Dear President Granberg, Provost Bracey, and Vice Provost Coleman:

We write as concerned and disheartened alums and community members of The George Washington University (GW) to request answers as to why violations of GW’s Code of Student Conduct (“Code”) have not been sufficiently addressed in the context of the ongoing encampment occupying University Yard. 

In this letter, we outline these violations and reference incidents that would appear to trigger action on the part of the university. The goal of this letter is not to encourage the censoring of students; rather, this letter examines conduct that falls outside of the protections of the Code and encourages the administration to uphold the principles the Code espouses.

We preface this letter by expressing our appreciation for the actions the university has already taken to address, in particular, the many non-GW students who have appeared to be trespassing. We also applaud the recent statement by President Ellen Granberg conceding that the university alone cannot handle this unprecedented situation and previewing the plan to engage law enforcement.

Notwithstanding these noteworthy developments, we feel that it is incumbent upon the university itself to address the violations of the Code outlined in this letter.

1. Violations of the Code’s Provisions Regarding Student-Sponsored Forums

The Code (5) establishes GW students’ “right to assemble, to select speakers, and to discuss issues of their choice, provided that the assembly is lawful in nature, does not interfere with the processes of the university, and does not infringe upon the rights of others” (emphasis added).

A glaring example of how those students participating in the encampment have violated this Code provision is the move by GW Law Dean Dayna Bowen Matthew to take steps to relocate student exams so that they can be taken in a quiet and secure location. 

While we applaud Dean Matthew for her commitment to ensuring GW Law students can take exams in an environment conducive to the demand finals bring, we are concerned that it was incumbent upon Ms. Matthew to make this decision and prioritize those students who interfere with the processes of the university. 

We ask why the rights of the students participating in the encampment—who appear to be infringing upon the rights of others and thus fall outside the scope of the Code’s established rights—outweigh the rights of the law students merely trying to take their exams in peace.

2. Violations of the Code’s Provisions Regarding Assemblies, Petitions, and Demonstrations

The Code (5) establishes GW students’ and student organizations’ “right to engage in behaviors such as distributing pamphlets, collecting names for petitions, and conducting orderly demonstrations provided these actions are not disruptive of normal university functions and do not encompass the physical takeover or occupation of university facilities and spaces, whether or not they are in use at that time” (emphasis added).

The Code (5-6) also specifies that students’ “right to dissent and protest” does not protect the exercise of these rights “in such a manner as to obstruct or disrupt teaching, research, administration, conduct procedures, or other university activities.”

We find it difficult, if not impossible at this juncture, to characterize the encampment and the related demonstrations as “orderly.” For example, on Sunday, April 28, demonstrators overran GW barricades blocking off University Yard. What's more, the students participating in the encampment appear to have physically taken over and occupied University Yard. 

Moreover, the students participating in the encampment are not protected under the Code’s right to dissent and protest, given the considerable disruptions to university activities and functions. 

On April 28, President Granberg and Provost Christopher Bracey delivered a message to the GW community, declaring that “free expression and activism… are not unlimited.” As such, we ask what steps the university is taking to ensure that the message of President Granberg and Provost Bracey is effectively enforced. 

3. Actions That Constitute Prohibited Conduct

The Code specifies that “any student, group, or organization found to have committed misconduct is subject to student conduct action and to the sanctions outlined in this Code (12).” Prohibited conduct includes, but is not limited to, discriminatory misconduct (14).

Discriminatory misconduct includes discriminatory harassment. The Code (14) outlines the factors that constitute such harassment: (1) “any unwelcome conduct”; (2) “based on a protected characteristic”; (3) “where such conduct creates a hostile environment.” 

The Code (14) states that “[a] hostile environment exists when:

- the conduct is sufficiently severe, persistent, or pervasive; and 

- it unreasonably interferes with, limits, or deprives an individual from participating in or benefitting from the university’s educational, co-curricular, and/or campus-residential experience.”

The Code (14) notes that “these criteria are viewed through both a subjective and objective standard” (i.e., “an aggrieved party’s subjective perception that certain conduct violates this provision must be objectively reasonable to constitute discriminatory harassment”). Note that the Code states that discriminatory harassment “does not have to include intent to harm or be directed at a specific target” (emphasis added). 

While not all of the encampment participants have acted in ways that constitute discriminatory harassment, it is clear that there have been instances of such harassment at the encampment. We assert that such conduct is unwelcome, rooted in the denial of the Jewish people’s right to self-determination, and has created a hostile environment. 

The conduct that participants in the encampment have exhibited has been both persistent and pervasive and has unreasonably interfered with many students’ — Jewish and non-Jewish alike — participation in GW’s campus-residential experience. 

For example, the individual participating in the encampment who carried a sign saying “final solution” (the Nazis’ term for the extermination of Jews) can easily be viewed as creating a hostile environment through both a subjective and objective perspective. The sign may not have been directed at an individual, but that does not exonerate this individual’s conduct; the message of the sign unequivocally contributes to the fostering of a hostile environment. 

For these reasons, we ask why the university has not taken more substantial action in the face of students clearly committing prohibited discriminatory conduct and, specifically, discriminatory harassment.

4. Request for Explanation

In short, we request that the university explain:

- Why the rights of the students participating in the encampment outweigh those of other members of the GW community; 

- What university-specific actions the administration plans to take in response to the students participating in the encampment whose activities fall outside the scope of the right to dissent and protest; and

- What message the university will send to the students who have clearly committed prohibited conduct (and specifically discriminatory misconduct) in order to set a precedent against those who commit such conduct in the future.

Sincerely,

[Your name and Affilitation]