"But..hey..aren't protests meant to be disruptive?"

A productive version of our exchanges with the "Let the kids be" crowd

Free Speech Fabian: Well, well, well, they really fucked this up didn’t they. Seeing the university call the cops on peaceful protestors makes me sick. This might not technically constitute a violation of their first amendment rights, but it sets a terrible precedent with respect to the right to protest.

Orderly Olivia: But the protestors said they wouldn’t leave until their demands were met and that was obviously not reasonable. Was the university supposed to let them camp out as long as they’d like?

Free Speech Fabian: They might not have been able to give them exactly what they wanted but they could've at least talked to them in good faith. And the students would’ve moved on at the end of term anyways. Instead, the university incentivized them to escalate and that’s exactly what we saw them do.

Orderly Olivia: Well, I think that’s hard to say. It seems just as plausible that the students would’ve kept escalating tactics until they got real push back. And what about the longer term incentives? Do we want to normalize groups of students unilaterally taking over shared spaces and limiting who’s allowed to enter based on some ideological purity test?

Free Speech Fabian: It wasn’t a random group of students, it was a protest. Yes, ideally people get protest permits etc., but even if they don’t, the right to protest is important enough to the democratic process that we should strongly lean towards allowing them. And the only people who were limited from entering were counter-protestors or agitators of some kind.

Orderly Olivia: I agree that we can lean towards allowing protests, even if they don’t get permits etc., but I don’t think we can allow tactics that involve limiting entry to shared spaces. I don’t think whether the people they excluded were agitators is really relevant here. It’s not tenable to let a group of students, protesting or not, camp out in some area and then decide what ideology you have to hold to walk there.

Free Speech Fabian: But protests are always ideological at some level and it’s normal for antagonistic groups to be kept separate. And it’s a huge stretch to claim that any students were really limited in terms of freedom of movement. In relation to the overall campus these encampments were very small and didn’t obstruct any buildings or pose a credible safety threat to other students. 

Orderly Olivia: It’s normal for antagonistic groups to be kept separate by police to limit the potential for assaults or disorderly conduct. But it shouldn’t be normal for protestors to physically remove people on the basis of an ideological purity test. That crosses the line into physical tactics. I take your point that the ability for all students to use that piece of shared space, in and of itself, is not an important right that needs to be protected. But it is important to protect students from having others arbitrarily impose rules on them. Why should we allow them to hijack a public space within the university and blatantly violate rules?

Free Speech Fabian: I understand that you’re focused on the rules here but I don’t think this is really a big deal relative to protecting a robust interpretation of the right to protest.

Orderly Olivia: You mean violating rules isn't a big deal?

Free Speech Fabian: Not exactly, I agree that there’s some need to have a central authority which has exclusive rights to make and enforce rules, but they also have a responsibility to show restraint and to protect the ability for their students to speak. I think in this case limiting the rights of the protestors using police force was a much bigger infringement than preventing students from accessing that part of the lawn.

Orderly Olivia: But my argument is that the tactic of preventing people from using shared land claimed for an unapproved protest is not acceptable and not something that we want to normalize. I mean, the university has to generally apply rules equally and fairly, right?

Free Speech Fabian: Yes.

Orderly Olivia: So if tomorrow a group of Israeli students took over a part of the lawn, barred anti-Zionists from entering, and demanded the university divest from Arab countries, would you be okay with the university letting them stay indefinitely?

Free Speech Fabian: Sure, as long as they remained peaceful.

Orderly Olivia: And what if the other side responded by taking over a larger area, and then the Israelis did the same until movement within the entire central square was controlled?

Free Speech Fabian: Well at a certain point I could imagine enough space being taken up by protestors that it actually could be considered limiting movement, and that can’t be allowed.

Orderly Olivia: But why even make that a possibility? Why shouldn’t the university make it clear that this tactic is not acceptable. I get that you don’t think police involvement was necessary in this case but I think it’s important to keep these sorts of lines very clear.

Free Speech Fabian: Again, I really think these students would’ve gotten tired and went home without intervention, not ratcheted things up as you imagine might’ve happened. 

Orderly Olivia: Maybe. But the point at which an encampment which is enforcing entry rules on the basis of some ideology becomes big enough to meaningfully infringe on the rights of other students is fuzzy. And I don’t see how allowing this tactic is required to protect the right to protest.

Free Speech Fabian: It might not be required in general, but it was required to protect the right to protest in this case and sending in the police was overreach. The university administrators might’ve been able to work with protest leaders to set up reasonable guidelines on size and tactics and I don’t think they tried nearly hard enough to do that. 

Orderly Olivia: I guess we have different intuitions there, but I also think we have to keep in mind that the administrators have more things to worry about than the protests or the protestors.

Free Speech Fabian: But aren't you worried about the message this sends? That the university doesn't care about these issues and won't tolerate dissent?

Orderly Olivia: Not at all. Students are still free to protest, hold meetings, have discussions, and express their views on this issue and any other, just not to take over parts of campus in the process. If they still feel constrained by the campus rules, they can also protest off university property.

Free Speech Fabian: But doesn't pushing them off campus make it harder for them to engage other students and the administration? Aren't you de facto limiting their speech?

Orderly Olivia: There are still plenty of ways for them to engage the campus community without breaking rules - passing out pamphlets, holding events, inviting speakers, etc. No one is stopping them from expressing their message. What's being limited are specific tactics.

Free Speech Fabian: But that was the tactic that was working! They'd been trying other things for months and were ignored. The protestors needed to be disruptive to be heard.

Orderly Olivia: Then it starts to seem like this may be less about free speech and more about a group of students trying to unilaterally get their way, regardless of the rules or impact on others. At the end of the day, the university has to be able to enforce reasonable time, place and manner restrictions. The university can't just cave to the group that's most willing to break the rules. That's not fair to other students who also care about issues but engage through approved channels. If these protestors' tactics were validated, what's to stop any group with a grievance from doing the same thing?

Free Speech Fabian: Sure, but this is clearly an important issue for students. Don’t we want to promote norms that the administration is willing to listen and engage with students when they're upset enough to protest? Divestment from unethical companies isn’t such a radical ask anyways…

Orderly Olivia: Not if it privileges the loudest, most disruptive voices at the expense of the majority of students who are there to learn. Every minute spent dealing with activists is a minute not spent on issues that directly impact student learning and wellbeing.

Free Speech Fabian: But doesn't the university have an ethical obligation to ensure it's not supporting human rights abuses through its investments?

Orderly Olivia: Its primary obligation is to steward its endowment to support its academic mission. Plus, divesting is often more symbolic than impactful. And if human rights are the concern, why single out Israel? What about Saudi Arabia or a dozen other such countries and their  treatment of women and minorities?

Free Speech Fabian: Okay, okay, but why call the cops? Aren't there other things you can do? These are just kids and even if you disagree with their demands can’t you have some compassion given they’re doing their best to respond to what they consider to be an ongoing genocide supported by their own government? Shouldn’t we expect that they’ll break a few rules under those conditions? I mean isn’t the point of a protest to be disruptive?

Orderly Olivia: They're 18 and 19 year olds, legally adults. We let them vote, make decisions, and yes, protest. That means there have to be adult consequences for breaking rules. The university has to deal with them as adults, not children. They might feel that civil disobedience is justified but that doesn’t mean they shouldn’t expect it to be met with consequences.

Free Speech Fabian: I guess I see your point to some degree. And I’m not saying that there should be no punishment for students that damage property etc. I just don’t think the mass arrests were necessary in this case even if you can technically justify them as enforcing order after students broke rules. At the end of the day, I’m more concerned with the potential chilling effect of this action limiting future protests or normalizing forceful interventions. I just wish it hadn't come to calling the cops.

Orderly Olivia: No one wanted that. But when a group repeatedly flouts the rules, there have to be real consequences that eventually ratchet up when warnings aren’t heeded. And I’m more concerned with the longer-term incentives that not enforcing some order would’ve created. Largely because I don’t think these students were actually prevented from protesting but were simply prevented from using specific tactics that the university didn’t allow because they infringe on the rights of other students. The university has a duty to all its students, not just the protestors.