Their diplomas were not revoked for being pro-Palestine, they were revoked for seizing a building, trespassing and vandalism. That's a false equivalence to what is happening in Turkey.
Still crazy that diplomas can be revoked for non-academic problems. Diplomas should only be able to be revoked if it turns out they were gained using academic misconduct (in my opinion).
If I murder someone during my diploma, get the diploma, and then get caught, will the diploma be taken away? How does that make sense?
In this case, no one was murdered. The crime is more like trespassing. Should we take degrees of people who get caught dealing drugs? Insider trading? Pirating movies?
Do you think this punishment represents a consistent policy of the university, or was it applied under government pressure?
The theory put up is that your behavior in university, before you get the diploma does matter. If you get expelled due to an action you took before the diploma was granted, the diploma may be revoked, even if that decision is made after the diploma is already in your hands. This is true. If you're caught cheating or commit a crime your diploma may get revoked, including in the situation that you already have the paper in hand.
In that sense this is not revoking a diploma, it's just applying the punishment for what they did before they graduated.
And while obviously Columbia's actions are politically motivated, I still don't think it's remotely comparable with what's happening in Turkey. The New York protestors really are being punished for what they did, and not to prevent them from running for election (which most of them couldn't do anyway, as you cannot do that on a visa, I don't think even a green card lets you hold public office)
> The theory put up is that your behavior in university, before you get the diploma does matter.
Ok, but why should it?
The diploma doesn't certify that you're a pleasant person, have good morals or follow the law. It means that you passed some exams and are expected to have some competency in your subject. The only reason to doubt that this is the case after already giving someone a diploma is cheating, which means they didn't actually pass the exams. Other misconduct during working on the diploma has nothing to do with the qualifications for the diploma.
University used to prove that you are an upstanding citizen capable of holding public office and doing that well, honestly and fairly. Not destroying stuff and following the law is part of that. That's the reason it's required in Turkey. It was very much part of the fabric of the Roman Empire, and when muslims conquered the eastern roman empire, they didn't conquer it to destroy it, they just wanted its money and power. So they kept everything intact, except the head of government, and they kept the rules about public office requiring a diploma. They went so far as to repress islam, even keeping most of the social progress that "the prophet" swore to destroy (such as the abolishment of slavery, which they mostly kept abolished, at least in Turkey itself) to try to maintain the economic power of the empire, which of course didn't work, but ...
For that purpose it makes 100% sense that good behavior is a requirement of getting a diploma.
That's the reason the Turkey situation is what it is (of course Erdogan has already destroyed public institutions in Turkey, during the Erdogan-orchestrated "coup" against Erdogan). There, it's being used as an electoral weapon, and that's not what's happening in the US.
The American situation is different, but some parts remain. A diploma is not meant to just prove knowledge, it is meant to prove that you can be trusted to (help) organize a particular part of society, and that includes things like behavior standards. A lot of this, such as loyalty oaths (as in multiple, most famously the hippocratic oath, but certainly not just that one), the requirement to be accepted by currently important public servants (e.g. there was a time in Europe that to pass lawyers needed to present themselves to a judge from the supreme court and survive whatever test he wanted). There were globally mandated subjects, as in for every university degree (philosophy, state structure, religion, law, rhetoric). Those were not just mandated courses you had to take, you had to pass. 100% on everything, but fail religion? Tough, no diploma (one famous example of that was Einstein, who made it a sport to fail religion class, and was as an exception granted a diploma anyway)
The Columbia incident was only a few months ago and they’ve been going through the process of building a case, pursuing legal options, and reviewing evidence.
The article says there were over 40 people involved and they’ve been building cases against each of them.
I don’t think there’s a conspiracy here. These things are a lot of work, involve a lot of lawyers, and take a lot of time. It’s only been a few months.
You don't think the fact that the current White House has withdrawn funding as leverage, and is pressuring universities to suppress pro-Palestinian sentiment is relevant?
Not so long ago it wasn't enough for justice to be done, but it has to be seen to be done.
In addition to the other commenters points occupying and renaming Hamilton Hall is something of a tradition at Columbia. These students were already facing criminal/civil charges where appropriate.
> they were revoked for seizing a building, trespassing and vandalism
To be precise, it sounds like they’ve been revoked until damages are paid back. This is no different from a diploma being revoked because your last tuition cheque bounced.
