What can the UvA learn about effective protest from Just Stop Oil?
The UvA regularly wonders which protest methods should be tolerated and which should not. Over the past year, pro-Palestine activists have organised protests, walk-outs, sit-ins and occupations. These actions have led to discussions about whether such methods are effective, appropriate or desirable. The activist movement Just Stop Oil could offer a useful perspective, says Cameron Brick.
While some in our community supported the protests’goals, others were uncomfortable with the methods, raising legitimate concerns about safety, academic freedom, and respect for the university environment. These debates often appeared to hinge on whether people approved of the protests or the protesters themselves.
However, an important question often gets lost: regardless of whether we approve of a protest’s cause or tactics, are the methods effective at achieving policy change? This tension between judging protests based on their approval and legitimacy versus their effectiveness is not unique to the UvA. Recent events in the United Kingdom offer a useful perspective through the activist movement Just Stop Oil.
Glueing
Just Stop Oil, a climate activist group, just announced that they are ending their campaign of disruptive actions. Their goal was to pressure the UK government to stop fossil fuel extraction, a position aligned with the International Energy Agency and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Just Stop Oil used methods like glueing themselves to roads and attaching themselves to infrastructure at oil facilities, disrupting sports and entertainment events, and targeting cultural icons without causing permanent harm. These non-violent, high-visibility actions made them a lightning rod for criticism.
Although public opinion was largely negative about Just Stop Oil, research by our group and others shows that such disruptive actions can successfully raise public concern about climate issues. In terms of influencing politicians, the picture is more mixed. While UK Labour has pledged to ban new oil and gas licenses, it remains unclear whether this shift was driven more by activism or broader political and economic forces. What’s clear is that Just Stop Oil managed to train new activists, gain media attention, and polarize public debate—a set of outcomes that other movements can learn from.
Avoiding disruptions
These lessons are relevant to protests at the UvA. Pro-Palestine activists targeting the College van Bestuur (the Executive Board governing the university) would likely be more effective than raising awareness or targeting other groups within the UvA, because the Executive Board makes the decisions about which research collaborations are allowed. This pressure may have been part of why the Executive Board announced in March 2025 that three projects with partners from China, Israel, and Hungary would not be continued or renewed in their current form or without additional risk-reducing measures.
Research suggests that protests are most effective when they apply continuous and escalating pressure to those with the power to make decisions. This was also seen in the A12 highway closures in The Hague by Extinction Rebellion NL, where persistent, disruptive actions forced climate issues onto the political agenda. In 2023, after an intense period of these blockades, there were multiple signs of political progress including a new estimate of fossil fuel subsidies from the former Ministry of Economic Affairs and Climate Policy and a motion in the Tweede Kamer that called on the government to phase out the fossil fuel subsidies. This momentum was halted by the current government, but it is worth recognizing how direct the connection was between these protests and these political changes. Similarly, UvA protestors are more likely to succeed if they focus their efforts on key decision makers like the Executive Board and maintain clear, persistent pressure while avoiding disruptions or harms that are unrelated to the cause.
Healthy democracy
Protecting the right to protest, even when we disagree with the cause or methods, is vital to a healthy democracy. Balancing that right with the desire for calm and order is an ongoing challenge that requires thoughtful dialogue rather than sudden pushbacks.
In the UK, tougher policing and sentencing have sharply raised the stakes for non-violent protest. Stricter policing and sentencing likely led to Just Stop Oil changing tactics. In the United Kingdom, non-violent protest actions such as blocking roads or disrupting events historically led to fines, community service, or short sentences. By contrast, Just Stop Oil activists have received multi-year prison terms that many observers argue are disproportionate to the actual harm caused (e.g., cleaning soup off of protective glass). These multi-year sentences are harsher than many sentences for assault, burglary, or corporate environmental violations. It’s important to recognize that the activist demands were consistent with international scientific recommendations, while government policy was not.
Disruptive protest can be widely criticized and still effective, and success depends on targeting the right decision makers and maintaining strategic pressure. At the UvA, as elsewhere, the form of the protest matters less than whether it effectively influences those in power. Last, we should be concerned about any changes to policing or sentencing that make protest less possible.
Cameron Brick is an assistant professor in social psychology at the UvA. He leads a research group focused on the behavioral science around environmental issues including how social interactions affect behavior, and how people respond to activism.
