The university could also end the protests if the protestors are destroying their property. Does the university not have the right of self-preservation?
There are questions over what counts as "destroying" though, right? Is putting a tent on a lawn destructive? Probably not in a legal sense. And while the university can, and did, arrest students, that does not engender good relations with the student body or many other stakeholders moving forward.
IU's existence as an institution was never under threat. What I was trying to argue was that the thing under threat was its aesthetic presentation. And that's a facet that is hard for folks on any side to acknowledge openly.
Why can't the right to private property be good in itself? Putting a tent on a lawn can be considered destructive, especially with it requiring to be fenced for lawn renewal. The impact has been destructive and obstructive. I don't know what you mean by "good relations." Could the protester's destruction of property not also be understood as engendering bad relations? There should be punitive consequences for their acts of obstruction and destruction. I am not arguing against the aesthetic motivation. I just don't understand why the right to care for its property, as that area was designed for, could not be itself enough of a justification for consequences.
Yes, it's all a balancing act of who has the right to what and to what extent. Property rights can conflict with free speech rights and there are both legal limits and questions of judgment to both.
I'll be honest that I'm not really interested in prescribing what the university or students should have done differently. I just wanted to think about some unstated assumptions that undergirded how they did respond.
The university could also end the protests if the protestors are destroying their property. Does the university not have the right of self-preservation?
There are questions over what counts as "destroying" though, right? Is putting a tent on a lawn destructive? Probably not in a legal sense. And while the university can, and did, arrest students, that does not engender good relations with the student body or many other stakeholders moving forward.
IU's existence as an institution was never under threat. What I was trying to argue was that the thing under threat was its aesthetic presentation. And that's a facet that is hard for folks on any side to acknowledge openly.
Why can't the right to private property be good in itself? Putting a tent on a lawn can be considered destructive, especially with it requiring to be fenced for lawn renewal. The impact has been destructive and obstructive. I don't know what you mean by "good relations." Could the protester's destruction of property not also be understood as engendering bad relations? There should be punitive consequences for their acts of obstruction and destruction. I am not arguing against the aesthetic motivation. I just don't understand why the right to care for its property, as that area was designed for, could not be itself enough of a justification for consequences.
Yes, it's all a balancing act of who has the right to what and to what extent. Property rights can conflict with free speech rights and there are both legal limits and questions of judgment to both.
I'll be honest that I'm not really interested in prescribing what the university or students should have done differently. I just wanted to think about some unstated assumptions that undergirded how they did respond.