Free Speech for Whom? The Administration’s Contradictions on Activism

A’Mya Gibson ‘28

Contributing Writer

On Feb. 14, I-House, Students Against Mass Incarceration (SAMI) and a multitude of other student organizations came together to organize a campus Town Hall to address issues and fears affecting students. The Town Hall was open to both the administration and students, faculty and staff. It was an excellent way for the two groups to engage in meaningful discussion on various subjects. While it was great to see everyone come together, I was fixated on one question: Where was the Board of Trustees? The Board of Trustees is constantly claiming to value student voices and opinions. Yet, time and time again, they refuse to engage with the student body directly. They dodge requests for meetings from student organizations or completely shut down those  who try to reach out to them.  Their absence was even more disheartening this time around as this Town Hall was precisely the kind of event where their presence was needed the most. With the current political climate, students are understandably fearful of ICE raids, curriculum changes and the loss of Pell Grants. The Board of Trustees is uniquely situated to address these concerns at a senior level.

The Town Hall was effective for students to safely voice their own opinions — but we as students can only do so much talking. The Board’s absence sent a clear message: they are not interested in addressing student concerns. Not only that, but why was it up to students to come up with the Town Hall event anyway? Many of our peer institutions have such events, so why does a school that prides itself on free speech and values dialogue as a tool for civic engagement not have a Town Hall? To the administration’s credit, Joe DiChristina, the College’s vice-president for Student Success and Enrollment Management, did show up to address student concerns, but it would be more meaningful to see the Board of Trustees, especially after the events of last semester’s divestment protest.  

Last semester, after finally having enough of being ignored by the Board of Trustees, students held a protest to demand divestment outside of a Board dinner. What was the response? Several students were admonished for being disruptive. Ironically, some of the selected students weren’t even at the protest. Though the admonishments were eventually dropped, the damage had already been done. I and many others began to question Trinity’s true thoughts on student free speech and activism. If they support student protest, as they say, how could they punish students for being “disruptive?” Protest, in its nature, is disruptive. If the administration truly valued student expression, they wouldn’t have punished protesters in the first place. And, perhaps most importantly, if they had attempted to actively listen to student concerns, the protest wouldn’t have been necessary at all.
When Trinity says they support free speech, what they really mean to say is that free speech is tolerated only when it doesn’t challenge those in power. This incident left them in bad standing with both faculty and students. I assume they know this, seeing as they dropped the admonishments, but it makes their absence from Town Hall even more confounding to me. This was the perfect opportunity to remedy their reputation with students and faculty.  

To fully address the course of action the administration took after that protest we need to call it what it is: a scare tactic. The Board was upset and wanted to deter future behavior. The chilling of free speech has been visible on campus this semester.  In fact, when it came to organizing the Town Hall, some organizations didn’t even want to put their name on the flyer for fear of the administration’s response to students engaging in open dialogue. If students don’t even feel comfortable putting their names on a flyer, then the administration has failed at its responsibility to foster a campus where students feel free to speak out.  

The administration and Board of Trustees’ contradictions are impossible to ignore. They claim to support student activism, but reprimand those who engage in it. They say they value and want to hear our perspective,  but refuse to show up when given the chance. Worst of all, they punish “disruptive” protests, yet they fail to show up to something as peaceful as a Town Hall. They’re for free speech until we question their morality. The whole thing leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

To not be completely negative, DiChrstina mentioned at the Town Hall that the Student Handbook’s policies on student protest are being reviewed. That is better than nothing. But if this administration’s track record shows us anything, we can’t trust them to follow their own policies, even if the policies are written to protect students. The Board of Trustees actively avoids conversations that would force them to confront their own failures and morals. The Board’s actions, or lack thereof, speaks volumes. Students won’t be scared or deterred from having their voices heard. They will continue to organize, and continue to demand accountability. The Board of Trustees can either start listening or continue proving that they were never really interested in what we had to say in the first place.