On April 29, leaders at the University of Utah sent riot police against student-led protests. Hours earlier, the protesters had raised an encampment at Presidents’ Circle in solidarity with the people of Palestine.
As a member of the U.’s faculty in writing & rhetoric studies, my research focuses on the ways that campus activism is talked about by both insiders and outsiders to higher education. From California to Texas to New York, recent discussions about student protests have been inflamed by violent police escalations like the one at the U.
The way our culture views and imagines today’s college students greatly influences what actions done by or to them we’ll find permissible. My research on the past 10 years of rhetoric around campus activism shows that “today’s students” (even though they are very different in 2024 than they were in 2014) are made out to be coddled, entitled and overly sensitive.
Could this wave of encampments and clashes with police be a turning point in the way we think and talk of college students?
Clearly, university leaders no longer seem to buy the argument that students’ sensitivity makes them too shy and weak to face conflict. At the U., a police force that included members of the University of Utah Police, Salt Lake City Police, Unified Police, Utah Highway Patrol and West Valley City Police convened to disband the encampment. The protest was peaceful, raising questions about why four outside police forces were called in to reinforce — or supplant — the campus police. When protestors see officers in riot gear, they know that they are risking discomfort, injury, arrest, legal charges and other disciplinary action for standing their ground against genocide in Gaza. There is nothing weak-willed about these activists.
And yet, student activists can be called “sensitive” in one important way: They are deeply affected by the suffering of others. This sensitivity moves them to action to end their own complicity. The demands of student activists at the U. include: disclosing and divesting from financial ties to Israel and firms profiting from the war in Gaza, granting amnesty to student organizers, and keeping police away from peaceful protests. When critics call students “too sensitive,” they overlook or even diminish the way such sensitivity grounds us in our humanity.
Some object to the students’ tactics, feeling that an encampment is too disruptive to be considered peaceful. Yet, occupation of public spaces, including campus lawns and buildings, is a time-honored American protest tactic. From the 1977 disability rights occupation of a federal building that lasted 25 days, to the 2011 Occupy movement (which gave rise to the viral image of a police offer indiscriminately pepper spraying seated student protesters at UC Davis), to the 2015 antiracist encampment at the University of Missouri that forced the school’s president to resign, occupations are effective when and because they are both disruptive and peaceful.
Yes, the U. told protesters they were prohibited from camping overnight. But back in October, the U. encouraged overnight camping (on the same site of this week’s protest) in advance of ESPN’s College Gameday, an action that demonstrates how rules can be selectively enforced. Prioritizing obedience over listening and responding to the students’ message is a choice, and it’s one that could be made differently.
In the wake of the police’s clash with protesters, the University has said that they support free expression. A letter signed by members of the faculty and sent to President Taylor Randall aims to ensure that police presence is not used to intimidate or to chill free expression.
The mission of the U. declares that the institution “fosters student success by preparing students from diverse backgrounds for lives of impact as leaders and citizens.” We should not be surprised when our students put their leadership skills to use. We should welcome their impassioned civic engagement.
To be sure, faculty, administrators and the public at large will not always agree with the positions that students advocate for. But faculty and other leaders in the university are entrusted with the responsibility of defending our students’ rights all the same.
All over the country, university leaders are grappling with the same crisis of values presented to President Randall. Some (like Wesleyan) have chosen not to confront protestors who have remained peaceful thus far. Some (like Northwestern, Brown and Evergreen) have reached agreements to deescalate the encampments and allow students to present arguments for divestment. The U. does not have to lean on the police; we are capable of engaging and responding to our own students.
The wider public also has a decision to make. Will we accept a popular story that paints college students as sheltered and oversensitive — and somehow at the same time, violent and threatening? Or will we recognize them for the courage of their commitment to democratic deliberation and justice, on their own campuses and around the world?
(Photo courtesy of Kendall Gerdes) Kendall Gerdes
Kendall Gerdes, assistant professor of writing and rhetoric studies at the University of Utah, is the author of “Sensitive Rhetorics: Academic Freedom and Campus Activism.”
The Salt Lake Tribune is committed to creating a space where Utahns can share ideas, perspectives and solutions that move our state forward. We rely on your insight to do this. Find out how to share your opinion here, and email us at voices@sltrib.com.
