Columbia Students' Legal Transgressions: What Happened?

Columbia University's embattled president, Nemat Minouche Shafik, faced scrutiny for summoning the NYPD to campus to break up a pro-Palestine protest. Over 100 people were arrested on a preliminary charge of criminal trespass, with the university named as the complainant. Shafik's administration was criticised by a campus oversight panel for undermining academic freedom and disregarding the privacy and due process rights of students and faculty members. The protest was organised by a student-led coalition of over 120 organisations, including Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP). The groups aimed to pressure Columbia to divest from corporations that profit from Israeli apartheid and military occupation in Palestine. While some commentators characterised the protests as antisemitic, others emphasised the distinction between criticism of Israel and antisemitism. The incident sparked debates about free speech, academic freedom, and the limits of lawful protest on private property.

Students' right to free speech

Students in the United States have a right to free speech that is protected by the First Amendment. In the landmark 1969 Supreme Court case Tinker v. Des Moines, the court ruled that students do not "shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate." This means that students do not lose their First Amendment rights simply by being at school or being enrolled as a student.

However, in today's digital age, the meaning of this ruling has become complicated. While schools cannot forbid student expression simply to avoid controversy, they can regulate student speech that substantially disrupts the functioning of the school. Schools regularly punish students for online comments, even if those comments are made away from school property and after school hours. This has raised concerns among First Amendment advocates about students' rights to freedom of speech.

In the context of the Columbia University protests in support of Palestine, the university's decision to request police assistance in dismantling the demonstration led to a debate about the students' right to free speech. More than 100 students were arrested for trespassing on their own campus, and some were suspended and evicted from their housing. While Columbia, as a private institution, has the right to enforce its policies and maintain order on its campus, the mass arrests and disciplinary actions taken by the university were seen by some as a disproportionate response that infringed on the students' right to free speech.

The Columbia University Senate approved a resolution criticizing the administration for undermining academic freedom and disregarding the privacy and due process rights of students and faculty members. The resolution established a task force to monitor the corrective actions expected of the administration in dealing with protests.

The situation at Columbia University highlights the ongoing tension between maintaining order and upholding the right to free speech on college campuses. While universities have the responsibility to ensure the safety and well-being of their students and faculty, they must also respect the constitutional rights of their students to express their views and engage in political expression.

University's right to enforce rules

Universities have a right to enforce rules, and students are expected to abide by them. In the case of Columbia University, the administration has the authority to maintain order and ensure the safety of its students and staff. The university's rules and policies are in place to outline the expected behaviour and conduct of individuals associated with the institution.

When students choose to enrol in a university, they implicitly agree to abide by its rules and regulations. These rules are typically outlined in a student code of conduct or a similar document, which students are expected to read and understand. By enrolling, students enter into a contractual agreement with the university, and any violation of the established rules can lead to disciplinary action. In the Columbia University case, the students who participated in the pro-Palestine protest were aware of the university's policies regarding demonstrations and the potential consequences of their actions.

Universities have a responsibility to maintain a safe and conducive learning environment for all students. In situations where protests or gatherings pose a potential threat to the safety or well-being of the university community, the administration has the right to intervene. This intervention can take various forms, including dialogue, negotiation, and, if necessary, involvement of law enforcement. In the Columbia University incident, the administration deemed the protests to be disruptive and a potential danger to the functioning of the university. As a result, they requested the assistance of the NYPD in dispersing the protesters.

It is important to note that universities are complex ecosystems with diverse stakeholders, including students, faculty, staff, and the surrounding community. While universities value and encourage freedom of expression and open debate, they also have a duty to maintain order and ensure the safety and well-being of all individuals on campus. This duty includes protecting students from harm, preventing disruptions to the educational process, and fostering an environment that is conducive to learning and personal growth.

In enforcing its rules, a university must also consider the impact of student actions on the broader community. In the Columbia University case, the protests had gained significant attention, and there were concerns about the potential impact on the surrounding area. The university has a responsibility to its neighbours and must take into account how student actions may affect the wider community. This includes considering any potential disruptions to local businesses, residents, and the flow of traffic in the area.

While universities have the right to enforce their rules, it is essential that they do so fairly and proportionately. Disciplinary actions should be aligned with the severity of the infraction and carried out in accordance with established procedures. In the Columbia University incident, the university's response has been criticised as being disproportionate to the actions of the protesters, and there are questions about whether the university followed its own rules in requesting police intervention.

Police involvement

The involvement of the police in the Columbia University protests was a result of a request by the university's president, Nemat Minouche Shafik, to the New York Police Department (NYPD) to intervene and disperse the pro-Palestinian student protest on campus. Shafik cited concerns for the safety of the university community and disruption to the functioning of the university as reasons for calling in the police. This decision was met with criticism from various quarters, including a university senate resolution that condemned the administration's actions as undermining academic freedom and disregarding the rights of students and faculty members.

The NYPD's involvement in the protests resulted in the arrest of more than 100 individuals on preliminary charges of criminal trespass. The police officers used bullhorns to warn the protesters to disperse and detained them without resistance. The university was named as the complainant since the incident occurred on its property. However, the NYPD's John Chell contradicted Shafik's assessment of the situation, stating that the students who were arrested were peaceful and offered no resistance.

The police intervention at Columbia University was not an isolated incident, as similar occurrences took place at other universities across the country, including the University of Texas at Austin and the University of California, Berkeley. The involvement of law enforcement in these protests sparked debates about the balance between maintaining order and respecting the free speech and protest rights of students.

The police presence on campus and the subsequent arrests drew strong reactions from both supporters and critics. Some viewed the police involvement as a necessary step to protect Jewish students and ensure campus safety, while others saw it as a dangerous encroachment on academic freedom and free expression. The police action also had wider repercussions, with reports of similar protests and arrests at other universities, as well as the resignation of the president of the University of Pennsylvania following criticism from Representative Elise Stefanik.

The police involvement in the Columbia University protests highlights the complexities of maintaining order and ensuring the safety of all individuals involved while also respecting the rights of students to freely express their political views and engage in peaceful protests. The incident sparked discussions about the appropriate role of law enforcement in addressing campus protests and the potential consequences of involving external authorities in university matters.

Academic freedom

The concept of academic freedom is based on the belief that the free exchange of ideas within academic settings is crucial for a good education. It grants faculty members the authority to determine, without external interference, the curriculum, course content, teaching methods, student evaluation, and the conduct of scholarly inquiry. Academic freedom ensures that academic institutions serve as "'safe havens' for inquiry, where students and scholars can challenge conventional wisdom across various fields.

In practice, academic freedom is safeguarded by institutional rules, letters of appointment, faculty handbooks, collective bargaining agreements, and academic customs. Tenure, a system that grants faculty members job security and protects them from arbitrary dismissal, is a key mechanism for upholding academic freedom. Additionally, shared governance practices enable faculty and staff members to participate in significant decisions regarding the operation of their institutions.

However, academic freedom faces constant threats from external interests and political considerations. These threats can create a chilling effect on academic environments, hindering the free exchange of ideas. External pressures may come in the form of donor influence, community pressure over controversial course content, legislative interference, targeted harassment of faculty members, and restrictions on academic freedom in authoritarian states.

In the context of the Columbia University protests, the university's decision to involve the police and carry out arrests was perceived by some as a violation of academic freedom. The protest, organised by pro-Palestinian student groups, was met with a strong response from the university administration, who claimed that the gathering posed a threat to the functioning of the university. This led to a backlash from students, faculty, and external observers, who criticised the university for undermining academic freedom and disregarding the rights of students and faculty members.

Students' right to privacy

In the context of students' rights, the Supreme Court ruled in 1985 in New Jersey v. T.L.O. that school officials may search students without a warrant if they have "reasonable grounds" to suspect that a search will yield evidence of a violation of school rules or the law. However, this does not extend to arbitrary searches of students' personal belongings, such as their lockers or backpacks, without their consent.

In the digital age, the amount of student data collected, how it is used, and how it is protected has become a growing concern. Two key federal laws safeguard student privacy: the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) and the Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). FERPA sets rules for who can access student education records and requires parental consent for sharing personally identifiable information, except for "directory information" such as a student's name. COPPA focuses on protecting the privacy of children under 13 by regulating data collection practices and requiring parental consent for online services directed at minors.

In addition to these laws, the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment (PPRA) ensures student rights protections in surveys, evaluations, and physical exams. PPRA mandates that schools obtain parental consent before requiring students to participate in surveys or assessments on sensitive topics, such as political affiliations, mental health, sexual behaviour, or illegal activities.

In conclusion, students' right to privacy is a complex and evolving issue that involves balancing their rights with the public's right to know, especially when it comes to ensuring the safety of students and the wider community.

Frequently asked questions