BY JOHN K. WILSON
Yesterday, Columbia threatened student protesters, “if you do not leave by 2 p.m., you will be suspended pending further investigation.” This interim suspension included banishment from campus, a prohibition on attending classes, and eviction from campus housing.
All organizations committed to campus free expression should call for a total ban on the concept of the “interim suspension.” All interim suspensions are a violation of due process rights because punishment must only follow a fair hearing and assessment of an appropriate penalty. Imposing a severe punishment such suspension and banishment must only follow an investigation, hearing, and assessment of wrongdoing; it must never precede this due process.
Students can be punished for misconduct by colleges, but only after receiving due process. In extremely rare cases, that misconduct can be so serious that it justifies suspension from classes or removal from student housing. In even rarer cases, the misconduct is so severe that it could justify banishment. But all of these punishments must only occur after students receive due process.
The fact that Columbia and other colleges have applied interim suspensions on a mass scale without any individual evaluation of misconduct is proof of an egregious violation of student rights. The fact that Columbia is imposing the severe penalty of suspension and banishment for what are clearly very minor violations (unauthorized protesting and illicit camping) is a serious violation of standards of proportional punishment.
In the most extraordinarily rare cases, a college can temporarily ban someone from campus without a hearing only if there is an immediate targeted threat of violence. Immediate threats of violence are extremely rare, and even accusations of violence (which do not exist in the Columbia case) normally do not justify interim suspension and banishment. For example, it is extraordinarily rare for any college to make an interim suspension of this kind even when someone is accused of a violent felony such as sexual assault. Illicit camping clearly does not meet any standard of a threat of violence. In addition, any assessment of a threat of violence must be individually assessed. Mass banishments for participating in a protest can never meet this standard of threatening violence.
Columbia’s earlier violations of academic freedom and free speech deserve condemnation. But this collective interim suspension by Columbia’s administration is one of the most egregious cases of mass violation of student rights in the history of American higher education. Regardless of how you feel about the student protesters, their cause, or their tactics, we must all oppose violations of due process, and we should reject all campus interim suspensions.
John K. Wilson is the author of eight books, including Patriotic Correctness: Academic Freedom and Its Enemies and the forthcoming book The Attack on Academia.
That’s like saying that accused batterers can’t be given a no contact order before they face trial. This is an ongoing situation and saying we might suspend you in a few weeks or months is hardly likely to have much impact. Remember that these are the students who have been told to leave repeatedly and refused to do so–not students who may or may not have violated the rules.
Obviously, accused batterers pose a threat of violence because they are accused of committing violence. The proper analogy would be this: Should someone accused of trespassing, who poses no threat of violence, be thrown in prison without a hearing until they face trial? You may think that these students are automatically guilty, but due process demands that they must be presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Story and argument needs updated.
Is the violence literal enough for you now?
No, the argument remains the same. Colleges must follow due process and protect student rights. Because Columbia harshly punished students without a hearing, those students had no reason to follow the rules to avoid a penalty, and so the situation escalated. I’m not aware of any violence at Columbia, but if it happened, it can be individually punished while protecting due process.
We live in an age in which millions can see acts that before had to be found only after long investigation.
I am asking a serious question about how much real-time violence, circulating in current media, which creates a firestorm of viral media, is enough for you? The abuser scenario was apt. Your initial post was already out of date.
Occupying a building is violent. You can see the videos. You chose not to. But then this nasty problem of your thesis being a terrible idea happened.
The building did not attack the protestors. They attacked it. Property violence.
Is your thesis that some violence is harmless and/or just? And is attacking a piece of property which combo?
At UCLA, a violent mob attacked the pro-Palestinian encampment, beating people there and yelling ‘Second Nakba!’ Is that what you are referring to? The police have done rather little about those attacks – very much a West Bank moment, which seems appropriate.
Point well made, John. The actions taken—and the manner in which they have been threatened and/or taken—belie the university’s claims to freedom of thought, the value of analysis and debate, and the existence of a “community of learning” or “academic community.” This conflict becomes, of course, more fraught for a large, venerable, and influential institution constantly in the public eye. As a veteran of a rather quiet, humane, and satisfying set of student actions and campus interactions at a small-college campus during the Vietnam era, I can say that proceeding according to the lights that supposedly guide institutions of higher education and the application of academic freedom can actually be affirmative and stabilizing, rather than threatening, to both the small-campus community and the larger communities within which academe sometimes uneasily sits. But large and influential institutions tend to be more closely watched, especially by those whose values or world-view may seem more pragmatic—or “conservative.” The pride of our academic institutions—free debate and analysis of multiple points of view—makes precisely this goal harder to achieve under the glare of the public eye—is, in fact, the rub.
“All interim suspensions are a violation of due process rights because punishment must only follow a fair hearing and assessment of an appropriate penalty.”
John K. Wilson
Not true. Interim suspensions do not necessarily violate due process rights.
The word “punishment” in the above quoted sentence conflates an interim suspension with a permanent suspension. The former only requires that university officials make a finding akin to “probable cause” (reasonable belief of wrongdoing) while the latter requires adjudication with “due process” safeguards.
Most importantly, various school codes of conduct (which all students agree to by accepting admission) permit interim suspensions under certain circumstances. Notably, in these cases, the student will always be afforded a subsequent formal appeal hearing where his/her due process protections are met.
At Columbia, the protesters were advised by university officials (on multiple occasions) that they were violating numerous school rules and – unless they disbanded – they would be subject to school and/or legal discipline. They were given plenty of notice and opportunity (essential elements of due process) to avoid discipline.
Yet, despite these warnings, they knowingly and voluntarily chose to ignore them. Doing so, put these student protesters squarely in contravention of Columbia’s Standards and Discipline (Code of Conduct) and rightfully exposed them to temporary suspensions.
Columbia’s Code expressly notes “[That] university administrators may place restrictions on a student prior to the conclusion of the Dean’s Discipline process [formal due process hearing].” These interim suspensions can be given “[If] the student’s behavior may make their presence on campus a danger to the normal operations of the institution, the safety of themselves, others, or to the property of the University or others.”
Bottom line: Temporary suspensions – in order to timely restore order and ensure safety – may be rightfully given while an investigation is ongoing and a formal due process hearing is scheduled or in progress.
Such interim actions do not violate any rights and are both legal and ethical.
A suspension is an extremely harsh penalty, normally only imposed by a college for the most extraordinary misconduct. It includes eviction from campus housing, banishment from the entire campus (with all of the restriction on their free speech that entails), and removal from classes currently being taken that a student paid to take. To impose a severe penalty without any due process is a violation of student rights, and receiving a hearing sometime in the future cannot repair the damage if an innocent student is punished (for example, because of a misidentification) or if a suspension is more severe than the punishment that’s deserved. That’s why we should not throw people accused of a minor crime into prison before convicting them.
The fact that students were warned in advance that their due process rights would be violated is not fulfillment of due process requirements. The fact that Columbia’s code gives it the legal power to violate student due process rights is not an ethical argument on behalf of that power. (I would also question whether students camping really posed any “danger” to the campus, but since there is no hearing and no due process, there is no way to appeal the question.) As we see at Columbia, arbitrary suspensions did not restore order, but made the situation worse.
If one follows your logic on due process, then police officers would not be able to arrest anyone. After all, being involuntarily detained (arrested) is a type of punishment that is administered without a trial (due process). But, as you know, an arrest can be made on a finding of “probable cause” (reasonable belief of wrongdoing) and, of course, such an arrest (detainment) can certainly be considered punishment. Still, it is done well before any “due process” trial.
Likewise, a school may temporarily suspend a student upon a reasonable belief that the student violated serious Code proscriptions; and this action can be taken before or during a due process hearing. The interim suspension is always subject to a due process appeal.
Remember, there is no constitutional right to attend Columbia. In effect, there is a contractual relationship between the school and the student. As such, each party must abide by the written terms of the school’s code of conduct or face the legitimate consequences.
All the ethics here – considering the Code’s express provisions – favor a timely restoration of safety and an environment conducive to learning.
No, arrests are not a punishment, and that’s why the police should only detain someone for the period necessary to process them (the legal limit is usually 24 hours). The police cannot have you evicted or banished. Columbia can ask for students to be arrested for breaking the law. And they can punish students for violating the rules, including suspension. But Columbia has a moral obligation to respect due process (just as they have only a moral obligation to protect free speech and academic freedom), and we should criticize Columbia when it violates due process through interim suspensions.
Agree that there is a moral obligation to protect due process, free speech, and academic freedom. These are all good things. But each one has its limits and – on a college campus – the community’s security and well-being (as expressed in its code of conduct) takes precedence over these worthy principles.
If one can accept the fact that a student’s free speech (on campus) can be limited without labeling such a restriction as a free speech “violation,” then one ought to understand that a student’s due process rights (on campus) can also be limited without labeling such a restriction as a due process “violation.”
Good discussion. Blog readers now have a diversity of opinion to choose from.