Duke Deploys “Pickets, Protests, and Demonstrations” Policy to Silence Dissent

8 JANUARY 2025

Duke has escalated its repression against pro-Palestine, anti-genocide protest. Seven members of the Duke community (students and faculty) will be called before the University Judicial Board for hearings that decide whether there will be punishments for nonviolent vocal protest on West Campus on the evening of November 19, 2024. Potential consequences for students range from suspensions to expulsions, among others. For faculty, the hearings determine whether or not they will be fired.[1]

In a November 21, 2024 email sent to the entire Duke community, the Provost promised that a nameless group of administrators would conduct a nonspecific “investigation” of the protest, which included about 50 people outside and inside the Social Sciences Building, against former Israeli Attorney General Avichai Mandelblit, who “spent much of his career in the Israeli Defense Forces Legal System and also served as Chief Military Advocate General.”[2] The event, billed as “A Conversation,” was sponsored by the soft-money Program in American Grand Strategy at Duke as well as the Duke Provost Office and the Duke Center for Jewish Studies. Protesters inside and outside provided a counter-narrative to this longtime representative of a country committing an unadulterated live-streamed genocide.[3]

Prior to the 2024-25 school year, Duke joined countless university administrations panicking against rising student protests and encampments across the US in a coordinated effort to shut down anti-genocide protests, and dissent against university complicity/support for genocide, as universities worked with the same legal and ideological advisors.[4] The result at Duke, a new “Pickets, Protests, and Demonstrations” policy and committee, bans protests the university does not authorize and threatens people with disciplinary and legal action for participating in or attending such protests.

The PPD policy is ambiguously worded, internally contradictory, and even in direct conflict with other university policies, such as those in the Faculty Handbook.[5] Moreover, its application to the November 19 protest is opaque. Out of approximately 50 Duke community members who gathered, on what basis were seven people chosen? It appears that the Duke administration wants to make an example of select community members in order to intimidate and silence all organized dissent against the genocide. This follows over a year of Duke administrative repression, threats, and instructions to delimit questions and stifle speech advocating for Palestinian liberation from Israeli siege, genocide, and settler-colonialism backed by US military, financial, and moral support. These acts at Duke occurred largely behind closed doors but were directly experienced and documented by tens of students, faculty, and staff across university divisions. 

PPD purportedly balances “academic freedom” with “order.” But when one reads the policy, this farcical distinction quickly breaks down. For instance, the university separates “noise” from “speech,” and yet, the provost committee says it can apply the policy against people for giving speeches. Duke claims it does not repress speech based on an ideological litmus test yet requires all gatherings to be approved, which is absurd on its face. Historically, unsanctioned protests and actions at Duke have advanced racial equality, created living wages for workers, and ended Duke’s investments in apartheid South Africa.[6] Duke acknowledges that past protests have eliminated injustices, yet insists our community must now either ask for their permission or face life-altering disciplinary consequences.

Duke’s “shared values” are “Respect, trust, inclusion, discovery and excellence.” The PPD claims to maintain these values. But we insist it matters what we are being asked to respect, which powers we are being asked to trust, and which voices are included. What has Duke allowed us to “discover” when the vaunted Law School has not held any public events on the International Criminal Court or International Court of Justice hearings and decisions with regard to Israel? Or when the Nicholas School of the Environment cancels student group events on the environmental impact of war and genocide? Or when the upper echelons demand obsequiousness to the Israeli-Duke line from faculty and staff in airless meeting rooms and on Zoom? There is no “excellence” in rewarding with massive honoraria those who deny, are complicit in, and profit from genocide. Rather than offering room for “dialogue,” the PPD’s biased deployment demonstrates Duke has already picked a side. Such intellectual dishonesty is unbecoming of a world-class university.

In practical terms, the PPD is a dangerous policy that will likely be applied to any form of protest that does not fall within its definition of “order”– anything that uncomfortably challenges university priorities. Are we as a university community that fragile?

We demand dissolution of this corrupt policy, and that all disciplinary hearings against our community members be cancelled.

– People for Palestinian Dignity and Duke Academics and Staff for Justice in Palestine

Duke and non-Duke community members are encouraged to take action by writing to the appropriate offices:

Sources
  1. https://dukecommunitystandard.students.duke.edu/appendices/appendix-judicial-system-duke-university/
  2. Mandelblit is known for facilitating illegal settlementsrefusal to investigate torture (resulting in death), and flagrant disrespect of the International Criminal Court. Despite widespread consensus among major human rigths organizations that Israel regularly violates international law (see footnote 2), Mandelblit has made the preposterous claim that “Israel does not commit atrocities.”
  3. Several human rights organizations have deemed this siege genocide. They include Al HaqEuro Med MonitorAmnesty InternationalHuman Rights Watch, and Doctors Without Borders.
  4. A non-exhaustive list of universities with nearly identical policies can be found here. The AAUP released a statementcondemning these policies as an assault on academic freedom and faculty governance (see also an earlier statement on peaceful protest here). Legal experts say that these policies are in direct conflict with free speech. See also the UN Special Report condemning university repression policies. The full statement from the UN is here.
  5. See Appendix D on academic freedom, versus Appendix I on PPD in the Faculty Handbook, which are in conflict. Oddly, faculty magically turn into students (i.e., under the authority of Student Affairs) when they protest.
  6. For more information on the history of student protest at Duke, see the university’s extensive archival collection.