Have protests gone too far?

I started following the Hamas attack on Israel of October 7 and retaliation in my post begun on October 11. After adding and revising the post on a daily basis, the scenario and my view of it changed dramatically after June 6, 2024. Why? Because, while I understand the emerging protests and the stance that many students at U.S. universities are taking, moving to violence and disruption of the core purpose of higher education goes too far. A survey of current students indicated that most students support the protests taking place on the campus but 67% disagree with unlawful practices and only 13% see the Hamas v. Israel conflict as their top concern. With a combined 31% holding some negative views toward Israel or Jews, most college students are not hostile toward either, debunking fears of rising anti-Semitism on campus.

The amount of disinformation about protests makes it difficult to decide where and how demonstrations have crossed the line, resulting in institutions' being challenged to determine how to respond. A fascinating complication is that perhaps we live in an era "engulfed by a deluge of righteous indignation." When many of the predictable systems and organizations on which we used to depend are failing us, the tendency is to assume that nothing is trustrworthy. Columbia law professor Katherine Franke's comments about Israeli students coming out of IDF service harassing Palestinian students resulted in Columbia's president declaring Franke's comments as anti-Semitic, a show of indignation on the president's part in a heated exchange with U.S. House Committee conservatives. When five pro-Palestinian groups criticized Jewish student groups for extremism, University of Wisconsin-Madison suspended them from campus. Across the pond, a student rector at Trinity University was removed from her position for making statements that, while not judged to be anti-semitic, were decried for potentially risking anti-Semitic sentiment.

The attempted assassination of former President Trump resulted in broad condemnation and was used as a political ploy to gain sympathy as well as portray the resilience of Trump. Faculty who have expressed satiric opinions in media posts are testing the limits of public opinion. Discipline of faculty who posted their views on social media tested the bounds of academic freedom.

A recent survey of college-bound students and parents of high school students confirmed that trust in higher education has declined, especially among conservatives. Business officers expressed concern over the reputational erosion and the U.S. presidential election resulting in greater uncertainty about the future.

The rush to demonstrate institutional commitment in confronting anti-Semitism may be contributing to the erasure of opposition to Israel's retaliation. As an example, the University of Minnesota's Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies appointment of prominent Isreali American scholar Raz Segal was retracted by the University president after protests from Jewish constituents. Segal alleged possible violation of academic freedom and said, "I am targeted because of my identity as a Jew who refuses the narrowing down of Jewish identity to Zionism and to support of Isreal, whatever it does."

Inside Higher Education's "Live updates" culled the emerging news coverage together for the high points as of May 2, 2024. The references include encampments, temporary occupations, building take overs, destruction of property, and invitations by presidents for police intervention. Commencement speakers expressed their disapproval of Israel's retaliation in some places. Northwestern University charged staff for protecting Pro-Palestinian demonstrators but they were eventually dropped. Response to campus vandalism at UNC included police seeking access to social media of presumed suspects. Demonstrations both disrupted prospective student events as well as encouraged new student participation. After state-wide protests settled, the University of California estimated the cost of demonstrations at $29 million and has rolled out new restrictions on continuing demonstrations.

Many of the protests focus on divestment from arms manufactures or other economic ties to Israel, but divestment in today's interconnected economies is complicated. Demands were considered by multiple institutions and included concessions in some cases. The general public is split in its view of protests in general but a larger proportion opposes divestment. The focus on divestment reflects the strategy of 1960's protests against the war in Viet Nam and it attempts to thread the needle of expressing opposition to funding military action rather than criticizing Israel for its response to Hamas' attack of October 7. However, some assert that any divestment would undermine endowments and that past divestment movements were ineffective.

Some campuses report that significant non-student protestors are involved, and perhaps responsible, for demonstrations turning violent. While some campuses avoided major disruptions, others have moved classes on-line, cancelled end-of-year commencements, or closed down completely. Wayne State dismantled an encampment and arrested at least 12 pro-Palestinian protestors and Stanford arrested 13 for occupying the President's office who were charged with felony offenses. Arrests of students and faculty who are supporting them are becoming commonplace with over 2,900 reported. Months later, the students arrested at Columbia mostly remain in good standing. Arrests and other forms of discipline spawned a raft of lawsuits, frequently citing denial of free speech or due process as campuses rushed to prevent or contain protests. Jewish students at Columbia settled their lawsuit claiming disruption of their coursework when the campus moved on-line during protests. Claims of police repression resulted in walkouts and strikes on multiple campuses in California but a judge eventually halted the strikes. UCLA experienced continuing protests in mid-June, 2024, with two dozen protestors arrested and banned from campus; a judge subsequently ordered UCLA to devise a plan to protect Jewish students. California State at LA experienced a sit-in of 50+ protestors and later dispersed an encampment, both without arrests. Student protesters may face challenges in job placement, which introduces a longer-term risk for expressing dissent. Pro-Palestinian demonstrators in Florida and Texas were suspended from their institutions. The Indiana University board held fast on protest restrictions and closed a protest encampment. A new Ohio law requires both public and private institutions to adopt harassment policies.

Carefully examining the classic dichotomy of management versus leadership may be critical to what happens on campus. Managers in university administrations have turned to policies and enforcement while leadership has meant engagement, deliberation, and working toward compromise is favored. Several campuses moved quickly to enforcement, a response that threatened to undermine free expression.The problem is that conservatives view anything short of punishment by suspensions, expulsions, and arrests as weak and the university presidents who have negotiated with protestors were called to account by the House Committee on Education and the Workplace. The three presidents called to the latest House Committee are noticeably different in that they are male and come from a mix of public and private institutions. The three were perceived to hold their ground more than those who previously appeared before the Committee which resulted in less damage control afterward. The next round scheduled for summer of 2024 includes Harvard (again) and Michigan, with the format changing to presidents facing successive rounds of conservative and liberal members of the Committee.

The U.S. Education Department issued a Dear Colleague letter to higher education leaders advising how to deal with anti-Semitism on campus. U.S. Senate Republicans are taking campus unrest and violence as an opportunity to challenge campus administrations' inaction on anti-Semitism and passed a bill to hold campuses accountable. Tables can turn very quickly as evidenced by the U.S. House Republicans cancelling the hearing for George Washington University after the D.C. Mayor cleared a protest encampment. The U.S. House of Representatives passed the Antisemitism Awareness Act, a move that critics assert conflates the issues of criticism of the Israeli government with anti-Semitism. In addition to the continuing anti-Semitism hearings, House Republicans are launching investigation committees for 10 campuses, vowing to punish campuses that they judge did not adequately respond to their inquiries. The U.S. Education Department found Michigan and CUNY violated Title VI and Lafayette College negotiated resolution in their handling of anti-Semitism claims. These cases are a signal to other campuses of what can happen if discrimination claims and protests are not handled well.

Not only is higher education being confronted at the national level, state level investigations and hearings are underway as well. This article includes reference to Minnesota and Virginia hearings that have recently taken place with a caveat that not all hearings are adversarial and can help build closer relationships of higher education to state legislatures. In the face of national and state-level investigations and legislation to address the presumed conditions of anti-Semitism on campuses, the AAUP ended two decades of resistance to academic boycotts, a decision which drew criticism from some academic quarters. As the heat turns up for the 2024-25 year, campuses are adopting a variety of strategies to manage the likelihood of continuing controversy.

Communication is a key element of handling protests and University of Texas' firing of 20 communications staffers demonstrates what happens when there is a failure. Exposure of communication that administrators apparently thought was private at Columbia University resulted in their being placed on leave. The administrators were bantering about reactions to a public meeting on anti-Semitism. The resignation of Columbia's President Shafik is another indicator of opaque communication that results in unexpected outcomes.

Communication, sometimes verging toward indoctrination, is a significant cause of the continuing conflicts on campus. The film "Israelism," which reveals the divide among Jewish youth on the Hamas vs. Israel war, has been condemned by Jewish activists. The Semester at Sea was swept up in controversy when some international students sought to have the film shown as part of their programs. Some communications specialists predict a need for reconciliation with Jewish students when campuses reopen in the fall of 2024. NYU Abu Dhabi was criticized for discouraging pro-Palestinian sentiment, with administrators claiming to protect students from UAE law enforcement.

Republicans in the House exploited campus disruptions to justify increasing investigations of what they assert is a broken higher education system, a mantra that the AAUP documented has been a central focus for conservatives since 2020. The May 23 hearing included Northwestern, Rutgers, and UCLA, their choice motivated by criticism of institutions that negotiated with protestors but the institutions called to hearings represent a tiny slice of elite U.S. institutions. Jewish presidents faced particularly challenging dynamics. Representative Foxx declared, "American universities are officially put on notice that we have come to take our universities back." Foxx was not satisfied with Northwestern' response and threatened to subpoena them for further documentation on anti-Semitism on campus. The AAUP's criticism of University of Texas' President in confronting protestors was applauded by state legislators, a demonstration of the gulf between academics and politicians in Texas.

Legitimate expression of First-Amendment rights turned violent and destructive (looking a lot like the attacks on the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021) plays directly into the hands of those who criticize U.S. higher education as led by permissive and weak administration. Responses like that of Louisiana where civil disobedience is now differentiated from free speech may spread to other states and institutions. The conservative movement against higher education in the U.S. is actually part of a world-wide anti-university movement of authoritarian politicians.

U.S. higher education faces fundamental domestic and international pressures that require moving courageously into a new era transformed from within rather than imposed from without. Transformation can only come about through thoughtful review of past examples of student activism and the activist strategies that have remained relevant over time. Restoring trust in higher education should be the ultimate goal, especially given the deliberate singling out of higher education by conservatives who seek to discredit long-standing U.S. institutions.

The protests of winter/spring 2024 came to a close with the end of the traditional academic year. Warnings immediately emerged related to possible campus disruptions related to the U.S. Presidential election. Five Jewish organizations offered advice on handling the likelihood of continuing protests when the 2024-25 academic year begins.

There are a number of recommendations for institutional leaders to aid them in understanding the best strategies for handling protests in the future. Drafting better policies for free speech with broad campus input will be central to more effective handling protests and conflicts. Cultivating civic dialogue and engagement across difference could ultimately result in improved understanding across the extreme partisanship that has arisen throughout the U.S. Recognizing the vulnerability and trauma of students who are activated in protest is central to responding in an educationally purpose way but this path is difficult. Defining the best course of action if protests persists into the 2024-25 academic year is essential in order to avoid continuing disruption and criticism.