Columbia University has become the focal point of escalating protests following the occupation of Hamilton Hall by pro-Palestinian students. The protesters blocked entrances and unfurled banners advocating for the liberation of Palestine, prompting Columbia's administration to issue stern warnings. University officials emphasized that these actions were disruptive, particularly as classes had just ended and the lawn, adjacent to Hamilton Hall, is required for commencement preparations.
Columbia University is now considering expelling dozens of students involved in the protest. In response to the occupation, the university initially locked down campus entrances and later involved the NYPD to ensure the protesters left peacefully. The administration firmly stated that expulsion would be a consequence of occupying the building, citing violations of university policy and disruptive behavior that endangered the safety and security of other students and staff.
The demonstrators remain committed to their actions, asserting that their occupation seeks transparency in university investments, divestment from companies they believe benefit from the conflict in Gaza, and amnesty for students involved in the protests. They claim that their actions are a necessary response to the university's perceived failure to address their demands and that they will continue their occupation to force change. The university, however, maintains that their actions have crossed the line into vandalism and harassment, creating a threatening environment for many students.
Columbia University has a long history of student protests, dating back to the anti-Vietnam War demonstrations of the 1960s, including a similar takeover of Hamilton Hall in 1968. Protests are a fundamental right in the United States, and freedom of expression remains integral to the American ethos. With all that said, should the students occupying Hamilton Hall at Columbia University be expelled?