logo
The Encampments director Kei Pritsker: ‘The students risked a lot to stand with the people of Gaza. That's tremendous'

The Encampments director Kei Pritsker: ‘The students risked a lot to stand with the people of Gaza. That's tremendous'

Irish Times07-06-2025
The Palestine solidarity encampments at
Columbia University
, in uptown Manhattan, were not the first such US student protests during the continuing
Gaza
conflict. But they came to be the most impactful. Beginning in April 2024, the occupation saw tents spreading across the Morningside Heights campus of the Ivy League institution. Flags and banners were unfurled. Chants went up.
That first protest, seeking Columbia's financial divestment from Israel, was broken up when Minouche Shafik, the university's president, authorised the New York Police Department to enter the campus and conduct mass arrests. Nothing like this had happened since the 1968 demonstrations against the Vietnam War.
'Columbia wasn't actually the first campus to set up an encampment,' Kei Pritsker, director of a fine new documentary on the protests, confirms. 'Stanford University, Vanderbilt University – they also had encampments going. But the whole world saw how Columbia had called the police on their own students – students who paid tuition to study at that school, only to be arrested by their own faculty, by their own school administration.'
Pritsker's The Encampments stands as a lucid, sober examination of a still-developing story. The director, unapologetically on the side of the protesters, reflects that mood in his own conversation. He lays out the case calmly. The anger is implied, not explicit.
READ MORE
'People saw this happening in broad daylight,' he says. 'These videos were circulated around the world. There was so much outrage over the treatment of students who weren't bothering anyone, who were protesting peacefully. The hypocrisy of it all. The fact that the students were saying, 'Hey, we're doing this in the spirit of education.''
The protests spread across the United States' universities and then across the world. The students in Manhattan returned and tensions continued to mount. There were disputes about anti-Semitic incidents happening in the vicinity of the encampments. The university ended up cancelling its graduation ceremony in May of 2024. Shafik resigned that August.
Future histories will position all the testimonies in proper context, but The Encampments is an invaluable first draft. There is a lot to unpick here about the general condition of American education and, more specifically, about its relationship with the almighty dollar.
'The schools have this false reputation – it's almost a caricature – that's been built up by conservatives, that they are run by Marxists, by leftists,' Pritsker says of the top US universities. 'The reality is the schools are really run like businesses, especially the private institutions. In the United States the average American pays more for education than any person in the world, but we have very low outcomes for education.
'That's because the schools are run like a business. The money is not just being invested in big sports stadiums and huge monuments but also just in inflating the endowment of the school. Inflating the investment portfolio. Buying real-estate investments.'
[
Protesting students will not be shamed, badgered or bribed into silence
Opens in new window
]
The film puts the case that Columbia's vigorous response to the protests was driven more by financial concerns than by any ideological unease.
'It's clear to us that Columbia's main consideration was how their donors would feel about their reaction to the protests, not whether the school was on the moral side of history or if they were actually invested in genocide,' Pritsker says. 'They were concerned with pleasing their donors – who happened to support Israel.'
The Encampments further argues that members of Columbia's board of trustees may have direct interest in organisations that would suffer if the university divested as demanded by the students.
'They're titans of industry. They are wealthy. They are influential in politics and in culture,' he says, moving on to discuss a former secretary of homeland security. 'We talk about a few like Jeh Johnson, who is someone who sits on the Columbia board of trustees and also sits on the board of Lockheed Martin, which is a weapons manufacturer that builds weapons that are sold to Israel.'
Pritsker, a journalist with
BreakThrough News
, did not initially set out to make a film about the phenomenon. He went to Columbia first to report on the early protests. Some of his footage from that visit made it into the final project.
'I had been in contact with the Columbia students since then,' he says. 'So when they were setting up the encampment they reached out to me and said, 'Hey, do you want to cover this? You know the administration isn't listening to our demands. They're ignoring us completely. They are banning our student groups. They're looking the other way. So we're setting up this encampment.''
Pritsker went back to the university and began filming. He felt it would be just a straightforward news package, but when rumours emerged of imminent arrests he realised that he might have a larger story to tell. He hung around, and the next morning the first police actions took place. Then information came in that other colleges across the nation were setting up their own encampments. Pritsker found himself monitoring the progress of a mighty wave.
'I asked the students, 'Hey, can I live with you guys?'' he says. 'So I lived in the encampment for the next 12 days – all really as a journalist. I had no intention of making a film out of any of this.'
News reports suggest that the encampments temporarily transformed the whole atmosphere in the Upper West Side of Manhattan. Cops were everywhere. The press was hovering. Chants and cheers were audible. Did Pritsker get that sense of the protests bleeding out into the wider community?
'That was a big part of it that we didn't quite get to address in the film,' he says. 'This was a citywide, and a countrywide, and a globalwide encampment at Columbia. Every single night and every single day people were going to the gates of Columbia to chant very loudly – loudly enough that the students in the camp could hear them chanting in support.'
He goes on to argue that the issue of the genocide in Gaza is not something 'that stops at the university gates'. This was a concern that, one way or another, energised the whole community.
'It should come as no surprise that people in New York City wanted to express their support for the students,' he says. 'Without that support the encampment wouldn't have survived, but the students inside were receiving tons and tons of food.'
[
Irish J1 visa students urged to be informed of potential risks of 'activism' in US
Opens in new window
]
All well and good. But student protests have, to put it delicately, never been universally popular with the wider public. There was, in the blue-collar US, at least as much outrage at student militancy of the late 1960s as there was support. And Columbia is not just some community college. These are elite students at the most prestigious of universities.
'To a degree, there is an aspect of that,' he says. 'The movement hasn't quite reached blue-collar America. There is a perception that the movement is solely for people who consider themselves progressive or left-wing. When it's really not. I think that is kind of where the movement needs to go. It needs to broaden and approach people who might consider themselves conservative or right-wing.'
The Encampments does, at least, push aside the notion that there is nothing at stake for the protesters. Mahmoud Khalil, a student activist at Columbia and one of the lead negotiators during the protest, is interviewed at length. In March this year Khalil was arrested by immigration officials in his university accommodation.
'Mahmoud is still in prison in Jena, Louisiana,' Pritsker says. 'He's still facing potential deportation. Some judges have issued orders slowing down the process, and obviously he has tremendous public support.
'So anything the Trump administration tries to do to Mahmoud will be heavily watched and criticised. They're trying to be really careful, and it's not clear that the administration has a solid case to do this.'
Few of the protesters are facing anything like that sort of challenge. But there are risks for even those from more comfortable backgrounds.
'They have all these shiny little objects waved in front of them: lucrative careers, fancy job titles, all this,' Pritsker says, wryly. 'And the fact is they rejected that entirely. They said, 'We don't care about any of these bribes, these little trinkets that you're offering us. We want to stand with the people of Gaza at great detriment to our own safety and our own reputation.' That's tremendous.'
The Encampments is in cinemas from Friday, June 6th
Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

National guard deployed on streets of Washington after Trump takes control of city's police
National guard deployed on streets of Washington after Trump takes control of city's police

Irish Times

time5 hours ago

  • Irish Times

National guard deployed on streets of Washington after Trump takes control of city's police

The Washington , DC national guard began deploying on the city's streets overnight, a day after Donald Trump ordered their arrival and took control of the city's police force, calling Washington a 'lawless' city, despite official crime statistics saying otherwise. Defence officials said a small number of the roughly 800 national guard members planned for the mission had been mobilised, with more expected to arrive in the coming days. About 850 officers and agents took part in a 'massive law enforcement surge' across Washington on Monday night and made nearly two dozen arrests, the White House has said. The violent crime rate in the city is at a 30-year low. Press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Tuesday: 'As part of the president's massive law enforcement surge, last night approximately 850 officers and agents were surged across the city. They made a total of 23 arrests, including multiple other contacts.' READ MORE The arrests consisted of homicide, firearms offences, possession with intent to distribute narcotics, fare evasion, lewd acts and stalking, Leavitt added. 'A total of six illegal handguns were seized off of District of Columbia's streets as part of last night's effort.' [ Trump sends troops into Washington DC: distraction tactic or part of wider policy? Opens in new window ] Leavitt added: 'This is only the beginning. Over the course of the next month, the Trump administration will relentlessly pursue and arrest every violent criminal in the district who breaks the law, undermines public safety and endangers law-abiding Americans.' Earlier, Muriel Bowser, the mayor of Washington, DC, said she expected members of the national guard to be deployed on federal property in the US capital, including parks, monuments, federal buildings. Leavitt also told reporters that homeless people have the option be taken to a homeless shelter and offered addiction and/or mental health services. 'If they refuse, they will be susceptible to fines or to jail time. These are pre-existing laws that are already on the books. They have not been enforced,' she said. US president Donald Trump announces that he is assuming control of Washington's Metropolitan Police Department and deploying the national guard in the city at the White House on Monday. Photograph: Doug Mills/The New York Times Trump's intervention has been widely condemned as an authoritarian power grab that undermines the autonomy of Washington's DC local government and seeks to distract attention from political problems such as the Jeffrey Epstein files. Bowser had earlier pledged to work 'side by side' with the federal government as national guard troops arrived at their headquarters in Washington. Speaking after a meeting with the attorney general, Pam Bondi, at the justice department, Bowser told reporters: 'I won't go into the details of our operational plan at this point but you will see the Metropolitan police department (MPD) working side by side with our federal partners in order to enforce the effort that we need around the city.' Bowser has cultivated a delicate working relationship with Trump since his return to power in January, avoiding direct confrontations when possible. On Tuesday, she struck a conciliatory note and said she would try to make the most of the extra resources to fight crime. 'What I'm focused on is the federal surge and how to make the most of the additional officer support that we have,' she said. 'We have the best in the business at MPD and chief Pamela Smith to lead that effort and to make sure that the men and women who are coming from federal law enforcement are being well used and that, if there is national guard here, that they're being well used and all in an effort to drive down crime. 'So, how we got here or what we think about the circumstances right now, we have more police and we want to make sure we're using them.' However, other Democratic mayors across the US have adopted a different tone, warning Trump against expanding his law-and-order power grab in other big cities. [ Trump has long bedazzled his life – now he's refashioning the Oval and our democracy Opens in new window ] Trump told reporters on Monday: 'We have other cities also that are bad,' citing the Democratic strongholds of Chicago, Los Angeles and New York. 'And then, of course, you have Baltimore and Oakland. You don't even mention them any more, they're so far gone.' Stephen Miller, an influential White House deputy chief of staff, stepped up the rhetoric on Tuesday, tweeting without evidence: 'Crime stats in big blue cities are fake. The real rates of crime, chaos & dysfunction are orders of magnitude higher. Everyone who lives in these areas knows this. They program their entire lives around it. Democrats are trying to unravel civilization. Pres Trump will save it.' Crime stats in big blue cities are fake. The real rates of crime, chaos & dysfunction are orders of magnitude higher. Everyone who lives in these areas knows this. They program their entire lives around it. Democrats are trying to unravel civilization. Pres Trump will save it. — Stephen Miller (@StephenM) All five cities named by Trump are run by black mayors. Most were outspoken in denouncing the president's move. Brandon Johnson, Chicago's mayor, said in a statement: 'Sending in the national guard would only serve to destabilise our city and undermine our public safety efforts.' Brandon Scott, the mayor of Baltimore, said: 'When it comes to public safety in Baltimore, he should turn off the rightwing propaganda and look at the facts. Baltimore is the safest it's been in over 50 years.' Karen Bass, the mayor of Los Angeles, where troops were sent earlier this month in a crackdown on protests, posted: 'Another experiment by the administration, another power grab from local government. This is performative. This is a stunt. It always has been and always will be.' Trump took command of the Washington, DC police department and deployed the national guard under laws and constitutional powers that give the federal government more sway over the capital than other cities. But Democrats raised concerns that Washington could be a blueprint for similar strong-arm tactics elsewhere. Christina Henderson, a Washington, DC council member, told CNN on Tuesday: 'I was listening to the president's press conference yesterday, and I think it should be concerning to all Americans that he talked about other cities. 'The District of Columbia, for decades, without statehood, has always been used as a Petri dish, where Congress or the federal government is trying out ideas here. So, I would hope that folks don't lose sight of what's happening in the district. And even if they don't live here, they fight hard with us.' California's governor, Gavin Newsom, warned that Trump 'will gaslight his way into militarising any city he wants in United States'. JB Pritzker, the governor of Illinois, said the president 'has absolutely no right and no legal ability to send troops into the city of Chicago, and so I reject that notion'. He added: 'You've seen that he doesn't follow the law. I have talked about the fact that the Nazis in Germany in the 30s tore down a constitutional republic in just 53 days. It does not take much, frankly, and we have a president who seems hell-bent on doing just that.' – Guardian

The Most Powerful Court in the World by Stuart Banner: More than US legal analysis, it's an excellent history
The Most Powerful Court in the World by Stuart Banner: More than US legal analysis, it's an excellent history

Irish Times

time11 hours ago

  • Irish Times

The Most Powerful Court in the World by Stuart Banner: More than US legal analysis, it's an excellent history

The Most Powerful Court in the World - A History of the Supreme Court of the United States Author : Stuart Banner ISBN-13 : 9780197780350 Publisher : OUP USA Guideline Price : £30.99 While the title of this book indicates a legal history of the United States supreme court , the book is far more than a jurisprudential analysis of the highest court in the United States. Banner, a law professor at the University of California, sets out to avoid the traditional legal history of the court and instead writes a trilateral history, a consideration of the court's decisions, the lives of its justices and an analysis of the relevant contemporaneous political and societal influences. Banner argues that it is not possible to consider the court in isolation and during periods of its history, the court was the driving force which directed the course of the United States. An example of this impactful influence can be seen in the 1803 decision of Marbury v Madison which has become legendary in the canon of constitutional jurisprudence in which the court recognised the judiciary's power of judicial review. READ MORE Dred Scott Banner notes that the decision of Chief Justice Roger Taney in Dred Scott v Sandford (1857) is often cited as one of the most shameful opinions in the history of the court. In Dred Scott, the court ruled that people of African descent, whether enslaved or free, were not and could never be citizens of the United States and therefore had no standing to sue in federal court. Dred Scott would go on to play a significant role in hastening the onset of the American Civil War in 1861. During the Chief Justiceship of Earl Warren (1953-1969), the court ushered in the most liberal period of its history. During this period, the court determined seminal cases such as Brown v Board of Education (1954) which banned the segregation of public schools, Miranda v Arizona (1966) which ruled that the police must warn a person of their constitutional rights, before conducting an interrogation and New York Times Co. v Sullivan (1964) which ruled the freedom of speech protections in the First Amendment to the constitution limited the ability of public officials to sue for defamation. The author notes that the US supreme court is not apolitical. The court is exposed to politics in a number of different ways, including through the appointment of its justices. When a vacancy arises, the president nominates a candidate for appointment and the Senate confirms their appointment. Traditionally, Republican presidents have appointed conservative justices while Democratic presidents have appointed more liberally minded members of the bench. Roe v Wade Arguably the most controversial decision of the court in the past century concerned abortion rights. In Roe v Wade (1973) the court found that the US constitution protected the right to have an abortion before the point of foetal viability. Given the polarisation of views on social issues, there was an immediate call for the overturn of Roe. The US constitution, similar to other modern constitutions, can evolve over time and the court can revisit its earlier decisions if the make-up of its bench shifts and social norms evolve. Following a number of Republican appointed justices, the court now leans towards a conservative interpretation of the constitution. In 2022, the court was prepared to reconsider Roe in Dobbs v Jackson Women's Health Organization. In Dobbs, the court ruled that the constitution does not confer a right to abortion, thereby overruling the controversial decision in Roe. The decision in Dodds has caused a legal and social cataclysm in the United States. Arguably the most controversial decision of the court in the past century concerned abortion rights. Photograph: Getty Images Several States moved quickly to ban abortion, and the Roe/ Dodds line of case law is likely to reverberate in the United States for many years to come. The author brings the history of the court up to the present and considers a number of appeals to the court, brought by President Donald Trump, on various issues including the 2020 United States presidential election. Banner notes that Trump has a very poor success rate before the court. While this is certainly an enlightening history of the court, there are aspects of the court's history which are considered in a summary manner only. For example, the book concentrates on the liberal period of the Warren Court but pays little attention to the Watergate scandal and its political and legal fallout. That said, Banner, has authored an excellent, comprehensive and engaging one-volume history of, as the title enunciates, possibly the most powerful court in the world. Dr James Meighan is a practising lawyer and holds a PhD in constitutional history from the University of Limerick.

Trump sends troops into Washington DC: distraction tactic or part of wider policy?
Trump sends troops into Washington DC: distraction tactic or part of wider policy?

Irish Times

timea day ago

  • Irish Times

Trump sends troops into Washington DC: distraction tactic or part of wider policy?

It's one of the unique quirks of living in Washington, DC : the presidential motorcade sweeping through the city, with attendant street shutdowns and security sweeps and by-passers rubbernecking for a glimpse. But the occupant of The Beast, as the presidential state car is nicknamed, can look out on the world too. The short bursts to and from the White House are the only real opportunity that any president has to observe the city in which they reside. And this weekend, Donald Trump decided he had seen enough. On the short drive back through the city from his Virginia golf club, Trump saw a homeless encampment, a littered underpass and someone sleeping rough near the Capitol. Within hours, he had announced Monday's press conference, which he titled as being on 'Crime and Beautification' of the city. 'We are here for a serious purpose ,' he told a crowded media attendance in the James Brady press room on Monday morning. 'I'm announcing a historic action to rescue our nation's capital from crime, bloodshed, bedlam and squalor and worse. This is liberation day in DC and we are gonna take our capital back. We are taking it back.' The announcement that the actions of the DC police will be placed under federal control and that National Guard will be deployed in the city for 30 days, under section 640 of the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, was, he told the room, for their benefit also. READ MORE 'Many of you tend to be on the liberal side but you don't want to get mugged and shot and raped and killed,' he said, before declaring the murder rate in Washington is 'higher than Bogotá, Colombia or Mexico City, some of the places you hear about as the worst places on Earth.' The announcement was a sudden, no-warning escalation of Trump's long-held portrait of Washington as a fallen, urban nightmare for its citizens. At the outset of his election campaign last year, he described the capital as 'a rat-infested shithole' during a snowy Sunday-morning stumps speech in Iowa. Now, as first resident of Washington, he was in more benign mood and leant into the idea of his reclamation project of an extension of his recently-announced intention to enhance the White House with a ballroom. Even as Trump continued to speak through a press conference that soon diverged into a rambling forecast of Friday's meeting with Vladimir Putin in Alaska, statistics refuting the president's claim about Washington's crime and safety began to appear in the majority of news networks. The majority noted that violent crime had fallen from the alarmingly high rates of 2023. In 2024, the violent crime rate in Washington was 1,005 per 100,000 residents - which unquestionably represents a significant threat in a city of just 700,000 people. It was twice as high as the figure for New York City, but less than half that of Memphis, which has a similar population. DC authorities argue that the 2025 statistics are indicative of a spectacular turnaround, on track to achieve a 30-year low – an achievement the president may well attribute to this week's intervention if it continues until the end of the year. But with his usual facility for blurring dates and data to produce an argument that suited his broader purpose, Trump noted that the 2023 murder rate in Washington was the highest in 25 years. He also described crimes of which he had direct knowledge: the shocking carjacking and murder of a former Trump administration official Mike Gill, which happened in the early evening in the heart of downtown early in 2024 and, just weeks ago, the attack on Edward Coristine, a former DogeE staffer who was set upon and viciously beaten by a group of youths after he intervened in an attempted carjacking. 'Our capital city has been overtaken by violent gangs and bloodthirsty criminals, roving mobs of wild youth, drugged-out maniacs and homeless people, and we're not going to let it happen any more,' Trump vowed as he stood at the podium flanked by his defence secretary, Pete Hegseth, and attorney general Pam Bondi, who will now become the first holder of that office to take charge of the metropolitan police force. The response from Democratic opposition was predictably scathing, with former house speaker Nancy Pelosi issuing a statement that Trump 'delayed deploying the National Guard on January 6th when our Capitol was under violent attack and lives were at stake'. 'Now he's activating the DC Guard to distract from his incompetent mishandling of tariffs, healthcare and immigration – to name just a few blunders,' her statement continued. But the Democrats failed to make January 6th a deterrent to voters in last year's election. And the broader operatic message behind Monday's performance will be well received among the Republican supporters, as will his vow that while police officers were for years restricted from responding when agitators spat in their faces, under his executive orders they 'will be allowed to do whatever the hell they want'. It was presented as a companion piece to the Trump administration's border policy: a zero-tolerance emergency programme to cleanse Washington DC of a decades-old malaise and restore it to being a capital city of which Americans can be proud. 'You have countries where every Saturday the people go out and they wash the sidewalks in front of their doors,' Trump said at one stage. 'We are not quite at that level yet. I think it's so beautiful to hear that. You know my father always used to tell me – I had a wonderful father, very smart. He used to say: 'son, if you walk into a restaurant and you see the front door is dirty, don't go in. Because if the front door is dirty, the kitchen is dirty also.' Same thing with the capital. If the capital is dirty, our whole country is dirty – and they don't respect us.' Nobody was certain of how the sudden infusion of 800 national guard members and FBI to the city's regular policing force will 'look', or whether it will be limited to a four-week exercise in image and high-profile arrests. The mayor of Washington DC, Muriel Bowser, said at a hastily called press conference of her own that she believes that president Trump's view of the city was shaped by his experience of the city during the pandemic. Invited to state whether she worried that the 30-day emergency measures could turn out to be a 'disaster,' she replied: 'I'm gonna work every day to make sure it's not a complete disaster, put it that way.' The broader question on Monday centred around why president Trump had ordered this drastic intervention now. Sceptics interpreted the gesture as another high-profile distraction tactic to divert attention from the Epstein imbroglio. Monday's announcement by Trump coincided with a brutal ruling by Paul Engelmayer, the judge who rejected the department of justice request to unseal the grand jury transcripts relating to the Epstein case. In a 31 page-opinion he stated that granting it would 'casually or promiscuously' erode future confidence of citizens called to testify before panels. Crushingly, Engelmayer argued that the entire thesis forwarded by the department, most vocally by attorney general Bondi, that the transcripts could provide additional information that the public deserves to know 'is demonstrably false'. The arrival of Putin in Alaska – if he shows up - for his summit with Trump should keep the Epstein story at bay for the remainder of the week. Meanwhile, the military is coming to Washington for the last few weeks of the summer. It remains to be seen whether it's a symbolic gesture. But just two months ago, Trump ordered the California National Guard on to the streets of Los Angeles in the wake of anti-deportation protests. And on Monday, in referencing Chicago, Baltimore and Oakland, he hinted that this could be the beginning of a new pattern. 'This will go farther,' he promised. 'We are starting strongly with DC.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into a world of global content with local flavor? Download Daily8 app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store