♪♪ amna: Protests against the war in gaza continue on a number of campuses across the country. As part of our ongoing coverage, Lisa Desjardins has a conversation tonight about the wave of crackdowns at some colleges and universities and how they're being justified. Lisa: Amna, the past day shows more action and reaction. Police made dozens of arrests as they broke up an encampment at the university of California, San Diego. At the university of Chicago, police disbanded another encampment. But at mit, pro-palestinian protesters refused to move despite the threat of academic suspension. Today, in his own speech recognizing holocaust remembrance day, house speaker Mike Johnson charged that many schools are hostile places for jewish people and have, quote, succumbed to an anti semitic virus. Last night, we looked at the idea that colleges have themselves fomented these protests. Our guest tonight says colleges are not doing enough to crack down on them. David French is an opinion columnist for the New York Times. David, what do you think universities are getting wrong here? David: They are ignoring their own reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions that should allow all parties to have equal access to campus facilities. This is something that universities who have tens of thousands of students offer, but they don't have the public spaces big enough to encompass everybody who might want to engage in free expression. So when you have a time, place, and manner restriction, it says that everyone will have equal access to the campus, and also it means that people cannot disrupt the actual educational process of the school. So what is happening is, many of these protests, particularly encampments, or occupying space on the quad, they are bite necessity excluding others who might want to use it, and with the nature of the protest, they are interfering with the students ability to study, to learn, sometimes even to sleep. Some of the jewish students are finding their access to the campus is limited by the protest as well. So by blowing through these time, place, and manner restrictions, the protesters are actually violating the rights of other students. In that circumstance, the university has to step in. Lisa: Some of the protests have raised concern, but so has the idea of calling and the police. How do you see the idea that perhaps that type of approach doesn't go too far? >> The bottom line is, the universities have the legal obligation to protect the rights about the students and also to protect the jewish students on campus from anti-jewish arrest meant. In these camps violate the rights of others and they refuse to leave, and sometimes there is no option but to bring in law enforcement. That doesn't mean law enforcement can do whatever it wants. It should be disciplined and restrained in its use of force. But when a group of students is violating the rights of other students, there are label -- legal obligations attached to the university to defend the rights of others. So if the students won't move, many ways the universities hands are tied because they cannot continue to consent to the violation of other students rights. Lisa: Let me get to the idea of what is civil disobedience and what is problematic unlawful conduct. For example, if there was a sit in at a diner and those conducting the city and were preventing the business from conducting business and preventing other patrons from entering, is that something in the same light, is it civil disobedience or not? >> With the civil-rights movement, what you saw was protesters by letting unjust laws, like prohibiting black Americans from eating in the same diners as white Americans. That is violating an unjust law, and then accepting the consequences. You accept the consequences of your legal violation which upholds the rule of law, but that is the key. You accept the consequences and you do it all peacefully. Here, they are violating just laws. They are in violation of laws that protect the rights of others and they are refusing to accept the consequences. They are covering their faces to avoid detection. They are often in outright defiance of the police when they try to move them. You're moving from civil disobedience to outright lawlessness where they are violating just laws and refusing to accept the consequences. Lisa: Protesters say they are seeing injustice and America tied to that injustice. They see this as a life-and-death cause. They are talking about nothing less than starvation, the violent death of civilians. What should protesters be doing when they see injustice like that, in their view? >> They should absolutely lift up their voices in protest. They can engage in their own boycotts. They can engage in all kinds of constitutionally protected activities to lift up this issue, but they do not have the ability to violate the rights of others because they think it is for a good cause. That is not the way this works. My first amendment rights and my right to study and receive the benefit of an education do not depend on whether or not another group of students consider that a cause is important enough to disrupt my rights. That's not how this works. Students have ample opportunity to express their views and they also have an opportunity to engage in genuine civil disobedience. What we are seeing on many campuses is an order of magnitude beyond that. Lisa: There is not the same right to free speech on private college campuses, but all of this is weighing with something you pay attention to, our founders. You pay attention to their intention here. The founders themselves espoused rebellion, not just their own. How do you weigh that idea of the tension between yes, speak up, do rebellious ask for something you believe in, but also follow the law? >> There is a right to some peace and safety and security here, and it is in fact a violation of federal law, antiharassment law in particular , when in particular jewish students cannot have full access to campus and cannot sleep or rest. These things actually violate federal law when it rises to that level. In that circumstance, these universes have to do something to protect the rights of other students. The right to rebellion, I would say that was seriously diminished after the loss of the civil war by the confederacy. I don't think there is any concept of a right to rebellion, in this circumstance if you have an actual rebellion against authority on campus. They are violating the rights of others, and I'm sorry, the law protects all of us, not just a small cohort of people who decide to occupy part of the campus. Lisa: David French, we appreciate your time. ♪♪
