Students Charged for Distributing Allegedly ‘Violent’ Zines on Campus

Eight students who distributed zines protesting Swarthmore’s administration and Board of Managers have received letters identifying several possible violations of the college’s Code of Conduct. In the letters, Student Affairs alluded to potential charges for “threatening and intimidating” imagery and rhetoric, citing “bullying and intimidation” and “endangerment or affliction of physical harm,” among other charges. The two zines condemned the college for “investing in the Zionist entity” and called for escalated student activism. 

One zine protesting the Board depicted a crosshair over a collage of Board member photos, with the text “Public Enemy No. 1.” Also in the zine were Board member profile photos drawn over with devil’s horns and tails. The second zine included the phrases “necessarily more violent” and “necessarily more escalated.” Both imagery and rhetoric were cited by the college as “threatening and intimidating imagery, and/or potential threats of violence on campus.”

Many students have raised alarm over the college charging students for speech rather than action. In an email to The Phoenix, Vice President of Communications and Marketing Andy Hirsch wrote that “Swarthmore supports individuals’ rights to express their views and engage in peaceful protest and dissent, but those rights do not extend so far as to infringe on the ability of others to live, learn, and work in an environment free from harassment, intimidation, and threats of violence.”

Erin Kaplan, associate dean and director of student conduct, sent letters to seven students in early February identifying the charges.  She later contacted one student who said they are being charged with distributing only one of the two zines. The student, who will be referred to as “Jake,” said they only distributed two copies of the zine targeted for language.

Kaplan’s letter explains that students found responsible for the violations may face “a maximum sanction of expulsion.” When asked about this potential expulsion threat, Hirsch responded that expulsions are “extremely rare” and “reserved for the most extreme violations.”

“Yes, it’s among the sanctions a [College Judiciary Committee] can issue in any major misconduct case. But to suggest that students are facing a ‘threat’ of expulsion, as if that’s the only possible sanction, simply because they were charged with a major misconduct violation, lacks important context and nuance,” he wrote. 

Hirsch emphasized that charges of Code of Conduct violations are not the same as a formal finding of “responsible” for that charge. Whether the alleged action actually constitutes a violation will be determined by the CJC — a panel of appointed students, faculty, and staff — rather than by the administration. Major misconduct charges carry a range of sanctions, including written warnings, reprimands, probation, and, at the most extreme, expulsion.

Within Swarthmore’s code of conduct, “bullying and intimidation” is defined as “any electronic, written, verbal, or physical act or a series of acts … that is intended to cause, or any reasonable person should know would cause, physical, or substantial emotional harm to another person or group.” In order to meet this criterion, conduct must be “severe, persistent, or pervasive.”

Hirsch, who said that “we generally don’t discuss specific student conduct cases,” did not comment on whether the creation and distribution of the zines met this criterion. 

“The act of placing two pieces of paper by no means does that,” Jake said. He emphasized that the content of the zines he distributed is “non-violent.” He said the administration’s framing of language within the zine as violent is “preposterous.” 

“I think it’s our job as students, as faculty, as a community, to reject this.” 

Jake also pointed out that the charge letter did not specify whom the zines were harming, and that the college, by entering students into the disciplinary process, seems to be “causing intimidation and bullying themselves.”  

Hirsch did not comment on whether, as described by this charge, the students were “bullying and intimidating” the Board of Managers. He also did not respond to a question about whether members of the Board expressed feeling intimidated or unsafe on campus due to the zines. 

The Zines 

The first zine protesting the college’s Board of Managers was distributed in the dining hall on Friday, Dec. 5. During that weekend, the Board met for its quarterly meeting at the Swarthmore Inn, the wall of which was spray-painted with “Board of Butchers” the morning of the fifth. 

In addition to “Public Enemy No. 1” and the crosshair over the board, the zine included information on “why you should hate the board,” with bullet points arguing how the board’s investments “contradict the college’s propaganda about DEI, anti-violence, & environmentalism.” 

Specifically about the crosshair over the collage of board member portraits and the usage of the phrase “necessarily more violent,” Hirsch wrote, “I think it’s reasonable to see how those actions could be perceived as intimidating and harassing in ways that may violate the Student Code of Conduct,” citing in the code that “any speech or act that … targets, harasses, or threatens any individual or group may be subject to the student conduct process.”

The zine also reports on the college finances, claiming that funding cuts have cost faculty and staff their jobs, and that Swarthmore’s increased endowment has resulted in fewer services for students. This section alleges the board’s failure to fulfill its duty to support the college community with the endowment it received. Hirsch responded that the opposite is true. 

The second zine, titled “A Letter to the Students, From: The Hossam Shabat Liberated Zone,” was distributed at the college’s activity fair on Jan. 23. The zine reflected on pro-Palestine protests on campus, including the dismantling of the Trotter Lawn encampment last spring, which ended in nine arrests, including two Swarthmore-affiliated individuals. The nine who were arrested will go to trial in late March. 

The zine calls for students to “risk” their “safety,” which is largely referred to as the material  and pre-professional security afforded to students of the college. “If this is our safety, risk is nothing,” the zine reads. In Kaplan’s letter, she cites the line “our risk is nothing” as one of the “calls for action that threatened, intimidated, and/or promoted potential violence on campus.” 

Jake pointed to this line as one of five he argues Kaplan’s letter took out of context. Others include “necessarily more violent” and  “necessarily more escalated.” The full line reads: “The loss of the Hossam Shabat Liberated Zone was just the beginning of a new chapter of our struggle — one that will be necessarily more escalated, necessarily more violent.” 

Jake argues the “violence” here refers to increasing state and institutional violence from people who oppose Pro-Palestine protests, citing the police response to the encampment last spring and the resulting injuries. 

As for the cited phrase “must put [their] bodies on the line,” Jake defends that language as “protected political speech.” He explained that the phrase “putting your bodies on the line” is a well-known notion that has been used in many famous non-violent movements throughout history. The full line reads, “If we wish to change anything, to agitate anything for Palestine, we must put our bodies on the line.”

The Disciplinary Process 

Some of the charged students said the disciplinary process is exhausting. Jake said the hours he spent reviewing the charges, figuring out what they meant, engaging with the evidence files, and appointing a case manager have taken a mental toll on him, causing him to lose sleep and fall behind in his classes. 

“The whole process very much felt like the goal was to make it difficult for us to do all the things that typically constitute us being a student here,” Jake said.

Last spring, The Phoenix reported on alleged failings in the process, including communication issues and concerns about the excessive demands the disciplinary proceedings place on students, like scheduling hearings and meetings. 

“Whether they’re successful in pursuing these allegations or not, they’ve already succeeded in tearing apart our time,” Jake said.

Surveillance in The Disciplinary Process 

In addition to engaging with an “exhausting” disciplinary process, some of the charged students spoke to the haunting effect of being sent footage of themselves around campus, including clips before or after the alleged misconduct. 

The Phoenix reported rising concerns about surveillance on campus last spring, as the college increased the number of cameras around campus and in the Crum Woods, and used CCTV footage of students in the disciplinary process. 

Conversations about surveillance continue on campus. Last month, the Intercenter’s Conversations of Care team hosted a community discussion concerning surveillance. Flyers were posted on campus, featuring an image of a CCTV camera and the text “Big Brother is Watching You – And we need to talk about it.”  

Jake said he had already been aware of the extent of the college’s surveillance, but after receiving CCTV footage of himself, he feels like he’s being watched constantly. 

“Whether I’m walking in my dorm, heading to the library, chatting with friends in the dining hall, or in class, I’ve had a constant feeling that there are cameras watching me,” he commented in his written statement. 

In addition to receiving footage of himself placing the two zines in Kohlberg, he was also sent a clip from another building, after he left, in which he was visible drinking water. He says this clip was accompanied by discourse inciting that he’d worn a mask to conceal his identity. Jake, who says he wears a mask all the time for Covid consciousness, requested that this discourse be redacted; he says his request was denied.

In a question about how the college distinguishes between mask-wearing for health reasons versus concealment of identity, Hirsch wrote that “there’s no Code violation for wearing a mask, and no student was charged for having a mask on…”

Others shared the feeling that, after being shown footage of themselves, being on campus isn’t the same. 

“I just don’t feel comfortable or safe on campus,” one student shared.

In Jake’s written response, he wrote that the combination of the stress from the demands of the disciplinary process and the feeling of being constantly watched had led him to seek counseling and psychological support on campus.

“I think it should worry all students in terms of the power that the school has,” an anonymous student said.    

Moving Forward with Protest on Campus 

Students continue to worry about the implications of the charges on future student activism on campus.

“I think it has really serious implications, specifically for Palestine activism, but also just for any sort of dissent against the school,” an anonymous student said. “Students need to realize this isn’t happening in a vacuum.”

In a WHYY article, Temple law professor and free speech expert Craig Green said the college appears to be attempting to make the case that the zines could “incite violence.” However, Green explained in the article that “the standard for inciting violence is very high under the Constitution.” 

“The evidence that I have seen concerning Swarthmore is not close to that line,” he said to WHYY. He cited the legal standard set by the 1969 landmark case Brandenburg v. Ohio, interpreting the First Amendment. The case holds that speech can be prohibited if it is “directed at inciting or producing imminent lawless action.” 

However, the case prohibits “the state” from infringing on free speech. Swarthmore, as a private institution, can implement its own code of conduct.

Green said the “one use of the word violence” in the “Letter to the Students” zine is probably the strongest argument the college could make. 

Some of the charged students said they came to Swarthmore because of its history as a hub for campus activism. In alarm over the disciplinary process last spring, faculty shared the sentiment that the recent uptick in charges against students marked a departure from Swarthmore’s long history of social justice advocacy.

In his statement, Jake reflected on writing one of his application essays to Swarthmore; he’d written about an open exchange of ideas being the basis of a liberal arts education.

“The act of criminalizing any kind of speech of that manner is a direct affront to the kind of simple principles and academic rigor that Swarthmore is based off of,” he said.

On Feb. 19, Swarthmore’s Students for Justice in Palestine held a rally in Kohlberg Courtyard calling on the college to drop the charges. On Monday, the group posted a petition on Instagram with the same demand. 

Drawing on non-violent movements throughout history, Jake emphasized, “I think our only option is a broad community response to this moment.”

“It starts with solidarity. It starts with us showing up for each other. It starts with us making decisions to build community across the divides that the college tries to implement. It starts with collective action.”

Editor’s Note: This article was changed on March 5 to more accurately reflect the nature of the charges and make clear which of the zines’ content VP Hirsch said could reasonably be seen as violations of the Code of Conduct.