But students you are attacking didn’t necessarily have anything to do the specific instances to which you refer. You are accusing anyone who dares criticize Israel of having been responsible for prior acts of hate, when no such connection has been established.
For example, you have repeatedly referred to the “reappearance of swastikas” to attack the students who participated in the peaceful study-in. Unless there were swastikas being displayed at the study-in, or the same students/group were definitely implicated, your attack is outrageous. You can’t condemn everyone who criticizes the Israeli government based on the unrelated actions of a few bigots, anymore than Hamas can condemn every Jewish person based on the actions of the right wing bigots/fascists in the Israeli government.
FWIW, my student is at one of the “elite” schools that has been referenced in many of the stories and he describes it very similarly to how your student did. He describes peaceful events (from groups representing every spectrum of the issues), says most kids are simply focused on their studies and not talking about it, and that it is very easy to go about your business on campus without getting involved in any of the conflict-related activities. He said (his words, not mine) that the media was blowing it way out of proportion versus the reality on campus.
Obviously not every student has this perspective, but the perception that these campuses are simmering hot beds of constant conflict on the verge of boiling over seems incorrect.
I do think that the conflict is mostly avoidable at most colleges and universitiies, even at those that are relatively intense hotbeds of political activism (like my son’s school), but it does depend on what it means to “go about your business on campus.”
For example, my son’s school has a student co-op association, established in the 1930s, that provides low cost housing for a large number of students. My son tells me that he originally hoped to live in the co-ops starting sophomore year (he had already applied and paid a housing deposit). He is very social, likes cooking, and enjoys being part of an ideologically and culturally diverse group of students.
However, since this conflict has become so high profile on campus, my son’s perception is that political polarization in the co-ops has crossed the line to a level where diverse views on this topic are not tolerated. He doesn’t feel that he would be welcomed in a co-op environment with explicit support of the BDS movement and a high level of rhetoric about Israeli “occupation” and “colonization,” in some cases shading into outright antisemitism.
He has now given up on the idea of living in the co-ops, lined up a roommate group and they will be seeking to rent private housing for their group. This will cost more, and be less social than living in the co-ops, but will allow them to live in a space that is politically neutral. So, in this case he should be able to find a workaround that allows him to “go about his business on campus.” But he actually commented to me that he feels very aware of his privileged status in being able to make this choice. What would he be doing if we were lower income, he asked me?
They committed criminal trespass, were arrested, and the State is prosecuting them. Their court date is not any of Brown’s business. The students should have thought about the consequences of their actions - they had ALL DAY to think about it, before they were finally arrested. They’re lucky that they haven’t been told to not leave the state until after the court date.
This is a horrible shame, and I hope that your son and his roommates will reconsider. The co-ops were founded with the idealistic goal of providing good safe cheap room and board (and fellowship) for students. There were many Jewish students involved in their founding and continuation, including some of my relatives. The co-ops belong to all students who want to join them - they should not be given over to an anti-semitic, anti-Israel element who had no part in building the movement, that they will now destroy.
Which might be a very good thing. Had the US known that they intended to commit criminal acts when they applied, their visas would have been denied. Now that they have, the consequence of loss of their student visas seems appropriate.
I’m sure that they will be returning to countries with far more liberal, tolerant governments and societies than ours, with nothing worth protesting about in their home countries.
I’m guessing they do, based on other open expression codes I’ve seen. The challenge with enforcement here is clearing out the silent protesters would be more disruptive to finals week studies, especially considering that the inside-the-library portion of the protest lasted only an hour.
Basically, the school and campus police would have to tell the protesters to disperse. They would also have to inform the group that failure to disperse could result in their removal. The problem here is that the silent protesters were ID-carrying Harvard students or affiliates in the library during normal operating hours, so is it trespassing?
But let’s say the conditions for clearing the space existed and the civil authorities of Cambridge could be brought in. Now, the campus and civil authorities would have to warn the group that those who stay would be arrested and will potentially face disciplinary and legal action. At this point, the group would be allowed time to leave. The authorities must plan on some of those protesters deciding to stay and be arrested as a show of civil disobedience, however.
Under a plan for that contingency, the school, aided by police, would likely evacuate the building to conduct the arrests and forced removals of any protesters who chose to stay. They might also have to create a secure corridor out of the building to vehicles that could take the protesters to a booking site, if they could not arrange the kind of arrest and booking accommodations Brown came up with.
Given the methods and processes for clearing the protest, the fact that the protest was silent, the protesters had valid student access to Widener, and they voluntarily left the space after one hour, Harvard likely acted to minimize upheaval and disruption to finals week studies.
I lived in co-ops as an undergraduate (at two other schools) and I agree with your sentiment. (I have pretty strong feelings about the importance of co-op housing, actually.)
He’s fine with strongly worded speech and activism happening outdoors and other places on campus where students have the option to freely avoid or engage with it. But not on a day to day basis in his immediate living space. He’s had enough of that on his dorm floor this year, I think.
Looks like past student actions have been settled by fines, re-enrollment, or amnesty even after arrests occurred. Protesters were listened to and Brown administrators responded by negotiating and at times changing policies.
When I was at Penn in the 80’s, political engagement and activism was extremely rare on my campus. My fellow Quakers would often marvel at how much time (and accordingly tuition dollars) Brown students spent protesting via sit-ins.
It seems that Paxson now has less patience for the current campus strife as it regards free speech and expression. I watched how Paxson lost control of the recent gathering for Hisham Awartani and his friends. It was not an impressive look for a head of a major university. Like Magill, who cancelled a commencement ceremony this fall when it was disrupted by anti-gentrification protesters, Paxson gave up when faced with calls for divestment.
University presidents need to be more consistent, and prepared to deal with such challenges. Magill was at least new to the job…Paxson is not.
I can’t imagine Brown has ever suspended anyone for simple trespass, or ever would. Or for the vast majority of misdemeanors, like underage drinking. Lots of potential violators.
