They're More Than Just Hoops or They're Nothing at All

David Bernstein writes of the administration's apparent decision to cancel $400 million in federal grants to Columbia University, "I don't know whether this is lawful, or whether federal law requires hoops to be jumped through before such sanctions can be levied," but does not think arguments about the government's actions are usefully conducted by minimizing or denying any problem with antisemitism on that campus. That sounds right to me. But I am very concerned about those "hoops!" David does not say otherwise, to be sure. (Indeed, this post has less to do with any agreement or disagreement with him, and more to do with the fact that his post encouraged me to write out my own thoughts.) I just think it deserves much more emphasis. 

The current regime, unfortunately, seems to mistake loudness, terminal-online-ness, and never-shutting-up-ness for actual transparency. In the case of these cancellations, it has at least provided a press release trumpeting its action. The press release contains fairly standard-issue pomp. If anything, it is relatively mild by this regime's standards. Unsurprisingly, the RFK Jr. quotes in the general press release of a few days ago are closer to the regime's usual rhetorical pitch. I might note that although RFK is right to liken anti-semitism to "history's most deadly plagues," it does not reassure me to think that the administration has sent RFK Jr., of all people, to address any sort of "plague." Dealing with plagues is not really his strong suit--regrettably, given that for some reason he is the HHS secretary. I'm surprised he didn't recommend that Columbia try Vitamin A and cod liver oil. I am not surprised, given his involvement, that one of the grants allegedly identified for cancellation is "related to the possible development of a malaria vaccine." That does seem on-brand for Kennedy. Why the HHS secretary should be involved in oversight of campus speech and funding issues in the first place is yet another question. In any event, neither press release offers much by way of directly useful information. 

The press release announcing the cancellations does not specify the grants being cancelled, the basis for cancelling those grants in particular, the statutory or contractual basis for doing so, or anything else of real use. Nor does it link to any documents doing so. The executive order that launched the current enterprise provides no further useful detail on this point either. One expects reasonably fatuous generalities from any administration. But the lack of detail is, I venture to say, of special concern in a non-grown-up administration that, even when it does the right thing (as it sometimes does), does it erratically and is fueled by ressentiment, bile, petty ambition, and Twitter. (But I repeat myself, as the phrase goes.)

You may assume for present purposes that I think Columbia, among other schools, has a real problem with anti-semitism and an even clearer problem of failing to enforce basic disciplinary rules on campus. That still does not answer some important questions--"hoops," if you like. Was yesterday's action the result of anything Columbia has failed to do in the last week or month--or just something the regime was going to do anyway? Was the pathetic behavior of a Barnard administrator last week a contributing factor, or just a nice news hook for the regime, given its thoroughly online mentality? Does the administration have anything like a clear idea of what constitutes an "illegal protest" as opposed to an offensive but protected one? (It has some experience with "illegal protests," to be sure, but not of the confidence-building variety.) The administration has named other universities as targets of attention. Were they chosen for legitimate or illegitimate reasons? Will they be penalized similarly, and regardless of what they actually do? The press release certainly suggests the answer is yes. For any stage of this administration's actions--selecting universities to investigate, deciding what questions to ask and what university rules and actions to review, deciding what grants to cancel, deciding what universities should be doing, deciding whether or when grants should be resumed--are there any clear, rational criteria that respect both existing laws and regulations and the Constitution itself? Or are this administration's enforcement decisions, or at least those not tied to donors, basically a Magic 8 Ball with a cudgel and a loudmouth attached to it? 

Should those of us who are disturbed by anti-semitism on or off campus be encouraged by the fact that this literally constitutes "action?" Or should we instead (or also) be disturbed by the fact that--as with tariffs, the Russian invasion of Ukraine, prosecution of public corruption, crypto and securities law enforcement, the treatment of law firms, and so on ad nauseam--the "action" in question is not targeted to any clearly voiced goals or policies, let alone clearly voiced positions on the limits of or constraints on those policies, and can seemingly be wielded and withdrawn on a whim? This approach of course lends itself on the one hand to arbitrary and purely political punishment (or the withholding of punishment), serving goals that are at best purely partisan and at worst involve petty personal revenge as well as gross corruption. On the other hand, it lends itself to the risk that any actual commitments to addressing anti-semitism will be subject to the vagaries of individuals with infantile attention spans and an abiding need to be flattered and appeased (and to appease in turn).

In a regime with this particular management style, I can think of only one person to ask for answers to any of these questions. Unfortunately, that person has a lousy reputation for honesty or consistency in word and deed. 

There are of course many people who revile anti-semitism, and believe that universities ought to consistently maintain and enforce their own rules for functioning campuses, even where that involves calling in the police and/or expelling students, and who believe in due process, and believe that issues worth caring about--like anti-semitism, like campus speech, like funding for research--should be dealt with through sound and consistent policy and enforcement decisions. Those of us who think all of these are important may well doubt, under such circumstances, that any of these things will be addressed in a serious, consistent, intelligent, meaningful way. That's a problem precisely because anti-semitism is so prevalent in this society, and demands to be addressed--lawfully, but seriously. If these kinds of hateful beliefs are not addressed early, we run the risk that anti-semites, those who champion them, and those with virtually indistinguishable views from anti-semites will leave campus and end up in positions of responsibility in the Pentagon press office, the Justice Department and Homeland Security, the Treasury Secretary's plane, the State Department, and elsewhere. No decent person can excuse that.