Campus Demonstration Policy Taskforce Report and Reflections on Institutional Positions

Chancellor Javier Reyes sent the following message to the UMass Amherst community on Wednesday, Sept. 4.

To the UMass community –

With the intention to reflect upon and learn from the challenging events of last semester,  I announced in June the formation of the Campus Demonstration Policy Taskforce (CDPT) to review policies, procedures, and guidelines related to campus demonstrations. Late last week the Taskforce completed its work. I write today to share its report, which you can see here.

Within the report are a series of recommendations guided by complicated questions such as how do we ensure that, in exercising rights protected by the First Amendment, we do not infringe on the rights of others? How do we address civil disobedience in our governance? And how do we respond in a way that is aligned with our values when policies or laws are violated?

The Taskforce’s recommendations include:

• Removing ambiguities in the Use of University Property Policy, commonly referred to as the “land use policy,” by defining structures using existing language from state law.
• Strengthening the work of the Demonstration Response and Safety Team by creating an advisory council. 
• Clarifying the dual enforcement roles of the University of Massachusetts Police Department and the Dean of Students Office.
• Developing off-ramps oriented towards de-escalating the potential for conflict, including building up a mediation infrastructure.
• Creating an FAQ on free speech and expression at UMass, which is shared here.

Over the next several weeks, these recommendations, which I fully endorse, will move through the governing bodies of the university.

I am grateful to the 17 members of the CDPT for their work this summer. Made up of faculty, students, and staff, the Taskforce held more than a dozen meetings. This included co-hosting national workshops with nearly 100 institutions of higher education, during which those convened wrestled with some of the most challenging issues related to campus activism. 

Over the weekend, as I thought about this report and reflected on my commitment to make our campus more open to divergent viewpoints, I participated in the new-student convocation ceremony at the Mullins Center, where Prof. Ray La Raja delivered a speech, which I encourage everyone to view. In it, he eloquently asks us to remain curious, to be open-minded, and to express humility – not absolutism – when we consider making proclamations. 

“We put a premium on open-mindedness,” he told us. “This means being willing to listen to others without dismissing their ideas. It means holding onto your values – and being intellectually flexible. Above all….it means tolerating ambiguity in this complex world.”

Professor La Raja’s words this weekend were prescient, as I had been intending to offer to the campus my own thoughts on the challenging matter of issuing campus proclamations on matters not directly connected to the university. I am often asked, in my role as Chancellor, to weigh in on world events and make statements on behalf of the University of Massachusetts Amherst. These statements can give members of our community the chance to see their own values and beliefs reflected in official proclamations. I question, though, whether such statements can do more harm than the good they intend. Our role as educators is to provide the space and means for difficult conversations, not to define the “right” outcome of that conversation. If a statement meant to be inclusive instead excludes those who believe otherwise, we do ourselves a disservice.

In the University of Chicago’s influential 1967 Report on the University’s Role in Political and Social Action, the authors wrote: 

“There is no mechanism by which [a university] can reach a collective position without inhibiting that full freedom of dissent on which it thrives. It cannot insist that all of its members favor a given view of social policy; if it takes collective action, therefore, it does so at the price of censuring any minority who do not agree with the view adopted.”

On issues not directly related to higher education or the functions of the campus -- issues such as national or geopolitical events -- I believe the university’s role is not to be a decider, but a convener of all perspectives. We host speakers with divergent opinions; we defend our faculty members’ rights to teach freely on their subjects; and we hold space for dissent, for protest, and for counter-protest. 

As I read through the CDPT’s report, I am reminded that our policies are meant to protect the space of open discourse, not to allow endorsement of a single viewpoint through their selective application. 

For these reasons, going forward, I will refrain from issuing statements on national, international, or geopolitical events, unless they have a direct bearing on the functions of our campus and its mission.

This does not mean that an institution must remain neutral on matters core to its educational mission or when the ability of its own students to participate in their education is challenged. In such matters, universities should respond, as UMass has in the past. And when our students face crises in their home cities, countries, or cultures, we will continue to provide direct support and resources. 

Caring for our community is done through actions, not statements that some may see as performative or hollow.

As always, I welcome your thoughts and counsel – as Prof. La Raja said in his Convocation speech, “To be a place of learning, we need you to raise your hand.” 

Sincerely,

Chancellor Javier Reyes