Columbia's Firm Response to Protest Gets Trump Administration Support Amid Federal Funding

[Social Media]

 

Columbia's Firm Response to Protest Garners Trump Administration Support Amid Federal Funding Battle

 

The Trump administration has publicly praised Columbia University for its decisive handling of a recent pro-Palestinian protest, signaling approval of the Ivy League school’s shift toward stronger disciplinary measures as it negotiates to restore lost federal funding. On Wednesday, demonstrators occupied the university’s main library, reigniting tensions reminiscent of last spring’s turbulent protests. The administration commended Acting President Claire Shipman for what it described as a “strong and resolute” stance, stating she “has met the moment with fortitude and conviction.”

BREAKING: Masked terror supporters at Columbia are blocking the exits while a fire alarm goes off inside the library.

This is a FELONY, but pro-Palestinians never seem to be held accountable for their clearly unlawful activity. pic.twitter.com/KdEwsrUhtH

— Eyal Yakoby (@EYakoby) May 7, 2025

 

This latest protest marked the most significant campus unrest since the spring demonstrations that prompted national scrutiny and administrative upheaval. Protesters hoisted Palestinian flags and banners inside the library, drawing swift attention from university officials and the New York Police Department. According to police, nearly 80 people were arrested, and two received summonses. In contrast to its previous, more lenient approach to protests, the university swiftly requested police intervention this time.

Breaking: The pro-Hamas mob at Columbia University has now seized control of the campus library and renamed it after Basil al-Araj — a PFLP terrorist killed in a 2017 shootout with the IDF pic.twitter.com/bgOAAXz7FF

— Eitan Fischberger (@EFischberger) May 7, 2025

 

“Disruptions to our academic activities will not be tolerated and are violations of our rules and policies,” Shipman stated firmly. She confirmed that she had called upon the NYPD to assist in securing the library after tensions escalated. Two campus security officers were reportedly injured when protesters forced entry into the building.

 

Behind the scenes, Columbia is navigating sensitive and consequential discussions with the federal government concerning the reinstatement of its federal funding. The Trump administration has proposed a consent decree—a legal agreement that would place the university under federal judicial oversight to ensure compliance with specific terms. This proposal follows the Biden-era White House’s move in March to cancel approximately $400 million in federal grants and contracts. That decision stemmed from concerns that Columbia failed to adequately protect Jewish students during previous pro-Palestinian demonstrations, which some perceived as fostering an antisemitic environment.

 

Wednesday’s response from Columbia stood in stark contrast to its approach during last year’s campus unrest. In 2024, sprawling encampments and occasionally violent demonstrations forced the administration to shift classes online and cancel the school’s main commencement ceremony. This time, university leadership acted quickly to curtail the disruption and maintain control of campus facilities.

 

The protest was organized in part by a group called Columbia University Apartheid Divest, which used social media to rally supporters. “BRING NOISE, WEAR MASK,” read one post encouraging participation. Protesters wearing kaffiyeh scarves and face coverings stormed the library shortly after 3 p.m. Police were called to the scene by 3:55 p.m., and arrests followed soon after.

 

In a televised interview later that evening, New York City Mayor Eric Adams weighed in, urging parents to speak with their children about appropriate forms of protest. “This is not what you do on a college campus, particularly going inside a library and protesting in this manner,” Adams said.

 

In a seperate incident a terrorist-supporting anti-Israel protester was charged with federal hate crimes, prosecutors said Wednesday, after he allegedly carried out three separate assaults on Jewish people in New York City — including some who are students at Columbia University.

 

  Adapted by ASEAN Now from Wall Street Journal | NBC  2025-05-10

 

 

 

 

[WDSmart]

I have no problem with Columbia's actions against this demonstration because it disrupted the university's services. However, I would expect actions like this to be done regardless of the topic of the demonstration. 

[thesetat]

If they are American. Prosecute them for their behavior.... If they are foreigners, deport and ban them from the US. Protesting is ok but not if they injure people and take control of facilities. People can protest without violence. And foreigners should not participate in such activities and show some respect for being allowed to study in America. The same would be done in any country. 

[Social Media]

On off topic post removed @Paul Henry this is not about Jan 6th or any other non related protest.

[Donga]

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

I have no problem with Columbia's actions against this demonstration because it disrupted the university's services. However, I would expect actions like this to be done regardless of the topic of the demonstration. 

Err it's taken a while and would not have happened on Kamala Harris's watch.

The Ivy League universities need to get WDSmart eh. And obviously needed a little help.

[WDSmart]

2 hours ago, thesetat said:

If they are American. Prosecute them for their behavior.... If they are foreigners, deport and ban them from the US. Protesting is ok but not if they injure people and take control of facilities. People can protest without violence. And foreigners should not participate in such activities and show some respect for being allowed to study in America. The same would be done in any country. 

First, I think the university should take action against any students. Second, if public laws were broken, people should be accused and given a trial if they contest the charges. Those who are determined to be guilty should face the consequences, which, I assume, would not be severe since what they appear to have done are only misdemeanors, not felonies.  These people did protest without violence, at least none that I read in the article. All citizens and foreigners have the right to free speech, so they should be allowed to participate in protests, as long as they are peaceful. Who cares what other countries do? This is about the USA, not Zimbabwe. 

[Bkk Brian]

30 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

First, I think the university should take action against any students. Second, if public laws were broken, people should be accused and given a trial if they contest the charges. Those who are determined to be guilty should face the consequences, which, I assume, would not be severe since what they appear to have done are only misdemeanors, not felonies.  These people did protest without violence, at least none that I read in the article. All citizens and foreigners have the right to free speech, so they should be allowed to participate in protests, as long as they are peaceful. Who cares what other countries do? This is about the USA, not Zimbabwe. 

Oh dear, you are so wrong, there is a time and place for free speech, you can't just disrupt learning going on just because you want demand rights, or in this case support terrorists, no matter how peacefully you do it. This is a private UNI. Look up the laws.

[WDSmart]

30 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Oh dear, you are so wrong, there is a time and place for free speech, you can't just disrupt learning going on just because you want demand rights, or in this case support terrorists, no matter how peacefully you do it. This is a private UNI. Look up the laws.

Yes, we disagree. Free speech can occur at all times and in all public places. No, you can't disrupt a place of business or any other private gathering, but you can speak your mind and support whomever you want, even Zionists. Yes, Columbia is a private university. I'd put them in the category of a "business." I don't need to look up any laws. All I need to do is read the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. There are some exceptions to speech considered "free speech," but none that apply here in this instance.

[Bkk Brian]

10 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Yes, we disagree. Free speech can occur at all times and in all public places. No, you can't disrupt a place of business or any other private gathering, but you can speak your mind and support whomever you want, even Zionists. Yes, Columbia is a private university. I'd put them in the category of a "business." I don't need to look up any laws. All I need to do is read the 1st Amendment of the US Constitution. There are some exceptions to speech considered "free speech," but none that apply here in this instance.

 

Not falling for your double speak or your introduction of Zionists, you are wrong and that is a fact. They were occupying campus buildings, they have no rights under the 1st Amendment

 

From the OP

“Disruptions to our academic activities will not be tolerated and are violations of our rules and policies,”

51 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Oh dear, you are so wrong, there is a time and place for free speech, you can't just disrupt learning going on just because you want demand rights, or in this case support terrorists, no matter how peacefully you do it. This is a private UNI. Look up the laws.

 

[WDSmart]

2 hours ago, Bkk Brian said:

... They were occupying campus buildings, they have no rights under the 1st Amendment

 

From the OP

“Disruptions to our academic activities will not be tolerated and are violations of our rules and policies,”

They ALWAYS have the right to free speech under the 1st Amendment. 

"Occupying campus buildings," or "disruptions to our academic activities," or lighting buildings on fire or injuring people is not "free speech." These protestors are not, or should not/cannot be punished for their free speech. They are being punished for violating rules or laws, but not for their free speech.

Another example that you might agree with is that the insurrectionists on January 6 were not arrested (and now pardoned ) for exercising their free speech. They were arrested for breaking into the Capitol using force. 

[Bkk Brian]

2 hours ago, WDSmart said:

They ALWAYS have the right to free speech under the 1st Amendment. 

"Occupying campus buildings," or "disruptions to our academic activities," or lighting buildings on fire or injuring people is not "free speech." These protestors are not, or should not/cannot be punished for their free speech. They are being punished for violating rules or laws, but not for their free speech.

Another example that you might agree with is that the insurrectionists on January 6 were not arrested (and now pardoned ) for exercising their free speech. They were arrested for breaking into the Capitol using force. 

Why do you keep spreading false information and keep thinking that your deliberate double speaks hides your intentions?

 

Is occupying campus buildings permitted under the First Amendment?
No. While viewed by many as an act of civil disobedience, it does constitute trespassing, which is conduct that is not protected by the First Amendment.

 

Can a university require you to obtain a permit before protesting?
Yes. A private university can require that you obtain a permit prior to protesting and has absolute discretion as to whether or not to grant that permit.

 

Can a university limit written expression like posters, signs, flyers, or chalking on sidewalks?
Private universities can absolutely regulate the distribution, display or posting of written protest materials on campus.

 

Can college presidents call in police to stop protests?
Protesters who engage in conduct or speech that falls outside the First Amendment can be arrested. A protest that has or will result in violence or vandalism or otherwise exceeds the protections of the First Amendment could be shut down entirely.

 

https://www.freedomforum.org/protesting-on-college-campuses/

[WDSmart]

7 minutes ago, Bkk Brian said:

Why do you keep spreading false information and keep thinking that your deliberate double speaks hides your intentions?

 

Is occupying campus buildings permitted under the First Amendment?
No. While viewed by many as an act of civil disobedience, it does constitute trespassing, which is conduct that is not protected by the First Amendment.

Yes, this is trespassing and has nothing to do with free speech.
 

Can a university require you to obtain a permit before protesting?
Yes. A private university can require that you obtain a permit prior to protesting and has absolute discretion as to whether or not to grant that permit.

A university can require you to obtain a permit to stage a PROTEST, but you do not need any permit to excercise your right to free speech. 

 

Can a university limit written expression like posters, signs, flyers, or chalking on sidewalks?
Private universities can absolutely regulate the distribution, display or posting of written protest materials on campus.
Yes, the most importatnt words here are "PRIVATE" and "ON CAMPUS." I've repeatedly said that PRIVATE organizations can restrict you from protesting ON THEIR PROPERTY. 

 

Can college presidents call in police to stop protests?
Protesters who engage in conduct or speech that falls outside the First Amendment can be arrested. A protest that has or will result in violence or vandalism or otherwise exceeds the protections of the First Amendment could be shut down entirely.
Yes, and this is what I've been saying eveytime I've posted! CONDUCT, we've discussed. "SPEECH THAT FALLS OUTSIDE OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT," we haven't yet, but that is speech that incites violence or panic. The example usually given is falsly yelling "FIRE!" in a crowded theater or calling for violence.  

 

https://www.freedomforum.org/protesting-on-college-campuses/

This is not a link to "restricting-freedom-of-speech-on-college-campuses/".

Yes! I agree with all that above, (except the first sentence/question). You seem to be confusing "protesting" with "freedom of speech." They are not the same thing, although most protests do involve freedom of speech. But nowhere can freedom of speech be used as an excuse to violate rules or laws, or commit or encourage violence.

I've put more "double-speak" remarks beneath each of your points above.

 

[Bkk Brian]

13 minutes ago, WDSmart said:

Yes! I agree with all that above, (except the first sentence/question). You seem to be confusing "protesting" with "freedom of speech." They are not the same thing, although most protests do involve freedom of speech. But nowhere can freedom of speech be used as an excuse to violate rules or laws, or commit or encourage violence.

I've put more "double-speak" remarks beneath each of your points above.

 

Well you would have to agree because that's the law that you said you didn't need to read yet still got wrong.

[thesetat]

5 hours ago, WDSmart said:

First, I think the university should take action against any students. Second, if public laws were broken, people should be accused and given a trial if they contest the charges. Those who are determined to be guilty should face the consequences, which, I assume, would not be severe since what they appear to have done are only misdemeanors, not felonies.  These people did protest without violence, at least none that I read in the article. All citizens and foreigners have the right to free speech, so they should be allowed to participate in protests, as long as they are peaceful. Who cares what other countries do? This is about the USA, not Zimbabwe. 

read again... 2 security guards were injured when they took over the building