The UW Board of Governors met yesterday afternoon, in a meeting which was rescheduled from June 18 due to the protest which took place in Needles Hall by OccupyUW. The meeting this afternoon was held entirely online, unlike previous board meetings.

One of the first items on the agenda was an update from UW president Vivek Goel, who spoke to board members about the legal actions that the university took on June 25 against members of the protest encampment. He began his statements by saying, “We have absolute sympathy and support for all members of our community that are affected by what’s happening.”

In his update, Goel spoke at length about the various calls for action that the university has been subject to, focusing on protestors’ demands for UW to cut ties with Israeli institutions such as Technion. “Our existing approach around these issues has been one of not supporting calls for divestment and sanctions, BDS as it’s known. Boycotts are not consistent with our academic mission.”

He went on to say that the university’s current approach to these calls is to “examine these positions that [they have] traditionally had with response to BDS,” and that this would be done through the task forces which have recently been proposed. Goel added, though, that the university would not be making “arbitrary choices” about cutting ties with institutions, and that decisions should not be made simply “based on their [the protestors’] perspectives” or “based on who, at a particular moment in time, is yelling the loudest or occupying our campus.”

In speaking about the university’s position, Goel’s also referenced the university’s special senate meeting on June 10, which took place upon the request of 20 senators. At this meeting, the senate voted to recommend that the university begin disclosing investments, establishing guidelines around international partnerships, and highlighting social justice, equity, diversity, inclusion, nonviolence, and international human rights within the Environmental, Social and Governance factors. Goel stated that he believes such steps are “significant,” as many other institutions have stated they will “not look at partnerships at all.” He did not mention, however, the institutions that have reached agreements with protestors, such as Ontario Tech University, which has committed to paying “particular attention to companies involved in arms manufacturing and delivery and/or benefitting from military action in Palestine.”

Once Goel finished his update, board members were allowed to ask questions or make comments. Associate professor of chemical engineering Nasser Mohieddin Abukhdeir, who was also one of the senators that called for the June 10 meeting, challenged Goel’s account of what was actually brought forth at that meeting, “BDS is really a red herring around what faculty were bringing to the senate.” Abukhdeir also objected to Goel’s framing of the requests, “Just to be clear, I don’t think the issues that were brought forward [at the senate meeting] were especially complicated.” In a mass communication shared on June 3, the university wrote that partnership decisions “are complex,” and will therefore require time. Abukhdeir challenged this idea, working to illustrate the question at the center of calls to sever ties with institutions such as Technion: “Do we want to have institutional-level partnerships with organizations that are [directly supporting] violence against civilians? … If we break [the issues] down and focus individually, things are pretty simple.”

Goel also faced questions about the university’s decision to move forward with legal proceedings against the encampment. The university’s notice of motion and statement of claim towards members of the encampment were published online yesterday. He was questioned, in particular, about the university’s choice to claim damages of 1.5 million dollars, which includes “damages for trespass, damage to property, intimidation, and ejectment.” Associate professor of classical studies David Porecca asked about the reasoning for such a claim, saying that the amount “seems rather extreme.” Goel responded by saying that he couldn’t speak to any specific legal strategies being undertaken, but that “it’s not an unusual claim amount.”

Abukhdeir echoed Porecca’s point, saying that 1.5 million dollars “is quite a lot of money.” He also wondered whether the university is indeed “doing all of this on behalf of the board,” and that in such a case the board should be made privy to more of the university’s legal strategy. Faculty have also questioned Goel over the injunction outside of the board meeting, such as political studies professor Emmet Macfarlane who shared a letter he wrote to Goel online yesterday. Macfarlane protested the university’s reliance on the task force on free expression (which he served on) to justify the injunction. Responding to Abukhdeir’s mention of Macfarlane’s feelings about the role of the free expression task force, Goel replied that it is “a question of interpretation.” As for the 1.5 million dollars, Mcfarlane wrote online today, “I can’t even with this.”

Abukhdeir also referenced the claims of “reputational damage” made within the university’s legal documents, countering: “There’s potential for reputational damage simply by making this claim… even if you take [the claims] as unarguable fact and not as legal strategy… making this legal claim against your own students, that also has a reputational consequence.” He concluded by stating that “this is just a really bad precedent to set,” and that he finds publicly naming students, in particular, to be “very uncomfortable.” Goel’s reply to Abukhdeir’s comments was short: “We can’t discuss the legal strategy in an open session.”