Campus Protests: Working Together to Meet Peace with Peace
There is a long-standing history of student activists demanding social change through protest on college campuses.
From the student-driven removal of Harvard College’s president in 1639, through the civil rights and anti-war demonstrations of the 1960s and 70s, to the anti-apartheid demonstrations in the 80s, college and university students have always been a force for change.
Most institutions of higher learning have well developed polices and processes when it comes to allowing free expression. But the events of 7 October 2023 sparked a new era of free speech that set many schools on their heels—forcing not only a deep assessment of what free expression was, but a reckoning with how to respond to it both within the values of the institution and the expectations of the law.
On that day in October, Hamas and its supporters launched an attack on Israel from Gaza, killing 1,200 Israelis and taking 240 hostages. The inevitable Israeli Defense Forces counterattack into Gaza has killed more than 43,000 Gazans and stirred up outrage across many American communities.
Finding themselves at the epicenter of much of the protest activity, colleges and universities have had to make hard decisions on how to respond. While each institution was presented with unique circumstances and made their decisions based on those circumstances, the results were of varying success.
In July 2024, The New York Times reported that more than 3,100 people were arrested in relation to protests at college campuses across the United States. Many of the charges associated with these arrests were dropped, but university administrators remained on edge. In addition to the fallout generated by arresting activists, many campuses experienced weekslong encampments and extensive property damage. But other universities and colleges also experienced protests, demonstrations, and free expression events that—while they undoubtedly caused disturbances—did not result in arrests.
Some of their success in these situations was because they had the experiences of other universities to reflect on. Much like the golfer who is second to putt, these administrators got to see the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of the line chosen by the previous institution’s administrators. But some of these institutions’ officials simply choose a different path, which could be instructive to other administrators as they work to ensure the security of their communities.
One such organization is Saint Louis University (SLU) in Saint Louis, Missouri. This story of SLU’s journey through the spring semester of the 2023–2024 academic year provides an example of how collaboration and partnership can effectively limit long lasting effects of protests gone wrong.
The Clock Tower Accords
SLU has a history of unique responses to community free expression. Established in 1818, the Jesuit, Midwestern university touts that at the very core of its values is the concept of social justice. It encourages its students to stand up for those in need while respecting the ideas of others.
The challenges of this stance came to light in October 2014 after a police officer killed Black teenager Michael Brown in nearby Ferguson, Missouri. Tensions were further exacerbated by the shooting of Vonderrit Myers, Jr., the son of a SLU employee, by a police officer working as private security shortly after. More than 1,500 people, including students, faculty, and staff, participated in a protest march that ended at SLU’s clock tower, a focal point on the campus.
While most of those involved participated in a general protest activity, some began to set up an encampment, which the university’s administration allowed to stay. As expected, there was tremendous pressure to physically remove the individuals involved. Safety, security, and hygiene concerns were all expressed, but the people participating in the encampment were peaceful. Instead of having them physically removed, the administration actively engaged in daily conversations to gain a better understanding of what the protestors wanted. The result was what has become known as the Clock Tower Accords, a signed commitment by the university to inclusion and social justice. The 13-point accords concluded six days of peaceful occupation at the campus clock tower. This course of action also set the tone for future protests.
Fast forwarding 10 years to the pro-Gaza/Palestinian protests of 2023–2024, SLU was no different than other institutions in that it had to maneuver through accusations of anti-Semitism and Islamophobia, pressure from the community to stop all protests, and a push to allow unlimited free expression. Social and political challenges existed as well; students, faculty, staff, and alumni tended to strongly support one side or the other in the conflict, causing significant stress on attempts to come together to discuss issues. It was not lost on the university community that safety and security had to be a primary focus as they maneuvered through these challenges. SLU administrators reached back to the responses to the clock tower encampment and rapidly engaged in collaborative efforts—not to stop the protests but to enable free expression while ensuring the operations of the university were hindered as little as possible.
A Proactive Protest Plan
Upon receiving word of an initial protest early in November 2023, SLU administrators mobilized a small team of professionals to respond. The team, composed mostly of public safety staff supplemented by student affairs and marketing and communications personnel, provided guidance to the participants and monitored the protest. It was apparent early on that this would be a recuring event in the coming months, signaling the need for a more robust and formal response team.
A larger group of staff and faculty members was immediately brought together. The mission of this group—which included public safety leadership alongside participants from emergency preparedness, campus operations, university counsel, marketing and communications, and student affairs staff—was to identify, plan for, and implement pre-intervention, event response, and post-intervention processes. From a security standpoint, the intent was to expand beyond a traditional stance of response-only and engage with known participants to proactively diminish the impact on campus operations.
Observers attending the first protest were able to identify participating students and community leaders. This gave the pre-event intervention team the ability to initiate conversations that clarified university processes and expectations, assessed the cohesiveness of the protestors, and—possibly most importantly—built trust by actively listening to what the protestors wanted. This was the first and most significant success in SLU’s semester-long journey. These students became willing to give university officials notification of upcoming protest events, making it possible to take necessary steps to protect campus operations.
Collaboration and partnership can effectively limit long lasting effects of protests gone wrong.
Post-event teams mirrored pre-intervention activities by actively engaging with protest participants, talking through incidents and challenges that may have occurred during the event, explaining why certain actions were taken, and offering additional support. This was especially effective because it signaled to protestors that although efforts were made to curtail their impact on campus operations, the university was willing to listen and, where possible, take action centered on the activists’ goals.
SLU’s public safety department functioned as the response team staffing the events with senior leadership, up to 20 field officers, and an emergency preparedness team working out of an emergency operations center (EOC). Student affairs and communication staff supplemented the officers assigned to work the protest, but public safety leadership took the lead. Though SLU’s public safety department is armed, it is not a sworn police department, which somewhat limits actions it can take.
For example, department officers could take someone into custody but could not directly cite the individual for any municipal code violations. Due to successful pre- and post-event collaboration, law enforcement presence was not requested for most of the protests on SLU’s campus.
Public safety personnel accompanied by student engagement personnel met with the protest leaders at every protest, advising them that violence, calls for violence (including property damage), and threats of any kind would not be tolerated. Protesters were also advised that if they needed assistance, such as first aid or breaking up fights, it would be given.
Behind the scenes, several buildings were locked, and public safety personnel were posted there to assist those who genuinely needed access. The buildings locked were selected due to potentially high impact to campus academic operations and to protect university VIPs.
Many protestors were very angry that they had been denied access to those spaces. They felt that—as paying students—they should have the right to access any building they wanted, anytime they wanted, for any activity they chose. On this point university officials stood their ground, clarifying that while they were committed to free expression, they would also take steps to limit the overall impact on campus operations and the activities of those not participating in the protest. The practice was repeated in subsequent events, and protestors significantly limited their attempts to occupy space inside buildings.
Changing Tactics for Escalating Tensions
SLU’s approach to free speech and protest events proved to be very successful throughout the semester. However, Saint Louis area protestors shifted their college campus approach on 27 April 2024 significantly, raising the angst of university leadership once again. On that day, protestors made several attempts to set up an encampment at the nearby Washington University, resulting in more than 80 arrests.
Protest organizations began to call for similar actions on SLU’s campus, and eventually a protest was planned for 1 May 2024. What complicated the matter further was the active participation of local government officials in the protests. These officials were associated with SLU in one way or another, intensifying the pressure on planning teams by adding political pressures. This was to be a true test of what many considered SLU’s unconventional approach to these types of events.
SLU’s protest team had a short period to plan for this event and relied on its previous successes as the anchor for the university’s response strategy. The team could not ignore the fact that there could be attempts to set up an encampment or take over a building. Being less than three weeks from commencement when the campus would be visited by thousands of family members and friends, the pressure on university leadership was immense, but the university stood by its commitment to collaboration.
University leadership met with government officials who would be participating and discussed potential actions. Public safety staff engaged with local and federal law enforcement to obtain as much intelligence as possible and to coordinate response. Pre-event intervention teams reached out to their contacts to gather information and offer alternatives to protesting students. All information was shared internally and resulted in the university staying the course with its approach to protests—with one distinct difference.
Unlike other protests on SLU’s campus where SLU students took the lead, there was the potential that this one would be led by non-students. All coordination was being made with student groups, but there was a question as to whether they could retain control of the event. SLU officials were confident that student activists’ leadership limited the potential for significant property damage, attempts to occupy buildings, or create encampments. If an external group took control, there was great concern about property damage and an attempt to set up an encampment—as had been the case at Washington University a few days earlier.
A second factor that SLU’s protest team took advantage of was the fact that students were genuinely concerned about being arrested. To address both these factors, the team coordinated far more extensively than usual with the Saint Louis Metropolitan Police Department (SLMPD).
Overall, SLU stuck to its tradition of allowing and supporting free expression. Many faculty and staff marched to show support for their students and back them up if others attempted to take over the protest. Public safety officers conducted themselves in the same manner protestors had become used to.
Unlike in previous protests, though, university leadership maintained a presence in the EOC to be able to make decisions and give direction quickly. SLMPD leadership posted with SLU’s public safety leadership, and traffic control units from the police department quietly positioned themselves at strategic locations in case protesters attempted to block the main city street running through campus. A contingent of city police officers were placed on standby to respond only if needed. Police personnel were not visible to any of the protestors. The intent of their presence was not to intimidate but to be strategically positioned to respond quickly if SLU officials requested it.
The second change was the distribution of public statements from SLU and St. Louis city leaders about the planned protest.
SLU President Fred Pestello, PhD, sent a letter to the SLU community committing to allowing a peaceful protest. In this letter, he explained:
“I write today to share—and emphasize the need for—a sense of calm and a commitment to our Jesuit mission and values. As we did in October 2014, we intend to meet peace with peace, permitting our students to engage in advocacy while ensuring that the work of the institution continues.”
Pestello continued by reinforcing the expectation of conduct of those participating in the protest.
Saint Louis Mayor Tishaura Jones also issued a statement addressing the planned protest and defining SLMPD’s role in any response. She reinforced that the SLMPD would only be used if university officials requested the department, and she committed to the community that force would not be used on non-violent protestors.
Put to the Test
On 1 May 2024, just before 6:00 p.m., hundreds of protestors began to gather at the clock tower. The protest that ensued lasted several hours. Protestors marched around campus. They then moved to Grand Avenue—a main city thoroughfare that runs through SLU’s campus—and blocked it. Because of all the pre-coordination, SLMPD traffic enforcement was able to quickly divert traffic around the group, resulting in little inconvenience to commuters.
For approximately an hour, the protestors chanted, shared stories, and called for action. A small group of counter-protesters stood nearby silently, holding Israeli flags. SLU’s public safety department monitored all activity, ready to intervene if necessary. After the last speaker, a hush came over the crowd, and many of the protesters lined up to pray. After prayers, the protestors stood, gathered their things, and marched back to the clock tower where they peacefully dispersed.
Saint Louis University’s consistent approach to protests and free expression demonstrations proved to be effective for multiple events that occurred over a seven-month period. While this is not the only approach organizational leadership can take when addressing protests and demonstrations on or near their facilities, SLU has a long history of community engagement and the resources to implement it. Individual organizations faced with this type of activity must take action that is appropriate for their specific circumstances. But SLU’s approach shows that, when possible, collaboration with both internal and external parties can have a positive effect on the ultimate outcome of these types of events.
Melinda Heikkinen is the associate vice president/chief for public safety and parking and cards services at Saint Louis University. She served as the senior public safety official leading protest response on SLU’s campus during the 2023–2024 academic year.
