This letter to the editor is in response to “Open Letter from Jewish Faculty to President Lugo,” published on Nov. 24, 2025.
As alumni, faculty, staff, students and parents of Trinity College, we observe the current tensions on campus with deep concern — not because political debate is occurring, but because of where and how it is taking place. In response to the recent op-ed by a group of Jewish faculty members, we feel compelled to voice our support for President Lugo’s insistence that our classrooms remain sanctuaries for open inquiry rather than battlegrounds for anonymous political messaging.
The faculty op-ed frames the administration’s response as an act of political suppression, arguing that the chalkboard messages were merely expressions of solidarity. However, this argument fundamentally misunderstands the nature of a liberal arts education. A classroom is a distinct space designed for the rigorous, structured exchange of ideas. When anonymous activists commandeer these spaces to broadcast slogans — whether “Free Palestine” or any other political charge — they are not inviting dialogue; they are imposing a unilateral monologue on a captive audience. Students enter these rooms to learn chemistry, history or literature, not to be conscripted into a political debate they did not choose and cannot easily exit.
President Lugo correctly identified that these actions violate the integrity of the academic environment. The faculty response conflates the content of the speech with the conduct of the speaker. Whether one agrees with the sentiments expressed on the chalkboards is irrelevant to the policy question. If we allow pro-Palestinian slogans to be scrawled across academic spaces in violation of campus policy, we must open the door for all political actors to tag classrooms. Would these same faculty members defend freedom of expression if they walked into a classroom to find “Build the Wall” or anti-abortion slogans scrawled across the board? Neutrality means applying the rules evenly, regardless of the viewpoint.
Furthermore, the faculty op-ed dismisses the concept of intimidation too easily. By asserting that it is “antisemitic” to assume Jewish students might feel targeted by these displays, the faculty are invalidating and even negating the real experiences of the very people President Lugo is trying to protect. This is precisely what happened when a number of our valued community members were confronted by the unexpected chalkboarding of their Trinity learning environment. It disrupted their classes, generated confusion and distress, and left some students and instructors feeling so unsettled that they were unable to proceed with their lectures or fully engage in learning that day.
Let’s be clear. When a student or professor enters a classroom already claimed by an anonymous political statement, the message is unmistakable: this space has been captured by an ideology. That is precisely the kind of atmosphere that chills, rather than enables, free inquiry.
We are disappointed that these faculty members have chosen to frame the enforcement of neutral “time, place and manner” restrictions as an attack on a specific group. By insisting that the administration’s defense of classroom neutrality and Trinity’s Student Handbook is actually “overtly political,” they are engaging in a dangerous form of intellectual dishonesty that undermines the college’s ability to maintain order.
True academic freedom requires rules of engagement. It requires that we debate ideas face-to-face in forums, quad discussions and seminars — not through anonymous taggings that disrupt the workday of professors and the studies of students.
We stand with President Lugo in calling for respect for academic boundaries. Trinity must remain a home for all students to learn without being subjected to unsolicited political messaging in their classrooms. We urge the faculty to model the civil discourse they claim to champion, rather than excusing conduct that diminishes the dignity and purpose of Trinity.
Signed,
Ayal Feinberg ’10
Douglas Sanderson ’74
Emma (Williams) Rochford ’10
Michael Levy ’12
Jeremy Ulan ’08
Andrew Horowitz ’06
Stephen Horenstein ’69
Mark Shapiro ’67
Robert Schlesinger ’78
Alan Weinstein, MD ’67
Scott Lewis ’76
Lawrence Fox ’70
Michael Kanef ’86
Jill Epstein Jones ’77
Jeff Meltzer ’77
Michael Gilman ’76
Howard Goldstein ’75
Michael Kramer ’68
Art Bobruff ’64
Mark Stern ’77
Michael Stier ’03
Melvin Tews ’57
Joseph Sinnott ’76
Robin Silver Grace ’90
Alan Mandell ’61
David Friedman ’91
Susan Hoffman Fishman ’73
Walter Harrison ’68
Paul Kardon, MD ’59
Nathan Marinoff ’95
Howard Alfred ’70
Martin Kanoff ’77
Abbott Barclay ’67
Harry Cohen ’93
Richard Roth ’65
Matthew Barison ’04
Herbert Wigder ’69
Robert Rodner ’64
Mel Shuman ’76
Deborah Tesler ’84
Alexandra Chalfin ’17
Matthew Lees ’85
Samara Quintero ’25
Ron Goodman ’90
Jason Deck ’21
Todd Levine ’90
Bruce Somerstein ’79
Rachel Schneider Mehta ’95
Scott Claman ’79
Catherine Gura ’82
Fell Herdeg ’93
Abe Mintz ’79
Jonathan Falk ’95
Gabin Rubin ’90
Ray Ross ’99
Barry Silver ’85
Harrison Silver ’22
Rabbi Jack Luxemburg ’70
Ami Tureczek ’95
Eric Rosow ’86
Paul Sachs ’76
Susannah Heschel ’73
Adam Bloom ’19
Melissa Litwack ‘10
Ronald Kiener, Professor of Religious Studies, Emeritus
Robert Kirschbaum, Professor of Fine Arts
Samuel Kassow, Charles H. Northam Professor of History, Emeritus
Mark Silk, Professor of Religion in Public Life, Emeritus
Eyal Schwartz, Assistant Professor of Physics
Rabbi Bonnie Margulis, Director of Hillel and Jewish Life
Ella Ofek-Geva, Assistant Director of Hillel
Lisa Kassow, Former Director of Hillel and Jewish Life
Jesse Deck ’28
Karen Gilman, Trinity Parent
Liz Carey, Trinity Parent
Jonathan Carey, Trinity Parent
Gayle Temkin, Trinity Parent
Steve Temkin, Trinity Parent
Andrew Deck, Trinity Parent
Laura Cooper, Trinity Parent
Barbara Windham, Trinity Parent
Lauren Waxman, Trinity Parent
Raymond Baer, Trinity Parent
Regina Alonzo, Trinity Parent
Maris Schwartz, Trinity Parent
Jenn Mullin, Trinity Parent
And yet, we still cry Free Palestine. 🍉
Nicole, if your response to a polite, well-reasoned observation that anonymous chalking in classrooms is an inappropriate way to conduct a substantive discussion, and to implicitly dismiss the legitimate reaction of a majority of the Jewish (not Israeli: Jewish) students on campus to that chalking, then you are part of the problem.
People can, in good conscience, debate and discuss the future of Israelis and Palestinians. Anonymous intimidation campaigns that seek to intimidate particular ethnic groups on campus, however, are a different matter entirely.