Maryam Alwan figured the worst was over after New York City police in riot gear arrested her and other protesters on the Columbia University campus, loaded them onto buses and held them in custody for hours.
But the next evening, the college junior received an email from the university. Alwan and other students were being suspended after their arrests at the “ Gaza Solidarity Encampment,” a tactic colleges across the country have deployed to calm growing campus protests against the Israel-Hamas war.
The students’ plight has become a central part of protests, with students and a growing number of faculty demanding their amnesty. At issue is whether universities and law enforcement will clear the charges and withhold other consequences, or whether the suspensions and legal records will follow students into their adult lives.
Trespassing. You have the right to assembly, but that doesn’t extend to anywhere, any time.
These protestors could protest on the sidewalk, or get a permit and do a planned protest in a public park, or even work with the city to close roads for a planned march. As long as they kept it peaceful, police would have very little justification to arrest anyone.
Instead, they are doing it on college campuses, or public roads without permission. And when they are told to leave, they refuse. At that point, you are trespassing, and the police are justified in arresting you.
Civil disobedience grabs far more attention than protesting legally. We’re here talking about their cause because it made headlines due to civil disobedience. But activism has its costs.
Is it tresspassing, though? Not trying to argue with you, to be clear. They’re students paying tuition and housing fees. I guess I could see that arguement if they weren’t students. Though I agree, civil disobedience and disrupting the status quo is the only way to get people to take notice and do anything.
Are they? When I was in college, the people that protested almost always were from outside.
Unless it’s your place of residence, you are always trespassing if the owner (or employees acting on the owners behalf) tells you to leave.
Paying tuition doesn’t give you unfettered access to the school.
Freedom of assembly and speech apply to public schools since 55 years ago from the Tinker descion.
Are the colleges these protesters being arrested from public schools, or private universities? As far as I was aware, most colleges/universities are private. Community colleges are public.
Most colleges in the US are state universities that receive state and federal funding.
Afaik, universities are private. Specifically, Columbia University is definitely private.
And the ruling you’re talking about has a lot of restrictions which wouldn’t apply here anyway.
You can’t discriminate against cause. If you allow one protest to give speeches in the Quad, I suppose you would be required to give other causes equal access to the Quad.
These students created an encampment, which goes beyond past permitted protests at that university, afaik. I doubt university admin would allow that under any circumstances, even if they agree with the cause, because it sets a dangerous precedent.
But, again, this is a private university. These rules do not apply.
Even private schools have to allow some form of protesting.
Public school rules don’t generally apply to universities. Though there is a constitutional right present due to most schools being government or quasi-government actors and college campuses being traditional public forums (again, very generally), the exercise of some rights are more broadly interpreted while other are more narrowly interpreted.
If the police can just tell you to leave then you don’t actually have a right to protest.
Justified is the wrong word.
No, it is not. It is the accurate term describing the legal justification that the police need to legally remove the protestors from the premises.
So many of the replies around this topic live in the clouds. There’s a reason protestors are being forcibly removed. People should understand the nuances of free speech and freedom of assembly. Choosing to disobey is taking on risk to your well-being.
These are facts. This is not commentary on whether the protestors are “right” or “wrong”. But we should all know the risks they are taking for doing so, and understand when the universities and police are actually overstepping their authority.
You’re replying to people who can’t believe the injustice of these laws by explaining that the laws are legal. No consensus will be reached; these are two completely different perspectives. Personally, I think laws, being a made up construct, should generally promote positive behavior like stopping genocide, so I easily side with the protesters and commenters here expressing indignation alongside them.
The legality argument also ignores the police tradition of breaking the law while shutting down protests just because they can get away with it.
And that’s precisely why it is so important to keep the legality of specific actions in mind while evaluating the actions of both the protestors, and the police, while having the conversation on protests and the responses such as these.
This conversation is the result of a direct reply to yet another comment indicating a lack of understanding of what is legal when protesting in the USA.
The morality of both the protestors and the authorities is far more subjective. But I keep seeing the same basic question “I thought it was legal to protest in the USA, how can they arrest them?”, so clarifying the boundaries of your rights is a good starting point, IMO. And frankly, bears repeating due to how frequently this is misunderstood and misrepresented.
Most of these protests are being done in zones designated by the university for protest. They are supposed to be allowed to protest there, as long as it doesn’t disrupt people getting to class and such.
The first amendment in USA gives them the right to protest even on the school ground and the school can’t deny permission if the students are peaceful. And they are.
Everything else you said as irrelevant.
Saying it doesn’t make it so. You grossly misunderstand your rights, but I’m not going to repeat myself.
Tell the lawyers that
https://www.thefire.org/news/heres-what-students-need-know-about-protesting-campus-right-now
https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/students-rights-speech-walkouts-and-other-protests?redirect=issues/free-speech/student-speech-and-privacy/students-rights-speech-walkouts-and-other-protests
https://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/civil-rights/protests/2024/04/26/484816/charges-dropped-against-all-57-pro-palestinian-demonstrators-arrested-on-ut-campus/?amp=1
I only read the aclu one as the only reputable source I recognize. That doesn’t say what you seem to think it says.
You yourself cited the requirement to be expression neutral. And I have provided links showing they weren’t and that multiple student groups are suing because of it.
Are the students expected to just sit back and stay silent when the university doesn’t allow them to express themselves on equal terms?
That’s literally what protests are for, and also literally why charges were withdrawn against a whole bunch of students in at least one case, because it wasn’t a “clear case of trespassing” when the students protested peacefully.
At least one police department has already figured it out
https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2024/04/26/dc-police-george-washington-university-protests/
But they are public?
If the only legal way to protest is to do it alone in a field then the legality of the protest is a moot point. Protesting is about the public getting heard and the cost is to productivity. The cost shouldn’t be an arrest record and stigma. This isn’t because two or three assholes are disrupting a campus. Students are getting arrested in dozens. Professors are getting arrested too. What the colleges and universities are doing against their own students is unacceptable.