Some universities have apparently "resolved" the situation "peacefully" by coming to "agreements" with protesters. While some may question each of the three parts of this assertion (in quotes), it is a fact that UC San Diego did resolve the situation peacefully, notwithstanding the optics of a police presence to some among our community, and that peace has persisted now for over a month. That is not true for some of our peer schools, which continue to experience turmoil.
Perhaps that holds some lessons for us. Could we have done better? We will never know. Yet, here is a look at similarities and differences that can help us imagine what alternate scenarios would have looked like. Each school is different and affected by its history, local geography, and environment. UC San Diego is in a military town. Its founding orientation has been Science and Technology, built upon the proud traditions of SIO. UC San Diego's founding history is also important to understand, for the University is much more than the academic departments and schools in other universities. (See below).
UC San Diego is a vast institution with three distinct organizations: the General Campus, SIO, and Health Sciences. The Chancellor is responsible for the entire institution with over 40K employees.
The Academic Senate consists of about half of the total faculty. It is dominated by the "general campus" because its members are almost entirely tenured or tenure-track faculty appointments whose (base) salary ultimately finds its way into the budget of the State of California.
UCSD has in recent decades moved towards holistic integration of its two other components (SIO and Health Sciences) which are not on the state budget through various mechanisms from academic programs to joint faculty appointments. While they are officially not a participant in faculty governance via the Academic Senate, measures such as the current one directly affect all three major constituents of UC San Diego and the Chancellor is obligated to ensure the welfare of all by ensuring, for instance, continued operation of UCSD Health System, our engagements with each of the three hospital systems that we are part of, or that the planetary expeditions taken by SIO ships continue as coupled with the research ecosystem populated by ladder-rank faculty and research scientists working together.
UC Irvine, a school 60 miles north of us, is a good study for those interested in understanding possible courses of action and the consequences. Unlike Berkeley, or Bay Area schools, we are in a geography with considerable exposure to both "left" and "right" political spectrum in a military town. Irvine is not a military town but has a similar mix of ideological spectrum along with multiple immigrant communities as well as day-scholar students.
Facing a similar encampment scenario on-campus, UC Irvine had to act forcefully on May 15. That generated significant media protests and videos of "police violence". For instance, here is a Reddit thread where the comments are instructive. Chancellor Gillman provided detailed answers to faculty questions on May 24. Within days of that, on May 28, the faculty association was out with its detailed criticism of responses. Turmoil continues at Irvine.
UCLA's experience provides a cautionary background that guides our actions. Both schools have non-trivial populations of pro-Palestinian and counter-protesters. The protests began on April 25, 2024. Unfortunately, as of this writing, the protests continue with unfortunate violence being experienced by students, faculty, and administrators. On June 11, 27 protesters were arrested after assaulting multiple individuals: a rabbi, a journalist, a security guard, and a vice chancellor.
Unfortunately, the experience from around the nation of acting late or inaction, especially in protecting individuals and groups has been severe, from ongoing lawsuits to Title VI investigations. Here are a few examples, limited only by the time available to the volunteer authors, leading many scholars to conclude that unilateral yielding to demands is neither morally right nor fair and does not lead to a durable peace.
As you read through the experience around the nation, it becomes clear that removing encampments was a matter of when they would be removed rather than if they were removed. The decision to remove encampments balanced a growing risk of when to act. The chancellor chose to err on the side of safety while stopping an explicitly prohibited activity.