Solomon Furious Worlds is an attorney with the Pennsylvania chapter of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and an expert on freedom of speech and protest rights across the state of Pennsylvania. They work on issues involving civil rights in relation to college and university responses to Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) protestors. In a Phoenix article from Sept. 2024, they called attention to Swarthmore College’s changes to the student handbook that affected disciplinary actions against SJP protestors.
On Monday morning, The Phoenix interviewed Worlds about recent changes to the landscape of college and university actions against student protest in the wake of the Trump administration, as well as Swarthmore College’s use of disciplinary actions against protestors compared to both other colleges in Pennsylvania and across the country.
Aqua Withers Carello: In November 2023, in an open letter, the ACLU called on college and university leaders to “reject calls to investigate, disband, or penalize pro-Palestinan student groups for exercising their free speech rights.” What has changed, if anything, about the nature of college and university responses to student protests, within the past year or so?
Solomon F. Worlds: Well, I think the main thing that has changed is the risk to non-U.S. citizens. I’m using that phrase very intentionally there to remind folks that unlawfully entering the country is not a crime. It is a civil violation. It is not under any criminal code.
The Biden administration was focused on removing people from the country who had committed violent crimes. Most individuals involved in protests, at least the pro-Palestine protests, would not have been involved in that. In all the reports I’ve read, [demonstrations] like disturbing the peace, obstruction of a highway, even something where they’re disrupting an event that’s going on have typically not been done violently. Most of the violence I’ve seen from any protestors has really come from counter-protesters. As far as I’m aware, there haven’t been any credible allegations of violence or even threats of violence.
Certainly, some folks are taking political speech to mean harassment, but really, when you listen and read what these protesters are saying and writing, it’s rarely about the inhabitants and it’s usually about the policies and the political actors.
AWC: At Swarthmore, and across the state, do you see institutional actions against SJP protestors, especially with suspensions and disciplinary threats and actions, being different from other groups who have held sit-ins in recent years? And if so, how?
SFW: I believe it was a Phoenix article that talked about climate activists who did a sit-in not too long ago. Certainly, at the University of Pennsylvania, there were some climate activists who held an encampment for around 39 days in 2022. In both instances, the students faced a lot less repercussions. Some of them may have faced discipline, but certainly a lot less. At least using the University of Pennsylvania as a more potent example: [it was] a 39-day encampment in 2022 about fossil fuels, versus a sixteen-day encampment in 2024 about Palestine. At the end of the fossil fuel one, I believe some students were disciplined, but not a ton. Tons of students were disciplined or at least attempted to be disciplined in response to the Gaza encampment. [In the] 2022 encampment, no rules changed afterward. [In] 2024, all these rules changed afterward – the president was ousted – so much has happened in response to this, it has been so politicized, and [subjected to] what we call viewpoint discrimination in the civil rights speech business. It’s pretty clear viewpoint discrimination. But they’re also private actors, both Swarthmore College and the University of Pennsylvania, so they’re not held to the same standard as a government institution would be. If the city of Philadelphia or some other government agency did this, it would be pretty [clearly] violated by the First Amendment.
AWC: Last fall, in an interview for a Phoenix article, you called attention to changes in Swarthmore College’s student handbook, raising alarm to potential infringements on rights to protest included in the Constitution’s First Amendment. Other legal groups like the Council on American-Islamic Relations have called attention to the way in which Swarthmore College has been uniquely cracking down on protestors, throughout this fall and before that – as many other universities have withdrawn their suspensions, such as Columbia and Brown.
In your understanding and experience as an attorney working on protest and free speech rights, in what ways, if any, is this situation at Swarthmore and the response from Swarthmore College over the past year or so, unique from other universities in PA and in the country?
SFW: Swarthmore has a sibling relationship with Haverford and Bryn Mawr. I believe that at those two colleges, when their students were protesting around similar issues, even after their conduct investigations began, charges were later dropped for a good number of students.
[At] these two other institutions, similarly sized, students even trade classes [and go] between campuses. These institutions act almost like the University of California’s Berkeley, and UCLA Davis. Maybe even closer, right? For no other reason than geography, they do so much to be in line with each other, but yet here, for some reason, [Swarthmore is] still going against the grain, and against the grain of the norms that they’ve established over the decades, if not centuries. For as long as it’s been open, it’s been a place of active protests and resistance from students. Swarthmore has a rich Quaker history of protest. It’s not only frustrating for the students, but it’s frustrating for higher education.
I would say there has really only been one other time in recent history when universities and colleges have deviated so quickly from the norm to align with some political agenda, and that was the Vietnam War in the ’60s and ’70s when a lot of student protests were erupting across the country. And some universities changed for the better, some universities changed for the worse. I think a lot of universities, even those that pivoted in the realm of shutting down dissent and speech eventually came around, but still, there was this at least moment of a crackdown, this moment of censorship that took place and definitely Swarthmore is a prime example of that [happening now].
I think Swarthmore has the most [disciplinary cases] per capita, as well, as far as protesters involved versus protesters disciplined. There’s just numerous instances, numerous data points we have that show why it’s unique in that way. And unfortunately, this is a way in which you don’t want the college to be unique.
AWC: I would love to hear about changes you may be seeing to higher education overall across the country, with regards to college and university administration response to student protests and freedom of speech, especially in the context of political influence by donors.
SFW: I only focus on Pennsylvania – I’m at the ACLU of Pennsylvania. There’s certainly been a response and a shift. Something I’ve actually said to activists — and this is depending on the circle, depending on how much time I’m given to explain myself, is not the most popular opinion — but I actually don’t think the colleges and universities are the biggest bad guys. Taking a video game analogy — they’re not the final boss. The final boss, I think, is DC: the executive branch and the White House. Because a lot of colleges and universities are pivoting and changing based on fear from this larger political entity that has real power to cut funding. From funding comes prestige, employees, and access — from funding comes a lot.
And so, while donors are, I think, playing a role — I know in the nonprofit space — juries are still out as to whether or not supporting pro-Palestine protesters or demonizing them actually gets you more money. I think there are a lot of assumptions out there that donors support Israel (all donors). Actually, speaking of anti-Semitism, I think some of that is actually rooted in anti-Semitism, this idea that “donors equals Israel.”
But there are plenty of donors who support Palestine, and there are plenty of donors who support people who support Palestine. I also think there’s even a larger pool of donors who support civil rights and civil liberties and understand that when you shut down speech about Palestine today, it’s going to hurt when people want to shut down speech about some other group that’s being harmed. In the past, all sorts of folks who have marginalized identities, including Jewish people, have been able to benefit from the robust protections afforded by the First Amendment.
So I think yes, donors have a part, but I think the biggest part to play here is from the federal government. A lot of folks are taking direction from there. Granted, the federal government is also a large donor, so there’s a funny thing there. But I think it’s more so the threats and the blacklisting, and we can’t forget the private force behind this as well, like websites like Canary Mission. I’ve seen cars driving around with people’s faces on them saying “so and so is anti-Semitic” and in almost every instance I’ve observed, it’s people who are saying, “I don’t like Benjamin Netanyahu because he did X,” or “all of these bombs that President Biden is giving money for, or giving to Israel, is bad because of Y.” It’s pretty simple, political stuff. It’s rarely something that is actually demonizing a people or culture or anything like that. To the extent it’s even demonizing a person, it’s demonizing their decisions and their misuse and abuse of power.
AWC: Do you have any concluding thoughts?
SFW: This is a frustrating time. It is difficult to be a person who cares today. The number of times I’ve had conversations with folks where I say, “I don’t have the answer today, but I haven’t given up trying to find the answer” has certainly grown since the inauguration. The number of times my cats have come to check on me has also grown since the inauguration.
The thing I really wanna tell people is to not lose hope, to not lose faith. That’s with regard to every movement, to every issue that’s facing us. We gonna be alright. It’s gonna take time and it sucks right now and it’s not fun, but there are a lot of people on the streets, there are a lot of advocates, there are a lot of people in the courts. A lot of folks are still doing what’s right, even though the folks who are shutting down speech, the folks who are demonizing marginalized people, have bought a lot of media time. It doesn’t mean that the work isn’t being done to counteract.
Thanks for doing this interview. It is refreshing to hear a sane voice on these issues.