UT Pro-Palestine Protest Thread

[Anastasis 23,393]

1 minute ago, Frank Drebin said:

Mask bans are very likely constitutional.

How about mask mandates?

[ChickenSandwich 9,798]

Mask restrictions were legal and the norm for banks pre covid. 
 

Three years later: Masks in branches, once outlawed, are here to stay. One ironic effect from the COVID-19 pandemic was that banks and credit unions, which historically forbade customers from wearing masks in their branches for security reasons, started requiring them.

https://www.americanbanker.com/creditunions/news/three-years-later-masks-in-branches-once-outlawed-are-here-to-stay#:~:text=Credit unions-,Three years later%3A Masks in branches%2C once,outlawed%2C are here to stay&text=One ironic effect from the,security reasons%2C started requiring them.

[Frank Drebin 5,616]

4 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

The correct question is, am I legally allowed to?

I know this is difficult for you, CHIEF

A prohibition on masks while protesting is very likely enforceable and does not violate the first amendment.  Texas and other schools prohibit them.  If challenged in court, I’d predict the 5th circuit will enforce.  As would the SCOTUS.  Based on the second circuit’s reasoning in the 2004 KKK case.  We will see.  You may disagree.  But that’s my prediction. As far as I know, U or Texas’ mask ban for protests hasn’t been challenged yet. 

[Frank Drebin 5,616]

2 minutes ago, Anastasis said:

How about mask mandates?

I don’t really see a constitutional issue regarding whether they are enforceable.  Can you identify the constitutional provision someone might argue they violate?

[Mikey4 2,476]

19 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

Mask bans are very likely constitutional.  I think they are wise. People protesting behave better when you can see their faces.  Also aids in identifying them.  And then convicting them in front of a jury should they destroy property or commit violence.  Courts have long held bans on disguises are constitutional in KKK cases.  
 

https://casetext.com/case/church-of-the-american-knights-of-the-ku-klux-klan-v-kerik

That surprises me, but the First Amendment is not my practice area, and I haven't studied it closely in nearly 20 years, so I guess I’m out of the loop. Even if the state can prohibit people from wearing masks when they protest, I don’t think it should for the reasons I gave. I completely share your concern about protesters breaking the law. But if that happens, arrest them and reveal their identity at that point.

This is also a difficult set of facts for me, and perhaps for you as well, because I disagree with these protesters and their message, and I would be personally happy to see them identified. But it’s also possible that in 20 or 40 or 60 years, my kids or grandkids or great grandkids will need to protest government tyranny while remaining anonymous for their own safety, and the law should be set up to allow them to do that. 

Edited May 6 by Mikey4

[tx 3 putt 76,314]

[Frank Drebin 5,616]

3 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

That surprises me, but the First Amendment is not my practice area, and I haven't studied it closely in nearly 20 years, so I guess I’m out of the loop. Even if the state can prohibit people from wearing masks when they protest, I don’t think it should for the reasons I gave. I completely share your concern about protesters breaking the law. But if that happens, arrest them and reveal their identity at that point.

This is also a difficult set of facts for me, and perhaps for you as well, because I disagree with these protesters and their message, and I would be personally happy to see them identified. But it’s also possible that in 20 or 40 or 60 years, my kids or grandkids or great grandkids will need to protest government tyranny while remaining anonymous for their own safety, and the law should be set up to allow them to do that. 

I don’t have a problem with not allowing the KKK to march with hoods.  For the same reason I have no problem with these protesters being prohibited from covering all or parts of their faces.  

[jimmyjazz 45,546]

2 minutes ago, Frank Drebin said:

I don’t have a problem with not allowing the KKK to march with hoods.  For the same reason I have no problem with these protesters being prohibited from covering all or parts of their faces.  

So you have a problem with sunglasses?

[BurntEyes 5,825]

50 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

That surprises me, but the First Amendment is not my practice area, and I haven't studied it closely in nearly 20 years, so I guess I’m out of the loop. Even if the state can prohibit people from wearing masks when they protest, I don’t think it should for the reasons I gave. I completely share your concern about protesters breaking the law. But if that happens, arrest them and reveal their identity at that point.

This is also a difficult set of facts for me, and perhaps for you as well, because I disagree with these protesters and their message, and I would be personally happy to see them identified. But it’s also possible that in 20 or 40 or 60 years, my kids or grandkids or great grandkids will need to protest government tyranny while remaining anonymous for their own safety, and the law should be set up to allow them to do that. 

Couple of things here.

First, But if that happens, arrest them and reveal their identity at that point.

This is way easier said than done. Protests are typically large groups, and the larger they get the greater the chance for criminal activity. Beyond that, when the start to grow beyond a given area and start to expand (BLM or Occupy) there are people all over the place.

Even IF they are not huge and spread out, they can easily scatter when the police show up, if they are even around by the time the police arrive. They usually aren't.

Going with the angle of let of where masks until a crime is committed glosses over the reality of the situation. It's a nice tidy little idea, but it just doesn't work. 

As far as your children or grand children go, anyone can get on the slippery slope of for the children. I could come up with a complete list of why we should abolish the entire Bill of Rights, "for the children". 

It's quiet possible future generations will face dangers given laws at they sit today, in fact, it's nearly guaranteed. However, we can not govern the country based on those fears alone, be they legitimate or propaganda. It often leads to terrible laws and usurpation of rights. Sometimes, and frankly more time than not, in the extreme.

Want clear proof? War on Drugs and Patriot Act.

 

Edited May 6 by BurntEyes

[Frank Drebin 5,616]

Only cowards need to hide their faces.  The KKK were cowards.  So are these pussies who hide their faces while protesting.  

[Bevo 13,524]

I don’t get what protestors need to be afraid of that they wouldn’t show their faces.

Free speech in and of itself can have consequences.. You like seeing people banned on this site because of their words. You may or may not like potential employers viewing your social media.

If you believe enough in your words and your actions, you should stand by them.

There is a reason that the KKL wore masks. Should masks have been allowed? How about when there were many KKK with important positions in society?

[Rex Kramer 1,301]

1 hour ago, CHIEF said:

Do you wear one to the bank, convenience store, or liquor store presently?

CHIEF

It’s jimmyjazz. He hasn’t taken off his mask since February ‘20

[Rex Kramer 1,301]

1 hour ago, bolverk said:

As far as I'm aware, he was only kicked out of his frat, not the school. I don't think a university (government entity) has the right to kick him out based on the content of his speech alone.

Edit: There might be some loophole for racial harassment since he targeted his speech toward a specific individual. I don't know, however, if his speech crossed that threshold because I don't know where that line lies.

OU guys were kicked out, and this guy has been kicked out. Of course the university can kick him out for any poor behavior. You cannot be serious. 

[PTINS 3,442]

On 5/4/2024 at 11:04 AM, InkaUtexas said:

It is pronounced Dumas. Like the town in the panhandle right?

1 hour ago, Mikey4 said:

The First Amendment doesn't say that the right to free speech requires the speaker to reveal his or her identity,

... it also doesn't say that the right to free speech requires the speaker to conceal his or her identity.

1 hour ago, Mikey4 said:

If it crosses over into illegal conduct, then the speaker can and should be arrested and identified at that point. The threat of arrest should be real enough to serve as an incentive to keep the protest within the boundaries of the law. You do that, you can remain anonymous. You cross the line into violating the law or campus policy, and your shit goes on blast.

and then what? 

It crosses over to illegal conduct ... the speakers shit went blast (sorry about the mess),  ... but its all good, we arrested the speaker. 

35 minutes ago, Mikey4 said:

That surprises me, but the First Amendment is not my practice area, and I haven't studied it closely in nearly 20 years, so I guess I’m out of the loop. Even if the state can prohibit people from wearing masks when they protest, I don’t think it should for the reasons I gave. I completely share your concern about protesters breaking the law. But if that happens, arrest them and reveal their identity at that point.

This is also a difficult set of facts for me, and perhaps for you as well, because I disagree with these protesters and their message, and I would be personally happy to see them identified. But it’s also possible that in 20 or 40 or 60 years, my kids or grandkids or great grandkids will need to protest government tyranny while remaining anonymous for their own safety, and the law should be set up to allow them to do that. 

It’s also possible that in 20 or 40 or 60 years, someones kids or grandkids or great grandkids will want protection from anonymous tyrants who jeopardize the safety of innocent people, and the law should have been set up to allow the government to do that. 

"I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

[Bevo 13,524]

14 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

It’s jimmyjazz. He hasn’t taken off his mask since February ‘20

For some it is better that they keep their mask on. I can imagine there were some rude awakenings after some masquerade balls.

[Rex Kramer 1,301]

1 minute ago, Bevo said:

For some it is better that they keep their mask on. I can imagine there were some rude awakenings after some masquerade balls.

Yep. And the majority of regular mask wearers don’t need to wear them, even in congested places like airports and planes. 

[Bevo 13,524]

14 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

OU guys were kicked out, and this guy has been kicked out. Of course the university can kick him out for any poor behavior. You cannot be serious. 

He has a hell of a case if he was kicked out of school. From the river to the sea and other antisemitic comments are just as offensive. Why single him out from all the other racist shit that is going on?

[bolverk 29,397]

8 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

OU guys were kicked out, and this guy has been kicked out. Of course the university can kick him out for any poor behavior. You cannot be serious. 

I am serious, but I didn't realize that a couple of them were expelled from school. A very quick search led me to a wiki entry on it, where their expulsion is called into question on constitutional grounds, and several experts agree with my layman's opinion. I may or may not be right, but my initial thoughts about the Ole Miss frat rat are not as ridiculous as you make it out to be.

University of Oklahoma president David Boren ordered the expulsion of the two students who led the chant, Michael Levi Pettit[12] and Parker Rice.[12] Through two letters addressed to them, Boren justified their expulsions on the grounds that they "played a leadership role" in creating "an extremely hostile learning environment".[13][14][7] The action taken by the university was based on school's Student Rights & Responsibilities Code.[15][16][17] Rice and Pettit, both Dallas natives, enrolled in the Austin and Dallas branches of the University of Texas, respectively.

The LA Times reported that Boren appeared to be alluding to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination at universities receiving federal money.[17] However, the expulsions may have been a violation of the students' first amendment rights.[17] First Amendment law specialist and UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh asserted that President Boren's actions were unconstitutional.[18] Oklahoma State University media law associate professor Joey Senat stated that the chant was offensive but is still protected free speech.[19] Glenn Reynolds, a professor of law at the University of Tennessee, expressed the opinion that as a former U.S. senator, Boren should have known that the university was breaking the law in expelling the two students.[20] A Washington Post article reported that a Sigma Chi fraternity successfully challenged similar action taken against them by George Mason University in 1992.[21]

 

 

[Rex Kramer 1,301]

6 minutes ago, bolverk said:

I am serious, but I didn't realize that a couple of them were expelled from school. A very quick search led me to a wiki entry on it, where their expulsion is called into question on constitutional grounds, and several experts agree with my layman's opinion. I may or may not be right, but my initial thoughts about the Ole Miss frat rat are not as ridiculous as you make it out to be.

University of Oklahoma president David Boren ordered the expulsion of the two students who led the chant, Michael Levi Pettit[12] and Parker Rice.[12] Through two letters addressed to them, Boren justified their expulsions on the grounds that they "played a leadership role" in creating "an extremely hostile learning environment".[13][14][7] The action taken by the university was based on school's Student Rights & Responsibilities Code.[15][16][17] Rice and Pettit, both Dallas natives, enrolled in the Austin and Dallas branches of the University of Texas, respectively.

The LA Times reported that Boren appeared to be alluding to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, which bans racial discrimination at universities receiving federal money.[17] However, the expulsions may have been a violation of the students' first amendment rights.[17] First Amendment law specialist and UCLA Law professor Eugene Volokh asserted that President Boren's actions were unconstitutional.[18] Oklahoma State University media law associate professor Joey Senat stated that the chant was offensive but is still protected free speech.[19] Glenn Reynolds, a professor of law at the University of Tennessee, expressed the opinion that as a former U.S. senator, Boren should have known that the university was breaking the law in expelling the two students.[20] A Washington Post article reported that a Sigma Chi fraternity successfully challenged similar action taken against them by George Mason University in 1992.[21]

 

 

Whatever. Their lives at OU were over.  Boren probably knew they weren’t going to litigate his ruling, which surely violated handbook policy and as stated Title VI of the CRA. Boren had a reasonable, successful approach. 

Edited May 6 by Rex Kramer

[Rex Kramer 1,301]

6 minutes ago, Bevo said:

He has a hell of a case if he was kicked out of school. From the river to the sea and other antisemitic comments are just as offensive. Why single him out from all the other racist shit that is going on?

I mean I guess he does. Just because there’s a double standard for racism doesn’t mean this guy has “a hell of a case”. 

[Bevo 13,524]

5 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Yep. And the majority of regular mask wearers don’t need to wear them, even in congested places like airports and planes. 

 

What is interesting is the exceptions. I have a cousin who is on immunosuppressants and is saying that we can't visit unless we wear masks. So when she goes out in public these days, she has to wear a mask. The easy answer is that she shouldn't be attending rallies. The hard question is whether requiring her to remove the mask violates her constitutional rights. I personally would say the rights of the many takes precedent over the rights of the few.

[bolverk 29,397]

4 minutes ago, Rex Kramer said:

Whatever. Their lives at OU were over.  Boren probably knew they weren’t going to litigate his ruling, which surely violated handbook policy and as stated Title VI of the CRA. Boren had a reasonable, successful approach. 

As I said in my first post on this topic:

Edit: There might be some loophole for racial harassment since he targeted his speech toward a specific individual. I don't know, however, if his speech crossed that threshold because I don't know where that line lies.

There may have been a discrimination loophole for free speech in the OU frat case, too, since it was a fraternity-sponsored event where an African American student could reasonably assume they'd be discriminated against on racial grounds from joining that fraternity. Maybe that would be sufficient grounds for getting around First Amendment concerns. I don't know.

What I do know is that I'm generally against government curtailment of constitutionally guaranteed free speech. There's a line you've got to cross first, and I'm not sure the Ole Miss fuckhead crossed it. I would, however, like to see him face non-governmental consequences.

[Rex Kramer 1,301]

Just now, bolverk said:

As I said in my first post on this topic:

Edit: There might be some loophole for racial harassment since he targeted his speech toward a specific individual. I don't know, however, if his speech crossed that threshold because I don't know where that line lies.

There may have been a discrimination loophole for free speech in the OU frat case, too, since it was a fraternity-sponsored event where an African American student could reasonably assume they'd be discriminated against on racial grounds from joining that fraternity. Maybe that would be sufficient grounds for getting around First Amendment concerns. I don't know.

What I do know is that I'm generally against government curtailment of constitutionally guaranteed free speech. There's a line you've got to cross first, and I'm not sure the Ole Miss fuckhead crossed it. I would, however, like to see him face non-governmental consequences.

He’ll face consequences. He already has. The other 2, I know for a fact one went to graduate UT and cannot hold work. He’s unhirable.  

I have zero issue with an entity deciding this guy creates a dangerous environment and can’t be there. If a government employee for the state of MS had some something similar, they’d be terminated. I cannot appreciate the difference. Yeah, the kid can say whatever he wants, but he’s got to pay the consequences. 

[Frank Drebin 5,616]

Statement from Hartzell:

https://view.texasexesemail.com/?qs=2c235ad9a51b947a9ef69b7ad2cfbab6d308e668f78b43aa2c6c013ca525ad61cc74fff91b6ea10656257ff8d70725dad4d5fc34cffb85c2112b6186e4222306e04e91ac25048b01706d544aae413c7bd128fcd976dad2e9

UT president: It wasn't a protest. It was criminal trespassing. There is a long, proud history of protest at The University of Texas at Austin. I am grateful to work at a university where students, faculty and staff care deeply enough about community, national and world events to rally around those causes. Demonstrations play a role on campuses such as ours. A university, after all, encourages students to discover and develop points of view, and to express them. These activities challenge the ways we think and feed a campus’ dynamic atmosphere. UT students have held dozens of peaceful protests, largely without incident, throughout this academic year. We also have a responsibility to keep the campus and its people safe, and to allow our teaching and research to continue. Our rules provide structure for this responsibility and set up conditions for the co-existence of protests, safety and education. We are constantly reviewing those rules, improving on them, and making sure they protect everyone—those who are protesting and those who are learning, working or visiting campus. These rules also protect free speech, and enforcing them uniformly and consistently keeps us from discriminating against any particular point of view. For decades, groups with an incredible array of differing views have shared a respect for our rules. These students, though energized by a conflict or cause, have nevertheless worked with us and found permissible ways to express themselves without putting others at risk. Regrettably, protesters, including many not affiliated with UT, have refused in recent weeks to accept these rules and processes. It pains me deeply that even though the organizers declared their intent to break our rules, they rebuffed numerous attempts by our Office of the Dean of Students to meet beforehand. The on-campus encampments they said they would establish, and then did, were clearly prohibited by our rules, including a prohibition against camping that became effective in 2012. They also threatened to effectively disrupt the education of more than 52,000 students and to set an alarming precedent for anyone seeking to establish encampments in the future. Demonstrators were repeatedly urged, then ordered, to take down the encampments and disperse. At every step, they refused. At that point, regardless of anyone’s opinion, this was no longer a traditional assembly or protest. By the plain language of our rules, it was criminal trespassing. Some have asked why Texas Department of Public Safety officers were on our campus during the protests. This is a fair question with a clear answer: They were protecting the safety of our campus community by assisting the University of Texas Police Department. Our police department is outstanding, but its size is limited. We knew—as did the demonstrators—that it was unlikely to be adequately staffed for what was coming. We have watched with concern as disruptive and illegal encampments have sprung up on other university campuses, and we took seriously the pre-protest threats—voiced by organizers and others with no affiliation with UT—to “occupy” our own. As university leaders, we recognized that at other schools, encampments have preceded further and more serious disruptions, safety risks, injuries, and ultimately, more severe and dangerous police intervention. Also, if we allowed encampments in this instance, it would be nearly impossible to stop encampments from other groups in the future without facing challenges of chilling speech or viewpoint discrimination. It is difficult—for all of us—to see serious police presence and arrests on our campus. It is worse, though, to see a handful of people flout rules meant to protect everyone. It is worse still to see that disorder escalate from encampments to occupations, as has happened at Columbia University and UCLA. And it is terrifying to contemplate where such occupations might end—and who might get hurt. We share the sincere and deep concerns of many Longhorns about the lives lost in Gaza and Israel. Their human reactions—and their need to express them in hope of a better world—show the importance of our traditions of protest and assembly. Still, UT is a community. Our foremost responsibility has always been to keep that community safe. We want to work with protesters—within our rules and laws—so they can express themselves. We need them to work with us to fulfill the responsibility we share. Jay C. Hartzell is president of The University of Texas at Austin. Read more The University has also published an FAQ about the recent protests, which can be found here.

[Frank Drebin 5,616]

https://news.utexas.edu/2024/05/03/frequently-asked-questions-about-recent-protests/

Please see below for questions and answers regarding recent campus protest activity and the University’s response.

Statements from the University since April 24:

Wednesday, April 24
UT Division of Student Affairs Statement
President Hartzell Message: Today’s Events

Thursday, April 25
President Hartzell Message: Balancing Speech, Safety and Our Mission

Monday, April 29
University Statement Regarding Today’s Ongoing Events on Campus (afternoon)
University Statement Regarding Today’s Protest Events (evening)

Tuesday, April 30
University Statement Regarding Arrests from Monday’s Protests and Confiscation of Weapons

Is peaceful protest allowed at UT Austin?

Is peaceful protest allowed at UT Austin?

UT Austin actively supports free speech and peaceful protests, which happen regularly on campus surrounding various issues. Since October 2023, community members have hosted more than a dozen pro-Palestinian free speech events and protests that have been largely without incident. Protests, however, must comply with Institutional Rules and policies about time, place and manner, one of which is that no one may create or attempt to create an encampment. When a protest violates Institutional Rules, protesters are told to disperse.

What makes the recent protests on April 24 and April 29 different from others held throughout the year?

Most protests on the UT Austin campus, including those held since October related to events in the Middle East, have complied with Institutional Rules that exist to keep the entire campus community safe and protect our operational integrity. On April 24, those planning the event expressly stated their event was intended to disrupt our operations and to “follow in the footsteps” of protesters at other universities where those protesters successfully accomplished that same goal. Their promotion of their intended event included planned activities and conduct in violation of our policies and rules. Also, on both April 24 and April 29, as they indicated they intended to do, protestors violated numerous Institutional Rules and policies — most notably, setting up encampments on the South Lawn. In addition, protesters deliberately provoked officers, stated their intent to not comply, and physically and verbally harassed our staff. Officers were headbutted, spit on, and verbally assaulted by protesters. Some protesters attempted to startle a DPS horse, and others threw horse excrement at officers. Police car tires were slashed.

Which Institutional Rules have been violated?

The following violations of Institutional Rules and policies were associated with the April 24 and April 29 protests:

• Erecting tents (HOP 8-1050)
• Attempting to establish an encampment (HOP 8-1050)
• Unauthorized use of amplified sound (Sec. 13–801)
• Unauthorized use of tables on the South Lawn (Sec. 13-600)
• Use of face coverings to conceal identity (Sec. 13-105)
• Failure to identify (Sec. 11-402)
• Failure to comply with directives related to the above referenced (Sec. 11-402)
• Shoving staff (HOP 8-1010)
• Items brought that could be used as weapons (e.g., guns, shields, objects intended for throwing, mallets) (Sec. 11-402)
• Failure to follow city, state and federal laws (e.g., criminal trespass, disorderly conduct, destruction of government property, assault on public servant, obstructing a roadway)

Why were people arrested?

Arrests can be made when protesters repeatedly violate Institutional Rules and refuse to comply with University directives. When an individual refuses to comply, they are criminally trespassing.
During the protests on April 24 and April 29, protesters were arrested for trespassing after they were told several times by UT staff and law enforcement to disperse from the protest site. UT has consistently said that encampments are not allowed, and the City of Austin also prohibits public camping. When protesters set up encampments in violation of policy and then refuse to take those encampments down and disperse, law enforcement can make arrests for criminal trespassing.

Why was the Texas Department of Public Safety brought onto campus to support UTPD?

The University requested assistance from DPS because, prior to the April 24 protest, the protesters indicated that they wanted to mimic what has happened at Columbia University and other universities. Based on the size of the groups that have protested elsewhere, the University expected a group too large for the UT Police Department to respond to on its own, if that were to become necessary.

Were there any warnings to protestors before they began to act?

Leading up to the April 24 protest, organizers expressed an intent to “follow in the footsteps” of demonstrations occurring at Columbia University, Rutgers-New Brunswick, Yale and elsewhere. The event called for actions that violated our Institutional Rules and policies and was part of a national campaign by a group not affiliated with UT Austin. That group, Students for Justice in Palestine, is explicitly seeking to disrupt university operations nationwide and create campus encampments. A UT-affiliated student group, the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC), was also involved in planning the protest. The Dean of Students’ Office (DoS) reached out to the PSC several times in the weeks leading up to the April 24 protest, and, after agreeing to a meeting, PSC members chose to no-show. DoS also sent a letter informing PSC that the event could not proceed as planned because of its stated intent to disrupt and therefore break Institutional Rules. The DoS offered support for an event within University rules.

On April 23, University staff provided a notice to the student group that their event could not proceed as planned. The group did not respond to indicate that they would adjust their plans to be within the rules. Instead, they showed up on campus on April 24 and immediately began to proceed with conduct (e.g., amplified sound) that demonstrated their intent to ignore Institutional Rules. At that point, University staff directed the group multiple times that they needed to disperse. Instead of complying, several in attendance ignored the directive and some stated they would not comply. At that point, University staff sought assistance from UTPD and other law enforcement.

On April 29, protesters set up encampments, and University staff told them several times that they had to disperse because their encampments violated Institutional Rules. Law enforcement became involved when protesters refused to remove encampment materials and leave the premises.

Why was the Palestine Solidarity Committee (PSC) suspended?

The Dean of Students (DoS) suspended PSC for violating and openly advocating for others to violate Institutional Rules and policies, as well as failing to comply with the DoS attempts to intervene and adhere to direction from law enforcement.

Are all the protesters affiliated with UT Austin?

Of the 79 people arrested on April 29, 45 had no affiliation with UT Austin. Of the 55 people arrested on April 24, 26 had no affiliation with UT Austin.

At what point did officers decide to make an arrest?

Protesters participating in demonstrations that violate Institutional Rules and policies — such as demonstrations that include encampments — have been given numerous chances to comply with our Institutional Rules to disperse without arrest. Those who refused those numerous chances have been subject to arrest for trespassing. Officers have made every attempt to arrest protesters peacefully. If protesters followed the University’s time, place and manner provisions for protest, then they would not be directed to disperse and would be able to engage in their expressive activities on campus.

Were any weapons found during the protests?

To date, from protesters, weapons have been confiscated in the form of guns, buckets of large rocks, bricks, steel-enforced wood planks, mallets, and chains. Guns, specifically, were confiscated by Austin Police Department officers, and these weapons were not in a holster. UTPD is currently reviewing the evidence to determine if additional arrests should be made or further charges filed for individuals bringing guns on campus without a license (Texas Penal Code, Section 46.03).

Why did some officers use pepper spray and flash bangs?

During the protest on April 29, protestors prevented law enforcement from doing their jobs. The protesters repeatedly encroached on and attempted to push back barriers formed by police officers to protect public safety, refused to move out of the street, and were blocking official law enforcement vehicles that were attempting to leave campus with protestors who were arrested, which is a violation of the Texas Penal Code, Section 42.03.

What consequences do arrested students face from UT Austin?

It is first important to distinguish the campus conduct process from the legal process. Separate from any discipline a student might face from the criminal justice system, a student arrested for criminal trespassing or other rules violations is also subject to student conduct action based on University rules. The administrative process is designed as an educational intervention, supporting due process and evidence-based sanctions/activities, and providing accountability. The criminal justice system process can run parallel with any student conduct action.

Further explanation about our student conduct process can be found here.

The University historically does not initiate the student conduct process with students just before or during final exams, to avoid having an impact on academic performance. We want to be proportionate in our response, and it takes time to gather facts and conduct investigations. Based on both factors, no conduct actions have been issued related to events of the past week.

[Nivek 16,851]

Items that could be used as a weapon?  So any student with a pencil should be arrested.  All geology students should be arrested for having rock hammers.....

 

 

[Frank Drebin 5,616]

8 minutes ago, Nivek said:

Items that could be used as a weapon?  So any student with a pencil should be arrested.  All geology students should be arrested for having rock hammers.....

 

 

I suspect it's mainly about guns.  You cannot carry a firearm on campus unless you have a permit and you keep it concealed. If you have a gun on campus and it is either (i) not concealed (regardless of permit) or (ii) concealed with no permit, it's a felony.

[Nivek 16,851]

1 minute ago, Frank Drebin said:

I suspect it's mainly about guns.  You cannot carry a firearm on campus unless you have a permit and you keep it concealed. If you have a gun on campus and it is either (i) not concealed (regardless of permit) or (ii) concealed with no permit, it's a felony.

Quote

Items brought that could be used as weapons (e.g., guns, shields, objects intended for throwing, mallets)

This is both explicit in the inclusion of mallets, a far less lethal alternative to a rock hammer, and rocks (which could be intended for throwing).   Clearly those geologists and their students are a menace and need to be arrested.  They are well armed with both and keep an inordinate number of rocks around.   Heck, I bet if you search their homes, those fuckfaces have rocks in their homes too maybe even boxes of them.    

 

[Frank Drebin 5,616]

Just now, Nivek said:

This is both explicit in the inclusion of mallets, a far less lethal alternative to a rock hammer, and rocks (which could be intended for throwing).   Clearly those geologists and their students are a menace and need to be arrested.  They are well armed with both and keep an inordinate number of rocks around.   Heck, I bet if you search their homes, those fuckfaces have rocks in their homes too maybe even boxes of them.    

 

If someone is arrested for that, they can make a strong argument they had the mallet for impromptu wood working.

[Bevo 13,524]

Just saw that Greg Fenves needs support as well. He is at Emory and dealing with the same stuff from a faction of faculty that Hartzell faces.

[BabaYaga 15,208]

1 hour ago, Nivek said:

Heck, I bet if you search their homes, those fuckfaces have rocks in their homes too maybe even boxes of them.    

Kam Patterson need steer clear of all future protests not that he's a regular at the Mother Ship in Austin

[wildcat09 29,224]

On 5/5/2024 at 9:24 PM, Frank Drebin said:

Only cowards need to hide their faces.  The KKK were cowards.  So are these pussies who hide their faces while protesting.  

He says while posting from behind his second pseudonymous internet handle, because he got a little too spicy too often under his first one. 

[YGIFS 19,449]

11 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Just saw that Greg Fenves needs support as well. He is at Emory and dealing with the same stuff from a faction of faculty that Hartzell faces.

Has to be even more challenging for Fenves in that it's a private school and his dad was minutes away from being exterminated in a holocaust prison camp.  

Saw Jay yesterday.  I was on no sleep having a shit-tastic day and he looked 50x rougher than I did.  And that's saying something.  They don't know the fuck is going to happen at commencement nor how to handle it.  I'm sure there's a committee looking into forming a committee to assemble a task-force.  But fucking-a.  

[jimmyjazz 45,546]

On 5/5/2024 at 9:36 PM, Rex Kramer said:

It’s jimmyjazz. He hasn’t taken off his mask since February ‘20

Zing!  To be honest, I'm pretty sure the last time I wore a mask was on the plane flying from NYC in summer 2022.

I got covid on that trip, anyway.

[Rex Kramer 1,301]

3 hours ago, Nivek said:

Items that could be used as a weapon?  So any student with a pencil should be arrested.  All geology students should be arrested for having rock hammers.....

 

 

Literalist wishcasting. 

2 hours ago, Nivek said:

This is both explicit in the inclusion of mallets, a far less lethal alternative to a rock hammer, and rocks (which could be intended for throwing).   Clearly those geologists and their students are a menace and need to be arrested.  They are well armed with both and keep an inordinate number of rocks around.   Heck, I bet if you search their homes, those fuckfaces have rocks in their homes too maybe even boxes of them.    

 

You actually typed all that out.

Sounds like Jay Hartzell IS our standard. 

[Bevo 13,524]

5 hours ago, YGIFS said:

Has to be even more challenging for Fenves in that it's a private school and his dad was minutes away from being exterminated in a holocaust prison camp.  

Saw Jay yesterday.  I was on no sleep having a shit-tastic day and he looked 50x rougher than I did.  And that's saying something.  They don't know the fuck is going to happen at commencement nor how to handle it.  I'm sure there's a committee looking into forming a committee to assemble a task-force.  But fucking-a.  

This is the story of Steven Fenves, my dad.

He and his sister Eszti grew up in a prosperous, upper-middle class Jewish family in Subotica – a town in a province of Yugoslavia with a large Hungarian population. My grandfather, Louis, served in the army of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire during World War I, and later with his brother, published the most influential Hungarian-language newspaper in the province. The family lived in a large apartment above their offices and printing plant.

My grandmother, Klara, was a graphic artist who had traveled throughout Europe in the 1920s as an art student. My dad grew up trilingual, speaking Hungarian at home, Serbian in school, and, because of his German governess, he learned German as well.

In April of 1941, as an ally of Germany, Hungary invaded Yugoslavia, and Subotica fell under occupation. My dad was 9 years old. The Hungarian anti-Jewish laws were immediately put into effect. The family’s governess stomped out of the apartment, announcing that she would not spend another night in a Jew’s home. And my grandfather was led out of his newspaper office at gunpoint and the business was confiscated.

My dad’s family had to sell all their possessions for money to survive, including his prized stamp collection. They were forced to live in one corner of their apartment while Hungarian military officers took over the rest of their home.

This dehumanizing confiscation and subjugation had happened to Jews all over Europe and was now happening to the Hungarian Jews. They lost their rights, and the lives that they had built over generations were instantly taken away.

As the next three years passed, life for my dad’s family became increasingly desperate, culminating in the deportation of Hungarian Jews.

To put this in a historical perspective, for Germany, [by then] the war was all but lost. The American and British armies had landed in France on D-Day. American and other forces were moving up the Italian peninsula. And the Soviet army was advancing from the east. There was no hope of Germany surviving the onslaught of Allied forces. But the Nazis were so dedicated and single-mindedly focused on annihilating the Jews that they continued to deport Jews and operate the death camps until their ultimate defeat.

So, in 1944, my dad and his family were loaded onto a transport train – a train built to hold freight — that was packed with hundreds of people. My dad was 13 years old.

They did not know where they were going. There was no food or water. The train just kept moving. Finally, days later, the train stopped. The doors opened, and the people were ordered to get off. They were at their final destination — Auschwitz.

The guards took hold of the passengers. Within minutes, they selected my great-grandmother to die in the gas chamber, and the rest of the family was separated.

The average time a person would survive in Auschwitz was four days. My dad would go on to spend five months there. He survived by using the German language that, ironically, his governess had taught him, acting as an interpreter for the officials who were shopping for slave labor, and for the Polish political prisoners who were the overseers in the compounds.

He worked on a roof repair detail and, one day, came across his sister Eszti who told him that their mother had died, shriveling away from hopelessness. On another visit, he brought Eszti food and warm clothing, paid for by trading trinkets on the black market in the camp.

By the late fall of 1944, rumors circulated through Auschwitz that the Germans were planning to exterminate all remaining prisoners, including the children, before the Soviet forces arrived. With this news, the Polish underground began to smuggle people out of Auschwitz, including my dad.

Keep in mind, he was barely a teenager. And because of his young age, he would never have been selected to work in a slave labor camp. The Polish underground knew this and coached him to tell the Germans a number of plausible reasons why he would be on a transport from Auschwitz.

One day, as prisoners who had been selected for work lined up, the underground slipped my dad into the line. He was crammed into the train car. He didn’t know that it was bound for a satellite camp of Buchenwald near Weimar, Germany.

After three days on the train, my dad arrived in the small town of Niederorschel with about 300 other slave laborers. They were going to be forced to work at a small factory, making aircraft wings for Messerschmitt fighter planes.

An SS guard gave a talk to the group, and just before they were dismissed, the guard went up to my dad and said, “What are you doing here? I didn’t select you.”

The guard had recognized my dad from Auschwitz and knew that he wasn’t supposed to be there. But my dad thought quickly and said to the guard: “Well sir, with all of these new inmates, they thought that you would need another interpreter.” The SS guard, miraculously, believed him.

He would spend the remaining months of World War II as a slave laborer, alongside other enslaved Jews and Russian prisoners of war. They were barely fed, and their lives consisted of nothing more than a daily walk from the barracks to the factory, hours of labor, and back for sleep.

Even with the life being worked out of them, they resisted. The workers would sabotage the wiring in the wings of the fighters so the landing gear would retract after takeoff, but upon landing, the wheels wouldn’t lower and the planes would crash. They risked their own lives to ensure that someday the Nazis would be defeated.

In April of 1945, General Patton’s Third Army was rapidly powering through central Germany as Allied forces converged on Berlin. The Nazis were trying to hide the evidence of the camps, so they evacuated Niederorschel through a forced march to the main camp 65 miles away – Buchenwald.

Many died along the way. And during the trek, my dad was confronted by a guard, beaten, and his arm was severely broken. He was very ill, but he made it to Buchenwald. Upon arriving, he collapsed and passed out in one of the barracks.

When my dad came to, he was among American soldiers of the 6th Armored Division. American soldiers were liberating the camp. He had survived.

In the weeks that followed, my dad, still 13 years old, had a choice: to declare himself a refugee and face an even more unknown future, or return to his hometown in Yugoslavia, with the hope of seeing his family again. He chose to go home, and when he got there, he found Eszti had survived Bergen-Belsen, my grandfather Louis had barely survived as a slave laborer in a Silesian coal mine, and two of his cousins had made it through as well.

My grandfather was deathly ill and would die a few months later. But before he died, he wrote a letter to a friend living in New York. My grandfather expressed his hope that his children would move to America. He believed that in the United States, his children would be given an opportunity to flourish – to lead happy, meaningful lives. My dad never forgot this message, and he still has his father’s letter.

My dad, my aunt Eszti, and their cousins went on to escape what was by then communist Yugoslavia. They ended up in Paris, which was in chaos after the war and flooded with refugees from across Europe. They lived in a Hungarian slum near the Sorbonne that is now a prosperous neighborhood.

My dad learned French and excelled in high school. He and Eszti were able to get American immigration visas, and they arrived in Chicago in 1950.

And then another uniquely American story unfolded. After a couple of years, my dad was drafted into the U.S. Army during the Korean War. His unit was preparing for deployment to Korea, but at the last minute, the orders were changed, and he became part of the U.S. Occupation Forces in Germany — only seven years after being liberated by the same army in the same country.

My dad has always said that he learned what it is to be an American during his time in the Army. But I think he understood what this nation was about long before, when he was at

Buchenwald, opening his eyes to see U.S. soldiers caring for the sick and the dying. Fighting for justice. He saw that then.

When he brought his sister food and clothing at Auschwitz, he was already an American. When he helped sabotage German planes in a slave labor camp, he was already an American. And when he came to this country for the first time as a refugee, he was already an American. The American spirit is not bound by blood, race, religion, or place of origin. It is based on a set of ideals found within courageous people.

My dad was honorably discharged from the Army, and his service earned him a path to U.S. citizenship and a college education through the G.I. Bill. While in college, he met and married my mom, Norma, his wife of 67 years, and they raised four kids, including me.

My dad would go on to become a renowned professor of engineering, being elected to the National Academy of Engineering at the remarkably young age of 45.

I’ve spent my entire life trying to understand my dad’s story. To live up to his expectations. To make him proud, knowing full well everything he went through to give me and my siblings the opportunities we’ve had in this great country of ours.

If you look at my career and life, you can see the imprint of my father. I became an engineer, professor, National Academy member. This isn’t a coincidence.

And even as a university president, with my dad now nearly 91 years old, he’s still the one opinion, the one voice, the person I look up to and listen to more than any other.

And being here with you today – telling his story so others can understand and learn, so that the atrocities of the Holocaust and the hatred that made it possible does not take hold again – that is the best way I can honor him.

By understanding his story, we understand our own story, as individuals, as a society, and as a nation. We understand the promise of America and the sacrifice it has always taken to make that promise real. That’s what the truth does. That’s what education does. That’s what storytelling does. It touches our minds and our hearts. It holds us accountable to the truth.

Thank you all so much.

[PvilleStang 2,844]

So, the booking photos have been released from that day.  27 people booked under Criminal Trespass that look to be with the protest.  19 of them seem to be current students, and I've removed from the list.  The rest: 

 

11300329    CASSIDY    CAMERON    2409269    04/24/2024    2716-0 CRIMINAL TRESPASS - 2022 TxState grad working at Tokyo Electron

11300317    GOTT    GREGORY    2409256    04/24/2024    2716-0 CRIMINAL TRESPASS
This is the dude that got machetted at Zilker early this year!?!

11300357    HAMOUDAH    OMAR    2409289    04/24/2024    2716-0 CRIMINAL TRESPASS - ACC student, no UT affiliation

11300341    HOSSAIN    NABIHA    2409257    04/24/2024    2716-0 CRIMINAL TRESPASS
Arrive Logistics - Has since deleted her LinkedIn, and has no history at UT.

11300328    REYES    JULIAN    2409277    04/24/2024    2716-0 CRIMINAL TRESPASS - "Cop Watcher" 
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2017/10/04/cop-watcher-files-lawsuit-against-austin-police-officer/10388801007/

11300331    RODRIGUEZ    JAMES    2409275    04/24/2024    2716-0 CRIMINAL TRESPASS

11300343    YOSHIMOTO    HANA    2409298    04/24/2024    2716-0 CRIMINAL TRESPASS - UC Davis Grad, no UT affiliation 

 

All this point out that most of the arrests that made it to the APD booking photo database are indeed UT students.  I can't tell if any of the others are staff or faculty if they aren't notated.

[deft 6,797]

Well, they look like they they’re all people who are within their rights to be on campus expressing their free speech thanks to the hard work of 1A loving Greg Abbott.

[ChickenSandwich 9,798]

4 hours ago, PvilleStang said:

 

11300328    REYES    JULIAN    2409277    04/24/2024    2716-0 CRIMINAL TRESPASS - "Cop Watcher" 
https://www.statesman.com/story/news/local/2017/10/04/cop-watcher-files-lawsuit-against-austin-police-officer/10388801007/

 

[Captainant 27,442]

5 hours ago, PvilleStang said:

All this point out that most of the arrests that made it to the APD booking photo database are indeed UT students.  I can't tell if any of the others are staff or faculty if they aren't notated.

It seems a little disingenuous to call an ACC student "non UT affiliated" as a means to paint them as outside agitators, considering UT is a major cultural focal point for Austin as a city. Its one hell of a weasel statement to hang your hat on by Hartzell

[Bevo 13,524]

35 minutes ago, Captainant said:

It seems a little disingenuous to call an ACC student "non UT affiliated" as a means to paint them as outside agitators, considering UT is a major cultural focal point for Austin as a city. Its one hell of a weasel statement to hang your hat on by Hartzell

ACC, Anderson High School, St. Edwards, and the Challenger School are not UT affiliated.

[Blotto 23,427]

Stupid question time....

https://www.utexas.edu/campus-carry

Quote

General Information on Campus Carry

On June 1, 2015, Gov. Greg Abbott signed Senate Bill 11 (S.B. 11), also known as the "campus carry" law. S.B. 11, which is codified in section 411.2031 of the Texas Government Code, provides that persons licensed to carry a handgun in Texas may carry a concealed handgun on university campuses. The law gives public universities some discretion to regulate campus carry.

The University of Texas at Austin takes issues surrounding guns on campus very seriously and has adopted rules and regulations governing campus carry that conform to Texas law, protect the rights of citizens and ensure the safety and security of the entire campus.

 

Quote

Beginning September 1, 2021, HB1927 made it legal in Texas for most people 21 or over to carry a handgun in a holster without a permit both openly and/or concealed. 

This law modified the previous open carry law from 2016 by eliminating the requirement to have a license to carry. 

This means that most people 21 or over may carry a handgun without a license to carry. 

If HB1927 eliminated the requirement to hold a  permit to carry a handgun in Texas (assuming you're 21, not a felon etc....), how does that effect the language of the earlier 2015 legislation permitting concealed carry on college campuses? Even though the state no longer requires a permit, do you still have to apply for a state permit if you wish to carry on campus? Do they even issue permits now that they are not needed? I don't own guns, so I don't keep up with the associated legalities.

 

[Captainant 27,442]

41 minutes ago, Bevo said:

ACC, Anderson High School, St. Edwards, and the Challenger School are not UT affiliated.

Strictly speaking, as a member of UIL, Anderson HS is """UT affiliated"""

 

That said, Hartzell and the Johnny Sacks of the world are using rhetoric that would lead one to believe that some flown in protesters are getting arrested at UT. Austin residents going to a protest in a State-designated free speech area in Austin seems like a normal thing to me.

[Hank_Hill 18,486]

We should ban anyone who didn’t graduate from UT from this board. They’re outside agitators.

[deft 6,797]

Let’s get rid of those okie and aggy fucks for good

[Hank_Hill 18,486]

Inshallah

[Bevo 13,524]

1 hour ago, Hank_Hill said:

We should ban anyone who didn’t graduate from UT from this board. They’re outside agitators.

Just wait until football season begins and SECers find this board...

[jimmyjazz 45,546]

38 minutes ago, Bevo said:

Just wait until football season begins and SECers find this board...

Lock down the board.

[deft 6,797]

Just wait until football season begins and SECers find this board...

Well we use multisyllabic words so it shouldn’t be a problem.

[Rex Kramer 1,301]

11 hours ago, Captainant said:

Strictly speaking, as a member of UIL, Anderson HS is """UT affiliated"""

 

That said, Hartzell and the Johnny Sacks of the world are using rhetoric that would lead one to believe that some flown in protesters are getting arrested at UT. Austin residents going to a protest in a State-designated free speech area in Austin seems like a normal thing to me.

Flown in?  I haven’t seen anyone say this. There were outside agitators, and as a result you’re making up stuff / moving the goalposts.