The summer brought an end, for now, to the anti-war protests that rocked college campuses across the United States through the spring semester of 2024. However, the Israeli assault on Gaza continues, and student protests could erupt again in the autumn, especially if the presidential election heightens political tensions.
Once again, college presidents across the United States could also be forced to make difficult and controversial decisions: Should they tolerate youthful civil disobedience, suppress dissent, or seek peaceful solutions?
My research on civil disobedience, deliberation and democracy offers a possibility to investigate this necessary query.
Threatening or peaceful protest?
Between November 2023 and May 2024, 1000’s of scholars greater than 120 Universities and colleges across the country arrange camps to protest Israel's war against Hamas in Gaza. They also condemned their universities' investments and other ties to Israel, which they viewed as support for that war.
At some campuses, including Columbia, UC Irvine and Portland State University, students occupied buildings and sometimes Vandalized facilitieswhich led to widespread condemnation.
However, most student camps were peaceful and non-violent. Crowd Counting Consortiuma Harvard Kennedy School project that collects data on protests worldwide reports that protesters damaged property on only 10 campuses. Yet police arrested protesters at 60 schools. Those university presidents who asked either campus police or local police departments to intervene said they’d Protecting community members from violence and to make sure teaching, learning and research.
Nevertheless, half of all anti-war protests on campus dispersed with none arrests. Brown, Northwestern, Rutgers, Johns Hopkins University and other university presidents sought de-escalation, negotiations and other peaceful ways to resolve the conflict. After the administration agreed to measures comparable to transparency in investments, support for Palestinian students and academics, or easing sanctions against protesters, the scholars voluntarily dismantled their tents and went to check for final exams.
So when, if ever, should universities use police to combat student protests?
“Head of Damage”
The answer will depend on how disruptive the protests are.
Here is a scale to evaluate some levels of harm. It relies on recommendations from lawyers on the University of California Chris Edley and Charles Robinson after an attack of aggressive police motion against protesters at UC Davis in 2011.
The protest harm scale ranges from Level 1 – civil disobedience without disruption – to Level 4, which indicates a violent protest that poses an imminent threat to public safety. It provides a standard benchmark for many who disagree about whether the coed protesters are right or unsuitable, just or hateful, to collectively assess the extent of harm and disruption their protests are causing.
Opinions often differ on this issue. For example, through the anti-war rebellion on Harvard's campus within the spring of 2024, students and school expressed very different opinions about how disruptive the rebellion was.
“They set up forty tents, draped a keffiyeh over the iconic John Harvard statue, blared music from a loudspeaker, hoisted Palestinian flags over the university hall and sang through megaphones,” the professors said. Jeff Flier and Steven Pinker wrote within the Boston Globe. Their comments suggest that they found the Harvard camp unbearably disruptive—a level 3 on a scale of 1 to 4.
However, many students found the occupation of Harvard Yard to be unobtrusive – more like Level 1.
Ben Curtis/AP
The Harvard Crimson interviewed 40 freshmen who lived on campus near the camp. “Almost all said that the camp did not significantly change their daily lives or prevent them from learning,” the Newspaper reportsOne student who “had a view of the camp from her dorm” compared the noise level to that of the tourists milling across the yard.
At other schools, teachers, administrators and students also got here to significantly different assessments of their camps within the Gaza Strip.
After armed police used chemical weapons and electric shocks to disperse protesters at Emory University, Finally, no less than 28 people were arrestedwrote University President Gregory Fenves in a letter that “we will not tolerate vandalism, violence, or any attempt to disrupt our campus.”
Soon after The faculty voted overwhelmingly “Distrust” of Fenves, described the camp as a “peaceful demonstration” There is “no evidence of violence” and “no disruption to teaching and research operations”.
There was also disagreement concerning the level of disturbance at which police intervention can be obligatory.
Some administrators felt that any violation of university rules warranted police intervention, even a Level 1 tent encampment that didn’t block access to offices or classrooms or make much noise. Dartmouth College President Sian Leah Beilock, for instance, called on police to clear protesters. only two hours after organising tents in violation of campus rules prohibiting the development of buildings.
In many private corporations, that is standard practice. If Meta employees arrange protest tents on their campus, hardly anyone can be surprised or dismayed if the police immediately got here and cleared them away.
But Harvard Police Chief Victor Clay set the bar for an arrest much higher – to about Level 4. He told the Crimson in April 2024 that only “significant property damage or physical violence of any kind” would justify the detention of scholars. Baltimore police were equally hesitant to concentrate on what it called a “valid” camp at Johns Hopkins University.
The management of each universities ultimately dissolved their camps without police motion.
Using the dimensions
The harm ladder cannot settle disagreements about whether students are right or unsuitable. It cannot even fully resolve subjective opinions about how harmful their protests are. But it may help move beyond the simplistic and sometimes incorrect judgments that characterised much of the discussion concerning the spring 2024 campus protests.
One side shouted: “Students broke the rules, call the police.” Others condemned any use of violence against demonstrators.
In many cases, the people calling for police motion didn’t just like the protesters' criticism of Israel. Many university presidents felt enormous pressure from university boards, Congress, alumni, and advocacy groups to quell the protests.
On the damage scale, none of those points justify a call to the police.
Jae C. Hong/AP
The threshold for violent termination of consultation at educational institutions is high for good reason. Reason and discussion as methods of resolving disagreements are embedded within the DNA of universities and colleges, which isn’t the case at corporations or government agencies.
Civil disobedience is by its nature partly persuasive and partly disruptive. Police actions only exert coercion and shut down dialogue. And arresting students has serious consequences, including expulsion from school, criminal records, loss of monetary aid, and potentially reduced job prospects.
But sometimes police intervention is obligatory, depending on the dimensions of the damage. If and when protests endanger people, disrupt necessary school activities, or cause other serious harm, then – and only then – is it time to call the police.
Dialogue, learning and debate within the pursuit of truth and wisdom are among the many core values of a university. Flash grenades, stun guns and human shields contradict these values.
image credit : theconversation.com