Stanford University officials have decided not to pursue disciplinary action against student journalist Dilan Gohill, one of 13 individuals — many of them students — arrested in June during a pro-Gaza protest that entered the university’s executive offices.

University spokesperson Dee Mostofi confirmed the decision in an email to this news organization.

“We can confirm that the student conduct review process for Dilan Gohill was completed at the end of last year and resulted in no formal disciplinary action,” Mostofi said. “The Santa Clara County district attorney’s office will make an independent decision based on the evidence it has assembled.”

Advocates for free expression have argued that Gohill’s arrest and the prospect of criminal charges violate his First Amendment rights.

“In this country, we don’t arrest journalists because we don’t like what they’re writing about,” said Nick Rowley, a trial attorney and co-founder of Trial Lawyers for Justice, in a statement reacting to Stanford’s decision. “Now they’re communicating their decision to third parties while Dilan waits in limbo, fearing the results of these misplaced disciplinary proceedings.”

Although Gohill has been cleared of disciplinary action, it remains uncertain how long The Stanford Daily reporter will have to wait for a decision on criminal charges.

Months after the arrest, the Santa Clara County district attorney’s office is still awaiting additional information from Stanford’s Department of Public Safety before deciding whether to file charges against Gohill and other activists arrested during the June protest, said Sean Webby, a communications director for the office.

The protest was part of a nationwide movement led by pro-Gaza student groups, involving encampments and demonstrations to urge universities to divest from companies linked to the Israeli government or military. At Stanford, the encampment, established earlier that day, was dismantled by the university following arrests. Officials also announced a ban on future overnight encampments.

During the protest, students barricaded themselves inside the president’s office, and some of the school’s historic sandstone structures were defaced with profanity-laced graffiti. It’s unclear who was responsible for the graffiti as multiple groups, including individual protesters and counterprotesters, were present on campus that week.

Last October, students held a rally supporting students who participated in the demonstration.

Gohill’s attorney, Max Szabo, said he was surprised to learn of the university’s decision through the media, as the school had not informed him directly.

According to Szabo, Gohill’s laptop, iPhone, camera issued by The Stanford Daily, lecture notes and other materials have not been returned.

“As a result, Dilan had to take two classes as incomplete and write two final papers without access to his laptop, lecture notes or class materials,” Szabo said.

When asked about disciplinary actions for other students arrested, Mostofi declined to comment.

Ginny LaRoe, advocacy director of the First Amendment Coalition, expressed relief over Stanford’s decision but was concerned about ongoing criminal charges.

“We are relieved Dilan no longer faces academic discipline for covering the news,” LaRoe said. “But it’s deeply troubling that the prospect of potential criminal prosecution lingers.”

Last week, the coalition urged Stanford President Jonathan Levin to publicly oppose criminal charges.

In a letter released by the coalition, Levin indicated he would follow the stance of his predecessors, former President Richard Saller and Provost Jenny Martinez, who supported allowing the DA to decide on charges.

“The DA’s office will determine how to proceed based on the evidence it has assembled, and my intent is to leave that judgment up to the DA,” Levin wrote.

Szabo criticized Stanford’s position, calling it inconsistent.

“Stanford correctly declined to pursue disciplinary charges against Dilan, so we’re shocked the university is standing by its absurd stance supporting criminal prosecution,” Szabo said. “Declining to pursue lesser disciplinary charges while advocating for criminal charges is not only inconsistent; it suggests Stanford University is more interested in publicly hanging a journalist who reported something they didn’t like than they are in reaching the correct outcome.”

Upon learning of Stanford’s decision on his case, Gohill highlighted the importance of an independent student press.

“My job on June 5 was to keep our community informed, updated and aware — and I did just that,” Gohill said in a statement. “Independent student journalism is crucial, and my arrest as a first-year journalist and Stanford’s response threaten the values the institution claims to uphold. I remain deeply concerned that the university’s actions have had a chilling effect on the free press and student journalists’ ability to share vital information without fear of retaliation.”