MIT President's Statement on Removal of Encampment

"Disciplinary measures were not sufficient to end [the encampnent] nor to deter students from quickly reestablishing it."

The statement:

Dear members of the MIT community,

At my direction, very early this morning, the encampment on Kresge lawn was cleared. The individuals present in the encampment at the time were given four separate warnings, in person, that they should depart or face arrest. The 10 who remained did not resist arrest and were peacefully escorted from the encampment by MIT police officers and taken off campus for booking.

I write now because this is an unprecedented situation for our community, and you deserve a clear explanation of how we arrived at this moment.

But let me start by emphasizing that, as president, my responsibility is to the whole community: to make sure that the campus is physically safe and functioning for everyone, that our shared spaces and resources are available for everyone, and that everyone feels free to express their views and do the work they came here to do. As you will see, in numerous ways, the presence of the encampment increasingly made it impossible to meet all these obligations.

A timeline of key events

Here's a quick timeline, familiar from my past notes to you:

• The encampment began on Sunday, April 21, in violation of clear Institute guidelines well known to the student organizers. It slowly grew. Though it was peaceful, its presence generated controversy, including persistent calls from some of you that we shut it down. While we asked the students repeatedly to leave the site, we chose for a time not to interfere, in part out of respect for the Institute's foundational principles of free expression.
• Last Friday, May 3, we were able to contain a significant rally and counter demonstration through a very extensive coordinated effort, including with the City of Cambridge, which shut down Mass. Avenue. Among other measures, we set up high temporary fencing around the encampment to help maintain separation between the groups. This event drew several hundred people from outside MIT in support of each side.
• On Monday, May 6, judging that we could not sustain the extraordinary level of effort required to keep the encampment and the campus community safe, we directed the encamped students to leave the site voluntarily or face clear disciplinary consequences. Some left. Some stayed inside, while others chose to step just outside the camp and protest. Some chose to invite to the encampment large numbers of individuals from outside MIT, including dozens of minors, who arrived in response to social media posts.
  Late that afternoon, aided by people from outside MIT, many of the encampment students breached and forcibly knocked down the safety fencing and demolished most of it, on their way to reestablishing the camp. In that moment, the peaceful nature of the encampment shifted. Disciplinary measures were not sufficient to end it nor to deter students from quickly reestablishing it.
• Wednesday, May 8, was marked by a series of escalating provocations. In the morning, pro-Palestinian supporters physically blocked the entrance and exit to the Stata Center garage though they eventually dispersed. Later, after taking down Israeli and American flags that had been hung by counter protestors, some individuals defaced Israeli flags with red handprints, in the presence of Israeli students and faculty. Several pro-Israel supporters then entered the camp to confront and shout at the protestors. Throughout, the opposing groups grew in numbers. With so many opposing individuals in close quarters, tensions ran very high. The day ended with more suspensions – and a rally by the pro-Palestinian students.
• Thursday, May 9, pro-Palestinian students again blocked the mouth of the Stata garage, preventing community members from entering and exiting to go about their business, and requiring that Vassar Street be shut down. This time, they refused directions from the police to leave and allow passage of cars. Their action therefore resulted in nine arrests.

Sustained effort to reach a resolution through dialogue

As we all, know, the current conflict on campus stretches far beyond MIT. From the beginning, we have watched with great concern what has happened on other campuses. We have been determined to avoid violence, and I have been strongly opposed to using the threat of arrest to resolve a situation that should be mediated by discourse.

We tried every path we could to find a way out through dialogue. In various combinations, senior administrative leaders and faculty officers met with the protesters many times over almost two weeks. This sustained team effort benefited from the involvement of at least a dozen faculty members and alumni who have been supporting and advising the protestors, and, in the final stages, a professional mediator who was meeting with the students.

Reaching a solution hinged on our ability to meet the students' primary demand, which we could not do in a well-principled way that respected the academic freedom of our faculty. Yet though all of us working with the students were hopeful, the students would not yield on their original demand, and negotiation did not succeed.

Irresolvable tensions, and a tipping point

And thus we arrived at this morning's police action – our last resort.

For members of our community who may remember or even have participated in past protests, at MIT or elsewhere: This situation is fundamentally different. Why? Because this is not one group in conflict with the administration. It is two groups in conflict, in part through us, with each other.

The encampment had become a symbol for both sides. For those supporting the pro-Palestinian cause, it symbolized a moral commitment that trumped all other considerations, because of the immense suffering in Gaza. For the pro-Israel side, the encampment – at the center of the campus where they are trying to receive an education and conduct research – delivered a constant assertion, through its signs and chants, that those who believe that Israel has a right to exist are unwelcome at MIT.

As a result, the encampment became a flashpoint. MIT sits at the center of a major metropolitan area that features a large population of college-aged students. Our campus is easy to reach and wide open.

The escalation of the last few days, involving outside threats from individuals and groups from both sides, has been a tipping point. It was not heading in a direction anyone could call peaceful. And the cost and disruption for the community overall made the situation increasingly untenable. We did not believe we could responsibly allow the encampment to persist.

The actions we've taken, gradually stepped up over time, have been commensurate with the risk we are in a position to see. We did not take this step suddenly. We offered warnings. We telegraphed clearly what was coming. At each point, the students made their own choices. And finally, choosing among several bad options, we chose the path we followed this morning – where each student again had a choice. I do not expect everyone to agree with our reasoning or our decision, but I hope it helps to see how we got there.

Finally: Our actions today had nothing to do with the specific viewpoints of the students in the encampment. We acted in response to their actions. There are countless highly effective ways for all of us to express ourselves that neither disrupt the functioning of the Institute nor create a magnet for external protestors. As the ad hoc Committee on Academic Freedom and Campus Expression recently observed, "while freedom of expression protects the ability of community members to express their views about the current situation in the Middle East, it does not protect the continued use of a shared Institute resource in violation of long-established rules."

[*  *  *]

Our community includes people who lost friends and family to the brutal terror attack of October 7, and people with friends and family currently in mortal danger in Rafah. It includes individuals whose families have struggled for years under the strictures imposed on Gaza, and at least one faculty member – an alumnus who has made his home at MIT for more than 70 years – who lost his whole family to the Holocaust. And of course, MIT includes people who hold a spectrum of views beyond those expressed by the encampment and by its fiercest opponents.

We all have a stake in this community. And we all have an interest in being treated with decency and respect for our humanity. That interest comes with a responsibility to offer each other the same consideration. We must find a way to work through this situation together; I pledge to work on that with anyone who will join me.

I have no illusions that today's action will bring an end to the conflict here, as the war continues to rage in the Middle East. But I had no choice but to remove such a high-risk flashpoint at the very center of our campus.

I can't speak to the accuracy or completeness of the facts, and one can disagree on the details; for instance, I think such encampments, which violate school rules, should be removed immediately. Still, the general analysis strikes me as quite reasonable.

Comments

[Dr. Ed 2]

Methinks this is more about demands to reveal and eliminate DoD research than Gaza.

[John F. Carr]

There is a lot of overlap of left wing protest groups. You don't see a lof of "from the river to the sea" mixing with "no boys in girls' sports".

When I was a student the non-left wing political groups seemed more distinct. Maybe that's because there were not as many of them. Maybe not.

[Dr. Ed 2]

" dozens of minors, who arrived in response to social media posts."

Don't they have a duty to -- at least -- report each minor to child protective? I could see taking them all into protective custody and demanding a parent come pick them up.

[John F. Carr]

MGL 119-51A requires reporting of

(i) abuse inflicted upon [a child] which causes harm or substantial risk of harm to the child's health or welfare, including sexual abuse;
(ii) neglect, including malnutrition;
(iii) physical dependence upon an addictive drug at birth
(iv) being a sexually exploited child
(v) being a human trafficking victim as defined by section 20M of chapter 233

Juvenile delinquency on its own is not reportable.

[David Nieporent]

Don’t they have a duty to — at least — report each minor to child protective?

No. This has been yet another episode of Simple Answers to Stupid Questions.

[Brett Bellmore]

The problem with proportional response of this sort, is that it puts the offenders in control. And make no mistake, the moment it was pointed out to them that they were violating school rules, and they persisted, they became offenders.

That's why the situation has lasted so long: The university never took decisive action to stop it, even after they were on notice that the Hamas supporters didn't care that they were violating the rules.

[Bwaaah]

I note that her timeline for this starts on April 21, just three weeks ago. She jumps right past the months of rule-breaking, right past her tacit [LOUD] permission of rule-breaking. She pretends to answer the question, “How did we come to this?” But she leaves out most of the history, as if she wasn’t presiding over it all along.

But really, she doesn’t “preside” over anything. She’s an elite university president…an in-between fundraising functionary…a voice for a committee, for any committee, for all committees…a real person who stands for nothing, because a voice has to come from somewhere if committees are to speak without anybody being held to account.

Elite university leaders…vacuous professional standers-by…spokespeople…spineless opportunists seeking opportunities among spineless opportunists. (Super-educated, though.)

[Sonja T]

Brett Bellmore 5 mins ago
Flag Comment
" The university never took decisive action to stop it, even after they were on notice that the Hamas supporters didn’t care that they were violating the rules."

good to point out the protesters are anti-sematism & Hamas supporters. The colleges were okay with the anti-semitism and hamas supporters until the optics got too bad.

[Don Nico]

"until the optics got too bad"
That they did and at MIT the infliction of fear and experience of harassment has continued to the present.

In retrospect, I can only remark, it is about time. I saw the protest group leave their encampment in front of Kresge Hall at 12:35 pm. They were ready for a fight that had police helicopters patrolling the skies 3 hours later with many MIT employees rights to exit the Stata Center impeded.

It had always been clear, especially after last week's suspensions of some students, that Pres. Kornbluth would be pushed to call the Cambridge Police to clear the encampment and arrest students. Hopefully she will have the cojones, to press charges against those arrested.

[bernard11]

Hi Don,

On Monday I reported here that I had spent a little time (30-60 minutes) that afternoon on the MIT campus, watching the protests.

As I said then, it seemed quite peaceful in the sense that I saw no violence, no verbal altercations, no vandalism. There was chanting but no one got into a fight over it, or even seemed to object. The business about brand new green tents was, there at least, completely false. Next to the encampment was a grassy area where an Israeli flag flew undisturbed, and there were posters, mounted on small wooden stakes, carrying pictures of the Israeli hostages. Again, undisturbed, as was the Chabadnik sitting on a bench studying.

The demonstrators had even posted a sign on the fence asking their supporters not to remove signs or flags put up by counter demonstrators.

When I returned on Tuesday there were many fewer demonstrators - many fewer - and they were mostly sitting around talking to each other or studying or eating lunch. They even offered free snacks and soft drinks to passers by.

Obviously, a lot happened, especially since then, that I didn't see. But I still wonder whether the media reports may be a little selective - in a man-bites-dog fashion - in reporting events.

Did you personally see a lot of the activity? I'd be curious to hear what you saw.

[bernard11]

As an addendum, to avoid making my comment too long, let me say that on Sunday I went to Harvard Square, where a very large street fair was in progress - food tents everywhere, musicians, dancers, tchotchke vendors, and so on - the usual.

The campus itself was closed to those lacking a Harvard ID, so I couldn't see much, but the occasional glance through a gate suggested things were pretty calm there also. Certainly, no one in the very large crowd at the fair seemed much bothered, and there were no sounds of discord.

So some things:

1. Obviously, I was in both places for limited periods, in mid-afternoon on a pleasant day, and don't know what else did or did not happen.

2. Media reporting will always tend to focus on more spectacular - shall we say - events, and these reports are likely to spread and create a somewhat distorted view of events, especially when there are those interested in using them to advance an agenda.

[Don Nico]

I was also in Harvard Square on Sunday (thanks to a mistake with Uber). The situation was as you described.

[Bwaaah]

"The campus itself was closed to those lacking a Harvard ID, so I couldn’t see much, but the occasional glance through a gate suggested things were pretty calm there also."

Correct me if I'm wrong, but normally, the Harvard campus is open to passersby who are permitted to walk freely into and around the school's open spaces. Is that correct? (That's the way I remember it.)

I say this to point out what I suspect is a notable lack of normalcy in the situation. Though all was relatively calm, that was under a highly unusual condition of campus perimeter lockdown, barring of any unauthorized entrants, and elevated security presence in and around the campus. (I don't remember there having been any visibly active security presence at Harvard campus.)

[Don Nico]

Dear Bernard,

On Tuesday I noted that the situation was much as you described.The encampment itself was small, probably reduced by the suspensions last week. I noticed a large Israeli flag and a couple of Palestinian flags. The mood was quiet and I suspect that the Admin was pretty calm.

On Thursday, I was on the steps of the main entrance (building 7) waiting for a colleague from Harvard to arrive. The Israeli flag was gone and there was persisting chanting loud enough to disturb classes across Mass. At about 12:35 the protesters started marching (using the cross-walk) and turning left toward Vassar Street. The chants certainly suggested that they were expecting a confrontation. As they had previously blocked the Stata Center garage exit, I assumed (correctly) that was their target.

By 4:00 pm police had cordoned off Vassar street and helicopters were patrolling. I did not read any reports this morning. The first thing that I read was the email from Pres. Kornbluth. As far as I know there was no distortion in the press, but I don't get the Boston Globe; the NYT report was neutral in tone.

[Don Nico]

Added note:
Today MIT buildings will be accessible only via the MIT ID-reader system today.

[Stephen Lathrop]

Reaching a solution hinged on our ability to meet the students' primary demand, which we could not do in a well-principled way that respected the academic freedom of our faculty.

That seems less than forthright. Was the question academic freedom, or was it freedom to seek funding without constraint?

I ask for assurance that any such, "well-principled," policy does not extend to encompass funding research to advance clients' intent to inflict criminal violence. Or intent to circumvent world-wide restrictions on technologies judged too dangerous to explore, such as some heritable human genome alterations.

I see no principled reason not to consider expanding that list, to include review of politically founded advocacy—for instance, advocacy against research to advance means to empower adversaries of the United States abroad. Does anyone suppose there is a principled academic freedom argument to fund activities purposed to put a nuclear weapon in the hands of Hamas?

Without much more on academic freedom and how technology research gets funded, no one should support shutting down debate over the question as an inviolable administrative prerogative.

[Don Nico]

Stephen,
You are owed NO assurances whatsoever. If you are a contributor to MIT, withhold your check.

"That seems less than forthright. " is simply an insulting and demeaning accusation without evidence. The demand that MIT disassociate it self with any collaboration with Israeli's was a complete non-stater and abhorrent to anyone with even the smallest understanding of academic freedom.

You conflate "shutting down debate" with the months-long harassment of Jews on the MIT campus. That is just crappy journalism from a former small-town newspaper man.

[Ed Grinberg]

.

You conflate “shutting down debate” with the months-long harassment of Jews on the MIT campus. That is just crappy journalism...

To paraphrase Mr. Lathrop, that seems less than decent.

[Don Nico]

Eugene,
Thank you for providing Pres. Kornbluth's full statement to the MIT community.

We were told last week that some students were suspended last week. Were suspensions actual or was that announcement must to placate potential donors? Unfortunately the action of the MIT administration provoked cynicism. Still one can also sympathize with the practical difficulties faced by the MIT administration.

Pres. Kornbluth's attempt to mitigate the effects on campus life by the protest must be judged to have been a continuing failure as the atmosphere of fear an harassment of Jews and especially Israelis on campus has persisted to the present.

[Commenter_XY]

The Third Stooge needs to go. She took 19 days to figure out the encampment had to be removed? This leading from behind crap is just blather for, "I'll do nothing and hope it blows over". Pathetic.

The MIT board should dismiss her.

[Bwaaah]

I suspect that the MIT board, silent as it is, is very much on board with her deft management of the controversy.

Think of this from the perspective of a committee member. “If we get this wrong, she’s going down. If I get this wrong, I’m going down.

What’s a committee member to do? “No comment. The president speaks for us all.”

Committee members get to do nothing, and they still get paid. That’s a pretty simple and compelling value proposition. You suggest they should do WHAT???!!!!

[Don Nico]

Board members are more than committee members. They have legal obligations.

[Don Nico]

Her patience sure did not work out well for her. Persistent harassment has cause many wounds that will heal but slowly.

[Da5id]

I’ve seen a students suspension letter (with name redacted) posted by mit_caa. And personally heard from a student that someone from her dorm (Random) was in fact suspended. And required to vacate their room. Suspensions seem real.

When I saw the encampment Tuesday it was pretty quiet, and the Jewish group singing songs just outside was ignored and there was no conflict.

But yeah, I think it was clearly time for admin to do something.

[Don Nico]

Thank you for the information. A student required to vacate was given a full suspension rather than an interim academic suspension.

[Da5id]

I don't think you are correct there. There is a May 8 suspension letter a student got on the mit_caa instagram. The letter says it is an interim suspension. And also says "You will also not be permitted to reside in your assigned residential hall or use MIT dining halls".

Maybe the actual full suspension requires the completion of the COD process? I don't know. If you have an instagram account you can see the letter in the mit_caa account. The picture that says "MIT Unjustly Suspends & Evicts Dozens..." is a slide deck and the second and 3rd pages are the suspension letter.

[Don Nico]

There were two kinds of suspensions given: "academic" in which the student could not participate in class, exams, etc. but could stay in housing, use their meal plan etc. and full suspension, in which they had to leave student housing, could not use meal services. You are correct that both types given are interim until completion for the full COD process

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

What is this . . . a dozen posts by these right-wing law professors about student protests concerning the slaughter in Gaza and the terrorism in the West Bank?

Where were these conservative bloggers when armed, un-American losers were occupying federal property in the Bundy episodes; when armed, virus-flouting clingers were blocking traffic on downtown streets and entering buildings (including at least one state capitol) without authorization during the pandemic; when right-wing truck drivers were clogging roads to express displeasure about something I can't recall; and when conservatives were commandeering school board meetings to express bigotry, object to public health measures, or promote some other ignorant right-wing cause?

This is just paltry polemical partisanship from a bigot-embracing, movement conservative blog.

Is today the last day UCLA has to put up with this?

[Old Smokin' Egg]

While I can't manage to keep my language as moderate as Rev. Kirkland's, I have to agree with one of his points. I wonder how many of the people who're reading this blog and supporting the MIT administration's decision, or wondering why it took 'em so darn long to take action against a plainly illegal occupation, felt the same way about the 40-day occupation of the Malheur NWR headquarters.

I think my own views are consistent: colleges can and should take action against protests that violate their regulations and interfere with the rights of others to use the campus; and the Feds were right to expel Bundy et al.; with criminal charges right and appropriate in both situations. But I wonder how many others, on either side of the political divide, can come up with excellent reasons why our side's occupation should be allowed to continue, while that of their side should be vigorously suppressed.

[David Nieporent]

1) Kirkland is trolling. Never agree with Kirkland.
2) Whatabouting is not a legitimate argument.
3) It takes little more than a higher-than-room-temperature IQ to understand that professors are going to care a lot more about what happens on campuses — multiple campuses, in fact — than in a remote forest cabin.

[Old Smokin' Egg]

Exactly what do we mean by "whatabouting"? That's not a rhetorical question. Aren't there times when it's legitimate to point out that someone's past stances haven't agreed with a principle that they now loudly proclaim?

For instance, when Claudine Gay was telling us how important it was to permit the free exchange of ideas, even if those ideas and expressions hurt the feelings of others, wasn't it valid to ask why Harvard didn't seem to feel that way when the hurt feelings were those of Muslims, blacks, persons of transgender...? That's not whataboutism, to my mind; that's saying that if someone espouses a principle, they should abide by it even when it doesn't benefit their side.

No. To my thinking, whataboutism is basically saying "You can't criticize my side for A, because your side did B, which was worse". And the purpose of my comment, at least, wasn't to condemn the breakup of the MIT encampment on the grounds that the Bundyites got away with worse; it was to demand that the people who're defending MIT here on law-and-order grounds abide by those same principles in future situations, where the principles don't work in their favor.

[Don Nico]

“on law-and-order grounds”
Claiming that a significant protected class of students and faculty receive protection from continuing harassment are hardly “law and order” demands.
As for the Bundyites, they were only a news item to me. In retrospect, I don't recall having more than voyeuristic interest.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

.

I don’t recall having more than voyeuristic interest.

No shit, clinger.

[Commenter_XY]

You make a fair point.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The "principles" of these social injustices warriors at the Volokh Conspiracy flutter with the partisan winds. Check Prof. Volokh's record on pseudonymity. Or his record on freedom of expression. Or his record on treatment of protesters. Or his carefully curated stream of partisan white grievance-drag queen-Muslim-lesbian-Black crime-male grievance-racial slur content. Or his trans fetish.

The Bernstein-Blackman record of selectivity with respect to ostensible outrage concerning bigotry (real or ostensibly perceived) is a prominent work of partisan hackery, too.

[Vryedni]

Whataboutism can be a valid criticism, not of an argument, but of the arguer's principles and consistency. It's an evasion and a logical fallacy when used to rebut the argument itself.

[Brett Bellmore]

"the 40-day occupation of the Malheur NWR headquarters."

OK, you want a serious answer?

The Malheur NWR headquarters were only used seasonally, closed every year November through March. The occupation occurred January through mid February, when it was vacant, and thus inconvenienced precisely nobody.

It was, however, trespassing, and they did some minor damage, and absolutely should have been prosecuted on that basis.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"MIT President's Statement on Removal of Encampment"

When can we expect UCLA President's Statement on Removal of Racial Slur-Hurling Professor from campus?

Spoiler: Any day now.

[Kazinski]

I’m not condoning the 40 day occupation at Malheur NWR, by a group of misguided conspiracy theorists looking for a confrontation. However there were significant differences, Malheur NWR is as about a remote a place as there exists in the Continental United States, not a busy University campus where 10’s of thousands live, study, and work. Harney county has an entire population of only 7500 and 60% of them live in the Burns/Hinds “metroplex” 30 miles away. The occupation itself was in the dead of winter when even the birds have abandoned the NWR.

If the MIT protesters had instead occupied deserted Rainsford Island in Boston Harbor, then I would suggest the exact same course as in Malheur NWR, let them rot there until they get tired and leave.

Does that answer your question?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Some of the clinger protests were conducted in a state capitol, on downtown streets, on highways, and at school board meetings.

You don't argue too good, even for a disaffected, antisocial wingnut.

[John F. Carr]

On May 6 “the peaceful nature of the encampment shifted.” A decisive response did not immediately follow.

Historically, for decades prior to 2010, MIT Campus Police were good cops. They understand they are around to help but they can still do the job of a police officer when needed including hitting their target instead of an innocent bystander. I can’t speak to the last decade.

[kkoshkin]

That's a lot of words for what should have been:

"I have failed this campus beginning with my catastrophic testimony to Congress and continuing through my inability to enforce clear rules against clear rule-breaking. I finally grew a spine, and the encampments have been eliminated and will not be allowed to re-emerge. I am resigning effective immediately."

[Sarcastr0]

Wank

[Josh R]

This case is instructive for why you shouldn't negotiate: you end up with content-based decisions (you have to, since the terms of the negotiations involve the content).

[John F. Carr]

WBUR reports this morning that there was a short protest in front of the president's house demanding that she drop charges against the ten people who were arrested.