🔗 Share this article

When federal agents detained Columbia University student Mahmoud Khalil in his university residence, the institute director understood a significant fight was coming.

Jaffer heads a university-connected institute focused on protecting free speech protections. Khalil, a permanent resident, had been involved in pro-Palestinian encampments on campus. Previously, Jaffer's organization had hosted a conference about free speech rights for noncitizens.

"We felt a direct link with this situation, since we're at Columbia," Jaffer explained. "And we saw this arrest as a serious infringement of constitutional freedoms."

Landmark Victory Challenging Administration

Last week, the institute's lawyers at the free speech organization, along with legal partners their co-counsel, secured a significant legal win when a federal judge in Massachusetts determined that the arrest and attempted deportation of the student and other pro-Palestinian students was unconstitutional and purposely created to suppress protest.

The Trump administration has said they'll challenge the verdict, with White House spokesperson Liz Huston describing the ruling an "unacceptable decision that hampers the protection of the country".

Increasing Separation Between Organization and University

This decision elevated the profile of the Knight Institute, catapulting it to the frontlines of the conflict with the administration over core constitutional principles. Yet the victory also highlighted the growing divide between the organization and the institution that hosts it.

This legal challenge – described by the presiding official as "possibly the significant ever come under the authority of this district court" – was the initial of multiple opposing the administration's unusual attack on higher education to reach court proceedings.

Trial Revelations

Throughout the court proceedings, academic experts gave evidence about the atmosphere of fear and self-censorship caused by the arrests, while government agents revealed information about their reliance on dossiers by rightwing, pro-Israel groups to pick their targets.

Veena Dubal, general counsel of the academic organization, which brought the case together with local branches and the academic group, described it "the central civil rights lawsuit of the Trump administration this time around".

'University and Organization Occupy Opposing Positions'

While the court victory was praised by advocates and academics across the country, Jaffer heard nothing from university leadership following the decision – an indication of the tensions in the stances staked out by the organization and the institution.

Even before Trump took office, the university had come to symbolize the declining tolerance for pro-Palestinian speech on US campuses after it called police to remove its campus protest, suspended dozens of students for their protests and dramatically restricted protests on campus.

University Settlement

Recently, the university reached a deal with the Trump administration to pay millions to settle antisemitism claims and submit to significant limitations on its autonomy in a move broadly criticized as "surrender" to the administration's bullying tactics.

Columbia's submissive approach was sharply contrasted with the organization's principled position.

"This is a time in which the institution and the organization hold opposing views of some of these critical questions," observed a former fellow at the free speech center.

Organization's Purpose

This organization was established in 2016 and is housed on the Columbia campus. It has obtained significant funding from the institution as part of an arrangement that had both providing millions in operating funds and endowment funds to establish the center.

"My hope for the institute in the years ahead is that when there is that moment when the government has overstepped boundaries and fundamental rights are threatened and no one else are willing to take action and to say, enough is enough, that's when the Knight Institute that will taken action," stated Lee Bollinger, a First Amendment scholar who helped create the center.

Public Criticism

Following recent events, Columbia and the the organization found themselves on different sides, with Knight frequently objecting to the institution's management of campus demonstrations both in private communications and in progressively critical public statements.

In correspondence to campus administration, the director criticized the action to suspend two student groups, which the university said had violated policies concerning holding campus events.

Escalating Tensions

Later, the director further criticized the university's decision to call police onto campus to remove a peaceful, student protest – resulting in the arrest of numerous activists.

"The university's decisions have become separated from the principles that are central to the academic community and mission – such as free speech, scholarly independence, and equality," he stated this time.

Activist Viewpoint

The detained student, in particular, had appealed to campus officials for support, and in an op-ed composed while jailed he stated that "the logic used by the federal government to single out myself and my peers is an outgrowth of Columbia's repression playbook regarding Palestine".

Columbia settled with the Trump administration just days after the case wrapped in court.

Institute's Response

Following the deal was revealed, the organization published a strong criticism, concluding that the agreement sanctions "an astonishing transfer of autonomy and authority to the administration".

"University administration should not have agreed to these terms," the declaration said.

Wider Impact

The institute has allies – organizations such as the ACLU, the free speech organization and additional rights organizations have challenged the Trump administration over constitutional matters, as have labor organizations and other institutions.

Nor is it exclusively focusing on campus issues – in other challenges to the government, the institute has filed cases on behalf of agricultural workers and climate activists challenging federal departments over climate-related information and fought the suppression of official reports.

Special Situation

But its defense of campus expression at a university now associated with making concessions on it places it in a particularly difficult position.

The director expressed sympathy for the lack of "favorable choices" for Columbia's leaders while he described their agreement as a "major error". But he stressed that although the institute standing at the other side of its host when it comes to addressing the administration, the university has allowed it to function free of pressure.

"Especially right now, I appreciate that freedom for granted," he stated. "Should the university attempt to restrict our work, I wouldn't be at the university any more."