Jacob T. Levy: Principles for university governance of protests: 1) *actual* threats to the safety of other university members, which is not the same as "chants and posters that arguably evoke and approve of violence elsewhere in the world," can't be tolerated. 2) *actual* impairment of the safety of other 1/

Principles for university governance of protests: 1) *actual* threats to the safety of other university members, which is not the same as "chants and posters that arguably evoke and approve of violence elsewhere in the world," can't be tolerated. 2) *actual* impairment of the safety of other 1/

members of the university community, like blocking exit from buildings, can't be tolerated. 3) Invasions or blockades of the core academic spaces of classrooms, libraries, and research spaces (e.g. labs) can't be tolerated. 4) Invasions or blockades of individual spaces (dorm rooms, offices) 2/

can't be tolerated in general, though if the individual space is otherwise unoccupied and has high symbolic value (the president's office) tolerance is the better part of valor up to a point. 4) PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING ELSE CAN BE TOLERATED. 3/

That doesn't mean protestors have a *right* to do things like occupy the main green indefinitely. The university owns the property and past some point has to take responsibility. But if safety and sanitation aren't being compromised, there ought to be a *huge* margin of tolerance granted. 4/

The content of the speech is no part of the calculus. I'm not someone who thinks universities may never call off-campus cops onto campus. In cases 1-4 above, I mean it when I say "can't be tolerated." Don't be in a rush to call the off-campus cops, but the university must protect core spaces. 5/

But calling off-campus cops on the university's own students is a really grave step. If you're still in the realm of the tolerable, tolerate, rather than doing that. 6/6

(Note that #3 above puts me far to the right of acceptable opinion in some university environments, where some groups of protestors help themselves to the authority to invade or blockade classrooms and labs. I think tent encampments on the green can be tolerated but not that.) 7/6

When your institution has been around a couple centuries and you're facing students who expect to be around for a couple years, your first instinct should always be "let's wait this out."

How much of Columbia's overreaction here do you think is a backlash effect against peer universities' underreaction in cases where 1-4 really did apply, e.g. protesters harassing Jewish and/or pro-Israel students?

The impression I get is that there may be more serious issues with protesters outside the campus gates than with the students on the lawn. While it's easier to demand people be removed from your property, I don't believe the city's largest landowner can't get the NYPD to control a crowd at its door.

Not that the earlier generation of anti-war protestors haven't wrestled with this question, but how could these students ever reasonably call Columbia their alma mater?

this is what I think struck a chord with so many at a moment when even the elites are squeamish about being SWATTED and what can happen with trigger happy wannabe action stars/adrenaline junkies... after George Floyd... how are you gonna do this so cavalierly & without much reflection or discourse

Especially at a university where DPS are literally already cops

*the most thunderous applause I can muster* All of this works entirely generally for *any* university around the world . . . at least up to the implied possibility of a specific *on-campus* police force, which is, well, not European. Leastways not North European. Lately.

Universities used to be their own jurisdictions here too though. Lund University executed a student found guilty of murder in 1830. (Sadly, o English version of this page, despite "The Murder in Locus Peccatorum" being such a great title) sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mordet_...

Mordet i Locus Peccatorum – Wikipediasv.wikipedia.org

This is fundamentally incorrect. It should not be based on vibes but in acceptable, quantifiable risk. Admins should clearly and explicitly state what is their acceptable risk of one or more students dying as a result of their direct actions and evaluate the risk under different scenarios.

the content of the speech has to be part of the calculus. the law already recognizes that some speech is conduct (fwiw), and academic freedom necessarily protects students and faculty from *some* kinds of speech. there's no avoiding some degree of judgment concerning the content of protest speech.

Aside from true threats, incitement of imminent unlawful, and defamation... The content of the speech should not be part of the calculus

Students and faculty may be protected from some kinds of speech but it is not "academic freedom" that does that.

I don't see much difference between these "intifada" yahoos and the Jan 6th "insurrectionists", but then again I mostly live under a rock. Seems like they should all be arrested, or none of them. Is there some info or link explaining the difference (if there is one)?

If the January 6th insurrectionists had stayed outside and yelled mean things at Congress, then they wouldn't be insurrectionists, they'd be protestors. Instead, they stormed a closed building with clear intent to kill or injure. The difference is pretty clear, I'm not sure what else you need?

off campus cops? there's another kind?

Sure, lots of universities have their own police forces. Most of them spend most of their time dealing with traffic and parking and occasional emergencies.

Regarding the Columbia protesters: Just about everything in the map attached is part of the plaza in question. The protesters are confining themselves to just one green rectangle—the left big one. NYTimes photo also attached.

They may not have the right, but I'd argue they may well have the obligation.

I generally agree. If the lawn where Columbia students were camping out is to be used for commencement exercises, does it fall under #3 (at some point in time)?

That's an interesting point. Yes, commencement is a core activity worth protecting, though it *could* be moved to other venues. "At some point in time" isn't a month before commencement, though.

When I was in college, undergrad graduations were at the football stadium, to be big enough for 1/4 of the student body plus parents, and grad school ones might be at smaller venues.

Agree with that last part. Moving to other venues is tricky and could mean having to issue tickets due to limited space (as in the event of rain).

Calling the cops on your students, especially a department as notoriously corrupt, violent, and criminal as the NYPD, is putting them at risk of serious injury or death. Short of a riot on campus, I can't imagine a case where calling the NYPD would be preferable to calling campus safety.

www.latimes.com/california/s...

At USC, arrests. At UCLA, hands off. Why pro-Palestinian protests have not blown up on UC campuseswww.latimes.com At USC, police in riot gear arrested 93 pro-Palestinian protestors, while UCLA sent in observers who kept their hands off students in a peaceful encampment.

One addition here that looks learned is keeping counter protesters separate. As tensions rise, this seems critical to keeping protests non-violent. Most of the most troubling videos seem to stem from not doing this.

Have you considered the Jewish and students, staff and faculty that have reported actual threats to their safety and the impact that has on the University as a whole? Is there another minority similarly situated where allowing that would even be a question up for debate?

Actual threats to actual people on campus (as opposed to statements about what should happen on the other side of the world) can and should be punished. The university should focus its disciplinary resources there.

Among others, the school has the duty to not maintain a hostile workplace, and the students have a responsibility if not duty to not create one. This is fundamentally different to facially similar demonstrations wrt S Africa eg when I was in school.

That's sort of the crux of it. I broadly agree with these principles of free speech, but I'm concerned that there's a lot of hand-waving about things that are making Jewish people feel unsafe.

Not every threat is somebody walking up and explicitly saying "Hello, visibly Jewish person. I am officially threatening you now." It's an environment — and it's very much, emphatically, not conducive to the freedom of thought and expression necessary for the university to thrive.

Not everybody has to even be on campus. I'm sure any school admission office can tell you about the concerns Jewish would-be applicants, typically Juniors and seniors in high school and their parents have expressed. Alumni development officers have tales to tell about fundraising too I'm sure.

Could this reasoning be used to justify the police assault on students at Kent State, on grounds that those students created a hostile workplace?

Hostile how?

Stephen up there said he thinks the college should focus on actual threats instead of just harassing protesters. You replied that it's the school's responsibility to prevent a hostile work environment. It sounded like you were saying that protesters create a hostile work environment?

Well, what a lovely idea. I invite you to look up the "bear or man" hypothetical and tell me how we can go about removing all men from campus ... because they are also threatening/harrassing and continually create a hostile work environment.

Post