Don’t Close Columbia’s Research Labs. Move Them.

The Trump administration is threatening to cut $400 million in research funding at Columbia University unless the institution remedies its failure to comply with Title VI civil rights requirements to protect its Jewish students.

Columbia University is responding with threats of its own, saying that some beneficial projects in medical science will have to be shuttered if funds are cut.

Discontinuing important research efforts is a political choice, not a financial necessity, for an institution with nearly $5 billion in unrestricted endowment funds. Columbia is making this political decision because it hopes that those who value threatened research efforts will blame the Trump administration and apply pressure to reverse the announced funding cuts.

Rather than give in to these threats, the Trump administration should back an alternative for how beneficial projects could continue. They should relocate valued research projects to other universities that are not in trouble for Title VI violations. If there really is life-saving research underway at Columbia, there is no reason why it must be done at a university with severe antisemitism problems.

Other universities, like Washington University in St. Louis, Vanderbilt, or Auburn, would likely be eager to welcome productive researchers and their federal research grants. And, unlike Columbia, those universities do not face sanctions for Title VI violations.

Of course, moving key researchers, graduate students, and their labs would be disruptive and requires money. But these problems can be minimized if the receiving universities offer attractive start-up packages and purchase the necessary equipment. Large donors concerned about rampant antisemitism at universities can step in to help.

Even federal grant-making agencies, like the National Institute for Health, could lend a hand. Columbia doesn’t just tolerate educationally disruptive and discriminatory protests, it also charges the federal government significantly more for overhead on research grants than do universities without these antisemitism issues.

Assuming that the administration’s proposal to cap overhead rates at 15% continues being held up by a federal judge, moving $400 million in research from Columbia to Wash U., Vanderbilt, and Auburn could save about $14 million in just overhead expenses. If the NIH could redirect the $14 million in overhead savings to start-up funds meant to relocate the grants, it would save $14 million in overhead costs in every subsequent year. Moving the research to another university without Title VI problems would not only pay for itself, but would end up saving the federal government millions of dollars.

Relocating life-saving research projects would also improve the quality of those efforts.

 Research labs want to attract the most talented personnel. Universities that tolerate widespread discrimination make themselves unwelcoming to the full array of capable researchers. If projects were to be moved to Wash U., Vanderbilt, or Auburn that do not have similar Title VI violations, projects would not have to worry about losing access to talented researchers because of harassment and discrimination.

In addition, quality researchers should prefer to be based at well-run universities that are not plagued by the disruption and dysfunction that Columbia enables. Places like Wash U., Vanderbilt, and Auburn can avoid out of control protests, which would allow researchers to focus on doing their research without being concerned about politics.

There is no reason why the protestors who support hostage-takers should be able to hold the key research of their colleagues hostage by jeopardizing their federal funding. Moving research grants to well-run universities that enforce their rules against disruptive protests is a way to free the research being held hostage at Columbia University.

The post Don’t Close Columbia’s Research Labs. Move Them. appeared first on The Daily Signal.