Agreed!
(Except for the part about assuming all parties have equal opportunity and choice; my daughter and her friends do not bully, harass, and threaten those who disagree with them. Threatening aggression would seem to undermine the whole “everyone can just do as they please” concept.)
No doubt Smith has a policy regarding threats and a process for reporting them.
The property owner determines if a visitor is unwelcome, not you.
…Agreed!
Apparently the property owner ( Smith ) does not find the visitors unwelcome
…Wrong! They are deeply unwelcome in this behavior. Enduring them is, for the Board, the least-offensive course of action at the moment.
, therefore, no trespass has occurred.
…Legally correct!
You may find them unwelcome, but that isn’t relevant to the determination. Unless the property owner objects, there is no trespass.
…Agreed!
Complaints can be made to the property owner if you wish, but as if this time, nothing illegal seems to have taken place.
…Agreed!
You do realize that claiming activists are criminals and terrorists would qualify as exactly the type of bullying, harassment and threats to which you object?
There has been a lot of discussion already about the practicality of the demand for total divestment.
But two other demands by the student protestors in their latest statement caught my eye:
“We understand that our sit-in is in violation of the student and campus policies. However, this action is an example of students putting our Smith College education into practice. If you want to make space for our activism, this is how you do it.”
The college needs to “make space” for their activism that they have admitted is illegal? It seems strange to me to engage in civil disobedience and not expect consequences. Didn’t they choose the target building for maximum disruption and visibility in the first place?
And: “We are asking for a meaningful seat at the table. This school and administration needs to reflect how the student body has shifted and will continue to shift. We are here to have a say in the way the school functions. That is what an open curriculum means. That is what a diverse, equitable, and safe campus community means.”
No, that’s not what an “open curriculum” means. Not at all.
And considering that the protestors are disrupting service provision for Student Financial Services, the Office of Disability Services, the Office for Equity and Inclusion, and the Title IX office in the building being occupied, I don’t think that’s what a “safe” campus means either.
Why not? Christina Paxson at Brown had a large group of protesters arrested back in November when they “occupied” the main administration building. The students were warned that anyone inside the building after closing would be considered trespassers-- and then law enforcement would be called.
I can object to Hobby Lobby’s policy of not paying for contraception for its employees (for example) but it doesn’t give me the right to sit down in the decoupage aisle once the store has closed for the night.
I have read all the statements the SJP students put on instagram, plus quotes in various newspapers. The first thing I noticed is how emotional their appeals are, and that none of them acknowledge any nuance or complication in the situation in the Middle East.
The second thing is that the Smith SJP students clearly identify deeply with the Palestinian people, and their perception of who the Palestinian people are. They also project aspects of American history and colonialism onto the conflict and assume this describes and explains it sufficiently.
The third, and to me most interesting, thing I noticed was that the students seem to have unmet needs for comfort, belonging and meaning that are being fulfilled through the experience of this occupation. Their letter to the President and board includes this statement:
For many students involved in the sit-in, this is one of the only times at Smith College that we have felt any sense of community, generosity, unity, and belonging…throughout our occupation of College Hall, we have realized our actions are not only about this common goal [divestment], but also about creating a safe space where all people on this campus, regardless of their gender, race, ethnicity, religious background, immigration status, sexuality, ability, socioeconomic status, or differences can coexist with respect for one another.
I would have thought that Smith College itself was exactly that place, but many of the protesting students apparently did not feel cared for, embraced, respected, listened to, until they bonded through the emotional power of this experience with fellow protesters. A similar feeling can be created by going on a retreat, mission trip, outdoor adventure, volunteering with others, being on a sports team, joining a club, even having a friend group, or Ian intimate relationship. I wonder why these students were not feeling welcomed, appreciated, and engaged at Smith prior to the protest. I’m sure Smith has all the regular opportunities to belong, but maybe these students were not able to connect in those ways. Then, they found the right cause to unify around, took over a college building, and finally felt like they mattered.
It seems to me that one thing Smith could do would be to send in therapists and counselors to try to figure out why these students did not feel a sense of community at Smith before this, and why they do now. Maybe what they really need is something that isn’t even on the table yet (just brainstorming).
I noticed that statement too. It could simply be chalked up to hyperbole and the appeals to emotion that you noted earlier.
Given their wild misunderstandings of what an “open curriculum” actually means, among other things, I’m not putting much stock in the accuracy of the protest statements.
Reminds me of the protests circa 1970 at many Boston area colleges in which the Khmer Rouge was touted as the savior of the Cambodian people against the American forces. Of course, the Khmer Rouge was committing genocide against their own people. But that was a minor detail.
I don’t think we need to psychoanalyze protestors on either side of this debate, nor is anyone here qualified to do so. If property owners object, they can claim trespass and have activists removed by law enforcement, or they can undertake campus conduct actions. Otherwise, life continues on campus, regardless of what CC posters want.
Not to be overly picky, but can we stop saying these activities are “illegal”? They are not. They likely are violations of Smith code of conduct and campus policies. Those are not laws. No laws have been broken, at least not until Smith declares the activists unwelcome trespassers.
There is a big difference between violating criminal law and violating student conduct policy
You can try to split hairs all you want, but these are prosecutable offenses. The College has thus far declined to pursue this option.
“No arrests or student conduct charges have been made, although students “are allegedly in violation of several elements of the Student Code of Conduct including unauthorized entry or use of a building, abuse of property, and disruption of college activities,” Carolyn McDaniel, Smith’s director of media relations, wrote in an email to Inside Higher Ed.”
I’m surprised you inverted my point, which was to say that if these Smith students are acting as terrorists, then the Smith administration cannot effectively say to the FBI or other law enforcement agencies that they don’t want them arrested.
This isnt splitting hairs. This is intentionally falsely accusing students of crimes, including terrorism.
Colleges do not " prosecute" anyone. That is a government function, by a district attorney, and a whole set of rights and due process kick in as a result. If a crime occurs, that will happen, resulting in a trial, with counsel. As no arrests have occurred, it appears there is no crime.
Smith can certainly pursue administrative sanctions against its own students for policy violations ( the rights, process and counsel don’t apply to those).
The fact that you disagree with the students doesnt make them criminals, regardless of how strongly you feel.
Because the above quote shows that they have no idea about the country they are condemning.
I have no problem with students wanting to divest from defense contractors. I do question why they only see weapons used in Gaza as a problem.
We don’t have to guess. The students call themselves SmithSJP.
" The pro-Israel AMCHA Initiative has published a report on what it considers the association between SJP groups, the BDS movement, and campus antisemitism, including a 2015 report that found that “the presence of an anti-Zionist student group such as Students for Justice in Palestine” is one of the two “best statistical predictors of overall antisemitic activity on a campus.”[49][50][51] A 2016 follow-up report found that antisemitism was “eight times more likely to occur on campuses with at least one active anti-Zionist student group such as SJP.”[52][53] A 2016 report by researchers at the Steinhardt Social Research Institute concurred with the AMCHA Initiative’s report.[54]"
The above documentation supports that this campus sit in has effects beyond taking over a building. I’d love to know if there is other, meaningful dialogue taking place on campus or if this group is scaring people off. I’d like to think the majority of Smith women are better than aligning themselves with this organization.
If that was aimed at me, I’m simply reading and quoting the SJP’s own words, “this is one of the only times at Smith College that we have felt any sense of community, generosity, unity, and belonging.”
I don’t need to be a psychologist to observe that students who felt little sense of connection, meaning or fulfillment on campus have found those things through this protest. That is perhaps the most important thing for the college to know as they negotiate for an end to this, and look to prevent it from happening again.
We’ve seen this happening with students we personally know. Sad and scary.
The supporting documentaion supports that the sit in on campus has effects beyond taking over a building.