Letter: Prince Lobel Report Fails to Justify it’s Conclusion that UMass Administration Acted Reasonably in Repressing Student Protest

I’ve read the Prince Lobel report and I agree with Kevin Young’s and Helene Langerock, Emmanuelle Sussman and Ruya Hazeyen’s critique of it.. I’d like to add additional evidence of the report’s effort to give the Chancellor and the University cover. 

The investigator for the Prince Loebel report, Ralph Martin, actually documented the many mistakes Chancellor Reyes made, and disagreed with Reyes’ assessment of the dangers the encampment created, prior to concluding that the Chancellor “acted reasonably”. 

He wrote: “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.”

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 Reyes’ concerns for safety and precedent! 

He continues:
“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 Reyes’ 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.”

This after 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 to whether or not the Administration acted prudently. Clearly phrases like that provide cover for the Chancellor and the Administration 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.

Gerry Weiss

Gerry Weiss, a psychotherapist, was a member of the Amherst Select Board from 2004 to 2010 and a member of Town Meeting for 19 years.