The fight over Columbia isn’t over free speech; it’s over violent intimidation.
We applaud the Trump administration for cutting federal funding to universities that indulge anti-Semitism, such as Columbia University in New York City.
Indeed, one should ask why Columbia University’s budget has increased by 488% in 30 years, and why it needs $400 million in federal funds when its tuition is $71,170 per student per year.
Funding of any sort — whether from tuition, donors, partners and government — is not a given. It must be earned. Over the past year-and-a-half, Columbia has shown itself, at minimum, worthy of deep investigation before it receives any funds from the federal government.
But of course, there is much more than “at a minimum.” The university has shown itself incapable of ridding itself of threats to Jewish students. Former US anti-Semitism envoy Prof. Deborah Lipstadt turned down a job to teach there on the grounds that she wouldn’t be able to get any teaching done. A course on Israel was disrupted at Barnard just a couple of weeks ago.
Another professor takes the opposite tack (see IJN print edition, Page 4), but in the event, if Columbia violates federal law, that alone is enough to deny it federal funds.
Last week, Mahmoud Khalil, a primary force in the anti-Israel disruption at Columbia last year and this year was arrested and told he would be deported. He is no longer a student at Columbia, but played a role in the disruption of the class at Barnard. The Trump administration told him he would be deported.
The same investigation into the legal compliance by an institution pertains to individuals, such as Khalil. He is not a US citizen, but he is a green card holder, and as such he has certain rights, as do citizens and individuals on temporary visas of any kind. If laws are not upheld — federal, state or municipal — we cease to be a society governed by the rule of law. As distasteful as Khalil’s behavior is, it must be proven to be illegal before he can be deported.
Immigration to the US is a privilege, not a right. Any immigrant knows that the host country will have requirements one must fulfill to become a citizen. Perhaps chief among them is the commitment, under oath, to answer “no” to this question:“Do you intend to engage in any unlawful activity?”
Look at this, for a moment, without President Trump in the equation. Would the same groups who are up in arms over the threatened deportation of Khalil be up in arms over the potential deportation of any other person who not only foments hatred and expresses supports for a US-designated terrorist organization, but also helps organize the unlawful breaking and entering of a building, causes criminal damage and taking a janitor hostage?
If Khalil did not already hold a green card, but were now applying for one, would he, under current US law, be granted one, given his record of breaking and entering a building at Columbia last year? Would he even be granted an entry visa?
Khalil’s supporters pretend that he is solely exercising his First Amendment rights of free speech and freedom of assembly. That is dishonest. Khalil has engaged in activity that clearly violates the terms of his green card and of the Immigration and Nationality Act.
That said, Khalil is, in point of fact, a green card holder, a status that comes with both rights and responsibilities.
An example of his responsibilities: Even if he leaves the US, he is on the hook for up to a decade to file (and potentially pay) US taxes. Khalil is married to a US citizen (which likely explains how he received green card status relatively quickly) who is expecting their child.
An example of his rights — First Amendment rights, and the right to see the charges against him. Before a deportation order goes into effect, charges should be filed against Khalil and a court should determine the legitimacy of the order.
Which is why we support Judge Jesse Furman of the Southern District of New York in temporarily blocking the deportation order. Furman reserved to his court the “jurisdiction pending a ruling on the petition.” The hearing was scheduled for March 12.
Khalil’s deportation, or the reversal thereof, should not be political, futile as that expectation may be today. The law is the law. A deportation should be based solely on the law. If a deportation — or its revocation — is based instead on political persuasion, this would endanger all US citizens and residents.
We would be remiss if we did not shine a light on the hypocrisy of the so-called free speech advocates. Forget microaggressions and buildings named for people with besmirched reputations. The post-Oct. 7 college campus culture at Columbia itself proves the point. Israeli Prof. Shai Davidai is suspended because he used his free speech allegedly to harass university officials. But no one in the anti-Israel camp, who now cry foul over Mahmoud Khalil, was fighting for the First Amendment rights of Shai Davidai.
What Mahmoud Khalil’s defenders really want is license to harass Jewish and pro-Israel students, to threaten them and to disrupt their education. One need not even look back to last year for evidence. The evidence is as fresh as two weeks ago at Barnard College.
This isn’t irony. It’s hypocrisy. It, too, undermines the freedoms in whose name Khalil’s defenders claim to speak.
© IJN 2025
