Letter: Call for Independent Investigation of Police Violence on UMass Campus
Police preparing to move on the protesters at UMass, May 7, 2024. Photo: Leyla Moushabeck
We write to voice our concerns about the university-commissioned report on Chancellor Javier Reyes’s decision to deploy militarized state troopers against peaceful protesters on May 7, 2024. In an attempt to justify the Chancellor’s actions, the report glosses over critical questions involved. Its findings actually confirm that state police intervention was unwarranted and itself led to violence, validating the faculty’s subsequent vote of “No Confidence” in the Chancellor. However, by narrowly focusing on whether his actions were “reasonable,” the report sidesteps violations of students’ First Amendment and Title VI rights, and serves more as a shield for the administration than a path to accountability.
The report admits there was no justification for calling state police, acknowledging that his reasoning “was profoundly impacted by the chaos engulfing some other college campuses at the time,” rather than on a fact-based assessment of actual risk at UMass itself. It found that experienced UMass police officers disagreed with the Chancellor’s assessment of imminent risk, concluding:
“We did not find that there was a significant risk of violence by protesters, counter protesters, or others.”
As elaborated upon in this analysis by a member of the UMass faculty who was interviewed by the report’s authors, he told them that while the Chancellor claimed that the police were called due to an “assault” on a protester by a counter-protester, the incident was hardly an assault likely to lead to violence, and occurred after the Chancellor had already called the police.
Despite these findings, the report accepts the Chancellor’s claim that the protest violated UMass’s Land Use Policy and thus justified extreme police intervention, without examining prior lack of enforcement of this policy. In reality, earlier events involving structures without proper permits did not lead to a similar response, suggesting selective enforcement to suppress criticism of Israel.
In contrast to the Chancellor’s decision to call state police based on speculation, in the months leading up to May 7th, Arab students’ reports of harassment on campus–including calls to “Kill all Arabs”–were largely ignored, despite genuine safety fears repeatedly reported to the administration. The selective application of policies raises concerns about viewpoint discrimination and different treatment based on national origin, violating constitutional and civil rights protections.
Excessive Police Force Escalated Violence
The report essentially confirmed that the Chancellor’s decision to deploy riot police itself caused the May 7th protest to become violent:
“[P]rotesters and counter-protesters alike described the atmosphere as ‘peaceful’ for most of the day, until the imminence of a major police intervention became evident.
The presence of dozens of these riot-clad police led to excessive force against peaceful protesters, including injuries such as a broken leg, a torn shoulder, and others injuries caused by prolonged handcuffing. Witnesses described these actions as intimidating and disproportionate, stifling free expression. As another faculty member noted:
“By summoning militarized police, the Chancellor created an environment in which violence was inevitable.
Notwithstanding the fact that the Chancellor’s police deployment led the faculty and library staff to issue a No Confidence vote against him, the report barely touched on the harm it caused.
Failure to Address the Hostile Environment on Campus
The report omits mention of a federal civil rights investigation into UMass for fostering a hostile environment for Arab and Palestinian students. The violent removal of Palestinian flags and the targeting of Arab student leaders during and after the protest exacerbated this environment but were ignored by the report.
Instead, the report unjustly speculates that pro-Palestinian protests upset Jewish students, disregarding the participation of Jewish students in the Gaza encampment. The report’s credibility is undermined by its reliance on stereotypes of Jewish students, rather than analyzing whether the protest actually created a hostile environment for them.
Demand for Independent Investigation
We call for an independent investigation to address:
Violations of constitutional and civil rights.
Inconsistent enforcement of policies reflecting viewpoint discrimination.
Failure to address and mitigate a hostile campus environment.
Helene Langerock
Emmanuelle Sussman
Ruya Hazeyen
Helene Langerock, Emmanuelle Sussman, and Ruya Hazeyen are UMass alumni writing on behalf of UMass Parents and Alumni for Palestine and UMass SJP (Students for Justice for Palestine)
I’ve read that report and I agree with Langerock, Sussman and Hazeyen. Along with every point they made above, I’d like to add more evidence of the report’s effort to give the Chancellor and the U cover. The investigator, Ralph Martin, actually documented the many mistakes Chancellor Reyes made, and disagreed with his (Raye’s) assessment of the dangers the encampment created: “there was no imminent risk of violent clashes between protesters and counter-protesters as of the decision to remove the First Encampment on April 29, nor any other obvious threat to the safety of the University community. We found the same to be true of the Second Encampment, where protesters and counter-protesters alike described the atmosphere as “peaceful” for most of the day, until the imminence of a major police intervention became evident. Overall, we find that the dynamics of the UMass protest and counter-protest movements were unlike the comparators at Columbia University and UCLA.” Mr. Martin goes on to write: “ Some experienced officers within UMPD did not share the Chancellor’s dire safety assessment of encampments in general.” And “ we find that there was a lack of communication and coordination within and between the Administration and the UMPD about the planned police response.” As for the danger of the encampment, Martin writes: “there are also risks to health and well-being by having the police conduct a complex operation to arrest, transport, and detain a large and dedicated group of assembled protesters, especially as their numbers increased during the evening. “ Stunningly, after saying these things, Martin concludes: “Based on all of the above (and as described more fully in the body of our report), we have little difficulty concluding that the Administration acted reasonably when it decided to remove the April 29 and May 7 encampments” He then goes on to say: “, there is still a question of whether another road should have been taken.” When asked if there was a natural end to the encampment, a student said:, “Oh my god, yes, finals were next week.” In her estimation, the Second Encampment may have just “petered out.” This assessment was shared by a UMPD official. Martin also points out “Overall, the approach taken by the Chancellor was marked by a certain amount of inflexibility, even though it was informed by understandable concerns for safety and precedent.” He says this despite having earlier said he didn’t agree with Reye’s concerns for safety and precedent! “Decisiveness has its place, but so does flexibility…we have no trouble concluding that less communication probably resulted in a narrowing of options that might have resulted in less severe outcomes” Martin ends the report thusly, as if none of the deficiencies of Reye’s action, he had already spoken about, were of any consequence : : “In answering the final question of our charge – “Did the Administration act prudently?” – we take all the above into account and answer “Yes, it did,” based on a reasonable assessment (in real time and under pressure) that things could spin out of control quickly.” [having already said there was little risk except that due to the large police presence] “Yet, we have concluded that a more flexible and deliberative approach would probably have led to consideration of other paths, where the mission to protect the welfare of students could still have been upheld, and with fewer (perhaps, far fewer) students or faculty members having to endure the harrowing experience of facing a large and intimidating police operation to disperse the crowd and dismantle the May 7 Encampment, followed by arrest, handcuffing, detention, and criminal charges.”
Don’t be surprised to see statements from the University cherry picking the “Yes, it did” quote as whether or not the Admin acted prudently. Clearly phrases like that provide cover for the Chancellor and Admin, unless one reads the entire report. I believe the State paid for this “independent” evaluation. Is that correct? If so, then a truly independent investigation needs to happen.
There are grades of prudence. A passing grade at UMass is D, but the person earning such a grade is urged to change course. Perhaps that’s another way to read this report?