This week Columbia was broadsided by a fiery statement from the House Committee on Education & the Workforce, suggesting that the “vast majority [of the Hamilton occupiers] remain in good standing”, with this coverage from the New York Times and followed up with Congressional subpoenas.  

The House Committee’s report gained so much attention as many are asking the same question: how is it possible that after the events of last year, a large number of students (and potentially faculty and staff) have not been effectively disciplined?  

The answer is complex, and the House Committee’s statement unfortunately contains misinformation. Here are the facts: the accused students are currently undergoing a disciplinary process outlined in the Rules of University Conduct. Until the process has concluded, they are in good standing, as only the University Judicial Board has the power to prescribe sanctions and change their standing. But many constituents cannot understand why this disciplinary process has taken months.

Today, Columbia’s University Senate proposed and voted 60-3-1 on adopting new guidelines to interpret the existing Rules. (The Senate is separately revising the Rules themselves, which may trigger another round of revisions for the guidelines.) You can find the new guidelines here:

• Clean version
• Redlined version vs. previous version (prepared November 6, 2020)

This development is part of a broader trend of activity across universities nationwide. For instance, on August 19, 2024, the President of the University of California system instructed the Chancellors of all 10 campuses to strictly enforce rules related to face masking/identity concealment, encampments, and blocking access. Similarly, NYU recently published both revised rules and (very) specific guidance.  

In general, Columbia’s guidelines are a positive step forward:

• No extended occupations or encampments
• Advanced notice of protests to Public Safety and University Life
• University Judicial Board (UJB) required to report aggregated information quarterly on on charges, sanctions and material facts
• No concealed identities while protesting
• Rapid application of interim sanctions

While a good first step, they are incomplete and not nearly as descriptive, clear, or comprehensive as those issued by peer institutions. The Rules Committee could improve these guidelines by following the best practices employed by other universities grappling with the same desire to encourage free speech without disruptions to university life, including:

• Giving examples. The guidelines use terms like “exclusive use”, “primary purposes”, “extended period of time”, and “prior authorization” without giving clear examples.
• Closing loopholes. Language like “sound amplification… may only be used in a manner that does not substantially hinder academic activities” seems to permit bullhorns outside of a student dormitory at 3 AM, where no “academic activities” are taking place. Groups have identified and taken advantage of these loopholes in the past, for example, framing a protest as a “labor action” effectively using the cover of a graduate student union to circumvent notice requirements.
• Fixing the notice period. Social media has significantly accelerated the ability to convene large groups of people on short notice (“flash mobs”). Consider a situation that happened earlier this year: a protest is publicly called at 10 PM to convene at midnight. Advance notice was technically provided, but on too short a timeframe for safety preparations. A fixed notice period would be more appropriate.
• Publicizing aggregated information. Aggregated disciplinary information is reported to the Rules Committee but the university does not necessarily make public that aggregated data (e.g. how many expulsions in the prior year). We specifically called for this in our vision of Columbia Renewed in the spirit of “Justice must not only be done, but must also be seen to be done.”
• Clarifying operationalization. The guidelines do not clearly describe exactly how Public Safety will “escort off campus” masked individuals who commit violations and refuse to leave, especially since coming into physical contact is generally prohibited.

Perhaps more importantly, peer institutions have taken the time to write clear, easily understandable, rules in plain language—including simple examples. However, the Columbia guidelines reads like a legal document. As an example, the NYU guidelines specifically:

• Explicitly ban encampments and physical obstructions as well as non-contact physical intimidation such as “encircling” or “blocking paths”
• Clearly prohibits acting as a “proxy” or a “front” for external parties or unrecognized groups
• Address euphemisms, dog whistles, and code words in the context of harassment or exclusion (“no Zionists allowed” may not be the same as “no Jews allowed”, but could be taken as synonymous)
• Requires a fixed notice period for protests
• Holds both individuals (including staff and faculty) and groups accountable
• Considers social media activity in the context of targeting or amplifying harassment

If the Rules Committee wants students to read and understand what is expected of them (and what is not tolerated), it should make this document more readable and accessible. We asked ChatGPT to summarize the guidelines and this is what it came up with [NOTE: it has been pointed out to us that ChatGPT may have ‘hallucinated’ a bit on point #6, but the others are accurate]. Perhaps the Rules Committee might welcome ChatGPT’s assistance in taking a confusing and legalistic set of guidelines and clarifying them into plain English.  

But this is just another step. The Rules Committee remains open to feedback. As our friend Zila Acosta-Grimes, CC ‘11, CLS ‘15, who also served as the former Chair of the Rules Committee during its 2015 revisions, shared with us: “In developing these new rules, the Committee met with various stakeholders and held open meetings that many in the Columbia community attended. I know from experience how difficult it can be to marry the interests of many in our community and think this is a great first step.”

In the fall, the Committee will continue to host listening sessions and solicit input from the community. They will also open up a comment section on their website this coming Monday, August 26, 2024 and welcomes feedback from all parties, including alumni and the general public. So don’t be shy about sending your comments in; let’s try to keep them both informed and constructive.

What’s Next?

A closing thought: we can come up with the best Rules and the clearest guidelines imaginable. However, the events of last year did not occur because the Rules didn’t exist. It was that the Rules were not enforced. If the revisions of the guidance and the Rules come with a recognition of their legitimacy by all stakeholders and a credible commitment to enforcement by the administration, then that is a positive step forward.

The University of California only discovered its newfound commitment to enforcing its rules after a blistering ruling from a Federal judge. There is really no reason to wait for that here.

News Roundup

– August 22, 2024: The New York Times reports that, while other donors have paused or suspended giving, former Merck Chairman P. Roy and Diana Vagelos have made a new gift of $400 million to Columbia University’s Irving Medical Center to launch a new biomedical research center. The Vageloses have given almost $1 billion to Columbia, making them the most generous donors in the University’s history. The Vageloses are also close to Interim President Katrina Armstrong, and we can only read this as a strong vote of confidence in her.

– August 21, 2024: The Hill reports that the House Committee on Education & the Workforce has issued six subpoenas to Columbia’s president and officers of the Trustees to compel production of documents after they were not produced voluntarily fast enough. The subpoena gives Columbia a deadline of September 4, 2024 to produce the documents.

– August 20, 2024. Bret Stephens in the New York Times imagines an articulate, cogent statement from a university president welcoming new students. It defends the learning without preconceptions, a spirit of open inquiry, institutional neutrality, and the need to turn back on our “critical faculties”. Sounds like a terrific place we’d all be proud to go.

– August 19, 2024. The New York Times digs a bit deeper on the press releases issued by the House Committee suggesting Columbia did not discipline the Hamilton occupiers. It explains the procedural timelines for disciplinary action. And it closes with a quote from our friend Professor Jim Applegate: “If, in fact, students are severely punished, the left is going to scream bloody murder. If they’re not severely punished, the right is going to scream bloody murder. So somebody is going to be mad.”

– August 19, 2024. Governor Mitch Daniels (and President Emeritus of Purdue) opines in the Washington Post how colleges and universities can restore their battered reputations. Specifically, he calls for a renewed focus on ballooning costs, improving viewpoint diversity among the faculty, and taking a critical look at the growth and scope creep of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs. And specifically charges universities’ governing boards with asking these critical questions. The overall message is that without these changes, universities risk further loss of credibility and continued decline amidst a shrinking student population.

– August 19, 2024. The Los Angeles Times reports on the UC system’s newfound commitment to enforcing its rules. Specifically, UC President Michael V. Drake identifies encampments, protests that block pathways, and masking as part of its zero tolerance.

– August 18, 2024. David French of the New York Times reviews and assesses the fact patterns and potential consequences of three recent court cases against UCLA, Harvard, and MIT. He rightly points out: “There is no longer any excuse for this naïveté. Students have an obligation to respect the rights of others. Universities have a responsibility to protect those rights. Any other conclusion leads to chaos, causes confusion and exposes colleges to courtroom consequences.”

– August 18, 2024. The New York Post reports the sad news that no graduate of elite New York City Jewish day school Ramaz will matriculate at Columbia College for the first time in 20 years (although some will attend General Studies and Barnard). The implication is that anti-Israel protests created a hostile environment for Jewish students.

– August 16, 2024. The Wall Street Journal reviews the sweep of new rules governing student conduct at colleges and universities across the country. These include tightened restrictions on time, place, and manner, specific rules on tents and amplified sound, but also student life and curricular programming on constructive discourse.

– August 16, 2024. The Wall Street Journal reports on the ideology behind campus protests. In brief, the term “settler colonialism” has been used not only to criticize Israel but to delegitimize modern nation-states that were founded on colonial practices such as the United States. In the case of the US, it reframes the founding of the US not as a triumph of liberty but the start of a long cycle of exploitation and oppression. This ideology calls for a violent disruption in how we understand American history and identity.