🔗 Share this article

When government officers 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 dedicated to defending First Amendment rights. Khalil, a permanent resident, had been involved in pro-Palestinian encampments on campus. Previously, the institute had organized a symposium about constitutional protections for noncitizens.

"We felt this connection to the case, because we're part of the university," Jaffer explained. "We viewed this arrest as a major violation of constitutional freedoms."

Landmark Victory Against Government

Recently, Jaffer's team at the free speech organization, along with the law firm their co-counsel, secured a landmark victory when a district court judge in Boston determined that the arrest and planned removal of the student and additional activists was illegal and purposely created to suppress protest.

Government officials has said it will appeal the decision, with White House spokesperson a spokeswoman calling the judgment an "unacceptable decision that undermines the safety and security of the country".

Growing Divide Between Organization and Institution

This decision elevated the visibility of the free speech center, catapulting it to the forefront of the conflict against the administration over fundamental American values. However the victory also underscored the widening chasm between the organization and the institution that houses it.

This legal challenge – characterized by the presiding official as "possibly the most important to ever fall within the jurisdiction of this court" – was the initial of several challenging Trump's unprecedented assault on higher education to go to trial.

Court Testimony

Throughout the two-week trial, academic experts testified about the climate of terror and silencing caused by the arrests, while immigration officials revealed information about their reliance on dossiers by rightwing, Israel-supporting groups to pick their targets.

Veena Dubal, general counsel of the academic organization, which brought the case along with local branches and the academic group, described it "the central constitutional case of the Trump administration currently".

'University and Organization Occupy Different Sides'

Although the court victory was hailed by advocates and academics nationwide, the director received no communication from university leadership following the decision – a reflection of the disagreements in the stances taken by the institute and the institution.

Prior to the administration began, the university had represented the shrinking space for Palestinian advocacy on US campuses after it summoned officers to clear its student encampment, suspended multiple activists for their activism and dramatically restricted demonstrations on campus.

Institutional Agreement

This summer, the institution negotiated an agreement with the Trump administration to pay millions to resolve antisemitism claims and accept major restrictions on its autonomy in a action widely condemned as "surrender" to the administration's bullying tactics.

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

"We're at a moment in which the institution and the institute are on different sides of some of these fundamental issues," noted a former fellow at the free speech center.

Organization's Purpose

The Knight Institute was launched in 2016 and is housed on the university grounds. It has received substantial support from the institution as part of an arrangement that had both providing substantial amounts in program support and long-term financing to establish the center.

"My hope for the institute in the years ahead is that when there is that moment when the administration has gone in the wrong direction and constitutional protections are threatened and few others are willing to step forward and to declare, enough is enough, it will be the Knight Institute who will have stepped forward," said the former president, a First Amendment scholar who helped create the center.

Open Disagreement

Following campus developments, the university and the Knight Institute found themselves on opposing sides, with the institute regularly criticizing the university's handling of campus demonstrations both privately and in increasingly unforgiving public statements.

In one letter to campus administration, Jaffer criticized the decision to suspend two student groups, which the institution said had broken rules related to holding campus events.

Growing Conflict

Subsequently, the director further criticized the institution's choice to call law enforcement onto campus to remove a non-violent, pro-Palestinian encampment – leading to the detention of numerous activists.

"The university's decisions have become separated from the principles that are central to the academic community and purpose – including expression, scholarly independence, and equality," he wrote in that instance.

Student Perspective

The detained student, specifically, had pleaded with campus officials for protection, and in an op-ed composed while jailed he stated that "the logic employed by the federal government to single out me and my peers is an outgrowth of Columbia's repression playbook regarding Palestinian issues".

The university reached agreement with the federal government shortly after the case wrapped in court.

Organization's Reaction

Following the deal was revealed, the organization published a scathing rebuke, concluding that the agreement sanctions "an astonishing transfer of independence and control to the government".

"Columbia's leaders ought not accepted this," the declaration stated.

Wider Impact

The institute doesn't stand alone – groups such as the civil liberties union, the free speech organization and other rights organizations have opposed the government over free speech issues, as have labor organizations and other institutions.

The institute isn't concentrating solely on university matters – in additional lawsuits to the government, the organization has sued on behalf of agricultural workers and climate activists opposing federal departments over environmental information and challenged the withholding of government documents.

Unique Position

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

The director showed understanding for the absence of "favorable choices" for university administration while he described their decision to settle as a "serious mistake". But he stressed that despite the organization positioned at the opposite end of its parent institution when it comes to dealing with the president, the institution has permitted it to function without interference.

"Particularly currently, I don't take that freedom for granted," he stated. "Should the university attempt to limit our activities, I wouldn't remain at Columbia any more."