A tale of two universities: Ben Sasse (U. Florida) has the right idea, Paul Alivisatos (U. Chicago) is clueless
And with all due respect, Nicholas Christakis's faith in the power of discussion is sadly misplaced when applied to the student protests
A couple of days ago, Yale University professor Nicholas Christakis tweeted (“X”ed?), regarding a statement released by University of Chicago president Paul Alivisatos:
The University of Chicago, as usual, striking the right balance. … It is exactly right.
Christakis himself became well known (beyond his academic professional circles, where he is quite accomplished) when he, in an extraordinarily calm manner, tried to reason with a group of Yale undergrads who were screaming at him because he and his wife thought the students should be treated as adults when the students themselves wanted to be protected like children.
As context for the U. of Chicago response that Christakis applauds, click HERE for a description of an earlier set of student violations of Chicago’s code of conduct policy by anti-Israel students, violations that, on the one hand were egregious, and on the other were met with a laughably lenient “punishment” (so lenient that it could hardly qualify as a punishment at all).
At the time that Christakis posted his tweet, the anti-Israel protest encampment on the U. Of Chicago campus was several days old, and was in clear violation of Chicago’s time, place, and manner (TPM) regulations regarding protests. Perhaps not surprisingly, Christakis is supportive of a response by a university administration that is clearly grounded on a belief in the possibility of de-escalation without any need to discipline the students – based on the assumption that the students would, at some point, listen to reason.
In his statement, Chicago president Alivisatos made clear that he had no intention in calling in police or in doing anything else to end the anti-Israel protest encampment that had formed on the U. of Chicago campus, while at the same time acknowledging that there is an (unspecified) limit on how long the university can tolerate the disruption that an encampment produces. He then concludes his statement with a plea:
I ask the students who have established this encampment to instead embrace the multitude of other tools at their disposal. Seek to persuade others of your viewpoint with methods that do not violate policies or disrupt the functioning of the University and the safety of others.
But – I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you – that this plea has fallen on deaf ears. Is there really ANYONE, other that Alivisatos and Christakis, who thought Alivisatos’ statement would end the encampment? It didn’t. And so, two days ago, Alivisatos put out another statement, this time indicating that he was about to take real action to end the TPM violations. He wrote:
But the encampment cannot continue.
The encampment has created systematic disruption of campus. Protesters are monopolizing areas of the Main Quad at the expense of other members of our community. Clear violations of policies have only increased. Our students have issued a torrent of reports of disrupted classroom learning. Other disruptions include repeated destruction of an approved installation of Israeli flags, shouting down speakers they disagree with, vandalism and graffiti on historic buildings, incorporating walkways into the encampment, and co-opting the University flagpole to fly the Palestinian flag.
But again, I’m shocked, SHOCKED I tell you — that now that it is two days later – the situation on the Chicago campus has deteriorated further. In fact, things have gotten a LOT worse. And still — Altivisatos has taken no strong action to take control of the situation by Alivisatos. There have been some reports of ongoing negotiations with the leaders of the protest, but students are still encamped on campus. In fact, as of 10 pm on May 5, it is safe to say that the administration has not only not carried through on their threat to take action, they are now simply capitulating to demands, while the students are conceding nothing. Thus, it is being reported that the University has agreed to establish a “Gaza Scholars at Risk Initiative, which will bring 8 at-risk Palestinian scholars to work and study at UChicago” while the students have begun placing barricades made out of wooden pallets and boards around the side of the encampment facing the center of the quad. If that is what the result is of an approach that is, as Christakis wrote, “exactly right”, one shudders to think what would be happening with a less exactly right approach.
MEANWHILE, in sunny Florida, former Nebraska Republican senator and now president of the University of Florida, Ben Sasse, has put out a much briefer statement – establishing what seems to be a very effective protest management policy. It’s worth quoting in full:
"At the University of Florida, we have repeatedly, patiently explained two things to protesters: We will always defend your rights to free speech and free assembly—but if you cross the line on clearly prohibited activities, you will be thrown off campus and suspended. In Gainesville, that means a three-year prohibition from campus. That’s serious. We said it. We meant it. We enforced it. We wish we didn’t have to, but the students weighed the costs, made their decisions, and will own the consequences as adults. We’re a university, not a daycare. We don’t coddle emotions, we wrestle with ideas."
Before drawing some lessons from the comparison between the approaches taken by these two schools, I wanted to mention one other recent development related to the campus protests. At two other schools (in Philadelphia and in Denver), the local police departments have refused to go onto campus to remove encampments, even after receiving a request from the university administrations to do so. In each case, the police departments have argued that, as long as the encampments are peaceful, it is not the responsibility of the city police to move in and remove them. What these departments are saying, quite reasonably I think, is that it is not THEIR job to enforce a campus’s TPM rules unless a violation of those rules also includes actions that are against the law. Instead, in the absence of violence, these departments have argued, it is the university’s job to enforce its own rules.
In light of (i) the very different approaches taken by the presidents of Florida and Chicago, (ii) the chaos that has taken place on a number of other campuses, sometimes involving direct conflicts with the police, and sometimes not, and (iii) the fact that a couple of police departments have refused requests to remove peaceful protesters from campus, I think there are a number of lessons that can be learned about the encampment protests and about how universities should respond to them.
1. Obviously, universities faced with disruptive protests are in a very difficult situation. One option is to simply accede to most of the protesters’ demands, as Northwestern has done (and as Chicago has started doing) – thereby rewarding that small subset of students who have grossly violated university policies, while agreeing to actions that, in some cases, probably violate the constitution (e.g. agreeing to admit a certain number of Palestinian students and/or to hire a certain number of Palestinian professors). The unfairness of this (neither Northwestern nor Chicago has made similar concessions to pro-Israel students) is obvious; where this response is taken, lawsuits are sure to follow, as are future protests. And how can these schools ever enforce their codes of conduct in the future? This approach is a terrible mistake, and I cannot even imagine what a shitshow it will be if either of these presidents is hauled in for questioning before congress. Ms. Stefanik will destroy them — and she’ll get plenty of help from others (including Democrats) on the committee.
2. What seems to have emerged is evidence that students are unafraid of being arrested — in part (I assume) because they are confident (justifiably so) that the charges against them will be dropped. It seems, though, that what students are most fearful of is receiving a lengthy suspension or of being expelled – forms of discipline that are under the control of the university and that can be applied without having to first call in the police. This suggests that calling in the police really should be an action of last resort for the administrations — to be taken only after suspending (and in some cases expelling) protesting students who refuse to stop violating university policies.
3. Rules should be enforced. There is no point in having them if some students, under some conditions, can violate the rules with impunity. It’s unfair, and makes a mockery of the entire code of conduct system. As has happened at Chicago and Northwestern, school after school has decided simply not to enforce their rules when those breaking the rules are anti-Israel protesters.
4. Negotiating with student protesters sends the clear message that students (actually – just a small group of loudmouth students) are the ones who run the university. If that is how some schools want to function, that’s their business. But my guess is that letting a small group of individuals with extreme views who are only at the school for a short time and who have limited life experience run an institution of higher learning is not in anyone’s best interests.
5. It is easier to stop a protest that violates TPM rules right at the beginning than it will be to end it after several days or weeks have passed. That doesn’t necessarily mean calling in the police when a protest is mostly peaceful, but it does mean using the forms of discipline that a university does control (suspensions and expulsions) to make it clear from the outset that actions that violate the school’s rules will have consequences. If that doesn’t work, only THEN call in the police (under the legitimate justification that those still protesting after being suspended are now trespassing)
6. If universities continue to operate the way many have during the past few months – failing to treat different groups equally while permitting even faculty to participate in protests that violate campus policies and that disrupt campus operations, they are basically asking for state and federal government oversight. Whatever one may think of the theatrics of congresswoman Elise Stefanik, it is not solely the Republicans on the congressional education committee who are appalled by what they are seeing happening on campuses. Universities with weak and ineffectual presidents (which seems to be the majority) will have only themselves to blame when legislatures at the state or federal level take some kind of action against them.