Most universities did not respond to their student encampment protests with violence. But it is worth asking why those who chose to unleash violence on their own students, faculty, and staff were justified in doing so.
If the point of a university is to educate students, for whom was the violence?
For sure some of it is just when things happened. The tiki torch boys went down under a fascist regime, when there was open political support for them. The anti-Israel protests are going down when there's regime opposition to them. That'll shape how institutions respond.
Universities get comparatively little public funding these days, making them beholden to private donors. One presumes some of the violence has been to try to appease those with deep pockets.
The traditional authoritarian model of education is violent.
Understanding British boarding school culture especially in reference to colonialism really helped make it clear to me how it operates.
It was an education in Whos In Charge
Those students were taught the consequences they could face if they dared look to the state of one of the most powerful countries in the world, and tell it to change what its doing
they were taught the conditions to the deal of their lives in that country
In Texas, it was for Greg Abbott, so he could screen the images during the next lege session to justify ever more intervention in “woke” UT Austin. Other campuses in TX had protests. Only one campus had riot police.
For me, UVA is the big one. The school was unwilling to use violence on the tiki torch Nazis, even after they surrounded a synagogue and the rabbi was forced to smuggle the Torah scrolls out before Shabbes, and were only fended off by a lone armed veteran from Antifa.
But Gaza protestors? Violence.
At Columbia, administrators have allegedly used The Center for Student Success & Intervention - an institution created to, make it easier to punish discriminatory speech in name of inclusion - to railroad pro-Palestine students prada.substack.com/p/total-wort...