The controversial “divestment” resolution will not see a vote for the rest of the school year following a frenzied evening at the Associated Students Senate, during which the outgoing Senate failed to meet and the next Senate was disrupted by a 60-person protest.

The recently elected 69th A.S. Senate abruptly ended its inaugural meeting after a group of about 60 people stormed the Hub screaming, “Shut it down!” in what the group called an act of “civil disobedience.” The students stomped onto the stage and grabbed microphones away from the sitting senators, who had hastily begun their meeting when 11 senators and Internal Vice President-Elect Steven Ho failed to show up.

In similar fashion, 15 senators and proxies didn’t show up to the final 68th Senate meeting earlier that evening. Those who boycotted the meeting did so in an apparent protest of the 12 who didn’t return to last week’s meeting.

When the dust settled, it was another instance — the fifth time in six years — in which divestment failed to pass at UC Santa Barbara, which remains the only undergraduate UC campus not to have passed the resolution.

The divestment resolution calls for the UC to withdraw investments from companies that profit from alleged human rights violations in Israel and Palestine. While proponents cite violence in the region as a reason to divest, opponents, largely from the Jewish community, believe the resolution singles out Israel and draws its contents from the global Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement, which they deem to be anti-Semitic.

Wednesday evening was intended to include both the final meeting of the 68th Senate and the first session of the 69th, along with the swearing-in of the elected A.S. executives.

The final meeting of the 68th was supposed to pick up right where it left off — at the conclusion of last week’s meeting, where 12 senators and proxies didn’t return from a recess because the other 13 wouldn’t approve the agenda. The Senate was split over how to categorize the resolution, a distinction that would have significantly altered the necessary voting threshold.

“We wanted to accept the agenda, to discuss this issue,” said Off-Campus Senator Kristen Armellini. “To say that we didn’t want to discuss it is false.”

Read More: Daily Nexus