I think this is very astute on the thinking inside the senior executive suite at the university; thank you as always for your observations. Today it was the turn of my campus (google Indiana University tonight, and you will, literally, get the picture): a small, mild pro-Palestinian / pro-cease fire demo on the grounds that have been *dedicated* as a site for protest, but with a "no camping" provision. A few protestors set up tents, and so in came the state police in full riot gear and camo (for Indiana University?) a sniper on the rooftop of the union building, tactical helicopters, the works. Why this massive, rapid escalation? Well, as you point out, this is a red state (albeit one that signed into law a "protect free speech on campus" bit of legislation mere weeks ago). Institutional isomorphism across university leadership. And so much elite opinion talking about these sorts of responses as what the "grown ups in the room" do, though in my experience grown ups don't immediately rush to put on full combat outfits at the first sign of dissent.
I think the big change is the content of the protest, and how easily coopted it is. Previous protests of this ilk are either against a specific action or occurrence-- war in Iraq or investment in fossil fuels or apartheid in South Africa. And while there can be opposition to those concepts, they don't typically resonate. "The Iraq War is going great" wasn't a deeply held belief of very many people's, and not many people had a deep personal commitment to fossil fuel drilling outside of Exxon's C-suite.
The issue here is that there's a very real and nefarious antisemitic undercurrent to these protests. It doesn't appear to be a majority, and it largely seems to be outsiders, but, even setting aside the agitators yelling at Jewish students to "go back to Poland" and Zionists to die, you've got fairly mainstream (among the protesters) calls of "from the river to the sea" and such that, while not overtly and obviously antisemitic, often are, at best, indifferent to Jewish safety.
And that makes it fairly easy for the usual bad actors to lash out and demand that all of the protestors be punished, and garner way more support than they otherwise would. I have childhood friends of the mainstream Democratic sort who have decided that Columbia is an irredeemably antisemitic institution based on some of those videos. At that point, protestors find themselves having to exercise care across two dimensions-- focusing on making broadly resonant threats but also distancing themselves from those in their movement that do hold unsavory views and from outside agitators that poison their movement.
Failing to do so puts substantial pressure to bear on their movement that doesn't exist for things like anti-Iraq war or climate protests.
I think this is very astute on the thinking inside the senior executive suite at the university; thank you as always for your observations. Today it was the turn of my campus (google Indiana University tonight, and you will, literally, get the picture): a small, mild pro-Palestinian / pro-cease fire demo on the grounds that have been *dedicated* as a site for protest, but with a "no camping" provision. A few protestors set up tents, and so in came the state police in full riot gear and camo (for Indiana University?) a sniper on the rooftop of the union building, tactical helicopters, the works. Why this massive, rapid escalation? Well, as you point out, this is a red state (albeit one that signed into law a "protect free speech on campus" bit of legislation mere weeks ago). Institutional isomorphism across university leadership. And so much elite opinion talking about these sorts of responses as what the "grown ups in the room" do, though in my experience grown ups don't immediately rush to put on full combat outfits at the first sign of dissent.
I think the big change is the content of the protest, and how easily coopted it is. Previous protests of this ilk are either against a specific action or occurrence-- war in Iraq or investment in fossil fuels or apartheid in South Africa. And while there can be opposition to those concepts, they don't typically resonate. "The Iraq War is going great" wasn't a deeply held belief of very many people's, and not many people had a deep personal commitment to fossil fuel drilling outside of Exxon's C-suite.
The issue here is that there's a very real and nefarious antisemitic undercurrent to these protests. It doesn't appear to be a majority, and it largely seems to be outsiders, but, even setting aside the agitators yelling at Jewish students to "go back to Poland" and Zionists to die, you've got fairly mainstream (among the protesters) calls of "from the river to the sea" and such that, while not overtly and obviously antisemitic, often are, at best, indifferent to Jewish safety.
And that makes it fairly easy for the usual bad actors to lash out and demand that all of the protestors be punished, and garner way more support than they otherwise would. I have childhood friends of the mainstream Democratic sort who have decided that Columbia is an irredeemably antisemitic institution based on some of those videos. At that point, protestors find themselves having to exercise care across two dimensions-- focusing on making broadly resonant threats but also distancing themselves from those in their movement that do hold unsavory views and from outside agitators that poison their movement.
Failing to do so puts substantial pressure to bear on their movement that doesn't exist for things like anti-Iraq war or climate protests.