The founders of “Epstein Off Columbia” were put on disciplinary probation for protesting Francine LeFrak’s ties to Jeffrey Epstein. Barnard reversed the decision after the students appealed.

The Barnard Bulletin spoke with the two Barnard students, the founders of Epstein Off Campus, who were initially placed on disciplinary probation for protesting in the Francine A. LeFrak Foundation Center for Well-Being.

Photo by Karissa Song/The Barnard Bulletin

By Reema Bolnedi, Vernon Demir, and Kimberly Wing

July 5, 2026

On May 4, Marisol Bonifaz (BC ’29) and Addie Turek (BC ’29) stood by the entrance of the Francine A. LeFrak Center for Well-Being’s financial literacy suite, holding a banner and sign with the demands of “EPSTEIN OFF CAMPUS” and “JUSTICE FOR SURVIVORS.” Bonifaz and Turek, two founding members of Columbia University’s Epstein Off Campus chapter, demanded that LeFrak resign from Barnard’s Board of Trustees and for her name to be removed from campus buildings.

“She has longstanding affiliations with Epstein,” Bonifaz told The Barnard Bulletin. “We are demanding better from our college in that regard.”

Within 30 minutes, CARES officers arrived. Bonifaz recalled feeling “surrounded, helpless, and outnumbered.”

“We were holding the banner as two first-year students, not intimidating at all, simply chanting,” Bonifaz said, adding that she and Turek “were surrounded by about 10, 15 officers.”

When asked to disperse, Bonifaz and Turek agreed, under the condition that they could meet with Barnard’s administrators. CARES agreed to this request. Epstein Off Columbia stated that Bonifaz and Turek left “within an hour of starting the protest.”

The students met with A-J Aronstein, Vice President of Community Engagement and Lifelong Success, and Kelli Murray, Executive Vice President for Strategy and Chief Administrative Officer. The students told The Bulletin that Aronstein and Murray agreed, in writing, to hold a public forum with students in the fall that would formally address Barnard affiliates’ ties to Epstein.

“We held really respectful dialogue that I think was really, honestly good,” Turek said. “Both of us left that conversation feeling like, ‘OK, our college was listening to us, this is resolved.’”

Weeks later, Bonifaz and Turek received a notice that they were required to attend a conduct hearing after the College determined that their demonstration violated Barnard’s Code of Conduct and Policy for Safe Campus Demonstrations.

During the conduct hearing, Bonifaz and Turek explained why they believed they were not in violation of the Code of Conduct. However, on June 1, both were informed that they had been put on disciplinary probation for the upcoming fall semester. 

A student on disciplinary probation at Barnard is “not considered to be in ‘good standing’” which may make them “ineligible for certain roles or programs at the College.” For violating College policies, Bonifaz and Turek were also required to write a three-page “reflective paper” about the demonstration policy.

Community backlash against Barnard affiliates named in the Epstein files

Francine LeFrak is a Barnard trustee and the founder of The Francine A. LeFrak Foundation, which financed Barnard’s Center for Well-Being. Email exchanges from the Epstein files suggested that, through Epstein’s correspondences with an intermediary individual, LeFrak invited Epstein to an event in Africa “as her guest,” and in 2010, said that she “would love to stop by” an undisclosed location of Epstein’s. In another exchange, an unidentified individual claimed that they saw Ghislaine Maxwell, who co-conspired with Epstein’s trafficking crimes, at LeFrak’s residence.

An independent legal investigation by the College concluded that no Barnard affiliate mentioned in the Epstein files “engaged in wrongdoing or activities at odds with Barnard’s mission and values,” including LeFrak, who publicly stated that she “didn’t know this man whatsoever.”

“I find what he did despicable, reprehensible, and against every principle I have ever fought for,” she said in a statement to WIRED.

During a press conference with Barnard and Columbia student news publications, President Rosenbury announced that Barnard will “be taking no action” against affiliates named in the Epstein files.

In the wake of a national controversy regarding Epstein’s connections to prominent figures in higher education, Bonifaz and Turek, along with other founding members, started Epstein Off Campus. The group demands justice for survivors of Jeffrey Epstein’s trafficking ring by calling on colleges and universities to remove the names and positions of those who were closely associated with Epstein. Epstein Off Campus currently has chapters at Columbia University and Harvard University.

In March, Epstein Off Columbia organized a protest outside of the Barnard gates, but were not confronted by Public Safety or administrators during or after the demonstration. However, Turek stated that “around 20” NYPD officers arrived at the gates.

“Barnard’s use of policing is still a deterrent,” she said.

Appealing — and arguing against — the decision

According to Bonifaz and Turek, the College believed that the protest violated the Code of Conduct’s “Disruptive Behavior,” “Failure to Comply” with Public Safety officers, and the “Time, Place, and Manner Rules” jurisdictions. At Barnard, students must submit an “Intent to Demonstrate” at least 36 hours in advance of a requested date and time, which must be approved by administrators. Only Barnard students “in good standing … are eligible to register an Intent to Demonstrate.”

Turek believed that she and Bonifaz were “being arbitrarily and excessively harshly punished,” and both decided to file an appeal.

Referring to Barnard’s Rules for Maintenance of Public Order, Bonifaz said that she and Turek had not violated the College’s policies. “We have, under Section 2 of the Barnard rules on the maintenance of public order, [the] right to protest.”

“There was decent evidence that we had not actually violated the things that Barnard was saying we had violated,” Turek added.

Bonifaz contacted Murray, who “believed” both students “would not be disciplined” given their engagement “in respectful dialogue.” Turek mentioned this conversation with Murray in their appeal.

Administrators stated that Bonifaz and Turek’s protest was “inconsiderate” to students who were studying nearby. Both challenged the “precedent in term[s] of the eliciting of sound,” considering that Barnard’s Fitness Center and dance studios were located near the financial literacy suite. 

“The report … falsely stated that five minutes after we started protesting that we were asked to disperse,” Bonifaz said, “We were not asked to disperse until 30 minutes in. We were simply … told that we were being inconsiderate of the students around us, which neither Addie or I understood as a direction to disperse.”

Bonifaz also recalled that there were “about five students” in Barnard Hall during the protest, which she stated “is not seen as a place you study [in].” She added that the nearby students had the opportunity to freely leave, but did not do so, nor did they report the protest to CARES.

“There was not that level of [inconsideration] and disruption that they are claiming that there was,” Bonifaz said.

Turek added, “Inferring that our actions were disruptive because we were making noise, points us to believe that Barnard administration was disrupted by our behavior and CARES was disrupted by our behavior, not the students.”

Administrators are “scared of the narrative” of disciplining students protesting Epstein

Bonifaz stated that she and Turek “randomly” received a “cold [phone] call” from an administrator, who called to offer them support with the appeal process. Bonifaz stated that the administrator “tried to assure” her and Turek that administrators “were scared.”

“They’re scared of the narrative that this gives of historically all women’s colleges punishing two students for [protesting] Epstein [as a trafficker and his affiliates],” Bonifaz said.

“For me, [that call] did not feel like just an offer of support,” Bonifaz continued, “It more felt like [the administrator was saying] ‘one, you’re filing your appeal, right? So you don’t stay on probation because that looks bad for us. And two, please stop talking about this.’”

A week after the initial call and the day before the students submitted their appeal, the administrator called Bonifaz and Turek again, informing them that the College would alternatively offer them to write a 100-word paper on Barnard’s demonstration policy, and a 1-hour in-person policy discussion with administrators in the fall. 

On June 12, all charges against Bonifaz and Turek were dropped. Instead, both students were required to sign a contract that stated they “would abide by Barnard College policies,” with a warning for their internal record. The students were also required to attend a policy training in the fall.

A Barnard spokesperson informed The Bulletin that, rather than engaging in negotiations with Bonifaz and Turek, a mutual agreement was reached by following Barnard’s Student Conduct Pilot, which states that a “Conduct Administrator will ask the [disciplined] student … to accept responsibility and agree to outcomes to resolve the matter.”

The spokesperson also stated that the demonstration violated Barnard’s time, place, and manner restrictions, and there were no issues to negotiate on.

Fear of disciplinary action deters students from protesting

Epstein Off Campus’s protest in the LeFrak Center was the “first protest targeted at Barnard” that occurred on campus since the Milstein Center and Milbank Hall sit-ins last spring. Turek believes that Barnard’s response to last year’s sit-in at the Milstein Center, which ended in the New York Police Department entering campus to arrest demonstrators, “has largely deterred student protest.”

Throughout their disciplinary process, Bonifaz and Turek received support and advice from other organizers, law students, legal professors, and feminist organizing spaces. However, Bonifaz noted that “there is a lot of fear, especially within Barnard students, to show up at Barnard protests.”

“I would almost argue that Barnard’s demonstration policy, and the way that Barnard has reacted to student protest is much harsher … than Columbia,” she stated.

Columbia’s Board of Trustees has disciplined students for engaging in various forms of student expression, including op-eds, social media posts, cultural events, and protests. In 2024, the University established the Office of Institutional Equity (OIE) to “address all reports of discrimination and discriminatory harassment.” In April, a student who handed out flyers criticizing members of Columbia’s Board of Trustees. The student was publicly condemned by the University and investigated by its Office of Institutional Equity. The investigation was eventually dropped following public discourse.

Both students vow to continue fighting

Reflecting on the disciplinary process, Turek recalled that it was “extremely difficult, emotionally and mentally,” to get through.

“It was no easy process, and Barnard does that specifically to deter us from ever wanting to protest again,” she said. “It was really important for both of us to rest on our morals and rest on the fact that we do care very strongly about the cause we’re fighting for.”

Bonifaz and Turek hope to continue in organizing at Barnard. Both students, who engaged in feminist activism in high school, pointed to Barnard and Columbia’s culture of activism as a reason why they chose to attend the College. Both also cited support from fellow students and faculty as motivation to keep going.

While navigating the disciplinary process, Bonifaz and Turek received support from other organizers, law students, and legal professors.

“I am so extremely disappointed in the administration, but also this gave me the incentive to do better because I love the people at this college. I love the students, the faculty, those who are supporting [us]. I love Addie and her work with me,” Bonifaz stated. “That is the reason why we have to keep fighting.”