BLOOMINGTON, Ind. (WISH) — Indiana University released the findings of an independent review of the pro-Palestinian protests on Dunn Meadow in April.

After Hamas attacked Israel on October 7, 2024, protests broke out on college campuses across the country. In April of 2024, protests began on the campus of IU Bloomington. Protests of the conflict in Gaza disrupted campus tours, interfered with campus events and guest speakers, and protested in portions of campus buildings.

In the spring of 2024 across the country, pro-Palestinian students established encampments on university property at hundreds of institutions, ultimately leading to more than 3,000 arrests. On April 24th, IU leadership learned a group not affiliated with the university planned an encampment on Dunn Meadow, a part of campus historically tied to protests and other expressive activities. IU leadership determined the policy surrounding encampments at Dunn Meadow were outdated and unclear and changed the policy choosing to prevent the encampment, instead of taking it down after the fact.

Campus police and leadership distributed fliers explaining the new policy, protesters countered with the old policy, which was still on the university’s website. This led to several days of conflict between protesters and the IUPD. Eventually the Indiana State Police were called in and 57 protesters were arrested.

Investigators with the law firm Cooley LLP concluded IU did not prevent protesters from engaging in constitutionally-protected free speech and leadership made good-faith decisions to protect both the campus and the protesters. However, they faulted university officials for their last-minute changes to rules regarding encampments. They concluded the university’s existing Dunn Meadow policies did not provide enough guidance and the sudden change led to confusion among protesters when confronted by law enforcement.

“Ultimately, IU’s decision to clear the encampment and enforce restrictions in Dunn Meadow were permissible under the law and IU policy; however, doing so clearly increased feelings of distrust and uncertainly within the student body and faculty, particularly among those who relied on the past culture and precedent of consultation with stakeholders and expressive activity at IU.”

Cooley, LLP

The report did not extensively review law enforcement activities, though investigators did conclude using state troopers to help remove protesters was the safest option available, particularly given IUPD’s limited staffing. Investigators recommended IU increase funding for IUPD and hire more officers so campus police can better handle large-scale events on their own.

A protest organizer told News 8 the report merely serves IU’s own ends and seems designed to justify officials’ actions. Bryce Greene, a PhD student and spokesperson for the Indiana University Divestment Coalition, said the real issue in April was the police response, not whether university officials followed applicable laws and policies.

“It’s very irrelevant to the issue of whether or not the university behaved in an acceptable way towards student protesters,” he said. “Whether they enforced this or that policy consistently in the past has very little to do with whether or not it’s justified to use military levels of force against peaceful protesters.”

Investigators wrote they tried to contact protesters to incorporate their comments into the report but were unsuccessful. Greene said some protesters were contacted for the report but organizers advised them not to provide input without advice of legal counsel. He said he did not know if legal counsel for the protesters was able to talk to investigators.

Protests against the war in Gaza have continued on Dunn Meadow throughout the summer. Greene said those protests will continue as long as the war continues and IU refuses to divest from Israel.

IU President Pamela Whitten issued a statement along with publication of the report. Her office turned down a request for further comment.

“I am grateful for this independent and thorough third-party perspective We sincerely appreciate the depth and detail of Cooley’s independent review and will leverage their insights to move forward with purpose, guided by our core values and tirelessly pursuing our top priority: a safe campus with freedom of speech for all.”

IU President Pamela Whitten

The study’s complete findings were as follows:

• IU’s leadership balanced free speech, campus safety, and regular university
  operations amidst a challenging and rapidly evolving situation.
• IU leadership’s decision to change the Dunn Meadow policy was permissible
  under university policies and applicable legal standards, including the First
  Amendment; however, doing so the night before the planned encampment
  caused a number of unintended negative consequences.
• IU has a decades-long history of inconsistently enforcing its policies, which
  has caused confusion and frustration and makes governance difficult.
• IU administrators repeatedly asked the protesters to remove the
  encampment structures and to continue the protest without them, but some
  protesters refused, and ultimately, using ISP’s assistance was the safest
  option available to remove the encampment.
• IUPD is a critical university-wide resource, but their understaffing causes a
  myriad of negative effects.

The study issued the following recommendations:

Recommendation 1: IU should approve a new expressive activity policy.

Recommendation 2: To establish clearer and more consistent policies, the IU President should direct a review for gaps or inconsistences between university-wide and campus-specific policies and make recommendations to the Board of Trustees on necessary changes.

Recommendation 3: IU should implement adequate training and communication about its policies and appropriate audit procedures to ensure the consistent application of policies.

Recommendation 4: IU should establish a plan for implementing any new policy related to expressive activity.

Recommendation 4.1: IU should clearly communicate this plan to relevant stakeholders and set expectations regarding ISP’s involvement.

Recommendation 4.2: IU should impose predictable and consistent
conduct consequences for violating any new policy.

Recommendation 5: IU should increase funding to IUPD in order to hire and retain more officers and bolster existing training and technological capacity.

Recommendation 6: IU should consider utilizing campus-wide communications to alert the IU community of encampments or other large scale or disruptive protests.

Recommendation 7: IU should consider adopting a policy of not issuing official statements about public matters that do not directly affect the University’s core functions.

Recommendation 8: IU should improve communications involving critical constituencies on campus.

The complete report can be read below.