In 2003, Lee Bollinger served as the respondent in two U.S. Supreme Court cases that challenged the legality of the University of Michigan’s race-based affirmative action admissions practices: Grutter v. Bollinger and Gratz v. Bollinger. Though the court ruled that racial quotas and point systems were unconstitutional, they granted that schools could take race into account in college admissions decisions—because there was a compelling state interest in promoting diversity on campuses.
Twenty years later, that decision was overturned by a 6-to-3 majority in the cases Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard and Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina. Coincidentally, Lee Bollinger retired as the president of Columbia University (after a 21-year tenure) the very same week.
I was in my second year of undergraduate studies at Columbia when Bollinger retired. In the years following, I have seen my school community struggle with ideological divisions, heated debates, protests, national publicity and threats from the federal government. Whether or not the university always lived them out, Bollinger’s tenure at Columbia emphasized the same values as his defense of affirmative action: a commitment to diversity (of both identity and thought), civil discourse and tolerance on college campuses. In his absence, these priorities seemed to be put on the back burner.
In his new book University: A Reckoning, Bollinger grapples with the reality that Columbia and universities across the country are facing—one characterized by challenges to their independence from what Bollinger labels “authoritarian” attacks.
Bollinger criticizes the Trump administration’s public threat to withdraw science and biomedical funding from Columbia University over claims that Columbia had violated Title IV of the Civil Rights Act by failing to, as Bollinger recounts, “protect Jewish students against antisemitism in the period of the protests following the massacre in Israel by Hamas on October 7, 2023.” Though Columbia is an extremely personal example for Bollinger, it is not the only school he mentions: He notes that other institutions that have “favored programs and policies of racial and other diversity” are facing similar challenges, including the University of Pennsylvania and Harvard University.
Bollinger explains that the Trump administration’s so-called remedies are far more drastic than any measures the government has ever taken in response to Title IV concerns. And there is no easy way out once such threats have been issued. He writes:
Because federal funds constitute such a significant proportion of every university’s annual budget, universities have rightly claimed that they are facing an existential threat, one that could only be alleviated by essentially allowing the federal government to run their institutions and curtail academic freedom.
Bollinger argues that we should all be concerned about these actions, regardless of whether we have connections to the specific schools under fire. By “using the leverage of funding” to interfere with university governance, hiring and classroom practices, the Trump administration is challenging longstanding societal norms that hold the university as a key democratic institution, one in which debate and the open exchange of ideas, free from political intervention or retaliation, are not only permitted but essential.
In order to explain why the threat to universities is one we should all care about, Bollinger offers a detailed explanation of what the university is, how it operates and what makes it special—examining it alongside other avenues of public debate and expression, like the press. Key to his argument is the idea that our understanding of the university has developed in tandem with our understanding of the First Amendment and its influence on American life. He claims:
These two institutions—the constitutional principles of freedom of speech and press and the network of universities—are deeply interconnected, interrelated, and mutually reinforcing…. They are essential elements of a democracy in which citizens are free to pursue the most important ends of their life, including understanding our existence and the natural world.
According to Bollinger, one can understand the role of the university only by understanding what the First Amendment does and how its influence looms in American society. At the same time, he argues that the university is not merely the result of the constitutional principle but also a key arena for its formation, evolution and protection. His explanation of this framework culminates in the third chapter, where he argues that the university should be heralded as the fifth branch of our democratic government (the press/media often being considered the fourth branch).
A discussion about the university as the fifth branch of government is the crux of University: A Reckoning, and Bollinger spares no effort in providing a very thorough and fundamental description of how these institutions function.
The first chapter, titled “The University,” offers a piece-by-piece breakdown of all the personnel groups of the typical university, a description he feels is needed because “most people in the United States, even many of us inside the university, do not fully understand how universities operate and, most important, why they have been successful.” Subsections focus on the role of the professor, the student, the administration and even the boards and alumni networks.
I found this chapter to be one of the most interesting parts of the book. Having experienced Columbia at a time when university leadership was frequently clashing with professors and students, I found it interesting to see the school’s former leader describe how these relationships are intended to fit together. It makes for a compelling reflection on how Bollinger might have handled unrest on Columbia’s campus differently from his successors.
Just as detailed is Bollinger’s explanation of the evolution of the First Amendment in the second chapter. Though not a comprehensive analysis of the constitutional principles at play, University: A Reckoning features select Supreme Court cases that Bollinger—a First Amendment legal scholar—identifies as being the most pivotal in developing not only “the limits of official censorship but also a cultural norm” about diversity of ideas and freedom of expression. For those not familiar with First Amendment jurisprudence, this section could be both confusing and dense; it necessitates at least a basic understanding of how case law is developed.
Early in the book, Bollinger describes his book as a “deeply personal” project, explaining that he has “thought about everything I explore in these pages for more or less all of my life.” This raises a question that I pondered several times while reading this book: Beyond Bollinger himself (and perhaps university administrators), who is this book for?
Bollinger’s argument depends on certain starting beliefs: that the First Amendment is worth protecting, first of all; and that the ideal university system that he presents has not yet become flawed or corrupted beyond saving. While the book contains a clearly structured and accessible argument, it is ideally suited for someone who already believes wholeheartedly in both the university and the First Amendment and is searching for a deeper understanding of how each works on its own or how they come together. Those who have more negative or ambivalent feelings about the university system may not be convinced by this project.
But for those who are approaching the book with an optimistic perspective on what higher education institutions can offer us, University: A Reckoning does present a compelling case for why the institutions are in danger and ought to be protected. And though some of Bollinger’s argument about how and why the university can be defended through legal measures and Supreme Court cases feels somewhat removed from the average reader’s own actions, he also pursues a parallel goal of fostering wider understanding and appreciation for the university’s commitment to the pursuit of truth and knowledge.
Bollinger also offers a warning: The Trump administration’s threats to universities are not isolated attacks. Rather, he explains, in all societies that have “fallen to, or embraced” a recent form of authoritarianism, “the state goes after the press first and then closes in on universities next” because of their shared capacity to challenge abuses of power. But though these arenas of expression may be at the front lines of the attack, the charge will not stop with them. If we care about our ability to participate in the democratic process, we should be paying attention.
Politics
Faith
Culture
Vatican
Scripture
Podcasts