On Oct. 11, Dean of Students and Associate Vice President for Student Affairs Rick Culliton issued disciplinary charge letters to eight University students in connection with a Sept. 21 divestment rally, where students advocated for the University to adopt the Committee for Investor Responsibility’s (CIR) divestment proposal. The charges include disturbance of the peace, disruption, harassment, and property abuse. The students were identified and implicated based on information documented in a Public Safety (PSafe) incident report, which was then forwarded to the Office of Student Affairs. 

“On behalf of the Dean of Students, I am writing to inform you that we recently received information alleging that you may have played a role in planning and participating in the September 21 protest that led to disruptive and harassing behavior,” the students’ charge letters read. 

The rally coincided with the board of trustees’ impending vote on the CIR’s divestment proposal, calling for the University’s financial instruments to divest from over 300 companies supporting the internationally-sanctioned occupation of Gaza and the West Bank. The board’s vote would indicate whether the CIR’s outlined divestment goals would undergo further analysis or be rejected. The demonstration was also held a day after five students were detained by the Middletown Police Department after occupying North College, who cited similar goals of protesting for divestment at the Wesleyan Investments Office, located on the building’s fourth floor. 

Though the vote was initially set to take place on Sunday, Sept. 22, a campus-wide email with the results of the vote was issued on Saturday, Sept. 21, and signed by the Chair of the board of trustees Phoebe Boyer ’89 P ’19 ’23, Chair of the Investment Committee Andrew E. Vogel ’95, and President Michael Roth ’78. The email stated that the Investment Committee had rejected the CIR’s divestment proposal, and the board of trustees approved the work of the Investment Committee. 

“Today, Wesleyan’s Investment Committee informed the Board of Trustees that it had considered and rejected a proposal from the Committee for Investor Responsibility for divestment of the University’s endowment from companies that supply services, equipment, or weapons to Israel,” the email read. 

Charge letters were distributed weeks later, relying on the PSafe incident reports. Standard protocol for incident reports incorporates accounts from University staff members, such as PSafe officers or ResLife members, along with accounts from students when a violation of the Code of Non-Academic Conduct is suspected. The University’s Community Standards Board (CSB) then reviews this information. 

Students have appeared before the CSB for violating Wesleyan’s disruption policy in the past. Culliton sees that the CSB balances students’ rights to protest with the rights of others during such incidents, and attests that the board’s main aim is to ensure that the University can continue operating without disruption.

“The Community Standards Board…determines if there is a preponderance of evidence (more likely than not) that a violation of the code of conduct occurred,” Culliton wrote in an email to The Argus. “Wesleyan has a long history of student involvement in serving on the hearing boards for student conduct cases, and we believe that has served Wesleyan and our students well.”

Issues with the charges have since been raised, particularly concerning the individuals identified as involved in the protests and the actions that were flagged. One student charged for the events at the divestment rally was misidentified by General Counsel and Secretary of the University David Winakor, and incorrectly named in the PSafe incident report. The student, Vy Pham ’26, was present for the Friday, Sept. 20 North College sit-in, but not for the divestment rally.

“The interesting thing was that I was not present at the rally,” Pham said. “I was at home and sleeping. At the time I didn’t know what was going on until after…they charged me and I went to PSafe in tears to review the video footage.” 

Pham was pressed with four charges, and called in for a CSB hearing. She believes she was charged because University officials were unable to discern who the organizers of the Sept. 21 rally were, and seeing as Pham attended the sit-in a day before, she was deemed a likely candidate for initiating the event. 

Another student, a National Lawyers Guild certified legal observer, attended the rally in solely a note-taking and observational capacity. The student was charged with harassment, abuse, disruption, and disturbance of the peace; they took caution to physically remove themselves from the crowd and were neither chanting nor participating in the rally, but were nevertheless charged.

“I was there to act like an impartial observer to take written notes on the protest, and the movement of law enforcement,” the student, who wished to remain anonymous, said. “The idea is that it creates a written legally confidential record that can then be used if law enforcement is [found] using unlawful techniques, so it’s basically a way for protesters to defend themselves.”

The student was charged with offenses including disturbance of the peace, disruption, unauthorized use of Wesleyan Sound Co-op equipment, harassing members of the community, impeding access to and from the Frank Center for Public Affairs (PAC) and the Exley Science Center–all items that they had no ties to. Terrified of losing their on-campus job, they hoped to reiterate that they were not a protestor at the rally during the hearing, as they were sitting on a bench and did not engage with the crowd. 

“I was following from a distance, taking notes,” the student said. “Part of being a legal observer is, again, neutrality…I wasn’t part of the protest.”

In addition to the charges that other students received, Reana Akthar ’27 was individually accused of hate speech by one PSafe officer, who testified that she shouted anti-Semitic chants through a bullhorn. Akthar vehemently rejects this testimony.

“I was accused of hate speech by a racist Public Safety officer who said that I shouted something anti-Semitic,” Akthar said. “[This] goes against my personal values and everything that comes with the condition of being part of this pro-Palestinian movement. It is illogical…. If it stands to reason that if I had said what he claimed, the entire crowd would have heard it, and no one else heard it.”

According to Akthar, the same PSafe officer claimed in an email that her “face changed” as the board of trustees exited the PAC—an observation she disagrees with, and is unsure of what it implies. The PSafe officer also stated that she went from “melodic chanting to angry words.”

“This is…an unverified claim,” Akthar said. “It stands to reason that at least 100 students would have heard me say that…and the PSafe officer’s account is not fact.”

Cyrus Yuen ’25 also found the charge letter troubling. A financial manager for the Wesleyan Sound Co-op, Yuen was responsible for bringing a sound set-up to the rally, and she stayed by the east entrance of the PAC during the entirety of the event, guarding the equipment. She was alerted to the event by another manager, and was told that a protest needed sound support. Yuen did not find this request odd, considering that Sound Co-op was approved to provide equipment for the Palestine Solidarity Encampment last spring.  

The following Monday, she learned that Sound Co-op policy states that students may not bring equipment to an unauthorized or impromptu event–effectively any event that is not approved through WesNest. The divestment rally was not approved through WesNest. Yuen was identified by PSafe logs. Sound Co-op members must sign out the equipment, considering its value, and Yuen’s name was found on the logs. 

“The charge letter was sort of frightening,” Yuen said. “It just listed off a bunch of charges that I had nothing to do with. It said [I was] charged with disturbance of the peace, harassment and abuse, property disruptions…three of which I just didn’t do. I just supplied the equipment and stayed in one place.”

The eight students believe they are being unjustly singled out and held accountable for the actions of the crowd. Some of those facing charges for the divestment rally were present at the Sept. 20 North College sit-in, and they see the disciplinary action as an attempt by the University administration to target campus organizers. Akthar also maintained that the rally was in line with previous campus demonstrations, and the charges constituted  selective enforcement of vague campus policies that may be in potential violation of Title VI—discrimination on the basis of race, color, or national origin. 

“The guidelines of student activism have not been consistently enforced throughout…the years,” Akthar said. “With us and this year’s protests, we are receiving significantly, significantly greater penalties.”

Directly after the charge letters were distributed on Friday, Oct. 11, the accused students asked for individualized narratives outlining each action, and how they correspond to the charges placed in order to prepare proper defenses for the hearing. Akthar, on behalf of the other seven students, also requested security footage be released from various locations during the Sept. 21 rally to provide counter-evidence for the claims. Requested footage was from 2:45 to 5:30 p.m. on the day of the rally, from cameras located at all entrances to the PAC, the exterior and interior of Exley, the Usdan entrance facing Andrus Field, outside Olin Library and Clark Hall, and cameras by the Lawn Avenue parking lot. The students only obtained footage from all of the exterior PAC cameras.

On Friday, Oct. 25, Culliton emailed the eight students and offered judicial conferences to reach resolutions for those who did not wish to move forward with the hearing. All of the students accepted this option, as it granted them the opportunity for the equivalent of a plea bargain in the judicial process. 

“A judicial conference is an opportunity for a student to forgo a formal hearing and meet with a dean or other hearing officer to accept responsibility for their role in an incident,” Culliton wrote. “Because a judicial conference is an agreement in lieu of a hearing, if the student and the dean can’t come to an agreement on the decision and related sanctions, the student always has a right to have a hearing before a student board.”

The eight students attended their hearings with a faculty advisor of their choice present, and seven of them were able to reach a resolution in their cases; Akthar was advised to move forward with the hearing.

Pham’s conference lasted minutes. Though charged with four violations, she was able to prove that she was not in attendance during the rally and received no points. Considering the ambiguous identification and the incorrect testimonies that occurred, the process to achieve a clear record became an emotionally taxing one to Pham. 

“It seems like the administration is looking for reasons to charge us with things,” Pham said. “I think there’s a certain amount of intimidation there…. It was really tough on, at least personally, my mental health.”

Yuen and the student serving as a legal observer also saw their cases closed. Yuen’s final charges concerned the use of amplification to disrupt University business, unauthorized use of equipment, and failure to comply, and the anonymous student exited with no charges. Both students also highlighted that during the judicial conferences, the administration had a keen interest in tracking down those who incited the rally and any other individuals who could be held responsible. 

“He asked me who the organizers were, and then I don’t know what else he asked me,” Yuen said. “I just remember that he asked me who I thought the organizers were, and I said, I don’t know, because I really have no idea.”

Culliton recommended that Akthar move forward with the formal hearing, unlike her peers. Akthar views this as an intentional attempt to single her out as a scapegoat for the demonstration. Noting that she was the only brown, Muslim organizer at the rally, she believes these proceedings are a form of racial discrimination.

“Culliton told me during my judicial conference that he believes I didn’t say the hate speech that was attributed to me, but he’s still having me move forward with a formal hearing because of conflicting testimonies,” Akthar said. “And he said that the fact that this Public Safety officer is accusing me of hate speech is another reason why I should have this hearing.”

An Emergency Rally was organized on Monday, Nov. 4, to protest against the “racist suspension” of Akthar, according to an Instagram post on behalf of Beyond Empire and Wesleyan Students for Justice in Palestine. Student activists are currently campaigning for the dissolution of Akthar’s charges, which they see as based on unsubstantiated claims and selective enforcement and discrimination.

Carolyn Neugarten can be reached at cneugarten@wesleyan.edu.