On 1 December 2025, pro-Palestine student protesters blocked entrance to St Cecilia’s Hall, where the University of Edinburgh Court intended to hold their meeting.
The protesters, numbering between 10 and 15 throughout the protest, blocked three doors of the building simply by standing in front of them.
Security repeatedly encouraged the group to leave without success.
At 11am, the university issued an eviction notice to the group who stayed until 2:30pm, when the Court meeting was moved to a different location.
A spokesperson for the University of Edinburgh told The Student: “Obstructing access to any university building is unacceptable. While we recognise the right to peaceful protest, we also have a duty to protect the safety of our staff, students and members of the public, and to ensure the University can continue to operate without disruption.”
The protest was organised by the Edinburgh University Justice for Palestine society (EUJPS).
Their primary demand was for divestment from Alphabet, Amazon, Microsoft, and Meta to be explicitly on the University Court’s agenda.
EUJPS toldThe Student: “Divestment can be called by the administration at any moment, as was demonstrated by their divestment from Apartheid South Africa, from fossil fuels, and from the Ukraine war.”
In 2024, EUSA passed a motion for divestment with an overwhelming majority of 97 per cent in favour.
The University and College Union Edinburgh (UCUE) have made a statement supporting the right of students to protest on campus. Edinburgh Council, who make up some of the University Court members, also support BDS (boycott, divestment, sanction).
EUJPS have likewise shown support for UCUE: “The choice to remain genocidally complicit is connected to its shameful choice of cutting the equivalent of 1/8th of all faculty jobs.”
In an Instagram post, the EUJPS stated: “the University Court has a legal responsibility to action the demands of the International Court of Justice and divest from complicit companies,” as they are “the whole revenue and property of the University.”
They reject the “bureaucratic” two-year timeline which has been afforded to them by the Responsible Investment Advisory Group.
Court members were reportedly frustrated by poor communication on the university’s part as they arrived at the original venue at 11am, despite protesters being present from 7am.
Their presence allowed for dialogue between the protesters and Court members, some of whom had not been aware of the campaign for divestment at the university. Protesters shared their statements with them on flyers.
One protester said: “It’s really important to us that we got to speak to them, because they’d never seen us before. And some of them didn’t know that we existed […] they don’t know much about what’s going on.”
He emphasised that they wanted court to go forward: “It’s not that we don’t want court to happen, because […] we want divestment on the agenda.”
Additional supporters joined throughout, and the protesters maintained a plan for fire safety, keeping one door available for exit.
Some members of staff attended, showing support and bringing food.
Despite threats from the university to identify students and take legal action, EUJPS intend to continue action, telling The Student: “In the face of this complicity, we see no alternative but to apply pressure and build a popular cause. Staff and students are standing in solidarity against the administration, demonstrating that this is the will of the loud majority.”
Image provided by EUJPS to The Student for press use