Michael Goodwin: Katrina Armstrong’s resignation as Columbia’s interim prez is another Trump win against lefty insanity

New York Post - Mar 30th, 2025

Columbia University is embroiled in controversy following the resignation of interim president Dr. Katrina Armstrong, who stepped down amid Donald Trump's administration's crackdown on universities accused of violating the civil rights of Jewish students. Armstrong's departure marks the third leadership change at Columbia in a year, as she struggled to address the administration's demands to curb antisemitism on campus. The university is at risk of losing $400 million in federal funding unless it complies with measures to curtail disruptive student activities. Claire Shipman, co-chair of the trustees and a former television journalist, has been appointed as the interim president to navigate the institution through these turbulent times.

This development is part of a broader narrative in Trump's second term, characterized by controversial policy implementations and media scrutiny. The administration is facing challenges including 'Signal-gate,' where the mishandling of communications related to a military incident sparked media frenzy. Despite media criticism, Trump and his team, including Vice President JD Vance, continue to push forward with their agenda, emphasizing fiscal responsibility and cutting waste in government spending. The administration's focus on reducing borrowing and trimming public funding for media organizations like PBS and NPR, seen as biased, indicates a significant shift in federal priorities and resource allocation under Trump's leadership.

Donald Trump Antisemitism Federal Funding Columbia University Katrina Armstrong Claire Shipman Signal Gate Media Scrutiny

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

4.2

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The article presents a timely and engaging narrative on the resignation of Columbia University's interim president and the broader implications of federal intervention in higher education. However, it suffers from a lack of balance and transparency, with a clear bias towards the Trump administration's perspective. The absence of credible sources and detailed verification of claims undermines its accuracy and credibility. While the writing is clear and engaging, the sensationalist tone and one-sided framing may limit its impact on a critical audience. The story's potential to provoke controversy and spark discussion is high, but its effectiveness in providing a comprehensive and reliable account of the events is compromised by its shortcomings in accuracy and source quality.

Accuracy

The story contains a mix of accurate and potentially misleading information. The resignation of Dr. Katrina Armstrong is factual, as confirmed by multiple sources. However, the reasons for her resignation, particularly the claim that it was due to a failure to align with White House demands, are speculative and not directly supported by Armstrong's public statements. The article also mentions a Trump administration crackdown on universities, which is partially true, but the specifics regarding Columbia's situation and the alleged financial threats require further verification. The description of Nemat Shafik's departure is inaccurate as the actual former president was Minouche Shafik, who left amid different circumstances.

Balance

The article presents a predominantly one-sided view, framing the events as a triumph for the Trump administration. It lacks a balanced representation of perspectives, particularly those of Columbia University, its faculty, or students. The narrative heavily leans towards supporting Trump's policies without adequately exploring the potential negative implications or the viewpoints of those opposed to the administration's actions. This imbalance suggests a bias in favor of the Trump administration's agenda.

Clarity

The article is written in a clear and engaging style, with a logical flow that makes it easy to follow. However, the tone is somewhat sensationalist, which may affect the perceived neutrality of the piece. While the language is accessible, the lack of clarity in the basis for certain claims can lead to confusion about the veracity of the information presented.

Source quality

The article does not reference any specific sources or provide direct quotes from involved parties, which undermines its credibility. There is no indication of interviews or statements from Columbia University, Dr. Katrina Armstrong, or White House officials. The lack of diverse and authoritative sources makes it difficult to assess the reliability of the information presented. The absence of source attribution is a significant weakness in the article's reporting.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency in its reporting, as it does not disclose the basis for many of its claims or explain the methodology behind its assertions. There is no mention of potential conflicts of interest or the writer's perspective, which could influence the article's impartiality. The story would benefit from clearer context and a more explicit explanation of the evidence supporting its claims.