Columbia Expulsion Crisis

Kelby Chichester

Columbia University has faced intense criticism after making a series of major concessions to the Trump administration following threats to cut its federal funding. In response to a letter from the administration outlining nine demands the university announced disciplinary actions against students involved in last year’s Hamilton Hall protest. 

On March 13, the university confirmed that 22 students would face expulsion, suspension or degree revocation due to their participation in the pro-Palestinian protest.

These decisions were made by the University Judicial Board (UJB) which has been handling disciplinary cases related to student activism. However, one of the administration’s demands is to dissolve the UJB and transfer all disciplinary authority directly to the university president, a move critics say would eliminate due process and further politicize student discipline.  

The Columbia Palestine Solidarity Coalition accused Board of Trustees co-chair David Greenwald, a former Goldman Sachs executive, of personally interfering in student disciplinary cases, raising concerns about external influence on university governance.  

The crackdown on student activism escalated further when federal authorities detained student protest leader Mahmoud Khalil. The Department of Homeland Security returned to Columbia’s campus to execute search warrants, while Trump declared Khalil’s arrest “the first of many to come,” equating pro-Palestinian student activists with supporters of Hamas. Khalil’s lawyers argue that his arrest is a blatant violation of free speech and an attempt to suppress student activism.  

In addition to the disciplinary actions, Columbia has agreed to a number of controversial policy changes. The university will now ban students from wearing masks at protests, hire 36 new security officers with arrest powers and establish a senior administrative position to oversee the Department of Middle East. This will also include South Asian and African Studies.

These measures align with the Trump administration’s push for what it calls “greater institutional neutrality” though faculty members warn they could limit academic freedom and student expression.  

Columbia’s interim president Katrina Armstrong defended the university’s decision by stating compliance with the administration’s demands was necessary to “ensure uninterrupted academic activities.” However, many faculty members and students see the move as an unacceptable surrender to political pressure.  

In a strongly worded statement 41 members of Columbia’s history department compared the administration’s actions to those of authoritarian regimes, warning that external government control over academic institutions threatens intellectual freedom.  

The university’s concessions come after the Trump administration stripped Columbia of $400 million in federal funding earlier this month. With negotiations now underway to restore those funds, critics argue that the university is compromising its values and independence under political and financial pressure.  

As Columbia faces backlash from faculty, students, and civil rights advocates, the broader implications of these events raise pressing questions about free speech, academic freedom and the increasing involvement of federal authorities in university governance.