Suspending student protesters would be a Palestinian exception to freedom of expression Opinion

Protests occur from time to time in all societies. They are chaotic almost by definition. They often disturb and harass people. They make noise, block streets, close buildings and force the cancellation of events. Some deface or destroy property. And almost every protest violates existing rules.

Protests therefore force a choice between following rules and protecting freedom of expression. In authoritarian societies the choice is easy. Governments often crack down on protests with harsh penalties. Almost without exception, they justify these measures by referring to the law: rules are rules, and they must be enforced. Penalties are often disproportionate to the crime (gathering without permission, blocking traffic), but autocrats insist that they are simply enforcing the law.

Democratic societies deal with protests differently. When democratic governments are faced with the choice between tolerating short periods of unrest or taking measures that endanger the basic rights (or lives) of protesters, they usually choose the former. You accept a certain level of inconvenience and rule-breaking. Sometimes the best outcome is to endure a period of discomfort and even distress to avoid greater harm to the community.

Since the police crackdown in 1969 that sent dozens of people to the hospital, Harvard has consistently dealt with such protests and rule violations with restraint. This commitment to administrative restraint—a willingness to tolerate minor disruptions in the name of free speech—is codified in the Harvard Free Speech Guidelines, which state, for example, that in the face of inconvenient protests, “difficult decisions must be made as to the appropriate time and right place must be taken”. , and behavior should have a presumption that favors free expression.” This makes yesterday’s announcement threatening mass suspensions for all students involved in the Harvard Yard camp all the more shocking.

How have these difficult decisions played out in the past? We hired The Crimson to cover historic protest movements and spoke to a number of alumni about their activism as students. Here’s what we found.

In April 1986, the South African Solidarity Committee established an anti-apartheid camp called “Shantytown”, which remained in the Yard until the project began. Dean A. Michael Spence apologized to the families for the disruption but did not forcibly remove the tents.

While the anti-apartheid movement may seem uncontroversial today, it faced significant resistance back then.

“This is not civil disobedience. “This is violating the law to create a nuisance,” said Kris W. Kobach (Class of 1988), then president of the Republican Club. When some faculty held classes in the Yard to allow protesting students to attend, the FAS Faculty Council called the practice an “unacceptable” form of “coercion” on students who did not support the protest.

We do not know exactly what disciplinary consequences the Shantytown protesters faced because individual disciplinary findings are confidential. But alumni who attended the camp told us they couldn’t recall anyone being disciplined beyond “deferred suspensions” – discipline with no effect whatsoever. In fact, the university allowed the shanties to remain in place because they were an expression of free speech.

In April 2001, dozens of members of the Progressive Student Labor Movement occupied Massachusetts Hall for weeks to demand a living wage for Harvard workers. Their action required a police presence both inside and outside the building. Staff members later testified that they were afraid of the students as they entered Massachusetts Hall with leaflets. A few days later, student protesters set up a “tent city” in the courtyard, which eventually grew to 100 tents.

At that time, then-College Dean Harry R. Lewis ’68 announced that he would oppose the suspension of the affected students. Ultimately, the college students involved were only given a three-week suspended sentence, and four participating law students received reprimands.

In 2011, hundreds of activists – including Harvard members and outside protesters – set up an encampment in Harvard Yard as part of the broader “Occupy” movement. The yard was closed, the gates locked, IDs checked. One graduate told us that those employed on campus, such as tutors, were at risk of being fired. But one participant at the protest told us she never heard of any actual disciplinary action, and reports from the time make no mention of student suspensions.

In 2015, Divest Harvard organized a week-long occupation and blockade of Massachusetts Hall and also temporarily blocked University Hall and the Alumni Association on Mt. Auburn Street to pressure the government to divest from fossil fuels. Top administrators, including former university president Drew Gilpin Faust, were forced to relocate, and protesters barred entry to all employees in university hall – from deans Michael D. Smith and Rakesh Khurana to custodial staff.

Despite the disruption, the administration reacted pragmatically.

“It’s an inconvenience, but it doesn’t stop us from doing what we need to do,” said Stephen Lassonde, then dean of student life. A graduate who participated in the civil disobedience told us she was unaware of Harvard disciplining any of the participants, and we could find no reports of student discipline from that time.

In 2016, Harvard Law School students occupied a lounge in the Caspersen Student Center and renamed it “Belinda Hall” after a woman enslaved by the Royall family, whose coat of arms was used as the law school’s seal. The occupation lasted weeks. However, again, there are no public reports of disciplinary action, and an HLS graduate who attended this protest told us she was not aware that a single ad board case had been filed.

Although the protesters we spoke to were mixed (at best) about the government’s response to their demands for change, they all agreed that the threats made against them were nothing compared to what protesters are experiencing today lag behind. So what has changed?

“Time, place and manner” are not important. We find no evidence that the current encampment was more disruptive than previous protests. Previous protests lasted longer. They were more disruptive. They used the same methods in exactly the same places – loud chants, controversial signs, tents. In fact, it is fair to say that the youngest generation of student protesters has been unusually reserved. And yet only today’s student protesters are facing mass suspension.

Such disproportionate punishments for relatively minor rule violations represent a significant break with Harvard practice going back more than 50 years. It is hard to escape the conclusion that this is an example of the “Palestine exception” – a significantly lower level of tolerance for pro-Palestinian statements than for other statements.

The government’s harsh response is also in direct contradiction to our core mission, which is to educate our students, not expel them for speaking out on an issue that they believe is of great moral importance. We can rightly – even strongly – disagree with the protesters, but we should do so using the tools we teach them to value: discussion rather than threats, reasoned discourse rather than coercive discipline. Any other approach will not age well.

Alison Frank Johnson is a professor of history. Steven Levitsky is the David Rockefeller Professor of Latin American Studies and Professor of Government.