Kirsty McHenry | Suppression does not equal solution
For a university that appears to be very committed to maintaining social safety and a ‘positive environment’, the UvA seems rather quick to set the dogs on its students, says our columnist Kirsty McHenry.
In the eyes of the UvA and the authorities, regardless of capacity or alternative priorities, the key to keeping the peace begins with keeping students under control. Although there is currently a recorded shortage of police officers in the city, estimated to be 300 fewer than is needed by Mayor Halsema, it often feels like the police are omnipresent. Indeed, at the UvA this past year it is as though the cops never really left campus. With police squads regularly showing up on campus and drones surveilling students from above, can Halsema – or the Executive Board of the UvA (the CvB) for that matter – still claim that this is what democracy looks like?
Safe basis
The best way for the Board to establish a “safe basis” for students would likely be for them to take Halsema and the other members of the Triangle off speed dial. In other words, calling the police is typically the UvA’s immediate response to demonstrations, even when doing so means escalating the situation. It is telling that, in a city short on police officers, shutting down pro-Palestine demonstrations appears to be at the top of the agenda.
It’s evident from the police’s actions that their brutal response to the demonstrations and prompt destruction of the protesters’ signs and symbols is not solely rooted in professional obligation. To add to that, the traumatic experiences of police brutality during the 2024 Encampments are still widely remembered. All this contributes to the growing animosity between the police and the protesters, further heightening tensions.
Business as usual
The Board has always asserted that they oppose disruption, but how they choose to respond to the pro-Palestine demonstrations often tends to add to the flames. If the Board’s goal is a return to normalcy, then their technique is flawed. Rather than engaging in a dialogue with the demonstrators, the Board instead favours suppressive methods that normalise violence against students and the infringement of democratic rights. Moreover, if the past week is anything to go by, than we may have to expect “business as usual” to consist of police brutality, snatchings, and surveillance. Irrespective of what the Board might intend, such harsh measures have effects that extend beyond the select group of dissident students they aim to target. Whether students are involved in demonstrating or not, the repression is felt collectively. And, with no end in sight, it appears we may all have to get used to walking to class under drone surveillance.
Yet, despite the Board’s repressive response, the student demonstrators insist they have no intention of backing down. And while the Board continues to project a tough exterior, the severity of their methods are likely to take an increasing toll on students and staff. It’s doubtful that the Board will be able to rely on the police to handle the “dirty work” of subduing the demonstrations forever. If a permanent solution is to be reached then, eventually, they will have to engage in a dialogue with the demonstrators. Though the choice of how to go about this ultimately remains with the Board, their decision will be emblematic of the kind of decisions we should anticipate at the UvA going forward.
