Proponents of the approach taken by university vice-chancellors argue that prioritizing de-escalation was the most responsible way to manage highly volatile campus environments. By choosing to negotiate with protesters rather than immediately calling in police or using force, leaders aimed to prevent the kind of violent clashes that occurred at universities in the United States and elsewhere. This strategy was rooted in a commitment to maintaining the university as a space for dialogue, even when that dialogue became difficult or uncomfortable. Supporters emphasize that the primary duty of a university is to provide a safe environment, and avoiding physical confrontation was a critical step in fulfilling that duty without escalating tensions further.
Furthermore, those who back this approach point out that universities are not police forces and lack the specialized training to manage large-scale civil unrest. By engaging in ongoing discussions with student representatives and monitoring the situation, administrators were able to eventually secure the peaceful end of most encampments. This process, while slow and frustrating for some, allowed the university to uphold its legal obligations to protect students while respecting the fundamental right to peaceful protest. The subsequent policy changes, such as clearer campus access rules, demonstrate that universities have learned from these experiences and are now better equipped to manage future demonstrations without compromising the safety or operations of the campus community.