Table of Contents
On November 21 of last year, 5 months and 16 days after thirteen Stanford students illegally broke into President Richard Saller’s office and destroyed property, Stanford reported that Provost Jenny Martinez “provided an update on disciplinary hearings” of the Stanford 13.
In this update, we learned that the worst punishment for breaking into the President’s building, attempting to occupy it, hospitalizing a public safety officer, and causing nearly $1 million in damages—including breaking down a door, vandalizing multiple offices, and spilling fake blood on Interim President Saller’s belongings—was a mere two-quarter suspension.
Though it is unclear whether the violent graffiti in Main Quad (“Pigs taste best dead” and “Kill cops” were two such slogans) can be attributable to the same group, it was carried out at the same time as the occupation of the President’s office. No other group has claimed responsibility.
The official statement regarding the Stanford 13 can be found below:
In response to a senator’s question, Provost Jenny Martinez provided an update on disciplinary hearings for students involved with the occupation of the president’s office and an encampment case. Panels from the Office of Community Standards found the students responsible for violations of university policies.
Sanctions included two-quarter suspensions followed by probation, delayed degree conferrals, and community service hours. Time under interim suspension while the cases proceeded will count toward the total disciplinary suspension time.
Multi-quarter suspensions will remain on students’ permanent disciplinary records after graduation, and the students involved with the building occupation may still face criminal penalties as determined by the county district attorney. Students have the right to appeal under the university’s student conduct charter.
In other words, no expulsions, and no consequences. In fact, this statement suggests that some students only received community service hours for their crimes. We do not know how many students received each punishment, either, reflecting an utter lack of transparency veiled in the thin excuse of protecting the criminals students. It is utterly absurd that Stanford students can, at six in the morning, break into the office of the highest officer of our university and receive functionally no punishment.
Stanford had promised that the perpetrators of the break-in would be suspended, and any seniors involved wouldn’t be allowed to graduate. Yet one year later, 8 of the 11 Stanford students remain in the Stanford directory, while another student graduated and is pursuing a Master’s at UC Santa Barbara. (2 of the Stanford 13 were not college students at the time.) Other institutions across the country have stuck to their promises of expulsion; Columbia, for example, has expelled at least one student for occupying Hamilton Hall.
Nearly as reprehensible, the news of these nonexistent reprimands was either deliberately concealed or, at best, not clearly communicated to the Stanford community. The Stanford Report article was titled “Faculty Senate upholds 2020 Scott Atlas censure, discusses school initiatives” and subtitled “The Faculty Senate voted against rescission of its 2020 censure of Scott Atlas and heard presentations on the Graduate School of Business, School of Engineering, School of Humanities and Sciences, and School of Law during its last meeting of the calendar year.” No mention of this disciplinary process—or lack thereof—was present at all.
By failing to issue meaningful consequences, Stanford sets a dangerous precedent that emboldens future bad actors. If students can invade administrative offices, destroy property, and assault campus personnel with little more than a brief suspension or a few community service hours, if violent offenders can expect Stanford to lie and obfuscate in their defense, what incentive do they have to respect the rules? This leniency not only weakens the integrity of Stanford’s disciplinary system but also signals to the broader community that the university lacks the resolve to enforce its own standards.
To restore order and uphold the values of accountability and respect, Stanford must take a firm stand: Expel the Stanford 13.
The Review would like to make one exception to this: the case of Stanford Daily reporter Dilan Gohill. Journalistic freedom, particularly for a freshman student reporter, is vital to an open and accountable university. Gohill’s presence during the crime is excusable on grounds of his status as a reporter, and the Review strongly supports his and other student reporters' right to cover rapidly evolving and sometimes precarious situations. It is for this reason that we are supportive of Stanford’s decision to drop the case levied against Gohill.
But, for the others, Stanford’s refusal to impose real consequences is not just a failure of discipline—it’s a failure of leadership. Universities are meant to be places where free inquiry and civil discourse thrive, but allowing lawlessness to go virtually unpunished undermines both. The administration’s tepid response reflects a broader trend of elite institutions bending to—or actively abetting—mob pressure rather than upholding principles of justice and order. If Stanford’s leaders will not act decisively to defend the rule of law on their own campus, they should not be surprised when future disruptions escalate beyond vandalism and occupation.
To support the Stanford Review's journalism, please consider supporting us at this link.
