Lawmakers and system leaders are taking aim at college presidents who have negotiated peaceful endings to pro-Palestinian encampments, saying the agreements excuse protesters’ antisemitic rhetoric and fail to appropriately discipline violators of campus policy.
In the month since tent cities started cropping up on campuses to demand colleges cut financial ties with Israel over the war in Gaza, college leaders have chosen from a range of tactics for dealing with their encampment: leave it be, work with organizers to dismantle it, or call in the police. Each course of action has generated controversy, but the middle one has resulted in the most tangible discipline for college presidents.
The latest example of this may also be the most extreme.
On Wednesday, the California State University system placed the Sonoma State president, Ming-Tung (Mike) Lee, on leave after he sent an email to the campus laying out the terms of an agreement his administration struck with encampment organizers. Lee promised the university would disclose its vendor contracts, pursue “divestment strategies,” and impose an academic boycott of Israel, among other commitments. In return, demonstrators promised to end their encampment, which had been active for nearly three weeks.
In a public statement, Mildred García, chancellor of the CSU system, said Lee had sent his email “without the appropriate approvals.” While Lee was on leave for his “insubordination,” Nathan Evans, the university’s deputy vice chancellor for academic and student affairs and chief academic officer, would serve as acting president, García said in her announcement.
Lee acknowledged in a second email to the community that he had sent the initial message without consulting with the system. “In my attempt to find agreement with one group of students, I marginalized other members of our student population and community,” he wrote. “I realize the harm that this has caused, and I take full ownership of it. I deeply regret the unintended consequences of my actions.”
On Thursday, García announced that Lee would retire from his role. The Chronicle was unable to contact Lee, and a phone message left Friday at the chancellor’s number was not immediately returned. Sonoma State did not respond to an interview request.
‘Shocking Concessions’
Elsewhere, deals with activists have led to public shaming — on social media and, likely soon, in the halls of Congress.
After Mark A. Mone, chancellor of the University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee, announced on Sunday an agreement with student protesters to end their encampment, the Wisconsin system president, Jay O. Rothman, took to X to express his displeasure with the decision.
“I am disappointed by the course taken by UW-Milwaukee, and I am continuing to assess the decision-making process that led to this result,” Rothman posted on Tuesday.
In the agreement, UWM promised to call for a cease-fire in Gaza, condemn the bombing of universities there, waive citations for violating campus policy and state law against camping, and meet with activists demanding disclosure and divestment. Spokespeople for the university and for the system could not be reached for comment.
Several local Jewish organizations condemned the agreement as “among the most offensive and dangerous of any university agreement reached with encampment protesters over the last two weeks.”
On Thursday, the presidents of Northwestern University, the University of California at Los Angeles, and the Rutgers University system are scheduled to testify before the U.S. House Committee on Education and the Workforce about how they’re handling campus antisemitism.
The leaders of the University of Michigan and Yale University had previously been scheduled to appear, but on May 6, Chairwoman Virginia Foxx, Republican of North Carolina, substituted the presidents of Rutgers and Northwestern, saying they had “made shocking concessions to the unlawful antisemitic encampments on their campuses.”
In a statement to The Chronicle on Friday, Foxx vowed that the Rutgers and Northwestern presidents “will have to answer for their dismal records.”
Rutgers reached an agreement to end an encampment at the New Brunswick campus on May 2, promising to meet with students to discuss their divestment request. The administration also committed to invest greater resources in Palestinian students and studies, including by enrolling 10 displaced Palestinian students.
A spokeswoman for Rutgers said Jonathan S. Holloway, the system president, was not available for an interview.
Northwestern arrived at a compromise with protesters on April 29, agreeing to answer questions from “internal stakeholders” about its investments and fund attendance for five Palestinian students, among other stipulations.
A Northwestern spokesman said President Michael H. Schill “looks forward” to discussing the actions the university has taken on campus antisemitism before the House panel.
Blurred Distinctions
That college presidents are being criticized for agreements that not only end the encampments, but also do so without violence, demonstrates the unwinnable position many are in when it comes to pleasing stakeholders.
Presidents must reconcile themselves to the fact that they can’t make everyone happy, said Jon Fansmith, senior vice president for government relations and national engagement at the American Council on Education.
“They just have to be comfortable that they’ve made the right choice with themselves, with their trustees, with their campus,” Fansmith said.
But Fansmith noted that the consequences for presidents who have called the police on protesters have been less immediate than those that have worked with them. Time will tell how the decision to engage law enforcement will affect community members’ trust in their leaders.
“Northwestern and Rutgers, the reason they have to testify before the House Education and Workforce Committee is because they reached those deals, not because there was a violent incident on their campus,” he said. “Not because any policies have been changed, but simply the act of talking to their campus constituents, to the protesters, and coming to some sort of a resolution.”
Eddie R. Cole, a professor of education and history at UCLA, said the response from lawmakers to campus unrest during the war in Gaza has blurred the lines between public and private institutions.
Most of the leaders who have been called to Washington, D.C., have been from private institutions. While their status as private colleges would seem to insulate them from political influence to some extent, they’re still at risk of losing federal funding if found in violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
“Political interference has always been in play for academic leaders, but now we see a heightened level of political interference that does not have any regard for public or private distinctions, much less autonomy for academic leaders to decide what happens on their campuses,” Cole said.
Large university systems like California State University and the Universities of Wisconsin can be plagued by confusion over who is ultimately responsible when an official makes an unpopular or controversial decision, Cole said.
“Anywhere there’s a university system, in a hierarchy where there’s a person between you and the board, you get all kinds of complications,” Cole said, “and difficult decisions get even more difficult.”
