If a spring of campus turmoil is in the rear-view mirror, a fall of uncertainty awaits college administrators.

The protests of 2024 represent a marked departure from past experience. Indeed, protest has a storied history, both on and off campus, and has played an important role in the fabric of our society. It has been a vehicle for opposing racism, unpopular wars and income inequality. Each of these movements, in large part, pitted student sentiment against a perceived injustice in the world beyond the campus.

This year reflects a different dynamic: Student bodies are themselves splintered, with passionate advocates on opposite sides of the issues often engaging faculty and administrators in their advocacy.

Today’s protesters don’t accept past convention: that civil disobedience was civil, not criminal; that it was designed to engage others in the resistance to a perceived injustice; and that those engaged would accept the sanctions associated with the action taken. The new dynamic has caught campus leaders off guard, reacting to circumstances that test the limits of free speech and assembly. Some have displayed unflattering uncertainty and inconsistency in testimony before Congress, baring their unpreparedness for what was unraveling their institutions.

With the gift of the summer recess at most schools, one might expect that leaders would be in a better position to navigate the complexities that undoubtedly will await them. As if a last parting shot of spring, three key administrators at Columbia College were removed from their jobs as a result of their sarcastic texts during a panel discussion about antisemitism on campus during reunion weekend. Even the dean was revealed to have texted that he was “laughing my ass off.”

How can college leaders approach, in a more enlightened way, the highly charged atmosphere that lurks? Here are some thoughts gleaned from witnessing demonstrations at very different institutions.

First and foremost, colleges are entrusted with the safety of their students. Anything that threatens that must be met with swift action. That could mean anything from sheltering in place in the face of natural disasters or gun violence to physical or emotional harassment from any source.

The distinction between legitimate verbal advocacy and protest, on one hand, and verbal assault, which conveys a menacing message, is not always easy to identify, but that is the charge given to those in leadership positions at these institutions. It might be useful to distinguish between speech and action designed to present positively a position and to educate, from that which denigrates the opposing viewpoint or promotes negative stereotypes. College ought to be about education, not demonization.

In that light, we should consider that a college is not the “public square” – speech is limited in every classroom to the subject being studied. An instructor of biology who rants about a political candidate would not survive for long in their position.

How then can college leaders get ahead of the curve and avoid charges of bias and oppression? There is no easy answer, but certain steps might serve to reduce the hostility that has plagued our campuses.

Commencement should come at the beginning of the term. This kind, however, would have the president of the college convene (as in a convocation) all the members of the community – students, faculty, staff, trustees and perhaps even parents of first years – to a mandatory meeting. At each attendees’ seat would be statement of principles which guide living and working in the community. The core of this handout would posit respect for one another as the essence of the relationship between each person and the institution, a contractual and moral commitment which, if broken, can end the individual’s association with the institution.

The degree of response to an offense will be determined by judicial body of representatives of each constituency. The statement puts everyone on notice about the expectations of the community – and the consequences of a failure to meet them. It is a message that should be highlighted in every admissions communication, financial aid grant and club charter.

The welcome message of the president can combine the excitement that should accompany the exuberance of the newest members of the community with the seriousness regarding the opportunity to further one’s education. The president would emphasize the importance of listening to opposing, even provocative views, as well as advocating for your own; on learning from one another; and extending civility in a community that is defined by its pluralism.

This message cannot stand alone. It must be reinforced over and over. Imagine a Pledge of Allegiance to Respect Each Other. In the process, the president and other campus leaders must make themselves visible, engaged members of the community, avoiding the appearance or reality of living in an ivory tower.

This role must supersede all others, including fundraising, public appearances, personal aspirations and outside board memberships. It should be the core mission for every individual charged with leading an educational institution. If the experience of the recent past teaches us anything, it is that this mission has been marginalized by other activities.

Higher education can redeem its value if we recommit ourselves to its access by all those who seek it, encourage the expression of the widest viewpoints and immunize it from the political agendas that seek to hold it hostage.

Copy the Story Link

« Previous

Opinion: The demonization of immigrants must stop

Next »

Opinion: Republicans have broken free of Barack Obama