The Occupants of Delany Hall welcome Ms. Gordon’s letter to the Queens College Knight News dated December 18, 2025, as a greatly appreciated acknowledgement of the situation in our building. We were only recently alerted of this public letter, and as a community, we have decided to respond. To our knowledge, the College has not acknowledged or responded to our pleas for help in a public forum ever before, and we recognize this as a step forward in repairing this situation. Nonetheless, we do have some points of clarification for our campus community to consider.
First, we disagree with the term “misinformation” in reference to the Editor in Chief’s statement that the Delany Hall Envelope Project seeks to address asbestos in the building. Per the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York, the official title of the construction project is “CUNY Queens College Delany Hall Building Envelope Restoration and Associated Asbestos Abatement”. It is self-evident from the name of the project that asbestos was being addressed, and indeed legally MUST be addressed for construction to take place in the building due to the presence of asbestos in its construction, which Ms. Gordon’s letter also acknowledges. The Editor in Chief simply reported the facts laid before him.
Moreover, the EIC’s full quote is “The goal of the Delany Hall Envelope Project, a construction project, is to replace the exterior of the building with environmentally friendly materials, replace the windows and address asbestos in the building”. Again, this matches directly with DASNY’s description of the project, therefore we ask that the College clarify how exactly misinformation is present in the article.
As to the use of the phrase “within standard”, the faculty member who spoke at the rally acknowledged his lack of expertise on the matter and made the point that reference to technical terms of art is not appropriate in response to colleagues who state that they have been harmed. He stands by that assertion but appreciates the College’s choice to provide additional details as to its meaning in NYS law.
Moving onto the College’s statement, we welcome these details but remain disappointed that they were not presented comprehensively to Delany Hall’s occupants from the beginning of the construction process. Especially when SEEK leadership, on behalf of the occupants, first requested safety protocols on June 4, 2025 (to which no response was ever received), and when documented health concerns were raised beginning August 28, 2025 (which were consistently dismissed with responses that blamed occupants for the dust). We note that independent environmental testing did not occur until October 10, 2025. This is four months after construction began, six weeks after health concerns were documented in writing, and three days after a fire alarm was triggered by excessive construction dust on October 7, 2025. We very much regret that the testing stage in this process was not reached much sooner when a great deal of harm and disruption to our community could have been avoided. This timeline reveals institutional neglect in communication (no response to safety protocol requests), planning (no relocation support or advance notice), and care (dismissal of documented health concerns). These failures are not incidental but rather represent in this situation, a pattern of institutional neglect toward Delany Hall and its occupants.
We also note that the PSC Health & Safety Watchdog Team, as independent occupational health experts, reviewed the October 2025 testing data and recommended ‘continued relocation for employees and students until construction work has concluded’ and closing building access to all persons. When independent experts reach different conclusions than the College about the same data, we believe the campus community deserves to know this.
We must also correct the College’s statement that occupants were “successfully relocated to alternative spaces to ensure safety and minimal disruption.” SEEK made the independent decision to evacuate on September 5, 2025, after PSC Health & Safety Watchdogs confirmed unsafe conditions. SEEK staff and services secured space in Rosenthal Library through Dean Yearwood’s assistance. With the support of department chairs, faculty were relocated to spaces in departments. SEEK began the critical work of in-person services to students on September 11th, with zero institutional relocation plan, zero advance communication, and zero support from the College administration.
College Now and Africana Studies relocated a few days after SEEK, to Powdermaker Hall and Jefferson Hall, respectively, once again through their own negotiations. A single manager from the Office of Regulatory Compliance was left to figure out space on campus for weeks. We were informed that CERRU and the Speech Lab, also single-occupant offices, found shelter in other spaces on campus.
It was not until mid-December, four months after construction began, and three months after our evacuation, that the College sent a campus mailer notifying the community of occupants’ relocations. That same week, SEEK equipment and furniture were finally moved to Rosenthal. An academic unit of this institution that services its largest special population of students spent thirteen weeks without copiers, printers, scanners, and critical office resources. The College did not relocate occupants. We evacuated an unsafe building and found our own accommodations.
Finally, we note with regret, that the College has not publicly acknowledged the holistic and qualitative impacts of their choices on our community, which include but are not limited to: mental and physical health impacts, increased workload, difficulty serving our students (who deserve the absolute very best) and even difficulty in retaining and possibly recruiting students into the next academic year. A SEEK student survey shows that 96% of students want Delany back but only when it is safe, 38% have seen doctors about symptoms experienced in the building, and 78% are very concerned about health impacts. More than thirty (30) SEEK Students, admitted upon direct outreach, that they were not returning to Queens College this spring semester because of an increased sense of alienation, further reflected in their academic disengagement since leaving Delany Hall. This semester enrolled SEEK students have repeatedly asked when SEEK will be going back to Delany and complain about not receiving updates as to when work in Delany Hall will be completed. These are not abstract concerns. These are our students’ lived experiences.
With enrollment being a top concern for this College, we ask the broader campus community to understand that this harm to our community creates an additional obstacle to our ability to play our own role in that effort. We will persist in supporting our students under whatever circumstances, as we have for 60 years, but we must note that these difficulties are actively working against us.
We must address the assertion that “It is also critical to note that statements suggesting asbestos abatement protocols were not followed during the project are not supported by facts.” It is not clear to whom this is addressed, which creates a difficulty in that it could seemingly be taken as a response to the Editor in Chief, Delany Hall’s occupants, or PSC-CUNY. To be clear, it is PSC-CUNY’s position that “Despite the inherent health risks that arise from any construction project, especially one involving the disruption of asbestos, the Queens College administration has failed to ensure that proper protocols are being followed to protect those in and around the building.” If this statement was intended as a direct response to PSC-CUNY, we appreciate this being made clear in any response to this letter.
We also note that the College’s focus on asbestos in their response conspicuously omits mention of crystalline silica, a known carcinogen, that was found on surfaces in Room 129 during the October 10 testing. The Professional Building Inspectors report explicitly warned that this silica “could potentially be resuspended into the air and create a respiratory hazard.” The College’s letter to the Knight News makes no mention of this finding. The Editor in Chief, as a reporter, has a professional obligation to accurately transcribe and cite comments from their correspondents, and did so with the utmost integrity. Any communication between the College and PSC-CUNY and its officers should be addressed between parties
directly.
Again, we appreciate the College’s choice, through Ms. Gordon’s letter, to begin a public
dialogue about conditions in Delany Hall. We look forward to genuine resolution that includes:
- Independent verification of safety by an independent company along with PSC Health &
Safety Watchdogs for every room in Delany before any discussion of return - Professional asbestos mitigation throughout the building
- Professional deep cleaning of all offices, rooms, and areas in the building, including
HVAC systems - Proper disposal of contaminated books and materials, and removal of thirty-year-old
carpets throughout the building now laden with toxic materials and carcinogenic dust - Air purifiers as needed
- Implementation of all expert recommendations from the October 2025 inspection report
- Institutional accountability for the failures in communication, planning, and care that
endangered our community, including:
– Public acknowledgment of unanswered safety protocol requests and dismissive
responses to health concerns
– Public acknowledgment of the lack of relocation planning and support
– Concrete measures to ensure these failures never happen again to any campus
community
Our students, staff, and faculty deserve nothing less.
Respectfully,
The Delany Hall Occupants.
