Muslim World Report

DOJ Investigates Columbia Protests over Gaza Under Terrorism Laws

Dr. Anthony Lindsay | Mar 16, 2025 2:29 PM | 10 min read | 1966 words

TL;DR: The DOJ’s investigation of Columbia University protests raises critical concerns about the criminalization of dissent in the U.S. By potentially labeling these student protests as terrorism, the government risks undermining free speech and stifling democratic values. This post explores the implications of such actions and offers strategic responses for stakeholders involved.

The Situation: Free Speech Under Siege

The ongoing investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) into protests at Columbia University illuminates a disconcerting trend: the criminalization of dissent in the United States. These protests, which primarily aim to address what many describe as genocide in Gaza, have become a critical element in the broader discourse surrounding the First Amendment and human rights. This inquiry raises profound concerns not only for the students involved but also for the implications it holds for free speech, activism, and the very nature of dissent in America.

The DOJ’s scrutiny is rooted in a controversial expansion of definitions surrounding antisemitism, particularly one that gained traction during the Trump administration. Critics argue that this definition has been weaponized to silence legitimate criticism of Israeli policies, conflating dissent with terrorism (Boyle, 2011; Rancière, 1996). This potential labeling of protests as “terroristic” is reminiscent of McCarthyism in the 1950s, when dissenters were often accused of being un-American, thereby undermining the very tenets of democracy. Just as that era fostered an atmosphere of fear that stifled open dialogue, the current climate suggests a troubling shift wherein expressions of opposition to government actions—particularly regarding foreign policy—are increasingly viewed as threats rather than as fundamental democratic rights.

Such a dynamic not only undermines the foundational legal protections of free speech but also raises critical questions: If dissent is criminalized, what does that say about our commitment to democratic values? Are we not, in essence, paving the way for a society where only one narrative prevails, silencing the voices that challenge it? The future of dissent hangs in a precarious balance, and the implications for civil society are profound.

The Broader Context of Criminalizing Dissent

The implications of this investigation extend far beyond the confines of the university campus:

  • Suppression of Voices: Signals a broader societal attempt to suppress voices advocating for Palestinian rights and challenging U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East.
  • Chilling Effects: Creates a chilling effect on civil rights and social justice movements, fostering an environment where individuals hesitate to speak out against injustices—both domestically and globally.

We must also consider the historical context in which this criminalization plays out. Historically, regimes and governments have often sought to stifle dissent, invoking concepts of national security or public order as justifications. Such actions resonate with tactics employed globally, as seen in cases of political repression in Catalonia and elsewhere, where the state utilizes legal frameworks to delegitimize and suppress dissenting voices (Bernat & Whyte, 2020). This phenomenon is deeply intertwined with structural inequalities and systemic racism, which often position marginalized communities at the forefront of repression (Brewer & Heitzeg, 2007).

In fact, consider how during the McCarthy era in the United States, dissent against government policies resulted in widespread fear and accusations of treason, where individuals could lose their jobs or be blacklisted for simply voicing opposition. This historical example underscores how quickly societal norms can shift to criminalize dissent under the guise of patriotism.

In a world marked by rising nationalism and authoritarianism, the outcomes of this investigation could set dangerous precedents (Gibson et al., 2017). By framing legitimate expressions of dissent as potential terrorism, the U.S. risks undermining democratic principles and cultivating a climate in which activism is increasingly marginalized. Imagine a future where students fear organizing for climate justice or human rights for fear of legal repercussions; what kind of society would we become if dissent were silenced? Given these developments, various ‘What If’ scenarios can help illuminate the potential repercussions of the DOJ’s actions.

What If the DOJ Labels Student Protests as Terrorism?

Should the DOJ proceed with labeling the Columbia student protests as terrorism, the repercussions could be extensive and damaging, including:

  • Deterrence: Sending a resounding message to potential activists nationwide that dissent against U.S. foreign policy may lead to severe legal consequences (Edkins, 2002). This echoes the historical example of how the McCarthy era stifled dissent during the 1950s, where the mere whisper of communist sympathies led to blacklists and a chilling effect on free expression.

  • Stricter Policies: University administrations might adopt increasingly stringent policies regarding free speech and protest, undermining the educational environment critical for debate (Boyle, 2011). Consider how the suppression of free speech on campuses can be likened to planting a tree in a pot that is too small—it stunts growth and restricts diversity of thought in an institution meant to cultivate ideas.

  • Backlash: Civil rights organizations may provoke backlash, leading to widespread protests and further governmental crackdowns (Liao, 2019). Such tensions can be reminiscent of the civil rights movement in the 1960s, where government overreach prompted not only resistance but also a stronger, more unified call for justice and equality.

Ultimately, labeling protests as terrorism would signify a significant escalation in the curtailing of civil liberties in the U.S., reinforcing authoritarian practices in both government and higher education. What kind of society do we want to build if the voices of the young and dissenting are silenced under the weight of intimidation?

What If the Investigation Leads to No Charges?

Conversely, a decision against pressing charges regarding the protests could:

  • Reaffirm Dissent: Provide a temporary reprieve for activists and reaffirm that dissent is a cornerstone of democracy, reminiscent of how the anti-Vietnam War protests in the 1960s ultimately helped shape public discourse and policy (Maučec & Dothan, 2022).
  • Fuel Tensions: Highlight the underlying societal anxieties surrounding dissent, especially in a politically polarized climate, akin to the intense divisions seen during the Civil Rights Movement, where calls for justice often met resistance and fear (Chong & Levy, 2018).
  • Mobilize Civil Rights Groups: Ignite a national discourse on the importance of protecting free speech and protest rights, much like the surge in activism following the protests for racial justice in 2020, which brought longstanding issues to the forefront and rallied support across diverse communities (Klug, 2003).

While the absence of charges may empower activists, it could also redirect attention to broader implications of the investigation itself. Is it enough to merely avoid charges, or does true progress require a deeper examination of how dissent is treated in our society?

What If the Case Becomes a Landmark Decision on Free Speech?

The investigation could lead to a landmark legal decision regarding free speech, potentially:

  • Empower Activists: A favorable ruling could empower not only those at Columbia but also activists nationwide, reminiscent of the 1964 Supreme Court case New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, which cemented the protection of free speech against government suppression (Fine, 2009). Just as that case bolstered civil rights advocates during a tumultuous era, today’s decision could invigorate a new wave of activism.

  • Set Dangerous Precedents: Conversely, a negative ruling could legitimize the government’s authority to label dissent as potential terrorism, echoing the chilling effects of the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798, which aimed to silence political opposition and curtailed freedom of expression (Rheindorf & Wodak, 2019). This could deter future activism, much like a storm cloud that casts a shadow over those who dare to speak out.

Ultimately, the potential for a landmark decision raises critical questions about the future of civil liberties in the United States: Will we uphold our foundational principles, or will we allow fear to curtail our voices?

Strategic Maneuvers

In light of the ongoing investigation by the DOJ into student protests at Columbia University, various stakeholders must consider their strategic responses:

  • Activists: Mobilizing support and raising awareness about the implications of the DOJ’s investigation should be an immediate priority.

    • Build coalitions with other organizations.
    • Organize educational events and discussions.
    • Utilize social media to connect broader movements (Gibson et al., 2017).

  • University Administrations: Must adopt a proactive stance in defending students’ rights.

    • Implement clear policies that protect free speech.
    • Create safe spaces for dialogue and dissent (Fee & Fairclough, 1993).

  • Lawmakers: Should advocate for legislative protections that safeguard free speech and protest rights.

    • Support initiatives aimed at reversing expanded definitions of antisemitism (Maučec & Dothan, 2022).

  • Civil Society Organizations: Must remain vigilant and responsive.

    • Monitor the DOJ’s actions and provide legal support for targeted activists.
    • Document cases of repression and advocate for civil liberties (Brewer & Heitzeg, 2007).

As this situation develops, the actions taken by various stakeholders will shape the future of activism and civil liberties in the United States. The imperative to defend free speech and protect dissent cannot be overstated, as these rights are integral to the democratic fabric of society. Just as in the 1960s civil rights movement, where activists faced significant opposition yet propelled social change, today’s advocates must persist in their pursuit of justice and equality. The battle for civil liberties is not just a matter of legal definitions; it is about the very essence of our humanity and our capacity to challenge injustice—whether it occurs in our own backyards or across the globe.

If protesting genocide is labeled as terrorism, we find ourselves on a perilous path towards tyranny, where dissent is not only discouraged but criminalized. Much like the warning signs observed in regimes that have silenced opposition under the guise of national security, it is incumbent upon us, as a society, to stand resolutely against this dangerous trend and reaffirm our commitment to the fundamental principles of free speech and human rights. Are we prepared to allow our rights to erode, or will we rise to defend the values that define us?

References

← Prev Next →