The University has offered organizers of the quad encampment a one-hour meeting with University President Alivisatos and Provost Katherine Baicker in exchange for an immediate end to the encampment and a cessation of further violations of University policy, according to an email obtained by the Maroon.
In a 12:45 p.m. Telegram message reviewed by the Maroon, encampment organizers said they would not end the encampment and were formulating a response to the email.
The email, sent by Dean of Students Michele Rasmussen to organizers of the encampment, said the proposed meeting would include discussion of “topics related to the University, Israel, and divestment.”
The University would allow three student organizers, a faculty advisor of the encampment’s choosing, and, per UCUP’s request, up to 15 student observers to attend the private meeting. No video or audio recordings would be permitted.
The University also said Alivisatos and Baicker were willing to participate in a public forum to discuss “the many viewpoints related to the Israel–Hamas War and divestment” if the University’s conditions were met.
“I hope that you agree to this proposal. I look forward to hearing from you as soon as possible,” the email concluded.
The University first spoke with organizers on Wednesday morning, according to UCUP.
“No negotiations were had on the state of the encampment,” UCUP wrote in a statement to the Maroon regarding the Wednesday meeting.
The encampment started on Monday and has now expanded to roughly 150 tents.
According to UCUP’s Instagram, there are three demands that must be fulfilled for the encampment to close. The demands are that the University “disclose investments in weapons manufacturers”; engage in reparations such as financially supporting rebuilding higher education in Gaza; and divest from “death in Gaza, the South Side, and beyond” by “ending partnerships with apartheid Israeli institutions, cutting ties with the Israel Institute, withdrawing funds from weapons manufacturer and fossil fuels, disbanding UCPD, and ceasing new construction projects on the South Side.”
The University did not respond to the Maroon’s request for comment at the time of publishing.
StrongMindedJew / May 3, 2024 at 6:37 pm
Screw the protesters. As a UChicago alum I wish them failure in all of their malicious endeavors.
blueface / May 3, 2024 at 11:04 am
This is a laughable offering from the University that (like all admin-facilitated “discussions”) would produce nothing meaningful, and I hope it is rejected.
But come on: the protestors are overplaying their hand by attaching UCPD abolition to their demands. Indirectly demanding more resources from an overtaxed (and, frankly, even less accountable) CPD would be disastrous for the rest of the city.
StrongMindedJew / May 3, 2024 at 6:47 pm
The only offering these hooligans should get from the university is immediate eviction, by force if it is required.
EightiesAlum / May 2, 2024 at 5:12 pm
Wow, the UCUP demands are pretty modest. They forgot to ask for snacks and water like their peers at Columbia. I guess the revolution will not be catered!!
I’ve got an idea . . . the University can take a line from Godfather II when the corrupt Nevada Senator was trying to shake down Michael Corleone.
“My offer is this . . . nothing.”
John Doe / May 2, 2024 at 4:24 pm
If the university agrees to fund anything in Gaza, or accounces any scholarships for Gazans like the cowards at Northwestern, or lets these imbeciles dictate their investment policy, I will not be donating to the University anymore because this will be proovr that the University administration are a bunch of cowards that succumbed to bullying.
Anon Minority / May 2, 2024 at 4:56 pm
Amen. If the University caves to these affirmative actioners and their filth parade, it will not get a cent from me. We have imported these goons and the behaviors of their home environment. Such incivility is incompatible with a place of learning. Alivisatos ought not succumb to these… hyenas.
U of C student / May 5, 2024 at 12:29 am
If administrators have a pure regard for free and open discourse as they say they do, they’ll recognize strong arguments for disclosure and divestment even when they come from inconvenient places, e.g. from bright, conscientious students who are breaking some rules. In contrast, your argument against transparency assumes that campus policy decisions can and should be freely and openly sold to the highest bidder. But suppose someone with ten times deeper pockets that you agrees with the camp’s demand for divestment. Suddenly you’re out of luck. Then suppose someone even richer dislikes it – you’re in luck again, hooray! But suppose the richest person of all likes it – oops, too bad. Let’s rely instead on whose ideas are best, and I look forward to hearing yours.
As an aside, did you know that in some prestigious Arab universities, wealthy oil magnate donors have made threats like yours, in order to ensure religion is discussed in the exact way they prefer? Are you for that, too?