On a sweltering May morning, hundreds of alumni gathered in Richardson Auditorium to hear University president Christopher Eisgruber ’83 deliver his annual Reunions address — an often dry affair on the state of the University, usually accompanied by a deck of slides.
A group of pro-Palestine demonstrators, however, aimed to protest the speech in one of several attempted Reunions disruptions following the three-week “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” on campus. About 20 minutes into the address, a group of students and alumni seated in the auditorium’s front row silently raised their hands coated in red paint. Someone in the room began a call-and-response chant, and the group stood up and gradually filed out of the auditorium. While the protest marked a rare disruption to a speaker event on Princeton’s campus, the rest of the address continued as normal.
But several students in the building faced University disciplinary action, including two that were not involved in that protest.
Jordan Johnson ’24 was in the audience at Richardson but did not participate in the protest — according to videos from the scene reviewed by The Daily Princetonian, he stood up and left the auditorium once the disruption began. He faced disciplinary charges that delayed the award of his degree for over a week and chose not to attend graduation as a result.
“It was like the school kind of turned their back on me,” Johnson told the ‘Prince’ in June, adding, “I don’t think my family wants anything to do with the school.” He noted that his family was especially disheartened by the University’s actions given his contributions to the school community as former president of the Black Student Union (BSU).
Laurence Drayton ’26, who was investigated for his participation in the protest at Richardson Auditorium, told the ‘Prince’ that the investigation process “felt very coercive,” and that it “essentially forces [the investigated person] to identify people, unless they’re willing to take a personal penalty for not doing so.”
In interviews with the ‘Prince,’ six students subject to University disciplinary proceedings described a tangled process that appeared fixated on searching for protest leaders to blame and employed tactics they described as invasive. The students were all investigated for supposed participation in pro-Palestine disruptions last spring.
Their accounts, corroborated by dozens of documents reviewed by the ‘Prince,’ including emails and investigation records, provide a rare glance behind the scenes of the University’s investigative apparatus.
Drayton, for instance, eventually received disciplinary action — but not for his participation at the protest in Richardson. Instead, he was given a Dean’s Warning, the weakest disciplinary action at the University, for alleged dishonesty and refusing to answer certain questions about the protest.
“They wanted to find me guilty of something, and since they weren’t able to find me guilty of any actual misdemeanor at the event, which the investigation was supposed to be about, 1.1.5 is kind of the only option,” he said, referring to the section of Rights, Rules, and Responsibilities (RRR) that requires University community members to be honest and cooperative with the disciplinary process.
Meanwhile, students involved in the occupation of Clio Hall — among the highest-octane moments of the protest — received no more than disciplinary probation, which does not impact student status, despite facing warnings of severe disciplinary action, including expulsion.
University spokesperson Jennifer Morrill declined to discuss particular disciplinary cases. “We do note, however, that the University only imposes penalties when and as conduct merits it and [when] consistent with our policies,” she wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince.’ All other University administrators named in this story either declined interviews or did not respond to requests for comment.
In previous high-profile protest cases, however, the University has declined to pursue significant disciplinary action. In 2015, members of the Black Justice League led a 33-hour sit-in in Eisgruber’s office and did not face any disciplinary action.
According to an email reviewed by the ‘Prince,’ upon a request from a student arrested at Clio to provide examples of similar disciplinary action, a dean detailed a list of incidents that primarily focused on violent conduct by intoxicated students — one student broke into a private residence and slept there, and another refused to cooperate with Public Safety (PSAFE) and University Health Services personnel.
Student accounts and documents, including emails and investigation records, paint a picture of the University’s foray into uncharted territory as administrators scrambled to manage the first — and most high-profile — student arrests on campus for protest in this century.
‘Grasping at straws’
After five days of camping out in McCosh courtyard, pro-Palestine protesters dramatically escalated the protest on April 29, rushing in droves to surround Clio Hall. Inside, 12 students and a postdoctoral research associate had barricaded themselves inside the office of Dean of the Graduate School Rodney Priestley, purportedly to obtain a meeting about divestment from Israel. They were all arrested inside the building and barred from campus.
One of the arrested students spoke to the ‘Prince’ on the condition of anonymity due to fears of retaliation, and will be referred to in this story as Riley. About three weeks after the Clio sit-in, they met with a University investigator, Jamie Sandman, who asked a series of questions about the events at Clio and the planning leading up to it.
“There [were] a lot of questions about trying to identify some sort of leader who directed us to do this protest,” Riley recalled.
Riley, an undergraduate at the time of their arrest, added that they felt the investigators were “trying to pin down some fictitious leader,” including by listing names of specific faculty members and asking if protesters had received instructions from them.
Aditi Rao GS, another arrestee, noted that investigators seemed particularly concerned about the role of faculty in the Clio Hall occupation. “The investigator was probing me quite heavily on if the faculty had in any way — especially the faculty I had relationships with — pressured me to take on these actions,” she said. Multiple faculty members have faced University discipline for conduct at pro-Palestine demonstrations.
Students and faculty protest outside of Clio Hall on April 29.
Ammaar Alam / The Daily Princetonian
Riley shared a few examples of questions they recalled Sandman asking in their interview with the ‘Prince,’ including whether protesters communicated in a group chat, or if those who entered Clio coordinated outfits. Riley told the ‘Prince’ they felt that, “A lot of this stuff … is starting to veer away from investigating what infraction may have been committed and more trying to figure out how this protest was planned so they can stop future ones.”
Morrill did not respond directly to a question from the ‘Prince’ about whether there are guidelines or constraints regarding what questions investigators can ask during disciplinary interviews. She noted that investigators might ask for “witnesses, documents, correspondence such as emails or text messages, videos/posts, and the names of other individuals who may have information.”
“The investigators generally ask any questions relevant to possible violations of University policies,” she added.
Sandman declined a request for an interview with the ‘Prince.’
Sandman also conducted interviews with students who the University suspected were involved in the Richardson protest. She interviewed Drayton on June 4 and again on June 15. Drayton told the ‘Prince’ that she asked him to identify students and staff members at the protest, including “who was to the right of me, who was to the left of me, who I walked out in front of, who I walked out behind of.”
He added that Sandman showed him photos and videos of the demonstration published online and asked if he could identify anyone. He also recalled a question about whether faculty or staff members were present at the protest, and whether any students, faculty, or staff members were present at planning meetings in the encampment. Drayton declined, citing that he was not comfortable identifying other people.
Official summaries of Drayton’s interviews with Sandman reviewed by the ‘Prince’ detail that he was shown photos and videos, but the reports did not include a list of questions that Sandman posed.
Drayton claimed that during the second meeting, the investigator’s line of questioning was particularly focused on records of text messages or emails, including whether the protesters coordinated in group chats.
Riley also reported that Sandman asked them about text communications related to Clio. They noted, “I thought that was an invasive question that seemed more directed toward furthering surveillance and repression of other students in the future than investigating the alleged policy violations at hand.”
Drayton, meanwhile, eventually received a Dean’s Warning — but not for his actions at Richardson. He was held responsible for violating RRR 1.1.5, which states that members of the University community “are expected to cooperate fully in the disciplinary process.” Dean’s Warnings do not go on students‘ permanent records but may be taken into account if further violations are committed.
Rockefeller College Assistant Dean for Student Life Monica Fung-Janardhan wrote to Drayton that he “refused or declined to answer questions, would not provide additional information, and was not honest about the incident at Richardson on May 25, 2024” during his interviews with a University investigator, in documentation reviewed by the ‘Prince.’
Drayton appealed the disciplinary action but was denied.
In an additional wrinkle in Drayton’s case, Fung-Janardhan had erroneously informed him that he would be assessed under two provisions of RRR about University property and disorderly conduct, according to documents reviewed by the ‘Prince.’ This was in addition to the section about honesty under which he was ultimately disciplined. The dean corrected the error after a week, and apologized to him over email.
Johnson, one of at least two students who had their degrees temporarily held by the University for suspected participation in the Richardson protest, described his feelings about his disciplinary process as a “mix of confusion and anger.” Unlike Drayton, Johnson did not appear to have participated in the protest, according to video footage reviewed by the ‘Prince.’
“I was upset because of what happened. I knew I wasn’t involved in anything,” he said. “They were assuming that I was involved … it was clear after five minutes that I didn’t know what was going on.”
Johnson was notified that his case was closed the day after he spoke to a University investigator. He speculated that one of the reasons he was targeted, despite non-involvement in the protest, was because, “They need an answer to their narrative. Their whole thought process has been trying to find the narrative that centers around this person or group of people who are responsible for creating chaos.”
“They were really grasping at straws,” he concluded.
Probation post-Clio
Students arrested at Clio Hall had their proxes confiscated, and those living on campus were escorted to their dorms later that night by PSAFE officers to collect their things. The following day, Vice President for Campus Life W. Rochelle Calhoun sent a campus-wide email stating that the students would face University discipline that could “lead to suspension, the withholding of degrees, or expulsion.”
Students exit Clio Hall after being arrested for occupying an office inside the building.
Calvin K. Grover / The Daily Princetonian
However, the actual punishments were far less harsh. The students would eventually receive disciplinary probation, which does not impact student status; subsequent violations of the University’s code of conduct are likely to carry harsher penalties.
Morrill wrote in a statement to the ‘Prince’ that “it was important for students to understand the range of potential penalties.”
Riley characterized the probation as a “minor slap on the wrist” in the cases of the five arrested undergraduates, who were all on the cusp of graduation. For the graduate students, however, the punishment was more severe.
“It’s kind of an insidious punishment for those of us who are remaining at the University,” said one graduate student arrested at Clio, who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to privacy concerns. “It’s so expansive and so vague as to scare you away from any future kind of protest or civil disobedience.”
Calhoun also noted in her email on April 30 that the students had been barred from campus. Behind the scenes, however, the University notified them on May 2 that they could attend in-person exams and thesis defenses, according to emails reviewed by the ‘Prince.’ Their bans were completely lifted by May 20.
“Consistent with our practices in all cases, the University sought to tailor bars from campus as narrowly as possible so as to allow students to complete their academic obligations,” Morrill wrote.
Jacob Neis GS, one of the graduate students who was arrested for occupying Clio, worked as a teaching assistant for a Classics course in the spring semester. He was notified by an administrator that he would “no longer need to grade papers” or final exams.
He told the ‘Prince’ that he was unsure whether this meant he was prohibited from grading, saying in an interview, “I feel like I wasn’t able to finish out the semester and do well by my students in the way I would have liked.” He did not grade papers for the semester due to this uncertainty.
On May 13, nearly two weeks after Clio, the arrested students received emails from administrators proposing a “restorative justice” process that could “minimize the impact of their arrest.” Eisgruber publicized this option in a campus-wide email as well, but the process stalled after a short series of email exchanges between students and administrators, as previously reported in the ‘Prince.’
On May 24, Riley and the other arrested undergraduates were found responsible for violating the University’s disorderly and disrespectful conduct policy (RRR 2.2.5) and received 48 months of disciplinary probation. According to documents from their case, this is the maximum length for this sanction.
Their case was adjudicated by the Residential College Disciplinary Board (RCDB), a committee composed of administrators and residential college deans. The RCDB’s decision noted that it considered that protesters caused graduate school staff “significant distress.” In a subsequent email to Riley denying their appeal of the punishment, Dean of Undergraduate Students Regan Crotty ’00 also noted that the panel considered the students’ refusal to “abide by the instructions of law enforcement despite multiple warnings.”
The cases of Neis and the other graduate students would drag on for far longer. Unlike the undergraduates, theirs were adjudicated by Heidi Freeman, an assistant dean in the graduate school.
Freeman did not notify graduate students that they had violated RRR 2.2.5 until June 10, also assigning them disciplinary probation. Multiple graduate students filed appeals to no avail; they were denied by Priestley on July 3, according to emails obtained by the ‘Prince.’
Email records also show that the graduate school administrators declined to provide information about precedent cases to graduate students arrested at Clio, in contrast to the response sent to undergraduates involved.
While their disciplinary cases at the University have been resolved, the 13 arrestees still face defiant trespassing charges in Princeton Municipal Court. They have appeared in court four times — including one hearing that dragged on for over three hours — and still no trial date has been set. A recent hearing scheduled for Dec. 10 was pushed back to Jan. 14, 2025.
While the University is not a party to the case, protest organizers have repeatedly and unsuccessfully called on the University to ask the municipal prosecutor to drop the charges. As a result, Riley and Neis expressed frustration with the University’s repeated claims that it supports an outcome that would “minimize” the impact of the arrest, in both campus-wide messages and statements to the ‘Prince.’
Riley recalled the May 13 campus-wide email proposing the restorative justice process, which they said included “something vague about the university minimizing the impact of the arrest.”
In response to a question from the ‘Prince,’ Morrill contended, “The statement speaks for itself.”
“I still don’t know what that means. I still have no idea what that means,” Riley said. “But, you know, that’s the line that they decided to go with.”
Olivia Sanchez is the Director of Outreach and an associate News editor emerita for the ‘Prince.’ She is from New Jersey and has covered the graduate school and academic departments.
Annie Rupertus is a head News editor emerita for the ‘Prince’ from Philadelphia, Pa. who has covered activism and campus governance.
Miriam Waldvogel contributed reporting.
Please send corrections to corrections[at]dailyprincetonian.com.
Read More
Historic preservation project sparks concern over tenant relocation and affordability
Abby LeibowitzA restoration project application by Hillier LLC along Witherspoon Street is facing concern from residents, including some tenants who will be displaced.
A restoration project application by Hillier LLC along Witherspoon Street is facing concern from residents, including some tenants who will be displaced.
From Princeton to the Pentagon: The many faces of Pete Hegseth ’03
Sena ChangWhen Pete Hegseth ’03 was a Princeton student, he was known as a strong conservative voice on campus, a proud member of the Cap and Gown Club, publisher of The Princeton Tory, and devoted Christian.
When Pete Hegseth ’03 was a Princeton student, he was known as a strong conservative voice on campus, a proud member of the Cap and Gown Club, publisher of The Princeton Tory, and devoted Christian. Now, as the U.S. Senate is moving toward approving Hegseth as Secretary of Defense amid an onslaught of allegations about his personal conduct, The Daily Princetonian spoke with those who knew Hegseth as a student to learn more about his character and how the nominee has changed over time.
‘Definition of a lively extrovert’: Friends and family remember Tiger Bech ’21
Victoria Davies and Doug SchwartzTiger Bech was 27 when he died on New Year’s Day from a terror attack in New Orleans that also claimed the lives of 13 others.
Tiger Bech was 27 when he died on New Year’s Day from a terror attack in New Orleans that also claimed the lives of 13 others.
