As we get closer to Independence Day, perhaps we need to check in on the Ivy League’s flailing efforts to cling to their own definition of independence. Their ambition to defy the Departments of Education and Justice on adherence to federal civil-rights laws while claiming entitlement to federal funding and subsidies took some body blows this week, mainly of their own making.
This started last week, when University of Virginia president James Ryan resigned under pressure for refusing to change course on his ethno-racial DEI policies. It accelerated when U Penn threw in the towel and reversed years of competition by males in female sports, wiping out Lia Thomas’ records and apologizing to the women who lost opportunities for fair competition from those policies. Thanks to that decision, Penn recovered $175 million in frozen federal funding late on Tuesday.
And as John noted last night, Columbia University landed in more hot water when texts from interim president Claire Shipman came to light. Shipman had pushed for Columbia to kick off a Jewish board member in favor of recruiting an Arab. Shipman later apologized — after Columbia claimed the messages were being read “out of context.” But it’s worth exploring that nonsensical claim as well as Shipman’s less-than-credible apology:
“Let me be clear: The things I said in a moment of frustration and stress were wrong,” Shipman wrote. “They do not reflect how I feel. I have apologized directly to the person named in my texts, and I am apologizing now to you.
“I have tremendous respect and appreciation for that board member, whose voice on behalf of Columbia’s Jewish community is critically important,” she continued. “I should not have written those things, and I am sorry. It was a moment of immense pressure, over a year and a half ago, as we navigated some deeply turbulent times. But that doesn’t change the fact that I made a mistake. I promise to do better.”
Shipman said the “conclusions drawn in headlines” about her messages were “off base and misleading.” She did not, however, argue that the messages were “published out of context,” a charge Columbia leveled in a statement sent to the Free Beacon on Tuesday.
Ahem. As the Free Beacon points out, both Shipman and Columbia board vice-chair Wanda Greene accused Shendelman of being a “mole” in April 2024, when the occupation of Columbia’s campus by radical pro-Hamas groups was at a zenith. The Free Beacon has published a letter sent on Tuesday by the House Committee on Education and Workforce demanding an explanation of these remarks:
Finally, in multiple communications, you expressed distrust and dislike for Shoshana Shendelman, a Jewish member of Columbia’s Board of Trustees and one of its most outspoken members against the bullying, harassment, and intimidation of Jewish students. In a communication on January 25, 2024, you said of Shendelman, “I just don’t think she should be on the board.”15 In another communication on April 22, 2024, Wanda Greene, vice-chair of the Columbia University Board of Trustees, asked you—referring to Shendelman—“do you believe that she is a mole?” She added, “A fox in the henhouse?” You agreed, stating, “I do.” Greene added, “I am tired of her.” You agreed, “so, so tired.”16 These exchanges raise the question of why you appeared to be in favor of removing one of the board’s most outspoken Jewish advocates at a time when Columbia students were facing a shocking level of fear and hostility.
This discussion stretched out over several months, rather than being just one outburst of frustration, as Shipman’s ‘apology’ implies. Shipman clearly didn’t place any value in Shendelman’s ‘voice on behalf of Columbia’s Jewish community’ at all during this time, as her own words prove. In fact, both she and Greene decided that Shendelman was some sort of spy working against Columbia, and actively plotted to replace her with an Arab “voice” — likely to appease the radicals that had seized control of the university.
Shipman has not just been exposed as an anti-Semite but as a dishonest bureaucrat. James Ryan got pushed out at Virginia for a lot less than this. Hopefully committee chair Tim Walberg will subpoena both Shipman and Greene to explain why Congress shouldn’t get involved in halting any federal funding to the sewer into which Shipman and Greene have transformed Columbia.
Meanwhile at Harvard, the Wall Street Journal reports that the leadership under president Alan Garber may sail into crimson waters soon — as in budget deficits, and not by a small amount:
Harvard University would face a budget shortfall of about a billion dollars a year if President Trump follows through on all of his plans and threats spanning research funding, tax policy and student enrollment, according to an analysis by The Wall Street Journal.
That grim math helps explain why Harvard has taken steps toward negotiating with the administration after months of defiance. The Journal’s estimate, based on publicly available data, is for a worst-case scenario in which Harvard loses all federal research funding, federal student aid and its ability to enroll international students, and Congress hikes its annual endowment tax to 8%. …
The Trump administration has sought to make Harvard a poster child in its fight against institutions it says haven’t taken concerns about antisemitism and diversity programs seriously.
Er — not exactly. The Trump administration wanted Harvard to comply with the Civil Rights Act in relation to its Jewish students and female spaces. Harvard chose to make itself a poster child of La Résistance 2.0, in the apparent hope that Trump and his Cabinet wouldn’t want the fight that it entailed. Garber only trails Shipman for political incompetence in that regard, even if he seems to be ahead of her on intellectual integrity. (At least no texts or emails have leaked out from Garber trying to kick Jews off the Harvard board. Yet.) And let’s not forget that the Left built the tools that Trump is using now in fighting Academia, especially when it comes to enforcing Titles VI, VII, and IX on college campuses.
Back to the budget, however, in which Garber is being taught a painful lesson in financial modeling. If schools want independence, they need to plan for it. Hillsdale College deliberately refuses to accept federal funding in any way in order to keep the government from dictating policies and administrative actions on its campus. Harvard, on the other hand, wallows at the federal trough, and their long-term financial model makes access to it almost existential. One White House source made it clear that Harvard faces a tough choice, at least for the next three-plus years:
The Trump administration on Monday told Harvard the university had violated federal civil-rights law over its treatment of Jewish and Israeli students, risking further funding. Asked about the pressure on Harvard’s finances, a senior White House official said the school will receive no money “until it ends its discriminatory and deeply embarrassing practices. The private sector is welcome to step in and support Harvard.”
That’s theoretically an option, but not for long and not nearly enough. Some La Résistance-oriented corporate boards mght toss Harvard a few shekels for the lulz, but Harvard won’t raise enough to cover an ongoing $1 billion-a-year budget gap. And La Résistance is not playing nearly as well in 2025 in Corporate America as it did in 2017-18.
At some point, Garbar and Harvard either have to pare down for Hillsdale-style independence, or choose a retreat with as little obvious ignominy as possible. I wouldn’t bet on Harvard declaring its independence, not on this Independence Day or any other.
It’s been a bad week for the Poison Ivies. And the good news is that it will only get worse from here.
