On Friday morning, the University Senate held a special plenary in light of the week’s events, where they discussed launching an investigative task force into administration, a potential vote of no confidence against Columbia President Minouche Shafik, and campus safety, among other items.

On Friday, May 3, the Columbia University Senate held a special plenary meeting to discuss the current climate on campus. 

After adopting the meeting’s agenda, Executive Committee Chair Senator Jeanine D’Armiento began by stating, “It’s a sad day for all of us,” citing a “series of bad decisions at a number of levels in the administration.” She argued that “time alone is insufficient” to heal the community, stating that “any such recovery will only take place with a fundamental shift in how we view our students.”

She continued, claiming “there is a broad mistrust of our student body,” by the administration and that it is the Senate’s responsibility to create “a path forward,” as they are “a holder of its future.”

The first item on the meeting’s agenda was to revisit the idea of a task force for the investigation into the protests and other student demonstrations that have been held on campus in recent months. The Senate wants a “prominent outside academic” to oversee this investigation, D’Armiento said. Senate Director Geraldine McAllister wrote in the Zoom chat emphasizing that University engagement and negotiation with student protestors “should not require an Encampment” and that “[the University] should remain constant… in [their] use of legitimate policies and procedures.”

D’Armiento then moved to discuss a potential vote of no confidence against Columbia President Minouche Shafik and University leadership. “I’m gonna see many requests for a statement of no confidence,” she said. “‘No confidence’ is in my opinion something we should not move forward with quickly.” Instead, she argued that an investigation was necessary to understand the University’s decision-making processes over the past few days and what responsibility President Shafik bore.

Throughout the meeting, Senators discussed questions of what timeline the investigation would take, and how long it would be before a potential vote of no confidence could be brought to the Senate. D’Armiento stated that due to the deliberative nature of the Senate, there was no clear timeline on how long the investigation might take. Some Senators like Columbia College Student Senator Erick Zent called for a direct vote of no confidence during Friday’s meeting; others, like Teachers College Senator Alexander Roman, Senator Ellen Markowitz, and Teachers College Senator Lalitha Vasudevan addressed the “need for urgent information” in the Senate and wanted to ensure that the Senate would continue to meet and communicate regularly instead of transitioning to a reduced summer schedule.

In terms of new business, D’Armiento opened the floor for Senators to share their thoughts about what has happened on campus over the past few days and offer guidance for goals the University should pursue. 

Senator Susan Bernofsky suggested a resolution that the bullet in a door frame in Hamilton Hall be preserved there because it may become a memorial of the occupation and resulting police sweep of Hamilton Hall. The proposal was discussed briefly before D’Armiento cut it off, saying the matter should be referred to the University’s archivists. According to the New York Times, the bullet landed on the floor after it was accidentally shot. 

Senator Daniel Savin brought up that Chief Operating Officer Cas Holloway did not discuss officers of research returning to laboratories in his email announcing expanded access to campus Thursday evening. Savin also expressed wanting the return of undergraduate Engineering seniors who want to resume capstone project work. 

Senator Jeffery Gordon then asked about the extent to which the Senate’s Executive Committee was consulted before police action, bringing up that Shafik’s decision was made in tandem with trustees. D’Armiento responded, stating “[the Senate] did not recommend police. We recommended negotiation.” She also said that the Senate was not consulted about the decision to maintain police presence on campus through May 17.

Columbia Engineering Senator Jalaj Mehta said, “It’s been pretty miserable the last couple days,” and argued that “voting no confidence on incompetence of our President or the Board of Trustees she consulted with is too sudden of a decision,” requiring more thought. 

Senator Greg Freyer then motioned for former Senators whose terms just ended to still be allowed to participate. A brief procedural debate followed, and an amendment was added to allow non-Senate members of committees to participate as well. The motion passed unanimously. 

Senator Henry Ginsberg then acknowledged the “chaos” that has ensued in shutting down campus over the past several days. He argued that the administration “is trying to have a graduation… above every other priority.”

English and Comparative Literature Professor Joseph Slaughter, a former Senator and appointee to the Rules Committee, then chimed in, claiming, “Senior administration has shattered the trust of the University with students and faculty and staff.” He said that he’d been privy to University discussions going back to October and requested to be called as a witness for future investigations because he had “clear evidence to support a Senate vote of no confidence in this president.” Slaughter attested that he had no trust in the senior administration due to University statements he claimed had been disavowed by the police or falsified by student reporting.

Senator Marco Tedesco then suggested the University form a committee to help students and parents navigate this time. D’Armiento responded, saying that engagement with students at all levels was necessary, including with the protestors. “We don’t have to have a negotiation while there’s an Encampment, we don’t have to have a negotiation while there’s an occupation, we can’t allow [the students] to think that’s what they need to do to negotiate,” she said, arguing that the University still needed to negotiate with students even after the protests had been dispelled.

Senator Carol Garber then brought up the issue of providing security on campus. She said that the University had been unable to provide security before Tuesday night, and claimed that a number of outside people “with known ties to terrorist organizations” were able to get in and that there were groups on campus “that were supporting terrorists.” D’Armiento cut her off, saying that there was no evidence to support her claims. Senator Richard Smiley argued for Garber to be able to continue speaking, while Senator Zent said that Garber’s statements were “dangerous.” D’Armiento agreed with Zent that there was danger in Garber’s statements and that “there is no evidence of terrorists.” 

Bwog also could not find support for Senator Garber’s claims. They are seemingly echoed by Mayor Eric Adams’ allegations that “terrorists” were on Columbia’s campus based on the NYPD’s attention to a photo of Sami Al-Arian’s wife, Nahla, being seen at the Encampment in a photo posted to X. Al-Arian is a former professor who was accused of having links to the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, a “specially-designated terrorist organization.” After a long and controversial trial, he accepted a plea deal in which he was convicted of “conspiracy to provide services” to the organization and was later deported. Nahla Al-Arian has never been convicted of a crime, and the photo was taken by her daughter.

Garber then continued in generalities, stating that “there is evidence that there are [outside] groups influencing student groups on campuses in this country who behave in certain ways.” She stated, “Many individuals feel afraid because of that.” Garber concluded by remarking that she “want[s] to make sure [the Senate is] considering security.”

Senator Adrian Brügger addressed the shutdowns and police presence on campus, asking, “If the University has a plan to move forward, or if we’re just expected to hold our breath until May 17.” As a research officer in the largest lab on the Morningside campus, he mentioned that “[Engineering] students are begging [him] to come back to the lab so they can finish capstone design projects,” claiming that the university is “just making it up as we go and that’s the most troubling thing.”

Senator William Hunnicutt then referenced the Zoom chat, which was being inundated with heated messages, saying the “chat is impeding Senate business.” The chat was eventually shut down.

Fouad Habib, a non-Senate member of the Information and Communications Technology Committee, seconded Slaughter’s previous statement, stating that protests and the Encampment at Columbia had “started a wave” and that “history will remember” the actions of the Senate. 

Pointing to historical events, Senator Gordon indicated that the current protests were “markedly different” from Vietnam, claiming that in the past, “costs to [the] University on neutrality… were small.” He expressed low confidence in a peaceful resolution to recent events, describing the negotiations as one where “one side [had] demands that the other side simply reject[ed].” 

School of Social Work Senator Susan Witte supported Slaughter and Habib’s points, stating that Tuesday’s events had “terrorized [the] community” and highlighting the historical weight of the University’s “support” of “military actions.” She called on the Senate to “take back faculty governance,” referencing an apparent request from tenured faculty at the School of Social Work for a vote of no confidence in President Shafik.

Senator Mehta countered Witte’s position, stating he did not “understand rationale” for a vote of no confidence, instead calling for an investigation for the “vote of no confidence to be legitimate.” Senator Seth Kimmel believed an investigation was not necessary, stating the Senate was “having more or less the same conversation [as] last Friday” and new information would do little to make progress. 

Further supporting the need to take action, Senator Bernofsky cited recent reports of students being sexually harassed by police officers on campus and while in jail, stating, “The community has been traumatized by this violence,” reiterating the need to “move now” to demonstrate the Senate’s disappointment and condemnation of administration’s actions. 

Once again turning to history, Senator Zent reminded those that “the University Senate was created to be a check on administration” after the 1968 protests, and that they had “failed [their] job on Wednesday and Friday by not doing anything.” Zent stated that instead of a vote of no confidence, the Senate should focus on “structural changes,” recommending that the Student Affairs Committee initiate a referendum process and bring referendums to students. Zent continued to elaborate on the Senate’s failures, stating that a vote of censure “would have neutralized Minouche.” D’Armiento pushed back, mentioning the “limits” on the Senate’s powers, to which Zent responded, “There’s really no transparency in the way this University operates.”

Columbia College Senator Wena Teng read out a statement on behalf of Columbia College Student Council. She was strongly against dining hall closures and the immense burdens put on student councils to feed students and provide study spaces, saying that this shouldn’t have been their responsibility. She also condemned reports of harassment by NYPD during and after protests and the University’s creation of a “hostile environment for dialogue,” pointing to the University’s  “illegitimate event” policies surrounding student protests enacted on October 24, 2023, and the suspension of pro-Palestine student groups in November 2023. She stated that escalation could have been avoided if the University had “committed to dialogue and due process from the start.” She concluded her statement, by saying, “[the] administration has betrayed Columbia in unimaginable ways.”

Senator Margaret Corn from the Graduate School of Arts and Sciences stated that “there is no broad consensus on divestment.” She claimed that “most constituencies are deeply divided,” and though “the University has been far from perfect in how they’ve handled things since October 7” and “protesters [felt] they had been ignored,” she claimed that the University had initially “engaged [protesters] with ‘good-faith negotiations.’” Corn alleged that it was “student groups that ceased negotiating because they did not like the terms the University had brought forth” and were “not [in] good faith.” Corn further claimed that it was “disingenuous” to indicate that the student protesters being “seen or heard” by the University requires complete “acquiescence” by the University in negotiations. Senator D’Armiento followed up by confirming that Corn had not been in the negotiating room, to which Corn replied, “No, I was not.” Corn claimed that last Friday, the Senate had stated that negotiations had been carried out in good faith and she was only quoting the Senate’s conclusion. 

The April 25 University Senate Executive Committee Report stated, “Overall, the fundamental lack of good-faith engagement with all campus constituencies and groups has exacerbated the situation and has served to divide our community.” This text was read aloud during the plenary meeting last Friday, April 26. Beyond the reading of this statement, Senators did not discuss the good or bad faith of negotiations or community engagement. 

Senator Mehta responded. He claimed that the Student Affairs Committee had put out a statement that, especially towards the end of the negotiations, the University hadn’t always engaged in good faith. Bwog is unable to confirm if such a statement was made within the last week.

“That’s not something that’d be said lightly,” Senator Mehta noted. He also stated that “it’s not been made clear [to the Senate] who cut off the negotiations.” After Mehta, Senator Richard Smiley spoke up in support of Corn, saying that he’d heard from several faculty who thought the Senate was too monolithically opposed to the administration and swayed to the side of the protesters. He stated that an investigation was necessary to understand exactly what happened in negotiations. 

Later in the meeting, Senator Mehta read out a statement sent to him by Layla Saliba, a graduate student at the School of Social Work and a student involved with the protests. Her statement read that Columbia hadn’t engaged in good-faith negotiations—that the University had suspended one of the negotiators and that offers of scholarships for children in Gaza were not what the organizers had asked for. Senator Corn argued in response that those kinds of offers were part of how negotiation worked and that she believed there was student reporting that CUAD had been the ones to call off negotiations. While CUAD negotiators left discussions on April 24 due to claims that the University threatened to bring in the National Guard, they later returned after a break of about 30 hours. It is unclear who ended negotiations on April 29. Senator Zent then reiterated the need for an investigation, because the Senate was otherwise “litigating things… we don’t know the answers to,” he claimed.

Several Senators wanted to adjust the language for the Senate’s recommendations. Senator Bernofsky worried that while the investigation was important, there was a “long-standing problem of the Senate being sidelined by upper administration.” Senator Ulrich Hengst called for an adjustment of the Senate’s recommendation that the “administration engage with student reporters,” asking that the University engage with the entire student body and not just the protestors.

Union Theological Seminary Senator Andrea White brought up from her constituency that over 300 students, faculty, and alumni of UTS had called for amnesty for the student protestors. She also called for Senators to join a “neighborhood walk” occurring at 5 pm daily around Columbia’s campus, organized by Morningside Heights citizens concerned about NYPD presence on campus. School of International and Public Affairs Senator Gabriella Ramirez also brought up concerns that “so many law enforcement officers on campus… are making people feel overpoliced” and that increased communication from the administration was another type of security.

Senator Minhas Wasaya spoke next. He said what he witnessed on Tuesday night outside of Columbia gates was “militarized state fascism against our University students” and that the methods of protests today were not so different from anti-war or anti-apartheid protests in the past. He laid out priorities for campus: short-term, he said, campus needed to be opened and the NYPD needed to be removed. “Police do not keep us safe,” he told the Senate. “They are here to keep property safe, perhaps, but they do not keep people safe. We are being occupied by the police. They need to get out.” 

For the medium- and long-term, he spoke in support of the investigation but also for the Senate to have more institutional power. “There is a structural rot in this University in the way that power is wielded,” he said. “And we, as representatives… do not have power” either to hold the administration accountable or to respond to the needs of students and constituents, he claimed. Senator Wasaya concluded, saying, “Power to the student voices, the students are never wrong.”

Senator Bernofsky concurred, agreeing with Senator Wasaya’s statement that the Senate had “failed,” saying that the single biggest problem they faced was “the refusal of the upper administration and the Board of Trustees to comply with university statutes.” Senator Bernofsky stated that the Senate needed to counter the “power grab” by the administration.

D’Armiento concluded the meeting by saying that the Senate Executive Committee would meet with the administration, Board of Trustees, and deans over the weekend and that the task force of investigation and submitting recommendations to the University would move forward. Lastly, she praised the Student Senators for their work in ensuring students had access to food and study spaces during the past week.

Image via Bwarchives