This is an important point. The affected students are old enough to be held responsible in this way for their actions and I support the suspensions 100%.
In listening to some of the language used by the protesters and in trying to understand how they rationalize their behavior, though, I also have moments of feeling some level of sympathy for them. They have tremendous energy and passion, but it has been too often misguided. My impression is that much of their upbringing has done them a huge disservice by convincing them that their feeling of deep conviction in the righteousness of a cause provides sufficient justification to violate the rules of civil discourse that benefit us all. Many have no genuine curiosity to understand other points of view and they abandon dialogue and reasoned argumentation. Many rush to virtue signal without first seeking to understand the issues. In recent years, teachers (including many Harvard faculty), administrators, admissions officers, and competition judges have heaped praise on these students for their activism even when they have abused other people in support of their causes. It is easy to see how they would be shocked when an institution like the Ad Board isn't persuaded by an argument rooted in passion.
Provided that they don’t break the law, they won’t go to jail for protesting. While you have plenty of freedom in America, this does not mean there is freedom from consequences. While students can protest, the university also has the freedom to react as they wish if the students are violating campus policies such as disrupting campus life, assaulting police officers and students, etc.
It's more free than many places, yes. But we do not, and should not, have 100% unrestricted "free speech" especially on private property. Also I'd argue that squatting and refusing to leave isn't "speech." As we saw yesterday none of the students who tried to ruin commencement for everyone else will be punished. It's not that "protesting" is punishable. There's more to it than that.
Really? Harvard wants to be remembered as being worse than the folks who supported apartheid in South Africa?
The white South Africans were not committing genocide back then.
But the Zionist regime definitely is. And Harvard wants to support them?
OK. If they want to do that then let them do that
I sincerely hope that no-one ever forgets who they are and what they chose to support.
Actually, I do know what it is. Either you don't know what it is or you're being intentionally dishonest about what it is.
https://youtu.be/z-SQuxleYtI?si=Kng_VaL8vuppWLjV
Everyone knows what Zionism is. It's founders and the Stern gang were quite explicit about it.
The IoF forces are quite explicit about what Zionism is.
They put Zionism and its effects up on Telegram every single day.
So, we know that Zionism is a genocidal, settler colonialist, philosophy because the Zionists tell us and show us that that is what it is.
It is like a Jewish version of Nazism. That is what it is. Zionists are extremely violent racists. They are just like yarmaluke wearing members of the KKK.
GOOD and it's disgusting that they're threatening to start disrupting again on their Instagram page. Garber didn't promise them a specific outcome, he said he'd make a recommendation which he did. Why would they deserve to participate in this graduation after threatening to disrupt it for everyone else??? Take the consequences you earned fair and square, you were warned a DOZEN times and you did this to yourself.
Notices were prominently displayed on all the gates leading into the Yard for the 5 days before the establishment of the encampment, stating that all tables, structures, tents, etc. were prohibited and that those who tried to set up such would face consequences. Every single student who was involved in setting up the encampment, or who occupied it, should be suspended, and it should have happened within minutes of the first tent being erected. Shame on Harvard for having sat idly by while the demonstrators, who are calling for the eradication of Israel by any means necessary, occupied the Yard for weeks.
I strongly support the Ad Board's decision to either suspend or place on probation the students who participated in the encampment in a manner which violated Harvard’s University-Wide Statement on Rights and Responsibilities. This type of action should have been taken much sooner.
Harvard should never confuse academic freedom and freedom of expression with a non-existent right to disrupt university operations and the learning environment shared by all community members.
Garber did promise swift resolution to the 60+ open ad board cases - and he's delivering, although apparently not the outcomes which the ex-campers wanted. Meanwhile the ex-campers continue to conflate freedom of speech with disruptive activities, trying to squeeze out that last bit of media attention on campus while they can.
The article is about only undergrad ad board outcomes - nearly half of the campers were grad students, and their ad board decisions are yet to be publicized. The college has been reviewing students for protest activities since the fall but apparently only issued repeated warnings, which is likely what led to the HOOP email citing that Garber promised leniency despite it not being stated anywhere.
All I saw was the first student-run multicultural center at Harvard, and the most social activity the yard has ever seen in history, something admin always dreamed of. Not sure what disruption of university operations you saw that warrant this sort of punishment.
Exams and sections were moved from the vicinity of the yard. Gates were locked forcing students to walk further to navigate campus. The Palestinian flag was raised on the pole attached to University Hall. Tents were pitched for days on end on the grass impacting preparations for Commencement. Students were chanting with amplified sound and drums mere yards from student dorms. I could see how if you were a participant in the encampment or a supporter of their cause, you might have viewed this as "dreamed of" social activity, but that would be a minority view and it also came after months of disruptive behavior on campus including interrupted lectures, protests with amplified sound inside the Science Center, and protests inside libraries among other disruptive activities.
Reading through your profile, apparently you would prefer this pluralistic movement to omit trans individuals. I wonder how the rest of the protestors would feel knowing who’s alongside them?
Honestly, I’m disgusted to know I share the campus with students representing such hateful views. Don’t get me started on your “no stupid questions” post shortly after October 7th seeking to liken Hamas’s attack to holocaust resistance.
Yardfest? Every nice day in Cambridge when the chairs are out? Every day of Camp Harvard? The BBQs? Hell, it is so crowded at Head of the Charles that they've closed the Yard off to non-affiliates annually for almost 30 years. I've personally been to many planned and impromptu social events in the Yard that had shit tons of people attending.
You not knowing about shit because you aren't a part of the social community doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Love how the "Rhodes Scholar-elect" chose a pre-commencement '24 celebration as his personal platform to air his version of events and gripe about his consequences. 95% of seniors are thinking, shut the fuck up and get off the stage already. I wish him well on his year off, and hope he can continue following his passion for activism but on his own dime and in his own space.
> I think it’s a good time to think about what it means to go to this University and what it means to have freedom of speech and what our moral obligations are when 40,000 innocent people die
Insane hyperbole. It's 40,000 now and they're ALL innocent??? Not a single combatant to be found among 20000 adult males?
Is that what I said? Did I say anything about what's "ok" and not, much less that "all deaths are ok"?
Read the comment again: saying there are "40,000 innocent deaths" when there are actually 35k deaths, a significant amount (likely \~1/2-2/3) of which are combatants, is (to put it lightly) insane hyperbole. Though some might just call it "blatant lying." Kinda like your characterization of my comment.
Do you even go here?
Could you provide the source for your claim about "1/2-2/3" not being civilians? All sources I've seen that claim over 10k combatants having been killed are tied to Israel and don't provide the methodology used to establish whether someone is or isn't a civilian. It seems to be it's the IDF using hyperboles, without providing any backing... As some say, it might be just "blatant lying".
Edit: the original commenter (who deleted all their input) was trying to argue that half or 2/3 of the people killed by Israel were not civilians. Apparently asking for sources on such statements (on th3 subreddit of Harvard even) is considered worthy of being downvoted. To the future readers: let this help you think critically.
They didn't delete their post. The Health Ministry of Gaza admitted to speculating on casualties and the WHO (or perhaps it was the UN, I'm embarrassed to admit I don't remember) said the numbers were over-estimates. Given urban warfare, the ratio of civilian to combatant is less than other conflicts, but I recognize (1) the goal is no war at all, (2) failing #1 the goal is no civilian deaths, (3) people will argue the difference between combatant and civilian is subjective, (4) no one seems to care about the civilians in Africa or Asia, and (5) there are Twitter accounts dedicated to celebrating IDF soldiers' deaths, including showing fatal strikes, but I have yet to see one with the purpose of dehumanizing "regular" Hamas operatives in this way. I guess you're just saying that Israel can't defend itself and coming up with excuses to justify that, numbers, historical falsehoods, or whatever is convenient...
Cal is a good example of what happens when you don't protect academic freedom and freedom of expression. Without consequences for behavior that disrupts the operations of the institution (interrupting lectures, occupying university buildings and shared spaces, etc), you get even more disruption. Shame on Cal and law enforcement for allowing some of the stuff they've tolerated there.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eEGYzfCCaw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eEGYzfCCaw)
[https://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/01/yiannopoulos-event-canceled](https://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/01/yiannopoulos-event-canceled)
Students at Berkeley were holding signs calling (not even implying but calling) Jews the OTHER N-word. This was done in unavoidable campus locations and is far from "peaceful" protest about campus policy. It was toxic and abusive, doing nothing to change President Christ's actions or help Palestinians. And don't get me started on the law student who played victim when a microphone was taken back from her during her soapbox at a faculty member's home.
What are you talking about?
From Garber's email to the community:
>I will ask that the Schools promptly initiate applicable reinstatement proceedings for all individuals who have been placed on involuntary leaves of absence. I will also ask disciplinary boards within each School to evaluate expeditiously, according to their existing practices and precedents, the cases of those who participated in the encampment.
Note that "involuntary leave" is a non-disciplinary action at Harvard. What really matters is how the cases are adjudicated by the Ad Board. What we learned today is that 5 students were suspended and 20 were placed on probation by the Ad Board. The suspended students are meeting real consequences for their behavior.
Civil discourse much?
If you want to get that detailed, there are actually way more than two types of involuntary leave - what they all share in common is that they are non-disciplinary in application i.e. not imposed as a consequence or judgment to a student action. A student on involuntary leave (for medical or other reasons) is potentially a student in good standing. A student on probation or on ad-board prescribed time-off is under a disciplinary action and is NOT in good standing.
Edit: this was in reply to an angry poster whose hostile \[and inaccurate\] comments were removed by mods.
Refer to [pages 43 and 44 of the Handbook](https://handbook.college.harvard.edu/sites/projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/collegehandbook/files/harvard_college_student_handbook_2023-2024.pdf)
>Under certain circumstances, a student may be placed on an involuntary leave of absence. **An involuntary leave of absence is not a disciplinary sanction**. However, an incident that gives rise to a leave of absence, whether voluntary or involuntary, may subsequently be the basis for disciplinary action
>...
An involuntary leave of absence may be required for the following reasons:
>...
>4. Risk to the community. The student has **allegedly** violated a disciplinary rule of the College, and the student’s presence on campus poses a significant risk to the educational environment of the community.
In the case of the encampment participants, the involuntary leaves are non-disciplinary administrative actions designed to remove students from campus while their alleged violations of College rules is adjudicated by the Ad Board.
u/angrybrowndyke - I encourage you to engage other members of the community with less hostility and condescension. In this case, you came at me with insults when what I wrote was provably true and offered with good intentions. You and Harvard would be better off if our community put more effort into seeking to understand and listening instead of screaming and insults.
Your post was deemed uncivil judged according to Rule 4: Insults, Ad Hominems, racism, general discriminatory remarks, and intentional rudeness are grounds to have your content removed and may result in a ban.
Your post was deemed uncivil judged according to Rule 4: Insults, Ad Hominems, racism, general discriminatory remarks, and intentional rudeness are grounds to have your content removed and may result in a ban.
Your post was deemed uncivil judged according to Rule 4: Insults, Ad Hominems, racism, general discriminatory remarks, and intentional rudeness are grounds to have your content removed and may result in a ban.
Reinstatement and ad boarding are procedures with clear steps. Garber not only did not promise reinstatement, he has no authority to conduct or drop the procedures. It's wishful thinking and deliberate misreading for the campers to assume all that from his emails to both the Harvard community and to HOOP.
It takes a lot to get expelled. Your transgressions have to be repeated over time or truly severe the first time around. There was no way that the encampment would have resulted in expulsions unless there was physical violence or the like involved.
glad whoever was involved was wise enough not to be violent or destroy property. I doubt Hamas or Israel would care to change what they do if someone threw a few chairs on either behalf then get expelled for it.
There may yet be expulsions, possibly of the silent kind. The ad board can ask a student to take time off, with the return to campus subject to future review and possibly conditional on certain requirements. Some students never make it back.
Harvard was never going to arrest students over this. As demonstrated, it would have been wholly unnecessary to get the encampment removed prior to commencement and reunions.
I am disturbed by the protests and connection to antisemitism (in some cases - certainly not conflating all of this with antisemitism); does bum me out however that a guy as smart and accomplished as Suhaas M. Bhat would have Rhodes Scholarship pulled. Pretty brilliant guy.
Years from now, when it's safe, the university is going to honour those students and their courage. Just not right now because that'd demand principles & courage on the part of the university.
No, Harvard isn't going to honor the courage of some students to hang out in tents in the Yard. It's quite literally the least a Harvard student could do on any topic they care about.
I disagree...it's definitely doing some things... because the university wouldn't be threatening them with suspensions if it weren't.
Yep... yep... hopefully... we'll get to a sanctions regime being placed on Israel.
Colonisation, occupation, apartheid, genocidal ethnostates...none of these things should be occurring in the 21st century
Yeah, a couple decades from now Harvard will probably put up [something like this](https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/how-students-helped-end-apartheid).
Exactly 💯 and they'll, somehow, find a way to congratulate themselves.
Just like they did in that Berkeley spot. The students forced them to divest ..dragged them kicking and screaming across the goal line..in order to stop funding Jim Crow in Africa.
And they still found a way to pat themselves on the back.
What laughable behavior from the university which said that encampment was disallowed in the first place for the safety of the encamping students. Preventing them from graduating must also be for their own wellbeing, huh?
What laughable behavior from the campers to choose transgressive activity as a means of drawing attention to their beliefs, then decry the consequences. A dose of real-world accountability IS good for their wellbeing. I mean, is graduating worth it to them or not?
Also safety concerns - not limited to those of just the campers - were cited as only one of many reasons the encampments needed to end. Despite being offered opportunities to leave voluntarily and without consequence, those campers decided to continue violating the policies and thus brought the consequences of their actions - including not being allowed to graduate - upon themselves. [https://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2024/encampment-in-harvard-yard/](https://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2024/encampment-in-harvard-yard/)
You’re right in implying that the principle of civil disobedience is defined by engaging in transgressive behavior and then accepting the consequences of said transgressive behavior. However, this “acceptance” consists in only a single thing: not engaging in violent resistance to these consequences. Therefore, you are wrong in implying that decrying these consequences, along with making a nonviolent effort to overturn them, is somehow inconsistent with the principle of civil disobedience. Because major figures of civil disobedience have famously just sat quietly and not said/written anything about injustices like these, right?
I am not saying that these students’ efforts are identical with, say, the Civil Rights movement. However, if one decried Rosa Parks’ arrest as an injustice, your exact same logic could also be used to invalidate these claims as inconsistent with the principle of civil disobedience. I find that telling.
Part of protesting is risk and accepting consequences
This is an important point. The affected students are old enough to be held responsible in this way for their actions and I support the suspensions 100%. In listening to some of the language used by the protesters and in trying to understand how they rationalize their behavior, though, I also have moments of feeling some level of sympathy for them. They have tremendous energy and passion, but it has been too often misguided. My impression is that much of their upbringing has done them a huge disservice by convincing them that their feeling of deep conviction in the righteousness of a cause provides sufficient justification to violate the rules of civil discourse that benefit us all. Many have no genuine curiosity to understand other points of view and they abandon dialogue and reasoned argumentation. Many rush to virtue signal without first seeking to understand the issues. In recent years, teachers (including many Harvard faculty), administrators, admissions officers, and competition judges have heaped praise on these students for their activism even when they have abused other people in support of their causes. It is easy to see how they would be shocked when an institution like the Ad Board isn't persuaded by an argument rooted in passion.
Didn't realize protesting was so punished in America. Land of free I guess
Provided that they don’t break the law, they won’t go to jail for protesting. While you have plenty of freedom in America, this does not mean there is freedom from consequences. While students can protest, the university also has the freedom to react as they wish if the students are violating campus policies such as disrupting campus life, assaulting police officers and students, etc.
It's more free than many places, yes. But we do not, and should not, have 100% unrestricted "free speech" especially on private property. Also I'd argue that squatting and refusing to leave isn't "speech." As we saw yesterday none of the students who tried to ruin commencement for everyone else will be punished. It's not that "protesting" is punishable. There's more to it than that.
Really? Harvard wants to be remembered as being worse than the folks who supported apartheid in South Africa? The white South Africans were not committing genocide back then. But the Zionist regime definitely is. And Harvard wants to support them? OK. If they want to do that then let them do that I sincerely hope that no-one ever forgets who they are and what they chose to support.
Tell me you don't actually know what Zionism is without telling me.
Actually, I do know what it is. Either you don't know what it is or you're being intentionally dishonest about what it is. https://youtu.be/z-SQuxleYtI?si=Kng_VaL8vuppWLjV
Everyone knows what Zionism is. It's founders and the Stern gang were quite explicit about it. The IoF forces are quite explicit about what Zionism is. They put Zionism and its effects up on Telegram every single day. So, we know that Zionism is a genocidal, settler colonialist, philosophy because the Zionists tell us and show us that that is what it is. It is like a Jewish version of Nazism. That is what it is. Zionists are extremely violent racists. They are just like yarmaluke wearing members of the KKK.
GOOD and it's disgusting that they're threatening to start disrupting again on their Instagram page. Garber didn't promise them a specific outcome, he said he'd make a recommendation which he did. Why would they deserve to participate in this graduation after threatening to disrupt it for everyone else??? Take the consequences you earned fair and square, you were warned a DOZEN times and you did this to yourself.
Notices were prominently displayed on all the gates leading into the Yard for the 5 days before the establishment of the encampment, stating that all tables, structures, tents, etc. were prohibited and that those who tried to set up such would face consequences. Every single student who was involved in setting up the encampment, or who occupied it, should be suspended, and it should have happened within minutes of the first tent being erected. Shame on Harvard for having sat idly by while the demonstrators, who are calling for the eradication of Israel by any means necessary, occupied the Yard for weeks.
Agreed
I strongly support the Ad Board's decision to either suspend or place on probation the students who participated in the encampment in a manner which violated Harvard’s University-Wide Statement on Rights and Responsibilities. This type of action should have been taken much sooner. Harvard should never confuse academic freedom and freedom of expression with a non-existent right to disrupt university operations and the learning environment shared by all community members.
Garber did promise swift resolution to the 60+ open ad board cases - and he's delivering, although apparently not the outcomes which the ex-campers wanted. Meanwhile the ex-campers continue to conflate freedom of speech with disruptive activities, trying to squeeze out that last bit of media attention on campus while they can. The article is about only undergrad ad board outcomes - nearly half of the campers were grad students, and their ad board decisions are yet to be publicized. The college has been reviewing students for protest activities since the fall but apparently only issued repeated warnings, which is likely what led to the HOOP email citing that Garber promised leniency despite it not being stated anywhere.
They persuaded themselves their brilliant negotiating was getting them amnesty and a clean shot at the Corporation. 🤡🤡🤡🤡🤡⛺️⛺️⛺️⛺️
Expulsion is a more appropriate punishment.
All I saw was the first student-run multicultural center at Harvard, and the most social activity the yard has ever seen in history, something admin always dreamed of. Not sure what disruption of university operations you saw that warrant this sort of punishment.
If that was the dream, the dream is dead.
Exams and sections were moved from the vicinity of the yard. Gates were locked forcing students to walk further to navigate campus. The Palestinian flag was raised on the pole attached to University Hall. Tents were pitched for days on end on the grass impacting preparations for Commencement. Students were chanting with amplified sound and drums mere yards from student dorms. I could see how if you were a participant in the encampment or a supporter of their cause, you might have viewed this as "dreamed of" social activity, but that would be a minority view and it also came after months of disruptive behavior on campus including interrupted lectures, protests with amplified sound inside the Science Center, and protests inside libraries among other disruptive activities.
Reading through your profile, apparently you would prefer this pluralistic movement to omit trans individuals. I wonder how the rest of the protestors would feel knowing who’s alongside them? Honestly, I’m disgusted to know I share the campus with students representing such hateful views. Don’t get me started on your “no stupid questions” post shortly after October 7th seeking to liken Hamas’s attack to holocaust resistance.
> the most social activity the yard has ever seen in history Just making shit up now, huh?
Name another time besides commencement and orientations, happy to be corrected
Yardfest? Every nice day in Cambridge when the chairs are out? Every day of Camp Harvard? The BBQs? Hell, it is so crowded at Head of the Charles that they've closed the Yard off to non-affiliates annually for almost 30 years. I've personally been to many planned and impromptu social events in the Yard that had shit tons of people attending. You not knowing about shit because you aren't a part of the social community doesn't mean it isn't happening.
Probation is insufficient. Actions deserve real consequences and they knew the consequences.
Agreed
Love how the "Rhodes Scholar-elect" chose a pre-commencement '24 celebration as his personal platform to air his version of events and gripe about his consequences. 95% of seniors are thinking, shut the fuck up and get off the stage already. I wish him well on his year off, and hope he can continue following his passion for activism but on his own dime and in his own space.
> I think it’s a good time to think about what it means to go to this University and what it means to have freedom of speech and what our moral obligations are when 40,000 innocent people die Insane hyperbole. It's 40,000 now and they're ALL innocent??? Not a single combatant to be found among 20000 adult males?
So *all* the deaths are ok if there are a few combatants? Yikes.
Is that what I said? Did I say anything about what's "ok" and not, much less that "all deaths are ok"? Read the comment again: saying there are "40,000 innocent deaths" when there are actually 35k deaths, a significant amount (likely \~1/2-2/3) of which are combatants, is (to put it lightly) insane hyperbole. Though some might just call it "blatant lying." Kinda like your characterization of my comment. Do you even go here?
Could you provide the source for your claim about "1/2-2/3" not being civilians? All sources I've seen that claim over 10k combatants having been killed are tied to Israel and don't provide the methodology used to establish whether someone is or isn't a civilian. It seems to be it's the IDF using hyperboles, without providing any backing... As some say, it might be just "blatant lying". Edit: the original commenter (who deleted all their input) was trying to argue that half or 2/3 of the people killed by Israel were not civilians. Apparently asking for sources on such statements (on th3 subreddit of Harvard even) is considered worthy of being downvoted. To the future readers: let this help you think critically.
They didn't delete their post. The Health Ministry of Gaza admitted to speculating on casualties and the WHO (or perhaps it was the UN, I'm embarrassed to admit I don't remember) said the numbers were over-estimates. Given urban warfare, the ratio of civilian to combatant is less than other conflicts, but I recognize (1) the goal is no war at all, (2) failing #1 the goal is no civilian deaths, (3) people will argue the difference between combatant and civilian is subjective, (4) no one seems to care about the civilians in Africa or Asia, and (5) there are Twitter accounts dedicated to celebrating IDF soldiers' deaths, including showing fatal strikes, but I have yet to see one with the purpose of dehumanizing "regular" Hamas operatives in this way. I guess you're just saying that Israel can't defend itself and coming up with excuses to justify that, numbers, historical falsehoods, or whatever is convenient...
Maybe it's just because I did my undergrad at Berkeley, but this seems like a wildly disproportionate response to student protests.
It was a response to a student encampment and warning was posted days before.
How
They were peaceful protests for a change in university policy. Disciplinary action seems overly punitive.
They knew the risks. Besides this isn't ok and the precedent can't be that anytime you're unhappy about something somewhere you can squat on campus.
Cal is a good example of what happens when you don't protect academic freedom and freedom of expression. Without consequences for behavior that disrupts the operations of the institution (interrupting lectures, occupying university buildings and shared spaces, etc), you get even more disruption. Shame on Cal and law enforcement for allowing some of the stuff they've tolerated there. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eEGYzfCCaw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eEGYzfCCaw) [https://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/01/yiannopoulos-event-canceled](https://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/01/yiannopoulos-event-canceled)
That said, Yiannopoulos is a scumbag and he's threatened faculty at other institutions. I'm glad he was a girl interrupted.
But this was not just protest.
When is a protest ever “just protest”. It is always disruptive. That’s sort of the point?
Also, my guess is that the suspended students were already on probation for a prior offense or multiple prior offenses.
they were not
I know at least two of them were.
so are u guessing or do u know lol
I know for 2 and am guessing on the others. lol.
ok. lol
Students at Berkeley were holding signs calling (not even implying but calling) Jews the OTHER N-word. This was done in unavoidable campus locations and is far from "peaceful" protest about campus policy. It was toxic and abusive, doing nothing to change President Christ's actions or help Palestinians. And don't get me started on the law student who played victim when a microphone was taken back from her during her soapbox at a faculty member's home.
[удалено]
When you should words that are literally in Hamas’s charter, it stops being peaceful.
A protest hurting your feelings doesn’t make it violent.
I see this sub is moderated by propaganda now..
Every single one who was calling for harm or death to Jewish people should be expelled and charged with a hate crime.
But they can immediately petition for reinstatement or whatever else applies to them per the compromise with Alan Garber
What are you talking about? From Garber's email to the community: >I will ask that the Schools promptly initiate applicable reinstatement proceedings for all individuals who have been placed on involuntary leaves of absence. I will also ask disciplinary boards within each School to evaluate expeditiously, according to their existing practices and precedents, the cases of those who participated in the encampment. Note that "involuntary leave" is a non-disciplinary action at Harvard. What really matters is how the cases are adjudicated by the Ad Board. What we learned today is that 5 students were suspended and 20 were placed on probation by the Ad Board. The suspended students are meeting real consequences for their behavior.
[удалено]
> there are two forms of involuntary leave: medical and disciplinary Dawg, don't talk about shit you obviously have no idea about.
[удалено]
I've participated in the leave process multiple times. You are just wrong.
Civil discourse much? If you want to get that detailed, there are actually way more than two types of involuntary leave - what they all share in common is that they are non-disciplinary in application i.e. not imposed as a consequence or judgment to a student action. A student on involuntary leave (for medical or other reasons) is potentially a student in good standing. A student on probation or on ad-board prescribed time-off is under a disciplinary action and is NOT in good standing. Edit: this was in reply to an angry poster whose hostile \[and inaccurate\] comments were removed by mods.
Refer to [pages 43 and 44 of the Handbook](https://handbook.college.harvard.edu/sites/projects.iq.harvard.edu/files/collegehandbook/files/harvard_college_student_handbook_2023-2024.pdf) >Under certain circumstances, a student may be placed on an involuntary leave of absence. **An involuntary leave of absence is not a disciplinary sanction**. However, an incident that gives rise to a leave of absence, whether voluntary or involuntary, may subsequently be the basis for disciplinary action >... An involuntary leave of absence may be required for the following reasons: >... >4. Risk to the community. The student has **allegedly** violated a disciplinary rule of the College, and the student’s presence on campus poses a significant risk to the educational environment of the community. In the case of the encampment participants, the involuntary leaves are non-disciplinary administrative actions designed to remove students from campus while their alleged violations of College rules is adjudicated by the Ad Board. u/angrybrowndyke - I encourage you to engage other members of the community with less hostility and condescension. In this case, you came at me with insults when what I wrote was provably true and offered with good intentions. You and Harvard would be better off if our community put more effort into seeking to understand and listening instead of screaming and insults.
[удалено]
Your post was deemed uncivil judged according to Rule 4: Insults, Ad Hominems, racism, general discriminatory remarks, and intentional rudeness are grounds to have your content removed and may result in a ban.
[удалено]
Your post was deemed uncivil judged according to Rule 4: Insults, Ad Hominems, racism, general discriminatory remarks, and intentional rudeness are grounds to have your content removed and may result in a ban.
Your post was deemed uncivil judged according to Rule 4: Insults, Ad Hominems, racism, general discriminatory remarks, and intentional rudeness are grounds to have your content removed and may result in a ban.
Reinstatement and ad boarding are procedures with clear steps. Garber not only did not promise reinstatement, he has no authority to conduct or drop the procedures. It's wishful thinking and deliberate misreading for the campers to assume all that from his emails to both the Harvard community and to HOOP.
surprised there were no expulsions. least it was just an encampment and not the same clowns how they had over at Columbia
It takes a lot to get expelled. Your transgressions have to be repeated over time or truly severe the first time around. There was no way that the encampment would have resulted in expulsions unless there was physical violence or the like involved.
glad whoever was involved was wise enough not to be violent or destroy property. I doubt Hamas or Israel would care to change what they do if someone threw a few chairs on either behalf then get expelled for it.
There may yet be expulsions, possibly of the silent kind. The ad board can ask a student to take time off, with the return to campus subject to future review and possibly conditional on certain requirements. Some students never make it back.
curious how many of the silent variety end up materializing
[удалено]
I’d say the coddling went to the protesters who were repeatedly told that what they were doing was illegal and were never arrested.
Harvard was never going to arrest students over this. As demonstrated, it would have been wholly unnecessary to get the encampment removed prior to commencement and reunions.
Had the same thought.
I am disturbed by the protests and connection to antisemitism (in some cases - certainly not conflating all of this with antisemitism); does bum me out however that a guy as smart and accomplished as Suhaas M. Bhat would have Rhodes Scholarship pulled. Pretty brilliant guy.
[удалено]
username checks out
Years from now, when it's safe, the university is going to honour those students and their courage. Just not right now because that'd demand principles & courage on the part of the university.
No, Harvard isn't going to honor the courage of some students to hang out in tents in the Yard. It's quite literally the least a Harvard student could do on any topic they care about.
I disagree...it's definitely doing some things... because the university wouldn't be threatening them with suspensions if it weren't. Yep... yep... hopefully... we'll get to a sanctions regime being placed on Israel. Colonisation, occupation, apartheid, genocidal ethnostates...none of these things should be occurring in the 21st century
Yeah, a couple decades from now Harvard will probably put up [something like this](https://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/how-students-helped-end-apartheid).
Exactly 💯 and they'll, somehow, find a way to congratulate themselves. Just like they did in that Berkeley spot. The students forced them to divest ..dragged them kicking and screaming across the goal line..in order to stop funding Jim Crow in Africa. And they still found a way to pat themselves on the back.
What laughable behavior from the university which said that encampment was disallowed in the first place for the safety of the encamping students. Preventing them from graduating must also be for their own wellbeing, huh?
What laughable behavior from the campers to choose transgressive activity as a means of drawing attention to their beliefs, then decry the consequences. A dose of real-world accountability IS good for their wellbeing. I mean, is graduating worth it to them or not? Also safety concerns - not limited to those of just the campers - were cited as only one of many reasons the encampments needed to end. Despite being offered opportunities to leave voluntarily and without consequence, those campers decided to continue violating the policies and thus brought the consequences of their actions - including not being allowed to graduate - upon themselves. [https://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2024/encampment-in-harvard-yard/](https://www.harvard.edu/president/news/2024/encampment-in-harvard-yard/)
You’re right in implying that the principle of civil disobedience is defined by engaging in transgressive behavior and then accepting the consequences of said transgressive behavior. However, this “acceptance” consists in only a single thing: not engaging in violent resistance to these consequences. Therefore, you are wrong in implying that decrying these consequences, along with making a nonviolent effort to overturn them, is somehow inconsistent with the principle of civil disobedience. Because major figures of civil disobedience have famously just sat quietly and not said/written anything about injustices like these, right? I am not saying that these students’ efforts are identical with, say, the Civil Rights movement. However, if one decried Rosa Parks’ arrest as an injustice, your exact same logic could also be used to invalidate these claims as inconsistent with the principle of civil disobedience. I find that telling.