Kenneth MacIntyre-Beiter had just left his biomedical engineering class March 19 when he learned that the University had finalized his suspension.
The suspension came after MacIntyre-Beiter participated in the protest at the 2024 Boar’s Head Dinner this past December and a second unapproved protest January 2025 despite being on academic probation for participation in the Wallis Hall sit-ins last May. By early March of this year he had received his sanctions and submitted an appeal to protest the suspension.
“Believe it or not, it’s really hard to motivate yourself to go to class when you know the university is trying to suspend you,” MacIntyre-Beiter said. “Once I woke up [March 19], I was like, you know what? I’m walking back in. We’re going to crush everything.”
Twenty minutes after the end of his first class, he received the notification that the University had examined his appeal and maintained his suspension.
According to email communication between MacIntyre-Beiter and University administration, MacIntyre-Beiter was sanctioned for violating point 17 of the University’s Student Code of Conduct, which covers “Behavior that negatively impacts the normal pursuit of academic, administrative, extracurricular or personal activities, or that violates any University policies or rules,” and includes violation of the Demonstrations, Vigils, and Peaceful Protests Policy (DVPP).
The DVPP was introduced at the beginning of the 2024-2025 academic year, in response to a wave of pro-Palestinian protests at the end of the Spring 2024 semester, including sit-ins and a student encampment lasting several weeks. This was a movement seen in universities across the country, and, as a result, universities nationwide have looked at creating a more thorough framework for addressing free speech on campus.
For the University of Rochester, the DVPP introduced additional event registration requirements and monitoring for demonstrations. Students must register their protests with the University ahead of time, create a safety plan, and meet with University officials before the protest. The policy applies to demonstrations, protests, and vigils.
Neither of the protests that Kenneth MacIntyre-Beiter was sanctioned for during the 2024-2025 school year received prior authorization. Despite this, MacIntyre-Beiter maintains that he did not violate the DVPP, as he participated in these events, but did not organize them.
Although the DVPP places most of the responsibility of protest etiquette on the event’s organizers — called “Responsible Organizers” — it also emphasizes that participants must “not only follow the Meliora Values but also must adhere to all Standards of Conduct,” which includes the Faculty Handbook, Student Code of Conduct, and Human Resource Policies.
Although it outlines protest behavior and additional obligations for registration, the DVPP does not identify specific sanctions associated with violating the policy.
According to Kyle Orton, Assistant Dean of Students and University Judicial Officer, sanctions vary depending on the specifics of each infraction. Common sanctions are listed on pages 16-19 of the Student Code of Conduct and range from writing a reflection-based paper to expulsion from the University.
“Each case is addressed in a consistent manner,” Orton told the Campus Times, “and has been since the establishment of the DVPP policy in July 2024, when the University revised its policies related to free expression and campus activism.”
Some students claim that the University has been inconsistent in its responses, with individuals facing the same sanction violation charges and punishments for differing alleged levels of involvement.
Senior Dariel Guerra, who has participated in pro-Palestinian protests but claims not to have organized them, has been given an interim ban from campus for his involvement as an alleged leader in an unauthorized protest April 4. During this protest, students left shoes hanging in front of Wallis Hall to oppose the University’s reinvestment in weapons manufacturing deals. This reinvestment had previously been advised against by the University’s Ethical Advisory Committee May 2024.
Guerra was identified during his hearing process as a leader, despite never having been listed as a “Responsible Organizer” in any demonstrations – including this one. In an interview with the Campus Times, Guerra confirmed he was present at the protest and participated in chants, however denied any leadership.
Despite being masked, Guerra was identified using surveillance footage that matched the clothing he was wearing while leaving his dorm.
“I don’t accept the ban,” Guerra told the Campus Times. “I don’t accept that as a just and fair punishment to the action being punished.”
The University maintains that all responses are consistent and that, in Orton’s words, each case has been “appropriately tailored to educate the involved students and repair harms caused to the community.”
In some instances, that tailoring can include dropping sanctions.
Junior Sarah Aljitawi received notice December 2024 that she had violated the DVPP for alleged participation in the Boar’s Head protest. As part of the evidence, she was told that the shape and form of her eyebrows matched those of one of the women present at the protest, who notably, was wearing a hijab.
“I don’t even wear a hijab,” Aljitawi said.
In actuality, Altijawi was miles away from campus at the time of the Boar’s Head protest, enjoying dinner with friends. After presenting text messages regarding this off-campus dinner, and after administration further examined security footage, the case was dropped by early February 2025.
Recently, the Susan B. Anthony Advisory Board held a series of semi-anonymous focus groups compiling student opinions on the DVPP. Students expressed concerns about how the policy’s imprecise language limited different forms of free-speech expression, arguing that it lends itself to potential misinterpretation by students and administration alike.
“If you’re going out and protesting for Palestine, you’re suddenly outside of the realm of acceptable opinions,” one focus group student explained. “If you want to create a policy that will support safe [or] rational […] DVPPs, then you need to be properly enforcing equally and equitably the rules, and you need to be coherent enough with your policy to make people understand the consequences.”
