On October 7, 2025, a pro-Palestinian rally in downtown Boston turned violent. Two Tufts students were among 13 attendees who were charged with crimes related to the damage of police vehicles and assaulting an officer. Four months later, Tufts appears to have not brought the case to disciplinary review.
Tufts students Roder Atwood and Benjamin Choucroun were both charged in relation to their alleged actions at the protest. According to a statement from the Boston Police Department (BPD), protesters attempted to block Tremont Street and prevent police from responding to an emergency three blocks away. Demonstrators allegedly damaged police cruisers and struck an officer in the face, breaking his nose. 13 people were arrested, including 12 charged with disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and disturbing the peace.
Atwood and Choucroun did not respond to The Tufts Tribune’s requests for comment.
Atwood was additionally charged with unlawful assembly, interfering with a police officer, destruction of property, assault and battery on a police officer, and assault and battery resulting in serious bodily injury. Some of the protesters also received felony riot charges, although these were later dropped. Atwood was accused of breaking the police officer’s nose and held on a $10,000 cash bail.
Although Choucroun’s charges of disorderly conduct, resisting arrest, and disturbing the peace were dropped, Atwood’s stand. He faces a prison sentence of between 90 days and two-and-a-half years.
Atwood appears to have violated Section IV-P (physical abuse and reckless endangerment) of the Tufts Student Code of Conduct. The code does not prescribe a punishment for these violations, but rather outlines procedures to resolve alleged conduct violations.
The Committee on Student Conduct (CSC), composed of faculty and students, hears disciplinary cases initiated through the Student Conduct Resolution Procedure. It has the highest authority of any university body in regard to the severity of disciplinary measures. The Office of the Secretary of the School of Arts & Sciences states that “Serious cases are those having possible sanctions that include suspension or expulsion (or revocation of recognition for groups).” According to Professor Sam Kounaves, a member of the CSC, there have been no CSC cases involving Atwood since his arrest.
The Committee on Student Conduct, in its 2024-2025 annual report, recorded three student conduct hearings, all of which “involved the possible violation of university policies . . . resulting from pro-Palestinian protests.”
“The Community Standards process is independent of any action the District Attorney may initiate or any court process that would result from that,” Director of The Office of Community Standards briana Sevigny said in a statement to the Tribune. “We do not determine whether a law was violated, only whether university policy was.”
Sevigny elucidated one of the inner mechanisms of the committee, explaining that “The vast majority of our cases are actually resolved through Administrative Decision, which is a one-on-one meeting with someone from The Office of Community Standards, instead of by the committee.”
According to the Student Conduct Resolution Procedure, “Administrative Decisions are used in situations where the consequences of the alleged violation, if a respondent were found responsible, are less than disciplinary suspension.”
Four students currently attending Emerson College were among the 13 individuals arrested in the October 7 protest. At Emerson, at least one student was fully suspended from class attendance and academic activities. Since Atwood’s more severe charges (felonious assault and battery and destruction of property) were dropped, the five college students arrested in the larger group of 13 all face the same assault misdemeanors.
The quickness of Emerson’s disciplinary response brings into question Tufts’s own disciplinary process. According to the Student Conduct Resolution Procedure, the Director of Community Standards will assign a complaint to a conduct officer, all of whom are Tufts staff members. The conduct officer has ultimate jurisdiction over which method of resolution should be used.
The conduct officer has the authority to choose either an Administrative Decision, which is used in situations where the consequences of an alleged violation are less than disciplinary suspension, or a hearing, where the possible consequences of an alleged violation are “suspension, expulsion, or degree revocation.”
If sent to the Administrative Decision process, the conduct officer oversees the proceeding. He or she determines whether the respondent violated Tufts policy and, if there was a violation, what sanctions are appropriate. The conduct officer may only choose sanctions of a lesser severity than disciplinary suspension.
“At the initial stage, the determination about whether there is even a small possibility that suspension might be in the range of possible outcomes is made by reviewing the nature of the allegations and the student’s previous history,” explained Sevigny. Thus, the method of discipline in Atwood’s alleged assault lies in the interpretation of the case by members of The Office of Community Standards.
“I am a staunch supporter of our First Amendment rights and certainly have an opinion on that matter. But I do not know any details about the student arrests in October,” stated Jennifer Eyl, a member of the CSC.
Patrick Collins has stated that “We [Tufts] are working with Boston police to obtain more information, and we will hold accountable any student who is found to have broken the law or violated university police or our code of conduct.”
Boston PD spokesperson Sergeant Detective John Boyle explained to the Tribune that he did not know whether there was any communication between Tufts and BPD, but it would be difficult to determine, given the size of the police department. James Borghesani, Chief of Communications for the Suffolk County District Attorney, told the Tribune that he was “not aware of any communication between our office and Tufts.” Additionally, “A public records request [submitted on February 11, 2026,] with the city of Boston found no record of communication between the Tufts and Boston Police Department” over the cases in question.
So far, Tufts appears not to have taken administrative action, despite its public statements.
President Sunil Kumar himself stated that “Any instances of physical violence or intimidation . . . will not be tolerated. If these actions are found to have taken place, then, per the student codes of conduct at the various schools, there will be serious consequences for those involved.” In sum, while Tufts has publicly claimed to follow its due process, disciplinary review seems to have come to a standstill.
Photo: Bryan Hecht/The Berkeley Beacon, via Associated Press, October 7, 2025