During the spring semester of 2024, students at colleges across the nation have set up protest encampments. They want to draw attention to the human cost of the Israel–Hamas War. Their strategy is a familiar one: Students set up tables and tents in a publicly accessible space, and talk to people who walk by. In some cases, the encampments have taken on a more extreme tone. For example, some activists have claimed the campuses are a “liberated” zone free of university control. Critics have claimed that such pro-Palestinian displays are hotbeds for anti-semitism.

These conflicts lead to an important question: How should universities respond to students who exercise their political rights in this way? Multiple interests are at stake. First, pro-Palestinian students and faculty, as well as their detractors, have free speech rights. Universities should be the place where people can discuss racism, war, and related topics in a safe environment. 

Second, universities have an interest in retaining control over the space that they provide. Public spaces on campus are not designed for long-term occupation, and campus administrators are rightfully concerned about the safety of participants and observers, especially if students decide to conduct sit-ins or occupy buildings.

I believe that a few simple principles, based on taking responsibility, being prudent, consistently applying values, and supporting diversity of opinion, can help colleges manage protest encampments and the conflict they raise.

First, student activists who wish to express themselves in this way should “own it” and assume responsibility for how dissent is expressed on campus. They should educate themselves on the rules governing campus space, express themselves in ways that inflict no harm or interference on others, and constantly monitor their encampment so that it is safe for people to visit. Thankfully, I have observed that many student activists have followed these rules. At the same time, student activists should not declare that a protest encampment is “liberated” from the university. Instead, encampments should be operated in a way that supports the mission of the university, not contradict it.

Second, campus administrators should use caution and de-escalation. Caution is extremely important. The Israel–Hamas war is a catastrophe, and emotions on campus are raw. Campus leaders should not throw around broad terms like anti-semitism unless they can provide concrete examples of people using disparaging language against Jewish people. This word should not be used to tarnish all critics of the Israel–Hamas war. Similarly, college administrators should not tolerate counter-protesters who inflict harm or otherwise harass student activists, such as those who disrupted an assembly at UCLA.

Moderation and de-escalation have an important role. Recently, administrators at Michigan State University, Brown University, and Northwestern University were able to resolve some of these conflicts by using some commonsense tactics. Campus leaders personally spoke to activists, instead of communicating through impersonal statements. They offered alternative forms of expression, even if the tents had to come down. Police were careful not to immediately resort to force. Campus administrators, in some cases, promised to consider protest demands and provide incentives through support for Palestinian scholarships.

In contrast, campuses that have seen flare-ups have often deviated from the principles. For example, controversy had engulfed my institution, Indiana University, when campus leaders changed the rules for the use of public space and then called Indiana State Police to enforce the new rule, which resulted in dozens of arrests, injuries, and trauma. The focus was on complying with new rules about tents rather than providing a different forum for expression and moderating emotions.

The Indiana University case also highlights the importance of consistently applying principles. Before and after student and faculty arrests, administrators insisted that they were engaged in a dialogue and valued peaceful methods for managing protests. Yet, rules were changed abruptly and police used shields and batons to pummel protesters. Aside from being violent, these actions make administrators look as if they are selectively choosing which values to uphold.

Columbia University recently cleared out a protest encampment, which triggered a student takeover of a building. News reports indicate more than 300 arrests. From the media coverage, it is not clear whether administrators worked personally with students to create new rules governing expression on campus or whether students were fully complying with campus rules. We can see the value of moderation and de-escalation by comparing the campuses where students were hauled off in police vans with those where they moved on to other forms of political expression.

The Heterodox Academy community should take these conflicts as an opportunity to think about how our principles can be implemented on campus. One might be tempted to say that our principles don’t apply because people are too attached to a side in the Israel–Hamas war. The opposite is true. When students and administrators adopt a position of dialogue, rather than confrontation, we’ve been able to help students continue a conversation about one of the most painful political struggles in recent years and thus fulfill the promise of the university.