UN rapporteur condemns Cambridge University for seeking to ban pro-Palestine protests

United Nations Human Rights Rapporteur Gina Romero has criticized the University of Cambridge for seeking a High Court injunction to prohibit pro-Palestinian protesters from entering or disrupting access to key university sites. Romero urged Cambridge University to avoid adopting "regulations that violate international human rights protection standards" and to cease harassing and stigmatizing pro-Palestinian solidarity movements within the university. This call emphasizes the importance of upholding fundamental rights within academic institutions.

Cambridge University applied for the injunction this week following months of pro-Palestinian student protests. If approved, the injunction would prohibit protesters from entering or occupying certain university premises for "purposes related to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict." Romero stated that universities must "guarantee and protect peaceful assembly, regardless of where it takes place or its form." She criticized blanket restrictions on peaceful assembly as "presumptively disproportionate," highlighting the need for a balanced approach to freedom of expression.

The human rights organization "Liberty" also joined Romero in writing to Baroness Jacky Smith, the UK's Minister of State for Universities, urging her to encourage universities to "respect and uphold students' rights to protest on campus." An open letter signed by hundreds of Cambridge University faculty and students condemned the university's application for an injunction as an "attack on freedom of speech." The letter stated that the application is "inherently discriminatory and unfair" and "runs counter to the collective rights and interests of the university community as a whole to debate, assemble and protest in order to hold power to account." This unified stance underscores the widespread concern regarding the potential suppression of student activism.

A Cambridge University spokesperson responded to the student newspaper *Varsity*, stating: "Any suggestion that the university is trying to restrict protest is absurd. There are many ways protest can take place, and voices can be heard, but the action we are taking will protect the rights of other members of our community to graduate, and of staff to do their jobs." The student group "Cambridge Stands with Palestine" established a protest camp last May, demanding disclosure of the university's investments and divestment from companies complicit in Israel's war in Gaza. Their actions aim to promote transparency and accountability within the university's financial dealings.

In July last year, Cambridge University pledged to fund opportunities for Palestinian scholars and students to study at the university and promised to establish a working group, including student representatives, to review its investments. In response, "Cambridge Stands with Palestine" ended the camp. Students accused the university in November of "stalling" on its commitments and resumed protests, escalating into occupations of the Senate House and Greenwich House (two university administration buildings). The university has informed the High Court that these occupations have caused the university "at least £230,000" in damages, adding that if these actions continue, they will cause "irreparable damage" to Cambridge and its stakeholders. The escalating tensions highlight the ongoing struggle for accountability and change.

Jo Grady, General Secretary of the University and College Union (UCU), which represents academic and support staff, said on Wednesday that the application "is a shameful attack by senior management at Cambridge University on basic democratic rights." She added: "Cambridge University risks setting a precedent that could be used to shut down peaceful protest across universities nationwide." The Cambridge University Students' Union criticized the university, warning that "even handing in a petition outside Senate House or holding a placard on a nearby street could be deemed unlawful." These concerns reflect the potential chilling effect on free expression and democratic participation within the academic community.

"Furthermore, restricting entry to, occupation of, or remaining on university land for protest, and explicitly prohibiting any structures such as tents, severely limits the ability of students to engage in long-term protest and dissent," said Jonathan Purcell of the International Centre of Justice for Palestinians. "Ultimately, these students are simply asking the university to ensure that their investments and partnerships are not contributing to the bombing of Gaza and the West Bank, the demolition of Palestinian homes, and other human rights abuses by Israel – surely that is the very least that should be expected of an educational institution." This perspective underscores the moral and ethical dimensions of the students' demands.

Purcell added: "It is difficult to know what people expect students to do. If even peaceful protest is banned, how else are students meant to make their voices heard?" The specific investments of the university in companies complicit in Israeli military activity remain unclear. However, *Middle East Eye* revealed last year that Trinity College, Cambridge's wealthiest college, invested $78,089 in Elbit Systems, Israel's largest arms company, which produces 85% of the drones and land-based equipment used by the Israeli army. Students at Trinity College reported in May that, after months of protests targeting the college, they were told the college would divest from all arms companies. The revelation of these investments has fueled further controversy and demands for divestment.

However, the college has declined to comment on its investments, and a freedom of information request seen by *Middle East Eye* late last year showed that the college continues to maintain investments in arms companies. Last November, the Master of Trinity College insisted that Trinity College "has no interest in divesting from arms companies." This stance highlights the continued resistance to calls for ethical investment and the ongoing debate surrounding the university's financial responsibilities.