Campus protests, congressional hearings, presidents stepping down, media scrutiny, board pressure, parental outrage, OCR investigations, new Executive Orders that directly impact higher education…to say that college campuses are navigating an increasingly challenging landscape would be a gross understatement.
PEN America’s Campus Free Speech program advocates for robust protections for free expression and academic freedom. In order to achieve this, campuses must uphold the rights of all students to participate in campus life and discourse freely and equally.
We’ve watched with concern over the last year as campus administrators have drafted new policies (and refined existing policies) in ways that increasingly curtail free expression. Rather than simply voicing our concern, we wanted to look at how some of these policy updates are playing out. To that end, this is the beginning of an occasional blog post. Our goal is to better understand policy implications specifically on free expression rights, academic freedom protections, and inclusivity and belonging on campuses.
At Harvard, ‘Study-Ins’ Draw Scrutiny
By Kristen Shahverdian and Aileen Lambert
On Sept. 21, 2024, 30 students staged a “study-in” at Widener Library at Harvard University to protest Israel’s attacks against Hezbollah in Lebanon. The demonstration consisted of students wearing keffiyehs and studying with posters taped to their computers. Twelve students from the group were then given a two-week suspension from the library.
On Oct. 16th, a group of faculty members held their own “study-in” at the library, to protest Harvard’s punishment of the students. Roughly 25 faculty members received two-week library suspensions as a result.
Protests subsequently expanded to Harvard Law School’s library, Harvard School of Design and Harvard’s Divinity School, where students held a silent pray-in.
And yes, these students also received two-week suspensions from their respective libraries.
What happened here?
All campuses are within their rights to create reasonable time, place and manner restrictions so that protests do not interfere with their normal educational functions. And protests, in the traditional sense, would be disruptive in a library.
However, this spate of suspensions has been the subject of debate because the “study-ins,” by all accounts, conformed to the norms and activities expected in a library setting — sitting, studying, working on laptops. That so many students and faculty were suspended for these actions poses a bit of a dilemma: Are all protest actions at the university, by definition, disruptive, even if they are peaceful, quiet, and studious? And does this all really merit discipline?
To understand how Harvard got into this dilemma, the situation cannot be looked at in isolation.
Student and faculty free expression rights at Harvard were articulated in the 1970 University-Wide Statement on Rights and Responsibilities. Updated in 2002, the statement did not explicitly name buildings that are off-limits for protest. Then, in December 2023, 100 protesters staged a “study-in” at Widener Library; no disciplinary action was reported in response.
But in January 2024, this all changed. In the midst of a tumultuous academic year of protests that also saw a Congressional hearing into Harvard’s policies, Harvard’s president stepping down, and lawsuits accusing Harvard of antisemitism, the university issued a clarification on its protest policies specifically banning protests in certain buildings.
It states: “unless a particular School makes an explicit exception, demonstrations and protests are ordinarily not permitted in classrooms and other spaces of instruction; libraries or other spaces designated for study, quiet reflection, and small group discussion…”
Fast forward to fall 2024, when students, and then faculty, sought to continue protests over the war in Gaza, as well as pushback on these new restrictions. Perhaps by design, the protest actions exposed the Achilles heel of the policy, pushing the University to engage in semantics about what truly constitutes a “demonstration” and “disruption.”
Perhaps by design, the protest actions exposed the Achilles heel of the policy, pushing the University to engage in semantics about what truly constitutes a “demonstration” and “disruption.”
Indeed, according to the library’s own account of why the suspensions were merited: “large numbers of people filed in at once, and several moved around the room taking photos or filming. Seeking attention is in itself disruptive.”
We imagine opinions vary about the level of “disruption” of the actions as described above. But arguably, having security guards walk around taking down names and checking ID’s is an equally if not more disruptive action than the actions associated with the “study-in.” Are laptop stickers and tabletop cards—even when displayed en masse on a table— truly more “disruptive” than event posters, exhibit shelves, or books on display? Libraries are places to gather, hosting lectures, library card drives, and summer reading programs. Libraries also garner attention, from Pride month displays to Drag Queen Story Hours — not to mention the protests against them.
Each subsequent demonstration in a Harvard library space has called into question previous disciplinary decisions, with an increasing degree of absurdity. According to The Harvard Crimson, the email that faculty received to notify them of their suspension cited, “the University’s response in prior situation” as part of the explanation for their suspension. In a second protest involving faculty, participants placed blank paper on their study desks, (a gesture to the 2022 “white paper” protests in China). This protest — unlike the previous events — ended without ID checks or resultant suspensions, highlights the hypocrisy of punishing “study-in” participants on the basis of disruption and attention seeking. If punishments had been previously determined by the level of “disruption” and “attention seeking” they caused, rather than the position of the protesters, what difference did blank sheets of paper make to the level of disruption within the library space?
Harvard is not alone in tightening their grip on expression; campuses across the country updated demonstration and event policies as a result of the past year. But at PEN America, we believe that campus leaders can’t strong-arm their communities into “peace” through restrictive measures and punishments. Harvard’s experience enforcing these library policies is a good illustration of why. As administrators continue to create policy restrictions, each policy must be upheld equally; once one infraction is punished, each subsequent infraction must also be punished. Rather than attempt to perpetually redefine their way into increasingly restrained and well-behaved campuses, we call on campus leaders to model the kind of dialogue and discussion upon which free expression and intellectual thought can flourish.
Protest and demonstrations—from the silent to the raucous—are an invitation to engage. Why not meet the invitation?
