🔗 Share this article

When government officers detained the university student a student activist in his university residence, the institute director understood a major battle lay ahead.

The director heads a university-connected center dedicated to protecting free speech rights. Khalil, a permanent resident, had been involved in Palestinian solidarity protests on campus. Previously, the institute had hosted a conference about free speech rights for noncitizens.

"We recognized a direct link with this situation, since we're part of the university," Jaffer stated. "And we saw this arrest as a serious infringement of constitutional freedoms."

Landmark Victory Against Government

Last week, Jaffer's team at the Knight First Amendment Institute, along with the law firm Sher Tremonte, achieved a significant legal win when a district court judge in Massachusetts ruled that the arrest and attempted deportation of Khalil and additional activists was illegal and intentionally designed to chill free speech.

The Trump administration announced it will appeal the verdict, with administration representative Liz Huston describing the judgment an "unacceptable decision that undermines the safety and security of our nation".

Increasing Separation Separating Institute and University

The ruling raised the profile of the Knight Institute, catapulting it to the forefront of the conflict with the administration over fundamental American values. Yet the win also highlighted the growing divide between the organization and the university that hosts it.

The case – described by the presiding official as "perhaps the significant to ever fall within the jurisdiction of this court" – was the first of multiple opposing Trump's unprecedented assault on higher education to reach court proceedings.

Court Testimony

Throughout the two-week trial, academic experts gave evidence about the atmosphere of fear and silencing caused by the detentions, while immigration officials revealed details about their reliance on reports by rightwing, Israel-supporting groups to select individuals.

Veena Dubal, chief lawyer of the academic organization, which brought the case along with local branches and the academic group, described it "the primary civil rights lawsuit of the current government currently".

'Institution and Institute Occupy Different Sides'

Although the legal success was praised by supporters and scholars nationwide, Jaffer received no communication from university leadership following the ruling – a reflection of the tensions in the stances staked out by the institute and the institution.

Even before the administration began, Columbia had represented the declining tolerance for Palestinian advocacy on American universities after it summoned officers to clear its campus protest, suspended dozens of students for their activism and dramatically restricted protests on campus.

Institutional Agreement

This summer, the institution reached a deal with the federal government to pay millions to settle antisemitism claims and submit to significant limitations on its autonomy in a action widely condemned as "surrender" to the president's pressure strategies.

Columbia's compliant stance was starkly at odds with the organization's defiant one.

"We're at a moment in which the institution and the organization are on different sides of some of these fundamental issues," observed a former fellow at the Knight Institute.

Organization's Purpose

The Knight Institute was launched in recent years and is housed on the university grounds. It has received significant funding from the institution as part of an arrangement that had each contributing millions in program support and long-term financing to establish the center.

"My hope for the institute in the long-term future is that when there is a time when the government has gone in the wrong direction and fundamental rights are at stake and no one else are willing to step forward and to declare, this must stop, it will be the Knight Institute that will taken action," stated Lee Bollinger, a First Amendment scholar who established the institute.

Public Criticism

Shortly after campus developments, the university and the the organization found themselves on different sides, with Knight frequently objecting to the university's handling of campus demonstrations both privately and in progressively critical public statements.

In one letter to university leadership, the director condemned the decision to suspend campus organizations, which the university said had violated policies related to organizing protests.

Growing Conflict

Later, the director again condemned the university's decision to call police onto campus to clear a non-violent, pro-Palestinian encampment – leading to the arrest of more than 100 students.

"The university's decisions are separated from the principles that are central to the university's life and mission – such as free speech, academic freedom, and fair treatment," he wrote this time.

Student Perspective

The detained student, specifically, had pleaded with university administrators for protection, and in a published article composed while jailed he stated that "the reasoning used by the federal government to target me and fellow students is an outgrowth of Columbia's repression playbook regarding Palestine".

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

Organization's Reaction

Following the deal was revealed, the Knight Institute published a scathing rebuke, stating that the agreement approves "a remarkable shift of independence and authority to the administration".

"University administration ought not accepted this," the declaration said.

Broader Context

Knight has allies – groups such as the civil liberties union, the Foundation for Individual Rights and additional civil liberties groups have challenged the government over free speech issues, as have labor organizations and Harvard University.

The institute isn't exclusively focusing on university matters – in additional lawsuits to the government, the institute has filed cases on behalf of agricultural workers and climate activists opposing government agencies over environmental datasets and challenged the withholding of official reports.

Unique Position

But its protection of campus expression at a university now synonymous with making concessions on it places it in a uniquely uneasy position.

The director showed understanding for the lack of "good options" for Columbia's leaders even as he characterized their decision to settle as a "major error". But he emphasized that although the institute standing at the other side of its parent institution when it comes to dealing with the president, the institution has permitted it to function without interference.

"Especially right now, I appreciate that freedom for granted," he said. "If Columbia tried to limit our activities, I wouldn't be at Columbia any longer."