We should all be able to agree that the end of the spring semester was far from ideal, perhaps even dystopian — administrators decided to violently clear a peaceful encampment and were directly responsible for the chaos which ensued. The University itself has acknowledged that the riot police, pepper spray and arrests were not the outcome they desired. And yet, given the recent notice which University administrators sent to students surrounding demonstrations and access to public space, we are left to wonder whether administrators actually regret the outcome. In fact, their policy changes suggest just the opposite. They have codified a series of regulations which not only operate as ex post facto justifications for their actions, but also set the University up to repeat the exact mistakes which they made on May 4, mistakes which endangered both student safety and the right to protest.
When encampments in solidarity with Gaza first began appearing on university campuses last spring, administrators nationwide were unprepared. Perhaps this could justify the initial ineptitude which was demonstrated at institutions like Columbia University. But what became evident as more universities resorted to disproportionate displays of police force was that universities were operating without a clearly delineated playbook. And in the absence of such, they were treading precariously close to violating students’ rights to protest.
It is clear that the University was also operating without a playbook, eventually succumbing to pressures to deploy time, place and manner restrictions in a way that compromised student safety. President Jim Ryan and other senior administrators argued that their actions on May 4 emerged directly from and as such are justified by the policy changes instituted in the wake of Aug. 11, 2017. These administrators are alluding to the manner in which the University was woefully unprepared for a white supremacists March in 2017 and as such, failed to prevent violence on Grounds. Their assertion is not wholly inaccurate.
However, the University’s response in May 2024 was a gross overcorrection of the mistakes made in 2017. In August 2017, the University was inadequately prepared for violence and prioritized freedom of expression over safety, leading to preventable violence and injuries. By contrast, in May 2024, the administration was overzealous in its prevention of potential violence and rhetorically elevated safety to the forefront at the direct expense of students’ rights and, ironically, student safety. In effect, the University, in attempting to correct its mistakes from 2017, actually created a similarly dangerous and violent situation, effectively repeating history.
After the violence of 2017, there was a university-wide reckoning with the institutional lack of preparation for the white supremacist rally. Faculty, staff, students and outside investigators criticized the University, and administrators stepped back and acknowledged their mistakes, changing institutional policy to accommodate for lessons learned. Since May 2024, however, there has been no equivalent institution-wide reckoning, an absence that suggests that administrators are uninterested in even acknowledging the mistakes of May 2024. In fact, instead of changing the policies which permitted and justified the abhorrent, state-created May 4 violence, administrators have defended and codified those same policies.
Moreover, in codifying narrow policies which justify their actions post hoc, University administrators have overlooked larger concerns regarding the balance between student’s right to free expression and the imperative for cultivating a safe community for living and learning. Specifically, administrators seem unwilling to look beyond policy minutiae to answer more fundamental questions, such as when the use of outside police force is justified and what constitutes an appropriate use of this force against protesters. None of these issues come close to being addressed within the policy updates, and thus the policy updates do little to alleviate the institutional shortcomings highlighted by the May 4 encampment clearing. Striking a balance between community safety and freedom of expression is not an easy one, but our community now has two signposts which should guide this policymaking. The Goldilocks ending — the solution that preserves students’ rights while upholding safety — lies in between August 2017 and May 2024.
In neglecting these larger questions in favor of draconian policies, the University has also blatantly neglected the importance of examining other universities who dealt more constructively with protest — Brown University, Northwestern University, University of Minnesota and the University of Oregon among others. Across the nation, the administrators who were most successful at deescalating encampments were those who sat down with protest groups and negotiated in good faith. Ironically, the University did better in that regard in the spring than these new regulations suggest they are likely to do this fall. In May, to the University's credit, administrators did offer to negotiate with the group at the encampment and were rejected out of hand, a decision that we believe was shortsighted.
Be that as it may, looking ahead, if the University has any hope of de-escalation, more is required than a simple offer to talk. Rather, student protesters must trust that their university will not only uphold their fundamental rights — including the right to protest — but also proactively engage in critical self-reflection which implicitly invites multiple stakeholders to the table. In doubling down on policies which imperiled students’ rights and refusing to grapple with past mistakes, administrators effectively suggest that protesters were right to not trust administrators in the first place. In short, the recent policy updates which impose a one-sided narrative of encampments fundamentally compromise the reciprocal trust that needs to exist between students and administrators, and in doing so the polices suspend the possibility of good faith dialogue.
The Spring 2024 semester culminated in a chaotic end which led everyone to view our community through a lens of antagonism. And as we enter a new semester, there is little reason to believe that the pressures which resulted in the spring encampment will dissipate — our nation is preparing for what has already been a contentious presidential election in which the ongoing, devastating violence in Gaza has featured prominently. Nor is there currently reason to believe that the University administration learned from May 2024. Nevertheless, the fall semester must be an opportunity for growth as a community.
We may no longer have the tenuous reciprocal trust which often exists between administrators and students, but, as a collective, we do have the gift of hindsight. And we should use it to reflect upon our own history in the hopes that such self-critique will empower a better future not only for the institution but for the nation at large and how it deals with the question of free expression. The University may not be comfortable using the word “encampment” when describing its newest policies and it may be comfortable characterizing its disproportionate reaction in May 2024 as a product of growth post-2017. But we, as a collective, do not have to accept the administration’s self-serving narrative, nor should we permit this sort of one-sided historical reconstruction which brands itself as a content-neutral application of policy.
The fall semester is an opportunity for us to insist that the University as a whole — not just students or faculty — reflect upon a spring of encampments and try to improve how we, as a collective, articulate our rights to protest and debate.
The Cavalier Daily Editorial Board is composed of the Executive Editor, the Editor-in-Chief, the two Opinion Editors, their Senior Associates and an Opinion Columnist. The board can be reached at eb@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
Advancement Committee discusses fundraising operations, alumni engagement
By Caroline Hagood | 3 hours agoAccording to Fredrick, the University leads the way in alumni participation rates compared to other public institutions.
SULLIVAN: QR codes have crashed the party
By Scarlett Sullivan | 5 hours agoUndeniably, having such barriers to entry for the University’s nightlife explicitly squashes fun.
Student Council hears from advisor Julie Caruccio, approves new CIOs
By Vyshnavi Tatta | 5 hours agoRepresentatives asked questions about the relationship between Student Council and the Board of Visitors and the suspension of the University Guide Service.
