The Barnard Dilemma

Last week’s storming and takeover of an academic building at Barnard College by 200 anti-Israel protesters—the second such time in a week, shutting down the library, relocating classes, and finally being cleared in response to a bomb threat—again brings into focus the need for colleges and universities to be prepared to enforce their codes of conduct to prevent similar events on their campuses.

The American Council of Trustees and Alumni’s (ACTA) guide, An Equal Space for All: A Trustee Guide to Preventing Encampments and Occupations on Campus, highlights the difference between peaceful assembly and campus occupations. It stresses the need for college and university leadership to act decisively in order to deter future disruptions. But even when an institution has clear policies restricting the time, place, and manner of protests to ensure campus order—as it should—and even when the penalties for noncompliance are severe (on paper at least), preventing the next campus occupation depends on carrying out disciplinary measures to the fullest extent when students act in violation of campus rules. The reason for this is that these demonstrations are intended to spread disruption and disorder. If future potential agitators do not feel that a campus will credibly mete out consequences, they will undoubtedly take advantage. Having a safe and orderly campus in the future depends on efficient and accurate identification of the culprits.

Photographs and videos of the protests at Barnard show a majority of the demonstrators hiding their identities with face masks, a practice commonly seen during disturbances at institutions across the nation. It makes identifying those who violate campus rules difficult or, at times, impossible. As ACTA’s guide reminds:

Depending on state law, private—and some public—institutions can ban the wearing of masks during a protest for the purpose of concealing one’s identity (as opposed to reasons of health). Such a policy is important because of the chaotic nature of campus occupations and the desire of some participants to evade discipline for breaking university rules.

Boards can support the safety of the campus community by eliminating obstacles that impede campus security and law enforcement. While face coverings have legitimate purposes in certain situations, there is a reason why many states for decades have had criminal statutes that prohibit concealing one’s identity while in public. Only during the COVID-19 pandemic did mask-wearing become more commonplace, as states amended, repealed, or temporarily suspended such laws. Yet trustees should consider a campus policy like ACTA’s Model University Anti-Masking Policy to make clear the specific, limited circumstances under which wearing a face covering is appropriate on campus. Relatively speaking, college campuses, even at state institutions, are more predictable environments than the public space at large, therefore, a simple, common sense policy can go a long way toward protecting community members.