Columbia University punishes 80 students over anti-Israel protests
The sanctions, which a student group said targeted nearly 80 people, come as the New York institution negotiates with President Donald Trump's administration to restore $400 million in cut federal funding.
Trump has applied intense pressure on the prestigious university and others, accusing them of failing to address alleged anti-Semitism amid nationwide protests last year against Israel's war in Gaza.
Columbia, which was the epicenter of the campus protests, has agreed to implement a series of policy reforms in an attempt to regain the federal funding, sparking anger from many students.
Fellow Ivy League institution Harvard has also been targeted with billions in funding cuts, but is fighting the pressure campaign in court.
The latest sanctions by Columbia stem from a library sit-in this past May, as well as an encampment set up during alumni weekend in spring 2024, the university said in a statement.
The library protest disrupted hundreds of students during an exam study period, it said, with punishments including 'probation, suspensions (ranging from one year to three years), degree revocations, and expulsions.'
'The University does not release individual disciplinary results of any student,' the statement said.
It did not specify which punishments had been issued for the spring 2024 encampment, which occurred after larger protests -- including the occupation of an academic building -- but Columbia said it was 'the final set of findings from that period.'
The student group Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD), which calls for the school to cut all financial ties with Israel, said the library-related sanctions 'hugely exceed precedent for teach-ins or non-Palestine-related building occupations.'
'We will not be deterred. We are committed to the struggle for Palestinian liberation,' the group said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Al Arabiya
7 minutes 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.
Arab News
37 minutes ago
- Arab News
France circulates draft outcome document from UN 2-state solution conference
NEW YORK CITY: Arab News has been given an exclusive first look at a preliminary outcome document from the conference on a two-state solution to the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians, which began on Monday at the UN headquarters in New York. Circulated by France among UN member states and open for comments until Tuesday morning, the document represents a critical step in attempts to revitalize long-stalled efforts to resolve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, against a backdrop in recent years of renewed violence and diplomatic deadlock. The draft strongly condemns the 'barbaric and antisemitic terrorist attack' on Israeli towns launched by Hamas on Oct. 7, 2023. It demands an immediate ceasefire agreement in Gaza and the unconditional release of all hostages still held by Hamas, including the return of the remains of those who have died. It also stresses the urgent need for unhindered humanitarian access to Gaza, to alleviate the suffering of civilians caught up in the crisis. Central to the draft text is a reaffirmation of the 'unwavering commitment' of the international community to the vision for two democratic states — Israel and Palestine — living side by side in peace within secure and internationally recognized borders. Emphasizing the need for Palestinian political unity, the document underscores the importance of unifying the Gaza Strip and the West Bank under the governance of the Palestinian Authority, presenting this as the cornerstone for a future Palestinian state that is both legitimate and demilitarized. The document welcomes commitments made by Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas in June this year, and acknowledges his condemnation of the Oct. 7 attacks, his call for the release of hostages, and his pledge to disarm Hamas. Abbas has also vowed to end contentious 'pay-to-slay' payments; implement education reforms; hold elections within a year to foster generational renewal; and accept the principle of a demilitarized Palestinian state — all of which are viewed as critical steps to rebuild trust and lay the groundwork for peace. In anticipation of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly in September, the document envisions that signatory countries will either have officially recognized the State of Palestine or expressed a willingness to do so. It further encourages nations that have yet to establish diplomatic ties with Israel to begin normalizing relations and to engage in dialogue regarding the regional integration of Israel, signaling a broader vision for Middle East cooperation. As of early this year, about 147 of the 193 UN member states had officially recognized the State of Palestine, representing about 75 percent of the international community. They include the majority of African, Asian and Latin American countries. Several European nations also recently joined the list, including Norway, Ireland, Spain, Slovenia, and Armenia, as have the Bahamas, Trinidad and Tobago, Jamaica, and Barbados. But key Western powers including the US, Canada, France, Germany, the UK, Italy and Australia have yet to officially recognize Palestine, as has Japan. Notably, however, the French president, Emmanuel Macron, has announced plans for his nation to formally recognize Palestine, with the official declaration expected during the UN General Assembly in September. France would be the first G7 country to do so, and could influence a broader European recognition trend. The draft document also outlined a commitment to develop a comprehensive framework for the 'day after' peace is declared in Gaza, emphasizing guarantees for reconstruction, the disarmament of Hamas, and the exclusion of the group from Palestinian governance, measures that are intended to secure lasting stability and prevent further violence. Formally titled the 'High-Level International Conference for the Peaceful Settlement of the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution,' the two-day event in New York is being co-chaired by Saudi Arabia and France.
Al Arabiya
4 hours ago
- Al Arabiya
EU defends Trump trade deal as critics call it a ‘capitulation'
In this episode of W News Extra, presented by Jono Hayes, we cover a range of stories, including the newly struck trade deal between the United States and the European Union. The EU is defending the agreement with President Donald Trump amid sharp divisions among European capitals and business leaders, with some critics calling the deal a 'capitulation.' Guests: Michael Jabri-Pickett Lubna Hamdan
