The Faculty Senate on Tuesday voted to pass three resolutions in support of student protests and academic freedom. The resolutions followed a letter of concern from last semester regarding the administrative response to the Peace Quad encampment last spring.

The letter, signed by about 65 faculty members expressed concern with police involvement in dismantling the encampment and suggested three resolutions supporting freedom of speech and protest.

Surya Parekh, one of the letter’s authors and an associate professor in English, said the resolutions addressed faculty concerns about how student protesters were treated.

“One of the things we wanted to see was, if and when there’s future protests, for the administration to start off with an approach that’s starting off in negotiation rather than some other kind of approach,” Parekh said in an interview with Pipe Dream. “The goal with the Faculty Senate was for the Faculty Senate to express these concerns, and I think that certainly happened with these resolutions.”

Aaron Beedle, the chair of the Faculty Senate’s Executive Committee and an associate professor in pharmaceutical sciences, read the resolutions aloud. The first affirmed the rights of academic freedom, free speech, and assembly for students, faculty and staff. Submitted by an ad hoc committee for review by the Diversity and Faculty Senate Executive Committees, the resolution specified these rights applied to topics “including but not limited to Palestine-Israel.”

Both the Diversity and Executive Committees endorsed the resolution. However, the Diversity Committee proposed an amendment to replace language specific to Israel and Palestine with “matters of domestic and global significance.” Claudia Marques, the chair of the Diversity Committee and an associate professor of biology, said the committee felt the original resolution was too narrow in scope.

The proposed amendment was met with opposition by some faculty members. Parekh acknowledged the importance of a broad resolution but said he felt the revision could erase the specific context of discourse surrounding Israel and Palestine.

“We crafted the resolution in the way that we have so that it’s written, including, but not limited to Palestine and Israel,” Parekh said. “Our aim here is to change a culture of censorship and self-censorship so that faculty, staff and students feel able to speak about Palestine and Israel as it relates to academic freedom and freedom of speech.”

Bridget Whearty, an associate professor in English and medieval studies, proposed a revision to the amendment, changing the wording to “matters of domestic and global significance, including but not limited to Palestine-Israel.” The vote to approve the revision, along with the amendment itself, passed.

“As I listened to the discussion, I was struck by what the head of the Diversity Committee said about the need — especially in this political moment in the US — to be clear that our commitment to academic freedom is capacious, and includes a defense of our rights to speak about domestic as well as international issues,” Whearty wrote to Pipe Dream. “At the same time, my role as a Senator is to represent my constituents’ concerns, and the constituent group that asked for my help was clear about their commitment to having Palestine and Israel explicitly named in the resolution.”

“I proposed the amendment because it seemed like the best way to capaciously and clearly protect academic freedom in our uncertain moment and keep representing my constituents,” she added.

After discussion, the body moved to vote on the resolution. Using anonymous paper ballots, the first resolution was passed with 48 votes in favor, three against and three abstentions.

The second resolution voiced concern about the University’s response to the Peace Quad encampment, “particularly regarding the possibility of punitive and policing action against students involved in the peaceful demonstration.” The encampment faced a large police presence and administrative response last semester.

The Diversity and Executive committees did not endorse the second resolution. The Executive committee said that due to an expedited process, no students were consulted while drafting the resolution, while the Diversity committee felt the resolution lacked specifics.

Neither committee endorsed the third resolution, which called on the University to “refrain from threatening heavy-handed punitive action in response to peaceful student protests” in the future. Both committees cited a lack of clarity between “disciplinary” and “punitive” action.

The second and third resolutions eventually passed, though by a notably closer margin than the first. The second resolution passed with 25 votes in favor, 20 against and 10 abstentions, and the third passed with 26 in favor, 23 against and six abstentions.

During the discussion for both resolutions, faculty members brought up certain punitive measures used to threaten students who participated in the encampment. Robyn Cope, an associate professor in the Romance Languages and Literature Department, said student protesters were threatened with their grades being withheld or courses not getting counted. She added that violations of the policy on use of University facilities could result in interim suspensions, suspensions or expulsion — punishments not previously included in the guidelines for noncredit use of University facilities section of the Student Code of Conduct at the time of the encampment.

Jennifer Stoever, an associate professor in English, said this policy constituted “heavy-handed” punishment due to the financial threat to students.

In an email to Pipe Dream, Marques said some of her concerns regarding clarity — like what certain terms like “heavy-handed” referred to — were addressed after these points were raised by the faculty members. Beedle said that the Executive Committee could not verify the claims against threatening students as they were not previously raised in the letter of concern.

“Having not heard such statements before and given that the letter of concern faculty did not put forward any specific incidents of concern in the resolution (the resolution focused on generalities), it was not possible for any party, including FSEC, to understand the nature of the allegations that were made at the senate meeting,” Beedle wrote to Pipe Dream.

Editor’s Note (2/14): The description of the responses to the encampment last spring has been updated.