Trinity’s New “Policy on Demonstrations and Protests” is Being Misapplied By the Administration. We Should Know, We Helped Draft It.

Ava Caudle, ‘25, past SGA President

Isaac Kamola, Professor of Political Science   

Sabin Mitchell ‘26   

Manuela S. Rodés ‘26, SGA President

Ethan Rutherford, Associate Professor of English

There is growing student and faculty concern about the new “Policy on Demonstrations and Protest.” Students have described being subject to a confusing and frustrating implementation of the policy and feeling “policed, not supported.” The Dean of Students’ office is now interpreting chalking as “expressive activity” that requires pre-approval. On Nov. 7, President Lugo sent out a campus-wide email insinuating that slogans such as “Free Palestine” and “Divest” constitute “harassment that violates and undermines the community” and violate the protest policy. These interpretations are out of step with both the letter and the spirit of the policy. We should know, we helped write it. 

After students were sanctioned for chanting and singing outside a trustee dinner in October 2023, the faculty unanimously approved an AAUP-authored resolution calling for the Dean of Students’ office to drop the admonitions and develop a policy that clarifies “that students have the right to peacefully protest without the fear of retaliation.” To this end, the Dean of Students’ office convened an advisory committee of students, faculty, and administrators. During the first meeting, however, it became apparent that final decisions would be made by the administration. Despite not having decision-making power, however, faculty and students participated throughout the months-long process in good faith, often raising reservations about the scope of the policy. One concern was creating restrictions on “disruption,” despite the fact that protests are, by their nature, disruptive. Another concern was the highly legalistic nature of the document which we feared sends the message that protest is something to be regulated and contained. However, those of us involved in drafting the policy were cautiously optimistic that, according to the letter of the policy, there were enough protections in place for student speech, and that, through hours of conversation with the Dean of Students’ Office, there emerged a consensus about how this policy would be interpreted in spirit. We were wrong. We are dismayed to see this policy being grossly misinterpreted and implemented in ways that reflect little of the nuance that emerged during our committee discussions.

First, the policy concerns demonstrations and protest, not “expressive activity.” The policy defines “expressive activity” contextually, and narrowly, as “protests, demonstrations, the distribution of material and hosting speakers on campus.” Earlier drafts relied on “expressive activity” more centrally, but that term proved wildly confusing, internally contradictory and highly restrictive. The committee ultimately decided to change the title from “Policy on Expressive Activity” to “Policy on Demonstrations and Protests.” We wrongly assumed that this reframing would make it clear that this policy did not apply to speech that, by any measure of understanding, is non-disruptive (such as chalking or writing on blackboards). 

Secondly, the policy is about disruption, narrowly defined. An initial iteration, preferred by students and faculty, recognized that protest and demonstrations were inherently disruptive and therefore we set out to clarify “substantially disruptive” speech, which could be subject to discipline. We pointed out the many disruptive activities on campus, like parties and sporting events, that are not subject to discipline. However, the Dean of Students office required that the policy limit disruption entirely. We compromised by including these sentences: “The policy below should not be interpreted as banning or discouraging nondisruptive protests and demonstrations. A disruption subject to disciplinary review is defined according to the following content-neutral parameters.” In other words, it is not enough for an administrator to declare, “I find this protest disruptive!” Instead, an activity is only defined as disruptive if it violates the time, place and manner parameters. Therefore, as spelled out in the policy, a silent walkout from a class is not disruptive. A protest that moves through campus at a regular rate is not considered disruptive. Likewise, chalking on the Long Walk or writing on a chalkboard is not disruptive because it does not violate the time, place or manner restrictions. This language matches the common-sense spirit of the conversations during the development of the policy as well.  

Thirdly, the advance notice was designed primarily for major college events such as graduation and not intended to shut down speech or regulate non-disruptive, spontaneous demonstrations of grief, solidarity, disagreement, celebration or pride. During the negotiation of the policy, we expressed deep concern about the prior approval process, noting that it could be used to shut down protests that the administration objected to. As a compromise we added this sentence to the policy: “If students do not meet with Student and Community Life personnel in advance, their activities, even if unwittingly done, could result in disciplinary action.” By the letter of the policy, therefore, the Dean of Students office is not “approving” protests and demonstrations. Rather, this “approval” process is designed to make sure everyone is on the same page, and help students know what actions could put them at risk of disciplinary action. However, the increasingly expansive interpretation of “expressive activity” and “disruption” means that more and more student speech is being subject to the protest policy, requiring students to get “approval” for speech that falls outside the scope of the policy.  

And, finally, the masking regulation is being interpreted much more strictly than we were led to believe. Students and faculty expressed concern that masking might be necessary to protect students from bad faith actors on and off campus. Doxxing remains a real concern. In fact, this semester, Trinity students reported a parent recording an event. The Dean of Students office, however, insisted that a ban on masking was necessary in order to keep track of who is and is not a student. As a compromise, we added a provision whereby students could get advanced notice to mask. We were led to believe that the Dean of Students office understood the risk of doxxing and would make reasonable accommodations. Instead, in the first months of implementation, the issue of masking has become one of the most controversial, confusing and invasive elements of the policy, with the requirement being implemented in arbitrary and changing ways. 

As educators, one of the things we can help our students learn is how to speak out in public. As students, one of the most profound ways we can make the most of our education is to apply our voices and knowledge where they matter most. Despite our best intentions, it is clear now that the current policy does not send this message. The policy therefore needs to be revised.