Civil Liberties Groups Warn Pomona of Possible Litigation Over Student Suspensions

Student protesters on October 7.

On November 13, the ACLU of Southern California, Asian Law Caucus, Center for Protest Law and Litigation, National Lawyers Guild, and Palestine Legal sent a joint letter to Pomona College urging the reversal of suspensions imposed on participants in the October 7 occupation of Carnegie Hall.

The letter claims that Pomona “attempted to use the taint of vandalism, disruption, and disturbance to severely punish students for their mere presence at the October 7 protest, in clear violation of their rights under the First Amendment and the Leonard Law and to a fair process.” The Leonard Law is a California statute prohibiting colleges from punishing speech that would be otherwise protected by the First Amendment off-campus. 

The organizations allege that the disciplinary process carried out by Pomona contravened due process and fair procedure with the intent to stifle dissent on campus: “Suspending the students for the entire year without any real opportunity to be heard or advisement of the evidence against them, based solely upon a misapplied theory of negligent contribution, undoubtedly has chilled, and will continue to chill, other students from participating in anti-war protests.”

Normally, student discipline at Pomona comes through the Judicial Council (commonly known as JBoard), a student panel guided by a “restorative practices” approach. However, the Pomona Student Code allows for the President to bypass the Judicial Council in instances that “threaten safety of individuals on campus, involve the destruction of College property, and the disruption of Pomona’s educational process.” Citing this provision, Starr has issued the suspensions without the Judicial Council’s involvement, sparking harsh criticism from Pomona’s student government and widespread condemnation from other student organizations.

The letter also takes issue with the grounds for suspension, claiming that the disciplinary ”notices insinuate… that the students were somehow involved in significant property damage and bodily harm to an individual.” It contends that “it remains unconstitutional to punish protestors for the actions of others,” and that Pomona’s “collective punishment of student protestors is based on a rejected theory of negligence.”

Pomona has maintained that the impetus behind the suspensions was not the property damage carried out at Carnegie, but rather the students’ “involvement in the takeover of a building, the forced end of classes and the disruption of our academic mission,” which “created an environment that was fundamentally dangerous.”

The letter requests a response from Pomona by November 20, with the signatories “[reserving] the right to take any necessary legal action to vindicate the rights of the students.”

A Pomona College spokesperson did not respond to a request for comment.