What have universities done about anti-Israel encampments?

For months, we have seen hideous anti-Israel encampments erected on campuses across Britain, physical embodiments of the exponential rise of Jew-hatred in our universities, which were already hotbeds of antisemitism.

So, what action have universities taken?

University of Birmingham

• Already one day after an encampment was set up on campus on 9th May, University of Birmingham’s Director of Legal Services issued the protesters with a warning: “Your occupation at the premises is a trespass. The University requires you to leave the premises immediately. Failure to do so will result in the University taking legal action and/or reporting your trespass to law-enforcement officers without further notice.”
• On 11th June, the Vice-Chancellor issued a statement: “The rights to protest and to freedom of speech do not include setting up a camp and occupying University land, to the detriment of the rest of the University community.”
• On 10th July, the University secured a High Court order “for the possession of campus land,” which was the site of the encampment.
• The next day, bailiffs reportedly arrived at the encampment and removed it from the University’s campus.

University of Nottingham

• On 5th July, after the encampment had been at the University of Nottingham for nearly one month, the University asked for a possession order against protesters in the encampment on campus. In written submissions, the University’s legal representative, Katharine Holland KC, argued that the encampment was “unlawful” and that the University had “a duty to safeguard university assets”.
• On 10th July, the University secured a High Court order “for the possession of campus land,” which was the site of the encampment.
• On the same day, the University served protesters with eviction notices. The protesters packed up the encampment, with only a few remaining until bailiffs arrived.

London School of Economics

• On 14th June, one month after students set up the encampment, London School of Economics obtained an interim possession order, which required protesters to leave the occupied site of the encampment.
• District Judge Kevin Moses acknowledged the students’ right to protest, but also said: “What it does not do is give parties an unfettered right to occupy other parties’ premises with a view to protesting, particularly when they are required to leave.”
• On 27th June, the University was granted an indefinite possession order, forbidding students from setting up encampments.


Organisers of the encampment responded, calling the move “an extremely concerning act of repression”.

University of Bristol

• On 1st July, two months after the encampment was set up at the University of Bristol, the Vice-Chancellor of the University confirmed that the University had “taken legal action to disperse the encampment.”
• In a statement, the Vice-Chancellor said: “Some individuals linked to the encampment have gone beyond what is an acceptable expression of their views. The behaviour of some has become aggressive, abusive, and has involved allegations of physical assault and damage to property.”
• At a hearing in Bristol County Court, the University was refused an immediate possession order and, instead, another hearing was scheduled for 19th July.

On 11th July, organisers of the encampment announced the decision to close down the encampment, stating: “The thousands of pounds in legal fees […] is better spent given to Palestinian mutual aid funds.”

University of Oxford

• Following a sit-in at the University of Oxford’s offices on 23rd May, which resulted in a lockdown and sixteen arrests, a spokesperson for the University said: “It is clear that the actions of some of the protesters involved in the encampment have created a deeply intimidating environment for many members of our community, including our Jewish students and staff and members of the local Jewish community.”
• On 27th June, nearly two months after students erected an encampment, the University published an open letter, asking students to “vacate university land” and stating that if the encampment is not “disbanded” by 7th July, the University would apply for a possession order.
• The letter also states that the University has “listened to [the protesters] and other student and staff concerns during our meetings this year. [The University] has acted as a result of these meetings.”
• The letter also committed the University to several academic initiatives, including, a “review of the University’s investment policy” and a commitment “to work on a collegiate University crisis scholarship scheme for students normally resident in Gaza and the West Bank”.

On 7th July, students shut down the encampment and said in a statement online: “Admin shut down our camp to distract from their complicity in this genocide. They will not shut down our movement.”


Newcastle University

• On 21st June, nearly two months after an encampment was set up at Newcastle University, the University threatened to take legal action against the anti-Israel protesters.
• A spokesperson for the University said: “What began as a peaceful student-led demonstration has become a focus for disruptive activism attracting people who are not connected with the university. This has resulted in the targeting of university activities, people and property.”
• Protesters responded two days later, posting a photo on Instagram of a letter of “notice to quit”, with the caption: “Today we issued a ‘Notice To Quit’ to the University of Newcastle-upon-Tyne. They can sit in their ivory tower and issue pseudo legal forms to us, but this will only anger us more. WE ARE NOT MOVING. YOUR NOTICE TO QUIT DOES NOT SCARE US.”
• On 19th July, organisers of the encampment announced their decision to “decamp”, whilst still accusing the University of being “complicit in genocide”.

SOAS

• On 9th July, just over two months since it was established, police arrested seven people at the SOAS encampment on suspicion of possession of drugs, assault of an emergency worker and the obstruction of police. Three of the people arrested were students at the University.
• In a statement issued on 12th July, the University said it “had no involvement” in the police arriving at the encampment three days prior, but announced that because of “these actions”, it was supporting the University of London’s decision to seek legal assistance to dismantle the encampment.
• In the same statement, the University said that it was aware of some behaviour resulting in “many members of the staff and student body feeling unsafe”. It also said that “this kind of behaviour is a reflection of anti-democratic, populist behaviour that is incompatible with SOAS’ values, and potentially with the law.”

According to a social media post by protesters, the University served them with “accelerated proceedings for eviction” on 30th July.

Queen Mary University

• On 6th June, only weeks after the encampment was set up, Queen Mary University began legal proceedings in the High Court. After the first hearing date the next day, however, proceedings were adjourned until July.
• In its application notice to the Court, the University cited concerns about the proximity of the encampment’s rallies on 1st and 3rd July to the Novo Cemetery, Jewish Sephardi cemetery on the University’s campus.
• On 10th July, the Court granted the University a possession order.
• On 11th July, members of the encampment put out a statement on Instagram which claimed that they had met with the University’s management, which told them that “they are not willing to negotiate with [them] and are unlikely to meet with [them] again unless [they] do not leave on [their] own accord.”


Protesters on the encampment refused to comply with the court order, resulting in bailiffs arriving at the site to evict them on 12th July.

University College London

• On 4th June, just over a month after students set up an encampment at University College London (UCL), the University’s Provost issued a statement, with reference to an “end of year awards event”: “A group of students that have been protesting on the Main Quad with tents and banners deliberately targeted these student events. Their activities were intimidating and escalatory, including the physical assault of members of UCL security staff, damage to property, and reports of unacceptable antisemitic tropes in chants. I want to assure you that we are taking immediate action against this behaviour and have instigated disciplinary proceedings against those students involved.”
• In the same statement, the Provost announced that the University had had to postpone and cancel other events.
• On 15th July, the Provost said: “We have formally advised the protestors that we intend to follow the course of action taken by many other UK universities with similar protests in place and apply for a court order to remove them if they do not choose to go of their own volition.”

The encampment remains on the University’s campus.

University of Cambridge 

• On 31st May, weeks after an encampment was set up, the Pro-Vice Chancellor for the University of Cambridge issued a statement, which said: “We were glad to meet our students as we have been willing to do from the first day of the protest. While we understand some will see it as a negotiation, we see it as a constructive dialogue with our students.”
• The University also announced that it had rearranged degree ceremonies in May, due to the expansion of the encampment into Senate House Yard. 
• On 23rd July, the University agreed to a number of commitments, which are “contingent on the encampment closing down”. This includes “working with the Task Force and the Working Group to review [its] approach to responsible investment” and “reviewing the guidelines that inform academic and industry research ties and collaborations with companies including those falling within the arms/defence category […] in dialogue with the Working Group and Task Force”. 
• Towards the end of its statement, the University said: “We are also aware that the students would like their views to be represented in the consideration of these important issues and have proposed to set up their own task force, which will form part of the working group that we intend to establish. We welcome this engagement. We expect that this task force will elect its own members, and will be self governing. Members of the task force will become part of the wider working group, which will be expected to make recommendations to subsequent meetings of the relevant governance committees that oversee policies in relation to research, investments and partnerships.”

The encampment at the University remains, but organisers have said that they “are planning to undertake a process of decamping” following the University’s statement. 

University of Leeds

• Six weeks after the encampment was set up, the University of Leeds announced that it was commencing legal proceedings.
• On 4th June, the Leeds University Union cancelled the student Summer Ball due to “safety concerns”.
• In a statement, the Interim Vice-Chancellor and President said: “The behaviour of the protestors and occupiers of the Ziff Building, including the wearing of face coverings, harassment of staff, and vandalism and graffiti on buildings has created an atmosphere that is significantly intimidating to many in our community and which the University deems unacceptable.”
• Later in June, the encampment shut down, after 47 days in total.

Organisers of the encampment said in a statement that they had “achieved much” and vowed to “be back in September”.

Goldsmiths University

• On 1st May, protesters entered the library at Goldsmiths University, expanding the already five-week-long encampment on campus, despite the University’s security staff trying to prevent entry, occupying two floors of the building.
• After just two days, the University announced that its senior management team was “working to meet a set of commitments” and encampment organisers declared “victory” on the group’s social media.
• The University agreed to several of the protesters’ demands: to rethink the University’s supposed adoption of the International (IHRA) Definition of Antisemitism (it had been adopted alongside a controversial, competing and contradictory definition, rendering the adoption useless from the point of view of fighting antisemitism); to rename a lecture theatre after a Palestinian journalist; and even to create an installation to “memorialise” the anti-Israel protesters’ “occupation”.

Goldsmiths is in the middle of an independent inquiry into antisemitism, which will doubtless need to address the encampment and the University’s capitulation to protesters’ demands.

These encampments have had a grossly detrimental effect on the Jewish campus experience, and it is shameful that, exceptions notwithstanding, universities did not quickly act to remove them and sanction participants in line with their codes of conduct and legal duties.

In addition to the impact on Jewish students, several wider student activities are also known to have been disrupted by the encampments, hampering learning and student life on campus.

Some universities moved faster than others to address the encampments, some capitulated to the anti-Israel protesters while others held firm. In all cases, precedents have been set.

Some universities have had regard to the effect on Jewish students and staff; some seem not to care. Several seem more concerned with the commercial impact of the encampments – removing them as summer open days approached – than they did with the welfare of current students, which is particularly galling.

We will continue to expose antisemitic activity on university campuses, hold universities to account and support Jewish students.

If you wish to report an incident to us, please send us an e-mail [email protected] in confidence.