This is a gloomy day for the University of Washington, leaving the institution in a deep and important decline.
Today, the UW accepted some of the demands of a student group supporting Hamas and its antifa/activist allies.
This group of activists includes:
(first) Established an illegal encampment on the UW campus
(2) Caused hundreds of thousands of dollars in damage, including graffiti on many buildings
(3) Takeover of administrative buildings during Chanukah
(4) Attacking and intimidating Jewish students on campus and painting anti-Semitic messages on buildings.
(5) Being physically harmed and stopped by media representatives trying to cover the situation.
(6) Partial campus closure and disruption of classes.
(7) Attacks on instructors and others visiting the camp.
To illustrate the seriousness of the situation, consider the statue of George Washington painted with a threat to kill the Jews (the group encamped were called colonists).
The pro-Hamas group not only threatened and hurt people, broke the law, vandalized campus buildings, caused great damage to the UW, and committed anti-Semitic crimes, but it also made very demanding demands. big for the UW administration, such as cutting ties with the UW administration. Boeing, cut all ties with Israel, divest from Israel, provide scholarships to Palestinian students, etc
And UW President Ana Mari Cauce, in a weak and inconsistent statement, gave in to some demands.
In the agreement to end the encampment, UW agreed not to take action against students camping illegally on campus, would hire a Palestinian studies lecturer, pay tuition for 20 students from Gaza, and pay tuition for 20 students from Gaza. invite representatives of this group to review UW policy investments, and more.
In short, break the law, threaten people, promote rabid anti-Semitism, and cause massive damage to the UW, and not only will you not face legal restrictions, but you are rewarded. A very bad look.
But it’s even worse than that.
Ana Mari’s statements as UW President calling for a ceasefire (completely inappropriate as UW President), making allegations that Israel targets civilians (baseless), and then talked about Islamophobia, which there is no evidence of at UW. The UW President represents the entire diverse UW community, and is a state employee who should NEVER take sides on politically charged issues during official communications.
What is surprising is that there was not a single mention of anti-Semitism in Ana Mari’s statement. Nor did she mention the barbarity of October 7th.
Damage to UW’s reputation
The UW administration’s handling of this situation was ineffective and ethically questionable, causing the situation to worsen and escalate over weeks.
When a terrorist makes demands, the worst thing is to give in to them. The inevitable result will be more terrorism. UW’s weakness caused the situation to spiral out of control.
When you give in to spoiled, immature children, they always ask for more. It was revealed that no UW activists protested around Boeing facilities in the area. Nor did they collect money and supplies to send to Gaza. And why aren’t they concerned about dozens of other conflicts around the world, some of which have resulted in more loss of life?
UW’s reputation is in tatters. I’ve talked to several people who say they would never allow their children to attend UW. Media coverage was very critical and negative (see sample below). The UW “brand” was severely damaged.
A major UW donor told me that his contributions to the UW would end.
Imagine if the UW administration had had the wisdom of the University of Chicago leadership, and they had made the decision to remove a similar camp with few injuries or problems (they did it at midnight). U Chicago’s president’s statement is found at the bottom of this blog. Importantly, he addresses the central issue of institutional neutrality on controversial social issues. UW authorities knew the situation was becoming increasingly dangerous as older (and more violent) outsiders were joining the camp.
An educational failure
Perhaps most seriously, the UW administration threw away a valuable educational opportunity. Imagine if Ana Mari ended up camping on day two when it was small and easy to clean up. She may then announce a special lecture series at Kane Hall on Middle Eastern history and the conflict. And she could have set up a series of fact-based debates about the conflict and its resolution.
Students may have learned that although freedom of speech is supported, breaking the law is not acceptable in a free society. For controversial issues, we need to pay special attention to learning the truth and being exposed to different points of view. THIS is what college is supposed to be about.
Ana Mari Cauce could have been hailed as a visionary and much of the destruction could have been avoided.
The University of Washington was hit hard, and it didn’t have to be that way.
One reason the Huskies were upset this weekend.
________
Statement of the President of the University of Chicago (reprint)
|
By Paul Alivisatos May 7, 2024, 5:01 p.m. ET Chicago |
|
As president of the University of Chicago, I ended the encampment that occupied Main Campus of the school for more than a week. Tuesday morning’s action resulted in no arrests. Recent months have seen intense controversy over campus protests, including pressure campaigns from all directions. That makes this a decision of enormous importance for the university. |
|
When the encampment was formed on our campus, I said that I would uphold the principles of the university and resist the forces that are tearing the fabric of higher education apart. I did not direct immediate action against the camp. I authorized discussions with protesters about ending the encampment in response to some of their demands. But when I concluded that the essential goals motivating those demands were inconsistent with the profound principles of the university, I decided to end the encampment with intervention. |
|
Some universities have chosen to completely prevent encampments from forming or end them within an hour or so. We have the means to do that. Immediate intervention is consistent with enforcing reasonable rules about the time, place and manner of speech, and has the advantage of minimizing disruption. However, strict adherence to every policy – preventing discord to promote harmony – comes at a cost. Discord is almost necessary for the truth-seeking function of a university to be realized. |
|
Protest is a form of speech that is strongly protected within University of Chicago culture, enshrined in Chicago Principles for one reason. In times of discord, protest serves as a mechanism for democratic societies and places of reason like universities to find ways to return to dialogue and compromise. This is valid even if the protests lead to some degree of disruption or violation of the rules. When a protest significantly interferes with university learning, research, and operations, when it significantly reduces the freedom of expression of others—as happened with this siege— then it must end, through dialogue or intervention. |
|
So whether to seek dialogue to resolve a disruptive protest is an important decision. Some would argue that the moral risks of holding such discussions are so serious that they should never be undertaken – that no agreement can be legal if it originates from these cases. Others would say that such dialogue should always be sought. I believe that dialogue can be appropriate in certain circumstances, as long as protesters engage openly with the understanding that the consequences of their violation of policy will be considered publicly. equal. The same applies to discipline once camp time is over. |
|
So I allowed dialogue to open with the protesters, even though that extended the number of days the university was disrupted. I will not describe the sequence or content of those discussions, as we have agreed that our conversations will remain confidential unless and until we reach a favorable conclusion. . During our substantive dialogue, there were some very difficult moments but also moments of progress. Student-protester representatives offered analytical arguments and made strong statements; Faculty representatives and their liaisons also make important contributions. I believe that the representatives of the authorities showed respect for their interlocutors and entered the discussions with genuine openness and willingness to find ways to resolve the problem. |
|
Why then did we not reach a solution? Because at the core of the demands is what I believe is a profound disagreement about a principle, a principle that cannot be written down in carefully crafted words, creative tweaks to the agenda or any other negotiable remedy. |
|
The disagreement centered around institutional neutrality — a foundational value for the University of Chicago. It is a principle animated by the idea that government cannot establish truth for an entire organization dedicated to truth-seeking; rather, individuals are required to seek truth without the limitations of power. Institutional neutrality grants freedom of inquiry and expression directly to faculty and students, where it belongs. |
|
Underpinning the demands was a call for the university to reduce ties with Israel and strengthen ties with Palestinians in Gaza. In short, the protesters were determined which side the university should take in the conflict in Israel and Gaza. Other demands may have resulted in political goals guiding core aspects of the university’s institutional approach, from how we invest our endowment to when and how I make statements. Faculty and students are free to campaign for one side or the other. But if the university did so as an institution, it would no longer be a university. |
|
As the depth of this philosophical difference became clearer, I decided to end the conversation. I have made some concessions to the policy of time, place and manner and allowed some degree of disruption in support of protest, regardless of viewpoint; engage in dialogue with those who are causing trouble at the university as long as they are willing to face discipline. But there is no way I can compromise on institutional neutrality. |
|
Mr. Alivisatos is president of the University of Chicago. |
