At 1:15 pm on Friday, April 26, the Columbia University Senate held a plenary meeting to discuss ongoing events on campus. The Senate passed the Resolution Addressing Current Events, condemning the University. 

On Tuesday, April 23, the Columbia College University Senators sent out an email to students announcing a meeting with the full University Senate to discuss ongoing events on campus. They asked students to share with them by email their experiences or suggestions the Senate should bring to the meetings. One scheduled meeting, held on Zoom at 1:15 pm on Friday, April 26, was open to the entire community. 

The Friday, April 26 meeting began with a recognition of the “brave” Senate members who have been in negotiations for “many hours” with the University and student protest organizers about the ongoing Gaza Solidarity Encampment and related demonstrations in the past week. 

Firstly, Adrian Brugger, the chair of the First Generation Low-Income Columbia Students subcommittee, provided updates regarding an initiative to create a “nexus for students who are first-generation, low-income to network and find resources.” The committee is currently exploring the possibility of finding space for this initiative in either Butler Library or Lerner Hall and are in talks with facilities, which proves “encouraging, considering how tight space is at Columbia University,” Senator Brugger said. 

The meeting’s agenda and proceedings were outlined in a plenary binder made available to participants ahead of the scheduled meeting time.

On page 25 of the binder, the context for the Resolution Addressing Current Events was established. The University Senate stated that they “affirm… the principles of academic freedom, the safety of all members of the Columbia University community, and civility despite differences of opinion.” They attested that current events and the University’s response to them have posed difficulties in studying, teaching, and research. The Senate declared that “external entities have sought to interfere in the internal affairs of Columbia University in ways that undermine traditions of academic freedom and shared governance.” Finally, they stated that according to Section 23 of the Charters and Statutes of Columbia University, the University Senate is required to “work for the advancement of academic freedom and the protection of faculty interests” and “work for the promotion of student welfare and the enhancement of student life.” 

The plenary binder then introduced the Resolution Addressing Current Events, which would be voted on at Friday’s meeting. The resolution stated, “We unreservedly condemn external interference in the internal affairs of Columbia University that undermines the traditions of academic freedom and shared governance.” It also listed various ways that the University has acted “contrary to [its] norms and traditions” and “counterproductive to its mission” over recent months. 

The resolution stated that University representatives have “significantly undermine[d] the principles of academic freedom,” citing statements that “threaten faculty job security and discount faculty rights to free inquiry.” It declared that the University has “disregard[ed]… the privacy and due process rights of individual students and faculty members.” Lastly, it stated that the administration’s decision to authorize the NYPD to arrest students “raised serious concerns about the administration’s request for shared governance and transparency,” as the University Senate Executive Committee “did not approve the presence of NYPD on… campus.” 

Executive Committee Chair Senator Jeanine D’Armiento then began the discussion about the current events on campus, stating that the University Senate had a “responsibility to understand what has happened in the last months to lead to what happened in the last week.” She stated that the Senate does not want to make the same “mistakes” as the University, which has “not adhered to what they are bound to.” She reflected the Senate’s desire to examine the situation carefully, instead of making any “sudden” conclusions about the state of current affairs on campus. 

Student Affairs Committee Vice Chair Senator Minhas Wasaya then presented the April 25 University Senate Executive Committee Report, which described the University’s “actions and decisions that have harmed Columbia University.” These items included a failure to “utiliz[e] long-established disciplinary processes in Fall 2023, including the Rules of University Conduct,” the changes to the University Event Policies that were made without consultation from the University Senate, the suspension of JVP and SJP “with no clear process outlined for reinstatement,” the decision to hire an “aggressive” private investigation firm to investigate students and faculty, and authorizing the NYPD to enter campus and arrest student protesters.  The Executive Committee Report stated that the University’s “fundamental lack of good-faith engagement with all campus constituencies” has “divide[d the] community.” 

Afterwards, the group opened the floor up to ask questions about this report. Senator Henry Ginsberg questioned the validity of claims that the University hired of a private investigation firm. He then asked for proof of this through a “paper trail” confirming such an “outrageous set of actions,” to which Senator Jeanine D’Armiento claimed that they are gathering more information but have only heard from students, noting that “this all has to be looked at.” On Friday, April 5, President Shafik confirmed that the University hired private investigators to investigate the “Resistance 101” event that led to the suspensions and evictions of various students. 

Senator Carol Garber pushed back against the report, claiming the Executive Committee Report doesn’t give attention to students’ right to learn and feel safe on campus. She reaffirmed the right to protest but believes that the message ignores the rights of students who are not protesting and “fails to address the hostile language toward Israeli and Jewish students, faculty, and staff when they try to express their particular viewpoints.”

In response, Senator D’Armiento then continued to outline previous mistakes made by Columbia University, such as their not utilizing long-established disciplinary processes in the Fall 2023 semester, something that “led to individuals who may have had the situations you described.” Additionally, she clarified that this report is not being voted on, but is solely a starting point open to amendments.

Senator Jeffrey Gordon then affirmed that the Senate Executive Committee “speaks for themselves,” but that the report’s claims are “based on personal knowledge of those signing the report.” Gordan stated that the report was intentionally framed as a factual document, not necessarily a “starting point” for a more thorough investigation. In response, Senator D’Armiento mentioned that many of the claims outlined in the Report were taken from prior plenary discussions that occurred over the past six months.

Senator Margaret Corn mentioned that the report “focuses on one side,” despite Senator D’Armiento’s assertion that the report only mentions factual events. Senator Corn stated her belief that while it was “fair” to examine how the administration has “contributed to the tension of campus,” other parties including protestors, outside groups, and responses to the ongoing events on social media have also “contributed to the tensions.” Senator D’Armiento pushed back, affirming the Senate’s goal is to avoid being “inflammatory” and to bring the community together. However, she stated that although the Senate is attempting to “calm things down,” they still “have a duty to look at what has happened” with a critical eye. 

Senator Steven Chaikelson supported the idea of an investigation, acknowledging there are mistakes that may have been made, yet the report presents events as fact. Senator D’Armiento was open to revisiting the document, noting she also wants to make sure their statements are definitely true, but affirmed that the use of private investigators was already confirmed. Senator Nachum Sicherman stated that much of the “more outrageous behavior” reported on in and surrounding campus came from non-affiliates, and cited the “failure” of the administration and Public Safety to “properly” check CUIDs when entering campus.

Rules Committee Senator Susan Bernofsky said she was “speaking as herself” when she explained that it is important to not get distracted by political issues, and that the main concern remained that the administration had been using power to “go around established practices and rules of University Statutes” that “involve [the] University Senate much more than we have seen in past months”

She also claimed that while many events are “alleged,” this is still “horrific.” In comparison to the Senate’s “mild” resolution, the Barnard and Columbia chapter of the American Association of University Professors had a “much stronger statement of rebuke of censure,” Bernofsky stated. Senator D’Armiento explained that while the Senate has been pressured to put forward a resolution of censure, they wouldn’t do so without more deliberation. 

Co-chair of the External Relations Committee Senator Howard Worman asserted that “everyone is talking about Columbia” and that this report “may send a wrong message to many people.” He acknowledged events of people both on and off campus saying the University “can’t manage itself” and that President Shafik must resign, adding that most students are “peaceful, eating pizza, [and] living in tents.” He claimed that a very small minority are vocal, antisemitic, and want the destruction of Israel, and that pursuing investigations may “embolden them to do more.” Senator D’Armiento responded that it is the Senate’s obligation to recognize and investigate the shortcomings of senior administrators. 

Senator Savannah Thais stated that she doesn’t agree with changing the document to say things are all alleged, as they have been talking about the events as being true. Thais cited remarks during President Shafik’s congressional testimony, which were recorded and publicly released, needing no investigation to verify their occurrence. 

Senator Ovita Williams referred to the “opaque processes” noted in the report, adding that they can all agree the group suspensions have been “more than deplorable.” Williams stated, “It is more than “opaque,” using the lack of transparency around the treatment of students and the rush to suspend students and groups as examples. She claimed the Senate has an obligation to “protect our students regardless of where and what they are.”

Senator Eduardo Moncada mentioned he doesn’t want “outside sources” to “dictate policy,” therefore the Senate has to be very careful and clear about how they proceed. He stated he thinks this report is the first step.

Thanking the Senate, Senator Wellington Soares believes the Senate’s resolution is different from other documents as it has more detailed evidence. He also believes it is “very unfortunate that [they] are in this situation… antagonizing with the administration,” but he doesn’t see another option other than to move forward with the resolution.

Senator Ben Orlove mentioned that although the statements outlined in the report could “benefit from fuller investigation,” they are not merely “speculation or heresay.” He stated that a “forward moving statement” is in line with the Senate’s traditional action while also not “undermining” President Shafik. Senator Ruth DeFries interjected that the press may characterize the report as “one-sided,” with Senator D’Armiento remarking that the press will “twist” anything they “get ahold of.” 

Senator Vishal Manve raised a concern about senior students who have been suspended weeks before their expected graduation, citing the “stress and uncertainty” these students are likely to be facing. Senator Erick Zent mentioned his dissatisfaction with the report as it currently stands, believing that the Senate should more explicitly “condemn” and “censure” the actions of the administration. He mentioned that despite Shafik’s promises to “rebuild [their] trust,” she has “done the complete opposite of that.” Senator Susan Bernofsky also noted that any students present at the plenary might not “feel safe” speaking about their own thoughts on the matters up for discussion.

Turning to the specific language of the resolution, Senator Corn asked what changes to the language of the resolution’s first point would help “alleviate” the problems the Senate had previously mentioned. The resolution’s first point reads, “We unreservedly condemn external interference in the internal affairs of Columbia University that undermines the traditions of academic freedom and shared governance.” A proposed wording change would include a phrase about how the “lack of discipline led to a potential escalation,” which Senator D’Armiento agreed to modify the statement to include. 

The Senate then began a discussion about the importance of the resolution. Senator Wasaya stated that students felt “unheard” and thus decided to take “drastic” but “peaceful” action. The University’s response was “unprecedented” and “insane,” he said, and has created lasting concerns about “fear, hate speech, harassment, [and] discrimination.” Senator Wasaya also distinguished between on-campus and off-campus events, and affirmed that those “harassing” others should be reported. “We need to figure out who did what, we need to hold people accountable,” he concluded. 

Senator Rosie Savage stated that, “Students have been educated, empowered, [and] encouraged to stand up for the people who cannot do so themselves.” She spoke to the increasing media coverage of Columbia and the events unfolding on campus, stating that the “world is watching” and that they have a “responsibility” for “the world we are handing over to the next generation.” She also noted that “no solution will relieve… grief, loss, [and] trauma.”

Senator Jalaj Mehta joined the conversation, stating, “I don’t think there is any doubt that the administration has done something wrong,” and that forming a task force to “investigate this fully” may be the “logical solution.” Senator Akash Kapoor attested to the “decades” of debates with “similar levels of emotion” that the Senate has been involved in, describing how unsafe both Jewish students and Muslim students feel on campus, as well as other students of color. Kapoor acknowledged this experience particularly regarding the major NYPD presence in the surrounding area. He also noted how many students “don’t feel safe talking to each other” or “engaging in these debates that are going to exist for years to come.” 

Senator Nachum Sicherman presented an opposing viewpoint, urging the Senate to vote against the Resolution “regardless of your political views.” He described his belief that the Resolution represented a “self-destructive overreaction” and that the Senate should be focusing on helping the administration “resolve” the current situation “regardless of how much we like them or not.” Senator D’Armiento chimed in, noting that this Resolution was not about “whether we like people or not.” 

Senator Daniel Savin mentioned that many members of the Senate were asked to vote on the Resolution “without security of tenure” and that they were at a risk of being doxxed. He then suggested a movement for a “secret ballot of the Resolution.” 

Returning to the resolution itself, Senator Corn reaffirmed that she had “no problem with investigation” and indicated that the Resolution should remain neutral, in the proposed document that reads that the “[current events]… and the University administration’s responses thereto, have made studying, teaching, and research increasingly difficult for many students, faculty, and other members of the Columbia community”—is a “highly partial position.” She went on to state that the purpose of the Resolution is to “investigate” but “not to conclude” and suggested the document is “revised as such that it stays neutral” before a vote is held.

Senator D’Armiento reiterated that most of the actions on the list have been confirmed as having occurred, and that an investigation would look into specifics about who was involved and how various actions happened, not whether or not they happened in the first place. 

Senator Seth Kimmel commented that censure should appear at some point, to which Senator Soares added that while this is a very difficult moment that the Senate is going through, “students have been harmed the most,” and this resolution is integral to their protection. 

Senator James Applegate acknowledged that the Senate all has strong opinions, but they need to “lower the temperature of the disagreement” and get the resolution out in a “healthy way.” One method he mentioned would be to assemble a task force to interpret the mandate broadly. 

Regarding edits to the resolution, Senator Jeffrey Gordon wanted to strike paragraph 2b, as he believed it entails an investigation that hasn’t been conducted. He agreed with the idea of a task force’s examination. Senator D’Armiento then questioned why “an investigation [is] something we should be afraid of,” adding that “if we investigate and find out things didn’t happen, it would calm our community.”  

Various Senators then contributed their final thoughts on the resolution. Senator Mehta asserted that the “University is burning down” and that if the Senate doesn’t “find the source of the fire, how do we put it out?” Senator Bernofsky stated that it would be a “huge mistake” if the Senate refused to take action at this point. 

Senator Corn proposed splitting up the votes to rephrase the resolution. She stated this would imply a request for further investigation, noting that some Senators may support one motion but not the other. 

Senator D’Armiento suggested the group move on to a vote, as she felt they were repeating information. Then Senator Jennifer Manly claimed that the list of actions and concerns in the document are serious, and if censure is the action they’ve been asked to take by faculty and student groups, “Why is censure not a part of the document?” She believed the resolution needed to be “as serious as it can be in response.” D’Armiento affirmed that the Executive Committee doesn’t favor censure, therefore they are not making rash decisions on it. 

Lastly, the Senate was asked to vote on the resolution. First, Senator Shelley Saltzman asked the Senate to vote on an amendment that would change the first eight words of the second statement to place less blame on the administration, which passed. Then, another motion was brought by Senator Daniel Savin to vote with a secret ballot, which was also agreed on. D’Armiento said that the vote would be electronic and Senators would have three minutes to vote. The resolution was then passed, with 62 in favor and 14 in opposition. Three Senators abstained. 

Editor’s note:

This article was updated at 10:01 pm to correct an accidental misquote attributed to Margaret Corn.

Columbia via Bwog Archives