As we enter week two of the DU Pro-Palestine encampment situated on Carnegie Green, it is high time to reflect on the state of the protest, as well as how it compares to the wider context of university encampments. 

All in all, the group has been met with relatively moderate resistance and has likewise achieved thus far only moderate progress. As we rapidly approach the end of Spring Quarter, we must wonder: why has this encampment story played out as it has?

Though there are notable examples of recent protests that have gone awry – such as the turmoil at Columbia University – not every university’s encampment has been the subject of scrutiny and strife. Some protesters have negotiated successful victories or compromises with their respective administrations.

Northwestern University, for example, agreed to open pathways for increased communication between students and the Board of Trustees in exchange for a decrease in the size of the encampment and an agreement that it would end no later than June 1. 

In addition to a promise that no students, staff or faculty involved with the protest would face retaliation, Rutgers University pledged that the school would create an Arab cultural center, employ staff and faculty with sufficient knowledge of Palestine and alter the language used in university communications to explicitly include mention of Palestine and Palestinians.

If it is clear that compromise and agreement between protesters and administrators is possible, why does DU seem to be locked in a stalemate? 

A likely but surprising answer could be that DU has simply been too good at its job. It is not unique for a university to advertise that it promotes student involvement in the community and discourse of ideas. 

At DU, there seems to be a particular emphasis on these values. Between groups like the Leadership Studies Program and various service-oriented LLCs, DU has always encouraged students to take their passions and ideas outside the classroom and advocate for those with less power. 

This attitude towards social justice and community action is precisely what has led to the creation of many organizations on campus, Unify included. Advocacy has become a cornerstone of DU campus culture and a value that students refuse to surrender.

The university has additionally always given the impression that it values the exchange of conflicting ideas, even when such an exchange could be controversial. 

This was certainly the tone that emanated from official communications about hotly-contested guest speakers such as the Sturm College of Law’s hosting of Ilya Shapiro and, more recently, Turning Point USA’s hosting of Erin Lee. Even though these speakers had histories of spreading harmful rhetoric and language that specifically targeted marginalized groups, the administration stood fast by its decision to allow their presence. 

When asking why DU’s encampment has dug its heels so deeply into Carnegie Green, it would be wise to consider that by the administration’s own logic, the protesters are doing absolutely nothing wrong.

The students are not the only stubborn parties in this endeavor, though. Between attempted communication with students and official, campus-wide emails, it is glaringly obvious that the administration does not intend to budge any time soon. 

If there is to be any progress made in either direction at DU on the subject of the war in Gaza, one or both parties are going to have to give. Discourse is not a chess match with a winner and a loser. It is a dance between parties where the end goal is not victory, but rather education and, hopefully, a solution.