Editors’ Note: The following statement reflects the opinion of only the undersigned members of The Sophian Editorial Board.
Dear Readers:
As a student-run newspaper, we at The Sophian constantly strive to deliver timely and accurate reporting to our larger academic community. This broader responsibility encompasses an obligation to hold the Smith College administration accountable for its actions and decisions and to encourage an open dialogue regarding its policies.
On Oct. 24, 2024, Smith College President Sarah Willie-LeBreton addressed the newly drafted College policy on Time, Place and Manner of Expressive Activity in an email to the Smith community. The new policy was drafted in response to “protest activity on campuses around the country in spring 2024, including at Smith,” as well as “clear and pointed guidance from the Department of Education” regarding the governance of expressive activities on college campuses.
The announcement of the reworked policy did not come as a surprise to many, as the draft had previously been circulated among students, particularly on the Smith Confessional, which Willie-LeBreton, in her email, called a “[violation]” of the “integrity of this consultative process.”
While we as student journalists do not condone the sharing of information via an anonymous platform on which there exists no means to distinguish fact from fiction, it is understandable that, in an environment in which students feel their freedom of expression is already being threatened by higher powers, individuals might resort to a platform such as the Smith Confessional for such purposes.
In her email, Willie-LeBreton noted the importance of transparency in relation to college policies, citing Smith’s standing expressive activity policy as lacking in this quality. It is obvious, however, that the manner in which the updated policy was presented to the student body did not reflect the very transparency Willie-LeBreton claims to value. Rather, as Willie-LeBreton alluded to in the email, the only reason the Smith community as a whole was made aware of the draft of the new policy was because it had already been widely dispersed through backdoor routes.
If transparency between the governing bodies of our institution and those who attend it were truly something the administration valued, the issue of the policy being leaked on the Smith Confessional would likely not have occurred to begin with.
In any case, the Smith community has now been informed of the draft of the new policy. Willie-LeBreton, in her email, said she wants “everyone to have the opportunity to read and comment on the draft.” As such, we as a publication feel obligated to contribute to this discourse, especially as far as freedom of the press — which, in addition to freedom of speech, falls under First Amendment rights — is concerned.
When one elects to attend a private institution such as Smith College, one agrees to abide by whatever policies the administration decides to implement. However, the ambiguous language of this particular policy raises concerns about the limits, or lack thereof, placed on administrative powers.
In the policy draft, there are four examples of the use of vague wording, “included, but not limited to […].” This blanket statement is used when listing examples of types of “expressive activities” (II.A), “college business and operations” (III.H), prohibited demonstration areas “where individuals reasonably expect privacy or freedom from interruption” (III.F) as well as the use of “any lawful means available” (IV.C) to identify individuals in violation of college policy.
This terminology indicates that these lists are non-exhaustive and that the college can deem any other activities as falling under the categories of “expressive activity” or “college business and operations” without the preexisting knowledge of the student body. As an educational institution, college business and operations, including “academic pursuits,” as the policy lists, may be occurring at any given time, at any area on campus.
Similarly, describing areas where individuals can “reasonably expect privacy or freedom from interruption” also provides for a vague designation of locations where students are prohibited from holding demonstrations. This is further emphasized within the policy, where it states that participants engaging in expressive activity cannot enter or occupy “any location deemed by the college to pose a safety risk” (III.F). Moreover, within the policy, the college allows itself to identify any individual involved in an expressive activity by “any lawful means,” permitting administration to use their discretion to ascertain the identities of and prosecute any involved individuals.
The use of ambiguous language gives the college full license to suspend and discipline virtually any organized student activity on campus. While some aspects of the policy, such as the clause that expressive activity must not “violate applicable fire, health, and safety codes” (III.E.d), are logical and propose no objectionable content, its overall resonance signals an attempt to restrict the types of student demonstrations that are allowed on campus. As far as this new policy is concerned, any “expressive activity” must fit the narrow definition of what the college deems acceptable, or it will not be tolerated.
Smith reserves the right to implement a policy such as this one. It is true that, especially at a private institution, “freedom of speech and expression is not absolute” (I). However, attempting to suppress speech and expression on the grounds of it “[inhibiting] the college from performing its educational mission” (I) raises fundamental questions about the nature of that mission and where Smith sees its students fitting into the larger ethos of the institution. Higher education is, to an extent, meant to be a collaborative intellectual endeavor between students, faculty, staff, administrators and all other members of the community. Students also reserve the right to have a say in what constitutes Smith’s “educational mission.”
The Sophian encourages the Smith community to continue advocating for its right to self-expression and to do so with dignity and pride.
Signed,
Isabel Birge, contributor
Brooke Chandler, contributor
Naomi Scully-Bristol
Lilia Wong
Olivia Petty
Sophia Haydon-Khan
Hillary Connor
Karen Colmán Martínez
Zéphyr Smith
Poorvi Sarkar
Claire Sullivan
Arshie Chaudry
Gryffyn May
Lyda Martin
Pilar Lu-Heda
