Pro-Hamas protests at Indiana University

Indiana University was right to step in and maintain order, but weakness afterward is unacceptable.

As has been the case nationwide, pro-Hamas demonstrators at Indiana University decided to occupy Dunn Meadow with tents on April 26. Given the homeless problem in Bloomington, banning tents on campus was a wise policy. There was and is a high probability that the camp will become a homeless camp. We do not need discarded heroin needles all over university property, nor do we need people openly using illegal drugs on campus or engaging in public defecation. Homeless men have been arrested for sexually assaulting female students, and the university has both a moral obligation and a legal obligation under Title IX to stop that from happening.

Protests are fine and even the most loathsome people still have the right to free speech that a state university is not permitted to unreasonably restrict beyond time, place and manner restrictions. Setting up and occupying a shantytown on campus should not be considered free speech. No demonstration should be permitted to deny the use of a public space to students, faculty staff or the general public.

But while this is a good policy, changing it the day before the pro-Hamas protests is a little shady. That policy should have been put in place after the "Peace Camp" made a mess of Dunn Meadow in 2001/2002, or the university should have realized the need for it when "Occupy Bloomington" made a huge and expensive mess of People's Park in 2011, just a block west of the Sample Gates. The pro-Hamas protesters feel like they are targeted, and that perspective is not unreasonable.

Indiana University's weakness has not helped. As of May 1, tents were covering Dunn Meadow before 7 a.m. Were they there all night long? If the university is going to set a rule prohibiting tents, then they need to enforce the rule. Creating a new rule and not enforcing it makes the administration and campus police look impotent and encourages further lawless activity up to and including violence. If the university administration does not respect its own rules, why should anyone else?

Some have complained about the police response, especially snipers on the roof of the Indiana Memorial Union. But you have to consider just how bad things have gotten elsewhere. I cannot imagine the snipers had any intention of opening fire unless it was absolutely necessary, but having precautions in place in case campus protests got out of control is wise. If there had not been the necessary force in place and a riot started, the same people would likely condemn the university and the police for not being prepared.

Now is not the time to go wobbly. It has gotten so chaotic and violent at other universities that they have canceled graduation and in-person classes. It would be a major black eye for Indiana University had they not cracked down, and it would invite interference from the state legislature in a deep red state with a Republican supermajority in both chambers of the legislature. Indiana University can protect free speech while not allowing Dunn Meadow to degenerate into a disaster, and allowing everyone to use the space for political, cultural, religious and recreational activities.