May 9, 2024
Podcasts

Inside Columbia’s Crackdown on Pro-Palestine Free Speech

Universities should be havens for robust debate, discussion, and learning – not sites of censorship where administrators, donors, and politicians squash political discourse they don’t approve of. But Columbia University recently violated New York law to single out and suspend two student groups for participating in a peaceful student demonstration and temporary art installation in support of Palestinian rights.

That’s why the NYCLU and Palestine Legal sued Columbia.

These student groups – Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace – were peacefully speaking out on a critical global conflict, only to have Columbia ignore its own longstanding, existing rules and abruptly suspend the organizations. The protest was sponsored by a coalition of over 20 groups, yet none of the other groups involved faced disciplinary action.

That’s retaliatory, it’s targeted, and it flies in the face of the free speech principles that institutes of higher learning should be defending. We talk about this case with two NYCLU lawyers who brought the lawsuit. We also hear from two students who are plaintiffs in the case, Maryam Alwan, an organizer with Columbia’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine and Cameron Jones, an organizer with Columbia’s chapter of Jewish Voice for Peace.

Since we recorded this episode several New York colleges and universities – including Columbia – have started pro-Palestine protest encampments. In some cases, students have also occupied campus buildings. The NYCLU continues to monitor these developments and has spoken out about the police crackdowns against them. This episode, however, is specifically focused on our lawsuit challenging Columbia’s decision last year to unlawfully suspend Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine.

Please, download, rate, review, and subscribe to Rights This Way. It will help more people find this podcast.

Resources
Transcript

CBS New York Reporter: Columbia University suspends two student groups for the rest of the fall semester. Officials cited an event yesterday afternoon involving quote “threatening rhetoric and intimidation”.

Veronica: That accusation is something that supporters of Palestinian rights and lives face all the time.

Cameron: It pretty much told us that the University does not respect our beliefs and does not respect our opinions.

Camara: They completely circumvented the existing procedures and never really explained to people why or what justification they had for doing so.

Simon: Universities should be havens for robust debate, discussion, and learning. Not sites of censorship where administrators, donors, and politicians squash political discourse they don’t approve of. But Columbia University recently violated New York law to single out and suspend two student groups for participating in a peaceful student demonstration and temporary art installation in support of Palestinian rights.

That’s why the NYCLU and Palestine Legal sued Columbia. These student groups, Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace, were peacefully speaking out on a critical global conflict, only to have Columbia ignore its own long standing existing rules and abruptly suspend the organizations. The protest was sponsored by a coalition of over 20 groups, yet none of the other groups involved faced disciplinary action. That’s retaliatory, it’s targeted, and it flies in the face of the free speech principles that institutions of higher learning should be defending. We will talk about this case with two NYCLU lawyers who brought the lawsuit, and we’ll also hear from two students who are plaintiffs in the case.

Since we recorded this episode, several New York colleges and universities have been Including Columbia have started pro-Palestine protest encampments. In some cases, students have also occupied campus buildings. The NYCLU continues to monitor these developments and has spoken out about the police crackdowns against them.

This episode, however, is specifically focused on our lawsuit, challenging Columbia’s decision last year to unlawfully suspend Jewish Voice for Peace and Students for Justice in Palestine. Before we get started, I’d like to ask you to please. Download, rate, review, and subscribe to Rights This Way. It will help more people find this podcast.

Welcome to Rights This Way, a podcast from the New York Civil Liberties Union, the ACLU of New York State. I’m Simon McCormack, Senior Staff Writer at the NYCLU, and your host for this podcast, which is focused on the civil rights and liberties issues that impact New Yorkers most.

And now I’m joined by two guests. Veronica Salama is a staff attorney with the NYCLU, and Camara Stokes Hudson is an NYCLU racial justice counsel. Veronica, Camara, welcome to Rights This Way.

Veronica: Thank you. Thanks so much for having us.

Camara: Yeah, thank you so much for having us.

Simon: Of course. So first let’s talk about the events that led to us filing a lawsuit against Columbia University.

I’ll start with you, Veronica.

Veronica: Sure. So we brought this lawsuit against Columbia University for its unlawful suspension of two student groups at Columbia University, Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace. These student groups have existed on Columbia’s campus for individually well over a decade, and they are very well known to be the most prominent and largest student groups on campus that advocate for Palestinian liberation and Palestinian rights.

And on November 10th of 2023, Columbia University took an unprecedented step of suspending these student groups for purportedly violating procedural requirements. and also publicly announced that suspension. Now, taking a step back, what exactly took place, what was happening on campus leading up to this suspension?

I think it’s important to look at what these student groups were experiencing over a few weeks on campus. These two student groups were really doing their best to try to raise awareness to a global issue. They were taking place in international calls to action, which included vigils demonstrations.

They were participating in an environment where the fear of doxing threat retaliation was heightened to a degree that is, it’s quite difficult to explain it in a short description. But they were doing their absolute best to work within the confines of the rules of the campus and working in an environment that seemed largely out to get them.

And ultimately, that’s what we saw happen on November 10th. But when the university suspended the two student groups and publicly announced that suspension.

Simon: And now I’ll go to Camara. Why did we bring this case and what are we alleging are the violations that Columbia has committed?

Camara: Uh, yeah, so we’re bringing this case on behalf of JVP and SJP and two of their members.

And we’re ultimately arguing that Columbia has failed to comply with their own procedures when they suspended the two student groups. So typically, if a student group violates a rule or violates a policy at Columbia, the Student Governing Board or other entities at Columbia are supposed to begin a process of investigation, which would have given the students an ability to present their side.

Columbia did none of that. Columbia engaged in none of the policies and procedures that they were expected to, and they decided unilaterally, with no ability for appeal, to suspend SJP and JVP. And so what we’re arguing is ultimately that suspension was erroneous, and that the suspension should be overturned, because it should have gone through the correct procedures, and it didn’t.

Veronica: Another violation that we are alleging is that Columbia’s suspension of these student groups was excessive in light of the circumstances. And we know that because over 20 student groups actually participated in the November 9 demonstration that Students for Justice in Palestine and Jewish Voice for Peace participated in.

We also know that because University Student Life staff members have said that many student groups that semester were allegedly violating procedural requirements. We know that Students Supporting Israel, which is a student group on campus, had held a rally no less than six events, demonstrations, vigils, counter protests between October 9th and November 9th.

And to our knowledge, none of these student groups have been investigated, let alone sanctioned. Almost indefinitely at this point.

Cameron: So I am Cameron and I am one of the lead organizers of Jewish Voice for Peace.

Maryam: Maryam Alwan, Students for Justice in Palestine.

Cameron: This suspension pretty much said that we are not allowed to host events on campus or utilize university funding.

So it took away a lot of the power that student groups have on campus. I think the statement was trying to appease a lot of the backlash that the university was getting from outsiders about the pro Palestinian demonstrations on campus. It was also unfortunate to see the university suspend a Jewish group.

It was one of the first universities ever to suspend a Jewish group advocating for Palestinian liberation.

Maryam: I think it threatens the very heart of what an academic institution is. I’ve been shocked personally to see the way that democracy has eroded across the country, but specifically on my own college campus in the past few months.

And it has a very real effect. Campus feels like a panopticon. People feel like they cannot discuss and debate critical theory or anything. And that’s like the very antithesis of what an academic institution should be in the first place.

Cameron: It pretty much told us that the university does not respect our beliefs and does not respect our opinions.

Which was just really disheartening to see at a university like Columbia that prides itself in allowing for opinions to be dispersed and opinions to be openly accessible to everyone. And it just really showed that the university does not take into account all of their students opinions and values.

This suspension shows how the university, is bowing to outside pressure and letting outsiders, if it be donors or alumni or just mass media, affect what they are doing.

Maryam: I mean, we’ve already been getting a lot of threats and hateful comments and things of this nature. If Columbia University can suspend student groups it doesn’t like and create new social media policy to delete and hide comments and remove decorations from the dormitory doors in Barnard.

Maryam: Then what kind of precedent are we setting? We’re saying certain people cannot exist on our campus and cannot speak on our campus. And that impacts me very, very deeply as a Palestinian because every single day I’m reminded, do I really belong on this campus? Am I even allowed to speak about what’s going on?

Maryam: And it sets a precedent because if they can do this, then who’s going to stop them from doing this to other marginalized communities or issues that are being suppressed in the mainstream and go against the interests of our government, which has financial stakes in what’s going on right now?

Veronica: So at the time of the suspension, the university said that the groups were suspended through the fall semester and that the lifting of the suspension would be based on the student group’s demonstrated compliance with event policies.

Shortly after that suspension, the student groups reached out to administration asking questions like, what is the process that you’re outlining here? How would we get reinstated? And the university was extremely unclear, did not actually respond to the student groups for at least a month until the end of the fall semester.

And when they did respond to them, what they explained was that you will have to meet with certain members of university student life, and that the same entity that suspended them is ultimately going to be responsible for reinstating them. And the students rightfully, in our view, view that as an unlawful procedure for reinstatement.

Simon: Yeah. No. Well, so I do just want to, I think one of the things that this brings up in my next question here is you’re pointing out Veronica, the disparate treatment, right? Correct me if I’m wrong, but because Columbia is a private institution rather than a public college, they don’t have the same obligation to follow the first amendment that a public college would, but, they do have to follow certain procedures, right? They do have to do certain things under the law and treat people equally. Is that right?

Camara: Yeah, so under the law, private colleges and universities are not bound by the First Amendment, but they are required to substantially comply with their own policies and procedures.

Some of those policies and procedures have other federal laws attached, like Title VI, which prevents racial discrimination, or Title IX, which prevents gender based discrimination. But, by and large, private universities are required to follow their rules, or substantially comply with their rules. So, they can, you know, even fail to comply with parts of their rules, but they generally have to follow the rules and procedures that they’ve set out.

And I think that in the Columbia case is a very good example of a university that has not in any way substantially complied with their procedures for suspending a student group. Like they completely circumvented the existing procedures and never really explained to people why or what justification they had for doing so.

Veronica: And to the extent that we have non New York based listeners, I think it’s helpful to let folks know that the law that we’re referring to that requires universities, private or public, to substantially comply with their policies and procedures. That’s a standard that has been set out by New York State’s highest court.

And so something like that might exist in other states, but we brought this lawsuit in New York State court based on the laws that are in place. New York State’s highest court has set out.

Simon: So Veronica, what is Columbia’s justification for banning these two groups? And why don’t we think their argument holds up?

Veronica: So Columbia University has given different justifications for the banning of these student groups. At the time of the suspension, the two paragraph announcement stated that the decision to suspend the groups came quote after the two groups repeatedly violated university policies related to holding campus events, culminating in an unauthorized event on November 9th that proceeded despite warnings and included threatening rhetoric and intimidation. So, the university stated in its public announcement that these groups repeatedly violated event policies and held an event that, quote, included threatening rhetoric and intimidation.

The university has since walked back. The assertion that the suspension was based on the event, quote, including threatening rhetoric and intimidation and has since said that no, this decision was based entirely on the fact that the student groups violated event policies and we needed to make this decision.

Simon: Yeah, well, just in terms of like, what are our counters to that?

Veronica: The first is that anytime a student group is alleged to have violated any sort of university rule, university policy, that allegation has to go through a process that was established by Columbia in 1969 for the explicit purpose of avoiding unilateral action by the administration against its student groups.

It involves an opportunity to see the exact allegations, to respond to those allegations, to have a hearing, to receive a written decision explaining exactly what they are accused of doing and exactly why they are receiving that punishment, and an opportunity to appeal the punishment that’s imposed on them.

And the reasons for appealing a punishment could be that there were material issues with the process that was involved in persecuting the student groups. Another reason for an appeal would be that the punishment is disproportionate to the alleged violation. So that’s number one. One is that we don’t think that the justification for banning these student groups outright less than 24 hours after they held an event was justified because the students were entitled to multiple procedures.

The other reason that we believe that this holds no merit is that multiple student groups were involved in this same action and none of the other student groups that were involved in this action or in any other actions that took place on campus have been investigated or sanctioned in any way.

Simon: Okay, Camara, can you talk about what we’ve discovered as you work to bring this case about the role that donors specifically have played in influencing the actions that Columbia took against these two student groups?

Camara: Uh, yeah. So, throughout the fact gathering process and kind of our own investigation of this issue. We consistently were being informed by other people that Columbia was experiencing a lot of pushback in their fundraising and financial offices from donors, largely calling for removal and the suspension of SJP, Students for Justice in Palestine.

One of our affidavits in the article 78 comes from a person who had left one of the Columbia funds. And while she was at one of the funds had seen all of these emails from donors who were asking for HDP to be disbanded. And it’s very clear from this person’s experience that Columbia has been responding to donors in this context very differently than they respond to donors in other contexts. And while that is not the entire reason that Columbia has come to decisions that they’ve made, I think that is a relevant piece of the story that Columbia is tracking and responding to donors demands to remove SJP, especially uniquely and distinctly from any other types of complaints that they’ve received in the past.

So there also have been, I think there’ve now been, as well, two separate large donors, one of which being Henry Swieca, who very publicly has threatened to remove their funding from Columbia. And I, like, it would be very hard to talk about the justifications for suspending SJP and JVP without talking about the broader external pressure that Columbia has been under to respond to SJP and JVP very specifically in an attempt to chill pro Palestine students or pro Palestine activism.

Veronica: Yeah, I mean, Henry Swieca, the billionaire that she’s referring to in a letter explicitly said that he actually resigned from the board of Columbia Business School and said that the reason for that was his indignation over the university allowing, quote, blatantly anti Jewish student groups and professors to operate with complete impunity.

And so, this was clearly targeting the two most prominent student groups on campus for Palestinian liberation. And we also saw that in the form of a email campaign started by one of Columbia’s very own professors who was calling for the suspension of the two student groups. He started a automatic email that would be sent to both the president and CC Fox News and said that these two student groups are pro terror and that they must be removed from campus.

Camara: And a lot of those things happened much earlier than November 9th. Much of this is happening in the middle of October. And so, like, the pressure to suspend SJP and JVP begins very early, and certainly predates the November 9th vigil, and any of the justifications that Columbia is providing for why SJP and JVP were suspended.

Simon: Yeah, I think that context is critical to see behind what the stated purposes for suspending these groups are versus this much broader context. Camara, are there other cases across the country that are similar to ours that are challenging other universities efforts to stifle free speech related to Israel-Palestine?

Camara: Yeah, there are. Florida Governor Ron DeSantis had sent an order for state universities to deactivate Students for Justice in Palestine. And so this suit sues the state of Florida, basically saying that is a violation of the First Amendment. Palestine Legal, who is our co-counsel in this case, has several years ago sued on behalf of Fordham’s chapter of SJP, which was banned.

And so there have been a couple of cases over the last couple of years concerning attempts to shut down Students for Justice in Palestine.

Simon: Got it. So it’s a much, it’s a much broader movement and battle here than just Columbia for sure. Okay. And Veronica, in talking to our student plaintiffs in the case, what to you has struck you most about how they’ve been impacted by Columbia’s actions?

Veronica: Talking to our student petitioners, Maryam Alwan and Cameron Jones. What has been most striking is the impact that the public announcement of the suspension has had on them and the content of that public announcement. The university didn’t just unilaterally suspend these student groups violating its own policies and procedures.

The university accused the student groups and accused these students of engaging in threatening and intimidating rhetoric. That accusation is something that supporters of Palestinian rights and lives face all the time. It is a deeply Harmful and racist way to paint individuals who advocate for Palestinian rights and These students in particular have experienced just an inundation of anti Palestinian and Islamophobic hate comments, posts, and death threats.

Jewish Voice for Peace, Cameron, talks about how important JVP is for him as an anti-Zionist Jewish individual who does not otherwise feel comfort on campus in exclusively Zionist spaces. And this suspension has impacted his ability to engage with like minded Jewish students. They’ve also been painted by this brush of being anti-Jewish, which inherently is a contradiction to his own identity.

And overall, the students feel unsafe, uncomfortable, unwelcome on their own campus because of the suspension and the way that the university described the reasons for that suspension.

Simon: And Camara, as we start to wrap up, what is it that we are asking the court to do? What is the resolution we want from this lawsuit?

Camara: We would like the court to annul, which means to remove completely the suspension. So basically act like it never happened, to revert back, to reinstate the student groups without all these conditions that Veronica had talked about before. It’s a pretty simple ask. We want the suspensions to be annulled and for the groups to be reinstated.

Veronica: I would love for folks to know just the rich history of student activism on Columbia’s campus. I am not myself a Columbia alumni, but I have learned a lot about the activism that has taken place on its campus over the course of this case, over speaking with. Professors such as Professor Katherine Franke, who wrote an affirmation in our case, who’s been on campus since she was an undergraduate student, and she talks about the activism against apartheid in South Africa, the Vietnam War, the Iraq War, all of these on campus demonstrations and student activism that has been celebrated and touted by Columbia.

And to see the way in which Columbia is cracking down on activism that looks no different than activism that has taken place on campus over decades is both disheartening and frustrating and unlawful. And so I really hope that people take the time to look back at Columbia’s history and to be both just as inspired by it and filled with the same righteous indignation that our students in this case feel.

Simon: Well, with that, thank you, Camara and Veronica, so much for coming on Rights This Way.

Veronica: Thank you. Thanks for having us.

Simon: Thank you for listening. You can find out more about everything we talked about today by visiting nyclu. org. And you can follow us at NYCLU on Instagram, Twitter, and Facebook. Twitter and Facebook.

If you have questions or comments about Rights This Way, you can email us at podcast at NYCLU. org. Until next time, I’m Simon McCormack. Thank you for fighting for a fair New York.