The Case Western Reserve
Observer
Friday, September 6, 2024 Volume LVI, Issue 3 Est. 1969
Lucas Yang/The Observer Zachary Treseler News Editor On Aug. 6, Case Western Reserve University President Eric Kaler sent an email announcing new rules and regulations regarding protesting on CWRU’s campus. This email follows a trend of college campuses across the nation creating such regulations to moderate protests in the aftermath of the spring 2024 Gaza Solidarity Encampment on KSL Oval. A second email was sent to the community on Aug. 28 that revealed revisions to these initial rules. “The intent of these procedures and operating rules is to enable demonstrations to occur while ensuring the safety of our community, equal access to educational resources and facilities for all, and continuing operations of our university,” a university spokesperson said. The original Aug. 6 policy created strict requirements to protest on campus. This included a two-hour limit for all protests and one approved location: KSL Oval. It also explicitly prohibited many actions including usage of tents, megaphones and video projections which were all used by organizers last semester. The largest change made by the initial regulations was the required approval of all protests by the Freedom of Expression Policy Committee, with notice required seven days before the demonstration’s start date. The initial email from Kaler and Provost and Executive Vice President Joy K. Ward noted that these policies were developed “in consultation with faculty, staff and student leaders.” The original preamble said that it was reviewed by the Undergraduate Student
Government (USG). According to USG President, fourth-year Amman Spencer, he, nor the rest of his organization, reviewed the rules before their publishing. “We had not seen it before it came out,” said Spencer, where he mentioned that he only learned about the rules at the same time as the rest of the university. He also said that previous USG administrations were unaware of these rules. Third-year Zelene Desiré, the vice president of student life for USG, added further context: “Amman and I had one brief meeting with George O’Connell, the Director of Student Conduct and Community Standards, and Travis Apgar, the new Vice President of Student Affairs, to review the Student Code of Conduct on July 30. We both had major criticisms of the changes but left the meeting satisfied that the administration invited us to speak about university policy.” Similarly, the President of the Undergraduate Diversity Collaborative (UDC) third-year Sofia Castro noted in an email to The Observer that “UDC was not consulted on anything regarding the new protest regulations.” USG and UDC were two of the three umbrella organizations that met with President Kaler during the encampment, resulting in an email from thenUSG President Basil Yaseen claiming that the administration misled the leaders during their initial conversations. When the policy was released in August, many reactions were swift. The CWRU chapter of the Ohio Student Association painted the Spirit Wall outside of Thwing Center with the text “Protest is Free Speech.” In response to the new rules, CW-
RU’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine gave written remarks to The Observer. They said, “The new protest policies put in place by CWRU administration are entirely authoritarian in nature. Every student at CWRU should reject this imposition upon our basic right of protest. It is our duty as students to engage in academic and political discourse to challenge the status quo.” The largest reaction from the faculty came from those teaching at the CWRU School of Law where “A Resolution of Concern” was passed unanimously. In the document, they argued that the new policy is “inconsistent with the stated free expression policy” and legal precedent, and at the same time it could jeopardize the American Bar Association’s accreditation of the law school. “The rights guaranteed in the Trustee-approved freedom of expression policy remain subject to university permission–in other words, they are not rights at all,” reads the resolution. Law school faculty also noted that the document was never presented to the Faculty Senate. Janet McGrath, chair of the Faculty Senate and the Department of Anthropology, wrote in a comment to The Observer, “the Faculty Senate will be reviewing these procedures this semester. We have not convened yet, however, so that process has not officially started. The Faculty Senate leadership was consulted over the summer, but the Faculty Senate will take up the matter this semester. Our first meeting is later this month.” The administration, on the other hand, defended their new rules: “Following experiences across our campus in the past five years, including protests
and encampments in spring 2024, we knew it would benefit our community to clearly define guidelines surrounding the implementation of this policy. This ensures all members of the community, including university leaders, understand expectations and have clear parameters for what aligns with the policy. Having these procedures and operating rules in place will help ensure the freedom of expression for all members of our community, as well as a safe, equitable and welcoming environment across our campus.” Once the policy was released, Spencer recalled that “a lot of students [were] reaching out to me over text, asking what was going on … I went back and I had conversations with the administration … and I said I’d love to give student feedback, and they were open to it on the first version.” When asked why the regulations were adjusted on Aug. 28, a university spokesperson said that “Faculty, staff and students highlighted a range of areas where enhancements could be made to provide more flexibility while still ensuring the safety of our community, equal access to resources and facilities, and maintenance of ongoing operations. A few of the most prominent changes were specifically noted in the email to campus.” Once the policy was released, Spencer recalled that “a lot of students [were] reaching out to me over text, asking what was going on … I went back and I had conversations with the administration … and I said I’d love to give student feedback, and they were open to it on the first version.” Continue reading on page 2