The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Columbia Suspends Students for Justice in Palestine + Jewish Voice for Peace for Threats and Holding Unauthorized Event
From a statement today:
Columbia University is suspending Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) as official student groups through the end of the fall term. This decision was made after the two groups repeatedly violated University policies related to holding campus events, culminating in an unauthorized event Thursday afternoon that proceeded despite warnings and included threatening rhetoric and intimidation.
Suspension means the two groups will not be eligible to hold events on campus or receive University funding. Lifting the suspension will be contingent on the two groups demonstrating a commitment to compliance with University policies and engaging in consultations at a group leadership level with University officials.
Like all student groups, SJP and JVP are required to abide by University policies and procedures. This ensures both the safety of our community and that core University activities can be conducted without disruption. During this especially charged time on our campus, we are strongly committed to giving space to student groups to participate in debate, advocacy, and protest. This relies on community members abiding by the rules and cooperating with University administrators who have a duty to ensure the safety of everyone in our community.
Whether the suspension was proper or not, given Columbia's voluntary embrace of free speech principles, of course turns on whether the "rhetoric" was indeed "threatening" and constituted "intimidation," and on the nature of the "unauthorized event." (It also turns on whether the rhetoric was endorsed by rally organizers or just came from some attendees.) I'm sorry that the statement didn't offer the details, but I e-mailed the Columbia news office and will let you know what I get in response. If any of you can point me to more factual details, I'd love to see them.
Here's a story from Columbia Spectator (Chris Mendell) on what might be the relevant rally, but it's not clear whether these are precisely the items that led to the suspension:
University event policy generally requires groups to apply for permits at least 10 days in advance of any demonstration or protest in order to hold events on school grounds.
A speaker at the rally, who did not disclose their name, said the University had offered to reduce that timeline to three to five business days, a policy the speaker demanded be put into writing.
At one point during the rally, tensions rose when an unidentified individual began screaming antisemitic and anti-Black statements, then attempted to instigate fights with numerous students. The individual climbed over chains blocking off a grass area and continued yelling obscenities.
Students at the walkout booed the unidentified individual, and five confronted the individual while the speaker on the megaphone denounced antisemitism….
[One student, Mohsen Mahdawi] directly denounced the individual, saying, "Shame on the person who called [for] 'death to Jews,'" which broke out into chants of "shame on you" from the demonstrators….
Protesters then staged a die-in, where demonstrators laid down across Low Plaza to symbolize the Palestinian lives that have been lost since the conflict began on Oct. 7.
UPDATE [11/10/2023, 3:30 pm]: The Columbia Spectator (Sarah Huddleston & Chris Mendell) reports on the suspensions, but doesn't add significant details.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Typical.
"suspend" the organizations, but not the members or even the leaders.
Like cars killing people, fantasy.
Baby steps. After all, Columbia once hosted the Jew hating Ahmadinejad of Iran.
Even smaller than baby steps. Why wasn't the student shouting anti-semitic statements suspended?
Newborn steps?
Probably the child of a VP or dean.
They realized it was Representative Rash-eater Hi-jab.
Really. This is what you consider serious comment. You should know better.
Yes, why didn't they suspend an unidentified individual? And especially why didn't they do it more quickly than their process allows? It's a mystery, if you're very stupid.
Where did you partisan right-wing dumbasses see enough evidence to warrant suspensions of organizations or persons?
Oh? Weren't you interested in having your views challenged?
No -- eliminating the organization eliminates the individuals because on most campi today, one only has free speech rights in the capacity of a recognized student group, not individually.
So without a recognized organization, these individuals no longer have any free speech rights.
What you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.
And you are an idiot.
Also completely wrong.
While I appreciate the quality of your "I know you are, but what am I?" response, it does not make your claim any less insane, idiotic, or insanely idiotic.
Is that like "Double Secret Probation"?
Going through life fat, drunk, and stupid is better than going through life as a supporter of Hamas! Wtf??
I am a Columbia student (at age 65, very odd). The pro-Palestinian protesters have definitely chanted, “From the river to the sea/Palestine shall be free” which some people consider genocidal. I have not heard the “one solution” chant, which I consider truly anti-Semitic, but of course I haven’t attended every minute of every demonstration.
That said, the demonstrations have been entirely peaceful to my knowledge, and the only physical violence I know of on campus was a rather minor assault, not at a demonstration, perpetrated by an anti-Israel Jewish girl from Brooklyn. (Not a group which frightens me, but maybe if you’re a snowflake.)
The pro-Palestinian protesters have definitely chanted, “From the river to the sea/Palestine shall be free” which some people consider genocidal.
I’ve seen some corners of the left-wing internet making the argument that this slogan, while used by Hamas to express a genocidal (or at least mass-displacement) intent, has a broader potential meaning. These people are claiming that the slogan can also be used to mean that all of the people in the region should be free – Israeli, Palestinian, Jew, Muslim – in whatever political configuration that might be agreed to. Some use it to mean to refer to a pie-in-the-sky ideal of a single state, with equal rights and civic freedoms for all.
I realize few here are likely to find that a plausible interpretation of the phrase. I am not going to argue with anyone about it. I am just saying that thinking might explain why the slogan is being adopted by some student groups. It may in other words not be the obvious indicator of “Hamas sympathizer” that right-wingers here would prefer everyone to assume it is.
"right-wingers here "
22 Democrats in Congress thought it meant genocide when they censored Rashida Tlaib (D-Hamas)
All right wingers no doubt.
Politicians have their own motivations, not that I agree with Tlaib's censure.
You, yourself, have made that idiotic argument here, on this blog, multiple times. I can understand wanting to distance yourself from such a ridiculous and insincere position, but you first must admit that you held that belief and no longer do.
I am in favor of a single state for Israelis and Palestinians, if that's what you mean.
I haven't defended the slogan previously. I had previously assumed it was calling for genocide, as well. Now I understand that some people using it may not have that meaning in mind.
It's just "Defund the Police" all over again. It means different things for different people. Some stupid, some more nuanced. But always useful for the fascists trying to shout down dissent.
"Hitler's anti-Semitism was not so violent or genuine as it sounded."
- Cyril Brown, 1922, reporting for the New York Times
That is to say, lines like you're using were used by Nazi apologists and they won't work again. Never forget.
"Some use it to mean to refer to a pie-in-the-sky ideal of a single state, with equal rights and civic freedoms for all."
This is true. Just like the Bo and Luke Duke and real-life southerners in the post Jim-Crow era usually weren't calling for the re-establishment of slavery, Rashida Talib and the Columbia students probably weren't calling for the extermination of the Jews.
Every sneery right-wing caricature straw-man of wokeness, and you lot end up embodying them.
By interpreting people charitably? That's not what woke people do.
There are no 'woke' people. But there is you.
https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/of-course-you-know-what-woke-means
Just like the Bo and Luke Duke ...
You will have to explain what you mean by this reference. It is before my time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dukes_of_Hazzard
Thanks, dribble-bot. Yes, I am capable of googling the names. But I surmise that the point of the reference relates not to the show they were on, but their characters, the plots they participated in, etc. "These are characters from a show set in the South" tells me exactly nothing about TwIP's point.
No respect for the classics anymore.
They drove around in a car named the General Lee, whose body paint scheme consisted of a giant confederate flag.
Defenders of the show claim that it's just a good clean southern fun, and any resemblance to racism or support for Jim Crow is merely coincidental.
One might almost say it's an analogy.
Admittedly, I didn't watch it a lot, but aside from a bit of moonshining, driving an offensively painted and named car, and hassling a local corrupt local government, what exactly did they do to offend you?
I'm searching my (Admittedly declining.) memory for any racism or support for Jim Crow, and coming up empty.
Are you confusing symbols, which different people can associate with different ideas, and the thing YOU understand them to symbolize?
Brett, Moonshining and Slavery were not in the same geographic areas! The thing that made slavery feasible -- flat bottomland and treeless fields -- would be the absolute worst venue for a moonshiner because the ATF could see the smoke/steam from the still miles away. And not only that, there would be no twisting mountain roads on which to loose ATF agents when they were chasing you.
There was very little slavery in the Appalachians, which was (is) the base of moonshining, back to the days of George Washington and the Whiskey Rebellion. There are mostly-White towns in the South, and that would have been more true 50 years ago because a significant percentage of Blacks today are recent immigrants.
I never thought the show was Jim Crow -- I just presumed that a town with mountain roads (and gulches to jump), ledges and such would be an all-White town because there had never been slaves there. Because you couldn't possibly grow cotton there....
If that's the analogy that TwIP was drawing, then that would seem too suggest that he agrees with me, that not everyone using the "From the river to the sea..." slogan is doing so with a genocidal intent.
Since TwIP is typically a right-wing blowhard, I took his apparent agreement as being more of an eye-rolling, sarcastic remark.
Moonshining and slavery
Grrrr
Moonshining and slavery were not in the same geographic areas, even if in the same states. Slavery was (became) mostly growing cotton, which required flat bottomland -- even other crops required tillable soil -- preferably vast expanses of it.
Moonshining was up in the Appalachians, always was but particularly when the ATF arrived, the last place you are going to put a still is in the middle of an open field where your smoke/steam can be seen for *miles* -- and you need a mountain stream with cold water to cool the distillate into liquid. Likewise, you need twisting mountain roads where you will neither be seen (nor easily caught) to transport it.
Mountains have lots of ledges, you can't do *much* farming -- you can have a subsistence farm (which the Dukes did) but not a plantation. Hence as there *never* were slaves there, they tend to be all-White communities today, moreso 50 years ago before recent immigration from Africa.
Hence I never thought "Jim Crow" with that show.
Sorry, the wiki was all I found beyond the movie, which sucks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKkw653oilE
So you know nothing of events before you were sentient? explains a lot about todays generation of blithering idiots.
Especially given they know nothing of contemporary events. NPCs
"The Dukes of Hazzard" is a television series, not an "event" that any reasonably-educated person can be presumed to be familiar with.
Never mind the host of current cultural references that would probably fly over your head.
Now do the Confederate flag.
The nuance of its message is not seen by progressives.
It's a flag. Flags don't have "nuances."
Now, if your point is that there are some people who fly the Confederate flag solely because they are nostalgic for an earlier, more genteel era, a time of slower living and manners, maybe largely fictional, but at any rate extricated from the nastiness of slavery and white male supremacy that characterized that historical period in the South, then sure - I can acknowledge maybe such people exist and fly the flag for that innocent, if a bit naive, reason.
But that is not why most people fly the Confederate flag, when they do.
Bigots have rights, too.
And, at the Volokh Conspiracy, ardent defenders.
Um, yeah, that was the point: analogously, the "innocent, if a bit naive" explanation does not apply to most people chanting "From the river to the sea" either.
I don't think you have a factual basis for making that assertion.
Most American students who are using that slogan are not using it to call for genocide.
If they chanted "Final Solution", it'd be no less genocidal.
You're very, very willing to try and understand ideological brethren. Not so much those you do not agree with.
Yes, the explanation is pretty clear. Just as it had been clear in the past millennia.
Hope you're not a medical student, you'll likely be dead before you finish residency training.
Chanting "from the river to the sea" is clearly genocidal, while the one-state solution - while impossible to materialize - is not. The latter, at least theoretically, would entail Jewish-majority rule, so the liberal democratic character of the state would remain. In practice, it would obviously lead to a civil war on a massive scale, and it would lead to expulsion at best, genocide at worst should the Muslim Arabs become a majority and usurp power i.e. transforming state into an Islamic Sharia place.
I most certainly would not call them "entirely peaceful", in fact, they're possibly the worst example in recent memory.
I have seen arguments for both sides -- a Jewish majority and a non-Jewish majority -- in the context of an Israel-Gaza-West Bank population.
It seems likely a fairly elected government of such a population would scantly resemble Israel's current government (right-wing, religion-based) regardless of the precise split, although substantial diminution of the backwardness seems too much to expect.
"culminating in an unauthorized event Thursday afternoon that proceeded despite warnings"
The campus bureaucrats -- like all bureaucrats -- get really offended if the student groups don't fill out all their paperwork and show up for pointless meetings with them.
I resolved it by telling them to say "well, we'll have to invite Ed" and -- without exception, the bureaucrat didn't need to see everyone, it could all be resolved with an email.
That said, my guess is that the top admin said "end this" and this is how the student affairs folk did it.
Do I cry for free speech -- no. Absolutely not -- this is 100% Schadenfreude....
Don't worry Ed, none of us thought that you shat a care about free speech to begin with.
Good job turning SJP into free speech martyrs and giving them a reason to file a lawsuit.
I mean it, really, good job Columbia.
Last I checked, Columbia is a private school, and if SJP broke the rules, sucks to be them.
Can we expect the Volokh Conspirators and their wingnut fans to stop whining about private schools they deem insufficiently hospitable to superstitious conservative gay-haters, right-wing racists, half-educated Republican science deniers, etc. any time soon?
It is possible to sue private institutions in this country, you know.
Of course, it is possible to sue anyone, anytime. It is probably not possible for a claim to survive a motion to dismiss if it is based solely on a private university's suspension of a student group, even if it were based on uneven enforcement of student conduct rules against the organization because of the organization's political positions. Possibly one could state a colorable claim for breach of contract, but there isn't a general legal duty to treat all contractual counterparties equally, e.g., a bank can declare defaults against the borrowers whom it mistrusts, while granting forbearances to others.
Just because your side says "our violence is speech, your speech is violence" doesn't mean you have to join the stupidity.
Unless there is more to this, this feels like weak tea, and I say this is a strong supporter of Israel’s right to defend itself.
It has always been clear that university administration are spineless weathervanes with no commitment to the principles of free speech. It was infuriating when they were censoring the Republican right, but I find that I am not any more impressed now that they are censoring the pro-Palestinian left.
Weathervanes turn with the wind, and soon they will be pointing in a new direction.
Some of us warned the Left about that possibility....
Perhaps some day we will know additional details about the incident. Heck, it's only today -- thirty five days after the Hamas insurrection -- that Israel has reduced its initially exaggerated death toll ("Israel revises down death toll" at https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20231110-palestinians-say-deadly-strike-hit-gaza-hospital). It's unreasonable to expect Israeli proxies to be any more truthful and forthcoming than their principals.
The open question is what happens as the 27% of Americans supporting the Israeli genocide dwindles and the US ceases to pander to Israel: is the US ready to defend itself against an attack by a tantrum-throwing Israel, ever-willing to deploy both its stealth and its weapons of mass destruction against any and all perceived foes?
The rather silly squabbles among various undergraduate cliques distracts from true security issues: any student may be a Mossad, Aman, or Shin Bet agent disseminating propaganda and gathering targeting information, just as any student can be a Hamas agent doing the same. The antithesis of the African proverb “When there is no enemy within, the enemy outside can do you no harm” merits attention, in that the presence of an enemy planted deep within gives outside enemies great power.
We did the same thing with Maui -- the presumed death toll was revised downward once some of the missing got found. The same thing happened with the Lewistpn (ME) shooting -- the death toll was dropped about 20% when it was found that some of the people thought to have died actually were transported to other hospitals.
In any chaotic situation, your facts get sketchy -- remember after Sept 11th when it wasn't initially clear who had been in the towers and who made it out? Now throw in a massive war-related evacuation and you're going to have lots of people presumed dead until you realize that they aren't.
"Genocide" doesn't mean what you think it means. First, it literally means the intentional killing of a particular genetic stock. See, e.g., the Holocaust, Armenian genocide. If Israel wanted to commit genocide against the Palestinian people they would have done it long ago, since they have the means to do so. Second, IDF does not target civilians, as does Hamas. The IDF, of course, kills civilians, but only because Hamas uses them as shields. You can't be serious in thinking that the unintentional though foreseeable killing of civilians makes a military action "genocide." If you do, that would make every just war "genocide." Even if you're a pacifist, the best you can say is that all war is unjust killing, but you can't say that all war is genocide, unless you want to make genocide just a stand-in for "stuff I don't like," e.g., when one hears "not acknowledging personal pronouns is `literally' genocide against trans people" (or some such rhetorical bullshit).
As an aside, African proverbs are not arguments. It's no better than quoting Scripture or Ghandi. It may make you feel good and wise, but it doesn't establish your case.
My, my...amazing what pops out of the woodwork these days. The last month has been instructive. It always seems to happen when Israel is defending itself.
I do hope that Canary Mission is paying attention, and wish to see the members of SJP and JVP on their website soon, along with the social media postings of these Hamas supporting rabble. That way, I know who I will keep out of my life.
Are you planning to move to Israel to try to prop Israel up for a few additional minutes after America stops providing the military, economic, and political skirts behind which Israel currently operates?
What popped out of the woodwork were five explicitly pro-genocide VC commenters. You are one. Also Brett, Gozer, Ed, and... damikesc? I might be wrong about that last one (apologies if so).
I'm not apologizing for wanting the obliteration of Hamas within Gaza. The faster that obliteration happens, the faster the kinetic phase of this war is over.
Hamas can end the war today by doing the following:
-- release the hostages
-- surrender unconditionally to Israel to face Israeli justice
Hamas is solely responsible for all the problems. The deaths of Gaza citizens are solely their fault, both for starting the war and for intentionally placing their military installations in civilian areas (such as HQ being placed in a hospital, etc).
“Genocide” doesn’t mean what you think it means.
“War crimes," ”ethnic cleansing,” and “apartheid” might be better ways to describe it, sure.
Not sure what work you think your pedantry is doing, though.
Perhaps some Israelis are (1) smart enough to recognize (a) how quickly that would eliminate what American support for Israel and (b) how quickly Israel would regret (at best) losing American support and (2) influential enough to turn Israel away from such counterproductive immorality and stupidity.
Israel didn't intentionally "exaggerate" the initial death toll of 10/7. They simply could not identify all the victims so far as this requires time and manpower, that latter of which they lacked obviously. This also proves that Israel is an honest actor as they are willing to correct and admit these adjusted numbers.
Israel is not committing "genocide" against the Gazans. If they wanted to, they could have already. But they didn't, because they don't want to, and never did.
'If they wanted to, they could have already.'
This is such a fucked-up argument. 'We're killing thousands and displacing hundreds of thousands of them now, but also we could have done this before now!'
Nige, Israel could have -- and to its credit, it didn't.
As I have watched the "death by a thousand cuts" over the years, the cynical side of me wonders if it would have been better if they had.
No, not engaging in genocide is not to anyone's 'credit,' and the cynical side of you and every other warmonger here is settling on the position that because they could have committed genocide any time they wanted, Israel can now do anything it wants short of genocide.
This is a common rhetorical trick: accuse one's enemy of something beyond horrible, and then when the argument is refuted, say, "Oh, so your argument is just they're not quite that bad?"
"George Bush is Hitler."
"No, he isn't. Hitler did X, Y, and Z. George Bush, of course, didn't."
"Oh, so your defense of George Bush is that he's not quite as bad as Hitler?"
It's about the only defensible defense of George W Bush, in fairness. It's a pity we haven't culturally adopted 'as bad as George W Bush,' because I think that's the comparison that applies here.
George Bush (Lesser) was gravely overmatched by circumstances and a profound failure, but I sensed he meant well (as best he could manage with his experience and intellect).
He might have been a decent caretaker president.
Biden is appreciably worse than Bush in most areas.
And Bush was the drizzling shits.
In any mass casualty situation, it is very easy to double and triple count the same victim, particularly when you have critically injured patients who are still alive. Ambulance transports to hospital, and hospital evacs to trauma center in desperate attempt to save person's life.
Person dies -- and becomes three fatalities because (correctly) no one expected the person to live, and the ambulance, hospital, and trauma center both list a fatality -- same person.
Or the person *doesn't* die but also isn't in the hospital (because he's in the trauma center somewhere else) -- and everyone presumes he died. This is what happened in Lewiston, they flew some critically injured victims down to Portland (and possibly Boston and/or Dartmouth/Hitchcock in NH -- where some of the helicopters were from) and no one kept track of who when where in all the confusion.
I don't know about Israel, but in Lewiston there were medivac helos circling the hospital, waiting to land to pick up a victim to be taken -- somewhere. That saves lives (and definitely did) but doesn't lead to good recordkeeping....
Just because Israel hasn't committed genocide (yet) doesn't mean they don't want to. They're constrained from acting.
The containment of Israel is a significant project across the bulk of the world.
The containment of Israel is a significant project across the bulk of the world.
Fascinating. And you've added mass mind reading of intent to your repertoire, too. Very impressive. This is wonderful insight into the mind of an antisemite. Is this how it starts...you actually start believing this drek? What's the trigger that makes you take the irrational leap into illogic?
Let me get this straight. There are 8B people in the world, and the 'bulk' (your term, lol) of them are currently engaged in a project containing Israel (a country of 10MM or so).
Um....Ok. 🙂 (seek help!)
You're aware that Hamas desperately wants to commit genocide, right?
People from Gaza happily participated in 10/7 as well.
Somehow I missed this one:
"The antithesis of the African proverb “When there is no enemy within, the enemy outside can do you no harm” merits attention, in that the presence of an enemy planted deep within gives outside enemies great power."
Protocols of the Elders of Zion?
It should be noted (I say as a Columbia student) that the Columbia administration definitely had advance notice, though presumably not ten or maybe not even three days' notice, of Thursday's demonstration. In fact, the campus was closed to the public on Thursday, a situation that was announced on Wednesday. And, as I said, the demonstrations have been to my knowledge entirely peaceful. So the justification for invoking a rather drastic sanction is not entirely clear to me.
Free Speech ? Not a problem EVER.
Speech concerning FOREVER CONFLICTS of the Old World must be banned. Their problems distract from progress. Since they have no willingness to mature, let them kill each other. Frankly, the more dead over there the better.
400 years of family here says not to support the degenerate Old World until such time as maturity overtakes their petty, vindictive, pedantic, etc., etc., etc. ... behaviors.
As I refresh WW 1 history, no other insanity compares to that conflict, and I've studied lots of conflicts and know first hand the actions of war. While necessary at times, war must be avoided .
I suspect that the SJP suspension was simply the result of a threatened lawsuit. No university administration at a major research institution acts out of ideals any more.
I'm a little confused when I read such news, it has always seemed normal to me that students can express their opinions and views. I understand that the world is not in the best shape right now, but for it to spill over into education like this. It's a good thing that in my time there were completely different problems, and we solved them thanks to this incredible service https://educibly.com/ that saved our lives and gave us the opportunity to get good grades. Now, in addition to good grades, you also need to speak correctly, and frankly, I am outraged by this situation.