Are Pro-Palestinian Protesters Capable of Doing Wrong?
Sundial had multiple reporters at the May 7 takeover of Butler Library. Here’s what was left out.
On May 7 at around 3:15 p.m., approximately 100 masked pro-Palestinian protesters stormed Butler Library and occupied the Lawrence A. Wien Reading Room, chanting, hanging up banners, and interrupting students preparing for finals. As expected, amidst the chaos of the afternoon, the Columbia Daily Spectator immediately began reporting on the situation.
The irony begins with Spectator’s opening account of the situation: “Around 100 protesters entered the reading room at around 3:15 p.m.” This is blatantly misleading. Protesters did not simply “enter” Butler. They forcibly stormed the building, bypassing the library’s security desk. Spectator also reported that “Public Safety officers clashed with pro-Palestinian protesters at a protest in the Lawrence A. Wien Reading Room in Butler Library,” with no mention of how the altercation actually began: with protesters storming the library and inspiring the supportive crowd outside to shove, push, and harass the Public Safety officers who were ordered by the administration to keep the library closed after the reading room was occupied.
Even the New York Times acknowledged this in their reporting, writing that the protesters “burst” through Butler’s security gate. Unfortunately, the continued misrepresentation of these small yet crucial details by Spectator contribute to a misleading picture of unequivocal protester innocence and victimhood that is not rooted in reality.
The dumbing down of objective reporting continues with how Spectator describes the protesters’ vandalism of the reading room: “Protesters wrote messages in marker on several pieces of furniture in the reading room during the protest.” Defacing historic library furniture with the words “COLUMBIA WILL BURN 4 THE MARTYRS” is not the same as simply writing a message. It fits the dictionary definition of vandalism. Ultimately, in a forced attempt not to be critical of the protesters, Spectator’s aversion to using objective and precise language is deeply alarming. Spectator correctly highlighted the multiple instances of excessive force from Public Safety that afternoon, yet conveniently ignored the protesters’ flagrant disregard for their fellow classmates’ education, barely mentioning the disruptive nature of the demonstration throughout their reporting. Because the administration has not allowed the campus to devolve into an anarchic free-for-all—and with the help of outlets such as Spectator—the protesters have positioned themselves as silenced, oppressed, and most importantly, victims.
This event was a natural continuation of the protesters’ rhetoric and methodology, reminiscent of last year’s occupation of Hamilton Hall and this year’s occupations of Milstein Library and Milbank Hall, during which a school employee was assaulted by protesters and sent to the hospital.
However, this time protesters knew exactly what they were walking into: The administration has never been more unveiled in their communications about the consequences of protesting outside of Columbia’s time, place, and manner restrictions. On April 23, after rumors of a possible second encampment, Columbia Public Safety sent out a campus-wide email stating, “Individuals who refuse to disperse will be identified and sanctions, including potential removal from campus and possible arrest, may be applied.”
In the same email, Public Safety wrote, “We value free expression and the right to protest,” but only in the case that “academic and other campus activities can continue unimpeded.” Organizing an occupation of our campus’s largest library the week before finals hardly seems to fit that criteria. Of course, one could argue that the nature of protest and civil disobedience is inherently disruptive, and that one shouldn’t be expected to protest “politely”; while this may be true, these disruptive protesters also shouldn’t be expected to escape unscathed from consequence. The administration clearly communicated the repercussions protesters would face from the very beginning. Shock that they were arrested is nothing but performative rage.
About an hour after protesters occupied the reading room, they attempted to leave but were stopped by a human chain of Public Safety officers, who were directed by the administration to enforce Columbia’s protester identification policy. This is absolutely crucial to clarify. Protesters were given an opportunity to leave peacefully—they were told that if they presented their IDs, they would be permitted to exit the reading room. In a video obtained by Sundial, a protester can be seen shouting into a megaphone to the crowd inside the locked library, explaining they had two options: They could leave and risk identification, or escalate the situation. The protester subsequently shouted “We will escalate our response every day” to the thunderous applause of fellow students. Make no mistake: Those who stayed chose to do so. The protesters were holding themselves hostage.
Around the same time, after one protester shouted “They’re holding us hostage” out an open window to the crowd outside, someone shouted back, “What about the real hostages?” He was met with a roar of boos.
The irony of the situation must be acknowledged: Protesters who had the privilege of choice were comparing themselves to actual hostages who do not. Regrettably, protesters decided to artificially construct an identity around the narrative of being oppressed by the University’s authority. Again, the actions of the NYPD and Public Safety from this day should not be ignored—but we as students would be making a grave mistake if we allow these protesters to control the narrative about right versus wrong.
At around 6:15 p.m., the crowd of pro-Palestinian protesters outside the library supporting the agitators marched to the corner of 114th Street and Broadway.
In a viral video, protesters continually chanted “NYPD, KKK, IOF they’re all the same” into a black officer’s face. One protester leaned particularly close to the officer, attempting to provoke him. The officer then punched this protester in the face and proceeded to chase him down the street. While the officer acted violently and unprofessionally, his culpability does not cancel out that of the protester.
The protesters are pushing the rhetoric that being harmed makes them automatically right, but truth is not measured in punches taken. The whole situation could have been avoided if the protesters simply hadn’t escalated. Escalating, and then being surprised when the other side also escalates, does not make them victims. It makes them naïve.
Similarly, just as Public Safety was violent, so were the students. They hit officers. They pushed them. They dialed the temperature up at every possible opportunity. They want us all to believe that they are incapable of doing wrong because wrong was done to them. However, no one in good faith can deny that it’s possible for both to be true at once: Public Safety and the NYPD shouldn’t have resorted to excessive force, but the protesters’ actions that day were not blameless either. Columbians should be smart enough not to blindly accept this self-martyring narrative.
In fact, the protesters’ narrative waters down the actual oppression being faced by the very people they purport to defend. The crux of the issue is that Palestinians don’t have a choice of whether or not to be blockaded and bombed by Israel; the Israeli hostages don’t have a choice of whether or not they can walk away free. By carelessly throwing around words like “hostage,” “oppression,” and “liberation,” pretending that they are deprived of choice, the actual significance of the protesters’ cause is diluted.
This isn’t the first time that protesters have gone out of their way to liken their own “oppression” on campus to that of the Palestinians. They have previously asked for “basic humanitarian aid” for those who occupied Hamilton Hall, and have claimed Public Safety “violently removed” several students who chained themselves to a gate.
Now, after disrupting a roomful of students studying for final exams (a room that was void of any administrators they’re purportedly addressing), protesters again decided to put themselves in a situation where they knew they would face physical removal and possible suspension. Nonetheless, they parade these consequences as examples of their own “oppression.”
CUAD’s “liberation zone” didn’t change the course of the war in Gaza, nor did it lead the University to sympathize with the protesters’ cause and divest from Israeli-affiliated companies. The people who were actually affected most by these protests were the janitorial staff who had to work overtime to clean up the mess—the same staff the protesters had villainized that afternoon. The irony of being privileged enough to attend this institution while forcing working class janitorial staff to clean up after them in the name of “liberation” should not escape anyone.
The protesters’ self-victimizing narrative hinges upon the idea that they are morally obligated to engage in disruptive forms of protest—but this is a false premise. There are other ways to protest that wouldn’t lead the University to call in the NYPD. It is disingenuous for campus media to shape the narrative around how the protesters are punished and arrested without accounting for the fact that they chose this path.
Regardless of how one feels about the events of May 7, this much should be clear: Nobody is, or should ever be, above criticism.
Mr. Baum is a rising junior in the joint degree program between Jewish Theological Seminary and the School of General Studies. He is a staff editor for Sundial.
Ms. Chen is a rising sophomore at Columbia College studying linguistics, cognitive science, and East Asian languages & cultures. She is a staff writer for Sundial.
Mr. Nagin is a rising senior in the Dual BA program with Trinity College Dublin majoring in political science. He is the editor-in-chief of Sundial.
The opinions expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Sundial editorial board as a whole or any other members of the staff.
For those interested in submitting a response to this article, please contact us at columbia.sundial@gmail.com.
 | A guest post by
|
Keep it up Sundial, you are doing great and valuable work!
Perhaps losing accreditation is the only solution to begin the process of restructuring the whole institution.