Columbia and Harvard Students Respond to Recent University Settlements

Three weeks ago, Columbia University announced a $221 million settlement with the Trump administration to resolve alleged violations of anti-discrimination laws and restore research funding. The deal followed months of tension between the federal government and higher education institutions—and may suggest that peer institutions are reaching similar agreements. With the fall semester approaching, post-secondary education students now grapple with uncertainty, especially with regard to academic autonomy.

The Settlement

Columbia has been a political flashpoint since the spring 2024 student protests in response to the Israel-Hamas war made national headlines. Members of the Republican Party have scrutinized the school’s behavior in the year since, criticizing Columbia’s decision to allow pro-Palestinian activists to return to campus for the 2024-2025 school year and threatening to subpoena the University if it did not comply with federal antisemitism investigations. Dissatisfaction with Columbia’s response, alongside allegations of continued discrimination against Jewish students, intensified White House oversight of higher education after Trump took office. 

On March 4, President Trump declared on Truth Social that “Federal Funding will STOP for any College, School, or University that allows illegal protests. Agitators will be imprisoned/or permanently sent back to the country from which they came. American students will be permanently expelled or, depending on the crime, arrested.” Four days later, Immigration and Customs Enforcement arrested and detained Columbia graduate student and protest negotiator Mahmoud Khalil. 

On March 7, the administration withdrew $400 million in federal grants from Columbia. By May 7, the University announced the layoffs of 180 researchers, citing fiscal instability. And on June 18, the National Institute of Health froze all grants to the University—cuts that totaled more than $1.2 billion.

Struggling to uphold institutional integrity with such strong financial blows, Columbia settled with the Trump administration on July 23. The University pledged to pay $200 million to the federal government over three years and an additional $21 million to resolve a March investigation by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission following claims of religion-based workplace harassment. Per year, these payments total around 0.01% of the University’s total operating expenses, based on figures from fiscal year 2024.

As part of the agreement, most of the $400 million initially rescinded will be restored, the NIH grants will slowly be reimbursed, and the University will regain eligibility for future federal funding. “The resolution will allow the University to move forward with clarity and focus—returning our full attention to the work of teaching, discovery, and public service,” Acting President Claire Shipman wrote in a community-wide message.

Administrators emphasize that they “carefully explored all options” before agreeing to the deal. However, while sentiment from University leadership remains largely optimistic—at least to the public eye—student sentiment wavers, spurred by months of uncertainty.

“I was disappointed but was not surprised, to say the least,” said Huang, a student at Columbia’s Teachers College who declined to share his first name in an interview with the Harvard Independent. “It felt like a weight off my mind, for something that I expected to happen finally happened.”

Columbia has received its fair share of criticism from the student body over the past year—in contrast to Harvard University’s persistent resistance to the federal government, some view Columbia as a symbol of consistent capitulation. At the University’s May 2025 commencement, students booed Shipman, chanting “Free Mahmoud” in reference to Khalil’s detainment and in protest of the administration’s handling of federal pressure. 

“On one hand, I was relieved to see that the amount was less than what many feared. But at the same time, I felt uneasy because it felt like the University was still conceding, still participating in something that, at its core, didn’t feel just,” said Columbia undergraduate Rose Tuttle in an interview with the Independent. 

Hoping to help the University community heal after a year of upheaval, Columbia framed the settlement as one that “preserves Columbia’s autonomy and authority over faculty hiring, admissions, and academic decision-making.” To the University, the next best step was to work with the Trump administration rather than against. Students disagreed.

“While Columbia has attempted to preserve certain forms of independence, such as continuing to fund research and support student initiatives, the very act of agreeing to a financial settlement undermines that claim,” Tuttle said. “It sends a message that academic institutions are subject to political coercion.”

Culturally Divisive Sentiment

Antisemitism has been central to federal investigations into higher education since Trump took office in January 2025. For instance, officials cited discrimination against Jewish students when withdrawing $2.2 billion in multi-year research grants from Harvard on April 14.

“As a Jewish student on campus, I know that campus antisemitism has sometimes been used as justification for saying, ‘Oh, this is why we need to crack down on student speech.’ But I firmly believe that having free expression protects everyone, including Jewish students,” Harvard College student Tova Kaplan ’26 said in an interview with the Independent.

On July 15, Columbia announced to the University community that they would be incorporating the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance definition of antisemitism into the inner workings of their Office of Institutional Equity. This decision was a product of recommendations from the school’s Antisemitism Task Force of August 2024.

“Protecting Jewish students is important, but explicitly using a definition that so closely blurs the line between political criticism of Israel and antisemitism isn’t about protecting students, it’s just the latest of Columbia’s methods to justify its crackdown on political speech,” Columbia College student Gaia Di Mitri told the Independent.

In Shipman’s July message regarding the settlement, Columbia denied violating Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—a central accusation behind the initial federal fiscal retaliation. The settlement nonetheless includes measures to prevent any future instances of antisemitism, such as appointing a liaison to the Jewish community. Shipman framed these steps as safeguards against the “loss of future federal funding, the possibility of losing accreditation, and the potential revocation of visa status of thousands of international students.”

“The investigations into incidents of antisemitism on campus in the settlement are vaguely defined, if defined at all, and the limits to which these investigations can reach should be more clearly delineated,” Huang said. “The settlement should have had a clause about banning plain-clothed federal agents’ presence on campus unless an appropriate warrant is shown.”

Concerns over concealed federal presence on campus have intensified. On March 14, the Trump administration sent Columbia a list of demands, to which the University complied on March 21. Part of the agreement involved hiring new public safety officers with arrest powers. The settlement also requires a review of Columbia’s global programs, beginning with those in the Middle East.

International students were particularly vulnerable across peer institutions. On April 16, the federal government threatened to revoke Harvard’s certification to host foreign enrollees, spurring student protests and concerns of on-campus ICE presence. 

“I think Harvard has an obligation to protect the privacy of Harvard students,” Kaplan said.

“Because the federal government can now learn about any international students’ disciplinary records upon request, we’re going to see more disappeared or deported students held in detention facilities, something that the Trump administration has already tried several times with multiple [Columbia] students,” Di Mitri said.

As of August 19, the Trump Administration has rescinded more than 6,000 student visas. And these actions affect more than just foreign affiliates. 

“[The settlement] should ring warning bells to all students—not just international students or non-citizen students—that American universities are far more easily swayed by political demands than people would like to imagine, and the constitutional right to freedom of speech can be easily curtailed, even violated, if the federal government really means to ban certain speech,” Huang said.

Columbia’s Future

While the settlement closes current investigations, it nonetheless allows the Trump administration to continue monitoring Columbia and revoke funding if violations occur.

“We have agreed on a robust dispute resolution process that includes a mutually agreed upon independent monitor and arbitrator,” Shipman wrote. “The process requires that the government go through a very specific, prescribed set of steps if it believes we are not meeting the terms of the agreement.”

The question of government oversight in education now looms large. “The vagueness in the settlement, especially around the ‘conditions’ tied to the funding or accountability mechanisms, leaves too much room for interpretation and future pressure,” Tuttle said. “There should have been…clearer language around what exactly Columbia was agreeing to in terms of policy changes.”

Among the enacted “policy changes,” the act of protesting at Columbia will operate under much stricter constraints. The settlement delineates that any demonstrations in academic buildings will not be permitted, and all student participants must present University identification upon request. Any student group involved may violate anti-discriminatory conduct mandates. Moreover, within 30 days of the settlement’s implementation, Columbia must establish noncompliance reporting capabilities that offer full protection to any whistleblowers. 

The resolution also gives the U.S. Assistant Attorney General permission to conduct “reasonable” audits, reviews, and investigations pursuant to Title VI policies—with oversight by a new “Resolution Monitor.” Similar mandates have been suggested across peer institutions despite resistance.

“We don’t want a DOGE-like intrusion into what professors can teach, what students can say, what research gets published, or who gets admitted to Harvard,” Kaplan said. “I think universities should be able to say things and research things that the federal government disagrees with. And that’s not a partisan thing…I just think that’s a foundational thing that has allowed America to thrive.”

Columbia’s settlement ends with an affirmation of enforcement—all involved parties agree to defend the agreement should the terms be threatened in any way.

Peer Institutions

After reading the document, fears of eroded academic freedom extend beyond Columbia. Though Shipman affirms Columbia’s institutional autonomy despite the settlement, students worry about ripple effects.

“Columbia often sets the tone for higher education more broadly,” Tuttle said. “By complying with a settlement that many view as politically motivated and lacking transparent justification, it risks normalizing government overreach into academic spaces.”

Brown University followed with its own agreement with the federal government a week later, paying $50 million to Rhode Island workforce programs rather than Washington. The settlement similarly imposed new regulations on students, curriculum, and faculty capabilities. Most notably, the agreement forces Brown to accept federally-outlined definitions for “male” and “female” and limits the Warren Alpert Medical School of Brown University from performing gender reassignment surgeries on minors or prescribing such individuals cross-sex hormones.

Harvard, too, shows signs of yielding. As of July 29, Harvard said it will comply with demands from the Trump administration and submit employment information on thousands of University affiliates. On August 4, University President Alan Garber ’76 denied speculation that a deal with the federal government may be imminent. Instead, he claimed that the institution is hoping to resolve disagreements with the Trump administration through the court system. 

However, as of August 13, reports suggest that the University is nearing a $500 million settlement with the Trump administration—one which may permit prolonged, rigorous federal oversight and scrutiny.

“We’ve seen that a lot of what the Trump administration has attempted to do to Harvard is unlawful, and when Harvard has chosen to fight that in court, we have won,” Kaplan said. “And I know it’s a scary time right now, and I sympathize with the difficult decisions that the University has to make, but I think we can’t get scared and give in to demands that are unlawful.”

Similar to Columbia students, Harvard affiliates worry about the possible precedent the University may set if they chose to capitulate to the federal government.

“If Harvard can’t resist these sort of attacks, then frankly, there’s no other institution in America that can, and that sets a really dark and dangerous precedent,” Jordan Schwartz ’27 said in an interview with the Independent.

The Fall 2025 semester begins after Labor Day weekend for Harvard and many of its peer institutions. Until then, students are waiting to see what these decisions mean for their upcoming year of classes, extracurriculars, and campus community.

Kaplan asserted that Harvard should not yield to outside pressures. “I think it’s incredibly important that Harvard, as President Garber said, refuses to surrender its independence and continues to take up that mantle of leadership at a time where it’s very needed.”

“It’s impossible to predict what a given semester at Harvard will hold, especially with everything going on,” Schwartz said. “So much more has happened just over the summer since the spring, but I foresee that this is far from over, no matter what happens with the settlement.”

Sara Kumar ’27 (sjkumar@college.harvard.edu) and Caroline Stohrer ’28 (carolinestohrer@college.harvard.edu) write News for the Independent.