Trigger Warning: Genocide, Israeli-Hamas Conflict. This article discusses themes that may be uncomfortable to many in the Clark community. The Scarlet condemns violence, harassment and suppression in all forms.
Clark has recently come under significant criticism due to perceived significant restrictions on the freedom of speech on campus. The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) ranked Clark at 214th of 251 in their rankings of freedom of speech on college campuses.
Clark has a long history of protests and counter-culture speech on campus. During the Vietnam War, the campus was buzzing with anti-war slogans and protests. A crowd of about 100 students and faculty even traveled to Washington D.C. in October 1967 to protest American Imperialism on the National Mall.
During the 1980s, the student-run organization, South African Divestment Coalition successfully campaigned to get Clark to divest its endowment from apartheid South Africa. This movement succeeded. In February 1986, the University administration announced that they would divest from all companies that had business dealings in racially separate South Africa.
Not all of these protests were in the distant past however. Since 2017, there have been at least three major protest movements here at Clark. Some of these were (in chronological order) a significant push to get the university to divest from fossil fuels (which failed), a push to get the university to disarm Clark University Police Department (which failed), and the ongoing push to get the university to divest from Israel.
In a previous interview with the Dean of Student Success, Dr. Kamala Kiem, I asked for a breakdown of where exactly the endowment is invested. This request was refused. Dr. Kiem said that “at least two” other student groups were also looking for this information and their requests also got rejected.
An endowment breakdown was available to students arguing for divestment of fossil fuels in 2017. When asked why the same standard does not apply in 2024, Dr. Kiem said, “None of our current leaders in relevant positions were involved in the graduate student’s 2017 project, so we cannot speak to decisions that were made then…” Clark administration could not answer why this time is different. This is an open call to the administration to articulate why exactly is this information restricted when it was previously available?
Since this interaction (which was in the spring of last year), the Student Code of Conduct has changed. These changes are a significant departure from the previous policy.
In the most recent version of the Code of Conduct, the Community Standards Policy has been replaced with “…We encourage all of you to avoid using slogans, clichés, or behaviors that contribute to feelings of uneasiness. When we encounter concerning remarks, we address them as an institution. We thoroughly investigate each incident. Furthermore, we promptly remove any language once it is brought to our attention. Students or student organizations found violating these shared community values will be held accountable through the conduct process.”
These changes in the Student Code of Conduct are not some far away, almost abstract writing on a seldom referenced piece of stone. They are already significantly impacting campus. This very article contained the phrase “illegitimate Israeli state”. This was edited out due to concerns about these newly implemented free speech policies.
Related, an organization formerly known as Clark Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) is no longer a registered student organization. Rather than having to abide by these restrictive changes, SJP refused the idea of registering as a student organization. Instead, they are no longer affiliated with Clark at all, rebranding as SeeYou SJP.
This puts them in a similar position as a fellow praxis group, the SeeYou Collective. Neither are in any official capacity affiliated with Clark, but they work largely in and around the Clark community.
The Student Code of Conduct also has a concerning line regarding strikes and protests on campus, saying that “Students may not disrupt the orderly processes of the University that involve teaching, research, administration, disciplinary proceedings, or other activities.”
The goals of protests, both on campus and elsewhere, are precisely to disrupt these daily, orderly proceedings. This line implies that simply participating in an on-campus protest could be grounds for disciplinary action.
It is not just the Clark community that is recognizing these changes in free speech on campus. FIRE ranks colleges by freedom of speech on campus. In 2023, Clark ranked 188th of 248, this past year saw a fall of 26 spots. The 2024 rankings showed Clark at 214th of 251 American universities.
Other private small northeast colleges in general received much higher rankings than Clark. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, for example, was ranked 46th, Bard College was ranked 73rd, and Wheaton (Mass.) was ranked 158th. With nationally recognized organizations such as FIRE calling out Clark on its restrictive free speech policies, it is not only Clark students who are feeling as if Clark is intruding on free speech.
The timing of these new restrictions is highly suspect. To me, these new changes seem to be a direct response to the pro-Palestine actions that occurred on campus last year. In particular, the new code of conduct would allow admin to punish students for posting pro-Palestine slogans in public places and pro-Palestine protests.
We saw that last year when the administration attempted to punish students for posting pro-Palestine slogans, but due to the wording of the Code of Conduct at the time, the students were not subject to disciplinary action. However, now with these changes, it is likely that these students would have been punished for their praxis.
Clark will lose money if it is forced by student action to divest from the Israeli industries. Reshuffling assets to not be invested in Israeli industries would require significant funds and labor-hours to complete. However, other universities have divested from Israel, and Clark itself has divested from other apartheid regimes in the past. To put it simply, Clark administrators could divest from a genocidal state and are choosing not to.
In an attempt at fairness (or perhaps guilt for giving tens of thousands of dollars to this institution), I contacted the Dean of Student Success, Dr. Kamala Kiem, to ask some questions. The following answers have been edited for brevity, though the excerpts here are direct quotes. Some questions and answers have also been omitted for conciseness. Please see full questions and answers on our website.
Why was the code of conduct changed to punish individual club members for actions of the club – a significant departure from previous policy?
Dean K: Because the Code of Conduct did not clearly provide for due process for our clubs and organizations, the change you refer to was made to ensure fairness and due process for all.
Are these changes related to recent protests on campus?
Dean K: No. These changes were made as part of our annual review process to identify any gaps in due process and opportunities to add clarity to our Code of Conduct.
Do you/the administration believe that these new policies will quiet pro-Palestine speech and action on campus?
Dean K: The intention of our policies is to advance our values as a University, including our commitment to the free expression of differing perspectives. We unequivocally support students exercising their First Amendment rights, including freedom of speech, expression, and protest.
These answers speak for themselves. I could write some long soliloquy about these responses, analyzing each word, but instead I will just say the following:
To claim that punishing members of a club for actions they may not be involved in is ensuring fairness and due process for all is laughable. To claim that the administration just happened to identify that these changes needed to be made now of all times is shameful. To claim that the policies of the university, which now include so-called “institutional restraint”, is in line with the First Amendment is at best dodging the question, and at worst a deliberate attempt to misinform the student body.
There is a genocide ongoing in Palestine, and not only are Clark administrators complicit in this, by restricting freedom of speech on campus, they are tacitly encouraging it by keeping their israeli investments. Rather than condemning the illegal and unjustifiable invasion of Gaza, Clark administrators are enabling it.
Clark students have forced the university to divest from racist unjustifiable regimes in the past, and we must do so again. DIVESTMENT NOW!
Views in this article, as with all articles in the Opinions section, are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the views of The Scarlet as an organization, or Clark University as a whole. It should be noted however, that The Scarlet Eboard has endorsed institutional divestment from Israel.
If you are struggling with personal loss, stress, or mental health, due to the ongoing conflict or anything else, please contact Clark CPG at 1-508-793-7678.
Author received a free pair of socks from FIRE in March of 2024.
Correction: FIRE stands for Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression, not Foundation for Individual Rights in Education.