🔗 Share this article

After government officers arrested the university student a student activist in his campus housing, the institute director understood a major battle was coming.

The director heads a university-connected center focused on protecting free speech rights. Khalil, a permanent resident, had been active in pro-Palestinian protests on campus. Previously, Jaffer's organization had organized a conference about constitutional protections for noncitizens.

"We felt a direct link with this situation, because we're at Columbia," Jaffer explained. "We viewed this arrest as a major violation of First Amendment rights."

Landmark Victory Against Government

Recently, Jaffer's team at the Knight First Amendment Institute, along with the law firm their co-counsel, secured a significant legal win when a district court judge in Boston determined that the detention and attempted deportation of the student and other pro-Palestinian students was illegal and purposely created to suppress protest.

Government officials has said they'll challenge the verdict, with administration representative Liz Huston describing the judgment an "unacceptable decision that undermines the safety and security of the country".

Growing Divide Separating Organization and University

The ruling elevated the profile of the free speech center, propelling it to the frontlines of the conflict against Trump over fundamental American values. Yet the win also underscored the widening chasm between the organization and the institution that hosts it.

This legal challenge – characterized by the presiding official as "perhaps the significant ever fall within the jurisdiction of this district court" – was the first of multiple challenging Trump's unprecedented assault on higher education to reach court proceedings.

Court Testimony

Throughout the court proceedings, citizen and noncitizen scholars testified about the atmosphere of fear and silencing ushered in by the arrests, while immigration officials disclosed information about their reliance on dossiers by conservative, Israel-supporting organizations to select individuals.

A legal expert, chief lawyer of the American Association of University Professors, which filed the lawsuit together with some of its chapters and the academic group, described it "the primary constitutional case of the current government this time around".

'University and Organization Occupy Different Sides'

While the legal success was hailed by advocates and scholars across the country, the director received no communication from university leadership following the ruling – a reflection of the tensions in the positions staked out by the institute and the university.

Prior to the administration began, the university had come to symbolize the declining tolerance for Palestinian advocacy on US campuses after it summoned officers to remove its campus protest, suspended dozens of students for their activism and dramatically restricted demonstrations on campus.

Institutional Agreement

Recently, the institution reached a deal with the federal government to pay millions to resolve discrimination allegations and submit to major restrictions on its independence in a action broadly criticized as "surrender" to the president's pressure strategies.

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

"This is a moment in which the institution and the organization are on different sides of some of these fundamental issues," noted Joel Simon at the free speech center.

Institute's Mission

The Knight Institute was launched in 2016 and is housed on the Columbia campus. It has received substantial support from the institution as part of an agreement that had both providing millions in program support and long-term financing to launch it.

"My hope for the organization in the long-term future is that when there is that moment when the administration has overstepped boundaries and fundamental rights are threatened and no one else are willing to take action and to declare, this must stop, that's when the this organization that will stepped forward," said the former president, a constitutional expert who helped create the center.

Public Criticism

Following campus developments, Columbia and the the organization were positioned on opposing sides, with the institute regularly criticizing the institution's management of campus demonstrations both in private communications and in progressively critical public statements.

In correspondence to campus administration, Jaffer criticized the decision to penalize two student groups, which the university said had broken rules related to organizing protests.

Escalating Tensions

Later, the director further criticized the institution's choice to summon police onto campus to clear a non-violent, student protest – resulting in the detention of more than 100 students.

"Institutional policies are separated from the values that are central to the university's life and mission – including free speech, scholarly independence, and fair treatment," he wrote this time.

Student Perspective

Khalil, in particular, had appealed to campus officials for protection, and in an op-ed written from detention he wrote that "the logic employed by the administration to target me and fellow students is a direct extension of Columbia's repression playbook regarding Palestine".

Columbia settled with the federal government just days after the trial concluded in court.

Institute's Response

Following the agreement was announced, the organization published a scathing rebuke, concluding that the agreement sanctions "an astonishing transfer of independence and authority to the administration".

"University administration ought not agreed to this," the statement said.

Broader Context

The institute has allies – organizations such as the ACLU, the Foundation for Individual Rights and other rights organizations have challenged the government over constitutional matters, as have labor organizations and other institutions.

Nor is it exclusively focusing on campus issues – in additional lawsuits to the Trump administration, the institute has filed cases on behalf of agricultural workers and environmental advocates opposing federal departments over climate-related information and fought the suppression of official reports.

Special Situation

But its defense of campus expression at a institution now associated with making concessions on it puts it in a uniquely uneasy situation.

Jaffer expressed sympathy for the lack of "favorable choices" for university administration while he characterized their decision to settle as a "major error". But he stressed that despite the organization positioned at the opposite end of its parent institution when it comes to dealing with the administration, the institution has allowed it to operate without interference.

"Particularly currently, I don't take that freedom as automatic," he said. "If Columbia tried to restrict our work, I wouldn't remain at Columbia any more."