How Are American Universities Preparing for Pro-Palestine Demonstrations?

In a significant and sweeping shift, colleges and universities across the United States are increasingly invoking emergency measures aimed at repressing pro-Palestinian student activism.

As the new academic year begins, institutions are rolling out a series of policies that intensify campus security and expand the scope of institutional authority.

The applications of these measures across campuses signal a broader trend toward heightened control and surveillance, driven by a complex web of interests involving trustees, federal agencies, and advocacy groups.

Crisis Management Industry

Central to this development is the burgeoning risk and crisis management industry, a sector that has grown in influence within higher education.

This industry, often staffed by former military and law enforcement personnel, has become a key player in shaping campus policy. These consultants advise universities on managing perceived risks, with an emphasis on maintaining order and protecting institutional reputation.

Their recommendations often translate into policies that limit student activism under the guise of ensuring campus safety.

A recent webinar hosted by Oberlin College underscored this trend. The session, titled “Dealing with Controversy on Campus: The Challenges of Managing Protests and Critical Events,” featured the college's assistant director of campus safety, who candidly remarked that the summer break was an opportune moment to “tighten policies” in anticipation of future protests.

This sentiment reflects a growing consensus among campus administrators: the need to preemptively manage dissent.

The influence of the risk management industry extends beyond individual institutions, permeating broader networks of power and authority. At the heart of this effort is the annual Campus Safety Conference, a gathering that attracts over 450 campus safety professionals.

This year's conference, held in Atlanta, focused exclusively on the challenges posed by student protests, a topic deemed urgent as unrest is expected to continue into the 2024-25 academic year.

The event featured a range of activities, from surveillance technology demonstrations to panel discussions on the legal implications of heightened security measures.

Advising on these strategies are individuals with extensive backgrounds in law enforcement and military operations.

One notable figure on the conference's advisory board, Bobby Brasher, has boasted of his time spent in “Israel” studying security tactics—a detail that highlights the global exchange of security practices now influencing American campuses.

Adding another layer to this landscape is Blue Moon Consulting Group, a firm that provides specialized training to university administrators.

Its recent “Campus Unrest” camp in Breckenridge, Colorado, combined media relations workshops with security demonstrations, reflecting a hybrid approach that blends public relations with tactical planning.

The event epitomized the intersection of corporate strategies and campus security, illustrating how institutions are increasingly adopting a corporate mindset when dealing with student activism.

The scope of this coordinated effort is perhaps best exemplified by the launch of “Operation Secure Our Campus,” a nationwide security initiative led by the Hilal and Safe Community Network.

This campaign, targeting over 50 campuses, was conceived in collaboration with public safety officials, law enforcement, and Jewish security professionals.

Their joint efforts resulted in a series of recommendations—from banning encampments to deepening cooperation with law enforcement—that have quickly been implemented nationwide.

Repressive Policies

Across the United States, universities are implementing new policies that, while seemingly varied in scope and detail, share a common purpose: curbing political activism on campus.

As the fall semester begins, institutions ranging from small liberal arts colleges like Pomona College to large public university systems like the California State University system have introduced stringent guidelines aimed at limiting student protests and expressions of dissent.

These measures include broad restrictions on traditional forms of protest. Bans on encampments, temporary structures, loudspeakers, chalk writing, leaflet distribution, and even outdoor displays have been enacted, reflecting a comprehensive approach to managing campus spaces.

The University of San Francisco’s revised Activities, Signs, and Use of Public Spaces policy is illustrative of this trend, emphasizing the administration’s authority to interpret and enforce these restrictions.

The intent is clear: to curb political activity, whether organized or spontaneous, under the guise of maintaining order and safety.

These new policies also introduce significant bureaucratic obstacles for student organizations. At Carnegie Mellon University, for instance, the updated Expressive Activity Registration Policy requires that any event involving “expressive activity” must adhere strictly to the university’s free speech policy.

Any deviation from this policy renders the event “unregistered,” placing it under administrative scrutiny.

The university reserves the right to halt such events in the name of campus safety and to subject organizers to disciplinary review.

This centralization of control over what constitutes acceptable activism effectively marginalizes groups like Students for Justice in Palestine, who already face heightened administrative oversight and harassment.

The trend is not limited to event management but extends to the very definitions of discrimination and harassment on campuses.

New York University (NYU) has updated its Student Conduct Guidelines to blur the lines between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism, effectively making Zionism a protected category under Title VI of the university’s bylaws.

Critics, including the NYU chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine, argue that this change sets a troubling precedent.

It implies that any nationalist ideology tied to a group’s identity could claim similar protection, thereby expanding the administration’s power to police political speech and further entrenching policies that equate dissent with harassment.

Militarizing Campuses

The recent coordination among universities to escalate campus policing marks a significant intensification of a trend that began in the post-9/11 era, where institutions of higher education have increasingly resembled fortified zones.

This shift is starkly evident in the widespread adoption of surplus military equipment by over 100 colleges and universities through the Department of Defense's 1033 program, which supplies campus police with military-grade hardware.

The growing presence of SWAT teams, paramilitary equipment, and extensive surveillance systems on campuses underscores a broader ambition among university trustees and administrators to align higher education with a national security agenda.

As these institutions invest more in sophisticated security technologies, an arms race within academia is unfolding, with resources being diverted away from educational purposes to build up a formidable campus police force.

This militarization is part of a broader professionalization of university policing, where the field is now recognized as a distinct area of expertise.

This trend aligns with the neoliberal model of the university, which prioritizes efficiency, control, and security over intellectual exploration and debate.

The designation of campus police as "experts" in managing dissent masks a deeper bias: these security measures serve the interests of financial stakeholders who prioritize institutional stability over student activism and free expression.

The surveillance of student activity, particularly online, is a critical component of this security apparatus. A revealing case occurred in July when the University of North Carolina Police Department, bolstered by $2.3 million in Defense Intelligence Agency funding received after last year's protests, obtained a search warrant to access data from the university’s Social Justice Party Instagram account.

The data collected included personal information such as names, addresses, phone numbers, credit card details, and geolocation data. This action followed a 2016 contract with Social Sentinel, a social media monitoring company, indicating a long-standing commitment to digital surveillance.

Simultaneously, the Orange County District Attorney's Office has continued to pursue criminal charges against students and community members involved in the Gaza solidarity camp in the Triangle.

At the University of North Carolina, the Social Justice Program remains suspended while the administration reviews alleged violations of university policies—a move reflecting a broader pattern of targeting activist groups like Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP).

This crackdown on SJP is not isolated. George Washington University and Rutgers University, for example, have repeatedly suspended their SJP chapters under the pretext of maintaining campus order.

At George Washington University, this suppression has extended to other organizations, including Jewish Voice for Peace and several cultural and religious student associations, signaling an expansive approach to quelling dissent.

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP) has condemned these developments, criticizing the imposition of top-down policies that bypass the traditional role of faculty governance.

The AAUP and other academic bodies warn that these measures disproportionately affect marginalized groups, including non-tenure-track faculty, graduate students, and students of color.