The right to free speech is the cornerstone of any democracy, allowing for open dissent and criticism of the institutions that affect us daily. In the past, students at the University have exercised this right through protests, fighting against injustices such as South Africa’s apartheid.
In retrospect, we understand the just nature of these demonstrations; however, recent policy changes by the University show that not everyone has learned the same lessons from history.
In 1977, the Champaign-Urbana Coalition Against Apartheid formed, beginning the student-led anti-apartheid movement on campus. For the next 10 years, students protested while facing constant resistance from University officials, often leading to mass arrests. Why such strong resistance? The protestors demanded the University divest from South Africa.
Sounds familiar, right?
In April 2024, multiple pro-Palestinian protests on campus eventually led to an encampment on the Main Quad. The primary demand of these protestors was arms divestment from companies supplying Israel’s genocide. After two weeks, following much University opposition, the demonstrations ended, and students returned home for the summer.
Get The Daily Illini in your inbox!
During the absence of most students, the University began changing its protest policy on campus, ensuring these demonstrations would never happen again.
Three sections of the Campus Administrative Manual were changed: General Use of and Access to University Property, Reservation of University Property and Expressive Activity on Campus.
These changes gave the University significantly more power to suppress students’ ability to protest, allowing for the removal of encampments at will, limiting amplified sound and requiring identification at protests.
We have already seen the effects of these policies in action in response to the most recent semesterly climate strike, which called for the University to divest from fossil fuels. The University has charged members of Students for Environmental Concerns, the primary organization behind the strike, with violations for using megaphones and walking down South Wright Street — actions now considered impermissible.
The use of violations by the University is an obvious fear tactic with the express purpose of preventing further demonstrations and demotivating student activists. Despite this fear, some on campus still feel that activists can stay motivated, such as Felicity Daleccio, a member of Amnesty International — a global human rights advocacy group.
“This is a place of learning, and universities are institutions of learning first … Even though the University has taken steps to silence student voices and student protests, that doesn’t mean that we stop believing,” Daleccio said.
But why take such drastic measures to limit the free speech of students on campus? One word: divestment.
While we all now understand that the anti-apartheid divestment movement was moral, the University still refuses to follow the demands of equally moral movements — divestment from Israel and fossil fuels. This is because the University understands giving in to one divestment movement will cause a ripple effect, giving leeway to other similar movements.
Sam Levenhagen, chair of the University’s branch of Young Democratic Socialists of America, said opposition to divestment comes from the University’s skewed commitment to its investors rather than the desires of its students.
“Their understanding is that if they have to give up divestment in one sector like environmentalism, then they foresee that students are also going to push for divestment in other areas, such as weapons divestment,” Levenhagen said. “And I think they’re not ready to give up those investors yet.”
The fossil fuel divestment movement demonstrates this dynamic perfectly.
SECS’s push for divestment has many compelling arguments outside of simple morality; in fact, leaders from the organization have proven divestment will make the University more money in the long run. Despite this, the Board of Trustees refuses to divest, as this would cause a rift between the University and its favorite stakeholders — investors instead of students.
Partnerships between the University and companies such as Chevron and Raytheon come in donations, research funding, scholarships and networking opportunities. These investments are extremely valuable to the University, and they understand that following popular demands for divestment would likely cause them to cease.
However, if the University learned anything from past divestment movements, it’s that activists will never stop fighting for what they believe in. Students learned the true priorities of the University: money and investors.
As a result, these restrictive policy changes deter divestment movements, ensuring the University’s financial relationships are protected.
Regardless, activists like Daleccio and Levenhagen will continue to fight because while the University may kill the protest, it can’t kill the idea. Activists will continue reminding the University its most important stakeholders are truly its students.
Grayson is a sophomore in LAS.
