Officials at UC Irvine overstated claims about pro-Palestinian protesters and about the overall level of violence on campus May 15, during a heated and often confusing conflict in which police arrested 47 people, according to a document signed Friday, May 24 by UCI Chancellor Howard Gillman and Provost and Executive Vice Chancellor Hal Stern.
But even while acknowledging those misstatements, Gillman and Stern wrote in the document obtained by the Orange County Register that they believe they responded appropriately and that police actions on campus were justified to protect the safety of everybody, not just protesters and police.
The document, written to provide official answers to a series of questions posed by UCI’s Academic Senate, sheds new light on events that took place as police were making arrests and as some protesters were responding by spitting at, and throwing items at, police. Administration officials and faculty members represented by the Academic Senate are scheduled to discuss the encampment-style protest at UCI that lasted a little more than two weeks, and the events of May 15, in a special meeting on May 31.
But some members of the Academic Senate said late Friday that the answers from Gillman and Stern continued a pattern they claim has been going on since the first tents went up on April 29, in which UCI has offered misleading claims to justify an escalated response to the pro-Palestinian protests.
“The fact that they continue to offer this version of events shows they’re insecure about what they’ve done,” said Kevan Aguilar, an associate professor of Latin American history at UCI and vice chair of the Irvine Faculty Association.
A university spokesman said Gillman, Stern and UCI would not have any comment when reached to confirm the authenticity of the document the Register obtained. But the answers from Gillman and Stern to the Academic Senate’s 16, multi-part questions offer the administration’s rationale for seeking police assistance, which led to several local police agencies and at least two law enforcement helicopters converging on campus, and widespread street closures in some of the neighborhoods adjacent to UCI.
They also offer a window into the administration’s view of what transpired during the period of two-plus weeks in which pro-Palestinian groups, made up mostly of students, lived in tents and protested outside the Physical Sciences Lecture Hall.
Still, while defending their decision to seek police help and saying that the police response on May 15 was “measured and appropriate given the circumstances,” Gillman and Stern noted two key instances in which the school’s ZotALERTs – official communications to the university community and on social media – incorrectly suggested the conflict was more heated than it actually was.
“A university statement released at approximately 4:55 p.m. inaccurately reported that several hundred protesters had entered the Physical Sciences Lecture Hall. This incorrect information was generated with miscommunication between on-the-ground staff and the communications team,” Gillman and Stern wrote.
But Aguilar – who served as a liaison between protesters and administration officials – said Friday that UCI’s misleading claim about that particular incident was critical.
Though some protesters had secured the lecture hall doors from inside, Aguilar said that was the work of only a few students and that the building was never in their total control.
Still, Aguilar suggested, the day’s events flowed from that early ZotALERT, because police response was based on several hundred students taking control of public property; instead, protesters surrounded the building.
“The claim that UCI was making, that there were hundreds of people in that building, was absolutely not true. They said that as a way to justify calling in the police,” Aguilar said.
Gillman and Stern also noted that UCI’s early communications used the word “violent” to describe the protest at the lecture hall and to warn people to avoid the area. But later ZotALERTs described the incident as civil unrest.
The 47 arrests, however, were for suspicion of trespassing or failing to disperse when ordered by police, not anything of a violent nature. It is unknown what, if any, charges the Orange County District Attorney’s office might file.
“We think, if there was any violence, there would be body camera footage or at least some charges (related to violence),” Aguilar said. “But from what I understand is, so far, it’s unlawful assembly, illegal encampment and that sort of stuff.”
Gillman and Stern’s answers also shed some new light on the administration’s view of what transpired during a window of a little more than two weeks starting April 29, the night that protesters first started sleeping in tents on campus to speak out against Israel’s military actions in Gaza and to demand that UCI sever any financial connections with Israel.
During that period, UCI’s protest wasn’t happening in a vacuum.
On May 2, a similar pro-Palestinian encampment at UCLA had broken down into violence involving counter-protest groups. That was marked by a delayed response from police and since has been criticized – by protesters, among others – as being overly chaotic because of poor response by UCLA’s administration. UCLA Chancellor Gene Block was called to testify to a congressional committee Thursday, and the UCLA police chief recently was removed from his position.
Initially, according to Gillman and Stern, the encampment at UCI was not described in violent terms.
In fact, when describing the school’s and the protesters’ initial contact with police, on April 30, the administrators expressed concern about the growing size, not the behavior, of the crowd.
“As the morning progressed, the number of protesters visibly increased from approximately 30 to over 100, raising concerns about campus safety and order.”
Gillman and Stern did not say why a larger crowd represented a threat to safety. And later that day – when some protesters removed safety barriers set up by police, and police beefed up their presence on campus – they noted that no police actions were taken.
“At no time during the initial hours was there a decision made to use police to forcibly disperse a contained and minimally disruptive encampment.”
Gillman and Stern’s answers also offered some details about how the next two-plus weeks played out. Among other things, they noted that:
• Student demands of UCI shifted during the course of several negotiations. “The UCI administration received three distinct sets of demands from the protesting student group, with each subsequent version reflecting an expansion of their demands.”
Aguilar disputed that. He said student demands were simplified or shifted only in response to UCI’s answers and to reflect demands that were being expressed by protesters on other UC campuses.
• Student campers were offered an alternative site for their protest, but that offer was rejected. Gillman and Stern did not say if campers using the alternative site would have been allowed to protest there without being accused of trespassing.
• As early as May 1, Gillman and Stern said, the administration offered the protesters a settlement based on what has been disclosed about the outcome of a similar protest at Brown University. But the UCI protesters declined that offer.
• By May 7, after a series of meetings involving students and UCI officials, the negotiations stalled. Students wanted divestment that UCI officials could not grant, according to Gillman and Stern. Officials and students did not meet between May 7 and May 15, the day the encampment disbanded.
• Gillman and Stern offered some details about the school’s decision, starting on May 8, to use “interim suspension” as a disciplinary action against some protesters.
Though students on interim suspension can’t go to class or engage in school activities, they are eligible to meet with the school to challenge their suspension. Gillman and Stern said students who have sought to meet with the school have seen their suspensions “modified.”
Gillman and Stern said they aren’t done looking at the school’s response to the protest.
“We will continue to assess and review the actions taken and to integrate any lessons into future responses to subsequent emergencies.”
Related Articles
New UCLA protest draws hundreds of demonstrators and 4 police departments
As UCLA Chancellor Block testifies in Congress, students launch new campus protest
Pro-Palestine protesters rally at CSU headquarters to demand university system divests from Israel
Criticism from campus to Congress: A dark end to UCLA Chancellor Block’s tenure
Who killed Alex Odeh, whose 1985 bombing death in OC was invoked by UCI protesters?