Members of the College community expressed mixed opinions about the sit-in staged in College President Phil Hanlon’s office yesterday, with some faculty and students praising the demonstrators’ boldness and others criticizing their methods.
Dozens of students convened in Parkhurst Hall yesterday afternoon for Hanlon’s open office hours. Upon entering the office, the group demanded a point-by-point response to the “Freedom Budget” and said they would remain until Hanlon gave his opinion on each point and specified the steps he would take by next week to execute each demand.
As of press time, seven faculty members had signed a statement written later that evening expressing solidarity with the protestors. The statement said protestors had generated a “moment of decision” for the Dartmouth community.
“We can do what is expected — issue the typical condemnations and criticize the students’ actions as ‘unwise and untimely,’ just as ‘respectable’ figures condemned [Martin Luther] King’s principled and disruptive stance in Birmingham in 1963,” the statement read. “Or we can do something entirely uncharacteristic of an elite, cloistered institution such as ours — we can engage in self-reflection while moving to implement the students’ well-considered demands, seeking to understand how and why a wide array of students continue to experience the College’s typical functioning as a kind of methodical assault on their dignity.”
Alexander Barnett, a math and physics and astronomy professor, said in an email that although he does not support every demand in the “Freedom Budget,” he supported the demonstrators’ actions because he believes many minority faculty have left the College due to the campus climate created by student and administrators. Comments on Bored at Baker and The Dartmouth’s website illustrate that “white male affiliated students often set the tone on campus” and do not understand what struggling with oppression is like, Barnett said, adding that if the demonstrators succeed in accomplishing “even a few” of their goals, their actions are worth it.
History professor Russell Rickford, who provided the statement, said he expected more faculty and other community members to sign in the next few days.
Twenty-four students interviewed by The Dartmouth expressed a range of opinions, with some focusing on the demonstrators’ motivations and others on their tone and strategy.
Several said they were not surprised by the demonstrators’ attempt to highlight the urgency of the issues raised by the “Freedom Budget.”
Kevin Guh ’16, said that because the sit-in was face-to-face, he believed it would serve as a “decision point.” Bobby Esnard ’14 said he understood why the demonstrators sought a more detailed response to their concerns.
“President Hanlon and Interim Provost Martin Wybourne’s response to the Freedom Budget did not address — either affirmatively or negatively — the majority of the demands that were made, so it’s not surprising to me that these students want to see a response to those demands,” he said.
Other students criticized the demonstrators’ tactics. Chris Novak ’17, who observed the sit-in, said he was unsure if the demonstrators’ bold methods would prove effective.
Esnard said that he hopes students who agree with some of the issues raised by the “Freedom Budget” but oppose the demonstrators’ methods will work toward changing the College, rather than focusing on the demonstrators’ language.
Christopher Clark ’14 said he believed the difference in the tone of the students and administrators could partly be attributed to the age difference between the two parties.
“Hanlon is coming in as President of the College, so I feel like to be in that position you grow to speak in a certain way that’s more respectful and less off-the-cuff than I feel like the students were speaking,” he said.
Spanish professor Annabel Martín, who followed a live stream of the sit-in, said in an email that she thought the demonstrators’ tone was largely respectful, but also “frustrated, and sometimes angry, quite understandably, when you feel your well-being (personal, intellectual, spiritual) is not as fully protected, honored and stimulated as those of others.”
Demonstrators defended their strategy by arguing that previous discussions had not resulted in substantive changes.
Jillian Mayer ’14, who participated in the sit-in, said that terms like “dialogue” are “racialized and white, gendered and masculine,” adding that she believed asking to have a conversation was a byword for dismissal.
“Queer people, people of color, trans people, poor students, undocumented students hear all the time that things take time and you have to be patient and you have to be civil,” Mayer said. “That’s not what has moved the needle of history.”
Some said they thought Hanlon’s response to the sit-in was evasive.
“President Hanlon’s justification for not making a personal statement was explained by stating that he thought he would be silencing the entire faculty and administration by making a statement,” Sarah Fernandez ’14, who participated in the sit-in, said. “As if the entire faculty and administration would have no choice but to follow in his stead, which is preposterous.”
Only three students interviewed who were not in Parkhurst said that they were following the demonstration closely. Many students cited the late notice and their academic commitments as reasons they did not attend or keep up with the sit-in’s progression.
By around 5 p.m., over 300 people were following the live stream.
Later in the evening, Christine Miguel ’14, who had previously demonstrated in Hanlon’s office with the other students, and T Kienemund ’15 rallied outside Parkhurst with a banner that said, “Meet our demands.”
“Hanlon danced around everything we said,” Miguel said. “Not surprising — disheartening for sure — but not surprising.”
The two stressed that other students could help spearhead the mission of the “Freedom Budget” by spreading the word, discussing the document with friends and thinking about its contents. Kienemund said that the demonstrators would continue to pressure the administration into meeting their demands.
Some students said that they were not familiar with the demands articulated in the “Freedom Budget,” primarily owing to off-terms or disinterest.
Demonstrators interviewed said that they hoped the sit-in would spark reflection on campus.
Mayer stressed that the demonstrators did not take their actions lightly.
“I hope that people can take a second and think about why a very large number of students, primarily brown students, queer students, undocumented students, women, people who are marginalized on this campus, took time that they could be making money -— we need to make money, we need to study, we need to graduate — why so many students took time out of their day to do this,” Mayer said. “We’re not doing this for fun. We’re doing this because we have to survive.”
Martín emphasized that the demonstrators’ demands would benefit all campus communities.
“Making Dartmouth a more civil, inclusive, ‘liberated’ and free microcosm of society is in everyone’s interest,” Martín said, “if the cultivation of humanity is our ultimate goal.”
