President Scholz gives remarks at the summer ice cream social. The University of Oregon hosted a meet-and-greet with President John Karl Scholz on July 12, 2023. (Nicholas Walcott/University Communications)
UO President John Karl Scholz sat down for a joint interview with the Daily Emerald and KLCC on May 10 discussing the ongoing UO Coalition for Palestine encampment on the university’s Memorial Quad.
Topics discussed included the potential use of police force on students in the encampment, the university’s policies on divestment and taking a “political stance” on the war in Gaza, antisemitism and the student conduct code process.
Scholz did not say whether police force would be used to break up the encampment, and did not offer any “red lines” as to when he might order a police presence. He was also non-specific on student conduct code proceedings, but said that the university was “not in a punishment mindset.”
Scholz also reiterated his previous remarks on divestment, saying that it “has really no meaningful consequences.” Scholz also continued to endorse “institutional neutrality” and said that he would not have issued a statement condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine, as the university did in 2022 when Michael Schill was president.
Scholz also said that “context matters” when it comes to characterizing certain controversial phrases — like “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” — as antisemitic.
The full transcript of the interview with Scholz can be found below. KLCC’s coverage of the interview can be found here.
—
Daily Emerald Editor-in-Chief Evan Reynolds and KLCC reporter Nathan Wilk sat down for a joint interview with UO President John Karl Scholz on Friday, May 10. The interview lasted approximately 15 minutes. The full transcript has been edited for brevity and clarity. Questions from reporters are displayed in bold.
(Wilk) Asking as a clarifying question: What is your role in negotiations? Do you approve the offers? Are you an active contributor to the negotiating team when you’re offering an offer to the student encampment?
We do this collectively.
(Reynolds) Will the university use police force to break up the encampment if protesters do not leave voluntarily? Obviously it’s a fluid situation, but is that on the table?
We are really focused on the educational mission of the institution, and supporting all of the students that we have. We care deeply about the health and safety of the protesters and the broader campus community. And so those two values are just paramount.
Given that, we are working very, very hard to find a satisfactory solution for this, that supports our students and maintains health and safety.
(Reynolds) And are there any red lines where you would use police force to break down the encampment? Like any actions being taken on protesters’ end that would lead you to make that decision?
I don’t want to speculate about hypotheticals. I think we really want to preserve the health and safety of the campus and particularly the health and safety of students at the encampment.
(Wilk) You spoke about hypotheticals and that could be a broad range of behavior, but specifically, do you believe that students refusing to leave for a specific period of time could itself merit police intervention?
There’s an interesting issue occurring. We believe deeply in the ability of embracing free speech and dialogue on campus. We in no way want to impinge on people’s right to free speech. It’s challenging. There are good reasons on campus not to have overnight camping. That’s a university policy, that we restrict or prohibit overnight camping. And so the existence of the campus is challenging for that, for health and safety reasons.
And so we are working hard and in conversation between negotiating teams and others to try to find a satisfactory resolution of this. I would say ending the overnight encampment does not impinge on speech and protest, that can continue to happen. But again, we’re concerned about the overnight encampment.
(Reynolds) One thing that protesters have brought up, on social media and in rallies, are past university actions. The university released a statement condemning the Russian invasion of Ukraine a couple of years ago, and previously, to bring up historical cases, they divested from apartheid South Africa as well as the fossil fuel industry in 2016. What do you think separates this from those other issues, where it does seem the university did make political statements and did divest from specific interests?
Let’s do divestment first. First, just to correct the factual record, the university did not divest from South Africa, and I confirmed that with the president of the University of Oregon Foundation. The university also did not divest from fossil fuels. The university instead made a commitment that they will no longer acquire new investments in extractive industries, not because of a moral or ethical decision, but rather those were poor investments to invest the university’s portfolio in. So there is no previous history of divestment at the University of Oregon.
And continuing to talk about divestment, it’s a really complex issue, but there’s two key points. One is that we have a fiduciary responsibility to use the philanthropists’ resources that have come to the university over the years to maximize returns, if you will, that can be invested in student scholarships, or staff or faculty, or the research enterprise. Second, there’s pretty extensive literature that the act of divestment has really no meaningful consequences for the awful situation in the Middle East.
On statements, you’re right. I am now familiar — I’m a new-ish president. There was a university statement from our Division of Global Studies about Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. I think it’s important to look forward. And indeed, there’s changes at the university, there’s a new president. I, along with many, many other universities around the country, believe deeply in this position of institutional neutrality. Universities should be places where issues are debated, interrogated, solutions are sought and all. But an institution should avoid putting fingers on these complex issues, to allow the freedom for others to interrogate and act on these issues.
(Reynolds) So to clarify, since you weren’t the president when that statement [on the Russian invasion of Ukraine] was issued, would you have gone for more of an institutionally neutral perspective?
Absolutely. I don’t want to criticize my predecessor, he did a great job. But that would not have happened if I had been president.
(Reynolds) On the subject of divestment, I know you’ve said that selling Hewlett-Packard stock, for instance, someone else is going to buy that stock. What do you say to folks who say that doesn’t matter to them whether it makes an impact on the conditions in Gaza, so much as they don’t want to see their university involved and invested in those shares of stock?
I would continue to ask people to focus on the actions that can have discernible or meaningful effects on the situation in the Middle East, while at the same time helping the University of Oregon in our educational mission to be as strong as we possibly can.
(Wilk) It is my understanding that UO’s foundation does not publicly disclose where its money within Jasper Ridge Partners is invested. Is that true? Is more transparency legally possible, and is it something you would support?
So the issue of disclosure is an interesting one. There’s no investment manager — let me back up.
First, look. The UO Foundation does disclose. They do their IRS filings, they have an annual report, so there is certain disclosure of what they do.
(Wilk) But that doesn’t list the specific companies, correct?
Second, there is no investment house in the country that lists their investments, because that is the strategy that they use. For lack of a better word, the “secret sauce.” And others like to imitate or end up riding on the investments. So in the world of foundation finance, the world of endowment investing or personal investing, financial managers — for good reasons — don’t disclose.
(Reynolds) I’m sure you and your administration have been following the other similar campus protests to this one pretty closely. What are some of the most common mistakes you think university presidents have made in response to the encampments and pro-Palestine demonstrations, and how do you want to, or how do you intend to distinguish yourself from those responses?
That’s a very fun question, but as you can guess — look, I am not going to question or second-guess other university presidents. What we’re trying to do is focus on our educational mission, to be very attentive to the health and safety of the students who are in the encampment and who are front and center in our thoughts. We’re working very, very hard to achieve a satisfactory solution, and if we’re able to do those three things, we’ll be very, very happy.
And we’re hoping to work with the students and others in the community to help support us.
(Wilk) In a letter earlier this week, you said “we have already seen what appears to be antisemitic provocation at UO and worry these harmful efforts will grow.” Tell me more. What have you seen within the campus community that concerns you?
I should not. Again, I really appreciate the question, but I don’t want to go further because people who monitor social media, monitor other things. We want to be circumspect about what we’re seeing.
(Reynolds) Thinking about antisemitism more broadly, there’s a lot of heated debate about language used in these encampments. You know, “from the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” — some see it as a call for Palestinian liberation, others see it as an antisemitic call to the end of the state of Israel. When considering violations of the student conduct code, is the university considering statements like these that are politically fraught and have disagreements about the intention behind them?
So your question is, will the student honor code treat that as —
(Reynolds) I guess, more what I’m trying to say, pivoting away from the conduct code — would you consider statements like that to be an “antisemitic provocation”?
The question is a great one. As you said, it’s very, very challenging. I think the right answer is that context matters. In some cases, I think it could be construed. In some cases, not. In all cases, we will protect speech, and so our efforts to date have tried to be through education, to try to help people understand the impact of that on members of the community, but context really matters.
(Wilk) The University of Oregon now says it will pursue code of conduct violations against the students in the encampment. Can you tell me a little more about that? How does the university plan to actually identify who is involved in the encampment, and is there a timeline on when these punishment processes would begin?
Interesting question. So, two answers. One is, we have professionals who navigate the student conduct code. I actually wouldn’t necessarily call it “punishment.” Oftentimes, it’s efforts at restorative, it’s student-centered. It depends very much on the degree of issue that we’re trying to navigate.
So it’s hard — there’s no generic answer to that, it’s on a case-by-case basis.
(Wilk) And when you say “it depends,” do you mean the timeline depends, is that what you’re saying? That the process may be prioritized, or—
No, just how the conduct code unfolds. It will depend very much on the nature of the issue people are navigating, precedent, there’s all sorts of things that happen.
(Wilk) And that is including how students will be identified, that may be different on a case-by-case basis, is that part of what you’re saying?
No. I mean we certainly work hard to be equitable, as that goes on, but we’re not in a punishment mindset. We want to support the educational mission, I’m sorry to keep repeating myself, but that involves supporting all of our students across the campus. We want to ensure that people remain safe and healthy, and there are good reasons for prohibitions against outdoor camping, extended outdoor camping. And we very much want to work to satisfactorily resolve the situation.
We very much want to support our students, and so we’re not in a sanctioned punishment mindset. But we want to resolve this.
(Reynolds) Negotiations between student protesters and universities have played out in various ways. Some have reached deals. Brown University said they would put divestment to a vote. Your alma mater, [University of Wisconsin] Madison, said this morning that they would consider re-evaluating “experiential learning,” “study abroad programs,” “internships” in regions “impacted by war.” Would you be willing to consider either of those things, as precedent for how universities have resolved conflicts with protesters?
We continue to be engaged in dialogue, but I encourage you and any readers or listeners to see what we put on the table yesterday. It’s available on the web, and it has some fairly rich educational offerings. Because that’s what we are at a university, we embrace education. And so we are always looking for opportunities to enhance knowledge in this case, in the Middle East, in this strife. And we will continue to do so.
*Scholz released a statement on the encampment at 3:47 p.m. on May 10, while this interview was in progress.
