Michael Goodwin: Cash is king at America’s lefty universities — and Trump is hitting them where it hurts

New York Post - Mar 23rd, 2025

In a controversial move, President Trump's administration has initiated significant changes targeting American universities, particularly regarding their federal funding. Columbia University, facing the threat of losing $400 million in grants, has complied with Trump's demands to protect Jewish students' civil rights and curb antisemitic activities on campus. The settlement includes banning face masks during demonstrations and empowering campus police to make arrests, setting a precedent for approximately 60 other institutions under scrutiny, including Harvard, Penn, and Northwestern. This development signifies a broader attempt by the Trump administration to reshape the academic landscape by leveraging federal financial support.

The implications of this move are profound, as it challenges the traditional autonomy of universities, many of which have been criticized for fostering radical ideologies. Trump's actions highlight a significant shift in the relationship between federal authorities and educational institutions, emphasizing accountability in exchange for taxpayer money. Critics argue that this approach undermines academic freedom, while supporters claim it addresses long-standing issues of bias and indoctrination. The policy's impact extends beyond academia, influencing political dynamics, as it underscores the stark contrast in educational policy approaches between Trump and his political opponents, notably Joe Biden and other Democratic leaders.

Trump Administration Antisemitism Civil Rights Federal Funding Columbia University Academic Freedom University Policies Alan Blinder

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

3.8

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a provocative and opinionated perspective on the impact of Trump's policies on American universities. While it effectively engages readers with its strong narrative style, it falls short in providing balanced and well-sourced information. The lack of transparency and reliance on opinion rather than evidence detracts from its credibility. Despite these weaknesses, the article addresses timely and significant public interest topics, contributing to ongoing debates in society. However, its potential to influence public opinion is limited by its biased presentation and lack of verifiable evidence, which may reinforce existing beliefs rather than fostering informed discourse.

Accuracy

The article makes several claims that require verification, such as Columbia University's agreement to the Trump administration's demands and the financial impact of federal grants on universities. While some claims align with known facts, like the influence of federal funding on universities, others, such as the specific actions taken by Columbia and the deportation cases, are less substantiated. The article lacks detailed evidence or sources to support these claims, making it challenging to fully assess their accuracy. Overall, the article presents a mixture of verified facts and assertions that require further investigation.

Balance

The article exhibits a significant bias in favor of Trump's policies, portraying them as necessary corrections to perceived issues in academia. It lacks a balanced representation of opposing viewpoints, particularly from those who might disagree with the administration's approach. The narrative is heavily skewed towards criticizing universities and political opponents, without offering their perspectives or responses. This imbalance limits the reader's ability to understand the full scope of the issue.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and engaging style, with a strong narrative voice. However, the clarity is somewhat undermined by the lack of logical flow in presenting evidence and supporting claims. While the language is accessible, the piece could benefit from a more structured presentation of information to enhance comprehension.

Source quality

The article does not provide clear sources or references for its claims. It relies heavily on opinion and interpretation rather than verifiable data or authoritative sources. The lack of attribution to credible sources undermines the reliability of the information presented, leaving readers without a clear understanding of the basis for the article's assertions.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in its presentation of facts and methodologies. It does not disclose the basis for its claims or the potential conflicts of interest that may influence its perspective. The absence of clear sourcing or explanation of how conclusions were reached detracts from the transparency of the reporting.