Student Scenarios
The following scenarios are meant to help illustrate some applications of this Policy:
***
An undergraduate student files a Report with the Office alleging that she was subjected to a Hostile Environment because she is Jewish. In support of her Report, she alleges that the dry-erase board on her dorm room door was defaced with swastikas. Additionally, she alleges that epithets referencing poor hygiene and racial impurity of Jewish people and white supremacist slogans stating conspiracy theories about Jewish people were scrawled on the door and posted by fellow students as comments to her social media feed. The student informs her academic advisor of these incidents and tells her advisor she no longer feels comfortable going to her dorm. The advisor has a meeting with the student to discuss her concerns but fails to take any further action.1
Students or Active Alums who engaged in the alleged harassing actions violated the Policy. The alleged harassment appears to be based on the student’s membership in one or more Protected Classes (e.g., her Jewish religion, as well as the shared ancestry and actual or perceived shared ethnic characteristics of Jewish people). The use of swastikas and the graffiti/taunts related to hygiene, impurity, and racial hierarchy suggest that the alleged harassing conduct depicts Jewish people as a separate, and inferior, race who share certain characteristics. If the Office’s investigation confirms these allegations, the Office could find that those who participated in these harassing actions engaged in Discriminatory Harassment. The alleged conduct unreasonably interfered with the student’s ability to participate in or benefit from the services, activities, or opportunities offered by the University, including access to her dorm, i.e., created a Hostile Environment. In addition, the Office could find that the academic advisor failed to fulfill her Duty to Report the conduct that the student brought to her attention.
***
Student A is a Sikh student who wears a turban. One day, as he was crossing campus to get to class, another student ran up behind him, grabbed his turban off his head, whispered an anti-Sikh slur in Student A’s ear, and ran away. Student A reported the incident to Columbia Public Safety, which was able to identify the student who took the turban off Student A’s head as Student B. Student B is also Sikh. Student A had never met Student B.
Student B violated the Policy. He subjected Student A to unwelcome verbal and physical conduct based on Student A’s membership in a Protected Class, thereby engaging in Discriminatory Harassment. The fact that Students A and B are members of the same Protected Class does not negate that Student B’s conduct violated the Policy.
***
Student H has a visible disability. Some of Student H’s classmates asked him about what it was like to live with his disability. Student H told his classmates that he was at Columbia to learn and was not comfortable answering their questions. A few of Student H’s classmates—Students I, J, and K—refused to let the subject go. They kept coming up to Student H before and after class with questions about whether he could succeed at school and whether his disability resulted from something wrong his parents had done. Student H kept explaining that he was not interested in talking about the subject. After a few weeks went by and his classmates did not change their behavior, Student H asked to switch to another section of the same course.
Students I, J, and K likely violated the Policy when they refused to stop asking Student H questions about his family and when they employed the stereotypes that persons with disabilities cannot succeed and that the parents of people with disabilities are to blame for their disabilities. Student H made it clear that their conduct was unwelcome. The conduct of Students I, J, and K was based on Student H’s membership in a Protected Class (i.e., disability), and their refusal to respect Student H’s wishes may have created or contributed to a Hostile Environment for Student H, as evidenced by his request to change course sections.
***
A group of Arab students receives University approval to form a new Student Group to empower and support Arab students. The Student Group hosts monthly meetings in an outdoor space and is open to all students.
As Student Group members begin gathering for one of the meetings, dozens of other students surround the Student Group members and refer to them as “terrorists” and “jihad supporters.” The students participating in the meeting become fearful when they realize that they are unable to leave because their fellow students encircle and shove them. Some Arab students who are members of the Student Group recognize their classmates in the crowd of harassers and skip class the next day because they fear encountering the harassing students in class. The Arab students file a Report with the Office.
Members of the Student Group complain to University administrators about the harassing conduct they experience during their meeting. The administrators express sympathy and note that “college is difficult, and things are tense.” The administrators take no further actions. The Student Group members cancel all future meetings because they do not believe that they can safely hold them on campus.2
The students who surrounded the Student Group members violated the Policy. The alleged harassment—calling the students who attended the meeting terrorists, blocking their ability to leave the area, and shoving them—appear to be based on Protected Classes (i.e., the students’ actual or perceived race, color, or national origin, including their Arab shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics). If confirmed by the Office’s investigation, the Office could find that calling the students terrorists and supporters of jihad constituted Discriminatory Harassment in violation of the Policy because the conduct created or contributed to a Hostile Environment based on the Student Group members’ shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics. The alleged threatening behavior of the harassers, including shoving some students and physically restricting students from leaving the event, caused the students to fear for their safety and limited or denied some members of the Student Group the ability to participate in or benefit from the University’s education activities because some Student Group members did not attend class the next day due to fear of encountering fellow students who had harassed them, and the Student Group cancelled all its future meetings. In addition, the Office could find that the University administrators failed to fulfill their Duty to Report the conduct that was brought to their attention.
***
A Jewish student wearing a kippah is walking to class. At the door of the classroom, he encounters a group of students who, immediately upon seeing him, surround him at close quarters and state: “No Zionists are welcome here. You support genocide.” The group refuses to move, and the student is prevented from attending class. The same thing happens the next time the student tries to attend class; this time, the other students say: “Colonizers aren’t welcome here,” and “go back to Europe.” After these incidents continue to repeat, the student meets with his Dean of Students to express that these incidents of harassment made him feel unsafe, unwelcome, and concerned about continuing his education at the University. No action is taken by the Dean, and the harassing conduct continues. The student subsequently makes a Report to the Office.3
The students who harassed the Jewish student violated the Policy. Even though the students used the word “Zionists” and other phrases, the alleged incidents of harassing conduct appear to be based on the Jewish student’s perceived membership in one or more Protected Classes (e.g., religion and national origin, including shared ancestry or ethnic characteristics). The other students’ alleged conduct repeatedly prevented the Jewish student from attending class, which limited his ability to participate in or benefit from an element of the University’s educational program. Blocking students from attending class and accusing them of supporting genocide solely on the basis that the students are perceived to be Jewish are discriminatory actions grounded in the perceived religion, national origin, and shared ancestry of these students. Therefore, the Office could find that the other students engaged in Discriminatory Harassment. In addition, the Office could find that the Dean of Students failed to fulfill his Duty to Report the conduct that the student brought to his attention.
***
Student O, a Latino male, and Student P, a White male, were enrolled in the same sociology class. Student P often didn’t do the assigned readings and kept asking Student O to send him his notes. One day, Student O told Student M that he wouldn’t provide Student P with any more of his notes, explaining that Student P needed to do his own work. Student P responded by texting Student O the phrase “goody two-shoes” every half-hour for two days straight. Student O never responded. Then, starting on the third day, Student P started texting Student O an anti-Latino slur every half-hour. Student O still didn’t respond and blocked Student P’s number.
Student P violated the Policy. Text messages, phone calls, emails, and other forms of electronic communication fall within the scope of the Policy. Repeatedly texting Student O the phrase “goody two-shoes” does not constitute Discriminatory Harassment (because the phrase is not related to Student O’s actual or perceived membership in or association with a Protected Class), although texting Student O repeatedly over the course of two days could violate other University policies. However, when Student P began repeatedly texting the racial slur, he engaged in Discriminatory Harassment and may have contributed to a Hostile Environment for Student O because verbal abuse and using epithets or slurs are forms of harassment, Student P’s conduct was frequent and occurred over a long period of time, and the particular slur that Student P used was based on Student O’s membership in a Protected Class.
***
An undergraduate student files a Report with the Office alleging that he was subjected to a Hostile Environment because he is Chinese. The student alleged that a professor stated during office hours that “Chinese people don’t deserve to be in this country.” The professor and other students make similar comments in subsequent classes. The student’s Report stated that several Chinese students in the professor’s class, including the Complainant, reported the professor’s and classmates’ comments to administrators and noted that they felt threatened. The student alleged that the administrators declined to speak to any students who indicated they felt threatened by their professor’s or classmates’ conduct. Chinese students in the class stopped attending.4
The professor and the other students who made comments about Chinese students violated the Policy. The alleged harassment appears to be based on the Complainant’s Chinese national origin. If the Office confirms that the alleged harassing conduct occurred, then the Office could find that the professor and the other students engaged in Discriminatory Harassment because they subjected the Complainant and other Chinese students to unwelcome conduct that created a Hostile Environment and limited the Chinese students’ ability to participate in class. In addition, the Office could find that the administrators failed to fulfill their Duty to Report the conduct that was brought to their attention.
***
Students L, T and N, all members of the same Student Group, were asked to collaborate on a group project. Student L is Black; Students Tand N are White. When the three students met to work on the project, every time Student L made a statement that Student T disagreed with, Student T made the “OK” hand gesture that is associated with white supremacist movements. Student N sat silently the whole time. Student L refused to continue working with Students Tand N and complained about Student T’s behavior to the Office. When Student T was notified of Student L’s Report, she asked Student N to tell Student L that unless he dropped his Report, Student T would not support Student L’s candidacy to be president of the Student Group. Student N relayed Student T’s message to Student L and told Student L to let the matter go.
Student T violated the Policy by engaging in Discriminatory Harassment, and in addition, Students Tand N both violated the Policy by engaging in Retaliation. First, Student T’s use of a hand movement associated with white supremacist movements constituted a threatening, intimidating, or hostile act and an insulting or obscene gesture, both of which are forms of Discriminatory Harassment based on Student L’s race that could create a Hostile Environment.
Second, Student T threatened to take adverse action against Student L because he complained about Student T’s conduct. By relaying Student T’s message and telling Student L that he should give in to Student T’s threat, Student N also took adverse action against Student L. Threatening Student L in this manner is conduct that would discourage a reasonable person from participating in the disciplinary process as a Complainant and therefore constitutes Retaliation. The Policy prohibits Student N from engaging in Retaliation even though she was not a Respondent in Student L’s original Report.
[1] This scenario is adapted from the May 7, 2024 Dear Colleague Letter issued by the Office for Civil Rights (“OCR”), U.S. Department of Education (“OCR”). See https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-educations-office-for-civil-rights-reminds-schools-of-their-legal-obligation-to-address-discrimination-based-on-shared-ancestry-and-ethnic-characteristics at 6–7.
[2] This scenario is adapted from OCR’s May 7, 2024 Dear Colleague Letter. See https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-educations-office-for-civil-rights-reminds-schools-of-their-legal-obligation-to-address-discrimination-based-on-shared-ancestry-and-ethnic-characteristics at 13–14.
[3] This scenario is adapted from a portion of OCR’s May 7, 2024 Dear Colleague Letter. See https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-educations-office-for-civil-rights-reminds-schools-of-their-legal-obligation-to-address-discrimination-based-on-shared-ancestry-and-ethnic-characteristics at 9–10.
[4] This scenario is adapted from OCR’s May 7, 2024 Dear Colleague Letter. See https://www.ed.gov/about/news/press-release/us-department-of-educations-office-for-civil-rights-reminds-schools-of-their-legal-obligation-to-address-discrimination-based-on-shared-ancestry-and-ethnic-characteristics at 12–13.