Vice President of Student Affairs DT Graves and Dean of Students Jimmy Doan spoke about Pomona's disciplinary actions on Monday night.
(Credit: Henry Cabala)
The Associated Students of Claremont McKenna College (ASCMC) Senate held a forum this Monday entitled “Pomona’s Disciplinary Actions and CMC.” This session follows the suspension and campus ban of dozens of 5C students who participated in a pro-Palestinian demonstration on Monday, Oct. 7 inside of Carnegie Hall on Pomona College’s campus.
The forum began at 8:15 p.m. in CMC’s Freeburg Forum with an audience of approximately 30 students, senators, and members of the ASCMC Executive Board. CMC Vice President for Student Affairs Diana “DT” Graves CM ’98 and Dean of Students Jimmy Doan began by briefing the audience on their knowledge of Pomona’s disciplinary actions and the status of student bans at CMC.
Graves stated that Pomona issued bans to approximately 50 students across the 5C campuses, including interim suspensions for 12 Pomona students, giving all of them an opportunity to appeal. While many students appealed their bans, she said, not many of those appeals were honored.
“[CMC] had two students that were identified,” Graves said. “One appealed and was upheld, and the other thus far is still subject to the situation at Pomona.”
Graves touched on Pomona’s Carnegie Hall Incidents FAQs, which revealed that the college had collected Wi-Fi data from inside the building to identify student protestors. Based on this data, Pomona College sent ban letters to any student they believed to be in the building during the demonstration.
“If people logged in using their credentials to the Wi-Fi network in Carnegie Hall, or in the proximity of Carnegie Hall, [Pomona’s system] picked them up as pings,” Graves said. “So that’s how they were getting this information: they had interval pings based on people’s Wi-Fi login information.”
Graves said she and the rest of the Dean of Students Office have been working very closely with the banned CMC student to help them navigate next steps. “We feel like there have been some pretty significant oversteps in terms of the policy Pomona is leaning on in order to take these disciplinary actions,” Graves said.
The policy Graves referred to is the Claremont Colleges Policy on Demonstrations, which she pointed out was designed to protect the physical geography of each campus. Under this policy, suspension is listed as a possible punitive measure, and students may be banned from specific campuses until the conduct process plays out on their home campuses. In rare cases, if students disrupt academic life, they may be turned away from classes on specific campuses.
“The default in the policy is that students should be able to continue to take their classes unless there is an ongoing threat,” Graves said. “What Pomona has determined is that the situation at Carnegie Hall poses enough of a threat that they have banned students, including from classes.”
At 8:23 p.m., Graves and Doan opened the floor to Q-and-A. CMC First Year Class President Selah Han CM ’28 inquired as to whether Pomona’s tracking of students’ Wi-Fi data could be a slippery slope with regards to privacy.
Graves responded that Pomona was already on notice of an event to be held in Carnegie Hall that day which called for disruption and masked identities, setting the stage that “something would go down” and thus necessitating monitoring. She also cautioned students from assuming protections of anonymity when in academic buildings.
“I don’t feel that I have a reasonable expectation for privacy when I am entering a building that has an academic purpose, and I am clearly there for not that purpose,” Graves said. Additionally, she noted that all Claremont Colleges “have made it extremely clear that when asked for identification you need to provide it.”
Dormitory Affairs Chair Aleeza Saeed CM ’26 asked whether the other 4Cs are questioning Pomona for the process by which they are handling the bannings and conduct policy.
Graves expressed discomfort that Pomona took additional punitive actions against non-Pomona 5C students before a conduct process could occur on their home campuses. For instance, Pomona forcibly removed suspected students from Pomona courses, even if their professors permitted them to attend remotely or moved their classes off Pomona’s campus to accommodate their campus bans.
“That conduct process is not, in my opinion, Pomona’s jurisdiction to do to CMC students, or any other campus’ students,” Graves said. “We have a process. If they want a ban to protect their geography, fine. But when it starts to get into academic continuity, I’m really uncomfortable with that.”
Doan reaffirmed Graves’ point, emphasizing that each campus should be able to pursue their individual conduct processes in full for their students. “We are not questioning the charges,” Doan said. “We are questioning the process and the outcomes as a result of that process.”
Graves concluded the meeting with an update on the student committee created to revise the 7C Demonstration Policy and CMC’s Freedom of Expression Policy, explaining they had their first meeting in November, and will probably have their first updates after winter break.
Comentários