He also admits that federal grants make up less than 7% of his budget (and, if I understand correctly, that most of that 7% is not in the form that has been threatened).
I don’t see a good argument “against cowardice” in the article. How can a university like Columbia which would be effectively destroyed by Trump’s attack respond defiantly when Trump would be happy to destroy it? He wins either way, but one way leads to a great deal of hardship for thousands of people. Why should a university pick that way? Ideological purity I suppose, and perhaps to be an inspiration (but also a warning) to others? He doesn’t really say.
He also admits that federal grants make up less than 7% of his budget (and, if I understand correctly, that most of that 7% is not in the form that has been threatened).
I don’t see a good argument “against cowardice” in the article. How can a university like Columbia which would be effectively destroyed by Trump’s attack respond defiantly when Trump would be happy to destroy it? He wins either way, but one way leads to a great deal of hardship for thousands of people. Why should a university pick that way? Ideological purity I suppose, and perhaps to be an inspiration (but also a warning) to others? He doesn’t really say.