Frequently Asked Questions about May 7 and 8, 2024
Were some community members sent trespass notices after being arrested?
It is the University of Massachusetts Police Department's practice to issue two-year trespass notices to unaffiliated individuals (e.g. non-students, staff, or faculty) who are arrested on campus; these notices can be appealed. Since 1980, UMPD has issued more than 3,000 such notices. There were 64 active trespass orders before May 7.
Due to an administrative error, a small number of students and one employee were also issued trespass notices. A small number of Five College students also erroneously received trespass notices. These notices have been revoked and UMPD has reached out to affected community members to apologize for the error. None of these community members are banned from campus.
What is the conduct status for students who were arrested on May 7-8?
Any arrest, by policy, results in a referral to the Student Conduct and Community Standards Office. Each case is adjudicated independently under the Code of Student Conduct. By policy, the student conduct process is confidential, and the university cannot comment on any individual case. The university’s process is separate and independent from the judicial process.
Has the university put any academic sanctions in place for arrested students?
No academic were put in place as a result of the arrests. Academic sanctions are based on GPA, not conduct.
Have any students involved in demonstrations had their diplomas withheld?
The only students arrested during the May 7-8 demonstrations who have had their diplomas withheld are those who have chosen to voluntarily postpone their conduct hearings, which is their right under the Code of Student Conduct. While the university cannot share individual student information, students must complete any outstanding obligations with the university (including the conduct process). In this instance, the Conduct Office tried to expedite the process so as not to affect graduation; however, as noted above, students have the right to voluntarily postpone their hearings. Exercising this right would result in the delay of a diploma being awarded.
Why were police called to the fortified encampment on May 7?
Nobody’s right to free speech or right to peacefully assemble was infringed upon. The university’s decision to engage law enforcement was based entirely on safety.
The construction of an unauthorized, fortified encampment in the center of a university campus is not protected speech. The university’s responsibility is to ensure the safety of the entire community; unilaterally walling off a section of our campus is disruptive and prevents the university from meeting that obligation. Even before the police were called, a counterdemonstrator was reportedly assaulted on the periphery of the encampment.
The university followed its standard, viewpoint-neutral policy when responding to unauthorized structures – demonstrators were given three warnings to dismantle the structures by the Demonstration Response and Safety Team (DRST), including a warning that the UMass Police Department (UMPD) might be called. Demonstrators rejected the warnings and were told they were trespassing; police arrived and gave multiple, additional lawful dispersal orders. Those that refused that order were fully aware that they were subject to potential arrest.
While the university has consistently and vigorously defended the right to free speech, the construction of a fortified encampment is not protected speech. The university’s actions have been and must be viewpoint-neutral; the goals and advocacy of those participating in this fortified encampment did not factor into the university’s decision.
Why were police on campus before negotiations had finished on May 7?
In the university’s response to both encampments, UMPD, a small number of Massachusetts State Police, and facilities staff were asked ahead of time to be on site and ready to support the removal of unauthorized structures if needed. This was identical to the university’s response to the first encampment only as a precautionary step, and only if needed.
The Massachusetts State Police, in response to their assessment of the situation during the May encampment, requested further assistance.
Chancellor Javier Reyes met with students from 4:30 to nearly 6 p.m. He did not ask UMPD to disperse the encampment until after 7 p.m. Before that request, other than two UMPD officers who spoke with demonstrators, police did not enter the encampment area.
Was the administration’s response to the encampments different than responses to previous demonstrations?
Every chancellor, including Chancellor Reyes and the 30 campus leaders that preceded him, has a responsibility to enforce the university’s policies in a consistent and entirely viewpoint-neutral manner over the course of their administration. Chancellor Reyes has been clear that he takes this responsibility seriously.
Why were non-UMass police present at the demonstration?
Given the size of the demonstration, including the presence of fortified barricades, UMPD worked with outside law enforcement agencies. The initial call for outside law enforcement support during the May encampment was identical to the April encampment.
Was the university response on May 7 quick to include police presence compared to the week prior?
It was not. The university followed the same protocol as during the first encampment; protesters were given multiple warnings and notices by the Demonstration Response and Safety Team. It was a full seven hours until after the first of six warnings (and a 90 minute meeting with demonstration representatives) until police issued a dispersal warning.
In both instances, UMPD requested the same initial level of support from outside agencies. UMPD (along with facilities staff) were prepared to respond if needed to dismantle the barricades. Additionally, approximately 18 members of the Massachusetts State Police (MSP) were initially on site for both the May and April responses. As the crowd grew surrounding the May fortified encampment, MSP made assessments on-site and called in additional support.
How many people were arrested on May 7?
A total of 134 people were arrested. Of those, approximately 70 have been identified as UMass students 4 as faculty and 2 as staff. Nearly 60 of the arrested individuals were neither students, faculty, nor staff of the university.
What was the basis for the arrests?
Law enforcement gave multiple dispersal orders to clear the South Lawn so that employees could dismantle and remove the barricades and tents. Anyone who chose to remain against those lawful orders was subject to arrest.
How many law enforcement officers were present on campus in response to the May 7 encampment?
The full response, by the time the fortified encampment was cleared, included approximately 160 MSP officers, 35 UMPD officers and 14 local officers.
Were tear gas, tasers, or any other crowd-dispersal tools used on May 7?
No.
Did the Chancellor meet with demonstrators to discuss their demands?
Yes. The Chancellor and members of his leadership team met with three students and a faculty member representing demonstrators at the encampment for more than 90 minutes on the afternoon of May 7. Demonstration representatives ended that meeting. As the Chancellor wrote in his campus message,
Earlier today, members of my leadership team and I met with representatives of the demonstrators who have established an unauthorized encampment on the South Lawn of the Student Union. Over more than an hour and a half, we discussed a series of demands ranging from financial divestment to the status of students’ civil court cases following the October 2023 Whitmore arrests. I also assured the student protest leaders that I am actively reviewing the cases submitted for Code of Student Conduct appeals related to the arrests that have come before me as of today.
I impressed upon the student protest leaders that their encampment must be removed and offered to continue ongoing discussions in the weeks and months ahead to bridge our differences. I also shared with the students that the Board of Trustees has agreed to consider the UMass Amherst student trustee’s petition calling for divestment from defense-related firms at their next board meeting in June. The UMass Foundation Board, which manages the university’s endowment, also received a request to consider divestment. The students rejected these offers from the campus and the Board of Trustees.
Additionally, in response to questions from the students at the meeting, my team was able to clarify that there are no criminal cases pending against students arrested in October; all infractions have been reduced to civil penalties. We also agreed to seek clarification on the status of those civil proceedings.