FAQ: May 4 Demonstrations and Arrests

Frequently Asked Questions – Events on Grounds on May 4, 2024

On May 4, 2024, University, local and state police cleared a demonstration on UVA Grounds after the protestors violated University policies and resisted University administrators and law enforcement efforts to gain their compliance. These incidents have led to many questions from inside and outside the University community. This resource addresses several of those questions. It will be updated as needed.

How many people were arrested in the demonstration and how many were affiliated with the University community?

As of this writing, 27 people were arrested:

• 12 UVA students
• Four UVA employees
• Two former students
• One former employee
• Eight unaffiliated with the institution

Who made the determination to engage the Virginia State Police and how was that decision made?

When the demonstration began on April 30, University officials communicated with the demonstrators or with demonstrators’ liaisons to ensure that their gathering could continue in a manner consistent with University policies.

Those efforts were successful for the first several days of the event, until the evening of May 3, when demonstrators erected tents and used a megaphone in violation of University policies. University officials offered repeated warnings and requests to comply, which the demonstrators ignored. Early May 4, University and law enforcement officials again attempted to engage directly with demonstrators to remove the tents and were met with aggressive physical resistance.

Virginia State Police were engaged after University Police, led by Chief Tim Longo, determined that the situation was escalating. The University had exhausted other attempts to resolve these events, and the Virginia State Police were best trained to clear the encampment. That decision was made in consultation with President Jim Ryan; Jennifer “J.J.” Wagner Davis, the University’s chief operating officer; and Ian Baucom, the University provost.

Did the UVA administration attempt to engage the demonstrators prior to it being cleared?

Yes, repeatedly. Beginning on the first day of the demonstration, representatives from UVA Student Affairs, University Police, the provost’s office, and other units attempted to establish contact with individuals who were part of the demonstration. They refused and indicated that they would not speak with UVA administrators under any circumstances.

Members of the UVA faculty, who indicated they were not participating in the demonstration itself or responsible for its conduct, acted as intermediaries. University administrators, including representatives from the provost’s office, were able to communicate through those faculty members multiple times after demonstrators began to violate University policies by erecting tents, using amplified sound, affixing signage to trees and bringing in construction materials concealed by large tarp (presumably to fortify the camp with barricades, a method used by demonstrators at other universities to harden encampments). When the tents were erected May 3, administrators attempted to engage the same faculty members, as well as the students themselves, but the demonstrators refused to comply with University policy.

What were the safety concerns that led the University to engage Virginia State Police?

There were multiple public safety concerns. First, the demonstrators reacted with physical resistance to law enforcement’s attempts to remove their tents. Second, demonstrators made repeated calls for additional people outside the encampment to join the demonstration to help “defend” it.

The night before the demonstration was cleared, four individuals wearing helmets and dark clothing entered the encampment. Law enforcement officials on the ground identified individuals who were associated with previous events during which violence occurred. Finally, as May 4 progressed, spectators, counterprotesters and individuals attempting to join the demonstration came to the scene, resulting in several hundred people in the immediate area.

Was anyone injured?

Three individuals received medical treatment. These numbers represent those persons known to law enforcement at the time to be in need of medical treatment, who reported an injury to police, or who sought medical treatment while in police custody. One person was treated for shortness of breath and another for irritation caused by pepper spray. One law enforcement officer was treated after being hit in the head with a frozen water bottle thrown from the crowd of spectators.

Did police use tear gas or other chemical irritants during their operations?

At Chief Longo’s insistence, Virginia State Police did not deploy tear gas. Pepper spray was used.

Did the University change its policy regarding tents shortly before police cleared the demonstration and arrested participants?

No. There are two University policies that make clear that tents are prohibited on University property: SEC-013, “Tent Use on University Property” (last revised January 2023); and SEC-030, “Regulation of Weapons, Fireworks, Explosives, and Other Prohibited Items” (last revised September 2023).

From the start of the demonstration April 30 and consistently until the area was cleared May 4, University officials made clear to those demonstrating at the site between the Rotunda and the chapel that tents were prohibited by University policies.

In fact, when the demonstrators initially erected tents April 30 and were instructed by UVA Student Affairs and University Police – through faculty liaisons – to take them down, participants complied and at no time suggested the tents were exempt in any way.

Several individuals involved in the demonstration asked to be granted exemptions to University policies over the course of the demonstration, including policies related to tents, postings and amplified sound. At no point were exemptions approved nor did any individual suggest an understanding or belief that their tents were exempt.

On the morning of May 4, a faculty member at the site approached a University official with a question about the tent-permitting application document on the Environment Health and Safety office’s website, which is linked from SEC-013. The faculty member pointed out that the EHS tent application stated recreational tents did not require a permit. Given the potential for confusion, this language was removed from the application in order to make clear that all tents must be permitted by EHS, consistent with the language in SEC-013 itself.

Regardless of the confusion surrounding the tent permitting application, a separate policy, SEC-030, “Regulation of Weapons, Fireworks, Explosives, and Other Prohibited Items,” clearly identifies tents on the expanded list of items that are prohibited during certain occurrences, incidents or planned events.

The demonstration between the Rotunda and the chapel was deemed an incident, as determined by the University Police Department, and there is no ambiguity in the policy whatsoever that tents are prohibited under those circumstances. University Police relied upon this policy during the week, including on May 1 when the protesters tried to bring in construction materials.