Update on the BDS campaign and the encampment
On Friday 12 July, the SOAS Executive Board wrote to students and staff with an update about the Palestine solidarity encampment on the SOAS campus and the BDS demands negotiations.
Dear students and colleagues
Yesterday, we were informed that the University of London has decided to approach the courts for a possession order to remove the SOAS encampment. We have been discussing this course of action with the University of London for some time. We fully support their decision which must be understood in the light of the possession orders which have been granted to the universities of Birmingham, Nottingham and Queen Mary University of London on the basis of land ownership and public law. Both these elements were central to all the cases. We support this decision even though we understand the frustration and anger among protestors at SOAS and around the world at the failure of world governments to bring an end to the carnage after nine months of appalling conflict in Gaza and Israel. We stand by our position that we respect the right of peaceful protest but for the reasons explained below we believe that the encampment has developed into a form of protest that we can no longer accommodate.
In this statement we explain our support for this decision. We provide an update on our response to the demands that have been raised with us. We also acknowledge the efforts that many of our community are making in other ways to raise awareness and to prompt political responses, whether through their activism or their research, and we will continue to uphold their right to do so peacefully.
Please excuse the length of this communique but it is necessary to provide members of our community with a comprehensive understanding of the issues and why we have taken the decisions we have. On 6 May 2024, students embarked on the establishment of an encampment – on the SOAS campus but on land that is under the authority of the University of London – to protest the war in Gaza. In the spirit of enabling protest and freedom of expression, we supported the encampment, providing it was peaceful, lawful and followed the guidelines for organising protests and rallies. We recalled Martin Luther King’s injunction in 1966 in his engagement with Stokely Carmichael on the necessity of peaceful protest and the importance of refraining from violence. We also recalled King’s argument that protest – even peaceful protest – has to make people uncomfortable and be administratively and institutionally inconvenient. This is the price of living in a democracy. The encampment and other actions have made life uncomfortable for some and have caused significant administrative difficulties and expense. Yet we allowed it to continue in recognition of this understanding of the role of protest.
Even peaceful protest, however, has rules and parameters which should not and cannot be breached. This is why we established clear guidelines and parameters when the encampment was formed. Individuals in our community must not be personally targeted and threatened, and hate speech in its legal interpretation must not be advocated. Our exams and institutional operations should not be threatened. These red lines, together with non-violence, had to be observed. As long as this was the case, we would not move to disband the encampment even though we recognised that both the encampment and our responses to mitigate its impacts made some within our community uncomfortable, and in spite of the inconvenience and financial costs of managing it.
One area of inconvenience has been repeated false claims made about SOAS and about individuals. As an example, encampment members have repeatedly accused SOAS and its leadership of complicity in genocide, including at student recruitment events. This accusation does not bear up to scrutiny given SOAS has long ago adopted an ethical investment policy that avoids investment in companies that produce or export armaments and we are confident that our investments do not violate that policy as it is written. As a result of our discussions with students and staff including those representing the BDS campaign, we have been exploring ways to tighten this policy further (see below). Accusing SOAS of being complicit in genocide is precisely the kind of behaviour that encourages many people to ignore protestors and to suggest that they exaggerate and misrepresent, in the process delegitimising their very legitimate concerns.
Aside from these inconveniences, the encampment at first conducted itself largely in accordance with the rules. More recently, the behaviour of many members of the encampment has shown a disregard for the red lines we have set out and reiterated in multiple communications. The encampment has spread out from the Green into the paved part of the precinct, setting up tents, platforms, signage, a hammock and other obstacles to safe access. The estate has been strewn with graffiti several times, on each occasion necessitating cleaning staff to use powerful chemicals for prolonged periods to remove the paint. We have received reports that many of those taking part in the encampment are not current members of the SOAS community. Individual members of SOAS and the SU staff have been unfairly targeted with personalised verbal abuse. On 4 June, attempts to storm the front door of College Buildings resulted in a security guard being attacked, punched and pulled to the ground. Most recently, in the early hours of 9 July, police entered the encampment and arrested seven people. At the time of writing, we do not know what prompted these arrests, but we are deeply concerned that the encampment has become unmanageable. It is these actions that have led us to support the University of London’s decision to seek legal authorisation to close down the encampment.
Our response throughout has been to try to preserve the right to peaceful protest while upholding our responsibilities to the SOAS community by taking disciplinary action against individuals found to have violated our Code of Conduct. These actions have been implemented according to due process and after careful investigation of the incidents in question.
Some in the community will criticise our support for an end to the encampment, as they have done over our position on individual violations of the rules and guidelines for organising protests and rallies. They have implied that we are acting in bad faith, that the disciplinary processes at SOAS are overly harsh and deny members of the community the right to engage in peaceful protest. Once again, we completely refute this. Individual violations of our rules will always be investigated properly at SOAS, and appropriate sanctions will be imposed, particularly where they involve actions that threaten or endanger individuals or constitute damage to property. As escalation goes on, however, this approach of allowing the encampment to remain while taking action against individuals who violate the rules is becoming less viable given the nature of their behaviour and the numbers of people involved, including those who do not belong to the SOAS community and whose behaviour is therefore more difficult to respond to.
Another criticism levelled against SOAS is that we have tried to limit the rights of our students who have been involved in the protests to serve as elected student representatives. This too we completely refute. We would never and have never intervened in the student union’s work to represent our students. The SU is an independent body guided by its board and governing structures with a recognition agreement with SOAS. Any disciplinary decisions SOAS makes about students are solely in relation to their contract with SOAS as fee-paying students and not in relation to any roles they hold in other societies. We always take care to maintain consistency in the application of our rules.
We are also accused of prohibiting the expression of students’ concerns by, for example, increasing security to protect our Board of Trustees meetings. We have been challenged to reduce our security presence as a whole. We recognise that the presence of security guards has impacts on all of our community, that many object to their presence, and that some people may be particularly affected. Whenever we receive complaints of security staff being engaged in inappropriate behaviour we investigate the matter thoroughly and if action is warranted we take it. Equally, we will always act in the opposite situation; we do not accept harassment or violence of any staff, including our security. We would like to reduce the use of contracted security staff.
However, the conduct of a subset of protestors, and the concern that such action may be continued, has necessitated the continued use of additional security. In May, a number of masked individuals entered SOAS buildings without authorisation; they threatened and intimidated some staff members, criticising them for not protesting, and filmed them with their phones without their permission. There was an attempt to storm the Board of Trustees meeting on 23 May. There were loud chants while exams were under way nearby. On a few occasions masked protestors have accosted and followed individual staff members on the streets outside of SOAS. In recent weeks we have seen increased graffiti and other damage both inside and on the outside of university buildings, a refusal by members of the encampment to relocate from the Precinct to the Green where they had originally been based, increased abusive and aggressive targeting of individuals on our estate and elsewhere, and increased risk to health and safety as a result of flammable materials being stored within the encampment. As stated above, we are aware that significant numbers of people in the encampment have no affiliation with our university including family members of students, homeless people and persons wanted by the police.
We have been accused of inviting the police onto our campus as a response to these issues. This has not been the case to date. The police have visited the encampment of their own accord, including to look for a suspected criminal. SOAS had no involvement in the incident on 9 July in which the police entered the encampment and arrested seven individuals, and at the time of writing we are actively trying to obtain more information on what happened, how many of those arrested were our students, and what the charges against them are. The situation is now of sufficient concern that we feel that we can no longer guarantee the safety of our students and staff even with the additional security staff in place. We now face a situation where it may become necessary to ask for police assistance if events escalate out of control. We will always engage the police if individuals are suspected of unlawful activity.
It is our legal obligation and our duty to the institution to provide a safe work and study environment. This can come at considerable cost, both financially and to members of our community. We would like to thank our security, reception, cleaning and other estates staff for all they have been doing to keep our campus operating, often under difficult circumstances. We would also like to thank academic and SU colleagues similarly for their support in the face of repeated breaches of our rules.
We appreciate the sense of urgency felt by our community over the situation in Gaza. At the same time, ours is a community that prides itself on its plurality and commitment to social justice, and to interrogation of facts. These are values that must be directed at our community as a whole. We are concerned that the tactics and behaviour of some members of the encampment are distracting rather than facilitating efforts to respond to the demands, and are resulting in many members of the staff and student body feeling unsafe and/ or unwelcome. This kind of behaviour is a reflection of anti-democratic, populist behaviour that is incompatible with SOAS’ values, and potentially with the law. It is for all these reasons that we support the University of London’s application for legal authorisation to disperse the encampment.
Our response to the seven demands
As an institution we have publicly condemned the terrorist actions of Hamas on 7 October 2023 and the Israeli state’s subsequent military response that has led to the killing of more than 40,000 civilians including 16,000 children. Individually we have shared our views and our research across many public fora. We as SOAS have called for a ceasefire and have challenged some of our peer institutions for not equally applying rules to all. We have publicly challenged the view that universities must be neutral.
Instead, we have held that while we commit to being a host to a plurality of views, we will also pronounce on matters that speak to our deeply held institutional social values. We have done so, whilst being mindful of the need not to become embroiled in every political issue and the need to ensure our mandate from the Board of Trustees. Yet despite all of this, we recognise the frustration of many in our midst who feel helpless as the bloodshed in Gaza continues.
How do we as a world community peacefully pressure governments (and other political actors) who act outside both the parameters of international law and the norms of acceptable human behaviour? We cannot collectively demand peaceful protest and then refuse to be responsive in moments of human carnage. Towards this end, and in line with our mandate as a university we have been meeting regularly since late May with representatives of the SU, UCU, UNISON, Academic Assembly and the Islamic Society. These discussions have been conducted in good faith from all who have taken part, and we appreciate the commitment of these colleagues and their constituencies to engage constructively, even when we may not always agree with one another on all points.
Unfortunately, no representatives from the encampment have attended any of these meetings, despite repeated invitations. Indirectly we have been told that they would only accept a meeting if it took place on the Green (i.e. in the centre of the encampment). We did not feel that this was a neutral space so were not able to accede to this demand. We were also told that members of the so-called Liberated Zone would not participate unless the disciplinary actions against some of its members were lifted. As we discuss below, we are not able to rescind disciplinary action against individuals.
Our discussions with the staff and students, about the seven demands and about ways to have some positive impacts on the people of Gaza, will continue unabated after the encampment has ended.
Below, we set out what progress has been made so far, and where we expect to go in continued work. The positions set out here are those of the Executive Board of SOAS and we do not claim to speak on behalf of the negotiating group.
1. Disclose details of all university investments immediately and continue to do so on an annual basis.
1.1 As a public institution we are committed to transparency on all of our finances and investments. In March 2024 we published details of our investment portfolio on our website. We are willing to provide more details of our investments as needed.
2. Divest from companies complicit in Israel's occupation and denial of Palestinian rights, including Accenture, Albemarle, Alphabet, Barclays, Microsoft, Newton Investment Management, RELX, and Sony, and commit to not reinvesting.
2.1 To date we have not identified any investments that breach our policy with respect to ethical investments. We are willing to share information on our investments in the companies identified in the demand and the grounds on which we have considered whether they are policy-compliant.
2.2 We will request that our Board of Trustees mandates a review of our Ethical Investment Policy to ensure that our investments follow the ethical principles to which we subscribe.
2.3 Under the terms of the review, Executive Board will establish an investments task team composed of representatives of EB and the wider community, including students, to consider the investment policy. This team will report to Executive Board and the Board of Trustees. The Board of Trustees will then have the authority to delegate responsibility through its established structures for any action to consider issues raised by the task team.
2.4 We have been informed by our investment fund managers that on 14 June, 2024 our financial investments in Barclays were liquidated, and the proceeds were reinvested in different companies. This was a purely commercial decision, but we wish to clarify that we no longer hold any financial investment in Barclays. Despite this, we are considering the status of that previous investment with respect to our Ethical Investment Policy.
2.5 In addition to our need to ensure that our investments are ethical, we must at the same time recognise our responsibilities for safeguarding the financial health of the institution, both now and in the future. Our endowment enables us to provide scholarships and to continue to teach specialist subjects – including less widely taught languages – which many other institutions no longer offer. Providing student scholarships funded by our university endowment is at the heart of our plan to continue to be inclusive and sustainable whilst also being true to our regional and disciplinary focus.
To maintain our current endowment extraction rate of 4%, we must maintain a rate of growth of our endowment of approximately 10% to keep up with inflation and other costs. If our investments yield less growth, we would have to reduce our investment extraction rate. A relatively small fall in our extraction rate would require us to offer fewer scholarships overall and could require us to recruit many more fee-paying students to be able to offset the drop which in the current economic and political climate would be very difficult. This is not to say that there is a simple binary choice between investment policy and SOAS’ future, but rather to reinforce the need for all of our investment decisions to be grounded in both of these concerns.
3. Terminate the university's banking and lending arrangement with Barclays.
3.1 The choice of bank is a commercial decision and not governed by a statutory framework comparable to how charities use their investments. Alongside costs and charges, the choice of bank should consider our Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) and investment policies.
3.2 SOAS holds £10 million Revolving Credit Facility (RCF) with Barclays Bank which is as yet undrawn which runs to 7 April 2026. We also hold two loans with Barclays which together are worth approximately £3 million. One loan will be fully repaid by 7 April 2026, and the other by 7 June 2027. Our investment advice has been only to review our banking partner once the current loans are paid off. We will, well in advance of the maturation date of these loans, carry out a full survey of our available future banking options.
4. Cut ties with the University of Haifa and boycott all Israeli academic institutions, which are complicit in the genocidal campaign on Gaza and in widespread violation of Palestinian rights.
4.1 SOAS has a standing agreement with the University of Haifa for Hebrew-language students to study abroad. No students are currently taking part in this programme, and no funds are currently being sent to Haifa. Given the circumstances of war in the region, and in keeping with our regular risk assessment and operating procedures, we would not send any students there.
4.2 Under the current terms of our policies, we are unable to take unilateral action to withdraw from any agreement with a particular academic institution with whom we have study exchange programmes, joint or dual degree programmes, or short executive education programmes. We will establish a collaborations task team to consider the principles that should govern existing relationships with universities and other organisations around the world, and to review the ways in which we agree new partnerships. We are committed to making these processes transparent.
4.3 The demand for a boycott of all Israeli academic institutions is one of the most challenging for a university. Our own community is divided on the question of whether such a boycott would be legitimate. While some argue that an academic boycott is one of the few peaceful ways in which to pressure the Israeli government and public to act in accordance with international law, other are deeply concerned that such a boycott should not be imposed against one country and not other countries involved in violations of human rights.
Others are of the view that academic boycotts violate the principle of academic freedom which gives staff and students the ability to interact with whomever they deem appropriate, within the constraints of the law. We are not of unanimous mind on academic boycotts and we as an executive cannot therefore concede to this demand. To impose this view above all others would be to violate the fundamental ethos of a university. Our position is that in individual cases we will review our relationships, following the revised processes that will be informed by the task team referred to above.
5. Commit to supporting Palestinian education and the rebuilding of Gaza's destroyed schools, hospitals, and universities. Establish partnerships and exchanges with Palestinian institutions and academics, increase scholarships for Palestinian students, and advocate for the removal of restrictions on Palestinian expression and movement.
5.1 We are committed to continuing to support Palestinians affected by the war in Gaza. We have ring-fenced and created a minimum of seven new scholarships, independently and in partnership with others, for Palestinian students in 2024-25. We will continue to expand these as far as possible and have approached potential funders for additional support.
5.2 We have also publicly committed to assist in the rebuilding of Gaza’s university system post conflict and again have indicated this to both partners and donors. We have developed and submitted a proposal to multiple donors thanks to the efforts of individual staff members at SOAS.
5.3 We are committed to supporting Palestinian scholars via the Council for At-Risk Academics (CARA) and other means.
5.4 We have made a representation to the London Higher network of higher education institutions to gauge interest in collaborating on activities to support Palestinian student scholarships and support for researchers at risk.
6. Guarantee the right of students and staff to free expression and end the targeted repression of Palestine solidarity activism on campus. Revoke the new SOAS protest policy.
6.1 SOAS has publicly stated its position that we are ‘an institution that is committed to academic freedom and dissent, and peaceful protest, constrained only by the law, our collective abhorrence of hate speech, and a joint commitment to keep our institution a safe space for all to express their views and live their lives.’ (Statement 13 December 2023). This approach is applied regardless of the protestors’ position or opinion.
6.2 SOAS has also defended the rights of staff and students to freedom of speech, provided it is within the limits of the law.
6.3 Where action has been taken against individuals, it has been linked only to violation of these principles and is not related to the subject of their activism.
6.4 We cannot allow individuals to be targeted or made to feel intimidated or unsafe. To rescind the disciplinary decisions would amount to violating this basic responsibility. The new policy is aimed at clarifying for everyone what behaviour crosses the line between peaceful protest and unacceptable behaviour.
7. Advocate for the UK government to implement an immediate arms embargo on Israel and to use all leverage to effect an immediate, unconditional, and permanent ceasefire.
7.1 SOAS is one of the few UK universities that has advocated for a ceasefire. In its statement on 15 December 2023 following the tragic killing of former SOAS student Dr Refaat Alareer, it said, ‘We echo the UN and the many voices from around the world who are calling for an immediate ceasefire to prevent any further loss of civilian life.’
7.2 The vice-chancellor is willing to write to the British government reiterating the call for an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire and calling for an arms embargo on belligerent nations.
Conclusion
The above steps that we are taking are a start towards ensuring that we as a university community act in accordance with the same principles that we teach: respect for humanity and international law, protection of the right to freedom of expression, and a concern for marginalised communities around the world.
Throughout the horrors of the last nine months, we have been clear about our support both of freedom of expression and academic freedom. These are fundamental to our existence: rigorous academic enquiry must be enabled, whether it fits with the majority of views in our institution or indeed when it reflects positions or engages with topics that some might find an anathema. If we fail to do this, we become an echo chamber, impoverished of our ability to provide the critical lenses required of us.
Our staff and students would feel unable to express their views, silencing the debate we are here to foster. This academic freedom is of course also dependent on a recognition of academic fallibility, and on commitments to mutual understanding, empathy and respect. We accept that academic debate may also extend into peaceful protest, and we are always cognisant of the need to respect this. We have shared our rules concerning student protest, which are there to enable peaceful and lawful expressions of opinions, and to empower our staff and students as advocates, activists and members of civil movements.
SOAS is known for its debate and its insight, often grounded in informed disagreement. We remain committed to supporting this, and grateful for the commitment shown by our community to addressing social justice issues, wherever they emerge. We ask that we continue to act as a community, mindful of the different opinions we hold and mindful of the impacts that our actions have on one another. As the executive we are always ready to talk with you. We take our responsibilities to you and to SOAS as a whole very seriously.
Yours sincerely
Executive Board
