By Melissa Limani
Last we reported at The Beaver, LSE’s administration had declined further meetings with LSESU Palestine Society. At the time (March), the society was urging LSE to reassess its financial investments, particularly concerning companies profiting from weapons, fossil fuels, or violations of international law in Gaza. Since then, students have made significant strides in pressuring LSE to divest from companies tied to such activities.
14 May: Students Occupy the Marshall Building
If you were an LSE student, you likely noticed the encampment set up in the Marshall Building atrium following a rally the day before. This was not an isolated event; similar encampments had appeared at universities across the UK, US, and Europe, with students demanding their institutions cut ties with Israel.
Ethan Chua, a member of LSESU Palestinian Society, told BBC News that LSE students had previously presented the “Assets in Apartheid” report, which highlights LSE’s investments in companies linked to “egregious activities” in Gaza, before adding “we refuse to attend a university that is materially complicit in the destruction of our planet and the death of Palestinians.” In terms of what these egregious activities are, student protestors claimed that LSE has invested £89 million in 137 companies involved in the conflict.
In response, an LSE spokesperson responded: “We will carefully review the report and respond in due course. We remain open to peaceful dialogue.”
14 June 2024: Encampment Faces Legal Challenge
By early June, LSE initiated legal action to remove the protesters, seeking a court order to dismantle the encampment. Following a hearing at the Central London County Court, District Judge Kevin Moses issued an interim possession order, requiring the group to vacate within 24 hours. While acknowledging the students’ right to protest, he ruled: “This does not grant an unfettered right to occupy university property.”
Representing LSE, Riccardo Calzavara argued the students had “stormed the building,” posing an “intolerable fire risk” and causing “considerable disruption and cost”. He emphasised LSE’s aim was not to end the protest itself but to remove the unlawful occupation.
Daniel Grutters, representing three of the students, stated that the protesters were willing to address safety concerns -aside from vacating the premises -and were not obstructing access to the building. Grutters stressed that the protest was intended to educate LSE about its complicity in what the students termed “crimes against humanity, genocide, and apartheid”.
A further hearing was expected at a later date.
17 June: Students Comply with Court Order
Three days later, the encampment was peacefully dismantled. Pro-Palestinian protesters held a rally before removing their tents and signs, exiting through the building’s windows just 30 minutes before the court-mandated deadline.
According to LSE, the legal action was a last resort after “exhausting all other options”. Annabelle, an undergraduate involved in the protest, described the rally as “energetic but peaceful”. Ethan Chua expressed disappointment, calling the university’s legal move “shameful” as the university had decided to “criminalise them” instead of engaging with their demands.
However, the group noted negotiations with the administration were ongoing.
28 June: Court Bars Future Encampments
At the end of June, LSE was granted a court order indefinitely barring any future encampments in the Marshall Building. At the hearing on 14 June , District Judge Morayo Fagborun-Bennett issued a permanent possession order, preventing similar protests at the location. Olivia Davies, representing LSE, confirmed that the defendants did not dispute the order and had vacated in compliance with the interim decision.
1 September
On 25 June, it was announced that the LSE Council, the highest Governing body of LSE, would be voting on divestment. Recently, the LSESU Palestinian Society expressed their disappointment with the Council’s decision not to divest through a post on their Instagram in which they detail their response to the Council’s decisions on four key areas: divestment, ESG policy, governance, and transparency.
