On August 20th, 8 days prior to a letter from President Tepper to the community, Hamilton College’s website pages on both postings and demonstrations policies were revised. The previous policies for postings are still available as a saved page on InternetArchive, while the previous policies for demonstrations are only available from August 26th and onward. From August 26th to the present, the only change has been to language regarding registration on 25live, where previously “must” was used instead of the current “should.”
Additions to the policies after August 20th include the requirement for organizations to register any demonstrations or protests 48 hours prior to it on 25live, an idea with no precedent in prior policies. Anonymous postings on campus were also banned, meaning that any individual or group had to leave personal identifiers, of either the group or themselves, on anything posted anywhere on campus. Significant changes such as these throttle the abilities of activists to organize and raise awareness of their causes, as their actions become wholly traceable by the institution, who then possesses the purview to punish them.
On Wednesday, August 28th, Hamilton College President Steven Tepper sent a letter to the Hamilton community from the Office of the President, detailing his “Hope for the College.” Buried within this letter was a list of statements meant to define “The Hamilton Way” around free expression, protests, and demonstrations on campus following the wave of national violence and repression of student protestors across the country the spring semester prior.
Generally, the statements laid out by Tepper seem to keep with Hamilton’s prior attitude towards student protestors. These tenets include that conversations between community members must be open and collaborative, and that demonstrations should not be disruptive in any way. Specifically, the letter stated “We recognize anonymity can often undermine civility,” suggesting additions and expansions to the restrictiveness of the previously ambiguous terms against disruption.
These revisions were made without any sign of community input. President Tepper confirmed at the September 3rd faculty meeting that they were only discussed among other college Presidents throughout the summer. These changes were also made without warning or statement to the community. President Tepper’s letter made no explicit claims that there were policy changes. The Monitor attended the first faculty meeting of the year, on Tuesday, September 3rd, in order to gain more insights on the process behind the change. There, President Tepper claimed the decision to change the policies was actually a “clarification” derived from an original set of policies drafted in the 1960s. Tepper’s statement is in accord with the Hamilton College website, along with the websites of most other colleges and universities, which states that in New York State, chapter 191 of the Laws of 1969 mandated that colleges adopt specific free speech policies.
At the faculty meeting, President Tepper was prodded about the use of the word clarification, especially in regards to the addition of such policies like the mandatory 48-hours-before online registration of protests and demonstrations. He responded by expressing his openness to changing the policies if they were revealed to not work for the college community.
Professor Jason Cieply asked President Tepper about the consequences for students in violating the new policies, such as expulsion or arrest, stating it would be preferable for these policies to be changed before a student have to be expelled or arrested. President Tepper agreed.
The Monitor spoke to President Tepper at the end of the faculty meeting, asking if he would also be open to student involvement in a potential process for revision and change of the current policies. He responded “Yes, absolutely.”
The Monitor reached out to President Tepper for comment on September 19th, asking if there were any current initiatives to include community voices in a change of policy, to which he responded “Yes. We would like to create a process for input and discussion, including bringing in experts when helpful, to consider further revisions to the trustee-approved policies of the late 1960s. I don't have a plan mapped out yet; but faculty and students have asked for opportunities to explore this balance between speech and place, time and manner policies, so we will work on creating the right forum soon.”
The Monitor also asked about the process behind the development of the policy changes, specifically that of the mandated 48 hour prior registration, on which Tepper elaborated “I think all college presidents have been working to clarify policies to help manage the balance between free speech and the rights of the community to have full access to spaces and education. The 48-hour registration is intended to allow our student services team to be able to work with student groups to ensure events can be successful -- so they know what else might be happening nearby; so that any issues of safety can be addressed; so that we maintain access; so that we can support amplification when desired.”
President Tepper went on to reveal new information, that “we made a mistake when we first issued the guidelines -- we said "must" instead of "should." To help ensure success, we think groups should register their events. But, we recognize that sometimes speech requires an urgency that doesn't fall within a 48 hour schedule. We can work with that as long as the speech or protest does not prevent other students and the college from being able to deliver on our core mission -- education.”
Monitor, also on September 19th, reached out to the Hamilton College Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), requesting comment on these changes to postings and demonstrations policies, to which a representative responded “We vehemently oppose the new standard of demonstration and protest guidelines put forth by the college. They are vague and obfuscate to the point of harm, whether done intentionally or unintentionally. Hamilton College, in their new demonstration guidelines, have failed to clarify exactly what qualifies as a demonstration. This decision allows the administration to arbitrarily decide what is and is not subject to the guidelines---as it stands, the process of deciding what makes something a demonstration seems purposefully obfuscated in order to discourage protests and free speech activities on campus. Many of the new guidelines, to be frank, seem targeted towards SJP as many of them relate to our activities that occurred last year. This action feels hostile, especially when all of our actions as an organization (and most, if not all, protests in general) have been peaceful demonstrations on campus. Several of the new guidelines ban profanity, sound amplifying devices, and protestors from gathering on sidewalks. Despite the institution's public commitment to learning and activism, these guidelines reduce and corner activism into begging quietly in a corner where no one has to hear you. Furthermore, the college has nebulously threatened arrest for breaking any guidelines they deem worthy of it. These guidelines, if left alone, will set a precedent on campus that heavily restricts free speech and sanitizes what is supposed to be a place of learning and activism. We call on the rest of campus and faculty to push with us against these new restrictions of free speech on campus.”
Comments