University presidents are between a rock and a hard place when it comes to the wave of protests and tent encampments on our campuses.
Bring in police, and we risk the physical safety of our students, staff, faculty and police for a result that is often unsustainable. Meet with students to reach a mutually satisfactory agreement, and we are accused of capitulating to the “mob.” Here are the reasons why I chose to reach an agreement with Northwestern University protesters.
Right upfront, let me be honest about my biases. I am a proud Jew who practices many of our rituals. Being Jewish is core to my identity, and I grew up with a love for Israel, which remains today. My family has experienced antisemitism, and so claims by some that I have collaborated with antisemitic people feel like personal affronts.
One of the things I love about being Jewish is our culture of rationality and tolerance. This fits with the core value of universities to engage in dialogue and seek to bridge differences peacefully. When a tent encampment popped up on Deering Meadow on April 25, I immediately met with senior administrators to establish a set of principles. First and foremost, we needed to protect the health and safety of our entire community, including our Jewish students. Second, we believe in free expression, but that most assuredly does not include antisemitic or anti-Muslim harassment or intimidation. Third, any protest needed to be in substantial compliance with our demonstration policy, which prohibits tents.
With the help of a handful of exceptional faculty members, we began meeting with student protesters. They asked for several changes to university policy including divestment from Israel and the end of an academic program that focused on Israeli innovation. We said a flat no to both. But we did say we understood their isolation and alienation and wanted to work with them to improve life at Northwestern for Muslim students and students from the Middle East and North Africa.
That began three days and nights of difficult but productive discussions. Ultimately, we came to an agreement that they would take down the tent encampment and bring the demonstration into compliance with our rules and regulations. We would permit peaceful demonstrations on Deering Meadow for roughly a month and provide greater information to students about our investments. We also agreed to establish a house for Muslim and Middle Eastern students to eat, pray and socialize, something already enjoyed by our Jewish, Catholic, Lutheran, Black and female students. The university also committed to including Gaza in our Scholars at Risk program, which brings students and faculty members from war-torn or devastated areas to Northwestern, a program we employed with Ukraine amid the current war with Russia as well as Tulane University following Hurricane Katrina.
So where are we today? The tents are down, removing a source of antisemitic intimidation to many of our Jewish students. Our students are testing the edges of our agreement as one might expect from intelligent, idealistic young people. We have largely removed outside, more radical influences from the peaceful demonstrations taking place on Deering Meadow. And we stand ready to commence disciplinary proceedings against anyone who breaks our rules or engages in antisemitic or anti-Muslim behavior.
This resolution — fragile though it might be — was possible because we chose to see our students not as a mob but as young people who were in the process of learning. It was possible because we tried respectful dialogue rather than force. And it was possible because we sought to follow a set of principles, many of which I would argue are core to the tenets of Judaism.
I hope that our de-escalation proves stable and that we can be an example for other universities.
Michael Schill is president of Northwestern University.
Submit a letter, of no more than 400 words, to the editor here or email letters@chicagotribune.com.
