Columbia University Caving to Illegal Demands

WASHINGTON - March 20, 2025 - PRLog -- Columbia University reportedly will yield to onerous changes the Trump administration has demanded as preconditions for opening discussions to possibly restore some $400 million in federal grants already cut off, and more than a billion dollars in future cutoffs.

Putting aside many arguments that the funds cutoff at Columbia are unfair, unprecedented, infringe academic freedom, imperil higher education, and may be unconstitutional, the demand letter has serious legal defects, argues public interest law professor John Banzhaf.

Professor Banzhaf nevertheless warns that the legal defects are no guarantee that courts will restore the funds

Here are some of the clear legal defects.

The applicable statute, Title VI [42 U.S. Code § 2000d] requires that there first be "an express finding on the record, after opportunity for hearing," of any alleged failure to comply with the statute.  This appears not to have been done.

The statute also requires that "a full written report" must be submitted to House and Senate committees at least 30 days before the cutoff become effective.  This also has not been done.

Furthermore, before any cutoff can occur, it must have been "determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means."  No such determination was made.

These requirements, although procedural in nature, are nevertheless very important, because they do not allow for any discretion or "shades of grey."  Agencies have a great deal of discretion in determining whether the substantive standard for a termination of funds has been met, and judges may be reluctant to second guess such discretionary judgments.

However, whether or not there has been an express finding on the record, whether there has been an opportunity for a hearing, if there exists a full written report, whether of not that report has been submitted as required, and whether compliance might be secured by voluntary means, are not matters of discretion or judgment left to agencies.

Thus they can be determined by a court without the need to second guess the judgment of an agency.

But given that many of this new administration's actions seem to be taken without compliance with applicable legal standards, and its ability to stall and require Columbia to wage a long, expensive, and perhaps ultimately futile battle, caving it to these onerous demands may be a wise course, he says.

Indeed, when the potential losses are very high even when highly unlikely, compliance may be the wisest option.

As an example, Prof Banzhaf notes that when he organized a challenge to the broadcast license of a major TV station on untested if not dubious grounds, the station yielded to his demands in days; apparently determining that making concessions was better than taking even a minuscule risk of a catastrophic loss.

http://banzhaf.net/   jbanzhaf3ATgmail.com   @profbanzhaf