SJP Faces Interim Suspension Following Parrish Sit-In

Last Wednesday, Feb. 19, Swarthmore’s campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) occupied Parrish East Wing for eleven hours, protesting disciplinary charges related to demonstrations for Palestine during the 2023-24 academic year and demanding the college’s divestment from companies linked to Israel. The following day, President Val Smith announced that the administration was placing SJP on an interim suspension, citing actions during the protest such as the failure of students to leave the building and ignoring Public Safety orders. The suspension restricts the group’s access to college funds, event scheduling, and other resources available to student organizations. 

The action on Wednesday specifically protested Senior Associate Dean of Student Life Nathan Miller, with the earliest sit-in taking place in the hallway outside his office. In an email statement sent around campus responding to the announcement of interim suspension, SJP expressed that their goal was to disrupt Miller’s office operations, accusing him of corrupting disciplinary cases involving pro-Palestine activists. “Every minute that Nathan Miller is kept out of his office is a minute that students are safer on this campus. The college refuses to drop the cases against student activists, so we took it upon ourselves to halt the disciplinary process.”

The Parrish sit-in ended after Vice President for Student Affairs Stephanie Ives sent a notice warning students that if they did not leave the building by 11 p.m., they would face interim suspension. Ives stated that several individuals had already been identified. Following the protest, Ives’ letter was posted by SJP in numerous spots around campus with the headline: “This is Swarthmore’s Response to Peaceful Protest.”

A member of SJP who took part in the Parrish sit-in, referred to as Jay for anonymity, voiced concern in communication with The Phoenix about the suspension process, “We are told that there is an appeals process, but it is deeply unlikely to be fair. The existence of ‘interim suspension’ as a category at all is new to this year’s Student Code of Conduct. The changes to the code were created to suppress SJP, and now they are being used for that cause.” Jay mentioned that the appeal process is controlled by Ives and Miller, who also are currently administering disciplinary hearings against 25 students affiliated with SJP. 

Historically, other student groups have faced threats of being banned; however, these threats were never enforced. According to The Phoenix archives from 1963-1964, the Swarthmore Political Action Club (SPAC) was warned about consequences similar to those faced by SJP, including the prohibition of holding meetings on college property and receiving college funding. A 1963 article indicates that the Student Council (SC) had authority over student organizations, which meant that the administration communicated with the council rather than directly with the groups. Another article published in December 1963 notes that the administration threatened to withdraw recognition from SPAC if it continued to conduct illegal acts, a move that was met with strong disapproval from the SC.

In email communication with The Phoenix, Vice President for Communications and Marketing Andy Hirsch clarified that the SJP’s interim suspension is consistent with the protestors’ compliance with Ives’ letter, as the school did not issue individual interim suspensions to students but to the group as an organization. 

In response to Smith’s email to the campus, SJP wrote in their statement that “The student intifada is not confined to club registration or funding from the college … Swarthmore Students for Justice in Palestine may be suspended in name, but our movement will not pause.” The email ended, saying, “Inevitably, we will win.” 

SJP’s statement condemns the administration’s handling of the protests and accuses them of employing excessive security measures and aggression towards students. 

Public Safety officers prevented entrance to Parrish, with the assistance of facilities staff and officers from Widener University. Hirsch explained that restricting access to Parrish “required more staffing than our Public Safety team could accommodate.” He also noted that support was provided by Swarthmore staff members outside of Public Safety, which accounted for the plainclothes officers seen interacting with protestors, as posted on SJP’s Instagram. 

Interim Director of Public Safety Colin Quinn, who is seen in the video blocking an entrance to Parrish, declined to comment on the identity of the unidentified personnel next to him, deferring the question to Hirsch. In the video, the unidentified individual is seen pushing a student protestor out of the entryway. 

Hirsch addressed the altercations between personnel and protestors, emphasizing that the restricted access to the building was communicated through verbal warnings and signage. “We’re aware of a couple of incidents in which protestors attempted to gain unauthorized access, ignoring the fact that access to the building was restricted and, in some cases, confronted College staff in an attempt to let additional protestors inside the building,” he wrote. Hirsch argued that footage from the protests shows college staff working to secure the building in order to prevent the protest from escalating and to maintain control over the situation. 

In response to SJP’s claim that “Public Safety asserted that they would surveil and track undocumented and international students through CCTV footage and OneCard usage if they attempted to leave,” Hirsch said all protestors were informed that if they ended the protest and left Parrish, Public Safety would not follow them. He said that the protestors then insisted that the college not use supporting evidence from the sit-in for the purpose of code-of-conduct charges, such as CCTV footage and OneCard swipes. Hirsch noted that when the college denied this request, the protest continued. SJP’s statement does not clarify whether Public Safety indicated it would surveil and track specifically undocumented and international students, or a larger group of protestors that included undocumented and international students. 

Hirsch disagreed with SJP’s statement, emphasizing the recent information and resources President Smith and the Sanctuary Committee have distributed to campus over the past week. “In actuality, and as President Smith wrote the other day, the behavior we experienced Wednesday put the safety and well-being of our community at risk,” he said.

When asked about possible pressure to pursue the suspension, Hirsch noted that the college has not received significant feedback or pressure from alumni, parents, or donors regarding protest actions. He mentioned a divide among the messages received, with some supporting the protestors and others expressing concerns about the negative impact on the campus community.

“While we listen to all views and perspectives, we don’t make decisions based on those communications; our decisions are guided by our policies and based on what is in the best interest of the entire campus community,” Hirsch wrote.

Jay expressed confidence that the pro-Palestine movement will continue on campus. “There are too many people who care about Palestine at this school and who are willing to devote their time to making divestment happen for this to be a significant roadblock.” He says that demands for divestment are beyond “one club.”

“We are here because the school is invested in genocide and apartheid. Those are the stakes, and the stakes have not changed,” he said.