SJP students are urging UR administration to lift all suspensions and bans on students who have been penalized for peaceful protesting. The situation is ongoing; as of June 7, 2024, students are facing disciplinary hearings. The following summarizes why the first five were banned, followed by brief updates below.
The facts: The first five students (A, B, C, D, E) were originally banned in May, 2024, for the following allegations:
Sound amplification (Student A used a voice amplifier for a protest)
They were instructed to vacate the Wilson Quad by noon on April 24th as the encampment location disrupted the setup and work of many University staff and vendors setting up for Dandelion Day. (Through negotiation, the students complied and moved the encampment on the same day).
The students were informed that they could not have flags with poles and the flags remain at the location of the occupation on the Eastman Quad. (Student A + B had flags with poles; C, D, and E did not)
They were told that they organized an unregistered protest/rally on April 26 that brought a large crowd to campus.
Since then, the University has suspended more than ten students, which has prevented students from graduating. SFP students are demanding that all bans and suspensions be lifted. This statement made by Human Rights Watch on right for students to peacefully protest.
Update: June 7, 2024 ~ Preliminary disciplinary hearings have started. Members of FJP who have served as “observers” wrote a letter to Mr. Orton and Vice President Blackshear expressing concern over the process and rationale for these hearings. The following is an excerpt from this letter:
First, it is unclear to us why a legalistic framework—one that begins with terminology
such as “hearings,” threads through the language of “proof,” “evidence,” “appeals,”
“probation,” etc., which were continually invoked in preliminary meetings and in Mr.
Orton’s letters to the students––is in use in the first place. The students engaged in
speech that is neither illegal under federal or state law nor against the University’s own
anti-discrimination policies and commitments. The University has made clear its
commitment to federally mandated anti-discrimination legislation in innumerable ways;
for example, through the appointment of a vice-president for equity and inclusion, who is
in turn charged with protecting a “diverse workforce and student population.” Such
protections are the first responsibility of a university administration, as the ACLU has
described in its open letter: “First, university administrators must not single out particular
viewpoints, however offensive they may be to some members of the community, for
censorship, discipline, or disproportionate punishment. Viewpoint neutrality is essential.”
Any action—and most certainly the interim suspensions, “hearings,” and often invoked
probationary outcomes—that conflicts with this neutrality risks discriminating against
members of our community.
Secondly, there are several issues that make this process arbitrary and suggest its
application of any principle of just or “due” process would be impossible. A number of
unanswered questions were raised in the initial meetings we attended: For example,
what is the composition of the board that would preside at a disciplinary hearing or
evaluate an appeal of the sanction? Is the board membership public? What are the
criteria for inclusion? Are students, faculty, and staff represented on these boards? We
have come away with the impression that the panels are comprised of whoever
happens to be around. Given the seriousness of the proposed sanctions in this case,
this informal approach is clearly unacceptable. Further, what exactly are the witnesses
permitted to do during a hearing? Are they permitted to advocate for the student? Can
one of the witnesses be an attorney? These are just some of the questions that have
arisen as we have digested what we observed and heard during the students’
preliminary meetings with Mr. Orton.