Only one week after protesters established an encampment on the grounds at the University of Waterloo, the administration issued a “formal notice” demanding that it come to an end.
Readers of my two previous posts on the ongoing protests will probably understand why this formal notice is a gross violation of free expression and the right to peaceful assembly: the protest has been completely peaceful and it has caused zero meaningful disruption to campus operations. It is confined to a single hilly area. As of yesterday, the last time I viewed the area, not a single laneway, let alone a building, is blocked from access.
Yet the University falsely portrays the encampment as unduly interfering with campus operations and as a possible health and safety hazard, among other nonsense, all premised on the technical degree to which the encampment constitutes “trespassing” and a number of the University’s number policies, each of which are applied in an utterly laughable fashion.
Before diving into a quick analysis of the University’s notice, it’s important to recognize a number of facts. First, the University is correct to assert that no one has the right to endlessly occupy a campus space. The problem is that, in the context of an entirely peaceful protest, demanding the end of the encampment after one week is patently unreasonable. Second, and on a related point, McGill University has now twice failed in its efforts to obtain an injunction to enforce its own removal order precisely because the court refused to recognize a pressing need or danger in a very similar situation (in fact, arguably the McGill protest has been more disruptive). Third, a reliance on the idea of ‘trespassing’, however technically true, is an incredibly weak basis on which to violate the rights to free expression and peaceful assembly the protesters are exercising, especially in the context of a public university.
This latter point is no doubt why the University felt the need to lean hard into the supposed violations of its numbered Policies as a justification for its formal notice. The list of grievances derived from campus policies would be hilarious if they weren’t being leveraged to violate rights.
The University complains that the protesters are in violation of Policy 2, governing the use of bulletin boards and signage on campus, and Policy 15, relating to the booking of space, because permission was not sought for the signs or encampment (they tack on a violation of Policy 71, which relates to student non-academic discipline, also on the premise that permission was not obtained). However, the right of peaceful assembly is not premised on a need to first ask ‘permission’. Signs and the taking up of space is literally the form most protests take. To rely on these policies as part of the logic to demand the end of the encampment is to deny the very rights at stake.
The protesters are also in violation of Policy 22, relating to the installation of equipment or structures or modification thereof. The protesters have indeed erected fencing and wooden barriers, in addition to the mini tent city, on the hill. This is indeed the most obtrusive aspect of the encampment. But again, the barricades do not impede anyone else’s freedom of movement around campus or to buildings. The only thing other members of the community cannot presently access is the single grassy hill. So again, while I agree the protesters do not have an indefinite right of occupation, the context demands much greater restraint than the University admin is showing here.
The most dangerous and disingenuous part of the University’s notice is its reliance on Policy 33. Policy 33 governs ethical behaviour on campus, and it is explicitly based on a number of laws, including the Criminal Code, the Ontario Human Rights Code, and the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Importantly, Policy 33 is designed to protect against violence, harassment, discrimination, sexual misconduct, etc.
It is worth quoting the University’s claims about the Policy 33 violation here in full:
Policy 33 states “that no member of the University community (faculty, staff, student) unduly interferes with the study, work or working environment of other members of the University or any aspect of another’s University activity.” The nature of some of the signage surrounding the encampment has caused community members to feel targeted, and intimidated by the presence of the encampment to the point that they cannot walk in areas near it. The presence of the encampment may be unduly interfering with the University activity of others and the people responsible for it may therefore be in violation of Policy 33.
The University’s assertion is an absolute distortion of the legal principles animating Policy 33, and the weakest of all the excuses it is employing to try to limit the protesters’ rights. That the encampment has allegedly caused some individuals to “feel targeted” is not evidence of discriminatory or harassing behaviour. Note the weaselly language and logic that because some people are offended by the protest, it therefore “may be unduly interfering with the University activity of others”. This is rank nonsense. Whoever developed this argument should be ashamed. If this is indicative of the administration’s attitude regarding freedom of expression, we as a campus community are in deep trouble.
Finally, the notice cites Policy 34, which concerns Health and Safety. Here the University adopts an interesting argument, based on the fact that the protesters have denied access to the encampment for university officials to engage in a health and safety inspection. There’s an incredible passage in the notice on this point that attempts to prove there may be a safety danger on the basis that the protesters apparently installed more barricades to prevent access for an inspection: “On Saturday, May 18, 2024, you installed more plywood barricades. When questioned about this, encampment police/safety liaisons advised that this was necessary to protect the safety of those inside the encampment from external threats. This is a concern, as it indicates you believe there is a credible threat to your safety.” Again, this logic is confounding. The protesters aren’t worried about their tents collapsing on their heads. Instead, they have a good faith basis to believe their primary safety concern would be an attempt to forcibly remove them and their encampment.
I must remind my University administration, once again, that almost all of the violence associated with these protests across North America - including recently in Alberta - has not been the result of the protesters but of unacceptably swift and unjustified institutional attempts to shut down otherwise peaceful protests. In this context, the University’s formal notice should be seen for what it is: a sign of potential danger to come, and an unacceptable attempt to infringe the rights of peaceful protesters on our campus.
Solid arguments, start to finish. The problem is not the students protesting; it is the administration's bogus arguments based on "safety" or "fear." The heavy-handed use of police force to remove protesters is far more concerning and is far more likely to lead to violence.
It's fascinating to juxtapose the invocation of "trespassing", which is often associated with private property, with the various land and territorial acknowledgement that universities often engage in. Appearing to embrace a more public/shared vision of the campus space.