The saga of Western University’s Procedure 1.1: why did it come, go, and will it return?

On August 29, Western University administration imposed Procedure 1.1: Obtaining Authorization to Hold a Demonstration. The procedure demands that no demonstrations, including “picketing, marching, carrying signs, distribution of literature, and other related activities, usually in favour of or opposed to some action or opinion,” occur on campus without the approval of the Director of Campus Safety & Emergency Services.

Students view the procedure as stifling free speech. Faculty call it authoritarian. Legal scholars argue it may violate institutional, provincial, and federal laws, including the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. All view the procedure as a direct response to recent campus activism for human rights in Palestine.

On September 9, the administration said it will “pause” the procedure due to “concerns from the community” and will revisit the procedure within a policy review process.

Faculty say that the procedure never underwent initial consultation, a violation of due institutional process (see Consultation). They are wary that the administration will merely impose an altered version of the procedure, noting its harsh history with student protesters.

Here are the convictions from students, faculty, and a legal scholar that arguably led the administration to pause the procedure.

***

“The administration’s blatant attempts to depoliticize and suppress free speech and our fundamental rights to peaceful assembly will not silence our voices or diminish our solidarity,” said Alex Garcia, a fourth-year psychology student and member of Western University’s Climate Crisis Coalition. “We’ve seen through history how universities are historic sites of change.”

According to procedure 1.1, the “approval process” for holding a demonstration involves emailing the Director details about the demonstration five business days before its planned date. This includes the purpose, location, date, time, and duration of the demonstration, the expected number of attendees, and the organizer’s contact information.

The Director will either approve the demonstration alongside “reasonable directions” for how, when, and where the demonstration should occur or reject it if they believe it poses “undue risk.” The procedure restricts demonstrations to 12:00-6:00 PM on weekdays and prohibits their publicization until the Director approves it.

Western University’s Muslim Student Association (MSA) and Palestinian Cultural Club (PCC) released social media statements on the procedure urging its repeal and asking the administration to instead “work towards genuine dialogue, with all students, regardless of political affiliation.”

PCC adds that the procedure exacerbates the administration’s negative dynamic with students protesting for human rights in Palestine.

Last academic year, Western University’s campus flared with demonstrations for human rights in Palestine. These included student-led encampments demanding that Western University cease its 33.6 million dollar investments in Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine and ongoing war crimes, including genocide.

The administration criticized the encampments – with statements that were inconsistent with international law – and had unproductive meetings with student organizers.

Procedure 1.1 arrived less than two months after student encampments were dismantled. It was accompanied by Policy 1.1.1: Prohibition of Camping on University Property.

“The introduction of this new policy amid the ongoing genocide of Palestinians is especially concerning,” PCC’s statement reads. “These new, quickly adopted policies, coupled with the University’s disregard for active student concerns regarding Western’s investments in military contractors and other unethical practices, send a disheartening message.”

***

Western Faculty for Palestine (WF4P), a group formed in spring 2024 and now comprising over thirty faculty, stood in solidarity with the student-led encampments and efforts for Palestinian liberation.

David Heap, professor of linguistics at Western University and member of WF4P, says that campus protests for human rights in Palestine have had the “harshest reactions” he has ever seen.

“The Palestine issue garners a response which is much more severe than anything else I’ve seen. This response has been over the top, and (procedure 1.1), unfortunately, is part of the same pattern of a disproportionate response,” says Heap. “What does that say in the big picture? It says that Palestine is an important issue – to students, staff, faculty, to the community. And it’s unfortunately an important issue to those who want to keep the status quo – to keep our institutions invested in apartheid, invested in genocide, invested in the arms industry, and are willing to go to extraordinary lengths in order to suppress activism in this area rather than engage normally.”

The University of Western Ontario Faculty Association (UWOFA) released a statement demanding that the administration retract procedure 1.1, stating that it was imposed “without appropriate notice or consultation with campus stakeholders” and constituted a “significant threat to academic freedom and freedom of expression on campus.”

Heap calls the procedure “authoritarian overreach on the part of the administration.” He generally views universities as organic, idea-rich communities that don’t need regulations beyond those associated with funding and services.

“A university is a community of students, some of whom teach… we’re all learning together as an aggregate. It’s not a community of administrators…You don’t have to control stuff… especially not on a university campus which should be a place where you expect to encounter ideas that are challenging.”

He adds that no campus demonstrations have ever posed a safety risk.

“People protesting don’t present hazards to safety or to the community – they present a hazard to power. They are frightening to power because they are a sign of people’s power – that people are organized enough and passionate enough to protest.”

***

Legal scholar Michael Lynk says the legal problems with procedure 1.1 are rooted in three key issues: the policy’s imposition without prior consultation from faculty and students; the policy’s lack of reference to Western University’s 2018 freedom of expression policy; and the policy’s absence of any self-limitation in how it may be applied.

“Universities have a general right to regulate what goes on on their properties, including a demonstration,” says Lynk. “But the way in which (the procedure) is currently drafted is without limitations in terms of acceptance or denial (of demonstrations), and without reference to (Western’s) freedom of expression policy.”

Lynk believes that the most effective way of challenging the procedure is through Western University’s internal procedures, such as the faculty association, the university senate, or a campus community member filing a freedom of expression complaint.

If a resolution is not reached at the institutional level, the policy challenge would be brought to an impartial labour arbitrator who would issue a final decision on the procedure’s fate.

Lynk says that any arguments about the procedure violating the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would be heard and judged by the arbitrator. The basis for challenging the procedure with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms resides in the Ontario government’s policies on free speech in universities, which “may bring at least part of the university’s administration under the purview of the Charter.”

Lynk believes that the administration imposed the procedure “entirely in response to the summer encampments.”

“I don’t think the (encampments) were a negative experience. There was no meaningful property destruction, people were peaceful, they didn’t hinder the operation of the university, they didn’t hinder the conduct of classes,” says Lynk, who had given a speech at the encampments. “They made their protest in a nonviolent and civil fashion, looking for responses from the university. I don’t see that justify having a policy. If it did justify having a policy, this is not the policy.”

The University of Toronto recently issued a similar procedure on campus demonstrations. New administrative restrictions on campus protests have also coursed through universities in the United States.

Lynk expects that more universities in Canada will follow.

“Western is not the only university in Canada bringing down these policies, so I suspect we’ll be seeing a lot of legal actions at university senates across the country where these policies are occurring.”

***

Procedure 1.1 does not apply to Western University’s affiliated university colleges, King’s University College and Huron University College.

However, policies and procedures at Western University could be easily adopted by affiliate colleges.

Derek Silva, sociology professor and co-chair of the King’s faculty union, says that if King’s had adopted the procedure, faculty would have “immediately grieved”. He calls the procedure’s consultation-less imposition at Western University a “scary move to authoritarian policy-making” and a response to the encampments.

“I absolutely, one hundred percent, firmly believe that this is in direct response to the anti-genocide and pro-Palestinian liberation encampment that we saw take hold for sixty days,” says Silva, who had given a speech at the encampments. “And it was wonderful – it was very empowering, not threatening, not illegal whatsoever in any possible way.”

Before the encampments, he had regularly seen students on campus with hammocks, bedding, tents, and “all the things that the (administration) demonized at the encampments.”

“I’ve been on this campus for almost a decade now. I’ve seen all of these things and it’s never been an issue. We’re seeing the university make an issue out of something that’s never been an issue. We’re seeing it demonized here, and for a very specific reason that highlights Western’s complicity in scholasticide.”

Silva considers the administration’s “pause” on procedure 1.1 and the camping prohibition policy a “minor victory”. He doesn’t believe the administration will inclusively consult the community, predicting that a “watered down version” of the procedure will emerge.

Silva considers protest to be “whatever someone in power determines is against what they want.” He calls procedure 1.1’s broad, virtually unlimited definition of protest “dangerous.”

“If you allow “protest” to be defined in university policy as something very broad, which is basically whatever (the administration) determines it to be, then very soon, someone‘s going to get into trouble quite simply just for wearing a keffiyeh. Like, wearing a pin with a watermelon on it – something like that will get you in trouble. And that’s scary. That’s authoritarianism. That’s fascism.”

***

Steve D’Arcy, professor of philosophy at Huron University College, teaches a course called “Civil Disobedience and Social Protest” and authored the book, Languages of the Unheard: Why Militant Protest is Good for Democracy.

D’Arcy was “offended” by procedure 1.1. He considers it a “brazen rejection of everything that universities are supposed to stand for, including lively debate, democratic engagement, and freedom to express dissent forcefully and publicly.”

D’Arcy defines protest as a “grievance-motivated collective action” that pressurizes systems and institutions to change. It is a medium by which “alternative voices force their way into public life, demanding to be heard, and unwilling to be silenced or ignored.”

He believes that the administration wants to “minimize, and if possible, practically eliminate protest in general, and protest in solidarity with Palestine in particular.”

“Demonstrations and protests, in themselves, should not be regulated,” says D’Arcy. “What should be regulated are actions that endanger or materially harm others. But there are already policies against violence, threats, or verbal abuse against people on campus. No special policy restricting or regulating protest is necessary.”

D’Arcy believes that both lawful and unlawful demonstrations can have “democratic legitimacy” and “genuine civic virtue”. He shares that those who fight injustice have historically been repressed and then “vindicated by history”.

“On the whole, history looks more favourably on the powerless who break the law and rebel against it than the powerful who try to insulate the status quo from fundamental change.”

He speaks highly of Western University’s student-led encampments and commends the student organizers.

“The encampment at Western was a model of sound civic engagement by staff, faculty and students, in the service of the highly important and admirable aim of trying to end the university’s complicity in crimes against humanity and war crimes. This is something to celebrate and honour. We should be asking whether the organizers of the encampments are eligible for awards and honours, not repressive and anti-democratic policy changes.”

Incé Husain is a neuroscience student and journalist who writes for the NB Media Co-op. She pursues local stories independently at The Unprecedented Times. She is based in London, Ontario.

A version of this article was first published by the Antler River Media Co-op on September 16, 2024.