In March, students and faculty at Columbia University’s Middle Eastern, South Asian, and African Studies Department (MESAAS) found themselves in a whirlwind of uncertainty and anxiety, as the university’s administration navigated a precarious situation involving federal funding and political pressure. The drama unfolded over just a few days, leaving many feeling disillusioned and fearful for the future of their academic pursuits.
The saga began on March 7, when the Trump administration announced it would suspend approximately $400 million in federal funding to Columbia. This decision was accompanied by a series of demands, including placing MESAAS under academic receivership for a minimum of five years, effectively stripping control from its faculty. The implications of these demands were profound, as they threatened not only the department’s autonomy but also the integrity of its academic programs.
On March 19, reports surfaced suggesting that Columbia was poised to capitulate to these demands, igniting a sense of urgency and dread among MESAAS scholars. Just a day later, an email from Gil Hochberg, the chair of MESAAS, conveyed a sense of cautious optimism following a meeting with university deans. Hochberg expressed hope that the department would maintain its academic self-governance, stating, “While many questions remain open, we feel significantly more reassured that our department is being supported by the university as much as possible under the circumstances.”
However, that optimism was short-lived. On March 21, Columbia announced a sweeping set of policy changes, including the appointment of a new senior vice provost tasked with reviewing programs related to the Middle East. This move was seen by many within MESAAS as a direct response to the Trump administration’s demands, and it raised immediate concerns about the future of academic freedom within the department. Craig Birckhead-Morton, a graduate student at MESAAS, articulated the frustration felt by many, stating, “It’s saying one thing to the federal government and saying another thing to faculty and students.”
The uncertainty that followed Columbia’s announcement left students grappling with fears about their research and academic freedom. One Ph.D. candidate, who wished to remain anonymous, expressed concern about potential restrictions on their research topics, saying, “This is very scary.” The atmosphere of apprehension was palpable, as students felt increasingly isolated from the university administration, which had failed to provide clear communication about the changes.
The situation was particularly disheartening for students who had chosen Columbia for its esteemed MESAAS program, renowned for its rigorous scholarship and commitment to critical inquiry. “The MESAAS department is not being attacked right now because of a lack of rigor in its coursework or a deficiency in the quality of the research that’s being produced,” Birckhead-Morton asserted. “It is one of the greatest Middle Eastern Studies departments in the country.”
As the situation unfolded, it became evident that the university’s actions were not merely a response to funding concerns but part of a broader trend of political interference in academia. Joseph Howley, an associate professor at Columbia, condemned the government’s demands, likening them to an attempt to dictate the curriculum and undermine academic freedom. “The federal government doesn’t get to tell universities what subjects to teach or how to teach them,” he stated, highlighting the ideological motivations behind the administration’s actions.
The turmoil culminated in the disruption of MESAAS’s annual graduate conference, which was scheduled to take place in person but was hastily moved online due to safety concerns. An email to participants outlined last-minute changes aimed at protecting attendees, stating, “We will be vetting all audience members.” The shift to a virtual format underscored the chilling effect that the political climate had on academic discourse, transforming what should have been an open forum into a guarded, almost clandestine gathering.
The challenges faced by MESAAS are not unique to Columbia. Other institutions, such as Harvard University, have also experienced pressures to conform to political agendas, raising alarms about the future of Middle Eastern studies across the country. Birckhead-Morton emphasized the need for solidarity among scholars, stating, “We have to defend Middle Eastern studies across the board.” This sentiment resonates with a growing awareness that the struggles faced by MESAAS are part of a larger battle against the suppression of critical scholarship in the face of ideological conformity.
As the dust settles from this tumultuous period, the future of MESAAS remains uncertain. Students and faculty alike are left grappling with the implications of the university’s decisions, questioning not only their academic freedom but also the integrity of their institution. The events at Columbia serve as a stark reminder of the fragility of academic autonomy in an increasingly politicized landscape, where the pursuit of knowledge is often overshadowed by the demands of power. In the words of former MESAAS professor Rashid Khalidi, “It was never about eliminating antisemitism. It was always about silencing Palestine.” This ongoing struggle for academic freedom and integrity is one that resonates far
