Illustration by Allyson (Aven) Rivas
Across the country, students find themselves maneuvering public demonstrations at a time when universities appear to be at odds with turbulent topics and students amplifying those topics.
We share insights from students who organized public demonstrations on campus over the past year. Their experiences with activism via the university’s Expressive Policy shines some light on how student expression at our own school is faring out.
Among them are an upperclassman who orchestrated the CHSS restructuring protest with the petition’s creator, and two upperclassmen representatives for MSU4Palestine who oversaw protests the past year.
In both instances, the organizing groups were not RSOs (registered student organizations) nor had they worked with a RSO for their event. As such, the policy nonetheless encapsulates all activities done by students on campus grounds.
The two groups also share a demonstrated interest by mainstream media outlets; the liberal arts department was covered by The Guardian and the Wall Street Journal, while the New York Times referenced Montclair State in an article regarding American universities’ strict regulations on Palestine-centered demonstration events.
Montclair State prides itself in offering a well-rounded education experience to its student population coming from over 75 countries. In addition to modern facilities and accessible amenities, the opportunity for civic engagement, which includes public participation, is included in your tuition as well.
This magazine issue showcases a multitude of students, all who rise to become our proactive workforce. One way we showcase our faith and urge the administration to enable its construction is by spotlighting our students’ work.
Organizers of both aforementioned events expressed a similar sentiment: planning, executing and following up on these events is unquestionably time-consuming. We must acknowledge this happens only when students register something pivotal to their or others’ wellbeing being constricted.
This prompts important questions — what is the future of student expression? In what direction will the policy move towards?
In addition to the cause, campus activism nearly always dispatches a call to the school’s fulfillment of student safety and freedom. For Red Hawks, one call is to have clearer outlines of what is prohibited at a demonstration. Being exceptionally definitive with what’s allowed and its extent removes ambiguity that may otherwise lead to contradictions and refutations down the line.
“The language is vague,” responded one MSU4Palestine organizer when asked their impression of the policy’s overall interpretability throughout the year with various MSU4Palestine protests. This organizer asked that their name not be used due to safety concerns.
While the document provides some definitions, such as what constitutes “amplified sound”, other meanings are not outlined, like the prohibition of “non-faculty” participation. Various scenarios arose with that question: does it include professors on sick leave or sabbatical?
Rather than helping students understand their rights, the policy’s ambiguity hinders our ability to properly protest:
“The way the policy talks about protesting, it makes it seem like it happens in this vacuum where every protest you’re standing silently with signs, and then you go home,” argues CHSS organizer Miranda Kawiecki. “You don’t do anything after, you don’t talk to people, you don’t put pressure. So really the policy is just not conducive to real protesting.”
The second MSU4Palestine organizer, who asked that their name not be used due to safety concerns, echoed this thought.
“You are not allowed to counter protest,” they said. “I believe the protest policy says, ‘You can’t intimidate the other side’… what’s the definition of intimidation? The law has to be clear in order to follow. Consequence also has to be clear and reasonably timed.”
It is not that students are opposed to administration discussion and collaboration, the second MSU4Palestine organizer points out, but chances for that are low if clear communication is not established from the start.
The question of clarity now gets bridged to a second petition. One way of practicing transparency with the policy is having a more robust timeframe for the approval process.
With the current lack of timeframe, the conversations that do transpire are felt to be in want of greater consideration.
In learning of other organizations’ experiences with response time, Kawiecki decided to advertise the CHSS protest before receiving approval. She was aware of Jazmin Perez planning the petition a year ago, and got to organizing soon enough so CHSS students could make a statement prior to the administration’s announcement.
As we see, the drive for demonstrations comes from the fact that we ultimately congregate for change.
From a pedagogical standpoint, improving our expressive policy is congruent with colleges’ goal of endowing relevant skills. The skillsets that come with and from advocacy cannot maturate if there’s no bandwidth for exercising. In point of fact, the bandwidth we solicit is that which is otherwise permitted in the real world.
Discordance is part of every process, and so students and administration alike are learning to navigate it.
Many historical analyses argue this, but hearing it from our own students reiterates the truth of the matter.
“The biggest movements have started on university campuses,” said Kawiecki. “They’re ignoring that long history of universities as real change makers.”
Collectively or as an individual, being capable to respond, recollect and push forward is vital. Amidst this struggle for vitality, we will continue looking to the university to be the support system it ought to be. The curtain call is now for our policy. A callback for the administration’s role in our expression is a must.
