Standing up for principles
I was scheduled to give a seminar at Columbia in late April. I was also supposed to give a virtual keynote next week at a Columbia PhD student seminar. After Columbia decided to give in to the administration’s blackmail over the weekend, I decided to cancel both engagements. Below is the letter I sent to the person who invited me this morning.
I hope you are doing okay in these challenging times. This is not an easy email to write, but I have decided to cancel my seminar at Columbia because of its decision to acquiesce to the administration’s demands rather than defend its First Amendment rights and the rule of law. I believe that universities should stand firm against political interference, and I am very disappointed that Columbia did not do so. To be clear, my decision has nothing to do with my views on the supposed reason the administration went after Columbia. Nor is this about my opinion of the changes Columbia has promised to implement in response to the threat. I do not think Columbia did enough to protect its Jewish students from antisemitism during the protests and, in general, did not handle the situation well. At the same time, the administration’s actions are clearly not about fighting antisemitism but about exerting political control over universities. The situation sets a dangerous precedent that goes beyond Columbia and threatens academic freedom more broadly. I understand that Columbia is a victim here, but I also believe that institutions have a responsibility to resist when fundamental principles are at stake. And if Columbia won’t do it, which institution will? Based on my knowledge of other authoritarian societies-Russia in particular-if universities and academics do not stand up for themselves now, it will become even harder to do so in the future. It is precisely in these moments that a strong response is most necessary. This is not a decision I take lightly, and I am sorry that I will not be able to engage with the students and faculty at Columbia as planned. However, under the current circumstances, I feel that my participation would send the wrong signal. It would also be hypocritical of me to come given that I have recently encouraged others to use their power where they can to stand up against attempts at authoritarianism.
This was not an easy choice to make, and I thought hard about it over the weekend. Two people whose opinion I respect argued that the changes Columbia has agreed to implement were mostly for the better and that therefore this is not a “hill to die on.” Ultimately, their arguments actually increased my resolve to take a stand because this is exactly what authoritarians want you to do: ignore their blatant violation of the law and focus on the merits of what is being done. Suspending civil liberties to “fight terrorism” is a classic example. But rule of law is essential for democracies. We can’t afford to wait until the thing being done lawlessly is something we don’t like to take a stand.
Today, I encourage you to read Twenty Lessons on Fighting Tyranny and keep looking for ways that you can make a difference and protect our most important institutions and the rule of law. And if you’re wondering whether Columbia would have a strong case in court, the answer seems to be a clear “ yes “.
P.S. In my email to the PhD student workshop organizer, I did offer to have unofficial Zoom meetings with Columbia PhD students who wanted to talk research, but not during the workshop.
Originally published at https://mytwocentsandcounting.substack.com.
