Social Justice Center expresses solidarity with the students of the Theatre and Film Georgia State University, whose student status was terminated based on the University’s Ethics Commission’s decision. SJC plans to use all legal means to defend the rights and interests of the students. We believe that the Ethics Commission’s decision is blatantly unfair, arbitrary and aimed at persecuting students involved in the ongoing protests and weakening the protest itself. Moreover, the decision of the Ethics Commission is illegal, unfounded and must be annulled.

What Led to Terminating the Students’ Status?

Several students of the Theatre and Film Georgia State University participating in the protests were occupying some spaces within the University, including a small part of the lobby and one auditorium since December 17, 2024. Along with demanding the release of the detained pro-European protestors and set the new parliamentary elections, they were calling from the University administration and its rector – Giorgi Shalutashvili, to express solidarity with all the detained, including actors.

On March 9, 2025, the university administration ask the protesting students to leave the university building due to disinfection purposes. Students refused to leave the building, but agreed not to interfere with the disinfection process and temporarily move to the other part of the building. The administration didn’t agree on this proposal and called the law enforcement. The arrived police officers fined each student (9 in total) 5 000 GEL. Ultimately, after the 83 protest days, these students left the university building.

The Ministry of Internal Affairs uses 6 February, 2025 amendments made to the Administrative Offenses Code of Georgia and the Law of Georgia on Assemblies and Demonstrations as the legal basis for fining the students. These amendments prohibit holding a gathering in a closed space/building without the prior consent of the property owner. According to our assessment, this provision is unconstitutional and grossly violates the standards of freedom expression and assembly.  

Unfounded and Arbitrary Termination of Student Status

On the morning of March 10, 2025, ten students of the Theatre and Film Georgia State University received an e-mail from the university administration announcing that according to the decision of the university’s Ethic Commission their student status had been terminated.

On the same day, these students referred to the university with the official letter and asked for the reasoning of the decision. On 23:20 of the same day, they received an email response from the university administration that their request had been registered.

The following day, on March 11, the expelled students received another email from the university administration. The email contained the written record of the Ethics Commission’s meeting and the newly adopted Students Ethics Code of the LEPL Shota Rustaveli Theatre and Film Georgia State University.

According to the Ethics Commission’s decision, the termination of student status was justified by the claim that the university was unable to properly manage the educational process and carry out its activities. Moreover, it stated that the sanitary-hygienic conditions within the university posed a real threat to the lives and health of students and staff. Based on these grounds, the Ethics Commission decided to impose the harshest disciplinary measure - termination of student status.

As the written record of the Commission’s March 7, 2025 meeting revealed, 5 out of 7 commission members supported the decision to terminate students’ status. The decision was opposed by the vice-rector of the University – Giorgi Margvelashvili and member of the student self-government – Tinatin Asatiani. According to the written record, the students violated article 2 of the new Student Ethics Code, which came into effect on February 28, 2025. However, these actions did not constitute violations under the previous code and, in essence, are an integral part of the students' freedom of expression and assembly.

Notably, according to the Student Ethics Code adopted on February 28, certain actions have been classified as violations, holding students accountable for the following, among others:

Violating the university’s mission or the principle of political neutrality by a student or/and a student-organized/self-governing association;

Representing the interests of other individuals/organizations or formally or informally affiliating with external parties;

Engaging in activities that pose a threat or/and cause damage to the university’s interests, authority, or public image;

Expressing opinions, making public statements or offers, or/and giving promises on behalf of the university;

Using the university’s name in communications or interactions with third parties;

Engaging in direct or/and indirect political or religious agitation and/or propaganda using the university’s infrastructure, including its email system or/and database;

Using the university’s logo and other attributes;

Using university property for non-educational purposes, including unauthorized or improper use of university spaces, movable, or immovable assets;

Failing to comply with the demands of a person authorized for initiating disciplinary measures;

Any other actions that contradict ethical norms.

Decisions adopted by the Ethics Commission reveal violations of multiple legal principles, including:

• Students were held accountable based on the Ethics Code that had not been presented to them

Notably, during the Ethics Commission meeting held on March 7, accountability of the students was discussed, and their liability was supported based on the Ethics Code adopted just seven days earlier, on February 28. However, the students had not been informed about the existence or content of this code. The newly enacted Student Ethics Code, along with the Ethics Commission's regulations, was published on the university’s website only today, March 12.

Until then, the Ethics Code published on the University’s website has been dated December 15, 2017. According to the document, the university's Ethics Code is public and accessible to anyone. Moreover, the Code is an essential part of the university's internal labor regulations, and its provisions apply to university administrative staff, academic, creative, and teaching personnel, as well as invited lecturers and students (Article 1.4). The responsibility of reviewing student accountability cases and making a reasoned decision lies with the relevant faculty (Article 12.3).

However, the decision to terminate student status was made by the Ethics Commission (rather than the relevant faculty) based on the new Ethics Code adopted on February 28, 2025. Though, this code was neither published on the university’s official website nor presented to students (including via email notification). The reference to the Ethics Code’s public availability and accessibility was removed from the February 28 version. Yet, the same code states that students are required to familiarize themselves with it and comply with its provisions. Furthermore, the code explicitly states that lack of awareness of its norms does not exempt students from responsibility. The document was made available to students only on March 11, when the administration sent them the written record of the Commission’s meeting in response to their request for reasoning for the termination of their status.

Unlike the previous code, the new Ethics Code, approved by the Representative Council, applies only to students and is aimed at restricting their rights. It grants the Ethics Commission broader authority to impose disciplinary measures and make decisions regarding student accountability. The transfer of this authority from the faculty to the Ethics Commission apparently shows the interest to centralize the process and strengthen administrative control.

• Students were denied the opportunity to defend themselves and present their opinions during the decision-making process concerning their student status

Despite imposing the harshest form of disciplinary liability —termination of student status—the university did not notify students about the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against them. They were not given the chance to attend the hearing, present their opinions, or defend themselves.

On March 6, 2025, students received an email from the university administration stating that the Ethics Commission was starting a review of several issues, including the disruption of disinfection work scheduled for March 1. However, this email was not personalized, making it unclear whether the review directly concerned them.

• The disciplinary measure taken against students is unjustified and disproportionate

We believe that imposing the most severe disciplinary measure on students—without first applying any lesser penalties—is unjustified and disproportionate. Termination of student status effectively deprives them of their right to education and suggests persecution for their opinions and participation in protests.

It’s problematic that the new Ethics Code significantly restricts students' rights, allowing for the termination of status even in cases where no prior disciplinary measures have been applied. The Commission accused students of committing two or more violations under the code (which is considered a repeated or multiple breach—Article 3.3).

Notably, the written record of the hearing list up to ten different violations of the Ethics Code. However, the final decision does not specify which actions constituted these violations, nor does it individualize responsibility for each student.

The Ethics Commission’s decision on disciplinary measures can be appealed to the university rector, who, together with the administration head, reviews the case and issues an order either upholding or annulling the decision (Article 5.8). The procedure and deadline for appealing the decision were only published on the university’s website on March 12, 2025, as part of the Ethics Commission’s regulations. According to these regulations, students have 10 days from the notification of the decision (considered notified when sent via email—Article 4.4) to appeal to the rector (Article 3.3). However, the written record of the March 7 hearing, which terminated the students' status, indicate a much shorter, three-day appeal period.

Notably, the Ethics Commission’s decision explicitly states that it takes effect immediately, upon signing. At the same time, the university’s social media post on March 10 indicated that the rector had not yet issued an official order on the termination of student status.[1] Nevertheless, unless the rector overturns the decision and issues a new ruling, students remain expelled (Article 5.9). As a result, they are currently unable to participate in the academic process or exercise their right to education.

Social Justice Center calls on the administration of the Theater and Film Georgia State University and its rector, Giorgi Shalutashvili

• Restore the students’ status and ensure their right to education and participation in the educational process;
• Guarantee students' constitutional freedom to assembly, including within the university premises.

Social Justice Center is representing the interests of the Theater and Film Georgia State University students and will appeal the decisions regarding their status termination and fines before the relevant authorities.

Share