🔗 Share this article

After federal agents arrested the university student a student activist in his university residence, the institute director knew a major battle lay ahead.

The director heads a university-connected center focused on protecting First Amendment rights. The student, a permanent resident, had been involved in Palestinian solidarity encampments on campus. Previously, Jaffer's organization had hosted a symposium about free speech rights for noncitizens.

"We felt a direct link to the case, since we're at Columbia," Jaffer explained. "And we saw this detention as a major violation of constitutional freedoms."

Landmark Victory Challenging Government

Last week, the institute's lawyers at the Knight First Amendment Institute, together with legal partners their co-counsel, achieved a significant legal win when a federal judge in Boston determined that the detention and attempted deportation of Khalil and other pro-Palestinian students was illegal and intentionally designed to chill free speech.

Government officials announced they'll challenge the decision, with administration representative Liz Huston describing the ruling an "unacceptable decision that undermines the protection of our nation".

Growing Divide Separating Institute and Institution

This decision elevated the visibility of the free speech center, propelling it to the frontlines of the battle with the administration over core constitutional principles. Yet the victory also underscored the widening chasm between the organization and the institution that houses it.

The case – characterized by the presiding official as "perhaps the significant to ever fall within the authority of this district court" – was the initial of multiple opposing the administration's unusual attack on higher education to go to trial.

Court Testimony

During the two-week trial, academic experts testified about the atmosphere of fear and self-censorship caused by the detentions, while immigration officials disclosed information about their reliance on reports by rightwing, pro-Israel organizations to pick their targets.

A legal expert, general counsel of the American Association of University Professors, which filed the lawsuit along with local branches and the academic group, called it "the primary constitutional case of the Trump administration currently".

'Institution and Organization Occupy Opposing Positions'

While the legal success was hailed by supporters and scholars nationwide, Jaffer received no communication from Columbia following the ruling – a reflection of the disagreements in the stances staked out by the institute and the university.

Prior to Trump took office, Columbia had represented the declining tolerance for Palestinian advocacy on American universities after it called police to remove its campus protest, disciplined dozens of students for their protests and dramatically restricted demonstrations on campus.

University Settlement

This summer, the institution negotiated an agreement with the Trump administration to provide substantial funds to resolve antisemitism claims and accept significant limitations on its autonomy in a action broadly criticized as "capitulation" to the president's bullying tactics.

The university's compliant stance was sharply contrasted with the Knight Institute's defiant one.

"We're at a moment in which the institution and the organization hold opposing views of these fundamental issues," observed Joel Simon at the Knight Institute.

Institute's Mission

This organization was established in 2016 and is housed on the Columbia campus. It has obtained significant funding from the university as part of an agreement that had each contributing millions in operating funds and long-term financing to launch it.

"My hope for the institute in the years ahead is that when there is that moment when the administration has gone in the wrong direction and fundamental rights are threatened and no one else are willing to take action and to declare, enough is enough, it will be the Knight Institute who will have stepped forward," said the former president, a constitutional expert who helped create the institute.

Open Disagreement

Following recent events, Columbia and the Knight Institute found themselves on opposing sides, with Knight regularly criticizing the university's handling of pro-Palestinian protests both privately and in progressively critical official comments.

In correspondence to campus administration, Jaffer condemned the action to penalize campus organizations, which the university said had broken rules related to holding campus events.

Growing Conflict

Subsequently, the director again condemned the university's decision to call police onto campus to remove a non-violent, student protest – resulting in the arrest of numerous activists.

"The university's decisions have become separated from the values that are essential for the university's life and purpose – such as expression, academic freedom, and fair treatment," he wrote in that instance.

Activist Viewpoint

Khalil, in particular, had appealed to university administrators for support, and in a published article written from detention he wrote that "the logic used by the federal government to single out me and fellow students is an outgrowth of Columbia's repression approach concerning Palestinian issues".

The university settled with the federal government shortly after the case wrapped in court.

Organization's Reaction

Shortly after the deal was revealed, the organization published a strong criticism, concluding that the settlement approves "a remarkable shift of autonomy and control to the government".

"Columbia's leaders ought not accepted this," the declaration stated.

Broader Context

Knight has allies – groups such as the civil liberties union, the Foundation for Individual Rights and other civil liberties groups have opposed the government over free speech issues, as have unions and Harvard University.

Nor is it concentrating solely on campus issues – in other challenges to the government, the organization has sued on behalf of farmers and climate activists challenging government agencies over environmental information and challenged the suppression of government documents.

Special Situation

But its defense of student speech at a institution now associated with making concessions on it places it in a uniquely uneasy situation.

Jaffer expressed sympathy for the lack of "favorable choices" for Columbia's leaders while he described their agreement as a "serious mistake". But he stressed that despite the organization positioned at the other side of its parent institution when it comes to addressing the administration, the university has permitted it to operate without interference.

"Particularly currently, I don't take this independence for granted," he said. "Should the university attempt to restrict our work, I wouldn't be at the university any longer."