In an email sent to the IU community July 25, IU President Pamela Whitten released the results of a six-week “post-action review” by the Cooley Law Firm of events before, during and after the arrests of pro-Palestine protesters April 25 and 27 at an encampment in Dunn Meadow. The 75-page report includes a detailed summary of events between October 2023 and April 2024 and concludes with eight recommendations to the university on policymaking and communications.
Cooley Law Firm is an international law firm specializing in corporate, regulatory and intellectual property law and litigation, according to its website.
According to the report, the firm utilized over 10,000 internal documents and emails, hundreds of hours of video footage, university and campus policies, IU Police case reports and other publicly available materials to conduct the investigation. They also conducted 30 interviews with “over two dozen” people including IU administration, department administrators, IUPD officers, Indiana State Police leadership, the Monroe County Prosecuting Attorney, undergraduate and graduate students and community members.
In a Board of Trustees statement May 15 affirming its support for Whitten, the Board said it had asked Whitten to commission an “independent review of the campus climate.” Whitten announced at a June trustees meeting Cooley had been selected to review “the events in Dunn Meadow.” Whitten told Indiana Public Media that the IU procurement department sought bids from firms nationwide. She also said that while she was not on the committee that reviewed the bids, she felt Cooley was an adequate choice as a firm headquartered out of state with no previous connection to IU.
The conclusions of the report include “factual observations” and recommendations based on such observations.
“Factual Observations”
The report outlines five key “factual observations” which informed its recommendations.
IU leadership made “good-faith" decisions with available information
The report’s first key conclusion regards the administration’s April 24 decision to change IU’s existing expressive activity policy to require approval for temporary structures, including tents. The change was made the night before the start of a planned encampment, which began April 25 and remains ongoing, by the IU Divestment Coalition in protest of IU’s partnership with Naval Surface Warfare Center — Crane Division and in support of Palestine. The decision received criticism from faculty and other groups.
According to the report, Whitten called a meeting with Provost Rahul Shrivastav, IU superintendent for public safety Benjamin Hunter, two attorneys from the General Counsel's Office and “four to five” other executive-level administrators at 9:30 p.m. April 24 after learning of the protesters’ plans to set up the encampment.
In this meeting, IU leadership discussed what it considered to be safety concerns based on observations from similar protests and encampments at other universities nationwide, including “a large number of arrests.”
The report states IU leadership also had concerns about the environmental and sanitary effects of a long-term encampment, the potential for unhoused individuals to camp at Dunn Meadow, involvement by organizations not affiliated by IU, potential tensions caused by the location across from Chabad House and the potential for the encampment to become “a hub for potential assaults, harassment, violence, and presence of firearms or other weapons on campus.”
Ultimately, meeting participants decided it would be “better to act quickly than to let an encampment take hold and attempt to remove it later,” which would be more difficult and dangerous. They also decided if protesters didn’t comply with requests from members of the Vice Provost of Student Affairs’ Demonstration Response and Safety Team, IU would request assistance from ISP, as Hunter stressed IUPD would not be suitably equipped. The attorneys from the General Counsel’s Office affirmed that language in the existing Dunn Meadow policy that states the university should avoid physical force did not prohibit applying criminal trespass laws to remove the encampment.
The group invoked a clause in the 1989 Dunn Meadow policy report to authorize Shrivastav to convene an ad hoc committee. The 1989 report, although not official policy, calls for the creation of such a committee in order to make determinations on changes in policy. This move has been condemned by members of the committee that wrote the report as contrary to its intent. The report is erroneously presented online as if it were the 1969 trustee resolution.
Shrivastav convened the meeting of the ad hoc committee at 10:30 p.m. This committee included Shrivastav, Hunter, Vice Provost for Student Life Lamar Hylton, Interim Vice Provost for Undergraduate Education Vasti Torres, Associate Vice President of Events and Conferences Doug Booher and two attorneys from the General Counsel’s Office. The committee determined the details of the policy change to require prior approval for temporary structures in Dunn Meadow.
The report claims that given time constraints and the evolving nature of the situation, IU leadership made a “good-faith” decision “designed to protect the operations and safety of the IU community,” including the protesters themselves.
The policy change was “permissible” but had “unintended consequences”
The report says the policies were implemented in a way that “increased feelings of distrust and uncertainty within the student body and faculty.” The changes were added to the Office of Student Life website at 7:59 a.m. the day the encampment began. The report states the changes were placed in a difficult-to-find location and that the 1989 Dunn Meadow report remained available in the same location as other applicable policies. Furthermore, updating the policy late at night limited input from “relevant stakeholders” and review of the policy for potential gaps or conflicts with other policies.
In spite of this, the report states the changes to the Dunn Meadow policy were made in keeping with other university policies and the First Amendment and constituted “reasonable time, place and manner restrictions” on expressive activity in Dunn Meadow.
ISP involvement was the “safest option”
The report details initial attempts by the DRST team, IUPD and ISP to get protesters to remove encampment structures by handing out flyers with the new policy and giving verbal warnings. It notes many protesters had printed out copies of the 1989 Dunn Meadow report and appeared frustrated and in disbelief at apparent contradictions of the policy that had existed the night before, especially “absent an explanation for the discrepancy.” However, the report states the decision to clear the encampment comported with due process.
When protesters refused to take down encampment structures, the report says ISP involvement was the “safest option available” to clear the encampment because IUPD lacked the staffing or training to do so. Hunter gave this reason in an email to ISP requesting assistance April 25.
Thirty Indiana State Troopers and 15 IUPD officers entered the encampment on April 25, according to the report, and an ISP officer armed with a sniper rifle was stationed on top of the Indiana Memorial Union; 34 protesters were arrested that day. The report states that IU does not control ISP tactics or operations, even on campus.
On April 27, IU leadership met with members of IUPD and ISP. Officers reported seeing rocks and buckets at the encampment, which they claimed could be used to cause harm. They also referenced a social media post about which they had “become aware” encouraging use of firearms, although the report did not cite any post. The Indiana Daily Student can not verify the existence of such a post.
IU leadership decided not to inform the public ISP would be providing assistance that day so as not to alert protesters, which they felt would increase the risk of violence and make it harder to clear the encampment. Sixty state troopers and 10 IUPD officers entered Dunn Meadow around noon April 27, and 23 protesters were arrested.
Fifty-seven protesters were arrested in total on April 25 and 27. Most received one-year bans from campus, which were stayed on appeal, and at least the majority were repealed. The Monroe County Prosecutor’s Office also dropped all criminal trespass charges, as well as a battery charge against a protester who bit an officer.
IU has a long history of inconsistently enforcing policies
Multiple interviewees informed the firm of a widespread perception that it can be difficult to tell when IU policies will be enforced. Some interviewees said they believed the Dunn Meadow policy disallowing structures between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m. had not previously been enforced and “questioned whether the decision to do so was based on the content of the protests.” Even those who did not share this concern expressed a sense of unease from inconsistently enforced policies.
The report found conflicts between university-wide and campus-specific policies, which it says leads to inconsistent enforcement.
The report concludes these inconsistencies “undermine the safety and security of campus,” cause frustration and confusion and “lead to questions over whether disparate enforcement of policies was due to impermissible reasons.”
IUPD “understaffing” has many “negative effects”
The report identifies IUPD being underfunded and understaffed as a major reason for the cancellation of Palestinian artist Samia Halaby’s art exhibit and the Palestine Solidarity Committee’s Miko Peled speaker event.
The report also claims IUPD is not equipped to handle large-scale disruptions, which is why Hunter contacted ISP to assist with the Dunn Meadow arrests.
Recommendations
Based on the above observations, the report offers eight recommendations to the university.
Approve a new expressive activity policy
The report says any future policy should be clear and enforceable, compliant with the First Amendment and Indiana Code § 21-39-8, which lists protected expressive activities, and provide direction on how to prevent disruptive and dangerous incidents. It also says the policy should be clearly communicated to the IU community by a neutral party, such as human resources, and the university should provide a window of time for protesters to come into compliance with the new policy.
In June, before the report’s release, IU administration released a draft of a new IU expressive activity policy for comment and review from the IU community. The proposed policy outlines more specific regulations for campus protests and would supersede any other conflicting free speech policies. The IU Board of Trustees will vote on the new policy Monday, and it could go into effect as early as Thursday.
Review university and campus policies for inconsistencies
The report recommends Whitten lead a review of existing university-wide and campus-specific policies for gaps and inconsistencies. She would then advise the Board of Trustees on changes that would make policy enforcement easier and more consistent.
Provide training and communication on policy application
The report recommends IU communicate with staff, implement training on policies and establish audit procedures to promote consistent application of policies.
Establish a plan for future expressive activity policy implementation
The report advises establishing a plan both to implement future expressive policy and for interactions with the current encampment. If the policy requires the removal of encampments, it should provide direction on how and when it should be removed, who should remove it, at what point external law enforcement may become involved, consequences for policy violations and how unauthorized encampments will be prevented in the future.
The report also says IU should clearly communicate this plan to “relevant stakeholders” and set expectations for ISP involvement.
Increase IUPD funding
The report recommends IUPD receive more funds to hire and retain more officers, invest in training and increase technological capacity. Specific technological recommendations include establishing a dedicated security operations center, using encrypted radio channels and electronic incident management software and expanding existing unmanned aerial vehicle resources to allow live streaming of drone footage to field units.
IU Public Safety announced July 22 it had appointed Anthony Williams as its first deputy superintendent and chief law enforcement officer for all campuses, effective Aug. 1. Williams will work with the IU Public Safety superintendent to set performance standards for the department and develop, recommend and implement policies and procedures for IUPD and IU Public Safety activities.
Use campus-wide communication for alerts of “large-scale or disruptive protests”
The report suggests the university use existing campus-wide communication channels to inform the community on encampments or "other large-scale or disruptive protests.”
Do not issue statements about events outside of the university
The report mentions Whitten’s October statements regarding the Oct. 7 Hamas-led attack on Israel and the subsequent conflict. It also discusses the range of criticisms those comments received. It concludes IU leadership should consider not commenting on events that do not directly affect the university, as such statements may create the impression the university values some groups on campus more than others.
Improve communication with “critical constituencies”
The report recommends increasing interaction between IU leadership and community members in order to build trust and improve coordination.
