Faculty Reflect on Encampment, Arrests

As the encampment continued at Swarthmore College, faculty-admin communication on next steps was minimal, with many faculty sharing that there was no communication other than President Smith’s messages to the entire campus. On Friday afternoon, more than 48 hours after the tents had been erected, an emergency faculty meeting was held in Science Center 101 with over 40 administrators and faculty members in attendance. President Smith stood at the front of the room for most of the meeting, giving a briefing and fielding questions. Immediately before the meeting, she had delivered a talk at the Black Studies department’s celebration of the role of sit-ins in institutionalizing the Black Studies department. 

During the meeting, admin presented the “off-ramp” proposal for student protesters who left the encampment before the deadline, later moved back two times from 11 p.m. to 1 a.m. The proposal – detailed in an email from Acting Provost Kathleen Howard that was obtained by The Phoenix – outlined that seniors would be suspended through alumni weekend (in early June) but then eligible to get their degree, while non-seniors in the encampment would be placed on interim suspension, then have a regular, possibly expedited, judicial process. Their agreement to dismantle the encampment would count as a potential mitigating factor in reducing their sanction. If students didn’t leave by the deadline, they would risk expulsion, which was noted as a “possible sanction regardless.” 

According to many faculty, the only change to the administration’s plan of action that resulted from the meeting was the delayed deadline, though the meeting was also the only organized chance for faculty to provide input through a Q&A. However, the meeting was advertised to faculty as a “briefing” rather than a conversation with input. The administration also consulted with Committee on Faculty Procedures (COFP) members in the lead-up to Friday’s meeting in longer communication. After the meeting, some faculty continued to negotiate with student protesters until 1 a.m. and deliver messages to avoid arrest, as encouraged by President Smith. 

Associate Professor of Educational Studies Edwin Mayorga told The Phoenix that, at the faculty meeting, President Smith shared her views on the situation and facilitated the conversation. There was notably a large number of faculty members present across divisions and programs, considering the roughly two-hour notice and late-afternoon Friday timing. He said faculty responded to Smith’s points, and she commented in return. The meeting went long due to continuing questions from faculty, despite Smith’s attempts to conclude. 

Professor of Engineering Matt Zucker said the meeting was collegial, although faculty members had different opinions on most parts of the response – including how much time was given to negotiate with protesters, feelings over law enforcement being called, and if the off-ramp plan would be sufficient to get students to leave. 

According to Associate Professor of Computer Science Joshua Brody, prior to the faculty meeting, Smith had made the decision to call law enforcement if protesters did not vacate by a deadline. Other faculty confirmed the decision to call law enforcement had clearly been made before the meeting started. Brody told The Phoenix that during the meeting, Smith shared some contributing factors for her decision, including the presence of non-college-affiliated protesters, concerns about federal retaliation, such as FBI or ICE raids, and the interim suspended status of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) as a group. He said he believes Smith had the interests of the entire community in mind while making her decision, but was still saddened to see the arrests. 

In a later email to The Phoenix for a different story, Vice President for Communications and Marketing Andy Hirsch wrote that the college “did not feel ‘pressure’ from the FBI.” While many in the community were concerned about the larger risks the encampment posed under a new political environment, he said that “the FBI did not interfere with any college decision-making.”

“The students in the encampment were resolved to not leave, and the administration was resolved to call in law enforcement,” Brody said. “Given this situation, things could have gone much worse than they did – e.g. the police gave multiple warnings before entering the encampment. Students didn’t violently resist, but did not consent to leaving. Police didn’t violently attack protesters, but did forcibly remove them, including zip tying their hands behind their backs.”

According to Professor of Anthropology Farha Ghannam, the faculty meeting’s focus was the off-ramp. She said one of the main differences between this and last year’s protest had to do with the updated Code of Conduct, which, as of August 2024, explicitly bans encampments. Faculty members were not consulted on the changes, only learning of them in the same broad email that students received after the updates. This lack of communication prompted faculty discussion, and the president decided to add two faculty members to the committee to review the Code of Conduct. However, Ghannam said she has not heard anything about faculty members being invited to discuss this summer’s potential changes to the Code of Conduct. 

Ghannam said she wishes there had been more opportunities for faculty input about the encampment response sooner than Friday to consider different ways to engage with students. She also questioned the danger of bringing police onto campus, and cautioned decision-makers to reconsider how they define who is part of the community and who is dangerous: “I thought the main concern was that there were outsiders on campus and that could pose danger for the community, but I think bringing the police also could pose danger to the community.”

“As a Quaker institution,” she continued, “I feel calling the police seems to defy quite a lot of our core values and commitment to peaceful protest and civic responsibility. So I think it’s time for the institution to think a little bit more about our values and what [they] mean. I’m still really trying to understand why that was the option that the college chose.”

Mayorga noted he believes encampments can represent an avenue toward social change and are not inherently threatening. He acknowledged that the vandalism and its content were “out of bounds” but disagreed with the framing of the encampment as a criminal act. However, on a larger scale, he believes the college has failed to understand how dissent is a part of the democratic process in response to harm when people do not see any other avenues to being heard.

“I’ve been here for 11 years, and almost every year I have been here we have had some form of protest,” Mayoga said. “From Mount Justice, to sanctuary, O4S, and calls for racial justice/abolition in 2020 to Israel/Palestine the cries for peace and justice have emerged in response to grievances and feelings of being harmed. Those calls are not from everyone, as they never are, but  more importantly how have we, the College, which includes administration, faculty, staff and students responded to those feelings of harm?”

Zucker was one of the faculty members who spoke with protesters about leaving to avoid arrest late Friday night and observed the arrests on Saturday morning. He said the faculty delivered a message on behalf of Smith to protesters on Friday night and did not have much agency in their own approach. Although Zucker was saddened that the protest ended in arrests and wished faculty had been brought into the discussion with Smith earlier, he pointed to different political contexts and the graffiti glorifying violence as key changes between this and the 2024 encampment. He also expressed worry over how this change in precedent will impact Swarthmore’s institutional character in the future.

“I was unaware of any prior instances where the college called in police to arrest protesters. And now, having done so, Swarthmore is an institution that calls the police to arrest protesters,” Zucker said. “I am still processing what that means for our students and our faculty and their expectations of safety and security. I don’t think we can easily predict how it will affect Swarthmore’s reputation nationally. And I don’t know what it means about our faculty that so few of us who were at the meeting were willing to step up afterwards. I am grateful to all of my colleagues who worked to speak with protesters and observe the arrests.”

Mayorga noted that, over the last two years, there have been few opportunities for faculty to respond to protests, except with regards to whether or not faculty should be bringing their classes to protest sites. He also shared that the few moments of faculty consultation on campus matters have been more informational than conversational: “At the very least, it hasn’t felt as though alternative perspectives were going to do much to sway what administration was intending to do at different points over the last two academic years.”

Mayorga personally felt calling in law enforcement was not the right thing to do: “I volunteered to be part of the faculty to go over and speak with the encampment group, but I left the meeting not very clear what I was supposed to do beyond sharing what the administration was seeking to do and listening to what the protesters’ thinking,” he shared. “It didn’t feel like the admin was willing to budge from the thinking they came into the meeting with.”

Associate Professor of Economics Syon Bhanot believes the absence of a formal channel for all faculty to provide input is not inherently problematic but acknowledged a variety of opinions on how much faculty feel they should be consulted. He supported Smith’s decision, which he said was made with few available options, and said many other faculty members did as well, given the stated risk to international students as some of the most vulnerable members of the community if federal attention on the college increased.

“President Smith was in a very difficult situation – between a rock and a hard place, as it were,” Bhanot said. “As everyone knows, there are both external and internal pressures, often pushing in different directions. I personally think there was no ‘good’ choice, but her decision was the only viable choice.”

Bhanot pointed to the non-college-affiliated protesters and graffiti written on the “Big Chair,” declaring “Let’s Go Bomb Tel Aviv” and statements in support of Hamas, Hezbollah, and the Houthis as factors in the decision to call in law enforcement. “Surely involving the police will upset many who feel it goes against our values – but I would hope those same people would also acknowledge that calling for the bombing of Tel Aviv or expressing affection for groups that have committed atrocities abroad is also not in keeping with our values.”

Some faculty expressed a belief that police do not have any place on campus, regardless. Assistant Professor of History Elise Mitchell pointed to civil disobedience as an important part of Swarthmore’s history and student rights. She said the faculty majority consensus was that police should not be called in and faculty wished to be able to help develop alternatives instead. 

“I am worried that this instance lowered the bar significantly for when the administration at Swarthmore may call in the police to arrest students in the future,” Mitchell said. “Furthermore, I think Swarthmore’s administration must reevaluate its notion of campus community safety. ‘Safety’ was deployed frequently during the briefing to justify bringing in the police. However, those of us who are a part of any minoritized or oppressed group know that police, more often than not, can cause more harm and risk to our communities than safety.”

Brody noted that Swarthmore did not call in law enforcement during the encampment on campus in the spring of 2024. He said he was proud of how the community as a whole handled that encampment, and the fact that law enforcement was not called: “I believe we avoided the violence that other campuses like Columbia and Harvard experienced because the protests mostly involved Swarthmore community members, and because law enforcement was not called.” 

Ghannam acknowledged the diversity of faculty opinions around the decision to call in law enforcement but is encouraged by the fact that the faculty continues to work together on issues such as this. She said Swarthmore is not removed from the national trend of rising polarization, but faculty are aware of the increased threat to higher education given research funding cuts and tightening of free speech, and are responding as a group.

Mayorga also thinks that this weekend’s events should be examined within the context of the national political scene. “I think it is important to situate this whole situation within the context of the federal government’s commitment to rolling back policies and organizations that do not align with their agenda.”

Specifically, Ghannam said faculty are working to support vulnerable groups, including international students, faculty, and staff, and activists who may be targeted by federal agencies for their public opinions, such as Mahmoud Khalil. However, she also believes some students overestimate the power that faculty hold. When Ghannam joined Swarthmore, she felt the faculty governance was stronger and had a larger role in shaping decisions. Now, with growing influence from professional administration and staff, she feels disconnected from decision-making.

“This is not a Swarthmore-only issue. We feel it very clearly here because we are not used to it, and we know we have that history,” Ghannam said. “But I do think, to me, and not only the faculty but in general, if the decisions are made by a broader group of people, it will appeal to a broader group of people, and therefore we make the institution healthier. As the [American Association of University Professors Swarthmore Chapter] president, I do think faculty governance is important, and therefore I would like to see that strengthened as much as possible.”

Editor’s Note: This article was edited to better reflect Professor Zucker’s comments on graffiti. It was also edited to correct that two faculty were added to the committee by the COFP to review the Code of Conduct, not the COFP itself.