On Thursday, Jan. 16, University of Massachusetts Chancellor Javier Reyes announced the release of an external report on the university’s response to last spring’s Gaza encampments. The report, delivered by attorney Ralph C. Martin II, found that police presence was reasonable in principle, given the Administration’s assessment of potential safety risks and stated commitment to the Land Use Policy. However, the scale and intensity of the response, according to the report, was “marked by a certain amount of inflexibility” that prevented paths resulting in less severe outcomes from being pursued
At the second encampment on May 7, over 130 protestors were arrested by law enforcement officials from the University of Massachusetts Police Department (UMPD) and Massachusetts State Police’s Special Emergency Response Team (SERT), among others, after refusing to disperse from an encampment on the South Lawn. The protest, led by the UMass chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), sought to get the university to divest from financial holdings and academic programs related to Israel.
The report found that Chancellor Reyes decided that the encampment protest was in direct violation of the Land Use Policy, which requires pre-authorization of any structure, and was concerned that allowing the encampment to remain in violation of the policy would “tie” the university’s hands in the future if another group staged a similar protest.
“There was no imminent risk of violent clashes between protesters and counter-protesters as of the decision to remove the First Encampment on April 29, nor any other obvious threat to the safety of the University community,” the report stated. “The same is said to be true of the Second Encampment, where protesters and counter-protesters alike described the atmosphere as ‘peaceful’ for most of the day until major police intervention became evident.”
Although first encampment was removed quietly, a plan for police intervention on April 30 was made quickly and mentioned the removal of encampment structures – including the UMPD and State Police as a failsafe if protesters didn’t cooperate. According to the report, the May 7 encampment presented more challenges as more people showed up and there was an obvious want to defy Administration’s warnings to remove the encampment by the protesters, even if it meant getting arrested.
The report also showed a divide between administration’s focus on safety and precedent-following and the UMPD’s direct concern enforcing directives and managing crowd dynamics.
While administration established the directives, such as prohibiting unauthorized encampments and authorizing police intervention, operational decisions were largely left to the UMPD. UMPD Chief Tyrone Parham independently decided to involve State Police, demonstrating autonomy concerning tactical matters. Senior administrators were surprised by the scale and intensity of the police operation.
Meeting with student protestors, which the report says was not a negotiation as “neither side was truly willing or able to make material concessions,” may have confused and intensified the law enforcement response, as it allowed more students to gather with a heavy police presence on campus evident, “but on the other hand,” the report states, “it would have been imprudent to decline the meeting with students.”
“Protesters described their encounters with the police that night [May 7], especially the State Police, as traumatic,” the report reads. “Nearly all participants [in the investigation] recognized that damage has been done to important institutional interests: first and foremost, the trust between many students and the institution has been eroded.”
Victoria Cabral-Mação can be reached at [email protected].