Columbia’s Clumsy Communication
Amidst major federal policy changes, Columbia leadership has failed to keep the community informed.
After President Trump announced sweeping cuts to National Institute of Health (NIH) medical research funding on February 7, Johns Hopkins University President Ron Daniels sent an email three days later to the community.
Daniels announced that the university joined several peer institutions in filing a lawsuit to block the cuts. “These abrupt and sweeping cuts in NIH funding pose an extraordinary challenge to the important and lifesaving work of our faculty, staff, and students at Johns Hopkins,” Daniels wrote. He added that the cuts “put at risk the future of the American research enterprise as a whole.”
It was a simple email, but when I saw his message on X, I was drawn to how clear and direct it was, unlike those from Columbia’s former Interim President Katrina Armstrong. On behalf of the entire Columbia community, I want to highlight our administration’s communication shortcomings so that Acting President Claire Shipman can do better.
Like Johns Hopkins, Columbia relies on NIH research funding, which contributed $747 million to Columbia in 2023. Columbia and JHU are responding to the NIH’s plan to cap the indirect cost reimbursement rate at 15 percent, which is far below Columbia’s average rate of 35.6 percent in 2024. Indirect cost reimbursement covers essential overhead research expenses, such as lab maintenance, equipment, and support staff.
But our administration’s response to this impending financial crisis has been untimely and vague.
The funding cuts were officially announced on February 7, but Armstrong did not send an email until February 13. In that message, she begins by saying, “We are still figuring out how to navigate the ongoing changes in the federal government’s approach to its funding of research.” This statement makes it seem as if the University was caught off guard, but Armstrong later writes, “Please know that for several months our leadership has been actively preparing for this changing federal policy environment.” She provided no details about what this active preparation entailed, yet one thing is certain: it didn’t work. Throughout her presidency, Armstrong’s emails read like they’re AI-generated, full of empty rhetoric rather than strong direction. The platitudes she used, such as “we stand resilient and brilliant” and “we believe in the power of knowledge,” felt hollow. They reflected a message as fleeting as her position: an interim voice destined to be replaced by something more definitive.
The stakes of Columbia’s public messaging have never been higher. Columbia faces significant financial threats from the Trump administration, including $400 million in federal funding to the University that is currently frozen for Columbia’s “failure to protect Jewish students from harassment,” as well as other executive orders impacting higher education broadly. Stand Columbia Society (SCS), a group of Columbia community members dedicated to “advocating for Columbia University’s core mission of teaching, learning, research, and patient care,” found that Trump’s election could cost the university $3.5 billion in “institutional risk exposure.”
With billions of dollars potentially at stake, one might expect a clear and public response from the administration. Instead, the University remains unclear in its messaging, unwilling to risk alienating any side.
Even when the administration took concrete stances—such as complying with many of the Trump administration’s demands to regain the $400 million in funding—they avoided explaining their rationale in their emails. Instead of summarizing the changes directly, Armstrong’s March 21 email featured three links about “sharing progress” and finished with four paragraphs of vague platitudes. One of the links led to an error page, and the other two pointed to a long bureaucratic list of all of the changes, which the community cannot be expected to fully and easily digest.
Six hours later, Interim Executive Vice President for University Life Melanie Bernitz sent a follow-up email acknowledging questions and concerns about Armstrong’s announcement, citing “incomplete and misleading media reports.” Instead of correcting the record, Bernitz simply reiterated that Armstrong was “clear” in her announcement and provided the same link to the list of changes.
The Armstrong administration’s lack of clarity was not new. In an attempt to reassure readers that the Columbia administration was working diligently to address the University’s many issues, Armstrong made broad statements that acknowledged uncertainty but remained very vague.
“We will be as transparent as we can in our communications and in our decision-making processes, as we continue to uphold the values that make our University a beacon of excellence,” Armstrong wrote in her January 28 email. However, Armstrong’s communications were not in fact “transparent.”
In her February 13 “Meeting the Moment” email, Armstrong emphasized that “during times of historic uncertainty and change, the path forward can be illuminated by our values.” Likewise, in her March 7 “Responding to Federal Action” email, she again says, “No one can forecast with certainty what the future will hold. However, I do know this: a unified Columbia, one that remains focused on our mission and our values, will succeed.” Armstrong constantly highlighted Columbia’s values without offering any meaningful updates, leaving the community with little sense of how the University planned to respond to constant changes from the federal government.
Even government officials have weighed in on Armstrong’s indistinct leadership style. For example, Representative Tim Walberg (R-MI), who sits on the House Education Committee, told The New York Times, “President Armstrong personally promised me twice that new leadership would result in real changes, but I’ve seen nothing but empty promises.”
The administration’s reluctance to communicate a firm stance on federal government policies reflects a larger institutional passivity at Columbia. As a freshman, I came to campus knowing that Columbia was at a crossroads after the encampments and takeover of Hamilton Hall last spring, but I still believed in the University’s commitment to meaningful discourse and intellectual freedom. However, while President Trump targets Columbia on a regular basis, it feels like the University administration has failed to live up to these values by communicating only empty statements with no policy substance. The entire community feels paralyzed as a result.
I long for a strong voice from our University’s leaders—one that effectively communicates concrete actions and plans instead of bloated platitudes and vague reassurances. As it stands now, the administration seems too focused on not upsetting people rather than communicating real action.
“At all times, we are guided by our values, putting academic freedom, free expression, open inquiry, and respect for all at the fore of every decision we make,” Armstrong wrote at the conclusion of her March 21 “Sharing Progress on Our Priorities” email. Listing free speech-related values right next to “respect” is a sign that Armstrong was trying to appeal to those prioritizing campus free expression and those favoring greater protections against hate speech and harassment. But where actually is the balance? Messages like these leave us readers in limbo, and we must rely on other media portrayals to inform us about our own community.
Other administration figures have likewise embraced uninspired messaging. Josef Sorrett, dean of Columbia College, took Armstrong’s departure as an opportunity to comment on student behavior, writing that “too often we have not treated one another with the respect that each of us is due.” But this reads as another vague plea that does not give students any clarity as to what Sorrett refers to.
With Armstrong’s departure, Columbia once again has the opportunity to reestablish its institutional identity. However, the Shipman administration must start with clear, competent communication. Their messaging should highlight tangible and transparent updates, whether Columbia is complying with the Trump administration’s demands or challenging them. Either route will bring major backlash, but highlighting a firm stance would still be better than meaningless rhetoric.
Acting President Shipman wrote in her first email to the community that “Ornamental language can’t disguise the fact that this is a precarious moment for Columbia,” while pledging “to be as transparent as possible.” Shipman is right: Columbia needs leadership, not platitudes. The coming months will reveal whether she can follow through on these promises.
Ms. Rajan is a freshman at Columbia College majoring in political science and sustainable development. She is a staff editor for Sundial.
exactly this!!!