by Andrew Alonzo | aalonzo@claremont-courier.com

Pomona College has responded to a letter from free speech and legal advocacy groups asking the school to withdraw the suspensions of 10 students it alleges participated in an October 7 demonstration at Carnegie Hall.

On November 13, the Asian Law Caucus, Palestine Legal, the Center for Protest Law and Litigation, National Lawyers Guild of Los Angeles, and the ACLU Southern California sent a letter to Pomona College requesting it reinstate the suspended students, alleging the suspensions violate their rights, and putting the school on notice that a lawsuit may be filed to challenge the decision.

The signatories alleged “disciplinary suspension of these students violates their right to freedom of expression and assembly under the Leonard Law,” a 1992 California statute that bars public and private universities and high schools from disciplining students for speech protected by the First Amendment. “Since your notices present no evidence of incitement or intention to incite, your suspension notices violate the First Amendment and the Leonard Law.”

Pomona’s November 25 response, authored by alumnus and attorney Derek Ishikawa, a partner at Hirschfeld Kraemer LLP, challenged the signatories’ characterization of events surrounding the suspensions. Key points read in part: “To Date, No Students Have Been Charged or Disciplined for Alleged Vandalism, Assault, or Intimidation,” “California’s Leonard Law is Not Implicated by the College’s Response to the Conduct Preventing and/or Materially Disrupting Academic Operations including Classes in Session,” “The College Conducted a Multi-Stage Process That Complied with Fair Procedure Principles in Investigating and Discipling Its Students for Their Disruption of the College’s Academic Operations,” “The Initial Suspension Action Followed the College’s Student Code,” and, “Suspended Students Were Provided with Notice of the Allegations and Related Evidence and Provided with a Further Opportunity to Respond.”

The college’s response further challenged the signatories’ interpretation:

“The College’s response to the October 7, 2024, takeover of Carnegie Hall … does not implicate protected free expression/association,” it read. “The focus of the subject discipline relates to the targeted disruption of the College’s ability to properly conduct scheduled classes in a well-established academic setting,” adding, “the only conduct charges to date involve disruption to the College’s academic operation, a violation of the College’s Student Code.”

The legal groups argue Pomona College failed to provide, “any evidence showing that any of the students you suspended committed any act of violence or bodily harm, destruction of property, or intimidation. Instead, you have punished students based on a theory of guilt-by-association. This is unconstitutional.”

The college responded that it utilized authenticated network/Wi-Fi data to place students at Carnegie during the demonstration time, as well as “a variety of individualized, student-specific data.”

Regarding the signatories’ assertion that Pomona did not offer a fair procedure when conducting its investigation, the college said it included “appropriate notice of the College’s allegations and multiple opportunities to respond …”

According to Pomona’s response, after the students were given interim suspensions, they had two opportunities to appeal, first to its preliminary sanctions review board, made up of two students and two staff members who reviewed each case. After that, they were given an opportunity to meet with Pomona President Gabrielle Starr, Dean of the College Yuqing Melanie Wu, and Dean of Students Avis Hinkson.

“All but one student accepted the meeting,” Pomona wrote in its response. Decisions were made based on the students’ responses and evidence, and sanctions varied, the school wrote.

Pomona wrote in its response that the discipline followed its student code and complied with hearing requirements outlined in the 2023 California Supreme Court decision, Matther Boermeester v. Ainsley Carry. Associate Justice Joshua Groban, writing on behalf of the court in that decision, wrote in part: “We hold that, though private universities are required to comply with the common law doctrine of fair procedure by providing accused students with notice of the charges and meaningful opportunity to be heard, they are not required to provide accused students the opportunity to directly or indirectly cross-examine the accuser and other witnesses at a live hearing with the accused student in attendance, either in person or virtually.”

Pomona College’s full response is at pomona.edu/administration, click “Office of the President,” then “statements/messages.”

On November 30, some of the suspended students issued a statement to Claremont Undercurrents, a student-run news outlet, saying they were “deeply disappointed with Pomona College administrators’ response to the legal letter calling for an end to our baseless, unilateral suspensions.” The school “made its intentions to bypass our free speech rights and due process rights unequivocally clear. Counter to our rights and the legacy this college regularly celebrates, the current administration has decided that … the College’s new normal is to unilaterally issue suspensions to anyone who participates in a protest that creates any form of disruption. Moreover, Pomona College chose to send their response to the entire student body, solidifying a climate of fear not just within the Pomona student body, but the broader [Claremont Colleges] community. This response indicates the administration’s decision to neglect their responsibility to identify a path forward that upholds all students’ rights and stays true to the College’s historic values.”

The full statement is viewable on Instagram, search “Claremont Undercurrents” or “POSuspendedStudents.”

Kanwalroop Singh, a staff attorney at the Asian Law Caucus, issued the following statement after the student response. “We share Pomona students’ deep disappointment with the College’s response and are concerned that the administration’s recent letter sets a troubling precedent for any exercise of protest and free speech at the university. We hope that Pomona College takes steps to find a path forward that upholds all students’ rights and affirms their values of fairness and transparency. With the impacted students, we continue to assess our options to correct these wrongs, for the people directly affected today and for future generations of Pomona students.”