In opposition to SGA’s solidarity statement and in support of student activists

This past week, yet another cycle of the free speech debate has embroiled American colleges and universities. It started on April 17, when students built an unauthorized encampment on Columbia’s central quad as University President Minouche Shafik testified before the House Committee on Education to defend against accusations of antisemitism. The following day, President Shafik called the New York Police Department (NYPD) to clear the protestors on trespassing charges. Half of the arrested students were enrolled at Barnard and faced disciplinary actions such as interim suspensions, but nearly all of them have made agreements with their administrators to return to school. In a significant escalation this Tuesday, the same protestors barricaded themselves inside Columbia’s academic buildings and briefly took numerous hostages before being forcibly removed by the NYPD. The unrest in New York has precipitated similar demonstrations across the country, including here at Middlebury. 

On April 26, the Middlebury student senate voted to sign a joint statement expressing solidarity with the protestors and condemning Columbia and Barnard’s administrations. Proponents of the measure argued that it was important to respond to abuses against student protestors and show firm support for free expression. I agree with this sentiment, but I proudly cast the sole opposition vote because the joint statement was insufficient to support student activists and communicate the boundaries of productive demonstration. I urged the Senate to consider a more relevant conversation on our unique community, but they decided the best course of action was to sign a petition. I am disappointed that my peers thought this would be enough to meet the moment, but in this op-ed, I hope to communicate what was left unsaid.

First, the joint statement is written by Barnard’s SGA and is merely a ploy to get their constituents out of trouble while only paying lip service to free expression. The authors paint a narrative that the protestors were fully within their right to assemble and entirely peaceful, but this is not the case. They deceptively omit information about how the demonstration violated Columbia University’s community norms and was infiltrated by extremists who called for violence against pro-Israeli students. By infringing on other students’ ability to learn and harboring incidents of harassment, the protest fell outside the realm of protected speech. When the NYPD came to clear the demonstration, it was to promote a fair environment for student expression and ensure the school’s educational mission continued. A selective portrayal of the event sprinkled with a few free-speech buzzwords was not the resounding defense of students’ rights you deserved to hear. It was a plea to rescue disruptive Barnard students who undermined the tenets of productive expression.

Second, the fact that the statement functioned as a petition, and not a genuine statement on free speech, made it a purely performative act. Worse, by the time SGA voted on April 26, nearly all of the suspended Barnard students had returned to their studies. With the central issue of the statement already resolved, one is forced to ask what an endorsement from Middlebury’s SGA will do for anyone. And even if the students had not reached agreements with their school, are we to believe that the very sight of our signature would compel a Barnard administrator to change course? In fact, some of my fellow senators agree with me on this point; the statement’s purpose was not to make meaningful change but rather to appear virtuous for our constituents online. I am deeply disappointed in my peers who tell themselves that virtue signaling promotes peace or serves our community. Quite to the contrary, these actions directly inhibit the development of a more just world by distracting us from using our power effectively. If likes and shares are the extent of our ambitions, then that will be the extent of our impact. 

This leads me to my final reason for opposing a joint statement: it does nothing to serve the needs of Middlebury students, particularly the activists who worry about administrative abuses or confrontations with police. Many students are worried about being punished for exercising their right to speak after seeing disturbing scenes from across the country; I see this as a serious concern, but I find it unacceptable that the senate’s strategy to comfort fears and support speech is by merely signing a statement written by another student government. I believe our constituency deserves to hear directly from their leaders a message unique to them; the three-sentence email communication on April 27 did not meet the moment. 

Having watched the demonstrations unfold at Columbia and Middlebury, I am only more convinced I made the correct decision to vote against the joint statement. The belief that it was an appropriate response rests on the insulting assumption that Middlebury’s activists are comparable to those in New York. While Columbia’s demonstration is defined by harassment, academic disruption, and the destruction of school property, Middlebury’s is a welcoming and educational environment that operates within our community’s guidelines. In fact, to ensure they are not antagonistic, our activists have developed their own standards, including a strong intolerance for hate, a communal mindset, and mandatory sobriety. Their mature methods keep the conversation focused on Palestine, unlike the chaotic New York demonstrators who’s actions direct attention to themselves and away from their cause. This week has only affirmed my conviction that Middlebury’s community is vastly different from Barnard’s and Columbia’s. I wish my peers on SGA could have realized this was the case and decided against supporting a movement inherently hostile to free and fair speech.

Ask any Middlebury student, regardless of their political affiliation, and they will tell you how proud they are to see their peers peacefully express their beliefs. To the students demonstrating on campus, thank you for organizing more responsibly, respectfully and productively than your Barnard counterparts. In just a few days, you’ve provided an unmatched value to the Middlebury experience. I’m proud to see you sacrifice your comfort for a cause you believe in, all the while demonstrating the value of free expression. To the entire student body, you deserve to hear that your student leaders support your right to free expression and denounce non-productive speech, harassment and unruly behavior. And to the faculty and administration, we value your help in maintaining Middlebury as a space for open discussion. Let us all work together to see a peaceful end of the semester.