Mayor Zohran Mamdani recently vetoed a “buffer zone” bill that would have restricted protests near educational institutions. Those who stood against the bill say his decision is significant because it safeguards the city’s long-standing tradition of protesting against local, national, and global injustices, particularly in Black and Brown communities. “New York City has long stood as a place where people — across generations and backgrounds — can speak out, organize, and demand change. That tradition is essential, and we will ensure that it continues, and that protection, prayer, and protest are guaranteed for every New Yorker,” said Mamdani in a statement on April 24. “That is why I am vetoing this legislation.”
Last month, the City Council held a “combat hate” hearing to review a package of bills, as part of the council-led Five-Point Action Plan to Combat Antisemitism. Two proposed bills in particular — the Schools and Houses of Worship Access and Safety Act (Intro. 1-B), put forth by Speaker Julie Menin, and Intro. 175-B, which is centered on creating buffer zones for houses of worship and educational facilities across the city.
“There’s nothing in this country and this city that people enjoy that was not fought for by protests,” said Public Advocate Jumaane Williams on the steps of Tweed Courthouse at a gathering on Thursday, April 23, to condemn the 175-B bill. He had joined education organizers who were adamant that these buffer zones were little more than over-policing in Black and Brown communities. Among parents and students, the bill did not feel like safety, but a tool to suppress dissent and protests with force.
The issue brings up the fundamental First Amendment right to assemble peaceably, like this year’s citywide No Kings and anti-ICE protests that denounce violent deportation of immigrants. When it comes to doing that near a place of education, opponents of the bills feel that right would be threatened. It also would turn away from a long history of student protests around New York City.
Protesting among students and parents
Columbia University’s campus was the epicenter of protests more than once in the city’s history. In 2024, pro-Palestinian student protesters instituted a “Gaza Solidarity Encampment” over the Israel-Palestine conflict. This led to the arrests, and attempted deportation of seven students, including Mahmoud Khalil, leading to a continued legal battle against the Trump administration and the college for violating their First Amendment rights.
That demonstration was inspired by the protests of 1968 at Columbia resulting in the violent arrests of more than 700 people, who were protesting local conditions of the neighboring Black and Brown population and the Vietnam War while rallying against a segregated gym on campus.
However, education organizers said those are far from the only few instances when student protesters have moved the needle on an issue through their right to assemble peacefully.
Sebastian Salas, 14, a student at a public school in East Harlem, remembers parents, teachers, and students protesting against an “abusive” principal and racial inequities at his school back in 2015. Many went as far as to occupy the building and rally outside, he said.
“If Intro 175-B had existed when my school was under attack, my community may not have been able to fight back,” said Salas. “As a student with an IEP [Individualized Education Plan], I depended on that fight for the stability and support I needed. This bill is not about safety. It is about silencing the very people who protect our schools. Students deserve a voice, and we need leaders to hold the line for East Harlem and the Bronx.”
Another student at Brooklyn Tech High School, Justyn Rodriguez, 16, is a board member of the Black Student Union (BSU). He recalled a similar situation just last November when students led a protest throughout the building. Many railed against the low percentage of Black students in specialized high schools, and students being comfortable using racial slurs and being discriminatory toward them.
“It was a bunch of student posts and screenshots of this former student government member being just vitriolically racist,” said Rodriguez, at the rally.
Although he felt little came from their sanctioned protest or list of demands for more racial inclusion at Brooklyn Tech, Rodriguez said had a buffer bill been in place, parents might have called the cops.
“We should have the ability to have voices heard without the threat of police action, unnecessarily,” Williams said at the courthouse rally. “I am very clear that the genesis of this is not really the fear of protests, but the fear of what people are protesting about. That is concerning and should be concerning for everyone. I am also clear when I see people who are trying their best to raise their voices about anti-Blackness. The response is not to address the anti-Blackness; it’s often to attack the people who are bringing it up.”
Williams drew a parallel between the hostile or dismissive reactions to racial justice protests and those advocating for Palestinian humanity. He added that while the legislators probably introduced the bills with good intentions, he criticized them for being too vague. Specifically, the bills lacked clarity about the definition and location of educational spaces and institutions throughout the city. “Everywhere in the city might be an educational space, so where is it that you’re going to protest?” asked Williams.
On that last point, Mamdani agreed.
“The problem is how widely this bill defines an educational institution and the constitutional concerns it raises regarding New Yorkers’ fundamental right to protest. As the bill is written, everywhere from universities to museums to teaching hospitals could face restrictions,” Mamdani said in a statement.
“This could impact workers protesting ICE, or college students demanding their school divest from fossil fuels or demonstrating in support of Palestinian rights,” he continued. “Int. 175-B is not a narrow public safety measure; it is a piece of legislation that has alarmed much of the labor movement, reproductive rights groups, and immigration advocates, among others, across this city. Nearly a dozen unions have raised the alarm about its impact on their ability to organize.”
Education organizers at the courthouse rally were elated to see Mamdani concur and veto Int. 175-B.
Hate crimes are a factor
Last month’s City Council hearing was led by Menin and Councilmember Yusef Salaam. Salaam noted in the hearing that in the past 10 years, reports of hate crimes have more than doubled in the U.S., New York State, and the city. This includes notable rises in anti-semitism, anti-Black hatred, anti-Muslim hatred, anti-LGBTQ+, and other gender-based violence.
Most of those testifying were passionately at odds over the proposed bills, especially among Jewish and Palestinian New Yorkers. Many supported the bills in the name of public safety and religious freedom, while just as many were against the bills in the name of protecting constitutional rights, such as freedom of speech and the right to assemble peacefully.
Mamdani noted that Int. 1-B, which applies to houses of worship, required revision but will become law.
“It initially raised constitutional concerns,” said Mamdani in a statement. “However, the final version of the bill that passed is narrower in scope and effect. It requires the NYPD to document its existing practices related to protests near houses of worship. Following a thorough legal review, I do not believe it poses the same risks it once did, and that is why I will allow it to become law. That said, I disagree with its framing of all protest as a security concern.”
Not over yet
While organizers applaud the mayor’s decisions, it falls to Menin and the City Council to uphold the veto and not override him.
“Ensuring students can enter and exit their schools without fear of harassment or intimidation should not be controversial,” said Menin in a statement in response to the mayor’s veto of Int. 175-B. “This bill simply requires the NYPD to clearly outline how it will ensure safe access when there are threats of obstruction or physical injury, while fully protecting First Amendment rights.”
Jamie Beran, CEO of Bend the Arc, a national Jewish organization focused on ending anti-semitism, hopes that the City Council upholds the mayor’s veto of Int. 175-B over concerns that other cities might introduce similar legislation.
“It does seem like a possibility. I really hope it doesn’t happen. We are doing what we can in the relationships that we have to push for it not to get reintroduced, because it just feels counterproductive to us,” said Beran. “We’re concerned that if it becomes law, it’ll create a harmful model nationally, potentially, and that other cities and other parts of the country may look to it as a template, and we just don’t think it’s the right path forward for lots of reasons.”
Beran said the reason people are feeling afraid is completely valid, especially those in the Jewish community, when it comes to anti-semitism and rising hate crimes in general. There should be other avenues to explore that don’t undermine civil liberties, such as community solidarity, she said.
“Free speech is not a policing issue, and I think that the way that this is written allows the NYPD a really broad interpretation to use in their enforcement, which we know is always going to result in increased targeting of Black and Brown communities, of potentially harming people who are having mental health crises, of targeting immigrants, or just [targeting] people who are expressing their right to free speech,” said Beran.