Swarthmore at a Crossroads: A Pattern of Hypocrisy

There is no debate that Swarthmore regards itself as a highly progressive and socially responsible institution. Efforts toward cultivating a diverse body of students and faculty, carbon neutrality, and equal opportunity for current students and alumni are all high on the list of priorities for the college. Swarthmore’s administration clearly values the college’s socially progressive image, and real social progress has historically been deeply associated with activism and critique of the status quo. Swarthmore’s administration surely knows this; Val Smith, Swarthmore’s president, and scholar of African-American literature surely knows this. In fact, after the evacuation of Parrish Hall by Swarthmore’s chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) following a brief sit-in, the President’s Office released a statement containing the following passage: “Swarthmore will continue to embrace the spirit of protest that has long been part of the College’s ethos.” Despite their repeated assertions that the college values and will protect student activism, the administration has continued to inhibit protest activity on campus. 

There is no doubt that many of the students and faculty of Swarthmore College have long held the so-called “spirit of protest” that the college seems to laud – the question is truly whether, as President Smith says, the college itself embraces it. Swarthmore students and faculty alike have historically had a penchant for protest, from Vietnam to South Africa to the fraternities on our very own campus. Over the years, it seems that Swarthmore has become stricter about the ways in which students have been allowed to protest, and as a result, what exactly they are allowed to protest. 

The 2013 spring semester was a contentious one; Then-president Rebecca Chopp referred to it in an email as “the spring of our discontent,” and the phrase was colloquially adopted by many to refer to that time on campus. Issues ranging from the mistreatment of minority students to the mishandling of Title IX cases and divestment from fossil fuels, private prisons, and the Israeli settlement of disputed land were hotly debated by student groups, administrators, and the Board of Directors. No divestment was achieved, with the college citing its self-imposed 1991 amendment to its investment guidelines, which states that the endowment would be maintained solely with the goal of preserving the financial standing of the college, rather than pursuing other social objectives. 

This 1991 ban on ethical divestment was introduced during the revision of the Board’s investment policies that followed the College’s divestment from South African Apartheid. Even in one of the few cases in which student protest at Swarthmore was allowed by the college to achieve the full goals of the protestors – South African divestment – the process took eight years in its entirety. Three years into this process, students had to hold two sit-ins and one interruption of a board meeting in order to catalyze the proceedings. The official page on the Swarthmore website about the protests and divestment details the timeline and even mentions the 1993 reinvestment in South Africa following the announcement of a transitional government, but fails to acknowledge the 1991 ban. 

Arguably, the most notable change to come out of the Spring of Our Discontent was the general shift of the college towards sustainability and, eventually, carbon neutrality. Swarthmore’s pride and joy, the To Zero By Thirty-Five plan, was originally introduced in 2012, with the goal of becoming carbon neutral by 2035. The college not only chose to maintain investments in fossil fuels in 2013 but also in the spring of 2015, when a month-long sit-in in Parrish left many students and faculty hopeful about the chances of divestment. Despite efforts towards carbon neutrality, repeated refusals to divest made To Zero By Thirty-Five come off as insufficient and half-hearted. 

Of course, it’s difficult to talk about protests at Swarthmore without talking about Title IX and the fraternity sit-ins. Throughout the Spring of Our Discontent and the intermediary years between it and the 2019 protests, Swarthmore was continually notified of the mistreatment of victims of sexual assault by former drug and alcohol counselor Tom Elverson and issues with the campus judiciary process in which sexual assault cases were confidential, meaning that victims with open cases were not permitted to speak about them. Tom Elverson has since been fired, yet sexual assault cases remain confidential. 

As for the fraternities, their voluntary disbandment was the cleanest break this community could have asked for. Within three hours of the news of the disbandments, President Smith released a statement acknowledging the “heartbreaking stories from students [that] come from across the spectrum of our student body – from student protesters to fraternity members.” The statement did not offer any unqualified message of empathy solely geared toward potential victims of the members of Phi Psi. The disbandment was not supplemented with an official ban until nine days later: this intermediate period entailed the use of force against students by Public Safety, threats of arrest by Swarthmore Borough Police who had been allowed on campus by the administration, and a 79-hour hunger strike by five students. 

Much like their self-imposed ban on ethical divestment following the divestment from South Africa, Swarthmore followed this progress with the limitation of the possibility for future change. Following the ban of Greek life from campus, Swarthmore expanded the handbook definition of disorderly conduct to include “any other action(s) that result in the unreasonable interference with the learning/working environment or the rights of others.” This was met with resistance at the time, rightfully so. This definition (among others) has since been further expanded and used to charge students for protesting in ways that the college deems unacceptable. 

The college has relied on its students to alert the community of opportunities for change for far too long, while simultaneously portraying itself as a progressive institution. Therefore, if the college’s ultimate goal in increasing the surveillance of students as well as the regulations we must abide by is the limitation of protest and the stagnation of social progress, they are doing both their students and themselves a great disservice. The students who protest for a better future are the true harbingers of change on this campus, not the Board, administration members, nor Val Smith. 

So what does Swarthmore really embrace as a historical and contemporary part of its institutional ethos? The answer is that Swarthmore embraces principles that were introduced by brave students and faculty, who fought hard to make change at the college – principles that they once rejected but that have since become commonplace and acceptable to the audience of prospective students, their families, and the people and institutions that donate to Swarthmore’s gargantuan endowment. In multiple cases, Swarthmore has not only retroactively accepted and legitimized the actions of student protestors but co-opted the eventual changes they advocated for as selling points for the college – take increased diversity and limitation of emissions, for example. The administration uses Swarthmore’s long history of student activism as a means to portray it as a socially progressive institution and treat the resultant changes as if they are symbolic of some innate drive towards justice that Swarthmore instills in its students, rather than the other way around. 

Swarthmore seems to be at a crossroads: the administration wants the college to be perceived as a progressive institution (that it is, in many ways), but they cannot appropriately contend with student protestors today. Even in cases less extreme than what we saw last Wednesday night, the college has been chronically unwilling to negotiate with the wants and needs of students fighting for the environment, sexual assault survivors, and more. 

The lack of transparency regarding changes to the handbook, surveillance practices, confidentiality rules about campus judiciary cases, and even the names and affiliations of individuals brought on campus by public safety all give way to a sense of insecurity and confusion to many students. These methods actively discourage protest, even in the few forms permitted by the handbook. Simultaneously, the college has made it clear that in order for students to be heard in any real capacity, they must break these rules. If you only protest against a stubborn institution along the guidelines it has provided, how much change can you really make? 

If the college wants students to stop protesting in manners they deem inappropriate, they must listen at the first sign of discontent; going forward, the college must work to have good-faith, transparent negotiations with protestors, and remove themselves from their self-imposed shackles of the 1991 ban on ethical divestment.