Columbia Student protestors, April 19th, 2024
Image source: Time (Alex Kent - AFP/Getty Images)
DISCLAIMER: This blog post does not represent the views of MasonVotes.
Universities have historically been a hotbed for protest. As young people go out into the world and begin interacting with academia, they start challenging their own views, while at the same time having to reconcile them with the “real world”. Add in the youthful passion many of them hold and you have the perfect recipe for disruptive protests. This is why some of the most important social movements in our nation’s history involve student protest and activism. From the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee’s role in organizing civil rights protests, to the role students all over the nation played in resisting the Vietnam War, students have consistently played a role in pushing for social justice and progress.
Today, we see a new student movement taking shape, a movement that’s very similar to the Vietnam war protests of the 70s. Students all over the nation have been mobilizing in support of Palestine, or, more specifically, in resistance to the U.S. funding of the Israeli war effort in Gaza.
Specific to student protests is a call for their universities to divest from Israel. This means they want their schools to stop investing in Israeli companies that support the Israeli war effort and what they see as Israeli apartheid of Palestinians. This call to action has been prompted by a wish to comply with the BDS movement, a movement calling to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel and modeled after the movements which helped bring down the South African Apartheid.
Now, how does this relate to Columbia University?
Well, Columbia has a rich history of protest. In 1968, Columbia students occupied various campus buildings in order to demand their school stop cooperating with Pentagon research being used in the Vietnam War. Following violent interactions with police and over a week of protesting, the students' demands were met.
Now, in 2024, Columbia students have once again chosen to use occupation of public spaces as a form of Protest. On Wednesday April 25th, hundreds of students descended upon the East Butler Lawn of Columbia’s campus, determined to not leave until their demands relating to divesting from Israel were met. However, as the day was coming to an end, the school was threatening disciplinary action against the protestors.
Then, the next day, the cops were called.
Despite the demonstration being peaceful, the school’s president authorized the NYPD to enter campus, where 108 arrests were made, along with the school handing out 3 suspensions.
Now, as of April 19th, the protest continues, with no end in sight. In fact, far from stopping, the arrests and school’s reaction have sparked student protests at schools all over the country, from Harvard to Ohio State. The fact is, the attempt to crack down on student speech and activism greatly backfired. It has inflamed students across the nation toward the Palestinian cause.
All of this has come after Columbia’s President testified in a Congressional hearing about antisemitism. The Israeli war on Gaza following the terrorist attack of October 7th has prompted a rise in antisemitism and Islamophobia worldwide, and there is very much a need to protect marginalized students from this rise in hatred. However, the difference between hate-speech and acceptable speech has become blurred as people in power such as Columbia’s president have stated that divisive phrases such as “From the RIver to the Sea Palestine will be free” could warrant disciplinary action. This tense environment has no doubt played a part in the forceful response the school had towards the protests, and serves as a reminder to all of us that free speech and assembly rights can only be defined and protected when they are actively exercised and tested.
The pro-Palestine students at Columbia have put forth an important test for their rights, a test that was met with police action in the name of campus safety. But, as the editorial board of the Columbia Spectator, the school’s student newspaper, put it “'rhetoric that has ‘historically meant different things to different people’ is not making anyone unsafe—feeling uncomfortable is not the same as being unsafe”, and, as established by the Supreme Court in Brandenburg v Ohio, the government should not restrict speech unless it is poses a threat of “imminent lawless action.”
Now, Columbia is a private institution, and thus not held to the same standard as the government in cases such as these. But, the question is if they should be bound to the same standards. After all, as established above, universities, both public and private, are centers of protest and social justice movements, movements which are crucial to a healthy democracy.
In order to answer this question, all of us, especially young people, must continue to be civically engaged not just through voting but through protest. We must continue to make our voices heard in order to make social change and force conversations on these tough questions.
Kommentare