AUSTIN (KXAN) — A July report from the University of Texas at Austin’s Committee of Counsel on Academic Freedom and Responsibility (CCAFR) found UT officials violated the institution’s own rules in their handling of pro-Palestinian protests held on April 24 and April 29.
UT officials denounced that assessment, with a spokesperson telling KXAN in an emailed statement the university’s response “complied with our policies and the law.”
“UT Austin will continue to support the Constitutional rights to free speech of all individuals on our campus and will also enforce our rules, while providing due process and holding students, faculty, staff and visitors accountable,” the spokesperson said.
The university also claimed the nature of protests on April 24 and April 29 differed from those held at other points during the academic semester, claiming protestors intended to disrupt school operations in violation of university rules.
UT’s two days’ worth of protests led to 136 arrests, which reflected some of the highest arrest counts from protests across the country this spring, per reporting from The New York Times. Locally, those arrests have since been dropped, but UT officials confirmed in June they would continue to pursue disciplinary action against students they say violated university rules.
UT officials previously said the protests were unauthorized based on alleged use of the following tactics:
- Disruption
- Masking
- Weapons
- Encampments
- Amplification
- Tables
- Non-compliance with orders
However, CCAFR’s report claimed that protestors didn’t use “observable violence on either day [of protests], despite claims of rioting, threat of violence, and carrying of weapons.” The report said calling in law enforcement agencies — with UT Police, the Austin Police Department and the Texas Department of Public Safety responding — seemingly increased both the size and intensity of protests those days.
The report alleged protestors rarely used voice amplification devices and masks, in contrast to UT administrators’ claims. It added arrests supposedly weren’t in a “discernable pattern,” and that counter-protestors with Israeli or anti-Palestinian flags weren’t arrested.
CCAFR’s report determined that the university violated its own rules in infringing on students, faculty, staff and members of the public’s ability to gather and express their views in common, outdoor areas on UT’s campus.
“Justifications for the harsh response offered before, during, and after the events, including claims of weapons violations, rioting, and criminal trespass, were not supported by the observations of faculty or reporters on the scene, and our impression that criminal citations were baseless is supported by the fact that all criminal charges were dropped,” the report read.
The seven-member committee behind the report is tasked to offer guidance to administrators on “the exercise of academic freedom in teaching, scholarship and expression” as well as to investigate allegations of policy violations. Requests for advice on specific issues or concerns are referred to the committee by faculty members, the provost, the university’s president, its chancellor or the Board of Regents, per CCAFR documents.
Solutions recommended by the report included suggestions university administrators develop more robust de-escalation tactics to avoid escalating conflict during campus protests or similar incidents. The report also said university officials shouldn’t have attempted to cancel the protest on April 24 without substantial evidence of possible violence; in administrative responses included in the report, UT officials denied claims there weren’t credible concerns for violence at the protest.
CCAFR’s report added students should be permitted to use masks given both COVID-19 concerns as well as doxxing issues threatening protestors at campuses nationwide. It also requested administrators clarify rules surrounding how Texas’ law on firearms apply on campuses and to campus protests, and that leadership develop an on-campus process for handling non-violent protests.
Finally, the report recommended the creation of a committee with faculty and students to review university operational procedures, stressing criminal charges should only be used as a last resort and applied to those who are committing specific criminal acts.
The complete report is available online.