Universities Implement Measures Against Pro-Palestinian Activism


Colleges and universities have implemented stricter regulations regarding protests, including locking campus gates and enforcing harsher penalties, in response to disruptions caused by pro-Palestinian demonstrations last spring.

These measures appear to be effective, with approximately 950 protest events recorded this semester, a significant decrease from 3,000 events in the previous semester, according to data from the Nonviolent Action Lab at Harvard University’s Ash Center. Arrests at protests have also dropped, with around 50 individuals arrested this school year compared to over 3,000 last semester.

Administrators have been rigorously enforcing new rules established in reaction to last spring’s unrest. This has resulted in scenes at universities that were previously known for their student activism. For instance, Harvard temporarily banned numerous students and faculty from libraries after they participated in silent protests against the war in Gaza. Similarly, at Indiana University Bloomington, participants in candlelight vigils faced disciplinary referrals under a new rule prohibiting expressive activities after 11 p.m.

At the University of Pennsylvania, campus police instructed vigil attendees to disperse for not reserving the space as per new regulations. Montclair State University in New Jersey has seen police presence often outnumbering demonstrators at weekly protests, where participants mourn victims in Gaza.

Some students express concerns that the increased security measures are more about control than safety. The changes follow federal civil rights complaints and lawsuits accusing universities of allowing antisemitism, particularly after some protesters expressed support for Hamas and advocated violence against Israelis.

While some students and faculty appreciate the quieter campus environment, others view it as a suppression of pro-Palestinian expression. Concerns have been raised about potential pressures from the incoming administration, which has previously called for universities to take action against perceived radicalism.

Universities are enforcing pre-existing rules that limit the timing and location of protests. Todd Wolfson, president of the American Association of University Professors, noted that these restrictions have led to a climate of fear and self-censorship among students and faculty.

Conversely, Jewish students who felt threatened by protests have welcomed the new policies, citing improvements in campus safety. Some universities have reacted swiftly to protests, with notable incidents including the arrest of 11 individuals at the University of Minnesota for occupying a campus building, a tactic that was tolerated in the past.

At Pomona College, the president utilized extraordinary authority to bypass standard disciplinary procedures and suspend pro-Palestinian protesters who occupied a building, citing safety concerns and property damage.

In response to the new restrictions, some protesters have adopted alternative tactics, such as study-ins at various universities. These protests often feature students displaying messages critical of university policies regarding the conflict in Gaza.

During the Jewish holiday of Sukkot, members of the anti-Zionist organization Jewish Voice for Peace set up “solidarity sukkahs” at multiple universities, which were subsequently removed by administrators citing new rules against unauthorized structures.

Despite the crackdown on protests, there remains a lack of consensus on what constitutes a safe campus and when criticism of Israel crosses into antisemitism. At Montclair State, the president emphasized the need to balance the rights of protesters with the safety of the campus community.

As universities continue to navigate these challenges, there is uncertainty about how the federal government under the incoming administration may influence campus policies regarding protests.

Experts suggest that while universities may continue to tighten restrictions on anti-Israel speech, the current environment of heightened scrutiny and regulation has already been established independently of political changes.





Previous Post Next Post