Anyone within the sphere of University of Chicago happenings has likely seen the inundation of updates on the increasingly large and disruptive encampment on our Quad. Yet, the news cycle around campus has spat out conflicting information concerning the status of the encampment.
On one hand, a semantically confusing Instagram post co-authored by Chicago’s Students for Justice in Palestine branch and University of Chicago United for Palestine claimed partial victory by suggesting that the “desperate University commit[ted] to” an ambiguously-defined ‘Gaza Scholars at Risk’ program and that “negotiators walked away with a material change at hand.” Yet, the same post suggested that the encampment’s demands were “emptied of all substance” upon reaching the desk of University of Chicago President Paul Alivisatos.
Last Friday, Alivisatos sent an email to the University community stating that “we have reached the point” where the University would be warranted to intervene given the protest’s disruptive and illegal nature. Despite the email and the fact that the encampment has become larger, louder, and more violent, there has been no substantial intervention since that day. Instead, students and faculty have taken matters into their own hands.
Contrasting the protesters’ narrative, University of Chicago claimed a more hardline approach, stating that discussions “were suspended” due to the encampment’s demands being “inconsistent with the University’s principles.” Moreover, it claimed that “at no point did [University of Chicago] reduce—or agree to reduce—the security presence” on the Quad and that the ‘Scholars at Risk’ program already existed—two of the “preconditions” set by protesters for negotiation.
If we take the University’s word prima facie, it appears that they are trying to stall out the encampment. If we take the protesters’ word prima facie, it appears that the University, like Northwestern, has begun to kowtow to the encampment despite its initially tougher stance.
Whose word do we take seriously? Does it even matter? I think discussions about whose incentive it is to inflate their party’s standing more are fruitless. Instead, the larger problem is the fact that the University at best is playing softball with protesters who have trespassed private property by evidently breaking the rules to bargain with the administration.
Perhaps more damning is the fact that slight operative alterations on the part of the encampment would have made it legal from the standpoint of University protest policies (which are already generous). I have serious objections to flying a foreign flag on the campus flagstaff. But the point is that these same demonstrators could have done something very similar while adhering to the rules. Instead, they choose to pester the University community—and they’re getting away with it.
By not immediately shutting down the illegal demonstrations, University of Chicago conveys the image of a shallow commitment to procedural integrity, neglecting requirements that protests should neither disrupt University activities nor forcefully obstruct access to “open-to-public” campus property. It gives protesters every incentive to flagrantly violate University policies at the expense of their fellow students and faculty. Northwestern University’s capitulation is perhaps the best example.
The takeaway emanated by University of Chicago is that rulebreakers face the prospect of great rewards but virtually no consequences for their disruptive behavior. I am happy that the highest levels of administration seemingly have not given in. However, the fact that the University is still not enforcing its rules on trespassers suggests that larger-scale disruptions are legitimate bargaining tactics. We, the rest of the University, are paying the price.
* The views expressed in this article solely represent the views of the author, not the views of the Chicago Thinker.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Perry Zhao
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://thechicagothinker.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.