Protesting is an integral part of university life. The source of conflict may change, but the messaging stays the same: students have real political power, and through community action, we can make things happen. Drew specifically has a layered history of students engaging in political activism. From the apartheid in South Africa to the Vietnam draft, the Drew community has always been given space to freely express political opinion and frustration on campus.
However, “always” is no longer a guarantee.
This semester, Drew University sent students an updated “freedom of expression” policy. Although the move was made under the guise of protecting the peace, its tight restrictions and even tighter enforcement have severely diminished political engagement on campus. The refreshed policy places an emphasis on “appropriate” channels of communication and process. Not only must demonstrations be submitted for approval “five business days before,” but they cannot include “occupying buildings …” and must not “occur overnight.” The administration gets the final say on every word spoken, whether that be predetermined group chants or a student sharing their own personal experience. Staff members are required to stand guard for “policy enforcement.”
These new regulations are equally vague and constrictive. The hoops student organizations must now jump through require not only an intense amount of preparation but also a heavy reliance on the benevolence of the Drew administration. Grief must be preapproved.
Discussion on the policy was ignited by a forum held by Dr. Jeremy Young on Nov. 11.
As the director of PEN America, a non-profit organization with the aim of ensuring freedom in academic institutions across the country, Young’s speech noted that constitutional freedom of speech only protects protesting students at a public institution. With a private institution like Drew, the lines are murkier. Said institution has the ability to restrict the time, place and manner of a protest. In reaction to the events of last spring, many campuses across the country have strengthened expression guidelines.
As Young suggests, the difficulty lies in the fact that universities have the obligation to protect the functioning of the university. An equally important obligation is to protect students’ rights. Unfortunately, Drew seems to be majorly neglecting the latter.
There needs to be a balance between maintaining order and protecting student speech. As students, we deserve to know if information is being kept from us. Multiple incidents in the past semester have proved to the student body how flawed the system of communication at Drew has become. In order to sustain a student body that values academic integrity and evolution, knowledge cannot be restricted.
When asked for a statement, a representative of the Students for Justice in Palestine club stated, “The recent restrictions on Drew University’s freedom of expression policy are no surprise – they are part of a larger, coordinated effort sweeping across campuses nationwide to stifle dissent and silence movements for justice. These measures are designed to target SJPs.”
Even prior to the implementation of this policy, Drew’s attitude toward protesting has been restrictive. Last year, Students for Justice in Palestine held a protest on campus. Despite the fact that the protest was small and peaceful, one member of the club noted that they were closely watched by security the entire time. The club also noted that they were told that all of their chants for the protest needed to be preapproved.
Drew’s campus is largely liberal and students have been very vocal in their advocating for attention to be paid to the crisis in Gaza. Why, then, did last year’s march have such a low turnout?
In quelling dissent instead of working with us to address our concerns, Drew is showing us that our actions mean nothing. If students do not believe that their actions will have any impact, they will not make the effort to advocate for what they believe in. The heavy restrictions on last year’s march led many to believe that it would not succeed in gaining attention, which drastically decreased attendance and ultimately lessened the impact of the march.
The Students for Justice in Palestine representative continued, “Last year, after our march, we were told that … no future marches would be allowed. But who else is marching right now? While we have submitted our amendments to the policy, we recognize that these restrictions were created because of our efficacy in mobilizing against institutional complicity in human rights violations. It’s shameful that rather than heeding students’ calls for accountability and change, the institution has chosen to suppress us further. We must continue to enact change within the system that oppresses us. We remain resolute in our fight for justice, liberation and freedom to speak truth to power.”
If Drew will not work with us to address these problems, we need to make our voices louder.
As this semester comes to a close, we should reexamine what it means to be a Drew student at both the collective and individual levels. What do we owe to our communities academically and politically? What is the change that we want to make? The current restrictions might dissuade some from engaging, but the rules should not be the reason we stop believing in our impact. Ultimately, a restrictive administration can only limit itself. We will continue to find pathways to political activism as we always have.
Featured image courtesy of Pexels.com.
Thankful for SJP’s advocacy, as a Drew alum who is staunchly for justice. Thank you students for making your voices heard in the face of the administration censoring you.