Fill out our Daily Orange reader survey to make our paper better


On Campus

SU admin responds to Gaza Solidarity Encampment demands

Joe Zhao | Video Editor

Members of the Gaza Solidarity Encampment at SU were sent a statement from the university Tuesday morning responding to four of the demonstrators' six demands, according to an email obtained by The Daily Orange.

Get the latest Syracuse news delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to our newsletter here.

Syracuse University administrators sent members of the Gaza Solidarity Encampment a statement Tuesday morning responding to some of the demonstrators’ “key concerns,” according to an email obtained by The Daily Orange.

GSE leaders met with administrators from SU’s Student Experience Division Monday, where they discussed the group’s six demands for the university. The subsequent university statement, titled “Response to Key Concerns Raised by Students Involved in the ‘Gaza Solidarity Encampment’ Protest Activity,” came a day after the discussion.

SU’s message addresses demands one, two, four and five — calling for the university’s support for a ceasefire, disclosure of investments, protection of students’ right to protest and protection of academic freedom, respectively. For each point, the statement outlines how existing university policies and procedures address concerns within the GSE’s demands.

“The University has in place systems, processes, and policies that address most, if not all, of the issues you raise in your list of concerns,” the response reads. “You are entitled to access and utilize these systems, as is any student with concerns, and make your arguments there.”



The statement from administrators did not indicate that the university plans to introduce any internal policy statement in response to the GSE’s demands. SU’s response did not mention demands three and six: asking the university to engage in “ethical collaboration and honoring” as well as “addressing racism” within its Department of Public Safety.

The D.O. has outlined SU’s response to the encampment’s demands.

SU’s response to demand 1: Israel/Hamas War and Calls for a Ceasefire

The GSE’s first official demand calls on SU administrators “to publicly support a permanent ceasefire in Palestine and the protection of civilian lives amidst the ongoing genocidal war on Gaza,” according to a GSE statement posted on May 1.

The university response to the GSE pointed to two instances in which Chancellor Kent Syverud sent “community messages,” both campus-wide emails sent in the days and weeks following Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack, regarding the ongoing Israel-Hamas war.

Syverud’s first message, sent on Oct. 9, condemned the “violence in both Israel and Gaza” and expressed support for SU community members with ties to either region, according to Tuesday morning’s statement. In a later statement, sent on Oct. 16, Syverud again spoke out against the attacks, as well as antisemitism and Islamophobia.

“It has been 10 days since Hamas crossed into Israel and conducted a series of horrific terror attacks targeting innocent civilians. As last week unfolded, we learned more about the barbaric nature of these atrocities,” Syverud’s Oct. 16 statement reads. “We are also witnessing a developing humanitarian crisis in Gaza where innocent civilians are facing death and displacement, and dire conditions are growing worse.”

Neither of Syverud’s statements directly mention a ceasefire.

The university’s Tuesday morning response states that both messages “offered a clear concern for both Israeli and Palestinian civilian lives lost in or impacted by the violence.”

The response also points to other responses by student-led governing bodies, including SU’s Student Association. It mentions SA’s “Undergraduate Call for Peace,” which was passed on Dec. 4, 2023. The association’s resolution included calls for a ceasefire.

SU’s response to demand 2: University Endowment Investments

The GSE’s second demand calls for the university to disclose investments that “(support) the occupation in Palestine,” including companies with Israeli ownership and weapons manufacturers such as Lockheed Martin and Boeing.

SU’s response states that private donations and endowment investment returns “fill the remaining gap” to cover its operating expenses, arguing that student tuition revenue alone does not completely cover these costs.

The university uses an “outsourced investment office” to decide how to invest endowment funds, according to the response. The office invests endowment funds into a “broad group” of publicly traded companies and into privately held companies through limited partnership funds that own interests in them.

“A very small part of the endowment is invested in individual privately held companies, where the University is simply one co-investor with others in an investment pool,” the university response reads.

SU has policies in place in which community members can raise concerns regarding the university’s investments, according to the response. The message also includes an excerpt from SU’s Statement of Investment Objectives and Policies, which states that the university will conduct a review of any investments if an allegation emerges regarding activities from an external party that “cause substantial social injury.”

“To request a review, you must write to the Chancellor and to the Senior Vice President and Chief Financial Officer (CFO) explaining with specificity what you are seeking relative to our investments, including divestment from specific industries,” the response reads.

SU’s response to demand 4: Student Freedom of Expression

The GSE’s fourth demand asks the university to respect students’ First Amendment right to freedom of speech and assembly, as well as to provide protesters with amnesty.

SU’s response includes excerpts from its existing Statement of Student Rights and Responsibilities, which the university statement claims includes “strong support” for student free speech.

It also points to the university’s Campus Disruption Policy, which states that “freedom of expression, however, ceases at the point when its exercise infringes on the rights of either participants or nonparticipants.” This policy also specifies the “scope of protected expression,” according to SU’s response.

“That freedom is not unlimited, just as with the First Amendment’s protections applicable to state institutions,” the university wrote in the response.

The response then describes administrations’ May 8 relocation request to the GSE, which told encampment members to relocate from Shaw Quadrangle to two alternative sites. At the time, GSE demonstrators said they would not consider the request to move from the Quad unless administrators held a “good-faith meeting” with the encampment to discuss the demands, GSE organizer Cai Cafiero previously told The D.O.

For those who chose to remain on the Quad following the relocation request, the university said it would refer students to SU’s Student Conduct Process for violating the Student Conduct Code. Tuesday’s response reiterates the decision to charge protesters still at the encampment with Conduct Code violations.

“Students who remained in the Quad protest space after 11:00 am on May 8, or who thereafter joined the protest in that space, made a conscious decision to accept the consequences of that decision, which includes referral to the Student Conduct Process,” the university response reads.

SU’s response to demand 5: Academic Freedom

The GSE’s fifth demand calls on SU administrators to “vigorously uphold the principle of academic freedom” and allow university community members to engage in discourse surrounding Israel and Palestine “without fear of censorship or retribution.”

According to SU’s response, the university’s Faculty Manual includes “robust protections of academic freedom” for faculty members, as listed in Section 3.51 and 3.52 of the manual. The response also lists the manual’s provisions, Section 4.6 and 4.11, regarding “Allegations of Inappropriate Conduct.”

“(The section) describes the significant due process rights of all faculty who may be the subject of an allegation of misconduct, including an alleged violation of policies for conduct not covered by academic freedom (for example, specific conduct that violates the University’s Anti-Harassment Policy),” the university’s response states.

The response then lists the several university offices involved with misconduct allegations — such as its Office of Equal Opportunity, Inclusion, and Resolution Services, Office of Academic Affairs and the Academic Freedom, Tenure, and Professional Ethics committee within the University Senate.

SU’s response also mentions its drafted “Syracuse Statement on Free Expression and Free Inquiry,” which plans to reinforce academic freedom on campus, according to Tuesday’s statement. The response states the Syracuse Statement will be released “later this year.”

This story will be updated with additional reporting.

membership_button_new-10





Top Stories