UCSC rescinds some campus bans for pro-Palestine protesters even as criminal charges linger

UC Santa Cruz says it has rescinded “many” of the temporary campus bans handed out to students arrested at an overnight pro-Palestine protest May 31. However, some students say they’ve been told they will have to wait months for resolutions of criminal charges filed against them by police, and a civil liberties group says it has concerns about how the school is handling the disciplinary process for allegations of student misconduct tied to the protests. 

A total of 122 students, faculty, staff and community members were arrested at the Gaza solidarity encampment and were cited with failure to disperse. Several others received additional citations including resisting arrest and battery of an officer. 

Students and faculty arrested in the early hours of May 31 say that their arraignments – when they were to have the charges against them made clear in Santa Cruz County Superior Court – originally scheduled for Tuesday, have been postponed to September. 

Santa Cruz County Chief Deputy District Attorney Tara George confirmed to Lookout that postponement. She said the DA’s office has yet to receive any incident reports from the UCSC police and therefore has not made any decisions on whether to proceed with charges related to the arrests. 

The district attorney’s office reviews the police reports and ultimately decides whether or not to file a criminal complaint in Santa Cruz Superior Court. The office reviews the reports to see if there’s enough evidence to prove guilt to a jury “beyond a reasonable doubt.”

“Our office has not received any reports from those incidents and therefore has not made any charging decisions,” she wrote via email. 

Campus spokesperson Hernandez-Jason also confirmed that the UCSC Police are finalizing arrest reports to send them to the District Attorney’s office soon. 

Hernandez-Jason didn’t provide Lookout with the number of 14-day campus bans UCSC had issued or details on how many have since been overturned. However a media liaison for pro-Palestine protesters previously told Lookout that all students arrested overnight May 31 also received notices barring them from campus. 

He said “many of those students” who had participated in hearings the university held on the bans had “satisfactorily made the case that they would not participate in activities that would continue to harm the campus [and] had their temporary exclusion lifted in advance of the 14-day period.”

One student and one faculty member who requested hearings to contest the bans in the days following the arrests told Lookout that they successfully got the bans overturned just days before they were meant to expire. 

Marisol LeBrón, an associate professor in feminist studies and critical race and ethnic studies, is among the protesters prohibited from entering campus starting May 31 for 14 days. But hours after her hearing on June 10, the ban was lifted – totaling 11 days for her. 

She said administrators told her during the hearing that they had no evidence that she was ever a risk to campus safety. “I was like, ‘Do you have any evidence against me?’” she recalled from her meeting. “And they said, ‘No.’”

When she was arrested, police cited her for failure to disperse. However, last week, LeBrón received a notice in the mail with an additional citation of resisting arrest with a new court date of Sept. 23. LeBrón told Lookout she “never even heard a dispersal order” and she did not resist arrest. She said the police encircled the crowd which prevented anyone’s ability to leave.   

“[The officer] takes my arm, he grabs below my wrist, and then he starts to bend my hand backwards. I felt like he was gonna break my wrist,” she said. “There was no resistance, and I started shouting, ‘I’m not resisting! I’m a professor. I work here, I’m not resisting!’”

Several people, including LeBrón, have told Lookout that the night of the arrests they were only there to observe or provide support, weren’t blocking any entrances and did not resist arrest. 

University officials say that people failed to disperse and were asked repeatedly to leave the entrance to campus and that UCSC’s actions to arrest, ban and threaten disciplinary actions against many protesters are justified.

“Those who were arrested ignored those repeated directions and the many opportunities they had to simply walk away and avoid arrest. Many walked away,” said Hernandez-Jason via email. “Those who were arrested were given notices prohibiting them from going to UC Santa Cruz properties. The acts of harm to the campus, the non-compliance with university directives, and ignoring law enforcement directives justified the notices.”

Separate from the criminal charges and the campus ban, some students said UCSC had also informed them that their involvement in the May 31 events may have violated the university’s student conduct policies. In an email between a student and UCSC’s Office of Student Conduct, the office said it met with 110 students who were “alleged to have been involved.”

On June 4, the university’s Office of Student Conduct & Conflict Education sent emails to students who received the bans telling them that their “behavior may represent violation(s) of the Code of Student Conduct.” The email laid out how students had the option to request two different hearings to contest the ban and to decide any alleged student conduct violations. The two disciplinary processes are separate from the police citations that could be heard in court. 

UCSC held disciplinary hearings for students to learn about and contest allegations they had violated the school’s code of conduct. Code of conduct violations include behavior that “threatens the health or safety of any person” and “obstruction or disruption of teaching, research, administration, disciplinary procedures, or other University activities.” 

If found to have violated UCSC’s code of conduct, students could face a range of penalties, from receiving “reminders” that they are required to comply with the university’s community agreements, up to suspension or expulsion.

One student’s experience

Shaila Nathu, staff attorney for the ACLU of Northern California, has voiced concerns. 

One issue: An email UCSC’s Office of Student Conduct sent suggesting that if students didn’t participate in an initial meeting on their conduct, they would waive their right to subsequent  disciplinary action hearing.  However, she said that she wasn’t aware of any specific incidents where that had occurred. 

Nathu said that the university must give students an opportunity to contest the accusations against them and engage in a formal hearing to object to any disciplinary actions.  She emphasized that discipline could have a serious impact on a student’s future and that the campus procedures should be straightforward and the punishment should be fair. 

“The stakes are quite high here. Many of the students swept up in recent events are facing school suspension or expulsion as well as criminal charges,” she wrote in a letter to administrators. “Based on the facts known to ACLU NorCal, it appears that UCSC’s current process for disciplining student protestors is, at best, confusing and, at worst, constitutionally infirm.” 

Jamie Hindery, a UCSC student who graduated this spring quarter, was arrested and charged with failure to disperse. Hindery, who uses they/them pronouns, was an active member of the encampment, but the night of the police raid they were at home off-campus until they received messages about the potential for police action. 

They maintain that they didn’t break the law or violate any university policies. Hindery went to the encampment to observe and provide support as police began surrounding the area. 

“My intention was not to be arrested,” they said. “My intention was to be at the scene, to document the scene, but to not not directly participate in the blocking of traffic or the holding of a line or anything.”

Standing on a hillside and not with the protesters, Hindery used a flashlight to shine a light on officers’ badges so protesters and observers could identify them. Hindery says they think that was why they were singled out as one of the first to be arrested. 

Hindery said police told them to leave, but they told officers they had a right to be there to observe. Hindery said an officer later approached them and told them they were under arrest and Hindery was handcuffed at around 2:55 a.m. They were taken to the Santa Cruz County main jail and released at around 5:30 a.m. 

When released, Hindery was given two slips of paper: one from UCSC police issuing the 14-day campus ban, and a citation for failure to disperse with a promise to appear in court July 2. 

After their release, Hindery immediately sought input from faculty and fellow students on how to respond to the ban. While Hindery and others felt the bans were unjustly given, they were concerned about the potential impact of violating it: a misdemeanor.

“We were all terrified, like we didn’t have clear information on it, and so while a lot of us felt like these bans were maybe applied unjustly or without proper due process, all of us became pretty nervous about fighting them and getting them overturned,” they said. 

Hindery requested hearings on the campus ban they received and for potential student code of conduct violations. A team of professors offered to be Hindery’s and other students’ “notetaker” and their “support person” – which the university allowed each student, they said. During the hearings, students had the opportunity to provide their account of the events. 

Hindery’s first meeting, which was related to the temporary campus ban, was held virtually on the morning of June 6. Later that night, Hindery received an email saying the university lifted the campus ban after Hindery agreed to not disrupt university activities, resist officials or block entrances. 

“The expectation is that you will follow all legal notices and University directives while the incident is investigated,” it reads. “Involvement in additional policy violations may result in compounded outcomes.” 

Hindery had their student conduct hearing on June 17 and they received their resolution on Tuesday, July 2. The resolution told Hindery they wouldn’t face any disciplinary action right now but were reminded of the school’s “community expectations” and warned “similar future actions may result in additional disciplinary charges or housing contract action being taken.”

The message from the office also acknowledged that Hindery said they were on a hill when they were arrested and not on the road with the protesters. While Hindery is relieved that the punishment wasn’t more severe, they’re still frustrated that the resolution suggests they did harm to campus community members. 

“This decision, while being mild, still implies that I was harming the UCSC community,” they said. 

Instead, Hindery said they feel that senior administrators, Chancellor Cynthia Larive and Campus Provost Lori Kletzer, are the ones causing harm to the campus community by pursuing charges and disciplinary actions. “Their unwillingness to engage students, faculty and staff in meaningful and respectful dialogue is the reason all of this ended up happening.”

While their campus ban has been lifted, Hindery said they haven’t received a new arraignment date or any other mail about the citation.