'Within the boundaries of UBC policy'
'Within the boundaries of UBC policy'
UBC Security statements in relation to student camp at MacInnis Field
UBC’s primary statements about the student protest camp come via four UBC Security statements and one email broadcast from UBC’s president (as of May 13, 2024).
In each is wording to the effect that while the protest will be tolerated, it must not violate the “boundaries of UBC policy.” This story considers which policies of UBC might be inferred from the statements and the implications and ramifications of violating the boundaries of these policies. UBC Media Relations was asked for comment, none came prior to publication.
Disclosure: I am a faculty member at UBC-V who has colleagues and friends who both support and oppose the protest against Israel. I am also an elected faculty governor. Nothing I say here is approved in advanced by anyone in UBC nor should it be understood to in any way stand as an official or informal expression of UBC’s intentions, position, or outlook. Only the President can speak for UBC. Only the Chair of the Board of Governors can speak on behalf of the Board.
The Grounds for Removal
The primary legal grounds I have seen used at UBC to remove protestors is trespass law (if people violate the criminal code -theft, destruction/defacement of property, assault, etc- they can also be detained and arrested).
Most people incorrectly assume that UBC is public land - it is not. UBC may be BC’s university, but as a legal entity it is a private owner of it’s land and facilities. Like any private land owner, UBC can ask people to leave. Like a land owner, UBC has the right to expect people to leave when asked to do so.
I first realized UBC was private land walking down main mall on the way to my office in the AnSo Building. This was in 1997 during the build up to the No APEC protests. A firetruck with a bucket and ladder raised was parked by the flagpole. An RCMP officer was in the bucket taking pictures of the ground. I asked one of the officers what was going on. “We’re taking pictures of the vandalism” he said. I looked around and could only see chalk lines. When I pressed further the officer said they were collecting evidence to arrest a person for defacing property. He explained irrespective of whether it were chalk or paint, what mattered was the property owner had called in a complaint about defacing property. He said they would detain the chalk line drawers if they encountered them. Its worth noting that several student activists were barred from campus during that period. UBC’s private property rights were used as the mechanism.
I am not a lawyer and I have not asked any lawyers for comment on the use of trespass to exclude protesters. These observations should be taken with that in mind. That said, use of trespass has been a common means to evict protesters over the years at UBC. If people refuse to leave when directed by a police office they can be detained.
A case might be made there is a right to protest which might supersede trespass laws. Richard Moon, of the Centre for Free Expression, has a useful discussion of whether encampments are protected political expression - the sticky point is whether a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms argument applies on private lands like UBC.
The Boundaries of UBC Policy
The April 30, 2024 UBC Security Alert provides the clearest statement on where the boundaries to UBC policy might be found (emphasis and [comments] added):
“…any protest actions must unfold with respect for others and within the boundaries of university policy. The university is monitoring the situation in MacInnes Field and is calling on everyone to remain safe and respectful.
“Already there are concerning actions at the site. These include the removal of items (fencing, road barricades) from nearby construction sites and University property [i.e. theft], the removal of furnishings from nearby University buildings, minor damage to the buildings and furnishings, and possibly to the turf field [destruction of property], the erection of barricades [excluding community from use] and the construction of cooking facilities on UBC property, as well as the removal and possible theft of a Canadian flag from a UBC flag pole. There is also concern that the site is barring members of the university community from enjoying the site. All of these actions are counter to UBC policies [specific policies not stated].
“The university also is aware that several participants at the protest are not UBC community members [not clear how this is relevant].
“The safety and security [reference to at risk behaviour] of our community is the university’s foremost priority. Any actions that create a health and safety risk; constitutes hate or discrimination [discrimination policy]; impede students, faculty and staff from continuing learning, research, work and other activities on campus [disruption]; or damage university property will be taken very seriously and investigated.
To the extent that inappropriate conduct violates one or more of the University’s policies, individuals may be subject to the University’s disciplinary processes or other appropriate measures under the university’s discrimination policy or student code of conduct.
Reviewing UBC’s publicly listed policies, the most likely ones implied by the statement would be policies like at risk behaviour SC13 and discrimination SC7. The respectful environment statement (endorsed by the UBC exec in 2014, but not approved as UBC Policy) could also be implied -especially for faculty and staff who might be at risk of disciplinary measures for participation in the camp. The student code of conduct is explicitly referenced. All of these statements, codes, and policies (except at risk behaviour) are complaint driven.
Complaint driven processes
Most of the policies implied by the UBC Security alerts are complaint driven. These are matters that might not arise until the end of the camp. Many of these policies appear to be written with a focus on individual actions rather than mass demonstrations or protests. That doesn’t preclude their use. Clearly UBC’s public statements warns these disciplinary mechanisms will be applied if deemed warranted.
Under policy SC7 (discrimination), for example, there is a complicated process of having to first consult with the Equity and Inclusion Office prior to transferring the complaint to an investigation officer. This would suggest that if security ask protesters to decamp it won’t be directly as a result of a discrimination complaint.
4.1 Those with concerns relating to matters of Discrimination must consult with the Equity & Inclusion Office before making a formal complaint under these Procedures. If the person with the concern believes that it was not satisfactorily addressed through consultation, that person may submit a formal complaint to the Director of Investigations. The Director of Investigations will provide a copy or summary of the complaint to the Equity & Inclusion Office.
Under the student code of conduct a similar kind of procedure can be found:
6.1 Subject to section 6.2, all incidents of suspected non-academic misconduct will be reported to Campus Security, who will then bring the matter to the attention of the Student Conduct Manager. The Student Conduct Manager will consider the allegations and may do any of the following:
(a) meet with the student suspected of the misconduct;
(b) investigate further by any means deemed necessary and appropriate; or
(c) refer the matter to the President's UBC Vancouver Non-Academic Misconduct Committee (the “Committee”).
Faculty and staff could face disciplinary measures under the terms of their respective collective agreements, again a matter that would occur after a more formal complaint process likely after the end of any on campus incident.
The only policy that delegates authority to Campus Security to act expeditiously is SC13 at risk behaviour.
At Risk Behaviour
It is clear from the UBC Security alerts that violations of policy and law are being carefully documented by UBC. Several times the alerts note thefts, destruction of property, and potentially at risk behaviours. All of these conditions would set in play potential discipline process for students, staff, and faculty over and above any criminal charges that might arise from protest actions. Such actions might occur some time after the protest camp ends. Violators of provisions of the at risk behaviour policy can face immediate restrictions.
The at risk behaviour policy opens with the following general statement:
UBC strives to provide a welcoming environment in which all individuals can visit, work, and study without threat to personal safety or property, or disruption. When such threats or disruption occur, it is important that UBC intervene to address such behaviour promptly and effectively. This policy outlines procedures for the UBC community to follow when faced with At‐Risk Behaviour, which includes behaviour that threatens personal safety or property, or disrupts lawful or legitimate activities on UBC premises.
The policy further states people at UBC must be able to:
1.1 “work, study and interact without threat to personal safety or property, or disruption of their lawful and legitimate activities on UBC Premises. UBC will intervene, to the extent of its legal authority, to address At‐Risk Behaviour in accordance with this Policy and its Procedures.
1.2 Members of the UBC community and visitors to UBC must comply with any Restrictions imposed on them pursuant to this Policy and its Procedures.
1.3 Restrictions imposed pursuant to this Policy against Students, faculty members, and staff members are intended to address safe functioning of UBC and are not intended to be disciplinary or indicative of wrongdoing.”
The policy balances a person’s right to “conduct their own personal lives” against infringing upon the “peaceful and safe enjoyment of UBC facilities.”
1.8 UBC respects the right of members of the UBC community to conduct their own personal lives. This Policy governs conduct only to the extent necessary to protect the integrity and proper functioning of the academic and non‐academic activities of UBC; to ensure the peaceful and safe enjoyment of UBC facilities by members of the UBC community and the public; to protect the freedom of members of UBC to participate reasonably in the programs of UBC and in activities in or on UBC's premises; to provide UBC faculty members and staff members with a safe and secure workplace; and to protect the property of UBC and its members and visitors.
The policy’s definition of at risk behaviour includes that which disrupts UBC activities, will lead to physical harm against people, threatens property, or an individual who might be a harm to themselves:
3.1 “At‐Risk Behaviour” means behaviour that:
3.1.1 disrupts lawful and legitimate activities on UBC Premises; or
3.1.2 leads to a reasonable belief that the safety of any person(s) on UBC Premises is threatened; or
3.1.3 leads to a reasonable belief that UBC property or the property of another person located on UBC Premises is threatened; or
3.1.4 leads to a reasonable belief that the person engaging in the behaviour is at imminent risk of harm; or
3.1.5 leads to a reasonable belief that the safety of any person(s) on UBC Premises is threatened, whether or not such threat was communicated to such person(s).
When determining whether repeated behaviours constitute At‐Risk Behaviour, the cumulative impact of those behaviours must be considered.
Unlike the other policies, codes of conduct, and statements, the at risk behaviour policy empowers specific UBC individuals to place restrictions on people using, working, studying, or visiting UBC’s property and facilities.
Restrictions can be placed on individuals if an emergency, as defined in the policy, is in process. Restrictions are any limitations placed on an individual engaged in at risk behaviours:
“ability to enter upon or to carry out activities upon UBC Premises, or their ability to use UBC facilities or services, or to interact with members of the UBC community.” … Once Campus Security staff become aware of an Emergency, Campus Security staff are authorized to immediately implement such Restrictions on behalf of UBC as are necessary to respond to the Emergency.”
If members of the “university community have reasonable belief” that at risk behaviour has or will occur but is not an emergency, then the Director of Campus Security is to be contacted. Under the policy the Director, or decision maker named under the policy, can impose restrictions on individuals access to UBC property immediately.
Restrictions must, in the opinion of the person imposing, modifying, or rescinding Restrictions, be reasonably necessary to properly respond to the At‐Risk Behaviour while balancing the rights and interests of the Complainant (if any), the Respondent, UBC, and any other impacted members of the UBC community. Restrictions must be the least restrictive measures for the shortest period of time necessary to:
6.2.1 protect members of the UBC community;
6.2.2 preserve the confidence of the UBC community in UBC’s ability to maintain a safe environment;
6.2.3 preserve the integrity of any subsequent investigation; and
6.2.4 avoid interference, to the extent possible, with the Complainant’s or Respondent’s UBC activities.
This relies upon the individual engaging in at risk behaviour to comply with the instructions from Campus Security (who have the delegated authority to act). If they do not comply, then the likely outcome is UBC requests assistance from the local police. The police may independently act if they have reason to believe a crime has been or is being committed irrespective of whether UBC calls them or not.
How it ends
Over the weekend camp protesters escalated by entering the UBC Bookstore. This resulted to the store closing and staff being escorted out aided by UBC Security and RCMP officers. “Protesters have clearly indicated they intend to continue escalating with such disruptive actions,” UBC’s alert said. “The protesters have also made it very clear that they are unwilling to engage in any form of discussion.” The campers say “we will continue to shut it down.” The campers are demanding things that are essentially impossible for UBC to deliver on.
Impossibilism has roots in BC’s early labour and socialist movement. It was a feature of the early 20th century Socialist Party of BC. The idea was that no reform could resolve the problems of capitalism except a total socialist revolution. The Socialist Party even elected a handful of MLAs on their ‘one plank platform’ of revolution. However, in their day to day work these socialist activists built the foundation of BC’s trade union movement, they were pragmatists in organizing, impossiblists in their rhetoric.
The impossiblists realized that in the immediate and short term their demands were impossible and there were things they could do in the mean time. So they became pragmatists. They worked to make a difference in the immediate here and now, hoping that their revolution would eventually come. They built unions that focussed on improving working peoples conditions of life, they engaged in their communities.
The campers’ movement is also an impossiblist movement, but of a new variant. Unlike the earlier BC impossiblists, today’s cohort targets settler colonialism instead of the capitalist class. For the campers only the revolutionary overthrow of settler colonialists (of which they see UBC as a prime example) will free the colonized.
It is hard to see what the camper’s exit plan is in the face of their strategically impossible objective. The overthrow of so-called settler colonialism is unlikely to happen in the next week or so.
This story is about the policies UBC is using to regulate and potentially restrict the camps and associated protest actions. I have no basis to speculate on how the camp will end.
I urge the campers to critically engage with the implications and consequences of their tactics, to reflect on what they can realistically achieve, and raise questions about the limitations of occupying spaces that do not generate surplus value, the ease of taking such space, but the difficulty of giving it back, and what comes next after their campus occupation.
I urge UBC to be patient, to resist responding to the campers’ escalation with UBC’s own counter escalations, and that within their circles of authority to seek ways and means to facilitate a deescalation and peaceful end of the camp.
Another great, thoughtful piece. Thank you.
I dislike identifying as this or that, but for simplicity's sake I'll say I'm an impossibilist. I don't consent to the structures of society or how they manifest, and conditioning aside, I don't think a majority do. That's an oceanic sized aside though. I disliked Benoit's email for it's imposing tone, and the way it ratchets up the tension and provides fuel for those with accelerationist tendencies.
I completely agree with your critique of the protests tactics with respect to what I'd like to see. I also remain observant and unsure of the strategic merit of short term gains won by pragmatists of the past few generations. I do see the problem requiring a solution that's generations in the making, it just seems so haphazard to me and is hard to see any kind of trajectory. So many of these gains regress to become symbols used by the state to misrepresent its interests as lying with it's constituents.