Five takeaways from the DP’s series on the internal dynamics of Penn’s Gaza Solidarity Encampment

Over the past several months, The Daily Pennsylvanian exclusively acquired hundreds of documents detailing the internal communications and deliberations behind Penn’s Gaza Solidarity Encampment in the spring. The pro-Palestinian encampment, which marked the largest demonstration on Penn’s campus in recent history, lasted 16 days before police officers swept it and arrested 33 individuals, including nine Penn students.

The documents, and additional conversations with faculty members, reveal information about the University’s attempted negotiations with the demonstrators and its relationships with politicians at the highest level of state and city government.

Here are five main takeaways from the DP’s three-part series.

1. Jameson and Parker clashed about PPD involvement

On May 2 — the eighth day of the encampment’s duration — Interim Penn President Larry Jameson formally wrote to Philadelphia Mayor Cherelle Parker to request assistance from the Philadelphia Police Department in managing the demonstration, citing “grave concerns for the safety of all in our community.”

Jameson’s letter alleged that Penn had witnessed a “steady decrease in cooperation and willingness to engage in dialog” from the demonstrators. He particularly focused on concerns about many demonstrators not being Penn affiliates, claiming that the University could not contain the “problem” due to its open campus and would be unable to prevent nonaffiliates from gaining access to Penn facilities if the situation escalated.

Therefore, Penn was requesting that the PPD aid University Police in ensuring only individuals possessing valid PennCards were allowed on campus, he told Parker.

Shortly afterward, however, Parker rebuffed Jameson’s request. She wrote that evening that she had recently met with relevant stakeholders — including the PPD, the city's Office of Public Safety, District Attorney Larry Krasner, City Council President Kenyatta Johnson, and City Councilmember and Penn's city representative Jamie Gauthier — and that the group was “united in our position that a peaceful resolution is the best solution.”

2. Penn and Parker disagreed about whether the encampment posed danger

Jameson, in his May 2 letter, wrote that the encampment members’ conduct “poses an imminent threat to our campus community.” He cited death threats against Penn Police officers — which the DP could not independently corroborate — and “complete disregard for all previously agreed upon limits to the place and manner of protest.”

“There are times when the encampment is peaceful, but we have witnessed this situation escalate rapidly,” he wrote.

Parker, in her rebuttal to Jameson, strongly disagreed with Jameson’s allegations of violence at the encampment. She wrote that PPD "has not seen any evidence of disruptive, criminal, or violent behavior" and requested that Penn provide evidence of the contrary to the City if it existed.

Parker’s response prompted a May 5 letter from Jameson, in which he cited over 20 incidents at the encampment site including vandalism, chants described by Jameson as “threatening, intimidating, and harassing,” and “violent behavior.”

“The encampment now represents a collection of people from the Penn community and people from outside the Penn community who are harassing and threatening those around them, defacing Penn property, and fostering counter protests and other conditions that can escalate into dangerous physical confrontation," Jameson wrote. 

3. Penn made several concessions to the protesters — and was denied

In the days before Penn swept the encampment, the University offered to pause all disciplinary cases against protesters and revisit its disciplinary process if they ended their demonstration — while simultaneously drafting plans to arrest the protesters.

Penn repeatedly rebuffed the organizers’ three main demands throughout the encampment’s duration — the divestment of Penn’s endowment from companies with ties to Israel, the disclosure of investments, and the defense of pro-Palestinian students — and never publicly made concessions toward the three demands.

In a May 1 email, encampment organizers stipulated that Jameson attend all negotiations, withdraw disciplinary letters against encampment participants, commit to keeping police out of the encampment, and cease "threats to evict outsiders in the name of safety.”

Less than 24 hours later, Provost John Jackson Jr. detailed an offer to pause all encampment-related disciplinary cases until the University could appoint a faculty-led committee — which would include student representatives — to revisit Penn's disciplinary process. 

His offer, however, was contingent on the encampment’s disbandment.

4. Negotiations were an ‘unwinnable situation,’ one professor involved said

Penn dealt with increasing pressure from professors, donors, and politicians through the encampment. 

Jackson appeared virtually at an emergency Faculty Senate Executive Committee on April 29 to discuss the encampment. Of those present, an “overwhelming majority of faculty wanted de-escalation,” according to Political Science professor Tulia Falleti, who at the time was chair of the Faculty Senate. 

Wharton professor Eric Orts told the DP that student organizers “refused” to negotiate with anyone except for Jameson, citing an instance where he tried to facilitate a meeting between Jackson and a senior finance administrator — and that encampment leadership turned the meeting down.

Orts said that Penn was placed in an “unwinnable situation” due to Pennsylvania’s laws against boycott, divestment, and sanctions. He said that proposed compromises, such as discussions on financial transparency, failed because the student protesters considered divestment a nonnegotiable issue. 

History and Sociology of Science professor Harun Küçük, who did not have direct involvement in the negotiations, said that he believed the encampment’s demands were limited by what the University Board of Trustees was willing to concede, including on the topic of divestment. Küçük said he also believed external political pressure played a significant role in Penn’s decision-making processes, with the United States House Committee on Workforce and Education’s ongoing investigation into Penn raising concerns about congressional sanctions. 

5. Shapiro had greater involvement than previously known — and was more adversarial than Parker

In Jameson’s first weeks in the presidency, he turned to Pennsylvania Gov. Josh Shapiro for help putting out Penn’s fires — and Shapiro used the opportunity to claim increased influence over the University.

Shapiro continued his involvement in Penn’s affairs after contributing to the donor and political pressure that forced former Penn President Liz Magill’s ouster in December 2023, including through the University’s Task Force on Antisemitism and by liaising with pro-Israeli students.

According to the documents, Shapiro’s office inserted itself early on into key discussions on antisemitism concerns, culminating in regular contact during the encampment on Penn's campus. Shapiro both publicly exerted pressure on administrators and placed himself at the forefront of the national debate over the demonstrations.

Shapiro also took a significantly more adversarial tack toward the demonstrators than Parker. During the encampment, the Governor's Office obtained negotiation documents, names of protesters, and key operational details — at times, in advance of plans being enacted. 

The documents also reveal that Shapiro’s public call on May 9 that it was “past time” for Penn to disband the encampment — widely viewed at the time as one of the main factors that pushed Penn to disband the encampment — occurred after the University had already decided to do so and formally requested assistance from the City.

The full series about Penn's Gaza Solidarity Encampment is available at thedp.com. The first part is linked here, the second part is linked here, and the third and final part is linked here.