Police clear pro-Palestinian protesters at Barnard College amid bomb threat; several arrested
NEW YORK — Barnard College's library was evacuated Wednesday as police responded to a fake bomb threat during a sit-in by pro-Palestinian protesters.
The New York Police Department said on the social platform X that the threat was reported at the Upper Manhattan college's Milstein Center, which serves as the hub for academic life on campus. The department said anyone refusing to leave during the evacuation would be subject to arrest.
At about 8 p.m., police announced on X that the threat was 'investigated and cleared.' A spokesperson said later that about nine people were taken into custody following the demonstration, though it was not immediately clear what charges they faced.
Videos shared widely on social media showed protesters inside the building earlier Wednesday afternoon chanting, playing drums and hanging Palestinian flags on walls. Most wore kaffiyeh scarves or other coverings obscuring their faces.
Videos from Wednesday evening showed police entering the building wearing helmets and carrying zip ties and later clearing and detaining protesters and others from the lawn outside the building.
Barnard President Laura Ann Rosenbury said afterward that the women's college, which is affiliated with Columbia University, would resume its regular academic schedule Thursday.
She denounced protesters as endangering staff and students by refusing to evacuate the building after officials notified them of the threat and activated the fire alarm — leaving the school no choice but to request police assistance, she said.
'Today has been unsettling and disturbing, and these continued disruptions take a toll on our community,' Rosenbury said in a statement. 'The desire of a few to disrupt and threaten cannot outweigh the needs of the students, faculty, and staff who call our campus home.'
The group Columbia Students for Justice in Palestine dismissed the threat as 'manufactured by Barnard administrators' to clear the protest, noting in posts on X that police brought detained students back into the library even as they continued their investigation.
The student group launched its sit-in around 1 p.m. Wednesday in response to the expulsions of student protesters and other recent actions taken by school officials.
Last week, pro-Palestinian protesters wearing keffiyehs and masks pushed their way into Barnard's Milbank Hall, which houses the offices of the dean, and assaulted a school employee, according to school officials.
Protest organizers said they dispersed after the administration agreed to meet with them over their demands, which included amnesty for all students disciplined for pro-Palestinian action.
Marcelo writes for the Associated Press.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
29 minutes ago
- Indianapolis Star
IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy
Recent commentary in IndyStar defended Indiana University's leadership and questioned the focus and intensity of faculty criticism. But what's happening at IU isn't just a campus controversy — it's part of a national trend. Across the country, public institutions are quietly dismantling the democratic processes that once guided their decisions. IU has become a flashpoint not because of any one leader or protest, but because it shows how shared governance and expert input are being replaced by top-down control. For over a century, American universities have followed a model known as shared governance. That means faculty, administrators and trustees work together to shape a school's mission and values. It's not just tradition — it's a safeguard. It ensures that decisions about teaching, research and student life are made by the people who do the work. In recent years, IU's shared governance has been steadily eroded through a series of top-down decisions. The April 2024 no-confidence vote in President Pamela Whitten by IU Bloomington faculty — 827 to 29 — wasn't about politics or personalities. It was a response to a pattern: refusing to recognize graduate workers' union efforts; sending state police to arrest peaceful protestors in Dunn Meadow; and canceling a long-planned exhibition by Palestinian-American artist Samia Halaby without consulting curators or faculty committees. These decisions bypassed longstanding university processes like faculty review, shared governance consultation and curatorial oversight — processes that have historically guided how academic and cultural decisions are made. Now, that erosion has been written into law. Indiana's House Enrolled Act 1001, passed in 2024, officially reduced faculty governance to an 'advisory only' role. Some argue that faculty governance was always advisory in practice — but this law removes any doubt. It replaces collaboration with control. Opinion: I was running for IU Board of Trustees — until Mike Braun took it over What is happening at IU is a symptom of a pattern playing out more broadly. We're seeing the slow dismantling of democratic decision-making in public institutions. At the federal level, the National Institutes of Health was recently blocked from posting notices in the Federal Register, which froze the review of over 16,000 new research grant applications — worth about $1.5 billion. Around the same time, the agency abruptly canceled more than 1,400 already awarded grants, halting active research projects without the usual expert review or explanation. Both the review of new applications and the continuation of awarded grants typically rely on deliberative panels of scientists to ensure decisions are fair, transparent and based on merit. In both of these cases, those processes were bypassed. Though some meetings have resumed, the damage is clear: Critical systems can be disrupted with little warning and no input from the people who are supposed to guide them. Other federal agencies have followed suit. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have recently bypassed their own expert advisory committees in making major public health decisions. The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was not convened to review or vote on the 2024–2025 influenza vaccine strain selection, breaking with decades of precedent. Around the same time, both ACIP and VRBPAC were sidelined in the rollout of new COVID-19 vaccine guidance and, just this week, the entire 17-member ACIP committee was fired. A top CDC vaccine adviser resigned, citing concerns that the agency was ignoring its own deliberative processes. Whether in universities or federal agencies, the pattern is the same: Leaders are cutting out the people who should have a voice. That might seem faster or easier — but it comes at a profound and ultimately self-defeating cost. When decisions are made without input from those most affected, institutions don't just lose trust — they undermine their own legitimacy and effectiveness. And in a democracy, trust is everything. Opinion: IU deserves a serious president. Pamela Whitten must go. This isn't a partisan issue. No matter your politics, the loss of open, thoughtful decision-making should be alarming. Processes like faculty governance, peer review and public advisory boards aren't meant to slow things down or push a political agenda. They exist because they lead to better decisions. When they're ignored, we don't just lose transparency. We lose trust. Indiana's public universities — and all public institutions — can only succeed when decisions are made with the people who do the work, not imposed on them from above. When we exclude the experts, educators, scientists, and advisors who sustain these institutions, we don't just weaken the process. We weaken the outcomes.
The Hill
32 minutes ago
- The Hill
Hamas says it killed 12 Israeli-backed fighters. Israeli-supported group says they were aid workers
CAIRO (AP) — A unit of Gaza's Hamas-run police force said it killed 12 members of an Israeli-backed militia after detaining them early Thursday. Hours earlier, an Israel-supported aid group said Hamas attacked a bus carrying its Palestinian workers, killing at least five of them. The militia, led by Yasser Abu Shabab, said its fighters had attacked Hamas and killed five militants but made no mention of its own casualties. It also accused Hamas of detaining and killing aid workers. It was not immediately possible to verify the competing claims or confirm the identities of those killed. The Israeli military circulated the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation 's statement on its social media accounts but declined to provide its own account of what happened. In a separate development, internet and phone lines were down across Gaza, according to telecom provider Paltel and the Palestinian telecoms authority. They said a key line was severed during an Israeli operation and that the military would not allow technicians into the area to repair it. Connectivity watchdog NetBlocks confirmed there had been a major disruption. The Israeli military said it was looking into the reports. Previous blackouts have deepened Gaza's isolation and made it difficult for people to call first responders after airstrikes. The aid group's operations in Gaza have already been marred by controversy and violence since they began last month, with scores of people killed in near-daily shootings as crowds headed toward the food distribution sites inside Israeli military zones. Witnesses have blamed the Israeli military, which has acknowledged firing only warning shots near people it said approached its forces in a suspicious manner. Earlier this week, witnesses also said Abu Shabab militiamen had opened fire on people en route to a GHF aid hub, killing and wounding many. The United Nations and major aid groups have rejected the Israeli and U.S.-backed initiative, accusing them of militarizing humanitarian aid at a time when experts say Gaza is at risk of famine because of Israel's blockade and renewed military campaign. Last week, Israel acknowledged it is supporting armed groups of Palestinians in what it says is a move to counter Hamas. Abu Shabab's militia, which calls itself the Popular Forces, says it is guarding the food distribution points set up by the Israeli- and U.S.-backed Gaza Humanitarian Foundation in southern Gaza. Aid workers say it has a long history of looting U.N. trucks. GHF has denied working with the Abu Shabab group. In a statement released early Thursday, the foundation said Hamas had attacked a bus carrying more than two dozen of its local Palestinian aid workers near the southern city of Khan Younis. 'We condemn this heinous and deliberate attack in the strongest possible terms,' it said. 'These were aid workers. Humanitarians. Fathers, brothers, sons, and friends, who were risking their lives everyday to help others.' Rev. Johnnie Moore, a Christian evangelical advisor to U.S. President Donald Trump who was recently appointed head of GHF, called the killings 'absolute evil' and lashed out at the U.N. and Western countries over what he said was their failure to condemn them. 'The principle of impartiality does not mean neutrality. There is good and evil in this world. What we are doing is good and what Hamas did to these Gazans is absolute evil,' he wrote on X. Israel and the United States say the new system is needed to prevent Hamas from siphoning off aid from the long-standing U.N.-run system, which is capable of delivering food, fuel and other humanitarian aid to all parts of Gaza. U.N. officials deny there has been any systematic diversion of aid by Hamas, but say they have struggled to deliver it because of Israeli restrictions and the breakdown of law and order in Gaza. U.N. officials say the new system is unable to meet mounting needs, and that it allows Israel to use aid as a weapon by controlling who has access to it and by essentially forcing people to relocate to the aid sites, most of which are in the southernmost city of Rafah, now a mostly uninhabited military zone. Some fear this could be part of an Israeli plan to coerce Palestinians into leaving Gaza. Hamas has also rejected the new system and threatened to kill any Palestinians who cooperate with the Israeli military. The killings early Wednesday were carried out by the Hamas-run police's Sahm unit, which Hamas says it established to combat looting. The unit released video footage showing several dead men lying in the street, saying they were Abu Shabab fighters who had been detained and killed for collaborating with Israel. It was not possible to verify the images or the claims around them. Mohammed Abu Amin, a Khan Younis resident, said he was at the scene of the killings and that crowds were celebrating them, shouting 'God is greatest' and condemning those killed as traitors to the Palestinian cause and agents of Israel. Ghassan Duhine, who identifies himself as a major in the Palestinian Authority's security forces and deputy commander of the Abu Shabab group, posted a statement online saying they clashed with Sahm and killed five. He denied that the images shared by Sahm were of Abu Shabab fighters. The Palestinian Authority, led by rivals of Hamas and based in the Israeli-occupied West Bank, has denied any connection to the Abu Shabab group, but many of the militiamen identify themselves as PA officers. Israel renewed its offensive in March after ending a ceasefire with Hamas and imposed a complete ban on imports of food, fuel, medicine and other aid before easing the blockade in mid-May. The ongoing war and mounting desperation have plunged Gaza into chaos, with armed gangs looting aid convoys and selling the stolen food. The Hamas-run police force has largely gone underground as Israel has repeatedly targeted its forces. The military now controls more than half of the territory. The war began when Hamas-led militants attacked southern Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, killing some 1,200 people, mostly civilians, and taking 251 hostage. They are still holding 53 captives, less than half of them believed to be alive, after most of the rest were released in ceasefire agreements or other deals. Israel's military campaign has killed over 55,000 Palestinians, according to the Gaza Health Ministry, which has said women and children make up more than half of the dead. It does not say how many of those killed were civilians or combatants. Israel's offensive has flattened large areas of Gaza and driven around 90% of the population of roughly 2 million Palestinians from their homes. The territory is almost completely reliant on humanitarian aid because nearly all of its food production capabilities have been destroyed. ___ Chehayeb reported from Beirut. Associated Press writer Sam Mednick in Tel Aviv, Israel, contributed. ___ Follow AP's war coverage at
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: The US must restrain itself from being too involved in Syria's redevelopment
When President Donald Trump met Syria's new president, Ahmad al-Sharaa, for the first time last month, he came away impressed with the man's vision, stamina and looks. 'Young, attractive guy, tough guy,' Trump told reporters after the session. 'Strong past, very strong past. … He's got a real shot at holding it together.' Trump followed up the compliments with a policy change that reverberated throughout the Middle East: a suspension of the U.S. sanctions regime on Syria, which the White House argued was a necessary prerequisite to giving the country a chance to turn the page from more than a half-century of Assad family dictatorship. The United States, however, continues to have certain expectations for the new, evolving Syrian government. Washington's asks boil down to three items: combating the Islamic State militant group, consolidating its authority to prevent chaos, and respecting the rights of ethnic and sectarian minorities in the country, some of whom, like the Kurds in Eastern Syria, have been long-standing U.S. partners. The Trump administration also expects al-Sharaa to clamp down on Palestinian militant groups that have traditionally used Syrian soil as a base of operations, and Trump eventually wants Damascus to join the Abraham Accords, which would normalize relations between Israel and Syria. The results thus far have been mixed, depending on the issue. But in the Middle East, a mixed verdict is often the best that one can hope for. On combating Islamic State, the new Syrian government has met expectations so far. This wasn't inevitable when al-Sharaa ascended to power in December. His history sowed doubt among many U.S. national security officials about what could be accomplished on the counterterrorism front. Twenty years ago, al-Sharaa was fighting with al-Qaida in Iraq and spent time as a prisoner under U.S. military custody. When Syria erupted into civil war in 2011, he traveled to the country and established an al-Qaida affiliate there, leading Washington to place a big bounty on his head. Yet al-Sharaa eventually struck out on his own. He distanced his group from Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, Islamic State's first so-called emir, ditched the al-Qaida name and turned his organization Hayat Tahrir al-Sham, or HTS, into one seeking to liberate Syria, not conduct global jihad. While HTS was still an extremely conservative outfit, al-Sharaa sought to transform it into a de facto government-in-waiting, and for the most part, it worked — HTS ruled over most of Idlib province in northwestern Syria for the duration of Syria's civil war. Ever since he routed Assad's forces, al-Sharaa has sought to moderate himself further. The former al-Qaida prisoner has spent the last six months ditching his fatigues for Western-style suits and ingratiating himself with the likes of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates and Qatar, deep-pocketed countries that could prove extremely useful for the new but cash-strapped Syrian government. Al-Sharaa also has made it a point to burnish his credentials in the West, betting that promises to protect Syria's diverse communities, institute a market economy and unite the nation after nearly 14 years of war would convince Washington, Paris and London to explore a new relationship. The United States and many of its allies in Europe have taken al-Sharaa up on the offer. U.S. officials view the new Syrian administration as an opportunity to not only wipe the slate clean on decades of adversarial ties with Damascus but to also dilute the influence of Iran and Russia, its historic backers. Syria under Assad used to be one of Tehran's most important pieces on the Middle East chessboard, a country that provided Iran's Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps with a way station to send weapons to Hezbollah in Lebanon. With Assad out and al-Sharaa in, Syria is no longer an Iranian proxy. The further the new Syrian authorities ostracize Iran, the more support it will likely receive from the Americans. Of course, it's not all sunshine and roses for Syria. While Washington is guardedly optimistic about the HTS-led administration's commitment to keeping a boot on Islamic State's neck — if only because it's in al-Sharaa's own interest to do so — it remains unclear whether the country's multiple ethnic and sectarian communities can be reconciled. The long civil war produced an overwhelming sense of mistrust, fear and animosity between Sunnis and Alawites, who compose approximately 10% of Syria's population but held many of the senior military, political and intelligence posts under the former regime. In one especially brutal atrocity last March, hard-line jihadists supposedly outside the Syrian government's control rampaged through Alawite villages along Syria's Mediterranean coast, killing hundreds of civilians, in retaliation for Assad loyalists attacking Syrian army positions. The attack lasted for days and put a bright spotlight on al-Sharaa and his ability to actually implement the promises of peace and inclusion he has made since stepping into the presidential palace. Can Syria emerge from the ashes? It's a loaded question with no definitive answer at this point in time. The United States, though, needs to restrain itself from the urge of becoming too overinvolved in the country's political development. Time and again, Washington has allowed hubris to guide its actions, lecturing others about how to structure their politics and pretending it has all the answers. Most of the time, our ambitions outweigh our capacity to fulfill them. At worst, we create new problems and burdens on the states we purportedly wish to help. So as the Trump administration continues to monitor Syria's evolution, it must take care to distinguish the necessary from the ideal. A democratic utopia in the heart of the Middle East is the ideal; a government willing and able to keep Islamic State in check is the prize. _____ Daniel DePetris is a fellow at Defense Priorities and a foreign affairs columnist for the Chicago Tribune. _____
