Columbia University suspends, expels students who participated in pro-Palestine protests
A student activist group said nearly 80 students were told they have been suspended for one to three years or expelled. The sanctions issued by a university judicial board also include probation and degree revocations, Columbia said in a statement.
The action comes as the Manhattan university is negotiating with President Donald Trump's administration to restore $400 million in federal funding it has withheld from the Ivy League school over its handling of student protests against the war in Gaza. The administration pulled the funding, canceling grants and contracts, in March because of what it described as the university's failure to squelch antisemitism on campus during the Israel-Hamas war that began in October 2023.
Columbia has since agreed to a series of demands laid out by the Republican administration, including overhauling the university's student disciplinary process and adopting a new definition of antisemitism.
'Our institution must focus on delivering on its academic mission for our community,' the university said Tuesday. 'And to create a thriving academic community, there must be respect for each other and the institution's fundamental work, policies, and rules. Disruptions to academic activities are in violation of University policies and Rules, and such violations will necessarily generate consequences.'
It did not disclose the names of the students who were disciplined.
Columbia in May said it would lay off nearly 180 staffers and scale back research in response to the loss of funding. Those receiving nonrenewal or termination notices represent about 20 percent of the employees funded in some manner by the terminated federal grants, the university said.
A student activist group said the newly announced disciplinary action exceeds sentencing precedent for prior protests. Suspended students would be required to submit apologies in order to be allowed back on campus or face expulsion, the group said, something some students will refuse to do.
'We will not be deterred. We are committed to the struggle for Palestinian liberation,' Columbia University Apartheid Divest said in a statement.
Columbia was at the forefront of US campus protests over the war in spring 2024. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators set up an encampment and seized a campus building in April, leading to dozens of arrests and inspiring a wave of similar protests nationally.
Since returning to the White House in January, Trump has cut funding to several top US universities he viewed as too tolerant of antisemitism.
The administration has also cracked down on individual student protesters. Columbia University graduate student Mahmoud Khalil, a legal US resident with no criminal record, was detained in March over his participation in pro-Palestinian demonstrations.
He is now suing the Trump administration, alleging he was falsely imprisoned, maliciously prosecuted and smeared as an antisemite.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Federal judge blocks Arkansas law barring pharmacy benefit managers from owning pharmacies in state
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. – A federal judge temporarily blocked on Monday Arkansas' first-in-the-nation law that would have prohibited pharmacy benefit managers from owning pharmacies in the state. US District Judge Brian Miller issued a preliminary injunction against the law restricting pharmacy benefit managers who run prescription drug coverage for big clients that include health insurers and employers that provide coverage. Republican Gov. Sarah Huckabee Sanders signed the restriction into law earlier this year, and it was set to take effect Aug. 5. CVS and Express Scripts had sued the state over the law. The law, Miller wrote, 'appears to overtly discriminate against plaintiffs as out of state companies, and the state has failed to show that it has no other means to advance its interests.' Republican Attorney General Tim Griffin said he respected the court's decision and planned to appeal. Supporters of the Arkansas law have said it's needed because pharmacy benefit managers are forcing independent pharmacies, especially those in rural areas, to close. CVS and Express Scripts in their lawsuits said the restriction would have devastating effects on consumers if it was allowed to take effect. CVS, which ran TV ads urging Sanders to veto the legislation, has said it would have to close its 23 retail pharmacies in the state if the law takes effect. The company said it was pleased with the decision. 'We continue to be focused on serving people in Arkansas and are actively looking to work together with the state to reduce drug prices and ensure access to pharmacies,' CVS said in a statement. Arkansas is among several states where lawmakers have taken up efforts to regulate pharmacy benefit managers.
Arab News
2 hours ago
- Arab News
Trump slams London mayor again on UK visit
TURNBERRY, United Kingdom: US President Donald Trump attacked London's Mayor Sadiq Khan once again at a news conference in Scotland alongside British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, who interjected that Khan was his 'friend.' Asked by a reporter if he intended to come to London in September during a state visit, Trump responded affirmatively but then clarified: 'I'm not a fan of your mayor. I think he's done a terrible job.' 'The Mayor of London... a nasty person,' he added. The comments prompted Starmer to state: 'He's a friend of mine, actually.' But doubling down on his view of Khan, Trump went on: 'I think he's done a terrible job. But I would certainly visit London.' There is no love lost between Trump and Khan, like Starmer a member of the Labour Party. In January, on the eve of Trump's return to the White House, Khan penned an article warning of western 'reactionary populists' posing a 'century-defining challenge' for progressives. During his first term in power, Khan also became embroiled in a war of words after speaking out against a US travel ban on people from certain Muslim countries. Trump then accused Khan, the first Muslim mayor of a Western capital when he was first elected in 2016, of doing a 'very bad job on terrorism,' calling him a 'stone cold loser' and 'very dumb.' In a podcast recorded before Trump's re-election on November 5, 2024, Khan accused the incoming president of targeting him because of the color of his skin. 'He's come for me because of, let's be frank, my ethnicity and my religion,' he said. But in a interview with AFP in December, Khan said the American people had 'spoken loudly and clearly' and 'we have got to respect the outcome of the presidential elections.' In a statement later Monday, a spokesperson for Khan said the mayor was 'delighted that President Trump wants to come to the greatest city in the world.' 'He'd see how our diversity makes us stronger not weaker; richer, not poorer,' he added.
Al Arabiya
2 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
Court restricts who can bring voting rights challenges in a case involving voters with disabilities
A federal appeals court panel on Monday ruled that private individuals and organizations cannot bring voting rights cases under a section of the law that allows others to assist voters who are blind, disabled, or unable to read. It's the latest ruling from the St. Louis-based 8th Circuit Court of Appeals saying only the government can bring lawsuits alleging violations of the Voting Rights Act. The findings upend decades of precedent and will likely head to the US Supreme Court. The case centered on whether an Arkansas state law that limits how many voters can be assisted by one person conflicts with Section 208 of the landmark federal law. The opinion from the three-judge panel followed the reasoning of another 8th Circuit panel in a previous case from 2023. That opinion held that the Arkansas State Conference NAACP and the Arkansas Public Policy Conference could not bring cases under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. 'Like the provision at issue in Arkansas State Conference, we conclude the text and structure of (Section) 208 do not create a private right of action,' said the decision written by Judge L. Steven Grasz, a nominee of President Donald Trump. 'Likewise, we conclude no private right of action is created by the Supremacy Clause.' In the previous case, the district court judge said he could not reach an opinion on the merits because the plaintiffs did not have standing under Section 2 and gave the Justice Department five days to join the case. The circuit court panel agreed with his reasoning in a 2-1 decision. The 8th Circuit, which covers Arkansas, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, and South Dakota, has issued three rulings holding that individuals and private entities don't have standing to bring challenges against voting laws. The other came in May in a lawsuit over North Dakota redistricting. In that case, the Spirit Lake Tribe and Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians with reservations 60 miles apart argued that the state's 2021 legislative map violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting their voting strength and ability to elect their own candidates. The appeals court ruled in a 2-1 decision that only the US Department of Justice could bring such lawsuits and the full circuit declined to take up the case. The US Supreme Court blocked the ruling last week while it decides whether to hear the case. The Justice Department declined to comment on whether it would be intervening in the Arkansas case. It earlier declined to comment on the case involving the two North Dakota tribes. The Mexican American Legal Defense Fund, which is representing the plaintiffs in the lawsuit revolving around voters with disabilities, declined to comment on Monday's ruling. Sophia Lin Lakin, director of the Voting Rights Project for the ACLU, said she wasn't surprised by the ruling given the decisions in the earlier cases. 'I think it's important to keep focus on the fact that the 8th Circuit's decisions are radical and completely at odds with decades of precedent, including from the Supreme Court itself, as well as the text, history, and purpose of the Voting Rights Act,' said Lakin, who was one of the attorneys in the initial Arkansas State Conference case. 'Private litigants have been the engine of enforcement of the Voting Rights Act for sixty years.' Section 2 is considered one of the more consequential parts of the Voting Rights Act that remains intact after a 2013 Supreme Court decision removed Section 5. That section required that all or parts of 15 states with a history of discrimination in voting get approval from the federal government before changing their voting and election laws.
