[Salon] The Student Spring: from Columbia to KCL -

The Student Spring: from Columbia to KCL Summary: a student at King’s College London reflects on the global student protest movement and how university administrations are suppressing pro-Palestine protests by invoking ‘safety concerns’. We thank Asmaa Abo Baker El-Fiky for today’s newsletter. Asmaa is an undergraduate in the Department of History, King’s College London with an interest in Middle East politics. With Israel now ithe eighth month of their offensive the genocide of Gaza unfolds more ruthlessly with each passing day. And as the war intensifies, with it so too the suppression of student activism in support of Palestine. Beginning with Columbia University, students have responded to what is now being called ‘The Student Spring’, spreading their encampments from America, to Australia, to Canada, to France and to Britain. These students have all encamped for the same reasons: ethical investment policies, increased transparency, academic freedom and support for Palestinian rights and education. A growing similarity can easily be recognised in the response from university administrations to the student encampments. It is a silence about the atrocities of the IDF in Gaza and a superficial effort to appear committed to free speech whilst in effect suppressing students under the guise of ‘safety’ measures. Universities have repeatedly cited safety as a reason to end the encampments, framing the protests as a risk. LSE’s recent legal battle regarded the students’ tents as an “intolerable fire risk”. This rhetoric only masks ongoing efforts to stifle the movement. The arrest of 16 students during a sit-in at the University of Oxford on 23 May exemplifies the tensions and activism of university campuses regarding the student encampment movement. Despite the administration's claims of ‘safety’ concerns, the protesters have emphasised their peaceful intentions and the urgency of their cause. The administration’s use of the term ‘safety’ to justify decisions is a piece of hypocrisy that makes me think of the IDF and its claim that it takes “precautionary measures” to lessen civilian casualties. It appears that most, if not all, universities here in the UK have ethical investment policies – over 70% of these universities have worked to implement such policies. However, their ethical efforts mainly apply to fossil fuels and tobacco while issues such as investments into arms manufacturers are swept under the rug. King’s College London’s (KCL) ethical investment policy reveals glaring inconsistencies. In March 2021, KCL divested from fossil fuels, citing a mission to serve society and ensure a positive future. However, this commitment does not extend anywhere close to the ongoing humanitarian disaster and destruction of Gaza. Speakers such as Dr. Azzam Tamimi are actively denied access to campuses according to "security concerns," whilst Islamophobic speakers and former IDF soldiers are allowed free rein to offer events for the student cohort. It is a double standard which has only revealed selective approaches to free speech and safety, a bias which extends beyond university boundaries. Independent candidate for Islington North Jeremy Corbyn joins LSE students in support of their encampment for the people of Gaza, June 17, 2024 [@jeremycorbyn] On the 11th of June 2024 at 7:20 pm, a disturbing incident unfolded at King's College where five students attempted to enter The Great Hall to exercise their legal right to protest on university grounds. The encampment has since revealed that KCL’s security personnel responded with immediate and excessive physical force, including shoving, elbowing and forcibly closing doors on the students, resulting in several injuries. Victims of the tactics have said that the Head of Security issued direct threats of violence, a hostility that starkly contrasts with the ongoing negotiations to ‘safeguard’ student protesters. KCL’s commitment to peaceful and ethical standards appear to be amiss when it comes to their own students. Following the UK’s call for a general election, Rishi Sunak’s campaign expectedly enough omitted almost any mention of Palestine. During a televised debate with Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, on June 4, 2024, Sunak’s response of committing to “getting more aid into Gaza and building towards a lasting settlement with a two-state solution” and supporting “Israel’s right to defend itself” rings hollow. Francesca Albanese’s statement on the international community's failure to hold Israel accountable thus perpetuating the suffering and injustice faced by Palestinians is both accurate and strikes a chord with many. There is a critical need for immediate intervention to prevent further atrocities and for leaders of the Global North to stop repeating what is considered safe to say and speak out against the genocide. The student-led encampments in support of Palestine at universities today draw significant parallels to the anti-apartheid protests at the University of Michigan and Columbia from the mid-1970s to the late 1980s. These historical protests were part of a nationwide movement demanding university divestment from corporations with ties to apartheid South Africa. The legacies of these movements continue to inspire contemporary activism and eerily show how easily past concerns become relevant to the present. The impact of student activism extends beyond university policies, influencing the global movement for justice. The resilience and determination of the UK students and their peers worldwide are a testament to the strength of collective action. This movement, peaceful yet powerful, demonstrates the capacity of young people to effect significant change. As the Israeli offensive and the killing of civilians continues cultural erasure in Gaza persists. The student encampments worldwide serve as a vital part of a larger, interconnected movement advocating for Palestinian justice. Will universities heed the call for ethical consistency and human rights or continue to hide behind the veneer of impartiality while concealing their true intentions behind claims of safety?