Since the beginning of 2024, I have been leading a journalism ethics center at Columbia University.
Thus, it may not be surprising that I perceive the university’s surrender to Trump as a matter of both journalism and ethics.
While I have not managed a university, I do have experience running a newsroom. I served as the chief editor of the Buffalo News, the regional paper in my hometown, for 13 years until I relocated to New York City in 2012 to become the public editor of the New York Times. I began my career there as a summer intern, and as editor, I was responsible for numerous decisions; ultimately, the responsibility rested with me.
While it isn’t a perfect analogy to Columbia’s predicament, I have contemplated what my options might have been if the newspaper’s largest and most influential advertiser—crucial for our financial health—had learned of an investigation they were unhappy with, potentially revealing something negative about their business.
Imagine that this advertiser threatened to withdraw all advertising support unless we abandoned the story. Furthermore, suppose they insisted on guarantees of favorable coverage—perhaps a flattering profile of their CEO, alongside a series highlighting the positive contributions of the company to the community.
Now, let’s complicate matters further. Assume that my superior, the paper’s owner, was sympathetic to the advertiser’s viewpoint or at least inclined to consider their position.
What options would I have as editor?
In reality, there would be only one: to stand firm. To argue with the owner that if we were to be considered a legitimate newspaper, we had to show courage and not allow ourselves to be coerced. I would need to ensure the story was irrefutable—every fact meticulously verified—and proceed with plans to publish it.
What would unfold?
That’s difficult to predict. Perhaps the advertiser would reconsider. Maybe the owner would terminate my position. Or I might feel compelled to resign.
The essence of this imperfect analogy is that allowing oneself—or one’s institution—to be intimidated or threatened into compliance is never the appropriate response.
Moreover, it is crucial for strong institutions to uphold their values, setting an example and protecting those who are less equipped to defend themselves.
With a substantial endowment of nearly $15 billion, Columbia could have withstood the loss of federal funding.
Columbia’s leadership could have opted to say “see you in court,” rather than capitulating to demands.
Some principles are so fundamental to an institution’s purpose that to betray them should be unthinkable. You don’t suppress a legitimate story under duress because journalism, despite its flaws, is fundamentally about uncovering and communicating the truth.
Additionally, a university which represents academic freedom and the freedoms of thought, speech, and expression—including the right to protest peacefully—cannot yield to pressures that threaten these values.
Regrettably, Columbia acted against these principles, even resorting to unusual oversight of an entire academic department and granting enhanced powers to campus police to detain, remove, or arrest students for various alleged offenses.
after newsletter promotion
This decision tarnishes a distinguished university, which might have weathered financial threats, but may struggle to recover from this act of surrender.
Certainly, Columbia must combat antisemitism and all forms of hatred and discrimination. However, that is not entirely—or at least not entirely—the crux of Trump’s actions.
“It’s all about intimidation,” as my colleague Robert Reich at the Guardian, a former labor secretary, remarked this weekend, “not just at Columbia but at every other university across America.”
Columbia’s capitulation reflects a trend seen in many institutions in recent weeks. A prominent law firm, Paul, Weiss, under pressure, made a deal with the White House to contribute $40 million worth of legal services to support Trump’s initiatives. ABC News settled a defamation suit that it likely could have won. Furthermore, newspaper owners, including Jeff Bezos at the Washington Post, have been increasingly cozying up to Trump, jeopardizing credibility and mission.
Nonetheless, there remain some organizations committed to not yielding, staying true to their declared and long-standing values.
The Associated Press is taking legal action after the Trump administration severely restricted its journalists’ access, punishing them for deciding to continue using the term “Gulf of Mexico” rather than “Gulf of America” in their reporting. Another large law firm, Perkins Coie, is litigating following Trump’s executive order that stripped its lawyers of their security clearances and access to government facilities.
Make no mistake: the demands of the Trump administration are never truly satisfiable. The goalposts will always shift.
With its vast endowment and an extensive network of affluent alumni—many of whom likely sympathize with its causes—Columbia had alternative options. Smaller universities may not have the same luxury.
Institutions with substantial resources must resist aggressive coercion, not solely for their own benefit, but also to safeguard those who will face greater challenges. Moreover, during this perilous period in the US and globally, it is the morally right course of action.
