University Protests: A Call for Respect, Debate, and Constructive Action!

In recent days, the atmosphere on our university campuses here in Montreal, including at Concordia, has become tense. Protests are escalating, and acts of vandalism, intimidation, and even violence seem to be becoming more common. Concordia's President and administration have already expressed their concerns, and I think it's high time we pause and reflect on what protests at a university should—and shouldn't—be.

Universities are meant to be sanctuaries for intellectual debate, places where ideas can be exchanged freely and respectfully. Protests are a vital part of that. They’re supposed to raise awareness, foster dialogue, and push for positive change through peaceful means. But that only works if the protests themselves remain non-violent and focused on meaningful discourse. It’s up to universities to provide the platforms for constructive dialogue, structured debates, and exchanges of ideas. Yet when protests devolve into vandalism, harassment, or threats, they undermine both the cause and the core values of the academic institution. At that point, we have to question their legitimacy.

Let’s look at history for some lessons. The anti-apartheid movement of the 1980s is one of the best examples of student-led protests that truly made a difference. Around the world, students successfully pressured their universities to divest from companies doing business in apartheid South Africa. That movement was powerful because it reflected a global consensus about the immorality of apartheid. The world was largely united against South Africa's racial policies. But today, calls for boycotts and divestments from Israel operate in a much more divided political landscape. There is no such global consensus. These protests risk oversimplifying a complex and longstanding conflict and alienating potential allies by relying on aggressive tactics. As a result, I doubt they’ll succeed the way the anti-apartheid movement did.

Take the Free Speech Movement at Berkeley in 1964 as another example. Students effectively advocated for expanded rights to organize and express their political views. They did it through constructive debate and non-violent civil disobedience. But today’s pro-Palestinian protests, too often, fail to follow those approaches. Instead of fostering debate and understanding, many demonstrations resort to coercive and aggressive behavior. Protesters hide behind masks, and the language used becomes vitriolic. This only pushes away those who might otherwise be sympathetic to the cause.

If we contrast these successful examples with others that took a different path, we can see how easily things can go wrong. The 1968 Columbia University protests initially focused on racial justice and the university’s military ties, but they quickly spiraled into violence and confrontation. The result? Mass arrests and a deeply fractured campus. Instead of advancing their cause, the protesters lost public sympathy, which significantly weakened their position. Unfortunately, current pro-Palestinian protests that rely on hostile or forceful tactics risk following the same trajectory. When aggression replaces dialogue, it deepens divisions and reduces opportunities for meaningful change.

We can also look at the 2017 Evergreen State College protests as a cautionary tale. There, protesters turned to aggressive tactics and intimidation, and their actions fractured the campus community. Negative media attention followed, and their cause suffered as a result. Just like the present protests around the Middle East conflict, where hostility and fear seem to dominate, these tactics only widen rifts and escalate tensions. They don’t foster the dialogue and understanding we need.

Timing also matters when it comes to protests. I’ve noticed several pro-Palestinian protests are scheduled for early October, including October 7th. But October 7th is a date associated with an attack that resulted in the deaths of innocent civilians and hostages. Choosing this day to protest raises serious questions about the message that’s being sent. Associating a protest with a day of violence could risk trivializing or even legitimizing that violence. Instead of promoting dialogue, this choice may deepen polarization and further alienate those who might be open to discussing the issue.

As we approach October 7th, with protests planned at Concordia and across Montreal, there exists growing concerns about safety on campus. Universities have already started taking steps to address these fears, as we’ve seen in the communications from Concordia University administration. But it’s disheartening to see that these protests have reached a point where the university and the larger community are forced to take such security measures. It’s also a shame that the legitimate and righteous cause of the Palestinian people is being overshadowed by acts of vandalism and aggression. Through these tactics and their choice of timing, protesters risk reinforcing harmful stereotypes—painting all Palestinians as terrorists, when nothing could be further from the truth.

Let me be clear: Protests that rely on fear, intimidation, or hostility are not an exercise in free speech. They’re a threat to the safety and well-being of the entire campus community. The real strength of a protest lies in debates, in spreading information, and in raising awareness. Not in street marches where protesters hide their faces. If they truly believe in their cause, and violence isn’t their intent, there’s no reason for them to conceal their identity. In fact, masks often create more harm than good. They breed fear, cast doubt on the peaceful nature of the protest, and shift the focus away from the real issues at hand.

To the protestors I say: If you really want to effect change, you have to ask yourself how you can best do that. The battle you care about is being fought far from here. If you want to be a part of that, then go and join it. From a distance, your most powerful weapon is changing the hearts and minds of others who don’t think like you. And you won’t do that by alienating them. You can only achieve it through reasoned debates and by creating a sense of understanding. And for that you need to participate in dialogues and debates, not fear and intimidation.

Sadly, what’s missing today is dialogue. There’s no conversation happening between those who think differently. No debates, no attempts to bridge the gap. And perhaps the saddest part is that there seems to be very little desire for such dialogue. In this environment, these demonstrations feel more like an emotional release—a way for some to vent their pent-up frustrations. But if all they’re doing is making the participants feel better, then they’re not serving any real purpose. That kind of self-satisfaction cannot, and should not, come at the expense of the entire university community.

This needs to stop. If these protests are to serve any meaningful purpose, they need to move beyond catharsis. There needs to be a real desire for dialogues and debates, where ideas can be exchanged, and ideas can be shared, awareness spread. Off the battlefield, change won’t come through intimidation. It can only come through reason, persuasion, and the power of thoughtful conversation. So, if you’re committed to making a difference, start by speaking—and by listening.