Editor’s Note: The following is an article originally published by the National Association of Scholars on October 7, 2025. It is crossposted here with permission.
Today, of course, is October 7. Two years ago, the terrorist organization Hamas led the charge into southern Israel, trailed by a few thousand Gazans, for an hours-long conflagration of the most barbaric kind. The intensity of the horror set many of us aback. How could anyone conduct, much less support, such violence?
There have been many theories posited since attempting to peer into and understand the depravity of man. Here at the National Association of Scholars (NAS), we didn’t venture down this philosophical path. Instead, we focused on what we do best: research. In the years leading up to October 7, 2023, and after, we outlined the boycott, divest, and sanction movement on campus, uncovered the influence that Qatar and the broader Arab world exerts on American campuses, and further attempted to trace the path of radicalization that occurs within the academy.
Two days after the attack, NAS president Peter W. Wood penned a statement for our organization, “Higher Education’s Coddling of Hamas.” In it, he pointed the finger directly at the cause that animates the anti-Semitism and support for Hamas among America’s faculty and students: a deep hatred of Western Civilization.
That hatred had been on full display for some time. Thankfully, the jubilance of this massacre has sparked a backlash against those who fan the flames of anti-Western sentiment—particularly our colleges and universities. The Trump administration has cracked down hard on higher education, using Title VI investigations to justify canceling and suspending billions of dollars in federal support. America’s universities have responded primarily in three ways: acquiesce, fight, or obfuscate.
Columbia University, in particular, became a favorite punching bag. Its students consistently sparred with campus police and the NYPD, occupied buildings, and regulated the entrance to others based on student identity. The university struggled to contain the protests, selectively applied its student code of conduct policies, all while attempting to enforce new “time, place, and manner policies.” Protests continued, and the school’s president resigned. Within this spotlight, Columbia faced criticism from Congress and the White House, which resulted in a $1.2 billion cut in federal funding to the school. In July of this year, the school signed an agreement with the Trump administration, which included strong reform and oversight in exchange for the return of federal funding.
So far, this fall semester at Columbia has remained uneventful.
In an uncharacteristic display of moral clarity, Columbia University has even allowed Butler Lawn to be filled with 1,205 empty chairs, each hosting a photo of a victim as a remembrance of what occurred on October 7 two years ago.
Perhaps the times are changing, but I wouldn’t hold my breath. The last year has caused great consternation within college administrations around the country as the Trump administration has stepped up efforts to squash anti-Semitism and defend the equal protection of students. Many of the programs most responsible for fostering anti-Semitism have gone underground, rebranding programs, deleting webpages, and doing their best not to draw public attention.
Now on to other news
It has been a few weeks since we last sent this newsletter, and a great deal has happened in that time. First, our colleague, Kali Jerrard, who typically pens this letter, is out on maternity leave with her very, very cute baby boy. (I’m sure she would appreciate congratulations, should you feel inclined to send them to [email protected]).
Last week, we released three case studies exploring how “diversity, equity, and inclusion” has taken hold of America’s leading technical schools and the effect this ideology has had on education, research, and campus politics. The case studies review programs at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the Georgia Institute of Technology, and the California Institute of Technology.
Conveniently, MIT was one of nine schools to receive a draft of the Trump administration’s proposed “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education,” as first reported by the Wall Street Journal. The Compact outlines 10 points, which, if schools were to accept and adopt, would bestow upon them “multiple positive benefits,” including “access to student loans, grant programs, and federal contracts,” as well as “funding for research directly or indirectly.” The 10 points include, straightforwardly, that an institution agree to adopt tuition freezes; admit students on their merit rather than the basis of race, sex, gender, or national origin, and require similar non-discrimination in hiring; commit themselves to intellectual diversity; adopt strict policies of institutional neutrality in regards to social or political events; and an end to grade inflation.
Naturally, this has campus progressives declaring that a “Day of Judgment” is upon us after sighting such a comet of reforms. Most statements focus on provisions for admitting students and hiring based on merit, with strict adherence to nondiscrimination. The statements continue a deliberate misinterpretation of civil rights law, which they believe gives them the right to discriminate based on race or sex for the sake of “diversity.” Some statements, such as the AAUP, focus on supposed threats to academic freedom. Others, still, are concerned with the procedural aspect of the Compact.
Professor James E. Moore, II, a senior fellow at the Reason Foundation and professor emeritus at the University of Southern California, writing for Minding the Campus, encourages USC to adopt the Compact. Moore writes that the Compact is a “great gift” and that “USC is uniquely well-positioned to benefit from the draft … and so is [Beong Soo] Kim.”
Kim, of course, is the interim president of USC, who has thus far navigated the Trump administration’s various higher education directives. So far, interim president Kim has reported that “he has no designs on a permanent appointment to the post.” Moore sees Kim’s position as an interim president as an opportunity for someone to do the right thing without being beholden to campus special interests. Perhaps he is right.
The Compact remains in the air, as the Trump administration considers the various constructive criticisms and comments it has received regarding this proposal.
Image: “Columbia University” by ajay_suresh on Wikimedia Commons
