most students borrow money through the federal government to attend university, losing accreditation is a catastrophic—and rare—blow to a school.
In April, Trump signed an executive order designed to shake up college accreditation, which Trump has called his “secret weapon” in his bid to remake higher education.
The order aimed to use the accrediting system to combat what Trump views as discriminatory practices and “ideological overreach” on college campuses, by putting a greater focus on intellectual diversity among faculty and student success.
While I absolutely share the goals of increasing intellectual diversity among the faculty and a more open and civil dialogue on campuses and elsewhere, this strikes me as a dangerous way of going about it. As I always remind champions of a super-empowered executive, we’ll eventually have an administration in power whose views you abhor. They, too, will have that power.
This should be a signal that compromising with this administration has no upside.
It’s neither anti-semitic nor anti-First Amendment to be incivil towards supporters of Israel. This whole thing is a whine fest aimed at middle Americans who think that incivility (against them) is anti free speech. None of these people are Jewish or are desired at elite universities. Columbia’s trustees are morons who should have seen this coming a mile away.
How does the DOE control the accreditation requirements of HLC or SAC or whatever external body is accrediting Columbia? These are private organizations, not under the DOE.
@Blue Galangal:
The DOE sets the overall broad requirements and approves the approvers.
James: “As I always remind champions of a super-empowered executive, we’ll eventually have an administration in power whose views you abhor. They, too, will have that power.”
Please note that the Right does not act as if that will happen.
Also please note that SCOTUS went from ‘A President doesn’t have the power to waive student loans’ to ‘Insurrection? By a Republican? We’ll allow it.’.
@Modulo Myself: AND, does putting a mezusa over your dorm room door mean you support Israel’s policies?
Being Jewish is not the same as being a supporter of Israel’s Gaza policy. Not remotely.
This is a very, er, standard way for human beings to go off the rails with prejudice. They become hypervigilant for “the enemy” and anything remotely associated becomes a target. It is not a good thing. If we are to have the kind of country we aspire to have, we have to shut this sort of thing down. We have to be very specific in our targeting of bad actors. We have to engage our cognitive resources.
We have to, you know, think.
Of course, if you are the person saying, “hey, wait a minute, let’s think about this.” you can easily become The Enemy. Who must be purged.
Good lord, I don’t think I can count the times I have seen this play out.
We had a couple of students at the dojo whose father was Palestinian (their mother was Canadian). And I have several long-standing friends who are Jewish.
I like living in a country where this can happen. I don’t want to lose it. And yet everywhere we see racial incitement. It’s as if there are people out there who don’t want America to be that, and are working every day to undermine it.
@Barry: The right is playing a longer game. Eventually, they’ll “eliminate the competition,” as it were, and not have to worry about what opposition government might do. There won’t be any.
@Blue Galangal: DOE doesn’t control accreditation (outside of some edge cases like my institution, which is accredited by the J-7 for JPME and for SACS for civilian master’s degrees) but it monitors compliance with Titles 7 and 9 and has reporting authority.
@Modulo Myself: Making threats is not protected by the 1st Amendment.
@Jay Loren Gischer:
Except for Israel being unpopular, there’s not really much happening on college campuses. The idea that Jewish students are being targeted because they’re Jewish rather than pro-Israeli seems dubious to me in most cases. This report seems very one-sided and anecdotal, and filled with the stuff that appeals to a certain type of person who isn’t connected at all to college life. I find it hard to believe that most people complaining are not part of the problem.
If you all have is a student whose door was knocked on and a professor who said something mean about the IDF, what do you have? Pro-Palestinian supporters have been attacked on numerous college campuses (including Columbia). But unless you are here on a visa, how dangerous is it for a student?
@Modulo Myself: Well, at least some of my Jewish friends think it was real. It scared them. Quite a lot. And while they might be a little more vigilant than the rest of us, a little less inclined to shrug stuff off, that doesn’t come from nowhere. That reaction exists for a reason.
I think you share my vision of what America should be, right? I think if we (people who don’t have a dog in this fight) want that, we have to be particularly careful about this kind of situation.
Maybe the best we can do is to just try to protect everyone and let things calm down. Amplifying messages of anger and distrust is probably bad, and that appears to be a motivation for you.
AND, I think dismissing things like the horrible treatment of folks in Gaza AND the backlash against people who are really not involved in any way are a problem. Probably not going to be helpful.
All else aside, this sort of thing also makes it hard to actually combat antisemitism. I know that a) there IS antisemitism on my campus and b) no one objecting wants the university shut down over it. But now that seems an actual risk of drawing attention to the problem.
@James Joyner:
What threats? I hope your family dies amounts to saying: You are going to get you deserve. Is that unpleasant? Absolutely. But the First Amendment allows you to say that, however unpleasant. And in fact, people say it all the time.
@Jay Loren Gischer:
Look, mainstream American Jewish institutions have linked themselves directly to Israel. That’s a fact. Hillel doesn’t even allow Jewish students who are anti-Zionist. There’s a fantasy version of life in which Jewish Americans are both part and not part of Israel and Israel is both the country which is committing genocide and oppressing Palestinians and also a humane ideal. I get and respect where the fantasy is coming from if you’re over 50 or so. But you can’t be surprised when the fantasy has ended, and reality has set in. And you shouldn’t encourage the fantasy to continue.
I can think of nothing that would discredit the accreditation organization like decrediting one of the most acclaimed universities in the world.
@just nutha:That’s precisely what I meant.
I fear that we have arrived at that end game now.
@Barry: We arrived at end game for “the American Ideal” in 1877. We were just slow on the uptake because only KKKlangs and po’ white trash were being affected. And the po’ white trash had curtain rods to cook on and packing cases to live in, so they wuz fine.
@Gustopher:
Trump’s mission is to eliminate the world part. Everything revolves around the dullest portion of America, and you can’t leave it up to some Palestinian at Columbia to control their wrath about Israel and its American ally killing of half their family. Keep everyone out except like anti-semitic and racist South Africans, or at least the ones who swear anti-Musk loyalty oaths.