I feel like there's been a loss of institutional knowledge among campus police departments, or at least that's the most charitable interpretation. When I was at college in the 90s the way protests like these were dealt with was very straightforward -- cordon off the protesters, let people out but not in, and wait for it to burn itself out in a week or so. But that sort of patient approach seems to be alien to today's college police forces.
(Alternatively it could be that today's campus police have less patience and more raw lust to do harm than those of the past, possibly due to the incentives of media scrutiny.)
The hardworking staff at Drezner's world seem to have lost the plot. Yes, there are bad faith actors on both sides. However, there is a ready distinction between shooting jaywalkers (bad!) and failing to enforce any traffic law (also bad!). College administrators also need to prevent violence, not just respond to it. So clearing demonstrators where there is a potential / foreseeable violent confrontation (good!) while not limiting free speech (also good!) is the goal. Demonstrations which force college to be done remotely seems like the kind of campus disruption that the rest of the students should not have to tolerate. This is entirely separate from the specific speech involved.
At Yale, the protesters were violating various established college rules (e.g. no overnight camping / structures without prior permission on university property). And visibly Jewish students were blocked from walking across public spaces. Yale's approach (clear warning ahead of time both in person and by the President via email) followed by non-violent arrests seems like a middle path.
Exactly my impression, bolstered by close eyewitness observation, as someone visiting for the semester at Columbia—and someone who might be viewed by some as potentially “threatened” by this. Inside the campus, I have close encounters with the protesters (many Jewish), other students, and faculty daily: it’s all peaceful, reasonably thoughtful, civilized—even, in a way, bucolic, because the campus is now closed to those without an ID. A few feet from the tent city, students are lounging around, pulling late nights in the library, taking pre-graduation photos, etc. like they always do in late spring. A colleague was invited to Passover seder inside the group of protesters’ tents!) Only outside the campus perimeter do I have to walk home daily through throngs of journalists, photographers, outside protestors, and cops. And then I get emails from around the globe inquiring whether I am still alive, or criticisms of Columbia from people who know someone who knows someone whose parents told them to leave campus because they were worried. Inside the campus, nearly everyone’s biggest complaint is, rather, that outside perceptions of what’s going on are being manipulated in misleading ways for political purposes. Whereas one might criticize the students for not seeming to foresee this and thus not strategizing about how to project an (accurate) image to the broader public (one could start by reading Dr King), I have seen nothing the least bit rowdy, let alone dangerous to anyone. And Dan is surely right: the manipulation is largely about the 2024 election, not Israel or Palestine.
There's something really interesting in Packer's quote:
> [Universities] can’t deal with coercion, including nonviolent disobedience.
I think Packer has nailed it here. The protests may be nonviolent, but that doesn't make them noncoercive. The protestors made their case, and when it failed to convince anyone (recent polls show that college age adults still rank Gaza and foreign policy generally very low among their issue priorities) they sought to disrupt everyone else's day to day lives in the hopes that everyone else will finally capitulate just to stop the pain. In this sense the far left protestors are not too different from the MAGA crowd on the right. Both feel that they are entitled to get their way even if they can't muster enough support to prevail at the ballot box. Neither group is the good guys in these scenarios.
I don't mean to suggest by any of this that the authorities should resort to tear gas and rubber bullets; that's appalling. However, in cases where the worst that has happened is the protestors got a court summons for trespassing and kicked out of their dorm, is that really so unreasonable?
I will only comment about the heavy East Coast bias. The University of Southern California has been innovating in ways to incompetently handle Israel-Palestine issues in ways Columbia would not dream of and it seems to get at least a limited pass due to the media being in New York.
The most obvious position for conservatives is to support the harassment of protesters - I’m not sure if they care if things escalate, seems like more of a bonus.
The big practical problem for universities is not that students are protesting - it’s that they are occupying a public space, which creates a nuisance and a hassle and invites mayhem and chaos. This is the issue!
It’s easy to say that unis should mostly do nothing - that is the safest course. But it’s definitely a no win situation - you can’t just let a bunch of people (some students, some others, who knows) set up a homestead on a public space without putting your campus at some risk.
Certainly some uni presidents are more comfortable with enforcing the rules than others. The ideal is to negotiate them out of there, but that doesn’t always work. That’s why they get the big bucks.
It may well be a case of cynical advocating of things that cause violence, but I think it just as plausible that the outside politicians (alledgely supporters of free speech) quite simply hate those who think differently to them and so want the more outspoken members of such people to be roughed up and treated harshly.
A silly theory. Republicans do not control Boston police. Authority figures are reacting because the protests are excessively chaotic and in support of a bad, unpopular cause.
And why are republicans like Tom Cotton calling for the national guard? Because Tom Cotton would call for the national guard to break up a rowdy house party. Authoritarians like to crack down, especially when it’s their ideological opponents.
In my opinion, no complex electoral strategizing necessary to explain what’s going on.
It’s all LARPing at this point. LARPing protestors who say they believe Israel is committing genocide but don’t do anything that could get them expelled (as though having a college degree trumps stopping genocide). Or Administrators who are so outraged by threats of violence and antisemitism that it takes the fear of a Congressional sitting to make them gently remove the protests. It’s all play-acting.
I feel like there's been a loss of institutional knowledge among campus police departments, or at least that's the most charitable interpretation. When I was at college in the 90s the way protests like these were dealt with was very straightforward -- cordon off the protesters, let people out but not in, and wait for it to burn itself out in a week or so. But that sort of patient approach seems to be alien to today's college police forces.
(Alternatively it could be that today's campus police have less patience and more raw lust to do harm than those of the past, possibly due to the incentives of media scrutiny.)
The hardworking staff at Drezner's world seem to have lost the plot. Yes, there are bad faith actors on both sides. However, there is a ready distinction between shooting jaywalkers (bad!) and failing to enforce any traffic law (also bad!). College administrators also need to prevent violence, not just respond to it. So clearing demonstrators where there is a potential / foreseeable violent confrontation (good!) while not limiting free speech (also good!) is the goal. Demonstrations which force college to be done remotely seems like the kind of campus disruption that the rest of the students should not have to tolerate. This is entirely separate from the specific speech involved.
At Yale, the protesters were violating various established college rules (e.g. no overnight camping / structures without prior permission on university property). And visibly Jewish students were blocked from walking across public spaces. Yale's approach (clear warning ahead of time both in person and by the President via email) followed by non-violent arrests seems like a middle path.
Exactly my impression, bolstered by close eyewitness observation, as someone visiting for the semester at Columbia—and someone who might be viewed by some as potentially “threatened” by this. Inside the campus, I have close encounters with the protesters (many Jewish), other students, and faculty daily: it’s all peaceful, reasonably thoughtful, civilized—even, in a way, bucolic, because the campus is now closed to those without an ID. A few feet from the tent city, students are lounging around, pulling late nights in the library, taking pre-graduation photos, etc. like they always do in late spring. A colleague was invited to Passover seder inside the group of protesters’ tents!) Only outside the campus perimeter do I have to walk home daily through throngs of journalists, photographers, outside protestors, and cops. And then I get emails from around the globe inquiring whether I am still alive, or criticisms of Columbia from people who know someone who knows someone whose parents told them to leave campus because they were worried. Inside the campus, nearly everyone’s biggest complaint is, rather, that outside perceptions of what’s going on are being manipulated in misleading ways for political purposes. Whereas one might criticize the students for not seeming to foresee this and thus not strategizing about how to project an (accurate) image to the broader public (one could start by reading Dr King), I have seen nothing the least bit rowdy, let alone dangerous to anyone. And Dan is surely right: the manipulation is largely about the 2024 election, not Israel or Palestine.
There's something really interesting in Packer's quote:
> [Universities] can’t deal with coercion, including nonviolent disobedience.
I think Packer has nailed it here. The protests may be nonviolent, but that doesn't make them noncoercive. The protestors made their case, and when it failed to convince anyone (recent polls show that college age adults still rank Gaza and foreign policy generally very low among their issue priorities) they sought to disrupt everyone else's day to day lives in the hopes that everyone else will finally capitulate just to stop the pain. In this sense the far left protestors are not too different from the MAGA crowd on the right. Both feel that they are entitled to get their way even if they can't muster enough support to prevail at the ballot box. Neither group is the good guys in these scenarios.
I don't mean to suggest by any of this that the authorities should resort to tear gas and rubber bullets; that's appalling. However, in cases where the worst that has happened is the protestors got a court summons for trespassing and kicked out of their dorm, is that really so unreasonable?
The most disturbing fact is that nobody stands up for free speech and tolerating opinions one disagrees with.
I will only comment about the heavy East Coast bias. The University of Southern California has been innovating in ways to incompetently handle Israel-Palestine issues in ways Columbia would not dream of and it seems to get at least a limited pass due to the media being in New York.
The most obvious position for conservatives is to support the harassment of protesters - I’m not sure if they care if things escalate, seems like more of a bonus.
The big practical problem for universities is not that students are protesting - it’s that they are occupying a public space, which creates a nuisance and a hassle and invites mayhem and chaos. This is the issue!
It’s easy to say that unis should mostly do nothing - that is the safest course. But it’s definitely a no win situation - you can’t just let a bunch of people (some students, some others, who knows) set up a homestead on a public space without putting your campus at some risk.
Certainly some uni presidents are more comfortable with enforcing the rules than others. The ideal is to negotiate them out of there, but that doesn’t always work. That’s why they get the big bucks.
Is saying, “Zionists do not deserve to live,” enough to get you to take action?
It may well be a case of cynical advocating of things that cause violence, but I think it just as plausible that the outside politicians (alledgely supporters of free speech) quite simply hate those who think differently to them and so want the more outspoken members of such people to be roughed up and treated harshly.
"multiple examples of explicitly pro-Hamas, pro-terrorist signage. Other protestors have shouted anti-Semitic slogans." Propaganda. Utterly, completely untrue.
Just clean them all out!
A silly theory. Republicans do not control Boston police. Authority figures are reacting because the protests are excessively chaotic and in support of a bad, unpopular cause.
And why are republicans like Tom Cotton calling for the national guard? Because Tom Cotton would call for the national guard to break up a rowdy house party. Authoritarians like to crack down, especially when it’s their ideological opponents.
In my opinion, no complex electoral strategizing necessary to explain what’s going on.
It’s all LARPing at this point. LARPing protestors who say they believe Israel is committing genocide but don’t do anything that could get them expelled (as though having a college degree trumps stopping genocide). Or Administrators who are so outraged by threats of violence and antisemitism that it takes the fear of a Congressional sitting to make them gently remove the protests. It’s all play-acting.
It's high time we examine the psyche of the student protestors. Many of them are motivated by the delayed adolescent rebellion they are experiencing
https://davidgottfried.substack.com/p/snowflakes-and-divas-railing-against
Paul Berman partly agrees. But frames stakes here as more fraught. Good chaser.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2024/04/26/columbia-protest-students-faculty-gaza-unrest/
What I want to know is, how much of this would be allowed if the speech was against blacks? Against trans students?