Penn, Harvard, Columbia, UVA, now Northwestern Presidents resign

This is ridiculous. Trump admin cuts funding from elite schools and forces their presidents to resign to instill his own agenda into the universities. Whether you’re republican or democratic, its clear that this is very clearly authoritarian. No other president has ever abused power this grossly / blatantly, especially towards universities. Absolutely ridiculous.

30 Comments
 

Based on the most helpful WSO content, there is no mention or evidence in the provided context about the resignation of presidents from Penn, Harvard, Columbia, UVA, or Northwestern due to actions by the Trump administration or any related funding cuts. If this is a current event or claim, it falls outside the scope of the WSO dataset provided.

I'm sorry, but it looks like this may be out of my ability to answer... maybe some of the links below might help?

Sources: Kewsong Lee steps down from Carlyle, The barbarians are at the gate! Of universities, moats and disruption!, Do universities place sanctions on companies who rescind offers?, https://www.wallstreetoasis.com/forum/investing/the-trump-effect-on-markets-a-financial-not-a-political-analysis?customgpt=1, $600,000 in student debt - Will The Bubble Pop?

I'm an AI bot trained on the most helpful WSO content across 17+ years.
 

If these presidents (and university administrations overall) had adequately enforced civil rights policies to protect Jewish kids from being denied entrance to classes, harassed, and outright assaulted in numerous cases, they wouldn’t be at risk for losing anything. Similar measures were taken by administrations throughout the 1960s and 1970s to force southern state schools to end racial discrimination against black students. For your consideration: 

  • University of Mississippi (1962): When James Meredith sought to enroll, the Kennedy administration threatened to cut off federal contracts and research grants if the university refused to comply with desegregation orders. Federal marshals enforced the order, and funding pressure was a key tool.
  • University of Alabama (1963): When Governor George Wallace tried to block Black students from enrolling, the Kennedy administration warned that federal research contracts could be cut off.
  • University of California v. Bakke (1978): While the Court struck down strict racial quotas, it reaffirmed that Title VI applied broadly — federal funding would be withdrawn from programs engaged in discriminatory admissions.
  • Civil Rights Restoration Act (1987): Reaffirmed that if any part of a university discriminated, the entire institution could lose federal funds.
  • Missouri v. Jenkins (1990s): Though primarily a K–12 desegregation case, it reinforced the principle that federal funding could be conditioned on eliminating racial inequality in education.
  • Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964: This statute prohibited institutions receiving federal funds from discriminating based on race. The federal government explicitly tied student aid, research grants, and other funding to compliance.
  • HEW enforcement in the 1970s: The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare conducted compliance reviews of universities. Schools that maintained segregated admissions or facilities risked loss of federal student aid and research dollars (e.g., Southern universities in Mississippi, Louisiana, and others faced these reviews).
  • Adams v. Richardson (1973): Federal courts upheld that HEW must enforce Title VI by threatening withdrawal of funds from states (and their universities) that continued racially discriminatory practices.

Tl;dr: Let Jewish kids go to class.
 




 

 
Funniest

Lmfao shut up you Israeli propagandist. All you people do is play the victim card as a clever way to absolve yourselves from the responsibility for the horrendous actions you commit which inadvertently is what causes discrimination against you in the first place

 

The world did not start on Oct 7 (regardless, it was a tragedy that should have never happened)

Attempting to silence legitimate criticisms of Israel is a victim tactic used to shame people who disagree with you. Unfortunately, this does not work on people with critical thinking skills. 

Not that it matters but all except the Mizrahi are more European than they are semitic.  The whole thing is a farce to justify the Israeli government's actions in the Levant

Furthermore, It's not appropriate to post that link here - it's heart wrenching. Everyone knows what those terrorists did that day was a crime against humanity and I hope they are brought to justice

 

You're right, the world didn't start on 10/7. It began, more or less, with 2000-3000 years of foreign invaders trying to displace the Jews from our ancestral homeland (Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Islamic Calphates, Ottoman Empire, etc.) coinciding with persecution into every country into which we were driven; first via mediecal blood libels (Jews using Christian blood to make matzo, etc.) followed by racial antisemitism throughout the 18th, 19th, and 20th (Jews as an inferior race), now evolved into "anti-Zionism," which itself is a combination of the former two interations masquerading as criticism of "the Israeli government."

Just curious, when did it start? Was it when the UN paritioned the British Mandate for Palestine (an abandoned chunk of the Ottoman Empire) into two states, one Jewish, one Palestininan? After which the Arab League declared war on Israel, sparking a refugee crisis that resulted in many Arabs becoming refugees, their descendents being today's Palestinans (I'll note that some of those Arab refugees became Israeli citizens, and their descendents enjoy probably the highest standard of living in the region)? Was it during every war that the Arab world started against Israel (1948, 1967, 1972, the First Intifada, the Second Intifada, 10/7, etc.)? 

Furthermore, yes, many Mizrahi Jews are of middle eastern extraction; many with lineages in modern-day Israel going back thousands of years; those who came from other parts of the middle east live in Israel because the countries from which they originated threw them out. But you left that out, didnt you? As for Ashkenazim and Sephardim yes, many of their ancestors migrated to Spain and Europe after being expelled from the levant (Spain 1492, England, etc.), culiminating in the Holocaust. However, genetic studies have directly connected Ashkenazi and Sephardic lineages in an unbroken line to the Middle East corresponding with historical records of their expulsion. 

But sure, this justifies rape, murder, and torture of hostages. To say nothing of suicide bombings. 

 

Where did you get the whole justification line at the bottom? Not an intellectually honest argument. Emotionally driven victim complex to shame people into silence

Displacing people living somewhere today because people who shared ancestry/religion with you 2000-3000 years ago were expelled from there is not a serious argument. Justifying this would open up a dangerous precedent that would apply to Europe, Asia, Africa, Middle East and North America. This argument has only ever been used in this particular case ever - how interesting

You can't minimize all criticism of the Israeli government as "antisemitism". Israel is committing serious crimes and has been for generations (stealing Palestinian land, annexing territories, bombing 3rd party nations, settlements, denying Palestinians basic human rights)  

The Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrian etc. all have lineages and unbroken line to the region and many of them were expelled from their homes as part of Israel's (and Arab military) actions in the Levant. Again, this is not a serious argument

The core fact remains: Israel is committing an unprecedent amount of crimes in the region and they need to stop. They won't stop though, because they do not want peace, this is about Israel annexing a greater and greater portion of the region, as has become abundantly clear with their actions in the West Bank,  rhetoric of the far-right ministers and Bibi himself

 

Displacing people living somewhere today because people who shared ancestry/religion with you 2000-3000 years ago were expelled from there is not a serious argument. Justifying this would open up a dangerous precedent that would apply to Europe, Asia, Africa, Middle East and North America. This argument has only ever been used in this particular case ever - how interesting

The Jewish people were not merely present in Israel 2000–3000 years ago; they maintained continuous presence in the land despite repeated conquests (Babylonians, Romans, Byzantines, Ottomans, etc.). Jewish communities persisted in Jerusalem, Safed, Hebron, and Tiberias throughout history. Modern nation-states routinely recognize historical/ancestral claims. For example, Greece and Armenia are tied to their ancient civilizations, and many Indigenous land claims worldwide (U.S., Canada, Australia, New Zealand) are explicitly rooted in ancestral continuity, not recent possession. The return of Jews to Israel was not displacement in a vacuum; it followed centuries of persecution culminating in the Holocaust. The UN (Resolution 181, 1947) formally recognized the legitimacy of Jewish statehood, alongside an Arab state.

You can't minimize all criticism of the Israeli government as "antisemitism". Israel is committing serious crimes and has been for generations (stealing Palestinian land, annexing territories, bombing 3rd party nations, settlements, denying Palestinians basic human rights)  

True: not all criticism of Israel is antisemitic. Israel itself has a vigorous democracy with harsh internal critiques. However, delegitimization (denying Israel’s right to exist) is antisemitic under the IHRA definition adopted by dozens of countries. Bearing this in mind, equating Israel uniquely to an apartheid or genocidal state, while ignoring far worse actors (Iran, Sudan, Myanmar, Eritrea, Congo, Ethiopia, China, Turkey, etc.), reflects selective bias. When double standards are applied uniquely to Israel, that crosses into antisemitic territory.

The Egyptians, Lebanese, Syrian etc. all have lineages and unbroken line to the region and many of them were expelled from their homes as part of Israel's (and Arab military) actions in the Levant. Again, this is not a serious argument

This is historically inaccurate. Arabs largely migrated into the area in the 7th century after Islamic conquests, and many modern Lebanese descend from Phoenicians mixed with Arab and Ottoman settlers. Egypt’s population was also transformed, primarily by Arab, Mamluk, and Ottoman rule. Does this mean Palestinians lack legitimate roots? No. But Jews, whose connection is older and far more uninterrupted, have them too.. The fact that both peoples have ties to the land, is why a partition (two states) was proposed.

The core fact remains: Israel is committing an unprecedent amount of crimes in the region and they need to stop. They won't stop though, because they do not want peace, this is about Israel annexing a greater and greater portion of the region, as has become abundantly clear with their actions in the West Bank,  rhetoric of the far-right ministers and Bibi himself

False. The region’s history is full of population transfers (Greek/Turkish 1920s, India/Pakistan 1947). Singling out Israel exaggerates scale and intent. Land disputes stem from defensive wars. In 1948 and 1967, Arab states rejected compromise and invaded. Territories gained were in wars of survival, not expansionist conquest. Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005. Instead of peace, Hamas turned it into a terror enclave firing rockets daily: this conflict is not about “land theft” but about security and recognition. Palestinians have repeatedly rejected peace deals (1937, 1947, 2000, 2008, 2014). Israel accepted partition plans; Arab leaders did not. Israel signed peace treaties with Egypt (1979) and Jordan (1994). It has normalized ties with UAE, Bahrain, Morocco, Sudan under the Abraham Accords (2020). This contradicts the idea that Israel “doesn’t want peace.” Israel offered Palestinians 90–95% of the West Bank with land swaps (Camp David 2000, Olmert 2008). Yasser Arafat and later Mahmoud Abbas rejected it. The current government is politically divided; while some far-right ministers push annexation rhetoric, Israeli society overall is split, and no consensus exists

I'll conclude with this: why is Israel’s legitimacy questioned when dozens of modern states were formed by displacement, conquest, or migration? (Pakistan 1947, Kosovo 2008, etc.). Singling out Israel as uniquely illegitimate while ignoring others shows political, and quite honestly, religious and racial bias, not objective reasoning.


 

 
Most Helpful

Your entire argument is a deflection to "well if Sudan, Congo, Iran, Myanmar commit crimes against humanity, why can't Israel?". Way to tell on yourself, but I'm glad you've atleast implicitly admitted that Israel's actions are abhorrent and should be viewed in the same bucket and treated similarly to Congo/Sudan etc by civilized nations

 FYI the reason they don't get the same standards applied to them is because they don't pretend to play the victim, their leaders don't do podcast tours in my country to shift public opinion, don't subvert my country's political and media establishment to push their narrative, we don't give them foreign aid and don't put our government in precarious positions internationally trying to defend their insidious actions. You're right - there is a double standard applied to Israel - a positive one. They are the only one of the rogue terror states you've referenced that get a free pass to do as they wish

Actually, you're confusing the Gulf Arabs with the Levantine "Arabs" - the people who are indigenous to the region prior to the Israelites were the Canaanites. Their closest descendants are actually the Lebanese, Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians and at the very end Jewish populations. But again, none of this matters because the argument that your ancestors were there 3000 years ago cannot and should not be applied to any modern discussion, particularly one that involves violent displacement of the people who have lived there for generations. It's funny how from your perspective, a guy who's lived in Brooklyn for 4 generations somehow has a closer connection to the West Bank than the Palestinian who has farmed the land for 10 generations. What a load of crock - even you don't genuinely believe this, you're just a beneficiary of the system so you refuse to come to terms with reality

Nice paragraph deflecting the point - Israel absolutely does not want peace. You are right that in theory the society is politically divided, but in practice, settlements have continue to grow, they have authorized further annexation of the West Bank, they subverted my government to recognize the annexation of East Jerusalem. The fact that a guy from Brooklyn can immigrate to a West Bank settlement, be protected by the IDF, be treated under civilian law while the ACTUAL inhabitants of the region are denied the most basic human rights living under military law should be a pretty good indication to a 3rd party that Israel is not interested in peace. That is all a front to do what they really want to do - steal land and subjugate the true inhabitants of the region

There is no political, religious or racial bias here except the one you've invented through deceit and dishonesty. This is what dodging accountability looks like

 

Whichever biased mod keeps removing this comment should know that I could very easily call the WSJ and other relevant outlets and make life difficult for you and WSO (a community of which I have been a loyal patron for a long time) with a story about hate speech and other nasty behavior. Take this down again. I dare you. I have screenshots from certain users spanning a prolonged period. Consider yourself warned.

 

LOOL! let me spread misinformation and propaganda or I am going to use my connections in the media to cause you significant harm!

 

Quis dolorum nam ipsam. Expedita consequatur architecto vel iste quisquam non quia. Pariatur sed veniam sapiente eum aut iure numquam. Quod quidem soluta rerum est.

Velit necessitatibus ipsam pariatur omnis qui. Tempora corrupti nostrum sunt fuga qui placeat. Maiores facere voluptate nulla ut aut debitis omnis doloribus.

Career Advancement Opportunities

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • JPMorgan 01 98.3%
  • Guggenheim Partners 01 97.7%
  • Morgan Stanley 07 97.1%

Overall Employee Satisfaction

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Moelis & Company No 99.4%
  • Morgan Stanley 02 98.8%
  • Evercore 01 98.3%
  • BMO Capital Markets 12 97.7%
  • Banco Santander 01 97.1%

Professional Growth Opportunities

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Evercore 01 99.4%
  • Moelis & Company 01 98.9%
  • Morgan Stanley 06 98.3%
  • Goldman Sachs 01 97.7%
  • JPMorgan No 97.1%

Total Avg Compensation

July 2026 Investment Banking

  • Vice President (15) $434
  • Associates (45) $258
  • 3rd+ Year Analyst (8) $210
  • 2nd Year Analyst (22) $179
  • Intern/Summer Associate (13) $156
  • 1st Year Analyst (79) $150
  • Intern/Summer Analyst (73) $101
notes
16 IB Interviews Notes

“... there’s no excuse to not take advantage of the resources out there available to you. Best value for your $ are the...”

Leaderboard

1
redever's picture
redever
99.2
2
BankonBanking's picture
BankonBanking
99.0
3
kanon's picture
kanon
99.0
4
Secyh62's picture
Secyh62
99.0
5
CompBanker's picture
CompBanker
98.9
6
Betsy Massar's picture
Betsy Massar
98.9
7
DrApeman's picture
DrApeman
98.9
8
dosk17's picture
dosk17
98.9
9
GameTheory's picture
GameTheory
98.9
10
bolo up's picture
bolo up
98.8
success
From 10 rejections to 1 dream investment banking internship

“... I believe it was the single biggest reason why I ended up with an offer...”