One example, from just up the Ivy-garlanded I-95, at Brown University, was announced just hours before Shafik again called in the police. Brown’s governing body agreed to vote on a proposal that would divest the school’s endowment of companies affiliated with Israel in a meeting in October. The proposal is based on a 2020 Advisory Committee on Corporation Responsibility in Investment Practices that identified and recommended divestment from “companies that facilitate the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territory,” per the Brown Daily Herald.
In exchange, the university’s nonviolent student protesters agreed to vacate their encampment by 5 p.m. that afternoon.
...
Another plausible outcome from California: When a similar encampment went up a few days ago at the University of California, Irvine, it seemed likely that police might sweep the protesters away. Orange County sheriff’s deputies began to appear in riot gear near the protest.
But, rather than traffic in vague allegations of misconduct before hiding behind a belligerent mayor and an aggressive police force, like Shafik, the UC–Irvine administration took a much different tack. “UC Irvine respects the rights of any students to engage in free speech and expression including lawful protest,” the school said in a prepared statement. This, remember, is at a public school, where keeping public police forces away is more challenging than a private enclave like Columbia.
And in fact, Irvine’s mayor did get involved in the action. Not long after that, Mayor Farrah N. Khan issued a resounding statement declaring that she would not tolerate any violation of students’ free speech or right to assembly. “I am asking our law enforcement to stand down. I will not tolerate any violations to our students’ rights to peacefully assemble and protest.” She asked the deputies to leave, and they did.
politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
But it does matter. The US backs Isreals Genocide and is the one supporting there iron dome systems. Affecting public sentiment via protesting would make the US politicians less willing to send money to Isreal. That would influence the outcome.
I hope you really don't believe this. The US will always support Israel, it's literally a matter of national security. There are bigger things at risk by not supporting Israel. Without US support, Israel would literally fall into "survival mode." It would probably wipe out all of Gaza and get rid of the Palestinians just to be on the safe side. If left unprotected, the entire Middle East would attack Israel, possibly created a 3rd World War. If the US wasn't their main support system, they'd turn to someone else, like China or Russia, who would then be their primary source for protection. What the protestors don't understand, is that the US doesn't give foreign aid out of the goodness of our hearts. If it's not good for America we don't do it. Every penny comes with strings attached. If we stop supporting Israel we will no longer have a seat at the table and leverage, among other benefits for the US. This is much more than just the Israel/Palestine conflict.