{shortcode-f5bc3bf87a1148f33a5099c7571e0cce2f96d327}

This past week, I have watched unnerving scenes from my neighborhood plastered across the national news.

Even more jarring was texts from friends of mine back in New York City about the police-laden scene unfolding along Columbia’s college walk.

Growing up, there was a persistent tension between Columbia and Harlem — the neighborhood I was raised in, that lies at the base of the hill Columbia sits on.

Fear of police brutality was common in my neighborhood. Incidents such as the wrongful conviction of the Central Park Five and disproportionate surveillance under New York City’s “stop and frisk” policy have persistently frayed trust between Harlem residents and the New York Police Department.

Throughout the 1960s, Harlem residents mobilized in the streets in support of the civil rights movement, including during the Harlem Uprising of 1964, in which hundreds of Harlem residents protested the killing of an unarmed Black teenager.

These incidents were often quelled by harsh response from the NYPD, resulting in the injuries of thousands of Harlemites.

Activist demonstration and the disproportionate police brutality it engenders are ingrained in Harlem’s history. This is why I am vehemently opposed to Columbia University President Minouche Shafik’s decision to call in the NYPD to clear protesters on Columbia’s campus.

It is also why I hope Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 does not repeat Shafik’s callous decision at our own school.

Garber has refused to rule out the possibility of calling in the police to forcibly disperse Harvard protesters. But we must avoid this step not only for the safety of students in the encampment — including many of my friends that I love deeply — but also for the safety of Black and brown Cambridge and Allston residents.

Given the larger history of American police disproportionately targeting Black and brown people, calling a significant police presence to any location endangers the neighboring broader Black and Brown communities of a given area.

When police are called to a central location, officers do not just remain in that one place. They linger, instilling fear, in the surrounding areas.

Shafik’s decision to rely on the NYPD to disperse a peaceful protest was reactionary and foolish at best. Combined with the notable militarization of the NYPD under New York City Mayor Eric L. Adams’ administration, Shafik has gone against the wishes of Columbia affiliates and drawn national derision for her decision making.

While concerns over agitators abusing the pro-Palestinian movement to perpetuate antisemitism are undoubtedly justified, they cannot be used as a carte blanche excuse to unnecessarily use police force on dozens of peaceful protestors.

Encampments are a strong, effective, and non-violent form of protest. From the last six days of Harvard’s encampment, many passersby have described a peaceful scene — something that the Harvard University Police Department’s current captain also noted on Friday. So far, encampments for Gaza have successfully drawn public attention to Israel’s ongoing bombing of Palestinians.

Garber has asserted that he remains staunchly opposed to divestment from Israel. Yet, his reluctance will not change the fact that students remain outside on Harvard Yard, from morning through night, steadfastly advocating for Palestinian liberation.

Perhaps their resilience is an indication that Harvard administrators should at least grant protestors serious conversations regarding their demands, instead of perpetually shying away from discussion.

Harvard not only has a responsibility to protect its affiliates, but also to remember its surrounding community in its decision making process. To President Garber, my message is simple: Remember Black and brown Cambridge and Allston in your decision making.

Jasmine N Wynn ’27, a Crimson Editorial editor, lives in Thayer Hall.