Before dawn on Tuesday, May 21, University of Michigan law enforcement arrived on the Diag tasked with clearing the Gaza solidarity encampment. Dressed in full riot gear, they issued a 15-minute dispersal warning to approximately 50 protesters before advancing in force less than 10 minutes later. The encampment, which had operated peacefully for almost a month, was removed violently as police pepper sprayed and arrested students.
In an email to the U-M community, University President Santa Ono justified his decision to clear the encampment by claiming that the protesters failed to comply with directives from the University fire marshal, which the protesters deny. He then went on to provide a long list of other grievances with the encampment’s leadership and recent pro-Palestine protests, citing vandalism of U-M property, physical altercations outside of the University of Michigan Art Museum and demonstrations outside the homes of several members of the University’s Board of Regents. The board’s furious reaction to the burnt cradle and bloody body bags placed outside of their front doors on May 15 likely led to increased pressure to resolve the situation, hence the fire marshal’s inspection of the encampment that came only two days later.
Regardless of what external factors may have influenced Ono’s thought process, U-M policy did grant him and the administration the authority to act. His email accurately stated that the encampment had “always violated the rules that govern the Diag” — rules that students and community members agree to abide by when studying or working at this institution. As such, many, including members of the TAHRIR Coalition, anticipated a response from the University eventually.
This Editorial Board’s issue with what took place Tuesday morning does not stem from the fact that the encampment was removed, but with how the University went about removing it. The administration’s strategy, both in terms of reasoning and execution, was careless and counterproductive to any long-term trust with students.
Ono’s contention that fire safety concerns “forced the University to take action,” is disingenuous at best and deceptive at worst. The issues Ono refers to — external camp barriers, overloaded power sources and open flames — were not recent developments. The encampment operated for weeks in this “high-risk” manner without any University intervention. While this behavior might have been dangerous, it could not have been Ono’s primary concern, or he wouldn’t have waited so long to rectify it. It seems like this was merely the convenient excuse Ono had been looking for.
Additionally, Ono’s attempt to frame the encampment clearing as a safety precaution for the protesters is invalidated by the numerous safety hazards created by the police response. The University cynically sent in officers at 5:45 a.m., limiting the number of potential witnesses. Law enforcement behaved accordingly, moving violently against the demonstrators even before the deadline for their 15-minute dispersal order had passed. The University may have been trying to prevent more protesters from arriving at the scene, but they did so at the expense of the clear and public warnings that students deserved.
This Editorial Board has written in the past that campus is becoming a pressure cooker and that the more forcefully the University reacts to expression, the more intense that expression will become. The encampment clearing is only the most recent example, but things didn’t need to end this way. Administrations at other colleges negotiated with their protesters, and their encampments came to peaceful resolutions. Instead of pursuing this route, Ono and his administration opted to further strain their relationship with dissenting students rather than engage with them, acting in bad faith and placing demonstrators in danger.
Choices made by some of the protesters, however, indicate that they may have been acting in bad faith as well. Incidents of vandalism and destruction of property turned off potential supporters and gave the University more pretext to act. The paint-over of the Michigan Union sign and replacement of bricks on the Diag, for example, made the demonstration look unruly and disinterested in productive dialogue.
Moreover, participants at the encampment spent weeks seeking an audience with Ono and the board, but when a public-comment period opened at the most recent meeting of the board, no demonstrators spoke.
University Regent Mark Bernstein (D) took notice, stating “It’s also worth noting that it appears that nobody from the coalition of over 40 groups has signed up for public comment today, not one person.” He went on, “There are many robust opportunities to engage with this board in person, virtually and through submission of correspondence to name a few.” Though Bernstein was unlikely to ever support the protesters’ demands, his point still stands. The demonstrators gave up on institutional avenues of making change, leaving them with only the encampment and disruption as a point of leverage. And, when the encampment was cleared, their attempt to impede the police with chairs and tables cut against the tradition of civil disobedience they claim to represent.
Ultimately, the future of pro-Palestinian protests on campus is uncertain. While Ono has said that the administration’s protest policy has not changed, it is clear that the dynamics have shifted. In using force against members of the campus community, the University showed blatant disregard for its duty to protect students.
We agree with Ono on one thing — what happened Tuesday morning must be taken into account within the broader context of several events over the past few months. The free speech principles followed by the Disruptive Activity Policy, the cancellation of CSG ballot initiatives, and Ono and the board’s refusal to meet with pro-Palestine protest leaders put the administration in a position where police violence was its only perceived option.
The University stands at a crossroads. Down one path, Wolverines are met with pepper spray and tear gas. Down the other, they aren’t. For all Ono’s talk about a potential fire at the encampment, the fire he and the board should have been focused on was the growing flame of distrust between students and the administration.
This editorial represents the opinion of The Michigan Daily’s Summer Editorial Board. If you are interested in submitting an Op-Ed or Letter to the Editor, please send your submission to tothedaily@michigandaily.com.
The post From the Daily: UMich administration is putting out the wrong fires appeared first on The Michigan Daily.
Leave a Reply