New HEPI report tells the inside story of the pro-Palestine encampments on UK campuses

On Thursday 30 January, HEPI will publish ‘There was nothing to do but take action': The encampments protesting for Palestine and the response to them by Josh Freeman.

Based on interviews with nearly 60 student protestors, senior institutional leaders – including three vice-chancellors – students' union officers and Jewish students, the report is the first to reveal the inside story of the protests which rocked 36 institutions in the spring and summer of 2024, including 21 of the 24 Russell Group members.

Key findings:

• Students gave a range of reasons for protesting, frequently blaming their institution's ‘complicity' in harm done to the Palestinian people. They also said the encampments gave them a sense of community but also blamed the influence of social media, saying images of ‘genocide' were being ‘livestreamed' to them online.

• A number of encampments welcomed ‘externals', people not students or staff at their institution, but emphasised that most protestors were students. Externals helped the encampments by boosting numbers and taking shifts so students could go back to their accommodation for the night. They also posed a problem for institutions, who did not know who they were, could not take disciplinary action against them and feared they posed a risk to student and staff safety.

• Jewish students reported that some members of the encampments engaged in antisemitic behaviour, including writing antisemitic slogans in Arabic to hide their meaning and using antisemitic tropes with the word ‘Jewish' replaced with ‘Zionist', such as posters at one university claiming the media and politicians are 'Zionist funded'. The presence of the encampments may also have encouraged other students, not affiliated with the protests, to engage in antisemitic behaviour.

• Protestors reported being victims of Islamophobic discrimination by institutions and students, and some were victims of harassment and assault.

• Most of the 36 institutions initially allowed the encampments to stay, as they often believed it was the best way to protect free speech. But some started the process of evicting protestors straight away, including one on the very first day.

• Institutions described extremely difficult meetings with student protestors. One vice-chancellor described being ‘ranted' at for an hour. Another senior leader described the experience as like ‘talking to the Russians' because they and the protestors agreed on so little. Students often felt institutions were not negotiating ‘in good faith', were stalling, or would renege on commitments later.

• Protestors often felt communication from institutions was poor and some felt they were treated with ‘suspicion' and ‘fear' rather than as ‘human beings'.

• Institutions were accused of being hypocritical by condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine but not the war in Gaza, so a number of institutions have decided to avoid political statements entirely in the future.

• Institutions accused some members of the University and College Union (UCU) of being ‘extremely manipulative' of students by using the protests to push their own campaigns.

• Some students' unions were able to make a positive difference by acting as a bridge between institutions and protestors, but this took a toll on SU staff and students' unions were often seen as being aligned with either the encampment or institution.

• Institutions condemned the Office for Students, the regulator in England, for failing to clarify difficult free speech questions.

The report recommends that institutions should, if similar protests take place again:

• Consider carefully whether the encampment should be allowed to remain, and set clear expectations of protestors which are followed up with disciplinary action if not adhered to, which may include shutting down the encampment entirely;

• Establish a working relationship with the encampment, to enable the institution to protect the welfare of protestors and others;

• Take steps to prevent ‘externals' from joining the encampments;

• Work to protect student and staff wellbeing; and

• Establish robust communication processes with Jewish students and staff and other groups which may be significantly affected.

Josh Freeman, Policy Manager at HEPI and the author of the report, said:

‘Now a ceasefire between Israel and Hamas has been signed, it is a good time for universities to reflect on this fraught period of student activism.

‘Most protests last only a few hours and disappear as quickly as they appear. The encampments were very different. From April 2024, they became a semi-permanent feature on many campuses. This allowed the protestors to build a visible, sustained campaign to pressure institutions to take action.

‘Protestors had lots of reasons for participating. Some were Palestinian and wanted to do their part. Others were motivated by a sense of belonging in the encampments. Some wanted to overcome a feeling of powerlessness brought on by what they saw on social media.

‘The visibility brought its own challenges. Many students and staff were uncomfortable to have to walk past the protests every day.

‘Institutions should learn the lessons of the protests. Supporting the free speech of protestors and others was and should be a key priority. Another important consideration is supporting student wellbeing, and more should have been done to support vulnerable members of the academic community, including Jewish students and staff and the protestors themselves.'

Adam Habib, Vice-Chancellor at SOAS University of London, said:

‘A report on the student encampments and institutional responses is urgently needed for it is important to learn the lessons thereof. But it is also necessary not to see the events through rose-tinted glasses. The ongoing challenge evident in this report is that too many see the world and in this case, the encampments, from completely separate vantage points.  This is not surprising in a politically polarised world and society but it does suggest that if we are going to learn lessons, then we need to agree on the first principles of how we should agree to differ, the parameters of peaceful protest and the accountability mechanisms for those that violate them.

‘These principles must emanate from our institutional mandate as a university; an institutional community of learning where people, students, staff and alumni come from a plurality of viewpoints and social diversities and are required to live tolerantly in a cosmopolitan community. This report suggests that we are a long way from that ideal but it is a necessary starting point in that journey. This is why it is essential reading for all members of our university system and the stewards thereof.'

Notes for Editors

1. The research is based on 41 semi-structured interviews with 14 student protestors, 19 university staff, eight elected students' union officers, 10 Jewish students and student representatives, three other representatives of the Jewish community and two others, a total of 57 people. Almost all those we spoke to did so on condition of anonymity. The report also draws extensively on information in the public domain, such as institutional statements and social media posts by encampments.