{shortcode-f4fd354f569c0fca829f8c62a8a23ddbaa464044}

Harvard will adopt University-wide rules on the use of campus spaces that will prohibit overnight camping, chalking on University property, and unapproved signage and displays, according to a draft document obtained by The Crimson.

Harvard’s Office of General Counsel and the Working Group on Campus Space Use produced the document, which comes after months of pro-Palestine student protests on campus, including a 20-day encampment in Harvard Yard.

The draft policy seeks to discourage many tactics that are frequently used by campus activists, and marks another effort by interim Harvard President Alan M. Garber ’76 and his administration to prevent a return of the large-scale protests that have become a regular aspect of campus life since October 2023.

Harvard spokesperson Jason A. Newton emphasized that the University is still finalizing the policies on the use of campus spaces.

“The draft document obtained by the Crimson is an earlier version that was in review and may not accurately indicate the current status of guidance regarding a particular topic,” Newton wrote in a statement. “Once the document is finalized, it will be shared with the Harvard community.”

The six-page document largely draws from existing policies across Harvard in an effort to produce a common set of rules about how students can use campus buildings and spaces. The working group that helped produce the document was quietly convened over the summer and consisted of senior University officials and staff members.

The draft document frames itself as an effort to manage demand for campus spaces and to preserve Harvard property.

“Both to foster the well-being of community members and to preserve these resources for future generations, the University has an obligation to adopt rules and policies that simultaneously protect and facilitate the use of the University's private property,” the draft document stated.

Newton noted that there already exists guidance on the use of campus space and added that Harvard was “working to ensure that common rules and guidance around the use of campus spaces are more readily accessible to community members.”

The document, however, also warns that violations of the policy could result in penalties.

Organizations and individuals that fail to comply with the campus use guidelines “may be held financially responsible for any resulting costs incurred and may be subject to other consequences for noncompliance, including referral for discipline,” according to the draft policy.

While certain policies are unsurprising — like restrictions on the distribution of alcohol at campus-wide events — other policies appear to directly target actions that some affiliates have described as being protected by their free speech rights.

{shortcode-d5f66ee80dbf0e6ef31c3b0007f38f3d44483c50}

The draft policy is just the latest example of campus officials attempting to clarify or standardize University policies after a year of protests in Harvard Yard and across the graduate schools.

Two weeks ago, the University announced that it would standardize its processes for fact-finding in disciplinary cases after facing criticisms that the disciplinary sanctions for student protesters who participated in the encampment were inconsistent across Harvard schools.

And, in January, Garber and top University officials issued a statement that more explicitly demarcated time, manner, and place guidelines for campus protests.

Some student activists objected to the January guidance as a targeted effort to stifle campus activism. The Harvard Undergraduate Palestine Solidarity Committee described the statement at the time as an effort to “clamp down on pro-Palestine speech on campus.”

Classics professor Richard F. Thomas, a member of Faculty and Staff for Justice and Palestine, wrote that he thought the draft policy’s emphasis on order and compliance was misplaced.

‘Safety, security and well-being; compliance with rules; orderliness.’ That could put us up there with Singapore as one of the world’s safest spaces,” Thomas wrote. “I’m not sure that such rules will actually produce well-being however.”

Exhibits and displays — including lighting projections — would require approval from the University or other units that govern the space where they would be installed, according to the draft policy. Like existing protest guidelines, it also prohibits events that block building entrances or interfere with the flow of vehicle or pedestrian traffic.

The draft guidelines largely align with those in place at Harvard’s peer institutions, though they draw a stricter line on some protest-related activities. For example, Yale University and the University of Pennsylvania allow amplified noise or chalking with some restrictions on time or place, but Harvard’s draft rules would prohibit both activities entirely without permission.

The draft policy would also ban individuals from filming or photographing others without their consent in all campus spaces unless they have prior authorization from school officials. The provision appears to respond to concerns from pro-Palestine organizers over students being doxxed for their participation in protests.

Under the draft policy, the University would require all events to be held by a “designated Harvard affiliate or affiliate group sponsor.” Unless explicitly permitted by site-specific policies, the policy would ban groups from co-sponsoring events with non-Harvard organizations and unrecognized student organizations.

Certain spaces — like the Science Center Plaza, a frequent site for demonstrations — contain similar co-sponsorship restrictions, and existing rules prevent recognized student groups from co-sponsoring events with unrecognized or external groups.

Many of the spring protests, including the encampment, were organized by Harvard Out of Occupied Palestine, a coalition of unrecognized student groups. Other groups that have hosted campus protests in the past, including the Harvard Feminist Coalition, are also unrecognized.

Former Harvard President Lawrence H. Summers, who has urged the University’s recent leadership to take a harder line against pro-Palestine protesters, greeted the draft policy with measured approval, but said he remained skeptical as to whether it would actually be enforced.

“These policies, like many that have been promulgated, are fine and reasonable,” Summers said in an interview. “The issue is that the University, over the last year, has consistently failed to act and impose sanctions when policies are violated and has been slow to implement policies on behalf of Jewish student groups. That is why it is subject to multiple federal government investigations and civil suits.”

Former Harvard Medical School Dean Jeffrey S. Flier, who is a co-president of the Council on Academic Freedom at Harvard, wrote that he thought the policy “seems entirely necessary and appropriate.”

If the policy is adopted, Flier said, the “key issue will be how effectively it will be implemented, and violations handled with appropriate disciplinary actions.”

“It may not take long to find out,” he added.

—Staff writer Tilly R. Robinson can be reached at tilly.robinson@thecrimson.com. Follow her on X @tillyrobin.

—Staff writer Neil H. Shah can be reached at neil.shah@thecrimson.com. Follow him on X @neilhshah15.