UC Policies Jeopardize Safety at its Most Vulnerable Campus
April 17th, 2025 | Anonymous
May 14, 2024: Highway patrol officers brought to UC Merced in anticipation of the regents meeting amidst student protest.
UC Merced is unlike any other University of California. Established in the middle of the Central Valley, our emergent university is top ranked by the WSJ in the nation for social mobility-- “a term used to describe how well colleges and universities attract, retain and help students from economically disadvantaged backgrounds complete their degrees and graduate into promising careers”.
The University of California more broadly has a storied history of conflict between academics and administrators that continues to the present day. In the mid-1980s, a movement of students and scholars centered at UC Berkeley demonstrated, staging walkouts and establishing encampments to demand UC administration divest some 4.6 billion dollars from companies invested in apartheid South Africa. University officials initially responded with contempt, and the demonstrators were brutalized by police. After several years, however, the UC Regents slowly relented and divested 3.1 billion. It was the largest university divestment in the country. The modern University of California now celebrates this movement, proudly reflecting on the “protest that changed the world” while condemning the injustices of apartheid.
Yet, the same systemic repression of student demonstrators by University officials persists in the modern day. Some of the more infamous injustices inflicted against student demonstrators in recent history include the pepper spraying of nonviolent student demonstrators at UC Davis, whose administrators subsequently hired a firm to erase footage of the incident from the internet. A recent lawsuit filed against UCLA by students in tandem with the ACLU alleges the school suppressed freedom of speech, responding to student demonstrators protesting against the University’s complicity in Israel’s genocide of Palestinians (according to investigations by the United Nations and Amnesty International) with incredible police violence and negligence to protect the demonstrators from violent agitators.
At the beginning of the fall 2024 semester, UC Merced updated its Expressive Activities and Assembly policy as part of a UC-wide effort to crack down upon the aforementioned pro-Palestine demonstrations. Despite iterating the University’s support for free expression and minimal force, the policy effectively expands the broad powers of administration over expression and activism. With few defined mechanisms for accountability, this policy has the potential to jeopardize the safety of academics, particularly those of vulnerable communities, as well as the right to express beliefs that challenge administrators’ positions.
At the heart of the Expressive Activities and Assembly lies the Time, Place, and Manner clause. Section IV, subsection B grants administrators in a Protest Oversight Group the authority to order the obstruction of any activity they deem “interfere[s] with the right of the university to conduct its affairs in an orderly manner and to maintain its property”. Much of the rest of the policy defines violations with language that is largely open to interpretation (i.e. section V.B.1, which states that a demonstration “Must not interfere with the orderly operation of the campus.”, or section V.C.8.g, which states that “the conduct was coordinated with others’ conduct in a way that it caused a cumulative effect that unduly interfered with a university activity”). Other restrictions impose substantial concrete limits (such as section V.B.6, which states that expressive activities must not take place within 30 feet of most university buildings or walkways, among other things).
Subsection B further restricts the right to demonstrate almost anywhere on campus save a handful of open areas; more specifically, demonstrations are not allowed “within thirty (30) feet of the following: a. university residential facilities; b. buildings, facilities, or areas where such use could impair entrance to or exit from the building, facility or area, or interfere with activities therein; c. parking lots; d. walkways and roadways; and e. Libraries”. According to subsection C, even a demonstration in compliance with the other policies can be shut down if “the conduct was coordinated with others’ conduct in a way that it caused a cumulative effect that unduly interfered with a university activity”.
Also of note is Section V, Subsection C, which states that “no one may refuse to identify themselves upon request to university officials acting in the performance of their duties”. The section does not contain clearly defined limits to when this power can be used, or what specific actions qualify as performance of duty. It stands in stark contrast to policies established by the state of California, which typically provides civilians the right to refuse to identify themselves to police unless detained, arrested, or driving. The University further restricts the right to conceal one’s identity by establishing that “wearing masks or face coverings is permissible for all persons who are complying with University policies and applicable laws”.
Section IV, Subsection D, imposes a provision “strictly regulat[ing] Signage on University Property that does not meet an official university purpose”. Despite an assurance that “the university will not decline to allow Signage on the basis of the content or viewpoint expressed”, the policy nonetheless imposes the threat of police involvement regarding mounted signs, or any sign a UCPD officer considers to be “blocking the view of any other person observing the speech, performance, or event”. Signs in any workspace or office are subject to removal at any time for any reason.
Concurrently with the imposition of similar policies across all campuses, the University of California discreetly purchased new military weapons for its police departments, including five Def-Tec 40mm launchers and 100 rounds of “less lethal” Sponge Round munitions for the UC Merced Police Department. Also in the UCM PD inventory of military equipment are no less than twenty Colt M4 5.56 Caliber Patrol Rifles, one single-shot Def-Tec 40mm launcher, and one FN 303 launcher Long-Range Acoustic Device (LRAD), a loudspeaker known for its use as a crowd control weapon against demonstrators.
The University’s ambiguous policies pose a trifold risk for the campus community; the threat of repression by administration, that of abuse by individual authority figures, and of repression by the federal government. Authorizing officials to demand identification from students places the burden of knowledge and interpretation of the rule on those officials before anyone else. Individuals in power are fallible and subject to their own devices; in 2019 campus police officer Israel Garcia was arrested for stalking and domestic violence against his girlfriend, and UC Merced has experienced incidents of sexual misconduct against students by university employees. However, UCPD’s incident reports detail few acts of violence and only one offense with a weapon since 2020. By contrast, the weapons readily available to UCPD substantially increases the capacity and likelihood of police violence against students, including those from underserved communities.
What’s more, the University effectuates these policies underneath a federal government led by president Donald Trump, who is actively conducting mass deportations against immigrants, the undocumented community, and U.S. citizens without trial. The Trump administration has similarly targeted pro-Palestine activists via an executive order requesting that universities “monitor for and report activities by alien students and staff” concerning advocacy against the genocide of Palestinians (defined therein as ‘antisemitism’). Several pro-Palestinian activists such as Mahmoud Khalil have already been detained, with a recent court ruling permitting establishing the precedent that they can be deported on ideological grounds.
The implications of our federal government’s assault on academia can already be felt at the University of California, which has diffidently conceded to federal pressure and eliminated diversity hiring programs and diversity statements. Donald Trump’s administration is also working to force universities to more actively repress student demonstrations; Harvard notably refused the government’s pressure, citing its obligation to protect the right to free speech. Harvard’s decision to uphold its responsibility to protect the students consequently resulted in the suspension of over two billion dollars in grants and contracts from the federal government, and there is no indication that the Trump administration intends to stop.
Confronted with oppression, the UC’s world-renowned academic community upholds a longstanding historic precedent of scholars promoting social justice and scientific progress. What the UC and its students choose to do next will shape the future of academia and politics; if the UC chooses oppression, the damage to its own community, especially UC Merced, will be irreparable.
