Illustrative Scenarios
The following hypothetical scenarios are intended to highlight common themes and considerations regarding Discrimination or Discriminatory Harassment based on a protected characteristic, and to illustrate more generally how Columbia’s Anti-Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment Policies may apply across academic settings, online activity, Recognized Student Group activities, and peer conduct. Any evaluation under the Policies depends on the specific facts and circumstances of each case.
Under OIE Policies, reported conduct is evaluated using the following analytical frameworks for Discrimination and Discriminatory Harassment.
Discrimination focuses on unequal treatment or exclusion. OIE assesses:
- Whether an individual was treated less favorably, excluded, or denied access to a University benefit, program, or opportunity; and
- Whether that treatment was based on a protected characteristic (such as race, color, religion or creed, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, national origin, shared ancestry, disability, age, pregnancy status, veteran status, caste, or another characteristic protected by law).
Discriminatory Harassment focuses on whether conduct created a Hostile Environment. OIE assesses:
- Whether the conduct was unwelcome or resulted in treating individuals less favorably;
- Whether the conduct was based on a protected characteristic (such as race, color, religion, creed, sex, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, national origin, shared ancestry, disability, age, pregnancy status, veteran status, caste, or another protected characteristic); and
- Whether the conduct, viewed both objectively and subjectively, was sufficiently severe or pervasive to limit or deny a person’s ability to participate in or benefit from a University program or activity.
Before turning to hypothetical scenarios, it is important to emphasize that the adjudication of possible violations of these Policies will take into account that expression occurring in an academic, educational or research context is considered a special case and is broadly protected by academic freedom, and that such expression will not constitute harassment unless it: (a) satisfies all of the requisite elements, (b) targets a specific person or persons, and (c) serves no bona fide academic purpose.
Classroom Speech and Academic Settings
Scenario A1
In an international relations course, a professor is teaching students about the definition of war crimes under international law. During a lecture, the professor states that a particular government’s actions may constitute war crimes. The professor presents this statement as part of an academic analysis connected to the course material.
Analysis
This is protected academic expression. The commentary is directly related to the course’s subject matter and presented in a pedagogical context.
Scenario A2
In a course on international relations, a professor states her view that a particular government’s actions constitute war crimes. When a student with a personal or ancestral connection to that country expresses a different view, the professor becomes dismissive and antagonistic and subsequently stops calling on that student.
Analysis
The professor’s response to the student distinguishes this scenario from A1. Her dismissive and antagonistic response has a connection to national origin and shared ancestry, and it creates both a subjectively and objectively Hostile Environment. By isolating and discrediting a student based on perceived identity, the professor’s actions may constitute Discriminatory Harassment.
Scenario A3
In a course on race and identity, the instructor asks a Black student to “explain from personal experience how Black communities view policing.” No other students are asked to speak on behalf of their racial or cultural groups. When the student expresses discomfort, the instructor presses them to respond.
Analysis
The conduct is unwelcome and is based on race, a protected class under the Policies. Although there may be legitimate academic reasons to ask students to share perspectives informed by their life experiences, publicly singling out and pressing a student to represent an entire racial group may carry significant negative impact and meet the threshold for a Policy violation.
Scenario A4
A Teaching Assistant posts on a public social media account that it is “funny to deduct points from Zionists” and to lower grades for students who “go on Birthright trips.” The post circulates among students in her section, including Jewish and Israeli students.
Analysis
This conduct is unwelcome and linked to religion, national origin, and shared ancestry. It is objectively severe because it threatens academic penalties based on protected status. Even absent evidence of actual grade changes, the post could reasonably create a perception of bias that undermines equal participation and, therefore, may constitute Discriminatory Harassment.
Scenario A5
In a world history course, a professor requires students from certain backgrounds (e.g., Middle Eastern or Muslim students) to write from a “cultural insider perspective,” while allowing other members of the course to choose freely. When students object, the professor responds that their identities make them “naturally better sources.”
Analysis
The conduct is unwelcome and directly linked to religion and national origin. By imposing different academic requirements based on protected classes, the professor may be engaging in differential treatment under the Policies. Even if well-intentioned, the practice compels students both to disclose and otherwise be directly associated with their identity in a targeted or Discriminatory fashion that may reasonably deter full participation.
Scenario A6
A literature professor assigns texts exploring transgender and non-binary experiences. During class discussion, a student voices disagreement and argues that such experiences are “invalid.” The professor redirects discussion to literary analysis.
Analysis
The professor’s conduct is protected by academic freedom and consistent with the Policies. There is no unwelcome or exclusionary treatment on the part of the professor.
Scenario A7
A Teaching Assistant offers extra credit to students who attend a political rally related to a current social controversy. When students raise religious or personal objections, the TA declines to offer alternatives.
Analysis
The conduct is unwelcome and may implicate religion, creed, or political belief. Conditioning academic credit on ideological participation raises fairness concerns and may limit access for students whose religion, immigration status, or for other reasons based on a protected class prevent attendance.
Scenario A8
During an evolutionary biology lecture, a professor states that research shows persistent gender disparities in certain kinds of math and science performance and asks the class: “Is it possible that there are biological differences between men and women that explain these differences?”
Analysis
As the University Statutes indicate, the University does “not rule any subject or form of expression out of order on the ground that it is objectionable, offensive, immoral, or untrue.” While this expression may be offensive and has a nexus to sex, the professor’s question serves a bona fide academic purpose and is protected by academic freedom. Concerns regarding the instructional obligations of faculty members, including the quality of course material and evidence discussed in class, should be directed to the relevant school or department.
Scenario A9
A student using a wheelchair reports that the classroom’s front entrance is inaccessible, contrary to assurances that had been made by the school’s disability office. The professor replies, “You can just watch online—it’s easier,” and takes no further action.
Analysis
The conduct is unwelcome, linked to disability, and objectively Discriminatory. Excluding a student from in-person participation denies equal access to a University program.
Scenario A10
A Teaching Assistant is scheduled to lead discussion sections on Good Friday and Easter Sunday in an accelerated spring module. Two weeks before the course begins, the TA informs her supervising professor that she will be observing religious services and requests to reschedule or swap sections. The professor declines, stating that schedule changes cannot be made for “personal reasons,” and later reduces the TA’s evaluation score, citing “unreliability,” despite documented coverage by a qualified colleague.
Analysis
The conduct is unwelcome and may be based on religion. The TA made a timely request, proposed workable alternatives, and ensured coverage. The refusal to consider the TA’s request, coupled with adverse evaluation linked to religious observance, may constitute differential treatment and may also constitute Retaliation. The University’s Religious Accommodation Policy requires providing reasonable accommodation for religious observances when an employee submits an appropriate request on the Religious Accommodation Request Form.
Online Conduct
Scenario B1
A student posts publicly, “All people from [Country X] are dangerous,” tagging classmates from that country. Several students report feeling unsafe attending class.
Analysis
The post is unwelcome, explicitly tied to national origin and shared ancestry, and objectively severe once circulated within the campus community. Online conduct that targets identifiable students in a University context may fall within the scope of the Policies even if posted off-campus.
Scenario B2
A faculty member posts harsh criticism of a government’s human rights record on a personal account without referencing Columbia or its students.
Analysis
There is no targeting of individuals or connection to a protected class. Accordingly, there is no violation of OIE’s Policies. Although this example does not fall within OIE’s purview, faculty nevertheless remain responsible for avoiding language directed at students based on identity.
Scenario B3
An anonymous campus-affiliated account posts memes mocking a student’s stutter and uses the hashtag #awkwardaccess. The content spreads through class group chats.
Analysis
The conduct is unwelcome, linked to disability, and objectively hostile once circulated among peers. Anonymity does not shield misconduct from investigation; OIE may pursue the matter under the Policies.
Recognized Student Group Conduct
Scenario C1
A Recognized Student Group’s constitution limits membership to students who “affirm heterosexual marriage as a moral principle.” LGBTQ+ students are told they may not join, regardless of their views on the morality of heterosexual marriage.
Analysis
The conduct is unwelcome, directly linked to sexual orientation and gender identity, and may constitute Discriminatory exclusion. Because the group is Recognized, its activities fall within the Policies’ jurisdiction as University programs or activities.
Scenario C2
A student organization hosts a debate on immigration policy, at which a speaker suggests that the United States must “close its borders immediately to stop the invasion.”
Analysis
As the University Statutes indicate, the University does “not rule any subject or form of expression out of order on the ground that it is objectionable, offensive, immoral, or untrue.” The event is protected expression on matters of public concern and consistent with the Policies, even if audience members may find it hurtful or offensive.
Scenario C3
During an off-campus retreat, members of a Recognized Student Group wearing University apparel chant slurs about a religious and ethnic group. Videos are posted online and tag the group’s official account.
Analysis
The conduct is unwelcome, linked to religion and national origin, and objectively severe. Because it occurred in a University-affiliated context and used University identifiers, it falls within the Policies’ jurisdiction and may result in disciplinary action, including loss of recognition.
Peer Conduct
Scenario D1
In a lab course, a student tells another, “You sound uneducated because of your accent,” and refuses to partner with them.
Analysis
The comment is unwelcome, derogatory, and linked to national origin, shared ancestry, and ethnicity. Accents are commonly associated with ethnic and cultural identity, and stereotypes equating accented speech with inferior intelligence are objectively offensive. In an academic setting, such conduct may interfere with a student’s access to education.
Scenario D2
Two students argue intensely about a government’s foreign policy. One later makes a report to OIE, stating that the other’s views were “offensive and ignorant.”
Analysis
Even if uncomfortable, the exchange reflects disagreement over ideas rather than identity-based targeting. Absent protected-class-based conduct, this falls within protected expression and would not constitute a Policy violation.
Scenario D3
A group assigns presentation tasks requiring prolonged standing. A student with a disclosed mobility impairment, but no formal accommodation on file, asks to sit while presenting. Peers refuse, stating that “everyone should present the same way” and declining to consider alternative arrangements.
Analysis
The response is unwelcome, linked to disability, and denies equal participation. The obligation to avoid disability-based exclusion applies regardless of whether a formal accommodation is on file. Reasonable flexibility should be provided within academic parameters, and peers share responsibility for ensuring equitable participation.