Columbia University suspends, expels student protesters
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 US$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.
More than 1,000 have been killed seeking food in Gaza since May as hunger crisis worsens, UN body says
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 per cent 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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 U.S. 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
Winnipeg Free Press
38 minutes ago
- Winnipeg Free Press
Limited options for Democrats to retaliate if Texas Republicans redraw congressional map
WASHINGTON (AP) — As Republicans move to redraw legislative maps in red states to pad their narrow House majority in Washington, some Democrats are rethinking their embrace of a nonpartisan approach to line-drawing that now complicates their party's ability to hit back before next year's midterm elections. In many Democratic-controlled states, independent commissions rather than the state legislature handle redistricting, the normally-once-a-decade task of adjusting congressional and legislative districts so their populations are equal. Parties in the majority can exploit that process to shape their lawmakers' districts so they are almost guaranteed reelection. The commission model limits parties' ability to game the system, leading to more competitive districts. Not all redistricting commissions were created at Democrats' insistence. And, like Republicans, the party has exploited line-drawing for its own gain in the handful of states where it controls the process. But unlike Republicans, many Democratic Party leaders have embraced the nonpartisan model. That means Democrats have fewer options to match Republicans, who are redrawing the U.S. House map in Texas at President Donald Trump's urging to carve out as many as five new winnable seats for the GOP. That could be enough to prevent Democrats from winning back the majority next year. Democrats have threatened payback. During a gathering Friday in Wisconsin of Democratic governors, several of them said they wanted to retaliate because the stakes are so high. Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers, who has pushed for a nonpartisan redistricting commission in his state, said Democrats must 'do whatever we can' to counter the Republican efforts to redraw congressional maps. 'When you have a gun against your head, you've got to do something,' he said. Despite the ambitious talk, Democrats largely have their hands tied. Democratic states have limited ability to redistrict for political edge California Gov. Gavin Newsom has said he and the Democratic-controlled Legislature will try to redraw his state's congressional map. But they would need to repeal or defy the 2008 ballot measure creating an independent redistricting commission. Voters extended its authority to congressional districts two years later. Newsom supported the constitutional amendment at the time, when he was mayor of San Francisco. The Texas redistricting, which is expected to pass the Legislature next week, led him to modify that position. 'We can act holier than thou, we can sit on the sidelines, talk about the way the world should be, or we can recognize the existential nature that is this moment,' Newsom said earlier this month. In New York, which also has a commission, the state constitution bars another map this decade. Democrats have moved for a change, but that could not happen until 2027 at the earliest, and then only with voter approval. In other states where Democrats control the governor's office and legislature, including Colorado and Washington, the party has backed independent commissions that cannot redraw, let alone rig, maps in the middle of the decade. Democrats say 'foundations of our democracy' at stake When the redistricting cycle kicked off in 2021, after the last census, independent commissions were in charge of drawing 95 House seats that otherwise would have been drawn by Democrats, but only 13 that would have been created by Republicans. In a marker of the shift among Democrats, former Attorney General Eric Holder, who heads the party's redistricting effort and has called repeatedly for a more nonpartisan approach, seemed to bless his party's long shot efforts to overrule their commissions. 'We do not oppose – on a temporary basis – responsible, responsive actions to ensure that the foundations of our democracy are not permanently eroded,' Holder said in a statement last week. In states where they weren't checked by commissions, Democrats have redistricted just as ruthlessly as Republicans. In Illinois, they drew a map that gave them a 14-3 advantage in the congressional delegation. In New Mexico, they tweaked the map so they control all three House seats. In Nevada, they held three of its four seats in November despite Trump winning the state. Even in states where they have a lopsided advantage, Democrats are exploring ways to maximize it. On Friday, Maryland's House Majority Leader, Democratic Del. David Moon, said he would introduce legislation to trigger redrawing of the congressional lines if Texas moves forward. Democrats hold seven of the state's eight congressional seats. 'We can't have one state, especially a very large state, constantly trying to one-up and alter the course of congressional control while the other states sit idly by,' he said. Commissions promote 'fair representation,' advocates say Advocates of a nonpartisan model are alarmed by the shift among Democrats. They say the party would redistrict just as aggressively as the GOP if not held in check, depriving voters of a voice in districts whose winners would essentially be selected in advance by political leaders. 'We're very desperate — we're looking for any port in a storm,' said Emily Eby French, Common Cause's Texas director. 'This Democratic tit for tat redistricting seems like a port but it's not a port. It's a jagged rock with a bunch of sirens on them.' The group's director of redistricting, Dan Vicuña, said using redistricting for partisan advantage — known as gerrymandering — is highly unpopular with the public: 'This is about fair representation for communities.' Politicians used to shy away from discussing it openly, but that has changed in today's polarized environment. Trump earlier this month told reporters about his hopes of netting five additional GOP seats in Texas and more out of other Republican-controlled states. He has urged new maps in GOP-controlled states such as Indiana and Missouri, while Ohio Republicans are poised to reshape political lines after neutralizing a push to create an independent redistricting commission. Democrats are divided over how to respond to Texas In a sign of the party's divide, Democrats have continued to push for a national redistricting panel that would remove partisanship from the process, even as some call for retaliation against Republicans in defiance of state limitations. 'No unilateral disarmament till both sides are following the law,' said Arizona Sen. Ruben Gallego, like Newsom a possible 2028 presidential contender, wrote on X. Gallego's post came a day before his Democratic colleagues gathered to announce they were reintroducing a bill to create the national commission. An identical bill died in 2022 when it couldn't overcome Republican objections despite Democrats controlling Congress and the presidency. It has no chance now that the GOP is in charge of both branches. Sen. Chris Murphy, another potential 2028 contender, didn't express regret over past reforms that have implemented independent redistricting boards in Democratic states, saying the party 'should never apologize for being for the right thing.' But he added that Republicans 'are operating outside of the box right now and we can't stay inside the box.' 'If they're changing districts in the middle of the 10-year cycle, we have to do the same thing,' he said. That approach, however, hasn't caught on across the party. 'We shouldn't stoop to their tactics,' Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut said. 'It's an ideal that we have accurate and fair representation. We can't abandon it just because Republicans try to manipulate and distort it.' ___ Riccardi reported from Denver. Associated Press writers Scott Bauer in Madison, Wisconsin, Jaimie Ding in Los Angeles, Anthony Izaguirre in Albany, New York, and Brian Witte in Annapolis, Maryland, contributed to this report.
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks with reporters before departing on Marine One from the South Lawn of the White House, Friday, July 25, 2025, in Washington. The President is traveling to Scotland. (AP Photo/Alex Brandon) NEW YORK — It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of U.S. President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. It's part of a larger effort around American stories The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' It shows how the presentation of history matters In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.' Deepti Hajela And Hillel Italie, The Associated Press
CTV News
an hour ago
- CTV News
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
People wait outside of Glass House Farms, a day after an immigration raid on the facility, Friday, July 11, 2025, in Camarillo, Calif. (AP Photo/Jae C. Hong, File) LOS ANGELES — A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The appeals court panel agreed and questioned the government's need to oppose an order preventing them from violating the constitution. 'If, as Defendants suggest, they are not conducting stops that lack reasonable suspicion, they can hardly claim to be irreparably harmed by an injunction aimed at preventing a subset of stops not supported by reasonable suspicion,' the judges wrote. A hearing for a preliminary injunction, which would be a more substantial court order as the lawsuit proceeds, is scheduled for September. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a U.S. citizen ... can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court Monday. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?' Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass called the Friday night decision a 'victory for the rule of law' and said the city will protect residents from the 'racial profiling and other illegal tactics' used by federal agents. Jaimie Ding, The Associated Press
