UMass Task Force on Campus Demonstrations Publishes Recommendations
A student encampment in support of Palestine and divestment was established at UMass on April 29 and removed the following day. Photo: Art Keene
The UMass Campus Demonstration Policy Task Force (CDPT) was created by Chancellor Javier Reyes in June of 2024 in the aftermath of peaceful campus protests against the war in Gaza that resulted in a large police presence on campus and the arrest of more than 130 students and area residents. The task force met six times over the summer and issued its final report on August 30, 2024.
The CDPT was comprised of representatives from the university administration and appointees from the Student Government Association, Graduate Student Senate and Facility Senate Rules Committee. The final report offered 11 recommendations which are summarized below. Read the full report here.
As noted in Reyes’ communication with the campus community on August 23, 2024, the task force found that students have a right to protest at UMass and to engage in civil disobedience, but not to the extent that it interferes with the rights and safety of others. Recommendations include “removing ambiguities” from what’s known as the school’s “land use policy,” creating a frequently asked questions web page focused on free speech, and developing de-escalation tactics for possible conflicts.
Charge of the Task Force
Reyes charged the task force with the following:
- Review demonstration-related policies/guidelines including, but not limited to, the land-use policy, picketing code, and demonstration guidelines and make recommendations to the appropriate university governing bodies.
- Make recommendations, based on best practices in higher education, regarding methods of demonstration-related intervention, including, but not limited to, the deployment of and composition of the Demonstration Response and Safety Team (DRST).
- Make recommendations, based on best practices in higher education, regarding how to increase awareness of university policies and First Amendment protections as they apply to on-campus demonstrations.
Recommendations
The CDPT made the following recommendations.
1, clarify policy where reasonable interpretations could lead to divergent understandings; strengthen the ability of the Demonstration Response and Safety Team (DRST) to serve the campus through its role providing demonstration-related safety, education, and de-escalation; and delineate the distinct roles of university administrators and UMPD in terms of handling violations of policy and illegal acts, respectively.
Regarding Land Use Policy:
2. adopt a definition of “Structure” informed by Massachusetts law; and
3. clarify the role of the University of Massachusetts Police Department (UMPD) in relation to policy enforcement and law enforcement
Regarding the Demonstration Response Safety Team (DRST), CPDT recommends the following:
4) create an advisory council to the DRST that includes representatives from outside the university administration;
5) actively seek out post-action reports from other universities for review by the DRST and advisory board;
6) develop off-ramps oriented towards de-escalating the potential for conflict, including building up a mediation infrastructure;
7) specify procedures for the identification of demonstrators that are UMass community members; and
8) clarify the use of law enforcement in relation to illegal acts, including violent acts, threats to public safety, substantial disorder, trespass, and the invasion of the rights of others, as opposed to policy violations. This also applies to a recommended edit in the Land Use Policy.
The CDPT was also asked to provide guidance around “increasing awareness” of demonstration-related policies. To that end, the task force recommended:
9) created a Free Expression FAQ, attached to this report, and share with the university community;
10) update DRST handouts that can be shared with demonstrators;
11 ) create a central website that shares all demonstration-related policies and guidanc
Read More Reporting on the CDPT Final Report
Task Force Reviewing Encampment Arrests Releases Recommendations (Massachusetts Daily Collegian)
Task Force Set up after UMass Protest Arrests Publishes Report and Makes Recommendations (New England Public Media)
UMass Demonstration Policy Task Force Tries To Balance Rights and Rules (Greenfield Recorder)
Campus Demonstration Policy Task Force Report and Reflection on Institutional Positions (UMass Amherst)
Regarding Land Use Policy: adopt a definition of “Structure” informed by Massachusetts law;
That would be the Building Code, which defines a “structure” as “[t]hat which is built or constructed.”
Yes, see: https://up.codes/viewer/massachusetts/ibc-2015/chapter/2/definitions#2
This is problematic for three reasons.
1: A “tent” is defined as: “[a] structure, enclosure or shelter, with or without sidewalls or drops, constructed of fabric or pliable material supported in any manner except by air or the contents it protects.” I don’t know if people realize it or not, but this includes all tents.
An umbrella is made of “fabric or pliable material” and is “supported in a manner other than by air or the contents it protects” — QED an umbrella is a “structure.” And unless the UM admin is going to expel every student who uses an umbrella on a rainy (or snowy) day, this policy is unconstitutionally vague on that basis alone…
2: A Klu Klux Klan cross is not a structure and hence this policy would let them have burning crosses all over campus with impunity. I don’t think we want this — I definitely don’t!
3: There are a lot of 8,700 volt (to ground) power lines buried on that campus, and a lot of them are direct buried (no conduit). While I’d say they got what they deserved, said Klansmen digging a hole for said cross could well find one. Put a steel shovel into a 8,700 volt power line with 60 year old insulation on it and things will get interesting…
Let me offer a simple alternative:
1: Anything other than (a) a human being or (b) something 100% supported by human being(s) requires a UM Land Use Permit, including a Physical Plant Digsafe or waiver stating that one is not necessary.
2: All human beings on a sidewalk, staircase, or building hallway must (a) be standing and (b) leave an unobstructed 36″ passageway between them. A disabled person in a wheelchair may be in a wheelchair, but is still subject to the 36″ passageway mandate. A firefighter (including UM EH&S) may expand the passageway in the vicinity of an exit to whatever width the firefighter considers appropriate to ensure public safety.
3: The licensed occupancy capacity of every room, hallway, staircase and elevator shall be clearly posted, in at least 20 point font, and as many times as necessary to be conspicuous. In the event of overcapacity, any uniformed police officer or firefighter (including UM EH&S) shall have the authority to deny entry and/or order persons present to leave. If persons are asked to leave, there shall be a reasonable attempt to select those who arrived latest, and minor children shall not be separated from their parent or guardian, but the police and fire personnel shall have an absolute right to select who must leave.
4: Any form of amplified sound requires a land use permit.
5: Any student who violates any portion of the above is subject to progressive discipline up to and including expulsion. Any employee (including faculty) who violate the above are subject to progressive discipline up to and including termination, and all contracts signed after this date must include this clause. Any person not affiliated with the university will be trespassed.
I’m not a fan of Team Hamas — I make no secret of that. But I think my version is a whole lot fairer to everyone, including those who wish to protest against Israel.
Remember that an umbrella technically is defined as a “structure” by “state law.”