The past two weeks on Hamilton’s campus have been characterized by challenge and disagreement. Student Assembly’s first Town Hall, held on April 2, came on the heels of Stewart and Gina Burton’s open letter to the community regarding the Administration’s handling of their late son’s mental health and eventual suicide.
That same day, according to an email sent out by Allen Harrison of the Bias Incident Response Team, a student reported that, in the Kirner-Johnson building, “issues of the Hamilton publication
Grasping Roots
that were placed on a bench with a number of other publications/handouts were ripped or cut in half. The following night other flyers/posters in the same location were also found destroyed.”
Although the investigation into this incident in ongoing, it is hard to ignore the implications of a publication that, according to the College’s website, “centers Black intellectual thought and artistic expression, and strives to give voice to the works of members of the African diaspora, both on-campus and abroad” being defaced and destroyed.
Last week,
The Spectator
published an opinion article by Gavin Meade ’20 titled “Making false statements out of ignorance is still ignorance”, in which the author argued that student commentary at the Town Hall was not wholly truthful and hurt the prospects of finding solutions to campus issues as a community. In the article, Meade cited, anonymously, specific quotes from students at the Town Hall that he found particularly representative of his argument. The article, while not representative of the views of
The Spectator
, stirred controversy within the student body, with some opting to voice their disagreement with the piece on social media. Others compiled their thoughts into formal writing, publishing these thoughts in this week’s edition of
The Spectator
.
Additionally, at the Student Assembly meeting on April 9, there was a discussion of Meade’s article among a portion of the group after the meeting ended. Meade, who serves as Student Assembly’s Mental Health Liaison, was present for these talks. According to Student Assembly President Nadav Konforty, this part of the meeting was not made public in the Student Assembly minutes or live-stream because “the meeting had already gone over 10:15 PM that night, which is around half an hour longer than we usually do. Many students had work to go do or other commitments or go to sleep. About one third of the Assembly wanted to talk about the article and have a discussion but most students wanted to leave so I gave them that option as I had already held them over.”
Konforty, who says he was only present for part of this discussion, stresses that the conversation was not included in the minutes because it took place after the meeting had formally ended and only included a portion of the Assembly’s body. Konforty says that the conversation did not center around whether or not Meade should have written the article, but that “some students felt that it made Student Assembly look bad because he is affiliated with the Assembly whether he likes it or not and whether he realized it or not.”
Whether it is the Town Hall, Meade’s article, the discussion in Student Assembly, or the incident with
Grasping Roots
, it is clear that issues of expression and speech have moved to the forefront of our campus consciousness since return- ing from Spring Break. This is not the first time this year that we have broached this topic. Paul Gottfried’s visit to the College in October certainly caused its own share of controversy, both in the moment and months later.
Our current and varied strategies of dealing with challenging speech on campus are a far-cry from the supposed actions of “raging, anti-fascist students” that Gottfried described encountering during his time on the Hill (that is, if you believe a silent protest constitutes “raging” and that “anti-fascist” is an unflattering title.)
Instead, we seem to be approaching this issue as a campus that has endured multiple deaths within the community in less than two years; this campus has seen friends and colleagues struggle with mental health; this campus has a relatively new administration that is working to update and improve its ability to effectively serve a student body in need; this campus is struggling but remains resolutely committed to bettering itself.
Undoubtedly, there have been sentiments expressed by individuals and groups in the past two weeks that have not been constructive towards improving campus dialogue. Such instances should not overshadow the positive developments that have come of these discussions. Student Assembly is already planning more Town Hall events for next year, the administration continues to meet and dis- cuss solutions with students.
The Spectator
’s editorial and opinion pages remain open to any and all voices that will engage in constructive, fact-based debate. There is more to do, but much to be proud of already.
Let disagreement and challenge spark more discourse, not less, and let us remain committed to finding solutions together.
