Columbia University students, who were at the vanguard of the movement, may encounter the most changes. The university president, Minouche Shafik, resigned this week in the wake of criticism for her handling of the protests, but not before overseeing the installation of fencing around the lawns of the school’s quad – the heart of campus life and the site of large protest encampments.
The barriers are not the only novelty the university introduced as it seeks to avoid a repeat of last spring’s showdown with protesters, which culminated in 109 arrests when Shafik called in the NYPD for a second time in April.
University administrators are also considering bringing in “peace officers” with the authority to arrest students – something Columbia’s current 290 security personnel cannot do, according to the Wall Street Journal.
“They’re sacrificing all their public space to crack down [on students],” said Jonathan Ben-Menachem, a sociology PhD student who participated in last year’s protests. He compared the color-coded system to the threat level advisories implemented by the US Department of Homeland Security after the 9/11 attacks.
Columbia is not unique in its preparations. As they plan for a new academic year and the prospect of more protests, university administrations nationwide have issued a flurry of new policies and proposals seeking to limit protests. Students, faculty and advocates warn that the policies endanger free speech, run counter to educational institutions’ mission to foster debate, risk deepening tensions on campuses, and – in the case of public universities – may run foul of schools’ constitutional obligations.
The American Association of University Professors issued a statement this week condemning the wave of anti-protest measures. The policies “impose severe limits on speech and assembly that discourage or shut down freedom of expression”, wrote the group, which represents more than 44,000 faculty members nationwide. “Those who care about higher education and democracy should be alarmed.”
Universities across the country have been rocked by protests since the beginning of Israel’s war on Gaza, since 7 October, as students and faculty pressed their administrations to divest from Israel, among other demands. As dozens of solidarity camps sprang up on campuses nationwide, several schools called in police, leading to more than 3,100 arrests. Scores of students faced criminal charges and disciplinary measures, and several schools scaled back graduation ceremonies.
In the aftermath of last spring’s protests, many universities moved to amend their policies, with several introducing bans and restrictions on camping, overnight protests and the use of banners and signs. Over the summer, the University of Pennsylvania introduced a new prohibition on camping and banned any speech that “advocates violence”. Critics note that such speech is constitutionally protected – as long as it doesn’t entail a clear threat. As a private school, UPenn is not bound by the US constitution’s first amendment protections, but like many private universities it claims to uphold free speech values .
Elsewhere, the University of Illinois imposed restrictions on the use of “event tents, tables, walls, outdoor displays, inflatables, freestanding signs, huts, sculptures, booths, facilities, flashing or rotating lights, illuminated signs, or similar objects and structures”. The University of Louisville, in Kentucky, proposed bans on chalking and yard signs and a requirement that other signage “align with the university mission”. Other schools, like Case Western Reserve University, in Ohio, introduced a seven-day notice requirement for any demonstrations.
The University of California, a 10 campus system that saw some of the worst violence in response to pro Palestinian protests, is set to announce a system wide new policy, probably including a ban on encampments, in the coming days. California state legislators are also debating a new bill against conduct that “creates a hostile environment on campus”, which advocates warn would “set a dangerous precedent”.