0 CommentsIn a university statement, Columbia University announced the outcomes of the University Judicial Board (UJB) disciplinary process regarding student protests that took place last spring with a number of students being suspended, expelled, or having their degrees temporarily revoked.
Multi-year suspensions, expulsions, and temporary degree revocations were announced for some students involved in the spring 2024 protests, including the occupation of Hamilton Hall. According to a University Life email sent to the Columbia community on Thursday, March 13, the Columbia University Judicial Board (UJB) “determined findings and issued sanctions” today, including a range of disciplinary measures.
Following the email, Columbia University Apartheid Divest posted on their Instagram that 22 students received sanctions. This information has not been verified by University officials.
As stated in a later email by Rules Administrator Gregory Wawro, the UJB is an “independent hearing and sanctioning body consisting of faculty, students, and staff.”
According to University Life, the punishments were determined “[w]ith respect to other events taking place last spring” and by recognizing “previously imposed disciplinary action.” University Life will oversee the return of students at the conclusion of their suspensions.
One student fired and reportedly expelled was the President of the UAW 2710 Student Workers of Columbia (SWC) Union, just “one day before contract negotiations begin,” said the UAW on X.
About two hours after the email regarding the statement was sent, Wawro emailed the Columbia community sharing “further information regarding the Rules process.” This information is also outlined in the “FAQs for University Judicial Board (UJB) Hearings on Spring 2024 Cases” section of the Updates from the Rules Administrator. According to Wawro, the disciplinary processes for the occupation of Hamilton Hall and “other protest events from the spring” occurred “immediately following these events.”
Cases were initially handled through the Dean’s Discipline process but were later transferred to the UJB in the summer of 2024. The UJB formally began hearings in January 2025, after addressing procedural inquiries raised in the fall. The process included cases related to the Gaza Solidarity Encampment on April 17-18 and the occupation of Hamilton Hall on April 30. However, the disciplinary processes regarding the Alumni Weekend encampment have not yet occurred and are “expected to begin in the next few weeks.” According to Wawro, “every effort was undertaken to expedite the process for this large volume of cases.”
Five members of the University community are assigned to a “specific UJB panel.” “[E]ach matter” from last spring has had a different panel, although it was not clear if “each matter” referred to each event or each hearing. The hearings also have “multiple safeguards” for respondents, and conflict of interest forms are completed by members of the UJB panel, which are then reviewed by the respondent and the Rules Administrator.
According to Wawro, the UJB only considers cases “brought under the Rules of University conduct” and does not “consider cases that arise under Standards & Discipline, nor does it consider cases that go through the Office of Institutional Equity.”
In an email to the Columbia community on Wednesday, March 12, Wawro announced the hearings were completed and that he was “confident that the community will accept the legitimacy of the outcomes.”
“Institutions are viable only if we accept the outcomes that they produce even though we might disagree with those outcomes,” he said.
Email to the Columbia Community from University Life at 4:23 pm on Thursday, March 13, 2025:
We understand that others are sharing this information publicly. Thus, we are sharing this statement with the University.
University Statement on Outcomes of Disciplinary Process on Events of Last Spring
Today, the Columbia University Judicial Board determined findings and issued sanctions to students ranging from multi-year suspensions, temporary degree revocations, and expulsions related to the occupation of Hamilton Hall last spring. With respect to other events taking place last spring, the UJB’s determinations recognized previously imposed disciplinary action. The return of suspended students will be overseen by Columbia’s University Life Office. Columbia is committed to enforcing the University’s Rules and Policies and improving our disciplinary processes.
The outcomes issued by the UJB are based on its evaluation of the severity of behaviors at these events and prior disciplinary actions. These outcomes are the result of following the thorough and rigorous processes laid out in the Rules of University Conduct in our statutes, which include investigations, hearings and deliberations. This process is separate and distinct from the Office of Institutional Equity and the Center for Student Success and Intervention (Student Conduct). We will continue to work to support our community, including protecting the privacy of our students, during this challenging time and we remain steadfastly committed to our values and our mission.
Email to the Columbia Community from Rules Administrator Gregory Wawro at 6:21 pm on Thursday, March 13, 2025:
Following the University Statement on Outcomes of Disciplinary Process on Events of Last Spring, I write to share further information regarding the Rules process.
These disciplinary hearings were conducted by the University Judicial Board (UJB) and overseen by the Rules Clerk consistent with the Rules set forth in the University Statutes and the accompanying Guidelines issued by the Senate Rules Committee. There is an appeal process set forth in the Rules in which respondents and the Rules Administrator may appeal determinations of responsibility and respondents may additionally appeal sanctions.
Please find FAQs regarding the UJB below and a visual summary of the Rules process here.
- What disciplinary process was and is being followed for the occupation of Hamilton Hall and other protest events from the spring?
- Columbia began disciplinary processes immediately following these events. In the summer of 2024, the University began transferring these cases to the Rules of University Conduct (“Rules”) process from the Dean’s Discipline process and they are currently being adjudicated under the Rules by the University Judicial Board (“UJB”). The UJB is an independent hearing and sanctioning body consisting of faculty, students, and staff.
- Columbia began disciplinary processes immediately following these events. In the summer of 2024, the University began transferring these cases to the Rules of University Conduct (“Rules”) process from the Dean’s Discipline process and they are currently being adjudicated under the Rules by the University Judicial Board (“UJB”). The UJB is an independent hearing and sanctioning body consisting of faculty, students, and staff.
- What kinds of cases does the UJB adjudicate?
- The UJB considers cases that are brought under the Rules of University conduct only. It does not consider cases that arise under Standards & Discipline, nor does it consider cases that go through the Office of Institutional Equity.
- The UJB considers cases that are brought under the Rules of University conduct only. It does not consider cases that arise under Standards & Discipline, nor does it consider cases that go through the Office of Institutional Equity.
- When did UJB hearings begin this academic year?
- After being transferred from Dean’s Discipline to the Rules process, the cases were submitted to the UJB in August and September 2024. Certain procedural inquiries were raised and addressed through the Senate Rules Committee and the Rules Administrator’s Office over the fall. Soon thereafter, hearings began during the first week of January.
- After being transferred from Dean’s Discipline to the Rules process, the cases were submitted to the UJB in August and September 2024. Certain procedural inquiries were raised and addressed through the Senate Rules Committee and the Rules Administrator’s Office over the fall. Soon thereafter, hearings began during the first week of January.
- What hearings have been completed by the UJB?
- The hearings in connection with the encampment that occurred April 17-18, 2024 and the occupation of Hamilton Hall on April 30 have been completed.
- The hearings in connection with the encampment that occurred April 17-18, 2024 and the occupation of Hamilton Hall on April 30 have been completed.
- What is the status of the Alumni Weekend encampment matters?
- Those hearings before the UJB are expected to begin in the next few weeks.
- Those hearings before the UJB are expected to begin in the next few weeks.
- How is the UJB ensuring fairness during the hearing process?
- The hearings are conducted by the UJB and overseen by the Rules Clerk consistent with the Rules set forth in the University Statutes and the accompanying Guidelines issued by the Senate Rules Committee. Respondents have multiple safeguards in the process, including the opportunity to defend themselves in the hearings and the option to have two advisors, which could include legal counsel. The respondent is given the opportunity to make an opening and closing statement after the opening and closing statements of the Rules Administrator. Only members of the UJB panel are allowed to ask questions of the respondent and the respondent is allowed to take breaks during the hearing to confer with advisors. The respondent has the right to refrain from making self-incriminating statements, the right to introduce evidence, the right to call witnesses, and the right to appeal, among other rights outlined in the Rules.
- The hearings are conducted by the UJB and overseen by the Rules Clerk consistent with the Rules set forth in the University Statutes and the accompanying Guidelines issued by the Senate Rules Committee. Respondents have multiple safeguards in the process, including the opportunity to defend themselves in the hearings and the option to have two advisors, which could include legal counsel. The respondent is given the opportunity to make an opening and closing statement after the opening and closing statements of the Rules Administrator. Only members of the UJB panel are allowed to ask questions of the respondent and the respondent is allowed to take breaks during the hearing to confer with advisors. The respondent has the right to refrain from making self-incriminating statements, the right to introduce evidence, the right to call witnesses, and the right to appeal, among other rights outlined in the Rules.
- What were the steps that led to these hearings?
- Following the disruptions of the last academic year, Columbia immediately began disciplinary processes, including interim suspensions. For cases in which students were charged by law enforcement, the University formally initiated its processes once those law enforcement bodies had determined not to pursue further action.
When the new Rules Administrator was appointed at the beginning of the fall semester, three matters from the spring remained open: the April 17-18 encampment, the Hamilton Hall occupation, and the Alumni Weekend encampment. Prior to Interim President Armstrong’s appointment, the University had committed to transfer these cases to the UJB appointed by the Executive Committee of the University Senate, at the request of many in our community. After resolving certain evidentiary and procedural inquiries, every effort was undertaken to expedite the process for this large volume of cases.
- Following the disruptions of the last academic year, Columbia immediately began disciplinary processes, including interim suspensions. For cases in which students were charged by law enforcement, the University formally initiated its processes once those law enforcement bodies had determined not to pursue further action.
- Is there an appeal process for the outcomes of the hearings and when will there be final resolution?
- There is an appeal process set forth in the Rules. The respondents or the Rules Administrator may appeal determinations of responsibility and respondents may appeal sanctions. The Rules set out a timeline for completion of the appeals process.
- There is an appeal process set forth in the Rules. The respondents or the Rules Administrator may appeal determinations of responsibility and respondents may appeal sanctions. The Rules set out a timeline for completion of the appeals process.
- Have our Rules and processes changed since the events of last Spring?
- The Rules set forth in the Statutes have not changed. In August 2024, the Senate Rules Committee issued revised Guidelines to accompany the Rules. The 2024 revisions are part of the review of the Rules and Guidelines that the Statutes of the University require the Rules Committee to undertake every four years.
- The Rules set forth in the Statutes have not changed. In August 2024, the Senate Rules Committee issued revised Guidelines to accompany the Rules. The 2024 revisions are part of the review of the Rules and Guidelines that the Statutes of the University require the Rules Committee to undertake every four years.
- Who are the members of the University Judicial Board and how are they selected?
- The UJB is made up of faculty, students, and staff only. Members of the UJB are selected by the Senate Executive Committee. While the President of the University sits on the Executive Committee, the President does not participate in the selection process.
- The UJB is made up of faculty, students, and staff only. Members of the UJB are selected by the Senate Executive Committee. While the President of the University sits on the Executive Committee, the President does not participate in the selection process.
- Will all the hearings have the same UJB panel?
- Each matter has a specific UJB panel that is comprised of five members of the University community. For the matters from last year, each matter has had a different panel.
- Each matter has a specific UJB panel that is comprised of five members of the University community. For the matters from last year, each matter has had a different panel.
- What if a member of the UJB panel or the Rules Administrator has a conflict of interest?
- UJB members complete conflict of interest forms that are reviewed by the respondent and the Rules Administrator, and both the respondent and the Rules Administrator can raise a potential conflict. The Senate Executive Committee reviewed any potential conflicts raised with respect to members of the UJB. The President and the Provost do not participate in that process. The Rules Administrator could have a conflict, and is required to take steps to address it, such as assigning an Assistant Rules Administrator to take charge of a case or hearing.
Email to the Columbia Community from Rules Administrator Gregory Wawro at 2:23 pm on Tuesday, March 11, 2025:
To the members of the Columbia community,
Nobel Prize winner Douglass North, one of my academic heroes, defined institutions as follows: “Institutions are the humanly devised constraints that structure political, economic, and social interaction. They consist of both informal constraints (sanctions, taboos, customs, traditions, and codes of conduct), and formal rules (constitutions, laws, property rights).” For the nearly 30 years I have taught at Columbia as a political scientist, I have tried to make the case to my students of the importance of institutions, especially in a democracy, and why they should share my interest in advancing knowledge about how institutions function.
Three of the most critical features of institutions that make them valuable are that they promote fairness, transparency, and efficiency. When I was asked to take on the role of Rules Administrator six months ago, I pledged that everything I do in this role must meet the highest standards of fairness, transparency, and efficiency. To be sure, there are challenges to achieving this goal, and I am grateful for the hard work that members of the Office of Rules Administration and the many individuals throughout the University that we partner with have put in to overcome those challenges. We can always do better, and I am committed to constantly improving the administration of the Rules of University Conduct.
One of the biggest tasks that I’ve faced during my tenure as Rules Administrator is to bring to resolution the large number of cases that arose from the protest and demonstration activity from Academic Year 2023-2024. I have worked with the University Judicial Board, which is empowered by the University Senate to act as an independent hearing panel and sanctioning body, to follow our processes under the Rules, including holding individual hearings for every case. Hearings have been completed for cases in connection with the April 17-18 encampment on the South Lawn and the occupation of Hamilton Hall. Some factors beyond our control made the processing of these cases less efficient than many would have liked, but I am grateful for the difficult work that has been done by many to enable us to adhere to our processes to ensure fair treatment of those involved. We still have cases left over from last academic year to see through to resolution, but I am confident that this will be completed soon.
For all of these cases, I am confident that the community will accept the legitimacy of the outcomes, whatever they may be, since we followed our longstanding practices and policies under the Rules. Institutions are viable only if we accept the outcomes that they produce even though we might disagree with those outcomes.
Over the past six months, members of the community have continued to exercise their broad free speech rights that have been granted in the University statutes. We have seen continued protest and demonstration activity on campus, but nearly all of that activity has followed the parameters laid out in the Rules of University Conduct, demonstrating that we can achieve balance between the exercise of free speech rights and rights to engage in academic activities that constitute the core mission of the University. In the few cases where it has not, I have fulfilled my responsibilities as Rules Administrator, following our processes and maintaining strict content neutrality, to bring charges of violations of the Rules. As a measure of improvement in Rules administration, those cases have progressed more expeditiously.
As is usually the case in large institutions, much work remains to be done. I look forward to continuing this work to improve the fairness and efficiency of the University’s processes. I also look forward to continuing outreach efforts with students, student life professionals, and faculty colleagues to enhance transparency and build trust in our processes.
Serving as Rules Administrator is the most difficult role I’ve served in my career. It has been incredibly heartening to see the positive response to our efforts to promote fairness, transparency, and efficiency and the tremendous support throughout the community for tackling with unity the immense challenges we face.
Thank you,
Gregory Wawro
Professor, Department of Political Science
Director, MS Program in Political Analytics
Rules Administrator
Columbia University
He/him/his
Header via Madeline Douglas
Loading ...