Barnard’s Code of Conduct under review amid expulsions and ongoing campus protests

The College is reviewing the current conduct process following disciplinary actions that sparked campus-wide debate.

Photo by Omkalthom Naser/The Barnard Bulletin

By Nabiha Metla and Sydnie Loeb

May 31, 2025

On March 24, President Laura Rosenbury announced that the Student Code of Conduct Committee and the Faculty Governance and Procedures Committee will develop a proposal for the President’s Council and other stakeholders to review the student Code of Conduct. 

This announcement came after at least three Barnard students were expelled this semester. Two students were expelled on February 21 for allegedly disrupting a History of Modern Israel course at Columbia. The third student was expelled for their alleged involvement in the occupation of Hamilton Hall on March 30, 2024. These expulsions resulted in Columbia University Apartheid Divest (CUAD) conducting the Milbank Hall and Milstein Library sit-ins this semester. While both Barnard and Columbia have previously suspended multiple students involved in pro-Palestinian protests, these were the first expulsion proceedings at Barnard.

In fall 2023, Barnard quietly revised its Student Code of Conduct, granting the College greater discretion to amend the policy at any time, removing accommodations for students during their disciplinary hearings, and removing mention of a Student Conduct Board, leaving oversight solely to the Conduct Administrator.  

In fall 2024, Barnard established the Office for Student Intervention and Success, consisting of one employee, Ange Concepcion, who serves both as the Director and the Conduct Administrator. Her role as the Conduct Administrator includes reviewing misconduct reports, conducting inquiries, holding conduct meetings with the accused student, and determining if the accused student has violated the Code of Conduct or other policies. Misconduct determinations are made by the single Conduct Administrator using a preponderance of the evidence standard.

The current disciplinary process requires incidents to be reported by a community member after which interim measures, such as suspensions and No Contact Directories, are taken. The Conduct Administrator then assesses if a report has merit and then notifies the student of their charges prior to holding a conduct meeting with the student. After the meeting, the student can be sanctioned, which can range from a warning up to a complete expulsion from the College. 

The current process has faced criticism from both students and faculty. Barnard’s Student Government Association (SGA) has called for “transparency” and a restructuring of the student disciplinary process “to incorporate a structure of shared governance between elected students, faculty, and admin.” 

Faculty have also criticized the current model for not engaging faculty members in the process. According to Barnard’s chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), the College’s current disciplinary process denies students basic rights and due process protections. The AAUP also strongly criticized Barnard’s procedures as being even more restrictive than the criminal legal system. Unlike peer institutions, Barnard does not have a student disciplinary board that includes faculty participation. 

Professor Robert McCaughey highlighted the sharp contrast in Barnard’s response to student activism today compared to 1968, when the Barnard administration distanced itself from Columbia’s harsh response. Despite the arrest of 115 Barnard students in 1968, there were no suspensions or expulsions issued. Furthermore, the Barnard trustees generally supported this leniency, and some offered financial assistance to help students pay fines or post bail.

Despite criticism from faculty and students, President Rosenbury defended the current model in her March 24 email, stating, “I want to reiterate that our current ‘single administrator’ model is indeed fair.” Rosenbury added that the conduct administrator engages with multiple stakeholders during the fact-finding process, works closely with the Office of General Counsel throughout, and that Dean Leslie Grinage hears appeals. 

Rosenbury also defended the proceedings in her March 4 op-ed in The Chronicle of Higher Education, stating that “expulsion is always an extraordinary measure, but we did what needed to be done, and we will continue to do so. That means removing from our community those who refuse to share our values of respect, inclusion, and academic excellence. That means a fair disciplinary process, with an appeals process that does not include taking a building hostage.”

Despite upholding the current conduct process, President Rosenbury acknowledged the demands for reform, noting that she is eager to implement the recommended changes and “especially support[s] the creation of a new multi-person board or panel to determine, in certain instances, whether a student is responsible for violating the Code of Conduct.” 

As conduct hearings have continued over the course of the spring semester, the Student Conduct Committee, chaired by Vice Dean for Campus Life Nikki Youngblood Giles, has developed a draft for an updated Student Code of Conduct and Conduct Process. Among the major proposed changes to the conduct process is the creation of a College Conduct Board consisting of eight students, six faculty members, and two staff members appointed by the President. Additionally, for alleged violations that may result in suspension or expulsion, the student will have the choice to go through an Administrative Hearing or College Conduct Board process. However, during or leading up to academic breaks, the Director of Student Success and Intervention or the Dean’s designee may send the case directly to an Administrative Hearing. 

The proposal also aims to expand student rights, including, but not limited to, the ability to review evidence, have witnesses, challenge the participation of any College Conduct Board member, and challenge the outcome. It also formalizes the procedures, including the timeline in which the student receives written notice of alleged violations, case materials, and the decision of the case. 

While the Code of Conduct reform process is underway, the College has launched efforts to collect feedback from faculty, students, and staff. Dean Grinage recently announced the Barnard Ethics Reporting Hotline as part of an effort to increase accountability. This resource allows students to confidentially report potential violations of College policies, ethical concerns, or other misconduct. Both faculty and student committee members were also tabling in the Diana Center lobby the week of April 23 and circulated an annotated proposal to students, asking for feedback via Google Form. 

SGA announced to students on April 18 that the Faculty Governance and Procedures Committee would host an open forum for faculty, students, and staff on April 21 to discuss proposed revisions to the Code of Conduct. On April 26, SGA announced two student-only forums on April 29 and May 1 to collect feedback that would help shape the final proposal that the faculty would vote on May 5. If approved by the faculty, the proposal would be submitted to President Rosenbury for final consideration.

As Barnard continues to navigate calls for reform, the coming months — during which the Committee will collect additional feedback from community members and submit its final proposal to President Rosenbury — will greatly determine how student activism and the conduct process will shape Barnard senior administration’s relationship with students and faculty.