Regarding the Protests at Connecticut College
We are not all united, but we are made to seem that way.
The Bet
I may sell all my stocks and investments, take all my assets and liquidate them, and then compile all the cash together. Then I may split my entire net worth in half and bet equal amounts on two things. One would be that less than half of the student body of Connecticut College agrees with the ongoing “protests,” the other that well more than half of the faculty at Connecticut College agrees with the same “protests.” The second bet I have already won, based on the number of faculty who signed a letter calling for President Bergeron’s resignation.
About the School
‘Anonymous’ made a reply to a The Conntrarian post titled ''Faux Morality of the Left” by ‘Alphonsus:’
“But, I do know that many students are too terrified to speak their mind on a ‘controversial’ topic, or if they disagree with a professor, and they believe (probably accurately) that professors are much more Leftist than the student body.”
I agree with ‘Anonymous:’ the professors are, on average, probably more politically left-wing than the student body. Since the ordeal surrounding President Katherine Bergeron began a few weeks ago, I have been seeing endless flyers and posters and chalk writing around campus, and many claim that “we are all united,” and I have thought this to be false. Moreso, I am fairly certain it is false, and I would argue that the majority of the student body does not agree with the protests. And many more students than we are made to believe probably are, to some substantial degree, indifferent to this whole situation. Students are being pressured into believing we are unified. I would also go as far to say that quite many of the students who are making posts on their Instagram stories and interacting with the various ad hoc Instagram accounts that have sprung up as of recent, are doing so out of peer pressure. They, in their heart of hearts, do not care as much as they want us to think. I cannot say the same about the faculty, for they are mostly united in their thoughts and feelings about this situation.
Saying “we are all united” is not only false, but it is indicative of a much larger paradigm: the malleability of the institution, including the students, faculty, staff, and administration. I think anyone with the wherewithal to look even slightly below superficiality into this situation can quite clearly see a few things: students are protesting, missing class, not being punished by faculty, and the administration is doing little to nothing about these protests besides engaging in “constructive dialogue.” What does that even mean? From here one may come to the conclusion, which I would consider correct, that the faculty are the true protestors, as they are enabling students to miss class unpunished, and some are not even holding class. If it was genuinely a student protest, the students would not ask for permission to be relieved from class, nor would they ask peers to take notes for them, and they would be willing to accept any and all consequences from whomever regarding their actions; they would miss class, knowing full well they are missing content and subjecting themselves to hardship, in order to make a real example of their protest. That is a true protest, aligned with civil disobedience.
Instead, the college had a “snow day” on Tuesday, February 28. We all know it was not because of snow, but due to the volatility of the situation at hand. Instead of the school continuing business as usual without them (this would create conflict; this would make a real protest), these student demonstrators are being acquiesced to, and they have no genuine pains as a result of their demonstration. Some of the activities they are partaking in instead of attending class include watching Too Hot To Handle, How to Train Your Dragon, doing removable dinosaur tattoos, holding publicity meetings, eating homemade vegan tomato soup and grilled cheese (how are vegans supposed to enjoy the grilled cheese!?), and having muffins delivered to them, per The College Voice. It’s almost as if these flimsy demonstrations are becoming an integrated part of a student’s Connecticut College experience… or rather it’s as if the institution is incredibly weak and submissive at this moment.
The “protest” happening now is not so… it is a relief of student duties enabled by faculty. It is a weak demonstration. If there is no harm in protesting, no downside to it, it is not disobedience, nor is it a condemnation of the institution. Faculty specifically are allowing students to skip class unscathed… still a demonstration on the part of the students? I think this seems like a protest on the part of the majority of the institution, namely the faculty, plus the relative indifference of the administration, and a small number of students who are making it seem like a student-body-wide protest. It is known the faculty are by-in-large opposed to our president. I would love to see what would happen if suddenly faculty reversed their policy, and continued with the pace of their syllabi they set out at the beginning of the semester, going on to new topics and progressing the classes as they should be: how many students would be protesting then, from those classes? My guess is that most student “protestors” would realize they are at school to receive an education, not to learn basic political activism, and they would return to the classroom, where they ought to be.
This all boils down to priorities. At the most basic level a question begs itself: do students prioritize the education they, or their parents, are paying for, or the experience of being part of an institution-enabled demonstration? As we have seen, they are unable to do both simultaneously. We are approaching spring break, and I can see these “protests” carrying on until March 10, unless our president resigns, or is relieved of her duties. When, or if, we reach that point (Katherine Bergeron is no longer president), it will be interesting to see what occurs with the protesting students, but it appears they will continue to protest and occupy one building on campus until all eight of their demands are met, according to The College Voice.
We are not all united, but we are made to seem that way. It is just unfortunate that the majority who do not prioritize the protests, or what is happening in general, are unwilling to speak for themselves, from worry of being labeled one or more of many things. Many are pressured into courting the minority who are genuinely outraged and interested in real protest. An added bonus for them is that their demonstrations are enabled by the institution. And lest we forget all the students missing their classes because they see it is now okay to not attend! It takes no complex faculty of the mind to realize many of the students missing class are not protesting, and they are only missing because class attendance is now, indefinitely, optional. I am sure faculty know this, but they cannot really do much because of this, or they would risk being seen as unsupportive to the demonstrations. Until something new and important happens that may bring closure to this situation, this may, unfortunately, remain the case, and who knows for how long. Perhaps the “protestors” will soon have something new up their sleeves.
I ask the reader to ponder the following: if a professor continued their course as set forth in the syllabus, not heeding “protestors” from their class, how would the “protestors” react? I think it is within the realm of probability to say the professor would be chastised tremendously, condemned perhaps endlessly, for not holding solidarity with “protestors.” It would be in the professor’s interest to capitulate the education they are contracted to perform, leaving the majority who are eager to continue in their courses, the reason they are at college, in an educational purgatory.
The fact that it is more acceptable to miss class than to attend is astonishing, and speaks to the bewilderment of this institution of higher education. Connecticut College is at this moment no longer a highly selective liberal arts college— it is a confused, Kafkaesque place one ought to pity.
In sum, I think it will be interesting to see what the future holds, especially regarding the student organization leading the protests, Student Voices for Equity (SVE). One may, upon inspection of this situation, assume SVE has a firm and powerful grasp on the institution, namely faculty, and the Board of Trustees, especially after considering their list of ultimatums. That, I say, is correct at this moment, but none of their demands will have an impact on a very large portion of the student body if they are all adhered to. What would worry me, be it the case, is what would happen after the trustees and administration as a whole completely accede to these demands—well… this the president has already done for some of the demands— leaving SVE with an extremely artificially inflated pseudo-authority on campus. This sets a clear precedent of weakness in terms of institutional authority over a clear minority of students who through their loud and somewhat aggressive behavior make themselves seem a majority. To rectify this problem I say it is mandatory for the Board of Trustees to step in now, set things straight, and make decisions which benefit the whole of the college, not just a minority of the student body. Yet if the board remains indifferent, as they have been, and all eight demands are agreed to, it would create a situation in which those who do not capitulate their will to SVE may be hounded, assailed, and deemed an enemy— administration, faculty, staff, and student alike. One could very well expect to see policy enacted, or at the very least proposed, that leaves white students in particular with far fewer resources on campus than any other race. Is this not concerning, this prospect of inequity and unfairness that Student Voices for Equity may try to push? It would not be too far off from their partially already surrendered to (by the president) terms given to the administration.
To be clear, I am not saying this policy that is unfair to white students will happen, nor am I even predicting it; I am merely offering it as a possibility given the trustees and administration become extremely soft and malleable, and SVE may want to push forward with, and most importantly expand, their agenda. I did not use the word Kafkaesque several paragraphs ago lightly; I mean it sincerely, and Connecticut College is headed down a truly gloomy path that accentuates the voice of such a small part of the institution over all else. I reckon this may negatively affect interest in attending the school, especially among wealthy, white prospective students, once they see how corroded authority is on this now-dystopian campus. The money wealthy white students bring is undoubtedly needed to keep the institution running in many ways, and no one can deny that, and I will hear no argument against this claim.
Alas, above all, one must remember that equity applies to all, and all must be fair, and no one group should have more than another. That is if Connecticut College so chooses to pursue equity.
 | A guest post by
|
I like many points you’ve made in the article, Maximus. A protest is only such if there is resistance from the authority that which you are protesting. Good article!
Very well written article