The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Must Universities Negotiate with Protesters?
No
This is specific to Princeton in its context, but I thought my new op-ed would be of broader interest given the encampments across the country and the many activists on and off campus who are insisting that universities must come to the table to meet their "demands" and must not punish or arrest students who violate university rules and criminal laws.
From my op-ed in The Daily Princetonian:
Rules and laws exist for a reason, even on a university campus. Sometimes it might be necessary to engage in civil disobedience or even take direct action to try to stop the machinery of injustice. But taking such actions have consequences, and the mere fact that some wish to take those actions does not mean that anyone else must conclude that their actions were either laudable or justified or should be either encouraged or rewarded. When members of the campus community engage in conduct that violates the rules that allow the many diverse people on campus to coordinate their varied interests and activities, they are properly subject to disciplinary action. When protesters move from trying to persuade to trying to compel compliance with their demands, the correct response is simply to tell them "no" and to take what steps are necessary to restore the proper functioning of the University.
My first, and I presume my last, op-ed in the Princeton student newspaper.
Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
The only reason universities "negotiate" is when they agree with the protesters and want a reason to avoid all punishments for them.
If MAGA proponents was protesting, say, the viciousness of government-mandated lawfare, there would be zero negotiations and extremely harsh punishments.
Surely psychiatric care would be more appropriate for such people.
Yes, that's what the Russian KGB did to dissidents. Wikipedia has a whole page on it, look up "Political abuse of psychiatry in the Soviet Union". Though I'm sure you already know about it.
Your Op-Ed was excellent, Professor Whittington. I don't always see eye-to-eye with you, but yasher koach on this Op-Ed.
Conspirators...It is definitely worth the read, IMO.
I think you should write another Op-Ed and submit it....see if it gets published. 😉
The point could have been made in about two paragraphs.
That's not a skill set most professors possess.
Nor is it encouraged, if someone can fully and clearly explain ground breaking research in their doctoral dissertation in 25 pages they will be told it needs to be at least 50-75 pages.
I believe the full legal phrase is "No! No! Bad dog! Outside with you!".
It’s on a case-by-case basis, depending on what your goals are. You can say what you want in public but in private your ears must always be open and you should always be sending out feelers, though the timing must be careful.
Reagan took a tough line in public but in the end negotiated with terrorists. Carter had tried it, too.
Chamberlain agreed to negotiate with Hitler (and he was right to do so).
Even Hitler early on played ball with Zionists.
Obama negotiated with Republicans, apparently successfully, though he quickly found that it was pointless; they would not adhere to what had been agreed to.
Here, Brown University officials negotiated with protesters and successfully defused the situation.
In my experience student leaders are not sophisticated negotiators and never get over their sense of being flattered at being invited to speak with the big university brass. I don’t know if that’s what happened at Brown but the fact is, there is now peace there.
Prof. Whittington may be doing the necessary public posturing but even he probably agrees.
Each of your examples involves negotiating with people or groups who have varying degrees of power. What power do the students have? Certainly not any power based on a legal right to trespass or violate school policy. Public sympathy? Polls suggest otherwise.
The only reason I can think of why these encampments aren't immediately uprooted by the police is that no one wants to deal with all the lawsuits about unnecessary force, merited or not.
The students are the paying customers (although not all these protesters are actually students). That's some amount of leverage even when the schools are non-profits.
"Not all" is an odd way to say "the vast majority."
Oh, come on, it wasn't a vast majority of non-students. Roughly half, really.
Indeed, if those particular students were expelled for egregiously violating the school's rules, the school would probably struggle to find replacements!
What power do the students have? Certainly not any power based on a legal right to trespass or violate school policy.
Who said anything about power based on a legal right? Almost none of captcrisis's examples involve power based on a legal right. But the students certainly have the practical ability to cause all sorts of trouble, and so the university might choose to talk to them, based on pragmatic considerations. "Must" is entirely the wrong word, and prof. Whittington is effectively answering a question that nobody is asking, and that isn't very relevant for anything.
No one, I'm just going through potential sources of power.
What trouble can the students cause beyond the effort of removing them?
Half the country has been talking about this mess for weeks now. Removing the students makes the university look bad in the eyes of people who might want to study there, and look good in the eyes of people who have no (potential) affiliation with the university anyway. So even if you think looking bad isn't a sufficient incentive, there's money in it too.
"look good in the eyes of people who have no (potential) affiliation with the university anyway"
Plenty of Zionist Jews go to these colleges.
I suppose it makes them look bad in the eyes of SOME people who might want to study there, but probably the school is better off without those idiots anyway. No shortage of people who just want to study and get a degree, and support clearing away obstacles to that.
“Removing the students makes the university look bad in the eyes of people who might want to study there”
You think U.S. high school students have been watching the videos of these bullying nasty disruptive loud-mouthed protestors, and they’re thinking, “Oh. Those poor protestors. What kind of an educational institution would would want to trim that stuff back? I want a school that will send me home to learn remotely, and help sustain disruptions to the enterprise of education.”
Those future students may be young, but they’re not stupid. And they’re applying to educational institutions, not social movements. (Most of them, anyway.)
You think anyone other than cranky conservative granddads or self-righteous centrist pearl-clutchers think there's something particularly horrifying about students holding protests?
The general chaos will play politically. Especially as it continues.
This matters and helps the right.
Doesn’t change how I think this should be handled but don’t pretend there is no cost.
Horrifying? Surely you jest.
Nasty. Petty. Petulant. Self-absorbed. Insubordinate. Disruptive. Disrespectful. Lacking in self-awareness. The kind of turds normal people don't want to be counted amongst.
Sorry, Nige. University campuses will not be able to host the next intifada. There aren't that many angry jihadis in the United States. If you remove the protestors who are just kids searching for meaning in their lives, you're left with a few single-issue extremists and the same cadre of [unemployed] anarchists who turn protests into riots, speech into destruction.
I'm not a fashion guy. But I predict for the Fall 2024 entering class in U.S. colleges that the kaffiyeh will not be a popular style.
.
My daughter is 14. In a couple of years, we'll be helping her choose a college. Now, between University X, which allows (rule-breaking!) pro-Hamas demonstrations for months on end (complete with harassment of / assaults on Jewish students), and University Y, which promptly shuts them down, which one do you think my wife & I would want to send our daughter to?
(I'd add that, IMO, this is probably how any normal / decent parents would see it. You don't need to be Jewish to not want to send your kid to an openly antisemitic school, just as you don't have to be black to not want to patronize a store with a "No blacks allowed" sign in its window.)
Let's be realistic, you're not sending your kid to college in a blue state anyway. Which means that, if they're lucky, they'll end up their on their own, and otherwise they end up treated like a child until they graduate college (or longer), with their parents trying to get books in the university library banned, and trying to get the university to expel students for being gay or trans.
What sort of trouble could students who are defending genocidal terrorists cause? I would think anything up to mass murder would be on the table, if they are allowed enough time to work themselves up and get radicalized.
Luckily these are anti-war students, not white nationalist students.
They're not anti-war (they have no problem with Hamas, after all).
They're pro-the other side.
You know they aren't white nationalists because the college AGREES with them.
No, they are not, this is 'objectively pro-Saddam' nonsense.
Again, their criticism of Hamas is non-existent.
So, no, they are not anti-war. They are pro-the-other-side.
These students are openly and aggressively pro-war. They don't want the side they support to lose the war (as it currently is), but they certainly want the war to continue as long as it can help out the cause.
'If you're not with us you're against us.'
Interesting, in a scary way: Reason is blocking links to videos of the MIT students calling for genocide.
Maybe this one?
https://www.instagram.com/combatantisemitism/reel/C6wN-g3Medz/
Come on Noscitur, you can't think of any other reasons, dumb or no, why students might be protesting other than supporting Hamas?
I'm also not at all sure Hamas is losing the war. Asymmetric warfare is a tricky beast.
Of course one could imagine other reasons. The problem is that thinking those imaginary reasons were the real ones requires ignoring what the protesters actually keep saying.
Right, anti-war students normally hold organized chants calling for genocide. It's how you tell them apart from the pro-war students, really. [/sarc]
I hope you've verified your videos.
If these groups didn’t have any power, why would others be bothered by them?
The ability to bother others is a kind of power.
Crackdowns have negative side effects. Negotiation is always a potential alternative to force.
Whether it should be used or not in any situation is a pragmatic question, not an absolute ideals based one.
When a group of unemployed WWI veterans marched on Washington in 1932 and camped out on the mall asking to be paid a bonus (the “bonus army”), Herbert Hoover had the army forcibly remove their campground and several were shot to death in the process. It didn’t go over very well with the public. Roosevelt used a lighter touch with a later group of veterans, offering them jobs in the new CCC if they disbursed.
Did the veterans have no power? Indeed they did have power, as Roosevelt realized.
I’ve very strongly opposed the causes these protesters are camping out for, and schools are absolutely entitled to enforce their rules. But it would be absurd not to acknowledge that these people too also have power.
You're talking about sympathy with the public. Unemployed WWI veterans are sympathetic for being veterans and unemployed.
What makes college students sympathetic to the public, especially wealthy and privileged students at ivy league schools? That they care about something? As if no one else in the world can care for things without trespassing and being obnoxious?
I'm really not getting this. The FO of FAFO does not make anyone sympathetic.
Unemployed WWI veterans are sympathetic for being veterans and unemployed.
Fat lot of good that did them. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hooverville
No. That isn't the only reason. Many of the people that run the colleges and universities actually agree with the protesters, but, won't come out and say it. Pretending to negotiate is their way of showing support without placing their heads on the chopping block. I've seen protests where the Campus Police were ordered to protect protesters against anti-protesters. Just look at how UCLA requested that the FBI investigate Pro-Israel protesters.
That is the voice of the weak, when they are put in charge. "We considered the facts, and were left with no other option than to [blah blah blah]."
They can't defend their decisions, so they phrase it like somebody else made them. It is the voice of powerlessness, emanating from the seats of power. This is what happens when the greatest qualifier for moving up the ladder is how few people you [overtly] offended on the way up. It is the ascendance of people who are most able to speak non-controversially about our most troubling subjects; people who are most able, when it matters, to say nothing in so many words.
Jesus.
No, not Jesus, Zionists.
Why are you incredulous about a historical fact?
In 1933, Hitler signed the Haavara Agreement with the Zionists.
Negotiating Jews never works out for the goy.
Zionism had a lot of appeal to antisemites. Sending Jews to Palestine was a way of getting rid of them. Chesterton was an example of that.
Case by case means the facts on the ground matter and will vary widely. There will absolutely be examples where protesters demonstrate that negotiation would be counterproductive or even ridiculous.
But the facts as laid out in the OP Fall well short of that standard. It's just the usual 'all rules must be zero tolerance so it's punishment time' which remains a crazy view for someone who works on campus, or has been a college student anytime since like 1990 to have.
There could absolutely be some specifics about Princeton's past policies or these protestors' current behavior that take negotiation off the table. But the OP's facts look more like they have a blanket 'don't talk to the student protesters' baseline. That kind of nationwide blanket view flies in the face of how college tend to enforce most of their rules, and if you look at history has proven unproductive in the past.
You mean like the rules on underaged drinking.
Once colleges took a zero tolerance approach on that, circa 1990, they found themselves in a "whataboutism" issue of having to do likewise with everything else.
What you have here is a cause that is supported by less than a third of the student body, but they are taking a "FUCK YOU" attitude toward everyone else. So you either have to enforce your rules on this or abandon all hope that the majority will observe your other rules.
And where WOULD Gaslighto enforce rules? If tents on lawns are OK, what about parking cars on the lawn? How about hanging deer to drain from trees on campus, and then butchering them on the lawn? I'd say live sex acts but that's already occurring with these encampments.
LOL that schools actually took a zero tolerance approach to underage drinking.
Blanket zero tolerance was very 1990s; it's not a thing anymore because it was unjust and counterproductive.
I've heard it from people who actually work in higher ed policy, so forgive me if you smell like bullshit yet again.
Where does zero tolerance start?
Allow me to answer you tendentious demand for a bright line rule by introducing you to something known as malum prohibitum versus malum in se.
I like your deer example, because I have visited some EPSCoR campuses where that would be fine.
"I’ve heard it from people who actually work in higher ed policy,"
And that person was Albert Einstein.
Blanket zero tolerance was very 1990s; it’s not a thing anymore because it was unjust and counterproductive.
Name just one IHE that doesn't have a zero tolerance alcohol policy.
I’ve heard it from people who actually work in higher ed policy, so forgive me if you smell like bullshit yet again.
See above.
I like your deer example, because I have visited some EPSCoR campuses where that would be fine.
I bet it wouldn't be without at least implicit university approval.
Should we expect Prof. Whittington to recognize an exception to "rules and laws exist for a reason" standard in some circumstances (which, a decent person would recognize, are far more important than an on-campus encampment, in part because turning a campus green into an encampment differs from turning campuses into graveyards).
Evidence generates an expectation this Volokh Conspirator will follow the partisan, right-wing line, even if hypocrisy or a lack of principle is associated with that approach. I hope he surprises us.
Yeah, let’s forget that they have a duty of care for their students and sending in the cops mob-handed is not congruent with that. Also, they probably don’t want to strip their campus bare of, y’know, students and get a reputation for draconian punishments for simply protesting. On the other hand they also seem to want to appease the political right, whose obvious intent is to destroy universities because they hate the way young people have the wrong opinions.
‘Breaking the rules’ has suddenly become the most appalling crime in history, mostly to people who voted for Donald fucking Trump and to teeth-grinding pro-war professors.
seem to remember people upset about the Tiki Torch Parade....
And some people weren't. 'The Jews will not replace us' didn't raise so much as an eyebrow.
Hell, Bernstein's recommendation was that everyone should just ignore the Nazis on parade. And we can't call him a hypocrite on that point—he's been quite adept at ignoring antisemitism on the right.
If a couple of dozen neo-Nazi idiots with tiki torches say "Yay Trump!", and that's supposedly a fatal blow to him because all Trump followers must therefore be Nazis, then what does that say when millions scream from the river to the sea from "the other side"?
'that’s supposedly a fatal blow to him because all Trump followers must therefore be Nazis,'
They're Good People Krayt.
'then what does that say'
It says that one is pretty clearly anti-semitic, and the Great Replacement seems to be pretty popular amongst Republicans, and the other is only anti-semitic of pro-war people attribute their favourite meaning to it, the way they ascribe anti-semitism to all criticism of the current killing spree in Gaza.
Also: millions? Their tents aren;t that big.
It's actually worse than that. Those neo-Nazi idiots were actually NeverTrump ringers:
Group of anti-Trump Republicans was behind tiki torches in Virginia campaign
'No, no, they were a *different* variety of right-wing Nazi anti-semites (but they do still have a point about the Jews trying to replace us!)'
But the point was that you can't blame those tiki torch idiots on Trump, they were foes of Trump there to pretend they were Trump supporters.
Different fucking tiki-torchers, Brett, in 2021, did you read your own article? Why the fuck do I always assume you accurately read your own links?
Given your support of the pro-Hamas protesters --- what exactly, in YOUR opinion, was the problem with the Charlottesville protests?
They seem to be less anti-semitic than elite college students today are.
Of course it was 2021, you idiot. We were talking about tiki torchers going "Yay, Trump", were we not?
That was the NeverTrumpers trying to get their cosplaying blamed on Trump, not the Charlottesville dweebs.
'They seem to be less anti-semitic than elite college students today are.'
Only if objecting to the killing of thousands and thousadns of people is anti-semitic.
'Of course it was 2021, you idiot'
Oh, yes, the other tiki-torch thing that no-one has heard of or cares about.
The Volokh Conspirators are partisan clowns with respect to antisemitism.
And in general.
Document that -- I read "YOU will not replace us."
I've seen videos; Mostly it was "you", but some idiots did say "Jews".
"they also seem to want to appease the political right"
Ahahahahaha! Nice try.
Ridiculous, yes, they need to get better at telling them to fuck off.
Indeed. See the article in yesterday's Times on how secondary school principals have taken a different tack with Congressional bullies, successfully.
Kiss Title I $$$ goodbye.
Pretty sure the "duty of care" does not extend to tolerating trespassing. And that's really what we are talking about. They aren't "simply protesting." They are violating campus policies and trespassing. I know you think nobody should care, but at least be honest about what it is.
Duty of care would also apply to all students and not just those protesting. So when the protesters are violating the rules and making other students feel unsafe the duty of care would involve punishing those breaking the rules and making other students feel unsafe. That punishment includes arrest and expulsion as options.
Duty of care applies to all the students. If some feel unsafe because of the subject of the protest, that's a pity, but it should hardly deter the protesters. Nobody mad about this gave a fuck about armed men in camo gear outside bookshops and libraries some of them giving Hitler salutes and waving Nazi flags, so I'm sure they agree. Anyone responsible for direct and physical inimidation or harassement should certainly be punished. But not, presumably, if they're armed while doing so.
The protesters are blocking Jewish students from locations on campus.
I know that is OK with you. It is not for most.
They seem to be blocking lots of people.
You think that's a point in their favor?!
They specifically block Jewish students.
Being annoying to everybody else is not better.
I think it might actually do that if the alternative is setting the cops on them, risking injusry and arrest. No, I don't think anyone should care about some tents on a lawn and a bunch of kids in a building over the physical well-being of those kids.
"I think it might actually do that if the alternative is setting the cops on them, risking injusry and arrest. No, I don’t think anyone should care about some tents on a lawn and a bunch of kids in a building over the physical well-being of those kids."
Are the kids refusing to leave?
Then THEY are putting their tents on a lawn over their own physical well-being.
It's like saying that a homeowner killing somebody breaking in to their house "put their property over this person's life", ignoring that you got the whole thing in reverse.
re: "let’s forget that they have a duty of care for their students"
Yes, we absolutely should forget that because universities do not have any special "duty of care" for their adult students.
(They do have normal duty of care for routine things like not having patently unsafe buildings or trip hazards on the sidewalks but that's not relevant to the argument above. With a very few exceptions, university students are all legal adults. It's time for this in loco parentis bullshit to go away.)
I hope they disagree, we're close enough to treating them as disposable and replacable undifferentiated cogs being shaped to fit the machines as it is.
They are clearly not that.
Cogs are useful.
"Imagine, if you will, that a relatively small, but passionate and loud — complete with drums, chants, and megaphones — group of Princeton students thought that SPIA should be renamed the Donald J. Trump School of Public and International Affairs and launch new initiatives focused on American greatness. After pressing their demands for many months to no effect, they decide that more direct action would be needed to bring attention to their cause. They march through the hallways of Robertson Hall, take an office, yell out of windows, and drop “Make America Great Again” flags through them, and announce that they will occupy the office until their demands are met."
And then imagine the outcry if Princeton were to negotiate with them.
I imagine more like the rhetorical F-16s - - - - - - -
"Must Universities Negotiate with Protestors?"
I'll keep this simple because I-ANAL
"No"
Frank
it might be necessary to engage in civil disobedience or even take direct action
Could we have an inventory of what things fit into each of the bold boxes, and which things do not ?
Doesn't have to be complete - an illustrative inventory will do fine.
I'm reminded of Free Speech Zones.
I'm reminded of Left Wing Nut Jobs shouting down speakers that they don't like.
Were they the equivalent of the entire GOP? Because, yeah, that's about the proportions we're talking about, a few disruptive students versus the entire GOP who think free speech should only be allowed to occur where they say it can.
Your lies are worse than Sarcastr0's.
Why do you bootlick the institutions of power like you do?
Go cry about your billionaire Dear Leader having to spend time in court when he's supposed to be above the law.
Were the Charlottesville guys the equivalent of the entire GOP? We're talking about the entire Democrat Party that feels it's okay to shout down speakers that they don't like.
Oh really when did that happen, that must have been dramatic.
Are the small groups of protesters caught on tape yelling 'Rah rah Hamas' the equivalent of these entire protests?
How do you "negotiate" with idiots like the Princeton protestor claiming Princeton is to blame for not providing food to hunger strikers?
Reminds me of a revoluion in seige strategy, where the seiger stopped allowing the seigees from going out and restocking.
You'd think that would have been the case all along, but no.
Starving children to death is good strategy!
Instructing Jewish students to wear armband with 6 pointed stars is good strategy!!!!
One is happening right now to widespread support and justification, the other is not, and regarded as an historical crime, but good point, well made.
The only people 'starving' are the self-centered entitled assholes who think they should be able to illegally occupy a public space and have the school cater to their demands to include meals.
Keep trying, you're really not very good at this.
Wow, you really are WAY behind on current events and international news. You don't even know what any of this is about, apparently.
just think of it as a really slow, really late term abortion and you'll like it!
Always wondered how some of those medieval sieges could have dragged on so long. Is that why?
Either both armies were comfortable and getting paid, so happy to let the siege go on while the money was good, or the besieging army was being wiped out by dysentry.
You FIRE professors like that.
Christ, I am getting sick of these posts. Keith, if you want to add something to the debate, could you at least try to add something new, instead of just repeating the same things that have been said by dozens of other commentators, including most of the VC?
I've said it before, I'll say it again: administrators of institutions of higher learning have a certain duty - one most of them are ignoring - of teaching their students. These encampments and protests were a tremendous teaching and learning opportunity. Students could have been taught about the efficacy and history of protests. They could have been engaged as adults with legitimate concerns. Instead many administrators are responding to them as unruly subjects whose objections have crossed the line of official tolerance. Administrators are sitting in their ivory towers and calling on the police to clear the rabble interfering with their commencement speeches.
It's lazy, incompetent, and - as we're seeing - counterproductive. Responding to these protests with overwhelming force just affirms their narrative and presses them to try harder. The encampments went up in solidarity across the country when the hammer came down on Columbia. The campers in Columbia, meanwhile, went on to occupy campus buildings. Next, they're organizing to disrupt campaign events, political conventions, and the like.
All because one university president decided to take exactly the tack you're advocating for here, Keith. You are calling for "law and order." But the consequence will be more, and wilder, chaos - and hundreds of student in jails, for no good reason.
One would imagine you typing the inverse of this comment had these been 1776 protests instead of Marxist ones.
You can imagine whatever you like, butt-sniffer. I can't say that I read enough right-wing outrage-prop to know what you mean by "1776 protests," but suffice it to say that (as long as we're talking about arguments no one is making about events that aren't happening) I would expect to take the same position on them as I do about these pro-Palestinian protests.
.
I think he means the opposite of this crap:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_1619_Project
I'd totally go!
They aren't adults and they have no legitimate concerns pertaining to the universities or colleges they attend. As others have said, the teaching moment comes from them being forcibly removed and suspended.
They tried negotiating with the students at Columbia for weeks. It didn't work.
They tried negotiating with the students at Northwestern for weeks. It didn't work.
MIT and Harvard have tried negotiating with students for weeks. They're still there.
Jacob - just because you can't seem to learn something unless it's beaten into you, does not mean that police crackdowns are "teaching moments" for student protesters.
I don't know where you're getting that I'm saying that university administrators should "negotiate" with the protesters. That again simply misunderstands the proper relationship between university administration, professors, and their students.
If you're not calling for the police to remove the encampments, then you must be suggesting that the protesters be convinced to leave voluntarily. How else do you do that without negotiation? Is that not the teaching moment you're envisioning? An exchange of perspectives leading to a mutually beneficial compromise?
If you’re not calling for the police to remove the encampments, then you must be suggesting that the protesters be convinced to leave voluntarily.
Doesn't follow. Next?
Oh. I thought we had both assumed that the encampments were problems to be solved. You don't think there are valid reasons why a university wouldn't want people to set up campgrounds on their lawns?
Most of the "valid reasons" that anyone can cite - or exaggerate, when it comes to these university administrators - are secondary issues caused by the encampments, not problems inherent to the encampments themselves. In other words, failures of management.
I don't fault administrators for seeking ways to encourage the students to leave their encampments. But I think a smarter way to do that would be (1) by taking the students seriously, (2) taking steps cooperatively with the encampment organizers to minimize any damage or disruption they're causing, and (3) working to persuade the students that there are better ways to achieve their goals.
I tend to agree with the point some have made, that these encampments are a bit silly insofar as they are pushing university administrators to do things that they cannot do, either legally or due to institutional limitations, that would in any event have zero impact on the current conflict in Gaza. But that doesn't mean that there aren't ways for the students to take more effective action in furtherance of their cause. So you sit down with them and figure out an action plan; focus on effective advocacy for their position, enlist faculty to assist, and transform an annoying and silly encampment into a political movement that everyone can be proud of.
This sidesteps entirely your sophomoric need to over-simplify.
I think you're sidestepping that the disruption was deliberate. It was literally the point of the encampment: To be disruptive so that the university would cave and give them what they wanted.
To be sure, their demands were impractical, but that was still the goal: To disrupt until they were given what they demanded.
If the encampment could have been modified to no longer be disruptive or damaging, it would have become instead pointless.
We're talking about two different kinds of disruption.
I agree that protests are intended to be disruptive, in the "loud and annoying" sense, and I didn't mean to refer to "minimizing" that kind of disruption. I was talking about the kind of disruption that administrators are citing as unacceptable, such as harassment of other students, burdens on nearby buildings' facilities, litter and damage to university property, blocking access to parts of campus that must remain accessible, etc. The sorts of disruption that organizers are not intending to cause, and would ordinarily be amenable to minimizing, if possible.
But the organizers are intending to cause those sorts of disruption. You're treating this like it's a parent of an 8-year old having a public meltdown because the parent won't buy the kid ice cream, condescendingly saying, "Can we think of a more constructive way to ask for this?" These are adults. They know full well what they're doing and intend it.
'You're allowed to protest but you're not even allowed to be peacefully disruptive' is a profoundly pro-establishment stance.
No, it's a profoundly institutions working stance.
The university isn't there to host protests, it's there to educate students. If the protests get in the way of educating students, the protests must go.
Look, I've been to protests myself. Right wing protests, the sort where we bring portapotties and waste bins, and leave the area cleaner than when we came.
It's perfectly possible to protest and not be particularly disruptive. Heck, I've even seen BLM do it, in Greenville. They can be well behaved where allies don't control the government, and the alternative is jail.
Protest and disruption don't have to go hand in hand. That's a deliberate choice.
So the students should dictate how learning happens in the University? Isn’t that like the inmates running the asylum? You can certainly teach about the history of protest without actually protesting. I certainly don’t recommend teaching about the history of genocide by participating in a genocide.
Also, how would mathematics, physics, chemistry departments, etc make this a teaching moment about the history of protest?
More importantly, how are they going to turn it into a teaching event when at least half the protesters aren’t even students?
'I certainly don’t recommend teaching about the history of genocide by participating in a genocide.'
They're not in much danger of joining the IDF.
I'm really impressed by how much stupidity you've packed into this comment. I'm not inspired to respond otherwise.
Well you got me. All the specific points you raised, and your unimpeachable sources in your well reasoned rebuttal has caused me to change my mind.
And if we've already seen the high-water mark of these pointless campus occupations, what will you say then?
Besides, you can't teach anyone who already knows everything. What can a university teach students who do not wish to attend lectures? That actions have consequences? That would be a good lesson for them to learn, while they're still young...
It is notable that issues like this arise only when "protesters" is a plural.
There is a YouTube channel run by a vet who likes to stand on the sidewalk holding a sign that says "God Bless the Homeless Veterans". He does not look well groomed. He does not panhandle, or accept money, or make noise, or block anyone. But many residents and police show no interest in protecting his rights, or negotiating with him.
I suspect that if he had a dozen people alongside staging a protest, the group would be treated with much more respect than the lonesome man.
Sometimes one person sitting on the sidewalk can make quite a difference.
https://i.ytimg.com/vi/uGYG9pGn1U4/maxresdefault.jpg
She made so much difference that she now marches for Hamas too trying to intimidate one Jewish singer.
Publicity is not the same as "a difference".
Yes, since she began protesting, the climate has gotten worse…
Just for context. University administrators—no matter how militant and anti-negotiation their preferences may be—confront a difficulty that they are not sufficiently legally empowered to hand out draconian punishments to everyone, without individualized due process. Nor should they be. To the extent that folks think otherwise, or the administrators think otherwise, that itself is a question to fully justify demonstrations organized with an eye to forcing change.
Passive resistance, followed by civil lawsuits, and demands for firings of administrators whose enforcement orders result in lost lawsuits, might prove an effectual means. No one should favor a power for a university administrator to suspend for three years a student guilty of absolutely nothing. Or, for that matter, a student whose particularized guilt cannot be proved legally.
A student present on a campus, at a place where his presence is customarily authorized, who is behaving entirely peaceably, no matter in what company, or under what non-damaging weather protection, is very close to doing nothing legally remarkable. To the extent the student takes part in peaceable assembly, he arguably enjoys explicit 1A protection, especially on a public university campus.
Administrators confronting demands for negotiations ought to think carefully about that context, before they decide what alternatives to negotiation they wish to enforce. Supervisory authorities with power to choose senior educational administrators ought to prefer those who show wisdom to confront such issues flexibly, with an eye to minimizing crises.
Now apply that standard to male students expelled for allegations of sexual misconduct where there is no due process or right to counsel.
Put me down for the proposition that no one should be expelled (or suspended) except for academic infringements, such as cheating on exams or plagiarism. Everything else is either a criminal offence, which should be handled by the criminal justice system, or it isn't.
Eh, the institution I attended, MTU, had a number of immediate expulsion offenses in the student handbook, but they typically related to student safety: Being found in the steam tunnels under the campus without authorization, walking on the ice downstream of the Portage bridge.
I suppose the steam tunnel one qualified as a crime of trespass, but there was nothing illegal or academic about taking a stroll on the ice. It was just unreasonably hazardous due to eddies undercutting the ice at unpredictable locations.
If the "protestors" are currently in violation of local rules or laws, then my first thought would be "not no but Hell no". There is nothing to 'negotiate'. And remind the little dears the actions have consequences. Break the rules, get hammered.
Authoritarian nutjob says what?
After you become an adult, perhaps you should look up the history of college campus protests in this country.
I recall certain events where white students protested against black students entering their universities. Is that part of the noble history of college campus protests you are referring to?
If you think it was noble, that's on you.
It was no more noble than the pro-Hamas assholes preventing Jewish students from going to class.
Did Prof. Whittington write or say a word when armed, un-American conservatives occupied federal property (because they objected to limits on their freeloading) more than once?
Did Prof. Whittington express objection when armed, virus-flouting losers closed downtown streets to protest public health measures during the pandemic?
Did Prof. Whittington criticize the half-educated, antisocial right-wingers who flouted rules at school board meetings during the pandemic?
What was Prof. Whittington's contribution to the discussion when armed right-wingers gathered at Michigan's capitol and threatened the governor?
I find it difficult to associate any principle with respect Prof. Whittington's comments concerning protesters who object to Israel's slaughter of children in Gaza and Israel's settler terrorism in the West Bank. This appears to be opportunistic partisan rubbish from a disaffected culture war casualty.
Whatabout was pathetic when done by Trump supporters, and it's pathetic trolling when done by Kirkland.
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/article/2024/may/10/peaceful-pro-palestinian-campus-protests?CMP=share_btn_url
I guess there's a reason why BREAKING THE RULES is being monstered up as TANTAMOUNT TO VIOLENCE by the pro-war crowd.
"Nearly all Gaza campus protests in the US have been peaceful"
Yeah, real peaceful:
https://www.news9live.com/videos/world-videos/ucla-protests-jewish-student-beaten-unconscious-by-pro-palestine-protesters-video-2519144
So that, you are in agreement that UCLA ≠ Nearly all?
(UCLA is nearly the sole instance cited for violent protest, because its level of both-ways protestor-on-protester violence—one instance where such whataboutism is accurate—seems to be the sole unambiguous instance of that.)
This happened at Yale.
Know what protest was mostly peaceful?
1/6.
You do not seem terribly supportive of it.
As always, the protesters should have claimed they were camping because an illusory being in the sky commanded them to do that . . . some ostensible adults are suckers for old-timey nonsense- and superstition-based claims.
Eventually, mainstream Americans will adopt that tactic as a matter of course, just like right-wing bigots.