Whether one is browsing Toronto’s news headlines or walking past Convocation Hall in their cap and gown, there is one thing that has taken centre stage on campus — the encampment at King’s College Circle.
Since May 2, U of T Occupy for Palestine’s (O4P) encampment had been growing in size and support day by day. However, on May 23, President Meric Gertler gave the protesters an ultimatum that the administration noted was negotiated in “good faith.” O4P’s student protesters had 24 hours to accept the ultimatum, but believing that it was dealt with in bad faith, they rejected it.
On May 24, Gertler’s administration issued a trespass notice to the protesters, warning them that they had until 8:00 am on May 27 to leave the premises. The protesters refused to do so. Thus, at the time of writing, the administration is seeking an injunction order from the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (OSCJ), with the hearing scheduled for June 19–20.
If the OSCJ grants the injunction, it would authorize the Toronto Police Service (TPS) to clear the camps. The recent escalations have shocked The Varsity’s Editorial Board. We view the administration’s decision to clear the encampments as a way to find a ‘quick fix’ to the protests rather than uprooting the real issue: the university’s divestment policies, which, in our opinion, marginalize student voices in conversation about institutional change.
Without providing students with a fair shot at negotiations, it is clear to us that Gertler and his administration have been dealing with the encampment protesters in bad faith.
The problem lies within
On June 9, Gertler emphasized the university’s adherence to U of T’s Policy on Social and Political Issues with Respect to University Divestment in an online update on the encampment. However, we at the Editorial Board see this policy to be severely inadequate.
The policy affirms that the university will not invest in socially injurious actions, but “social injury” does not include “doing business with other companies which are themselves engaged in socially injurious activities.” This means that U of T can conduct business with companies that are committing socially injurious actions as long as it is not directly involved.
Furthermore, university members must undergo what we see as a stiflingly bureaucratic process if they wish to raise issues about the university’s investments.
The process, as outlined by the policy, is two-fold: complainants must prepare “a convincing brief establishing the case” and then present evidence of “general concern,” which includes securing 300 endorsing signatories. Only 200 of those signatories can come from a single university constituency — students, teaching staff, administrative staff, or alumni. The remaining 100 must come from at least two other constituencies, each with a minimum of 25 signatures.
Once the signatories are collected, the President will establish an “ad hoc committee” in which a senior officer “designated by the President” will determine if the briefs are “vexatious or frivolous.”
But therein lies the problem. With the President essentially having full control over who can sit on the committee, we see these review committees as nothing but puppet voices of the administration. Since the President makes the final decisions after the committee’s recommendations, we wonder if anything can be “vexatious or frivolous” if he says so.
As President Gertler’s predecessor, David Naylor, noted to the Toronto Star, “the ultimate decision-maker is the president.”
Similarly, the ultimatum that Gertler proposed to the protesters on May 23 outlined that the encampment’s student representatives can nominate qualified individuals for an Advisory Committee tasked with conducting a review of divestment options. However, the final decision of membership is made by the Executive Committee of Governing Council, “on the recommendation of the President.” The Advisory Committee, additionally, would “be chaired by a senior University officer,” and the President will make the decisions regarding the next steps after considering the committee’s report. It is no wonder to The Varsity’s Editorial Board that the student protesters would reject this offer.
In U of T’s standard policy on divestment, whether the university’s investments in an “undesirable activity” — or socially injurious actions — are “significant” is determined through two ways. The committee will consider the magnitude of the financial holdings both as a fraction of all university investments and in relation to the holding’s market capitalization.
What we find the most absurd about the policy is that the university’s participation in an undesirable activity is “normally” deemed significant only if more than “ten per cent of the [university’s] revenues are derived from the undesirable activity.”
But how can we quantify the morality of possibly participating in genocide? It would be abominable and devoid of humanity to weigh the life of a Palestinian child against a “ten per cent” metric of “undesirable activity.”
As of writing, our understanding is that O4P did not follow the policy’s formalities to communicate their calls for divestment. Nevertheless, we view these divestment protocols to be a flawed system that affects dissenting voices to the administration, as the President has the final say on the review process.
A slow, bureaucratic process may have its time and place, but not during a genocide.
Instead of acknowledging the institutional shortfalls that have led to this stalemate at King’s College Circle, Gertler has simply decided to clear the encampment. We see it as a decision that disregards the widespread support for the protesters’ cause, which is bolstered by mass student demonstrations, faculty support including the Jewish Faculty Network, solidarity from student and labour unions, and alumni endorsement.
Cops are not the solution
Deploying cops as a bandaid to the current situation without tending to the root cause behind the encampment will only allow a system of violence to fester.
If the OSCJ grants an injunction, the TPS is authorized to “arrest and remove persons, objects, and structures” of the encampment. However, we are concerned about the potential deployment of the TPS, given their history of violence toward marginalized communities and pro-Palestinian protesters off-campus.
On May 5, members of the Jewish Defence League (JDL), a recognized right-wing terrorist group in the US, counter-protested against the encampment. The JDL’s presence was jarring in itself, but what was even more shocking was that TPS officers allowed the group to protest rather than escort them off the premises. On May 5, Canada’s Red Dress Day, a woman protesting with the JDL was recorded telling an Indigenous woman drumming and singing in solidarity with the encampment to “get out of our country.”
As documented, TPS officers simply formed a line between pro-Palestine protesters and JDL members, suggesting to us that the police believe the two groups deserve an equal platform to protest. The officers send an appalling and dangerous message when the latter is a listed terrorist group in the US. We have already seen the TPS’ clear disregard for the well-being of pro-Palestinian protesters, and as students, it is hard for us to trust them to clear the encampment safely and dutifully.
Furthermore, we watched in horror when videos of police officers clearing the encampments at the University of Alberta made headlines last month. The Edmonton Police Service (EPS) was verbally hostile and physically assaulted protesters with batons, chemical irritants, and non-lethal rounds. The EPS arrested three protesters, and one student was hospitalized.
If President Gertler wants to break his students’ trust, like the University of Alberta’s President Bill Flanagan, he is on exactly the right path.
U of T’s standoff with protesters has become so tense that Amnesty International Canada voiced their concerns about the possibility of police deployment. Ketty Nivyabandi — one of the Secretary Generals of Amnesty International Canada — asserted that “law enforcement, if called to the encampment, must prioritize the protection and facilitation of the rights to peaceful protest and free expression.”
Nivyabandi also emphasized that dispersing a protest should only be an “extraordinary measure of last resort” that is “in response to widespread and serious violence that cannot be reasonably addressed through more peaceful measures.”
So, President Gertler, tell us: what will you do to ensure the safe dispersal of protesters at King’s College Circle if you deploy police officers? If, in our opinion, these negotiations have not been made in “good faith,” how can the administration proceed as if they have reached a stage of “last resort”?
U of T, uphold your promise of justice
U of T’s mission statement exploits buzzwords and catchlines such as commitments to “vigilant protection for individual human rights” and “justice.” To us, it now all rings with painful irony when the human rights organization, Amnesty International Canada, had to pre-emptively warn of violence.
President Gertler must stop pulling the wool over our eyes by hiding behind carefully crafted policies that smother student voices, while his administration claims that their deals are made in “good faith.” It is time for U of T to address the unfair governance policies which have led student protesters to put their safety on the line in King’s College Circle.
There will be no turning back once police officers are deployed to clear the encampment. With immense pro-Palestinian support from students, alumni, and faculty, a brutal show of power from the administration is likely to fundamentally change the dynamic of our campus. The Varsity’s Editorial Board believes it will take a long time to mend this betrayal of trust, a process that cannot begin without a deep-seated reflection on institutional failure.
