Resolution Agreement Frequently Asked Questions

• A settlement with the U.S. government allows the University to move forward and was the right thing to do.
• In today’s regulatory environment, the federal government wields powerful tools of oversight across funding, immigration, and taxation. No institution can ignore the risks that come with sustained confrontation. Like many institutions that have resolved federal investigations in recent years, Columbia chose to settle not out of agreement with the government’s claims, but to prevent further harm to the institution.  
• We believe this is the most responsible course—one that protects the institution’s ability to serve its students, upholds its mission, and preserves its independence.
• This should not be misunderstood as an admission that the University violated the law. Antisemitism has occurred on our campus, and it has caused real pain for many members of our community. That is unacceptable, and Columbia is deeply committed to addressing it.
• While we understand that many inside and outside our community will hold different views about this decision, we made it with care, with seriousness, and with an unwavering commitment to the mission, values, and future of Columbia University.

• Columbia was exposed to far greater risk than the $400 million in grants that were suspended in March 2025. The government also froze reimbursement on active grants, continuations and renewals of existing non-competitive grants, and made our faculty ineligible to compete for new grants. The potential impact on Columbia was billions of dollars in current and future grants, and a fast-approaching loss of talent, and our research excellence.
• In addition to the research funding, other critical aspects of our operations were threatened: Our accreditation was at risk, access to undergraduate and graduate  financial aid and loans was threatened, and the status of international students and scholars were on the line.

• The $200 million settlement will be paid over three years in three equal payments of approximately $66 million.
• The University takes a long view on financial planning and will balance and adjust budgets as necessary to make this payment. We anticipate a mix of reserves and current/ongoing revenue will be utilized to make the payments.
• We continue to carefully navigate an uncertain landscape for higher education, research, and healthcare that, like our peers, will impact Columbia. This includes additional and potentially significant cuts to federal research funding, a possible restructuring and/or reduction of indirect cost recovery, likely reductions in Medicaid and other healthcare programs, and caps on student borrowing.
• It is impossible to predict the future with any certainty, navigating these challenges will come with difficult decisions, and we will continue to adjust operationally to meet fiscal demands. We are committed to keeping the community informed and engaged as these decisions are made.

• The EEOC settlement fund will cover the claims of individual employees who had pending claims with the EEOC based on discrimination or harassment experienced since October 7, 2023.
• Other employees with claims regarding Title VII discrimination, harassment, and/or retaliation by Columbia based on race, ethnicity, national origin, and/or religion related to antisemitism—who have not yet filed claims between October 7, 2023 and the effective date of the agreement—are also eligible to participate in the fund.
• A claims administrator will be appointed to administer the fund. Additional information about the fund will be available within the next 30 days.

• We considered all options, including litigation.
• While we might have gained short-term victories in court, it likely would have come at a steep price, incurring deeper, long-term damage. The litigation would have restored, possibly, current funding, not eligibility for future funding. In addition, the possibility of losing accreditation, and the potential revocation of the visa status of thousands of our international students was all on the line. Our posture was always to talk, as long as the talks were productive. We were willing to shift course if that changed.
• Litigation would likely have been lengthy and would not have resolved any of the pending investigations.

• One week later, more than half of the terminated grants have been restored, and we expect the others to be reinstated promptly. Funding and reimbursement payments have already begun to flow.
• Renewals and continuations that were frozen are also coming in on non-terminated grants.

Yes.

• The Resolution Agreement was specific to grants from HHS (including NIH).
• We are reviewing all grants that were terminated or suspended over the last months to identify those that were specifically directed at Columbia. We expect the fair treatment of Columbia grants and ability to compete to be honored by all federal agencies.
• Some of these grants were terminated or suspended across the board for all institutions, and have nothing specific to do with Columbia.
• To the extent that the federal government has made the decision not to fund certain types of projects at any institution, those grants will not be coming back to Columbia.

• Yes, Round 2 applications are due 9:00 a.m. on Monday, August 18, 2025.
• For more information, visit research.columbia.edu/stabilization-fund-and-other-resources.

• Approximately 80% of our research grants are from HHS. We only had a small number of grants from the Department of Education.
• The other grants were cancelled based on actions by the federal government, impacting numerous universities, that cut funding for specific programs, such as those related to USAID—including public health research—and DEI-related programs.

• Paused grants, reductions in indirect costs, severe budget cuts, and policy changes to federal research have already had a devastating toll on our faculty, students, and staff. Lives and careers have been disrupted, and years-long projects have been threatened.
• As we continue to navigate this complex and uncertain environment, the University is committed to supporting our research community through initiatives including:
  • Standing up the Research Stabilization Fund to provide short-term resources for our faculty and researchers;
  • Charging the new Research and Science Faculty Task Force with developing actionable plans to best sustain research activities and support the careers of our affected faculty, students, postdocs, and staff;
  • Collaborating on advocacy work with our peers and associations such as the Association of American Universities (AAU).
• While there are difficult times still ahead, Columbia is a remarkably resilient institution.

• We believe the monitor offers a predictable and systematic approach to demonstrating compliance with the agreement and allows us to work, in terms of the information we provide, with a neutral third party. Under a consent decree, the University would have had a federal judge overseeing the institution’s compliance. Under a judicial resolution, oversight of compliance would fall to the Department of Justice.
• The agreement establishes a jointly selected independent monitor who will assess the implementation of the resolution.
• This structure allows us to share information with a mutually selected individual to demonstrate that we are living up to the agreement without ceding control to the government or a court.

• The Resolution Agreement is binding on both Columbia and the government. This means that if the government has concern about our compliance with the agreement it must give us notice, and the opportunity to cure and then go through the step-by-step dispute resolution process set forth in the agreement.
• In the first instance, our obligation is to provide evidence of our compliance with the agreement to the monitor who can come back and ask for additional information to confirm our compliance.
• If the monitor or the government still have concerns, we will have the opportunity to work with the monitor to provide the required information.
• If the government is still not satisfied, it can go to arbitration with one of the agreed upon neutral arbitrators.  
• This agreement requires that the government go through this process before going to court or taking other action against us for violation of the agreement.
• If we believe that the government has not complied with its obligations under the agreement, we can go to arbitration and if that doesn’t bring a resolution, we can enforce the agreement in court.

• The Resolution Agreement provides complete releases for Title VI violations through the date of the agreement. It is not possible, under U.S. law, to get releases for future conduct.
• What this agreement does do is allow us to outline our processes, in terms of Title VI, for example, and our process for responding to complaints, and consistently demonstrate that we are operating in an atmosphere consistent with the law. That will reduce the risk of future charges.
• These are volatile and dynamic times for higher education, and we can’t predict the future. We do know this resolution will help us move forward as we continue to do all we can to safeguard the University’s research and teaching missions and our foundational capacity as an academic institution.

• We already have a hotline that allows people to raise concerns of any sort, and whistleblower protections in place at Columbia, including that no one can be retaliated against for raising concerns. Those protections would already extend to non-compliance with the law as regards hiring and admissions.
• There are also protections extended to anyone who reports non-compliance with elements of the agreement itself. If, for example, we did not appoint a student liaison, there is a channel by which someone can report that.

• As stated in the agreement, the government has no authority to dictate admission decisions. The language in the agreement regarding admissions is consistent with current law.
• The agreement codifies Columbia’s ongoing obligation to follow existing law related to admissions.

Those policies are already in place, consistent with existing law.

• Under Title VII, it has long been prohibited to consider race and other protected characteristics in hiring and promotion. The provision in the agreement about hiring simply states the long-standing requirements of Title VII.
• Our commitment to promoting an environment free from discrimination extends to hiring and promotion, including faculty hiring and promotion. Our faculty hiring and promotion processes are designed to identify and retain talented individuals who have or will make significant contributions to scholarship and teaching at Columbia. Our searches consider a broad range of ideas, expertise, academic backgrounds, experiences, accomplishments, perspectives, and intellectual directions. 
• Our policies and practices related to recruitment, hiring, retention, and promotion must be structured to give all applicants an equal opportunity. Each individual candidate must progress through the hiring and/or promotion process in a fair and equitable manner, free from biases for or against any candidate.
• A diverse learning environment, a diverse community, a diversity of viewpoints and life experiences, those are Columbia values, and contribute in many ways to the academic excellence at Columbia—but the method of creating that kind of excellence, that kind of community, must follow the law.
• It’s also important to note that, as stated in the agreement, the government has no authority to dictate faculty hiring.

These new faculty positions will expand the breadth of fields, expertise, and scholarly work. This is consistent with our commitment to sustaining an intellectually diverse academic environment, and it is consistent with our commitment to thoughtfully providing scholarship and learning opportunities about particularly timely and complex subject matter such as the contemporary Middle East. Title VII (and other federal and state laws) have long prohibited us from considering race, national origin, and other protected characteristics in hiring. We can, however, seek to address issues of intellectual breadth, or a lack thereof.

• Consistent with Title IX, Columbia will continue to provide single-sex housing for women who request such housing and all-female sports, locker rooms, and showering facilities.
• Columbia follows all NCAA policies regarding participation in our varsity sports.

• Columbia’s anti-discrimination policy protects academic freedom, which includes the classroom experience. The policy for faculty and staff specifically states: “Nothing in the Faculty and Staff ADDH Policies shall be construed to abridge academic freedom and inquiry, principles of free speech, or the University’s educational mission.”
• The IHRA definition is being used by many universities and colleges across the country, including many of our peers, and is one factor among many that would be considered in reviewing and adjudicating anti-discrimination cases.

• Columbia University rejects antisemitism and all forms of harassment or discrimination. Antisemitism has occurred on our campus, and it has caused real pain for many members of our community. That is unacceptable, and Columbia is deeply committed to addressing it. We recognize there is still work to do to ensure a campus where every student—Jewish students included—can feel safe, valued, and respected.
• All of the measures reflected in the agreement were already underway, as described in the University’s March 21 announcement. These include enhancements to campus safety, clarified disciplinary systems, and ongoing efforts to combat antisemitism and all forms of discrimination and hate on our campus.
• A further set of institutional actions were announced on July 15, 2025, including the inclusion of the IHRA definition of antisemitism in our anti-discrimination policies, the appointment of Title VI and Title VII coordinators, and the expansion of education and training initiatives.
• These ongoing commitments reflect Columbia’s own values, not external demands.

The disciplinary determinations issued on July 21 by the University Judicial Board (UJB) are completely unrelated to the resolution with the government. The sanctions were determined by a UJB panel of faculty and staff who worked diligently over the past several months to offer an outcome for each individual based on the findings of their case and prior disciplinary outcomes.