During a virtual plenary on Wednesday, May 8 at 3:30 pm, the University Senate discussed the decision to cancel commencement and unanimously passed a motion calling for the temporary suspension of disciplinary procedures against student protesters.

During its public virtual plenary on Wednesday, May 8, the University Senate discussed administrative decisions regarding recent events on and around Columbia’s campus, including the cancellation of the University’s main commencement ceremony and the initiation of disciplinary procedures against student protesters through the Center for Student Success and Intervention (CSSI). 

Most notably, the Senate unanimously passed a motion insisting on a “temporary suspension” of disciplinary processes conducted by the CSSI, with 40 senators in favor, none against, and 5 abstentions. The motion, which is included in its entirety below, also expressed concern that the CSSI process would not properly protect “the due process and representation rights of students or faculty.” 

Commencement Cancellation

The plenary, which occurred two days following the announcement that the university-wide commencement ceremony would be replaced by smaller class day celebrations, opened with a discussion of the decision-making process behind the cancellation. 

Senator Jeanine D’Armiento, Professor of Medicine, questioned how the decision to cancel Commencement was made, remarking that the Senate was not consulted and instead was informed of the decision the night before it was announced. Noting that the administration expressed concerns about the Encampment due to Commencement, she also remarked that “the Senate finds it unfortunate that the administration’s response to the Encampment has itself contributed to the cancellation of Commencement.” 

Senator Minhas Wasaya (MBA ’24) added that while the University’s announcement stated that they had conferred with student leaders in the decision, the Senate had consulted with all student senators and student councils and found that only GSAS student leaders had recommended moving their graduation off the lawns. “As far as we know, and this is across the entirety of the University, there was no actual conversation with student leadership which could have indicated that this is what the students wanted,” Wasaya remarked.

General Studies Dean Lisa Rosen-Metsch replied that she believed “there was some sort of consultation” with senior class presidents in multiple colleges about the decision. However, according to Senator Jalaj Mehta (SEAS ’25), no senior class councils had recommended canceling Commencement, leading Rosen-Metsch to clarify that the “consultations” had not involved any actual input from students in the final decision. 

Suspension and Expulsion Procedures Against Student Protesters

The majority of Wednesday’s plenary was devoted to discussion of the disciplinary procedures currently underway for students involved in the Gaza Solidarity Encampment, related protests, and subsequent occupation of Hamilton Hall. 

The discussion was overseen by the Rules of University Conduct Committee and began with a statement read by Senator D’Armiento, in which she stated that violations related to on-campus protest activity “have historically been addressed under the Rules for University Conduct, as set out in the University Statues, with charges heard by the University Judicial Board.” She emphasized that these rules have existed for 50 years, are reviewed every four years by the Rules Committee, and are voted on by the Senate. Violations of the rules should result in charges and hearings, Senator D’Armiento reaffirmed. 

In this context, the subsequent conversation largely pertained to the University’s decision to discipline students according to the Center for Success and Student Intervention (CSSI) procedures rather than the procedures outlined in the Rules of University Conduct. This decision caused widespread dissatisfaction amongst the Senate.

Members of the Rules of University Conduct Committee, a group of Senators tasked with reviewing, recommending revisions, and enforcing the rules, spoke first. 

In reference to CSSI procedures, Senator David Pozen, a Professor at the Columbia Law School, stated that it was “designed as an educational remediation,” and encouraged students to “confess and repent,” inviting what Pozen called “self-incrimination.” He continued, saying that CSSI “does not allow legal representation… for students” and characterizing it as a “fast process.” 

In support of Senator Pozen’s statement, Senator Joseph Slaughter, an Associate Professor of English and Comparative Literature at Columbia, called CSSI “illegitimate,” and Senator Candice Kail, the Head of Web Services at the Columbia Libraries, demanded CSSI to “be disbanded.” Many senators also expressed concern about how students were informed of CSSI procedures. Senator Mehta stated that it was “extremely unfair to put students in this position,” referring to the confusing rhetoric used to describe CSSI procedures. 

On the other hand, Senator Pozen remarked that the Rules of University Conduct had been “used consistently… since 1968,” and that they were written specifically to deal with situations of protest such as the occupation of Hamilton Hall.  

Senator Slaughter brought up a statement made by President Minouche Shafik during her testimony at a Congressional hearing on antisemitism, where she said the “rules were not meant for this moment,” to which Slaughter countered, stating that the Rules of Conduct were specifically designed to deal with protests and other political situations. 

Senator Margaret Corn (GSAS Ph.D. candidate), though she generally agreed with the Senate’s sentiment that the University did not act according to normal procedures, claimed that CSSI’s actions as the “prosecutorial arm of the Dean’s Discipline process” were already “set out in the statutes.” Dean’s Discipline is the process that investigates allegations of misconduct of students at GSAS. She identified a section of the Rules of Conduct that stated, “Delegates may be called upon to enforce these Rules… or they may proceed to enforce them on their own initiative.” Corn affirmed that Senatorial delegates include the deans. 

Senator Corn stated that this implied CSSI and the administration could “justify their actions.” She reiterated her disagreement with the administration for breaking precedent by bypassing the Rules of Conduct, but claimed that “all preliminary charges [of students] were allowed under the Dean’s Discipline procedures.”

Responding to Corn, Senator Jaxon Williams-Bellamy (CC ’21, CLS ’25) clarified that the section of the Rules she referenced only allowed for delegates to “engage in an enforcement process, or to enforce the provisions of the rules actively during a demonstration” at the request of someone else or on their own. These delegates could not “carry out some other process,” referring to the CSSI disciplinary procedures. Williams-Bellamy reiterated the CSSI procedures were “totally separate” from the Rules of Conduct. 

Pozen and other senators also repeatedly referred to a request sent to the University General Counsel to provide more information as to how CSSI operates. Mehta specified they had only received a response that morning, which Pozen stated only contained an assurance that a response would be sent at some point. 

A number of senators who do not sit on the Rules Committee also expressed their discontent with the University’s decision to undertake disciplinary procedures through CSSI. According to Senator Wasaya, the CSSI’s disciplinary process demonstrates that the body is not merely prosecutorial, but acts as judge, jury, and prosecutor all in one. 

However, these critiques of the University’s actions did not go uncontested. Senator Jeffrey Gordon, a Law School faculty member, remarked that “the rules broke down because of good lawyering, or what some might think of as opportunistic behavior, taking advantage of some of the timing requirements of the rules…The rules, as they were applied, basically were unable to deliver the degree of behavioral review that was the goal.” Gordon suggested that these procedural issues led the administration to look to “alternative ways of protecting students against harassing behavior.” 

In addition, he cautioned of the “threat to Columbia…associated with this moment…there are political forces which are poised for attack.” He emphasized that the Trustees see—and have a responsibility for—the significant “financial risk to the University.” 

Senator Itsik Pe’er, a professor of Computer Science at Columbia, insisted that “[the] discussion of rules is actually a smokescreen. There is one side of this respected body… that is supportive of the protests… I would like this body to be honest with itself about this,” he said. 

Passage of Motion to Temporarily Suspend CSSI Disciplinary Procedures

Senator Richard Smiley, of the Rules Committee made a motion to pass a two-part resolution that would demand a response to the Rules Committee’s mid-April letter to the University’s General Counsel, which asks questions about the CSSI’s disciplinary processes and suspend CSSI disciplinary hearings until a response is received and reviewed. 

Senator D’Armiento added that she had been sent another motion to call for adherence to the Rules for University Conduct, which she proposed be combined with Smiley’s motion.

The motion was unanimously passed with 40 senators in favor, none against, and 5 abstentions, and included both of Smiley’s provisions as well as an additional provision stating that “it is the [Senate’s] position that Columbia should adhere to the University Statues, including the Rules of University Conduct, which serve as [the Senate’s] constitution.” The motion, which is included in its entirety below, also expressed concern that the CSSI process would not properly protect “the due process and representation rights of students or faculty.” 

Concluding Thoughts

Wednesday’s plenary concluded with a number of reflections expressing sadness and disappointment in the University’s responses to campus events, many referring to their own long and close relationships with the University. Others offered support to their fellow Senate members and their previous statements, looking for ways to continue to take action.

Senator Wasaya drew on earlier remarks by alumnus Tao Tan (CC‘07, MBA‘11) and Dean of the Faculty of Arts and Sciences Amy Hungerford about the importance of shared governance in the Senate to point out that President Shafik had been invited to each Senate plenary and executive committee meetings, but had repeatedly missed them. He called for continuing to work on “collaboration with administration,” saying that if collaboration between administration, faculty, and the student body had begun in October or November of 2023, “we probably wouldn’t be where we are right now.” 

Senator Wasaya also pushed back on the characterization that recent protests have been characterized by opposition between two groups of students, saying, “I don’t want us to characterize this moment as two student groups who are against each other.. I would implore us to think more clearly about that.” Rather, Senator Wasaya argued that protests have been directed towards administration and government, but that other students have “taken offense” and had “real concerns of safety” as a result. 

Senator D’Armiento said that she wished to share a perspective that she’d heard from a student and emphasized that those “students who got caught up in protests, in suspensions––they are very alone right now.” She affirmed the need to create consequences for actions and “educate our students, but at the same time…we need to protect our students from isolation and anything that could lead to worse consequences. We’re a community that takes care of each other even when we make mistakes.” 

Full text of Motion to Temporarily Suspend Disciplinary Procedures: 

1. The Senate demands a response to the Rules Committee letter of mid-April 2024 asking for an explanation of the role of CSSI versus the Rules of University Conduct system in adjudicating student conduct and student discipline. The Senate has grave concern that the CSSI process, designed for issues of academic misconduct and which is described as a “conversational process, ” is being used for issues that are designed for expulsion of students, and that the due process and representation rights of student or faculty will not be properly protected.

2. Until and unless the Senate has an opportunity to receive and review an explanation for the disciplinary processes, we ask that the CSSI process be suspended against all members of the Columbia community.

3. It is our position that Columbia should adhere to the University Statutes, including the Rules of University Conduct, which serve as our constitution.

Isabelle Oh and Emily Yi contributed to the writing of this article. 

Columbia’s campus via Bwog Archives