Dear Editor,
In recent discussions among faculty, students, and within public forums, an ongoing debate has emerged surrounding the college’s recent revision of long-standing rules governing demonstrations and protests on campus. At the heart of the matter is a shift in the language of these rules, most notably a provision requiring protesters to notify the college 48 hours in advance, which has now been altered to suggest: “Events should be registered at least 48 hours in advance to help ensure success; otherwise, the event may not be able to proceed as planned.” This subtle change, with its reliance on vague language such as the term 'success' and the phrase 'may not proceed as planned,' raises concerns about potential ambiguities, granting significant discretion to college authorities at the expense of students.
These 13 (note the unlucky number) updated rules—though some are sensible and practical—underscore a troubling response to broader national trends, where political narratives are increasingly shaping regulations that threaten democratic rights, including free speech and protest for students on campuses across the country.
In this climate, students, employees and faculty must maintain vigilance. The revision of rules regarding protest and conduct on the part of the college administrators, whether with benign intention or not, will have a chilling effect, considering wider actions in the nation, on activism and democratic free speech on the campus. This is reflective of how, over the last eight years of the cycle of national elections, the nation has become increasingly susceptible to a rise in crackdowns on dissent. Then there are the fabrications largely emanating from one side of the political spectrum. These are not mere minor falsehoods but rather calculated, significant fabrications—along with the consequential actions they drive—that have shaped a political narrative and influenced laws, including rulings from the Supreme Court. This narrative is being used to overhaul college curricula and restrict academic freedom and dissent. As the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. once warned in his powerful incantation, “All we say to America is, ‘Be true to what you said on paper.’”
Student activism, protests, and freedom of speech are not limited to past civil rights and class struggles but remain relevant today. The traditional academic environment on campuses often fosters the impression that civil rights, social class battles, and global solidarity are relics of the past—static issues to be studied safely from the pages of history textbooks and syllabi, rather than actively engaged with in the present.
And I am just one first hand witness to the on-campus reactions. Many people find it uncomfortable to even listen to or confront issues that challenge their beliefs, privileges, or sense of normalcy. Eye rolls, sighs, or other dismissive gestures (including deflecting the conversation to more ‘palatable’ topics) among faculty, senior policy administrators and others in authority reflect this discomfort and concurrent defense mechanism against confronting uncomfortable truths or when they hear of protests or demonstrations.
At Hamilton, like colleges elsewhere, moments of significant change at colleges often came only through student activism, a pattern well-supported by history. Protests (or its concurrent counterpart, inactivity or indifference, which is equally “political”) on campus often reflected the national climate. For instance, in 1836, a cluster of Hamilton College undergraduates boldly called for a debate on slavery. According to one history of universities and slavery, these students believed they had "an obligation to prepare themselves for life ‘beyond these collegiate walls’, viewed slavery as a critical subject for intellectual and moral debate, and …an opportunity to engage the larger community. Rather than retreating, they prayed that every campus would begin examining slavery: ‘It is not well known that should our College and Seminaries become purified on this subject, an influence would go forth so mighty that very soon the hand of oppression would be stayed, and the groans of its victims be exchanged for the rejoicing of freedom.’”
Should these 1836 Hamilton students have remained silent about slavery in the nation in the classroom and campus while this horrific institution persisted both nationally and on campus? Unfortunately, most students at the time remained unsurprisingly silent, while those who spoke up were punished for raising the issue of slavery.
Fast-forwarding to the 20th century, many of the current laws directed at college students at Hamilton and elsewhere emerged in response to the anti-war protests of that era. A 1970 Anti-riot bill passed by the New York State assembly which required that “all colleges receiving state funds suspend students convicted of disruptive offenses committed on campus” was described by then Hamilton President John Chandler and Kirkland College’s President Babbit as “horrifying” with Chandler stating that “any kind of legislation which interferes with self-regulating of colleges and universities can only weaken higher education.” However, college heads at the time eventually succumbed to the state and federal laws on the issue of protests on campus.
As controversial as these protests were in the 1960s it is clear, that morally and politically (as confirmed by the facts and consequences of that war) the students and faculty who protested at the time, were ultimately vindicated regarding the nature and intent of the Vietnam war.
Then there was the Buttrick Hall sit-in in the 1980s with the anti-apartheid protests against South Africa and the calls for divestment. Twelve students were suspended at the time. Again, from the standpoint of moral logic, the students were on the right side of history and the abominable apartheid system eventually fell.
In more recent times at Hamilton one of the most successful student- led protests was the presumably illegal silent sit-in by students in 2007 at a Hamilton Faculty meeting to press demands for diversity initiatives. This eventually resulted in the creation of the Days-Massolo Center (DMC) and new diversity initiatives approved by the College. Now diversity initiatives are deemed “woke” and there is new silence over “diversity” on campuses and in the nation.
Ten years ago, in November 2014, there was a large and significant protest when students and faculty staged a “Walk Out and Sit in” to show solidarity with Black and Brown victims of police shootings and violence in the nation. This demonstration led to the student-led closure of the campus crosswalk on College Hill Road, prompting the arrival of the Kirkland police, who intended to make arrests. However, this was averted by the sensible decision of the NY State Police (after conferring with college officials) to negotiate and reroute traffic rather than arrest the protesters. The protest at the crosswalk concluded shortly afterward.
So, what is the point here? The moral of these and other successful protest events is for individual students and student organizations to learn how to target institutions for positive change in both formal and normal routes but also to exert pressure in peaceful, unconventional ways. Indeed, according to the Albert Einstein institute there are 198 methods of nonviolent action.
In other words, "struggle pays." If we study movements and protests across disciplines in the humanities and social sciences—such as History, Sociology, Government, and Africana Studies—why do we remain so distant and disconnected when real-time struggles and activism unfold right before us? Is the implication that protest belongs only in textbooks? As a campus, we must genuinely “know thyself” and understand our history, or we risk falling into the “Fool thyself” syndrome, as highlighted in the thesis title of a Hamilton senior from a few years ago.
There are urgent issues that lie ahead for the campus community that will affect us all, these include political instability that is likely to become more severe with continued wars and unrest abroad, the expanding climate boiling (fossil fuel emissions), and of course ongoing issues of race, poverty and suppression of freedoms that still bedevil this society despite the “bubble” effect that a campus can radiate. In other words, as in the handbill title recently produced by several student groups states, this is not a time for “orientation,” but for “disorientation,” wherein we challenge ourselves not to take things for granted – which is perhaps the point of a college education in the first place.
Yours Sincerely,
Nigel Westmaas
Faculty,
Africana Studies Department
Comments