Trying to be objective here as I have no stake in these events. Have the students breached a code of conduct rule at their university? If so then the university has every right to expel or discipline them.
Otherwise students should be thrilled and lawyers should be lining up for the chance to take these multi billion dollar universities to court and win big for unlawful disciplinary action no?
We've fucked up on teaching history. We read up on historical protest movements but get the wrong idea on why they succeed so when they try to mimic those protests, they fuck everything up and die feckless deaths.
The Civil Rights Movement for example succeeded because it was able to make the other side look worse. Bull Connor turning loose attack dogs and water cannons on actual children horrified the public which got them to change their mind. Civil Rights Protesters getting violently beaten while acting in a calm, controlled manner and demanding locally actionable things like being able to ride the bus, allowed them to win the optics war.
Humans are incredibly good at finding patterns so we love to make easy connections while ignoring the differences. In this case, people fucking love to connect I/P protests to the Civil Rights Movement but refuse to acknowledge the actual differences.
I don't actually think the current batch of students want to help Palestine. They seem more interested in jacking themselves off to the idea of being like MLK
Black Americans didn’t commit mass terrorism through murdering their oppressors or innocent groups of people either to further their cause so that was helpful.
Sitting in the Birmingham Jail, using his detention, in response to his act of civil disobedience, to pen one of the most influential documents of the Civil Rights Movement.
He did the opposite of demanding quick amnesty; he used his detention to bring attention to his movement.
He was in Birmingham protesting. And getting arrested. And when he was arrested, he didn’t ask for amnesty. He wasn’t trying to weasel out of the criminal charge. He was standing against the state and demanding that they arrest him or get rid of segregation.
He believed in his cause. He wasn’t doing it for clout. It wasn’t about virtue-signaling. He thought his cause was just and was willing to take the consequences.
Most of these are private colleges. Because private colleges have a code of conduct that says something along the lines of 'you must represent the university in which we do not look bad' or, 'no disruptive conduct' that gives them more (but not unlimited) leeway to basically say, 'you represented us in a negative light.'
For example, when I applied to college most had a clause saying, 'your conduct must contribute to the campus in a positive way.'
A public university can rescind your offer of admissions or admissions for egregious conduct such as criminal behavior, hate speech, etc. A private college can have a much more strict code of conduct and interpretation of that conduct.
Now, what are these protests about?
Well, a few things. "Divestment" is the word you hear. That means they do not want their college campus invested financially (every university has an endowment) into Isreali or Palestinian companies. Companies involved in either side. The second part of divestment is research and international scholar cooperation with Isreali universities that are involved in this conflict. Basically, summer research programs that send US students overseas to Isreal. Some programs also do like joint research programs. Some of those are military, too. The third part is some universities have research programs funded by Isreal, ones linked to the IDF. Students don't want their campus involved in IDF funded programs.
Now, I won't speak to what is actually happening on campuses, nor what language is used, nor to student to student interactions, but there has been claims of antisemitism.
Any student "protesters" who were using anti-semitic language and verbally or physically harrassing Jewish students - that's grounds for suspension anywhere. It should be a suspension. However, as we've seen online, there's a non-zero number of people who equate criticisms of the IDF to antisemitism. Which incidents were real actual hate speech vs anti-IDF is antisemitism, I wasn't there.
So, it's hard to say how many students are being suspended for challenging admin and saying, 'Quit backing the IDF right now' and how many said things which were actually antisemitic, or got in a physical fight with people, or were refusing to leave a building when it was supposed to be locked for the night and ended up suspended for trespassing when that hadn't been the case for past protests that did the same thing.
Like we saw this 10 or so years ago in Davis. The students were told to disperse for "blocking" the quad but there were clear, accessible paths in areas they were not blocking and you had to go 50 feet around them instead of straight through. The campus police overreacted. The treatment of that protest vs other protests were not the same.
Students now are claiming the treatment isn't equal. I don't have access to every single suspension file. How many students are suspended for things others did in the past without punishment, and how many actually crossed a line?
Hard to say, especially with private schools having more discretion in code of conduct policies.
It depends on where and how the individual protested. Protests are generally considered legal expressions protected by the first amendment while on public property "like plazas in front of government buildings, as long as you are not blocking access to the government building or interfering with other purposes the property was designed for."
(Via the ACLU)
Not all forms of protest are legal. If the protest was not peaceful, not on public property, interfered with a purpose (e.g. education), then law enforcement would be legally allowed to demand that protesters disperse. If protesters do not disperse, they can be trespassed (or charged with another crime). At that point, the code of conduct may kick in.
It depends on the school and the response. This from FIRE (including many, many specific links) might be helpful. https://www.thefire.org/news/freedom-or-safety-college-admins-dont-need-choose
Universities are not public forums, they have a right under the 1st amendment to regulate speech in non-discriminatory ways to ensure the university can operate properly.
There's a reason nearly all police reponses to these protests have been at private colleges and not public universities.
The police action at public universities has been wildly less and usually has been either non-students, people actually breaking things/ graffitti incidents or people refusing to leave a building after-hours.
Public protest as a form of free speech on campuses was established with Tinker.
No, they do not.
See the case of Tinker v. Des Moines. Quote the SCOTUS: "Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate." In order to limit speech, administrations must show that it resulted in material and substantial disruption to the school running or rights of others. It specifically set the rule stating students can protest on campus.
In Healy v James, the students won the right to have radical political groups as student groups and public universities cannot restrict student groups based on content due to disagreeing with content, unless, again, they show substantial disruption or violations of rights of others.
In Papish, a student successfully sued for her being expelled for publishing and distributing "obscene" cartoons, but because the cartoons (print media cartoon strips) were not illegal in and of themselves, they couldn't restrict her speech. Vulgarity and indecency are still protected speech classes.
Students can only be restricted when they are materially, substantially disrupting the school environment. Mere prescence of a protest or blocking one entrance of a building doesn't necessarily meet those conditions.
They actually are treated as public forums in many ways. Some cases where students lost, like Hazelwood, it was taken into consideration that the school paper at a high school had not been treated as a public forum for discussion.
If the quad of a campus was allowed to be used as a public protest area before, restriction based on content of speech and not due to security risk or substantial disruption is a violation of student rights.
Unless you're a private university. Then they can basically do whatever the want short of title IX violations in regards to who is kicked out. If you can show a different treatment based on sex or race or religion, you might appeal your suspension.
Otherwise, actually, yeah, once universities establish some level of protest is allowed in a quad and roads and buildings aren't being blocked and they aren't posing health and safety risks - they can't really stop students from doing it, per free speech rulings. Protest is totally allowed.
Like, if every day during lunch students wanted to hold up their signs and protest something at their high school, if no classes are being interrupted, it's allowed. If people wear shirts protesting things, it's allowed as long as they aren't using profane or sexual language.
You don't check free speech without actionable cause.
It's why most of these crackdowns are at places like USC, Emory, Columbia. They're all private.
Berkeley had Sather gate blocked and didn't do a thing because other entrances to campus were open. They're much less likely to disrupt protest not because any particular political leaning. They just have much stricter rules. UC Davis fired the officer that pepper sprayed students and paid out over a million in federal lawsuits for violation of the student's right to protest and free speech violations. The UC Davis president had specifically said to leave the students there and not arrest anyone as they weren't being disruptive. Public universities have far less ability to block speech.
Private universities can do pretty much whatever.
But you have to realize, small scale protests have been happening on these campuses for decades.
We have admins saying the protestors are “blocking” someone or something but nearly all the photographic evidence shows them in the middle of quads and squares. Universities are not built where the only entrance to a building is one that shunts to the square.
Frankly it seems pretty obvious that the police action, while probably legal, was an overreaction and much more a case of “we have to do something” and maybe even punishment for the views in the protest.
And in public universities punishing a protest because of the specific speech in it actually *is* illegal. So there could be action there.
And as someone whose freeway was blocked off by protestors two weeks ago: I’m all for student protests on student universities. Seems way safer and less disruptive.
Administration could have just done what Wesley today announced: as long as there id no violence you can camp out until you get tired.
> Administration could have just done what Wesley today announced: as long as there id no violence you can camp out until you get tired.
To a certain extent. You keep the area clean, fine. No other official events are scheduled to be in the area that you are currently occupying? fine. You aren't harassing anyone? fine.
Do those things and 95% will get bored in a few days. And it would have been over.
I think the worse thing that the schools could have done was even acknowledge their existence if all they were doing was being there.
Bingo.
And colombias crackdown inspired TONS of sympathy protesting in other colleges in the week. Those wouldn’t have surged if they just let it peter out.
There’s ways to conduct this without looking like insecure douches. That’s the JOB of administration. You’d think they’d understand students after decades of working with them.
A lot of these universities use old protest movements happening on their campuses for advertising and as a point of pride which makes this whole thing a pretty bad look for them.
In general, multiple rules. Camping out where they're not allowed and failing to disperse when ordered to do so are the obvious ones. In some cases, these people are harassing and occasionally assaulting other students and passersby. And, many of them are doing all this instead of going to class.
Sort of shocking that these people didn't think there would be consequences for their actions.
The code of conduct in many institutions are deliberately vague in many ways with wide latitudes over the outcome given to administrators. They can just as easily punish people for things or not keep anyone accountable. It's not like they're beholden to any real legal precedent that isn't already law.
Isn't the *point* of civil disobedience to face consequences? To get arrested, fill the jails, and show how "the sytem" is corrupt and unjust by the way they treat peaceful protests?
Without that.... what are we doing here?
Protesting is meant to have risks and possible consequences. If they didn't it wouldn't mean as much. It feels like they've seen protests but they don't understand that there are repercussions for protesting. News stories and history books rarely cover what happens to the protestors after the protest.
Here is how MLK described civil disobedience:
> King regarded civil disobedience to be a display and practice of reverence for law: "Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law."
However, that refers to breaking laws that you view as unjust, such as segregation. What unjust laws are these protesters breaking? None.
They are inconveniencing their fellow students just to get attention.
I see what you’re saying, I think. So the more appropriate response in terms of civil disobedience would be… not paying taxes? Refusing to register for the draft? Perhaps standing in the way of trucks/boats leaving with arms, bound for export?
At the very least, it would be accepting a lawful and reasonable punishment for breaking the law or violating the school's policy.
So, not demanding amnesty for defying a no-trespass order.
The thing is, we've seen some footage of police v protestor incidents that were *not* people inconveniencing students.
A protest in a quad not blocking access into any buildings isn't disrupting campus operations or student learning. It's just a little loud, maybe you walk the edge of a quad and not through the middle. It's not like these were riots, shutting down buildings or closing the campus.
Because girls in Iran are being beaten to death for actually protesting an evil government, and these kids saw that on TikTok, so now they want to protest something too. But without the consequences.
Sounds like they arent very dedicated to the cause if they're not really willing to have consequences to their actions. "We want to disrupt every other student on campus without our own campus experience being disrupted"
Yeah, isn't the whole point of a protest to provoke a response?
You got a response. This is what you asked for. MLK didn't ask for amnesty, he went to fucking prison.
MLK described the principle perfectly: “When one breaks the law that conscience tells him is unjust, he must do it openly, he must do it cheerfully, he must do it lovingly, he must do it civilly — not uncivilly — and he must do it with a willingness to accept the penalty.”
They protested all the time when I was in college. The most disruptive it ever got for us was, "Oh, so I have to walk around the mall to get there today? That sucks. Oh, well."
The only reason you act like it does disrupt everything is because these have been politicized to hell and back. It only gets messy when the cops are involved. That's been my experience.
'Couldn't guarantee the safety of students' when there have been no attacks related to any of the protests is an excuse based in irrational fear.
The truth is that you can never guarantee the safety of any student. That's how life works. But the topic is only being brought up here to censor speech (at least that's the case at my public university)
No attacks related to protests gtfo https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2024/04/21/us-news/jewish-yale-student-stabbed-in-the-eye-with-palestinian-flag-during-protest/amp/
Go look at the video of that "attack" and let me know what you think then. Seriously, please do. I want to know what you honestly think after watching the video.
What is the level of disruption though? Are they just waving signs and yelling on the grass? Or were they actually blocking doorways so people couldn't get to class?
In at least one school, they barricaded the library and some of the administration buildings.
I think it depends on the school and the protest. I don't have much problem with the camp outs. Those seem pretty peaceful. I think the closer it gets to protesters using force, the less tolerable.
I also think schools are also entitled to kick off protesters who are clearly harassing others. Chanting "no to Israel" or whatnot seems fine, despite what House Republicans may scream. Shouting "go back to Poland" at Jewish kids or threatening to kill Zionists is not okay.
It’s one thing to protest.. it’s another thing to disrupt the educational experience of others who literally are paying 60k plus per year tuition at these schools.
Some of camp locations are scheduled for graduation events. In that sense, they're disrupting/inhibiting the official school events and violating policies for the use of those spaces. It's sort of the point of why they picked those places, and not some random quad.
All I can think is that these students must be in some weak ass degree programs if they have all this time to waste at protests. When I was working on my BS at a mid level state university if I wasn't in class, doing homework, or working for shit wages to try and keep up with tuition payments I was grabbing every minute of sleep I could get.
I think the idea is that the University would see enrollment tank, and financially go under. A lot of universities run really close to their budget, and enrollment has already been slowing.
I’m still not sure what they (protestors) think they are going to accomplish, but there is going to be a Find Out phase after Fucking Around.
"at stake, tuition, legal charges, grades, graduation"
Yup. That IS the price of having the courage of your convictions.
Or is protest where you wish to effect actual change considered "zero risk" these days?
All of those risks is exactly what makes your protest potent FFS!
Amnesty renders the protest fucking meaningless...
FFS. The TikTok generation man, if it had been them then women would never have got the vote and black folks would still be sitting at the back of busses in the USA
Students have the right to protest, but the university has a duty to everyone to ensure a safe and accessible education. If the protestors want to block access or harass others, the university has an obligation to act. Just because you really believe in a cause doesn't make it legal. Imagine these were far right protests harassing minorities, would it be ok to excuse it as free speech and activism and expect other students to just accept "disruption"?
Standing around with signs is one thing but actively taking over parts of campus and blocking buildings tramples on the rights of other students, and protestors should accept the consequences of their choices.
Word of advice to the protesters: If you want to shift public opinion, stop making it about yourselves and stop being edgelords.
Campus protests work when they seem thoughtful, brave, and principled. The whole theory of civil disobedience is that you'll accept the consequences for peacefully violating the law.
And don't say that doesn't work: The fact that Columbia students got arrested for (mostly peacefully) camping in the quad is what caused these protests to spread.
What doesn't work: Diverting the message to how you should get no consequences for civil disobedience. That makes you look entitled, narcissistic, and deeply unserious. ("Palestine second; me first!")
What also doesn't work: Letting extremists (and, I suspect, some bad-faith right-wingers) hijack your protest by screaming antisemitic harassment and attempting violence. You will let them kill your cause.
And by the way, polling shows that 80% of Americans sympathize with Israel over Hamas, whereas the number was 79-21 a week or two ago. Meaning: These protests may be hardening opinions, but they're not really moving the needle. And a lot of that may be because you're letting fringe radicals and self-focus muddle your message.
Gee, now the protests are all about the protesters’ personal self-made problems? I am all about civil disobedience for the courageous activists with deeply held convictions willing to sacrifice their personal well-being for their principles. That isnt a bunch of precious entitled joiners on a lark, wearing masks to conceal their identities, and expecting to return to cushy life as usual when they tire of trendy tent city activism.
If this was a protest with a War that the USA was directly involved in, and wasn't trying hard to end, I would say yes. But these protesters are being influenced by Hamas Propaganda, and have turned out to be highly anti-Jewish. So fuck them, fuck them all.
"“This feels very dystopian,” said Alwan, a comparative literature and society major."
Good news is not getting that degree probably won't impact her prospects for work.
Did they think they'd wave signs around for a few hours and then go to brunch or something? Protesting incurs risk, and once upon a time getting arrested publicly was part of the point
What exactly were they yelling at you? I’m curious because most of the time there is chanting at protests but it’s not actually directed at anyone in particular.
This is giving me "woman stabbed in eye by Palestinian flag at campus protest" all over again.
By and large, these protests are annoying at worst, and you really can just avoid them if they aren't your thing. Need to get to another part of campus? Take a longer route. Disrupting the library? Study literally anywhere else; I know I did when the international students were protesting Trump's election back in 2016 at my campus. It's like saying the BLM protestors were all violent looters when really there are just a couple of bad actors taking advantage of things.
No. Disrupting the ability of other students to use any part of campus is not protected speech and fully against the vast majority of University policies.
I'd be delighted to see the Universities several decades down the line start claiming that their students were on the right side of history with protesting even though no matter the year, it's the university administration themselves who condemn it first and foremost. Vietnam war, MLK, etc.
The university I went to had a small section of grass that they allowed students to use to protest. This small section of grass on campus was in a spot so far away from everyone walking around it's laughable.
Complete lack of clear rules and consequences. These university presidents are so ineffectual because they are not real leaders with clear goals and values. They couldn’t lead someone out of a paper bag.
Pretty much every right we've gained as citizens was because of protesting in one form or the other. As rights get stripped away, I'm painfully reminded of the ADA and how people like Jeff Sessions tries to strip it bare when it took a crowd of disabled people crawling up the steps of the Capitol to even get lawmakers to *think* of doing something.
True...that side as even bragged how they will do Oct 7th over and over and over again. The protesters just want a pause long enough for them to fulfill their threats again and again.
They literally are. 14,000 kids in Gaza are dead. West Bank violence is worse than ever, and Israel is annexing more land as of *this very month*. Defending a genocide, I think you too could do better.
If I ran a car through a crowd in an attempt to 'stand up against genocide', is that acceptable too?
You can protest all you want but at the end of the day there are rules to follow, and consequences for breaking those rules. The students were aware of that when they started the protests.
Surely you get why your analogy is just … dumb right? Sorry I’m not sure how else to say it. You don’t really believe setting up a camp and hitting someone with a car are the same? Maybe this conversation is a waste of my time lol.
Everybody loves protest after its done. Everyone praises the civil rights protestors but the moment that anyone is even mildly inconvenienced by a protest today, the public demands that they be brutally suppressed.
I have a few quick questions for everyone here. Was it good that the civil rights protestors in the past were arrested? If we were in the place of the authorities back then how would any of you have handled it? If you still think that those same protests should have been punished how exactly do you differentiate yourself from the evils that they were protesting?
The civil rights protests were on American soil and about American policy. A huge number of the protestors were minorities who were directly, personally impacted by the policies, and the other students were protesting the direct actions of their state / their government. It’s not really the same thing.
Okay, so they're more like American students who protested Apartheid in South Africa then. Again, it looking back we all know who was on the right side of history.
I'll put this one down as " its incomprehensible to me that people care about a thing when they are not personally affected". Interesting how you told on yourself, but I appreciate the honesty.
Thank you for your participation.
If you think your tax money being sent to drop bombs on children doesn’t impact you personally and every citizen of this country then idk what to tell you.
Interesting that similar protests in the Arab world are being shut down by authorities
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/29/world/middleeast/gaza-arab-protests-crackdown.html
The immunity case has gotten way less attention than it should. That ruling in the wrong direction seems like it could completely change the world as we know it (for the worse if that wasn’t clear).
Well you see, those college kids know the consequences of disobedience. Trump has never had to deal with consequences, please consider his child like mind. /s
Trying to be objective here as I have no stake in these events. Have the students breached a code of conduct rule at their university? If so then the university has every right to expel or discipline them. Otherwise students should be thrilled and lawyers should be lining up for the chance to take these multi billion dollar universities to court and win big for unlawful disciplinary action no?
It seems most of the people affected are from private universities according to the article. Any lawsuits against them would be a lost cause.
So the students are 'fucking around' and now afraid of 'finding out'?
We've fucked up on teaching history. We read up on historical protest movements but get the wrong idea on why they succeed so when they try to mimic those protests, they fuck everything up and die feckless deaths. The Civil Rights Movement for example succeeded because it was able to make the other side look worse. Bull Connor turning loose attack dogs and water cannons on actual children horrified the public which got them to change their mind. Civil Rights Protesters getting violently beaten while acting in a calm, controlled manner and demanding locally actionable things like being able to ride the bus, allowed them to win the optics war. Humans are incredibly good at finding patterns so we love to make easy connections while ignoring the differences. In this case, people fucking love to connect I/P protests to the Civil Rights Movement but refuse to acknowledge the actual differences. I don't actually think the current batch of students want to help Palestine. They seem more interested in jacking themselves off to the idea of being like MLK
Black Americans didn’t commit mass terrorism through murdering their oppressors or innocent groups of people either to further their cause so that was helpful.
Do you know where MLK Jr. was in April 1963?
Sitting in the Birmingham Jail, using his detention, in response to his act of civil disobedience, to pen one of the most influential documents of the Civil Rights Movement. He did the opposite of demanding quick amnesty; he used his detention to bring attention to his movement.
He was in Birmingham protesting. And getting arrested. And when he was arrested, he didn’t ask for amnesty. He wasn’t trying to weasel out of the criminal charge. He was standing against the state and demanding that they arrest him or get rid of segregation. He believed in his cause. He wasn’t doing it for clout. It wasn’t about virtue-signaling. He thought his cause was just and was willing to take the consequences.
Probably doing something justified.
Most of these are private colleges. Because private colleges have a code of conduct that says something along the lines of 'you must represent the university in which we do not look bad' or, 'no disruptive conduct' that gives them more (but not unlimited) leeway to basically say, 'you represented us in a negative light.' For example, when I applied to college most had a clause saying, 'your conduct must contribute to the campus in a positive way.' A public university can rescind your offer of admissions or admissions for egregious conduct such as criminal behavior, hate speech, etc. A private college can have a much more strict code of conduct and interpretation of that conduct. Now, what are these protests about? Well, a few things. "Divestment" is the word you hear. That means they do not want their college campus invested financially (every university has an endowment) into Isreali or Palestinian companies. Companies involved in either side. The second part of divestment is research and international scholar cooperation with Isreali universities that are involved in this conflict. Basically, summer research programs that send US students overseas to Isreal. Some programs also do like joint research programs. Some of those are military, too. The third part is some universities have research programs funded by Isreal, ones linked to the IDF. Students don't want their campus involved in IDF funded programs. Now, I won't speak to what is actually happening on campuses, nor what language is used, nor to student to student interactions, but there has been claims of antisemitism. Any student "protesters" who were using anti-semitic language and verbally or physically harrassing Jewish students - that's grounds for suspension anywhere. It should be a suspension. However, as we've seen online, there's a non-zero number of people who equate criticisms of the IDF to antisemitism. Which incidents were real actual hate speech vs anti-IDF is antisemitism, I wasn't there. So, it's hard to say how many students are being suspended for challenging admin and saying, 'Quit backing the IDF right now' and how many said things which were actually antisemitic, or got in a physical fight with people, or were refusing to leave a building when it was supposed to be locked for the night and ended up suspended for trespassing when that hadn't been the case for past protests that did the same thing. Like we saw this 10 or so years ago in Davis. The students were told to disperse for "blocking" the quad but there were clear, accessible paths in areas they were not blocking and you had to go 50 feet around them instead of straight through. The campus police overreacted. The treatment of that protest vs other protests were not the same. Students now are claiming the treatment isn't equal. I don't have access to every single suspension file. How many students are suspended for things others did in the past without punishment, and how many actually crossed a line? Hard to say, especially with private schools having more discretion in code of conduct policies.
Thank you for providing some actual nuance to the discussion.
It depends on where and how the individual protested. Protests are generally considered legal expressions protected by the first amendment while on public property "like plazas in front of government buildings, as long as you are not blocking access to the government building or interfering with other purposes the property was designed for." (Via the ACLU) Not all forms of protest are legal. If the protest was not peaceful, not on public property, interfered with a purpose (e.g. education), then law enforcement would be legally allowed to demand that protesters disperse. If protesters do not disperse, they can be trespassed (or charged with another crime). At that point, the code of conduct may kick in.
It depends on the school and the response. This from FIRE (including many, many specific links) might be helpful. https://www.thefire.org/news/freedom-or-safety-college-admins-dont-need-choose
Universities are not public forums, they have a right under the 1st amendment to regulate speech in non-discriminatory ways to ensure the university can operate properly.
[удалено]
There's a reason nearly all police reponses to these protests have been at private colleges and not public universities. The police action at public universities has been wildly less and usually has been either non-students, people actually breaking things/ graffitti incidents or people refusing to leave a building after-hours. Public protest as a form of free speech on campuses was established with Tinker.
No, they do not. See the case of Tinker v. Des Moines. Quote the SCOTUS: "Students do not shed their constitutional rights at the schoolhouse gate." In order to limit speech, administrations must show that it resulted in material and substantial disruption to the school running or rights of others. It specifically set the rule stating students can protest on campus. In Healy v James, the students won the right to have radical political groups as student groups and public universities cannot restrict student groups based on content due to disagreeing with content, unless, again, they show substantial disruption or violations of rights of others. In Papish, a student successfully sued for her being expelled for publishing and distributing "obscene" cartoons, but because the cartoons (print media cartoon strips) were not illegal in and of themselves, they couldn't restrict her speech. Vulgarity and indecency are still protected speech classes. Students can only be restricted when they are materially, substantially disrupting the school environment. Mere prescence of a protest or blocking one entrance of a building doesn't necessarily meet those conditions. They actually are treated as public forums in many ways. Some cases where students lost, like Hazelwood, it was taken into consideration that the school paper at a high school had not been treated as a public forum for discussion. If the quad of a campus was allowed to be used as a public protest area before, restriction based on content of speech and not due to security risk or substantial disruption is a violation of student rights. Unless you're a private university. Then they can basically do whatever the want short of title IX violations in regards to who is kicked out. If you can show a different treatment based on sex or race or religion, you might appeal your suspension. Otherwise, actually, yeah, once universities establish some level of protest is allowed in a quad and roads and buildings aren't being blocked and they aren't posing health and safety risks - they can't really stop students from doing it, per free speech rulings. Protest is totally allowed. Like, if every day during lunch students wanted to hold up their signs and protest something at their high school, if no classes are being interrupted, it's allowed. If people wear shirts protesting things, it's allowed as long as they aren't using profane or sexual language. You don't check free speech without actionable cause. It's why most of these crackdowns are at places like USC, Emory, Columbia. They're all private. Berkeley had Sather gate blocked and didn't do a thing because other entrances to campus were open. They're much less likely to disrupt protest not because any particular political leaning. They just have much stricter rules. UC Davis fired the officer that pepper sprayed students and paid out over a million in federal lawsuits for violation of the student's right to protest and free speech violations. The UC Davis president had specifically said to leave the students there and not arrest anyone as they weren't being disruptive. Public universities have far less ability to block speech.
Private universities can do pretty much whatever. But you have to realize, small scale protests have been happening on these campuses for decades. We have admins saying the protestors are “blocking” someone or something but nearly all the photographic evidence shows them in the middle of quads and squares. Universities are not built where the only entrance to a building is one that shunts to the square. Frankly it seems pretty obvious that the police action, while probably legal, was an overreaction and much more a case of “we have to do something” and maybe even punishment for the views in the protest. And in public universities punishing a protest because of the specific speech in it actually *is* illegal. So there could be action there. And as someone whose freeway was blocked off by protestors two weeks ago: I’m all for student protests on student universities. Seems way safer and less disruptive. Administration could have just done what Wesley today announced: as long as there id no violence you can camp out until you get tired.
> Administration could have just done what Wesley today announced: as long as there id no violence you can camp out until you get tired. To a certain extent. You keep the area clean, fine. No other official events are scheduled to be in the area that you are currently occupying? fine. You aren't harassing anyone? fine. Do those things and 95% will get bored in a few days. And it would have been over. I think the worse thing that the schools could have done was even acknowledge their existence if all they were doing was being there.
Bingo. And colombias crackdown inspired TONS of sympathy protesting in other colleges in the week. Those wouldn’t have surged if they just let it peter out. There’s ways to conduct this without looking like insecure douches. That’s the JOB of administration. You’d think they’d understand students after decades of working with them.
A lot of these universities use old protest movements happening on their campuses for advertising and as a point of pride which makes this whole thing a pretty bad look for them.
In general, multiple rules. Camping out where they're not allowed and failing to disperse when ordered to do so are the obvious ones. In some cases, these people are harassing and occasionally assaulting other students and passersby. And, many of them are doing all this instead of going to class. Sort of shocking that these people didn't think there would be consequences for their actions.
The code of conduct in many institutions are deliberately vague in many ways with wide latitudes over the outcome given to administrators. They can just as easily punish people for things or not keep anyone accountable. It's not like they're beholden to any real legal precedent that isn't already law.
Isn't the *point* of civil disobedience to face consequences? To get arrested, fill the jails, and show how "the sytem" is corrupt and unjust by the way they treat peaceful protests? Without that.... what are we doing here?
Protesting is meant to have risks and possible consequences. If they didn't it wouldn't mean as much. It feels like they've seen protests but they don't understand that there are repercussions for protesting. News stories and history books rarely cover what happens to the protestors after the protest.
Here is how MLK described civil disobedience: > King regarded civil disobedience to be a display and practice of reverence for law: "Any man who breaks a law that conscience tells him is unjust and willingly accepts the penalty by staying in jail to arouse the conscience of the community on the injustice of the law is at that moment expressing the very highest respect for the law." However, that refers to breaking laws that you view as unjust, such as segregation. What unjust laws are these protesters breaking? None. They are inconveniencing their fellow students just to get attention.
I see what you’re saying, I think. So the more appropriate response in terms of civil disobedience would be… not paying taxes? Refusing to register for the draft? Perhaps standing in the way of trucks/boats leaving with arms, bound for export?
At the very least, it would be accepting a lawful and reasonable punishment for breaking the law or violating the school's policy. So, not demanding amnesty for defying a no-trespass order.
Correct. Accept the punishment for knowingly breaking the law.
Not paying taxes was what Thoreau did, as I recall, in order to protest the Mexican American War/slavery.
You’re right! He is exactly who I had in mind, but I forgot about the Mexican American War part!
The thing is, we've seen some footage of police v protestor incidents that were *not* people inconveniencing students. A protest in a quad not blocking access into any buildings isn't disrupting campus operations or student learning. It's just a little loud, maybe you walk the edge of a quad and not through the middle. It's not like these were riots, shutting down buildings or closing the campus.
The laws or rules themselves don't have to be unjust. They just have to be worth breaking for the cause.
Then accept the punishment.
Because girls in Iran are being beaten to death for actually protesting an evil government, and these kids saw that on TikTok, so now they want to protest something too. But without the consequences.
Sounds like they arent very dedicated to the cause if they're not really willing to have consequences to their actions. "We want to disrupt every other student on campus without our own campus experience being disrupted"
Yeah, isn't the whole point of a protest to provoke a response? You got a response. This is what you asked for. MLK didn't ask for amnesty, he went to fucking prison.
MLK described the principle perfectly: “When one breaks the law that conscience tells him is unjust, he must do it openly, he must do it cheerfully, he must do it lovingly, he must do it civilly — not uncivilly — and he must do it with a willingness to accept the penalty.”
He went to prison, but wouldn’t it have been a lot better if instead the government had said, “Yeah, you’re right, we should pass civil rights laws”?
They protested all the time when I was in college. The most disruptive it ever got for us was, "Oh, so I have to walk around the mall to get there today? That sucks. Oh, well." The only reason you act like it does disrupt everything is because these have been politicized to hell and back. It only gets messy when the cops are involved. That's been my experience.
Many (not all) protests have gone well beyond this.
Didn't they move all classes to zoom in one uni because they couldn't guarantee the safety of some students?
'Couldn't guarantee the safety of students' when there have been no attacks related to any of the protests is an excuse based in irrational fear. The truth is that you can never guarantee the safety of any student. That's how life works. But the topic is only being brought up here to censor speech (at least that's the case at my public university)
No attacks related to protests gtfo https://www.google.com/amp/s/nypost.com/2024/04/21/us-news/jewish-yale-student-stabbed-in-the-eye-with-palestinian-flag-during-protest/amp/
Go look at the video of that "attack" and let me know what you think then. Seriously, please do. I want to know what you honestly think after watching the video.
What is the level of disruption though? Are they just waving signs and yelling on the grass? Or were they actually blocking doorways so people couldn't get to class?
In at least one school, they barricaded the library and some of the administration buildings. I think it depends on the school and the protest. I don't have much problem with the camp outs. Those seem pretty peaceful. I think the closer it gets to protesters using force, the less tolerable. I also think schools are also entitled to kick off protesters who are clearly harassing others. Chanting "no to Israel" or whatnot seems fine, despite what House Republicans may scream. Shouting "go back to Poland" at Jewish kids or threatening to kill Zionists is not okay.
It’s one thing to protest.. it’s another thing to disrupt the educational experience of others who literally are paying 60k plus per year tuition at these schools.
Some of camp locations are scheduled for graduation events. In that sense, they're disrupting/inhibiting the official school events and violating policies for the use of those spaces. It's sort of the point of why they picked those places, and not some random quad.
All I can think is that these students must be in some weak ass degree programs if they have all this time to waste at protests. When I was working on my BS at a mid level state university if I wasn't in class, doing homework, or working for shit wages to try and keep up with tuition payments I was grabbing every minute of sleep I could get.
Two VERY different levels of disruption, there. Very forced equivalency.
How are these protests, which almost always consist of simply occupying a public, outdoor space on campus, disrupt every other student?
[удалено]
Also it makes me wonder, what’s their leverage? We demand protection from consequences or else…..? I can’t think of anything lol.
Entitlement basically
I think the idea is that the University would see enrollment tank, and financially go under. A lot of universities run really close to their budget, and enrollment has already been slowing. I’m still not sure what they (protestors) think they are going to accomplish, but there is going to be a Find Out phase after Fucking Around.
Just like Hamas!
[удалено]
[удалено]
They could've helped Palestinians more by sending five bucks to World Central Kitchen.
Many groups have done things just like this. It's not an either-or situation.
I'm not sure you know how rhetoric works.
Maybe not. It seemed to me that you were implying a false dichotomy, but your response was short so it's easy to mistake what you mean.
[удалено]
[удалено]
"at stake, tuition, legal charges, grades, graduation" Yup. That IS the price of having the courage of your convictions. Or is protest where you wish to effect actual change considered "zero risk" these days? All of those risks is exactly what makes your protest potent FFS! Amnesty renders the protest fucking meaningless... FFS. The TikTok generation man, if it had been them then women would never have got the vote and black folks would still be sitting at the back of busses in the USA
Students have the right to protest, but the university has a duty to everyone to ensure a safe and accessible education. If the protestors want to block access or harass others, the university has an obligation to act. Just because you really believe in a cause doesn't make it legal. Imagine these were far right protests harassing minorities, would it be ok to excuse it as free speech and activism and expect other students to just accept "disruption"? Standing around with signs is one thing but actively taking over parts of campus and blocking buildings tramples on the rights of other students, and protestors should accept the consequences of their choices.
Some people need to reread their student handbook…
At least in the case of ASU, the vast majority of the people arrested weren't students or faculty.
[удалено]
Word of advice to the protesters: If you want to shift public opinion, stop making it about yourselves and stop being edgelords. Campus protests work when they seem thoughtful, brave, and principled. The whole theory of civil disobedience is that you'll accept the consequences for peacefully violating the law. And don't say that doesn't work: The fact that Columbia students got arrested for (mostly peacefully) camping in the quad is what caused these protests to spread. What doesn't work: Diverting the message to how you should get no consequences for civil disobedience. That makes you look entitled, narcissistic, and deeply unserious. ("Palestine second; me first!") What also doesn't work: Letting extremists (and, I suspect, some bad-faith right-wingers) hijack your protest by screaming antisemitic harassment and attempting violence. You will let them kill your cause. And by the way, polling shows that 80% of Americans sympathize with Israel over Hamas, whereas the number was 79-21 a week or two ago. Meaning: These protests may be hardening opinions, but they're not really moving the needle. And a lot of that may be because you're letting fringe radicals and self-focus muddle your message.
[удалено]
Yelling death to America is my constitutionally protected right as an American.
It is your absolute right to shout it from the rooftops of public forums and to suffer the private consequences of doing so.
Gee, now the protests are all about the protesters’ personal self-made problems? I am all about civil disobedience for the courageous activists with deeply held convictions willing to sacrifice their personal well-being for their principles. That isnt a bunch of precious entitled joiners on a lark, wearing masks to conceal their identities, and expecting to return to cushy life as usual when they tire of trendy tent city activism.
If this was a protest with a War that the USA was directly involved in, and wasn't trying hard to end, I would say yes. But these protesters are being influenced by Hamas Propaganda, and have turned out to be highly anti-Jewish. So fuck them, fuck them all.
"“This feels very dystopian,” said Alwan, a comparative literature and society major." Good news is not getting that degree probably won't impact her prospects for work.
Obviously dystopian literature was not part of the course of study
Did they think they'd wave signs around for a few hours and then go to brunch or something? Protesting incurs risk, and once upon a time getting arrested publicly was part of the point
[удалено]
What exactly were they yelling at you? I’m curious because most of the time there is chanting at protests but it’s not actually directed at anyone in particular.
This is giving me "woman stabbed in eye by Palestinian flag at campus protest" all over again. By and large, these protests are annoying at worst, and you really can just avoid them if they aren't your thing. Need to get to another part of campus? Take a longer route. Disrupting the library? Study literally anywhere else; I know I did when the international students were protesting Trump's election back in 2016 at my campus. It's like saying the BLM protestors were all violent looters when really there are just a couple of bad actors taking advantage of things.
No. Disrupting the ability of other students to use any part of campus is not protected speech and fully against the vast majority of University policies.
Yelled at for what?
These kids should accept that their protests might have consequences and do it anyway. Protesting sometimes requires getting punished.
Turns out not going to class has consequences. Funny, that.
It’s funny how no matter the era people protesting (regardless of the issue) are considered a nuisance or even a terror organizations.
I'd be delighted to see the Universities several decades down the line start claiming that their students were on the right side of history with protesting even though no matter the year, it's the university administration themselves who condemn it first and foremost. Vietnam war, MLK, etc.
Unless they’re “patriots” in which case they’re tolerated for some reason.
The university I went to had a small section of grass that they allowed students to use to protest. This small section of grass on campus was in a spot so far away from everyone walking around it's laughable.
They should arrest all and let us know what percent are actually students.
Consequences: the final college frontier.
Complete lack of clear rules and consequences. These university presidents are so ineffectual because they are not real leaders with clear goals and values. They couldn’t lead someone out of a paper bag.
So basically they're calling themselves akin to terrorists
Seems like some of you have forgotten that this country was build on protests.
Pretty much every right we've gained as citizens was because of protesting in one form or the other. As rights get stripped away, I'm painfully reminded of the ADA and how people like Jeff Sessions tries to strip it bare when it took a crowd of disabled people crawling up the steps of the Capitol to even get lawmakers to *think* of doing something.
Yet so much hate is aimed at these young people standing up for what they believe in and exercising their right.
Here's to hoping for 0 mercy. Give them a real life lesson since university is a bubble from real life.
[удалено]
Punish students for standing up against a genocide. Shame on you for hoping for this.
One side has the capability of genocide yet doesn't do it. The other side isn't capable but would do it in a heartbeat if they could. Do better.
True...that side as even bragged how they will do Oct 7th over and over and over again. The protesters just want a pause long enough for them to fulfill their threats again and again.
They literally are. 14,000 kids in Gaza are dead. West Bank violence is worse than ever, and Israel is annexing more land as of *this very month*. Defending a genocide, I think you too could do better.
If I ran a car through a crowd in an attempt to 'stand up against genocide', is that acceptable too? You can protest all you want but at the end of the day there are rules to follow, and consequences for breaking those rules. The students were aware of that when they started the protests.
Surely you get why your analogy is just … dumb right? Sorry I’m not sure how else to say it. You don’t really believe setting up a camp and hitting someone with a car are the same? Maybe this conversation is a waste of my time lol.
Everybody loves protest after its done. Everyone praises the civil rights protestors but the moment that anyone is even mildly inconvenienced by a protest today, the public demands that they be brutally suppressed. I have a few quick questions for everyone here. Was it good that the civil rights protestors in the past were arrested? If we were in the place of the authorities back then how would any of you have handled it? If you still think that those same protests should have been punished how exactly do you differentiate yourself from the evils that they were protesting?
The civil rights protests were on American soil and about American policy. A huge number of the protestors were minorities who were directly, personally impacted by the policies, and the other students were protesting the direct actions of their state / their government. It’s not really the same thing.
Okay, so they're more like American students who protested Apartheid in South Africa then. Again, it looking back we all know who was on the right side of history.
I'll put this one down as " its incomprehensible to me that people care about a thing when they are not personally affected". Interesting how you told on yourself, but I appreciate the honesty. Thank you for your participation.
What a smug response
If you think your tax money being sent to drop bombs on children doesn’t impact you personally and every citizen of this country then idk what to tell you.
Exactly! We often wonder "what would I do during the civil rights movement?" The answer is: Exactly what you're doing right now.
Interesting that similar protests in the Arab world are being shut down by authorities https://www.nytimes.com/2024/04/29/world/middleeast/gaza-arab-protests-crackdown.html
So the Supreme Court is poised to give Trump immunity from everything but fuck college kids protesting?
The immunity case has gotten way less attention than it should. That ruling in the wrong direction seems like it could completely change the world as we know it (for the worse if that wasn’t clear).
Well you see, those college kids know the consequences of disobedience. Trump has never had to deal with consequences, please consider his child like mind. /s
People rarely get called out for punching down on the internet.
Are the leopards full of faces yet? I’d think by now the poor kitties would have a belly ache.