A little over a week ago, a document was brought to my attention. The document in question is titled “Demonstration Conduct Management” and takes the form of a three-tiered definition of protests ranging from “limited disruption” to “severe disruption,” with an intermediate “disruptive conduct” tier.
For each tier, instructions are provided for who is to deal with the protest and how it is to be dealt with. After reading the document, a number of things stand out as being particularly problematic.
By far, the most concerning aspect is how vague the wording in the third tier, “severe disruption,” is. Some of the actions that qualify as “severe conduct” are fairly straightforward. Threats, acts of violence, discrimination, harassment and intimidation all fall under this category.
Yet, at the same time, “broad, coordinated disruption of [an] event” and “speaker or event based demonstrations” both fall in the same category of “severe conduct” alongside acts of violence and intimidation.
It might come off as perplexing that these two seemingly disparate kinds of actions are grouped together. But, ruminating on the intentions of those who put this document together makes it quite clear why they did so.
Those who wrote this document want people in leadership positions at this school to have the ability to shut down a protest — an integral aspect of being able to freely express yourself — whenever they want.
This development comes amid a presidential administration that is actively seeking to punish universities for allowing students to protest. Last Tuesday, President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to issue an ominous warning.
Instead of pushing back and standing up for the rights of students, this policy indicates that our administration is willing to submit to the will of a budding authoritarian, despite the fact that following through on this threat would be legally dubious.
The fixation on masks is important to note as well. Trump doesn’t like them, and according to the document, our administration doesn’t seem to like them either.
“If a demonstrator is wearing a mask, they should be asked to lower the mask for identification purposes and reminded of the university policy on masks which limits use to only medical and religious reasons” the document states.
Protestors wear masks for a reason. Being identified in this day and age by counter-protestors or those that disagree with you can lead to doxing, where personal information is leaked online. When this happens, the safety of those engaging in protest becomes jeopardized.
Wearing a mask is not a threat to anyone, but wearing one can prevent future harm from happening to those exercising their First Amendment rights. It is also important to note that activists at this university who have adorned masks in the past have never posed a threat to anyone’s safety, and they have also been proven ineffective in preventing the university from identifying and punishing students.
Last Monday, I reached out to Chief of Campus Safety Mike Bunker to see if he would comment on the document in question that has already been implemented within the department. He instead directed me to Jon Stone, Director of Media Relations, who provided me with a response on behalf of the University:
“The ‘Demonstration Conduct Management’ protocols were developed to provide support to university employees who might be in a position to engage with the campus community during a demonstration. They are also meant to serve as a guide to provide safety planning for events where disagreement may exist. The protocols are based on best practices, including those used by other universities, and protects all community members’ right to freely express themselves while providing a measured, non-escalatory approach to conduct that violates university policy for harassment, discrimination, violence or destruction of property.”
It is important to highlight in his response that the protocol “protects community members’ right to freely express themselves.” No where in the document is that explicitly expressed. In fact, the word “right” doesn’t appear once.
If anything, the document effectively ends the right of one to freely express themselves in the form of protesting. This is because the line between what is considered “limited disruption” and “severe conduct” is egregiously blurry, and this becomes extremely problematic once the differences in acceptable responses for the two cases is considered.
If the protest is taking place at an event — thus qualifying as “severe conduct” — the first step is for event staff to step in and attempt to “correct the behavior.” After that, they can then ask the protestors to “cease the behavior, move to another location, or leave.” If that doesn’t work, then “Admin staff should step in to provide support” which includes “informing the [protestors] of any applicable university policy or rule, and issuing a warning.”
The last step is the involvement of Campus Safety. According to the document, anyone can contact them about a protest — including members of the public — and once they are called they “will determine their response from appropriate available options.”
This effectively means that all of the initial steps described above become useless if any single individual calls Campus Safety.
Campus Safety is the cohort responsible for calling the police, who have the ultimate ability to issue a trespass warning before arresting protestors. According to the document, the qualification for calling the police is in a case where “the severe conduct will not cease.”
This can be translated into Campus Safety having the right to call the police if a “speaker or event based demonstration” taking place outside does not cease. In other words, any protest that is not in a building — along with those that take place in buildings — are not protected free speech and must cease if told to by Campus Safety.
Any protest that does occur is only taking place because people with power on campus find it acceptable, not because students have a right to engage in protest.
Another major issue with the document is the potential for discrimination.
For example, “single or multi-day outdoor demonstrations” generally “falls into the level one category.” Compared to the “speaker or event based demonstrations” that qualifies a protest as “severe conduct” that could result in arrest, there is effectively no difference at all. Because the line is so blurry, event or administrative staff can allow whatever biases they may harbor to decide whether a protest is severe or not.
And the differences in how one is to respond to a “limited disruption” versus a “severe disruption” makes this potential for discrimination extremely problematic.
According to the instructions on how to respond to “conduct resulting in limited disruption,” the “non-disruptive behavior requires limited intervention by DU event staff beyond observation and monitoring for potential escalation.” In other words, there is little event and administrative staff can do other than monitor and record the event.
This document is intentionally vague, making it appear as if the school is providing some protection to student protestors. Yet, behind this facade lies a number of unclear and tricky wordings that allow those in leadership positions to decide on their own accord if a protest is worth silencing or not.
This document has yet to be made public, and if we are to protect the rights of student activists, pressure must be exerted on those who have the ability to rewrite this document so that mechanisms are put in place that limit the ability of someone’s actions to result in discriminatory outcomes.
Additionally, a more clear line must be drawn that separates “severe conduct” from conduct that results in “limited disruption.” It must afford students the benefit of the doubt, rather than affording it to those who are responsible for enforcing these rules.
It must also explicitly grant rights and protections for students to engage in protest.
Higher education is not only one of the most important institutions for promoting a healthy democracy, it is one of the only institutions we have left to fight back against oppression. This is where critical thinking is supposed to start, and this is where ideas that change our society for the better are supposed to originate.
Silencing the voices of students — one of the few populations that have the ability to act and think freely before getting thrown into the corporate world — brings us even closer to an American authoritarianism that is staring us in the eyes.
