This post was updated Oct. 22 at 8:42 p.m.

The right to protest is perhaps more valuable and more fundamental to the principles of our society than any other. Those appointed to lead our nation’s institutions of higher learning should know this better than anyone else.

And yet, in the months following the establishment of Palestine solidarity encampments across the country and the subsequent use of police force to clear them at UCLA and other campuses, the UC system’s approach to freedom of speech and political expression have come under heightened scrutiny.

The recent policy changes surrounding freedom of expression have only furthered the sense of distrust and anger toward the university among many community members, quickly eroding the foundations of an already fragile relationship between the university and its student body.

One section of this house of cards fell in August when UC President Michael Drake announced that the UC would not allow encampments or any protest that blocks pathways on UC campuses.

This resolution aimed to calm the unrest that erupted in May of last year following the establishment of the first Palestine solidarity encampment and violent counter-protests at UCLA. Furthermore, the administration described it as an effort to create a standard protocol that campus officials should follow when dealing with future demonstrations.

But additional context illustrates how this decision did not come at the UC’s discretion alone.

By Oct. 1, Drake would have had to create universal “free speech guidelines” for the UC, or the California State Budget would have withheld $25 million from the university funding otherwise.

This decision also follows a preliminary injunction in a case against UCLA filed by three students, which claims that the encampments blocked Jewish students from accessing certain areas of campus. The injunction called on UCLA to stop campus activities if equal access to Jewish students was not not guaranteed.

UCLA’s administration responded to the systemwide order and legal pressure by introducing a new set of policies regulating the time, place and manner of protests and other unauthorized gatherings on campus.

Based on the events of last year, the editorial board fails to see the merit of these new restrictions on political expression on campus and is deeply concerned by the harm they do to students’ rights to freedom of speech.

These new policies, alongside the persistent failures of the university to engage with students and other members of the UCLA community, highlight the administration’s disregard for open dialogue and discussion on campus.

The announcement of the new time, place and manner policies were met with denunciations from USAC President Adam Tfayli and other leaders from across the campus community. While these interim policies are technically open for public comment until Nov. 4, it is unclear if the administration will change or modify these policies in response to public feedback.

The authority of the university to specifically regulate when and where protests can be held on campus, for instance, is deeply troubling because of the limitations it places on public expression and freedom of association and speech. There does not appear to be any real justification for these policies beyond the clear desire to prevent encampment-style protests at Dickson Plaza and other major centers of campus life.

Without engaging in a necessary dialogue with many parts of the student body, it seems as though the UC’s actions are more to suppress protest rather than an effort to promote a more peaceful and inclusive environment.

The intentions of the administration in crafting these new policies are especially concerning because the university has lost much of its moral credibility as an institution in the eyes of many because of its handling of the protests last year.

Especially in university and protest-related settings, openness to dialogue is crucial. UCLA and the broader UC system’s refusal to do such sets a concerning precedent for future protests or issues and further drives a wedge between the broader university community and an administration that bears a significant degree of responsibility for the events of last spring.

By preventing certain forms of protest from occurring at all, the UC’s decision to ban encampments could help maintain the safety and equal access of all students in the school.

That being said, this desire to protect students comes far too late. Over the past months, many different groups of students have felt a sense of fear and anxiety. In addition to the Jewish students on campus, Pro-Palestine supporters have been scared for their lives because of both counter-protesters and the police raid.

A study by the University of Chicago found that Jewish and Muslim students alike have been fearing for their safety since the attacks Oct. 7, 2023.

Even if these restrictions did meaningfully make campus safer relative to the infringements on free expression, they nevertheless suggest that the administration’s approach is fundamentally mired in its desire to protect the university’s brand and avoid controversy, much as it did last year when UCLA initially appeared to take an almost laissez-faire approach to the first Palestine solidarity encampment after criticism was directed at USC and other universities for bringing in police to detain student protesters.

It is this fecklessness in part that has brought our university to this point.

We don’t know if the administration could ever repair the trust that has been broken with so many members of the community who are rightfully outraged at UCLA’s response to protests. Certainly, unilateral restrictions on protest locations and times will not rebuild this bridge from its now-charred remnants.

But if any kind of reconciliation is at all possible, the administration must lay a new foundation for the future. In our view, the process has to begin with this first step.

Apologize.