Given that universities have allowed for the voicing of dissent in ways other institutions have not, the University of Toronto’s recent decision to close the St. George campus due to the G20 summit has surprised more than a few.
The University’s memo names several “restricted access measures” that are to take place between June 21st and 27th, including the rescheduling of certain exams, the removal of students from designated residences, and a full-scale four day campus closure beginning on the 23rd. The decision was made following the City of Toronto’s transfer of the official G20 protest zone from Trinity Bellwoods Park to Queen’s Park North, which is in close proximity to the campus. Vice provost Cheryl Misak states that although the University “respect[s] the legitimacy of peaceful protest,” it knows that such protests “may be associated with violence, tear gas, arrests, disruption and damage to buildings,” such as the events at last year’s summit in Pittsburgh. For this reason the university thinks it prudent to “protect those students, staff, and faculty who do not wish to participate or get caught up in these protests.”
While the University of Toronto’s fear for the safety of its staff and students seems legitimate in light of the events at the University of Pittsburgh during the G20 summit in September 2009, a closer look leads to a very different conclusion. Other than the obvious disruption the campus closure causes to the activities of students, staff, and faculty, none of whom were consulted before the decision was made, serious implications surrounding the school’s stance towards protestors and social justice issues exist.
While the university does not explicitly support or denounce the G20 summit, its decision to close campus to “protect” its students from violent protest represents an indirect condemnation of protest activities and a refusal to allow the campus to function as a space for the circulation of dissenting ideas. The campus closure forced the Council of Canadians’ (COC) forum on the G20, which was to take place in Convocation Hall and challenge the G20 agenda, to relocate to an off-campus location. This move both literally and symbolically removes the space for free and varied G20-centred discussion from campus, effectively disassociating the university from the issues surrounding the summit.
Not only does the closure affect on-campus educational initiatives such as the COC G20 forum but such an action only increases the stigma already surrounding protesters as irrational, radical, or violent individuals. The school’s memo makes a clear distinction between “students, staff and faculty,” whose safety must be “protected,” and protesters, who cause violence and are a threat to the university. This distinction distances those associated with the university from protest activities, ignoring and masking the fact that many “students, staff and faculty” will be participating in G20 protests, and that these individuals will not be able to organize safely on campus. Furthermore, mentioning the violent events at the Pittsburgh University protest last year, the university does not mention that it was police, not protesters, who initiated and sustained violence.
On Friday September 25 at 10:30 p.m., Pittsburgh police in full riot gear stormed the University of Pittsburgh campus, and indiscriminately arrested 110 people. They hit students with batons, fired gas canisters into dormitories, and harassed G20 protesters.
In addition, the university’s choice to focus on describing the violence of protesting detracts attention from the many legitimate reasons groups feel the need to challenge the G20 in the first place. Focusing on the act of protest rather than on the reasons behind it allows the U of T to ignore the important political issues which should instead be discussed in the university community.
If the university’s main concern is safety from violence, it should work towards securing campus as a police-free space for peaceful protest rather than expelling its students and leaving them vulnerable to police brutality. The school’s decision to close its campus indirectly works against the ability of protesters to communicate their ideas clearly and peacefully by creating anti-protest stigmas and silencing dissent. We should expect more from a world-class institution that claims to create the critical, creative citizens of tomorrow.
