By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Columbia University has disciplined over 70 students for their involvement in pro-Palestinian protests, including those at Butler Library and during alumni weekend. Sanctions include probation, suspensions (ranging from one to three years), degree revocations, and expulsions. The university stated these actions were necessary to address disruptions to academic activities, and the crackdown follows the implementation of new policies agreed upon with the Trump administration, including adjusted disciplinary processes and a ban on masks at protests in most cases. These recent actions echo similar disciplinary measures from last year’s protests, reflecting the university’s efforts to manage the impact of student activism on campus.
Read the original article here
Columbia University disciplines at least 70 students who took part in campus protests, and honestly, the situation feels like a gut punch. We’re talking about a significant number of students facing severe penalties, including suspensions of up to three years and even expulsion, for their involvement in protests. It’s not just a slap on the wrist; it’s a major disruption to their lives and academic careers. The fact that these students are being disciplined for simply protesting is a major red flag.
The severity of the punishments, coupled with the context of the protests themselves, really raises eyebrows. This wasn’t just some random demonstration. It was related to the ongoing Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the university’s response to it. And the timing, with the university seemingly trying to appease certain political pressures, adds another layer of complexity to it all.
The people at the top seem to be the ones calling the shots and taking the blame. Minouche Shafik, former Columbia President, who called the NYPD on the student protestors and later resigned, and the current acting president, Claire Shipman, along with Katrina Armstrong and the Board of Trustees, seem to be the ones who made the decisions to punish the students. These are the folks who seem more concerned with appeasing external forces, be it donors or D.C. pressure, than with upholding academic freedom and supporting their students.
Now, let’s be real, we’ve seen the footage. It looks like these students were involved in occupying a building. While the context is important – protesting the ongoing conflict, the way the university has dealt with it – the actions of the students themselves are also critical. Did the students cause property damage? Did their actions go beyond peaceful protest? This needs to be considered as well.
The whole situation echoes historical patterns, too. We’re talking about a university potentially selling out its core principles for political expediency, much like what happened in the 1968 Columbia protests. Some are going as far as to say that Columbia is now a university where freedom of speech does not exist. It seems that the university might be more interested in currying favor with certain political factions than in protecting its students’ right to express themselves.
The decision-making behind these disciplinary actions is what is worrisome. It sends a clear message about what the university values. It puts into question the academic freedom the university promises its students. It’s about who they are, and what they stand for, at the cost of the university’s integrity.
The concern over potential financial consequences is also something worth pondering. Is it any surprise that a prestigious university is being caught in this tug-of-war between its principles and its financial stability? It’s a stark reminder of the power of money and influence in higher education. If Columbia had decided to allow this to happen, they may lose federal funding.
The focus on the pro-Palestinian protests, and the disciplinary actions that followed, seem to be missing the bigger picture: this could also be considered a way for Columbia to take on Trump, and be an easier target than to find a solution to the actual antisemitic incidents that occurred on campus. This whole thing stinks of a carefully constructed strategy.
And there is, of course, the broader impact. It really makes you think about the state of higher education. Are universities really fostering environments where critical thinking and free expression are valued, or are they becoming institutions that prioritize conformity and appease external pressures? Students should be taught to think for themselves.
Ultimately, what this all boils down to is a real blow to the reputation of Columbia University. This could be the final nail in the coffin. The damage, in the court of public opinion, seems already done. The fallout from this has the potential to continue, which may cause a significant brain drain as Columbia’s best students look for an environment that values their opinions.