Five steps universities should take in response to the Palestinian protests

Occupied buildings. Broken windows. Tent encampments. Anti-Semitic slogans. Masked rioters cheering on terrorist groups. The scenes at dozens of America’s most prestigious universities read like something out of a dystopian movie.

This is an emotional tableau, and much of the commentary reflects that. But blame and deviation don’t offer much of a path forward. What’s a campus leader to do? What better way than to dither, twist, and panic and call the local police?

There just might be.

It starts with clearing up a little confusion. Conflicts on campus this spring have sparked much discussion about free speech. It is vital that universities support free inquiry and a lively exchange of ideas. But, of course, masked mobs in tents are generally not seen as a vehicle for free inquiry or civil discussion.

It must be made clear that higher education institutions exist for a specific reason: to serve as spaces for teaching, learning, discourse, and scholarship. Their mission is not to serve as an idyllic backdrop for frustrated students (or masked non-students). Leaders need to be clear that performance art should not interfere with the organization’s core work, whatever the underlying agenda.

If we start there, what should leaders do?

First, be clear about why higher education institutions exist. The vast majority of students and faculty are there to engage in the core work of teaching and learning. That mission is why public institutions help underwrite thousands of public universities (and why public institutions provide huge loans, grants, and aid to private universities) .

Given that, campus leaders at universities like Columbia University and Northwestern University have canceled in-person classes or been bullied into favoring certain new faculty members for fear of agitators mocking their mission. It’s unusual to see. Campus leaders should guide students who refuse to honor their mission to perform in a more appropriate environment.

Second, institutions have every right (and obligation) to establish viewpoint-neutral time, place, and etiquette rules governing speech on campus. Campus leaders must equitably adopt and enforce far stricter guidelines for what is appropriate on college campuses. Regardless of the perspective at issue, leaders need to ensure that all speech is delivered at a time, in a place, and in a manner that duly respects teaching, learning, and free inquiry. there is. This means not using tents or encampments (which make it easier for non-student agitators to cause disturbances) and not disrupting classrooms, libraries, or lectures.

Third, leaders need to think seriously about the consequences of misbehavior. Much of the current confusion stems from students believing that no one is serious about enforcing the rules. That’s a reasonable conclusion for them. Over the past decade, we have consistently seen leaders hesitate and retreat in the face of disruption. This is a familiar challenge for educators. When authority figures appear intimidating or scary, some students may be tempted to test them. Leaders must make it clear that they will arrest, expel, or prosecute unscrupulous people. Such a stance will set clear boundaries while reassuring the silent 95 percent of students that the rules apply to everyone.

Fourth, campus leaders need to make clear that they understand why they are accused of flagrant hypocrisy. That’s because their institutions have spent the past decade in a moral panic over microaggressions, inappropriate pronouns, and appearances by conservative speakers. Campus leaders seemed surprisingly unperturbed as politically incorrect students and faculty were sanctioned and right-wing speakers were disinvited and shouted down.

The same rules should apply regardless of whether your view of the issue aligns with campus groupthink. Leaders must recognize that today’s tolerance of terrorist encampments and chaos constitutes a stunning U-turn and convince skeptics that policy will be managed more evenly from now on. be.

Fifth, campus leaders must articulate an institutional vision that can address these concerns and restore public trust. A commitment to free inquiry repudiates his ideologically charged DEI pledge, puts an end to politicized organizational statements, and does more to recruit an intellectually diverse faculty and student body. means to do the following. This involves a commitment to academic rigor and high expectations for both students and faculty. That means campuses must be places of active interaction and civil discussion, where we can interact respectfully, even when it’s uncomfortable. And that means getting students off their phones and teaching them what it means to engage as mature, educated adults.

This will not solve all problems on campus. But this is a starting point for leaders who want to do more than ignore criticism or call the police.

Frederick M. Hess is director of education policy research at the American Enterprise Institute. Michael Q. McShane is the research director at EdChoice. They are the authors of a new book, “Getting Education Right: A Conservative Vision for Improving Early Childhood, K–12, and College.”