An upstate New York university has taken its free-speech-zone policy, which regulates where students can hold protests, further than most, charging students who last month organized a protest with trespassing.
The conflict between students and administrators at the Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute stems from a two-year debate over who should control the student union. For more than 125 years, the student union, which helps administer student funds to campus organizations and promote a more prosperous student life, has been operated by the students themselves.
In fact, it is, according to the university, one of the few private school student unions in the country that is entirely student-run.
That’s why when RPI President Shirley Ann Jackson first made moves two years ago to try to assert university control over the union, many on campus were opposed. Jackson has argued that she should have final say over who is hired as the union’s director, a position that has been vacant since the university fired the organization’s previous director in December 2015. The board of trustees agrees with the president, arguing that the student union — which now controls a bookstore, fitness facilities, and recreational spaces — has grown tremendously in the past century and now needs more direct university control.
Last month, a group of outraged students opposed to increased university influence planned a demonstration during Homecoming Week, a time during which alumni, donors, and other bigwigs come to campus for events to promote the school.
But the university responded by outright banning protests during homecoming and turning down a formal request to stage a protest. It then erected a literal fence around parts of campus, preventing students from approaching a building where the president would be hosting university donors for an event. University staff also tore down posters promoting a planned protest.
More than 100 students, faculty, and alumni staged a demonstration about changes to the student union anyway. During the October 13 protest, some protesters pierced the makeshift fence and crossed into the no-go zone.
Dan Seel, a student in a joint bachelor’s and master’s program in science and technology studies, has been involved in the fight over the student union since it began. He attended the demonstration and told The Intercept that both campus and city police were present, and a city police officer instructed demonstrators to stay off the grass and sidewalks but otherwise did not ask them to back off.
“That’s the only instruction we ever received as to how to act or where to be,” he said. “No one from the school ever talked to us or told us to back up behind the fence.”
Then, in early November, the university surprised protest organizers Michael Gardner and Bryan Johns by summoning them to a “judicial inquiry” over their behavior. The two students were charged with trespassing, failure to comply, and “operating a business,” a charge that comes from the act of handing out letters on campus related to the student union campaign. It is not yet clear what sanctions, if any, the students face, and a university spokesperson declined to comment on the specifics of the case.
A university review of the incident says the protest leaders were identified based on information from staff who were present, video footage, and a series of online photos and news reports.
Adam Steinbaugh, who works for the campus free-speech group Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, or FIRE, and has been monitoring the case, said the university is exhibiting a double standard on free speech.
“RPI’s desire to find some policy — any policy — to punish students for holding signs outside of a black-tie fundraiser or for distributing a letter is bizarre,” he told The Intercept. “Private institutions can’t promise freedom of speech while cashing the tuition check, then say it can’t be exercised whenever it might contrast with the institution’s promotional efforts.”
The university offered a muted response to The Intercept.
“It would be inappropriate to comment on any individual student’s situation related to the incident on October 13, 2017, in which individuals breached security barriers as part of an unauthorized demonstration which took place on our campus,” said Richie C. Hunter, vice president for strategic communications and external relations at the school.
Hunter’s response appears to be ripped from talking points authored by Dean of Students Travis T. Apgar, which were sent to the Rensselaer Alumni Association and then shared with students.
FIRE estimates one in 10 American colleges has some sort of free speech-zone policy — whereby a university strictly dictates where students are allowed to hold demonstrations and express themselves. But a university charging its students with trespass for protesting in a public, on-campus space takes these policies to a whole new level.
Top photo: Hundreds of protesters break through a fence set up by administrators at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute to contain an Oct. 13, 2017.
Regarding the talking points distributed by RPI’s AVP/DOSO if people on campus are asked questions by anyone:
What the talking points says is untrue about the hiring process.
The Union is running differently than it was forty, thirty, twenty and ten years ago.
What was said in the POLY article is:
“The same thing would happen with the staff. Staff in the Union would also interview individuals and give their opinion, whether it was for a director position in student activities, or an assistant director, or whatever those positions were. Then usually, someone from the campus would be involved, and depending on the position it might be somebody from the dean of students office. If it was a position in the Mueller Center, it might be somebody from the athletic department who would also be involved in that interview process.
PARSLOW: So, after the interviews were done, did that group of students make a recommendation to the Executive Board?
HARTT: Yes.
PARSLOW: Okay. Then did the Executive Board vote to approve them?
HARTT: The Executive Board would vote to either approve or disapprove the recommendation. Now, there would be a number of people from student government who would be involved in that process. A lot of Executive Board members would be involved in that process, and those individuals who were involved would make that presentation to the Executive Board.”
The recommendation of the interview committee was then acted on by the Union Executive Board which is all students.”
When I graduated from RPI in ’85 it was a very different school. And in the time Shirley Jackson has been president (one of the highest paid university president) RPI’s reputation, bond rating, and funds available have all declined. No way would I ever send my kids there nor recommend anyone to do so. At this point I would not even want to put on my resume that I graduated from there thinking it could help.
As a ’72 graduate of RPI I find the current state of affairs under Jackson to be incredulous and reprehensible. Not only is she pilfering the treasury by her excessive salary (as I recall #1 in the country) but it seems like she is dismantling a successfully functioning student-run union. The way things are currently being run it is questionable whether RPI as a private institution will see its 200th anniversary in 2024. One would hope that the board of trustees would intervene but, sadly, they appear to be unwilling to amend the current situation and in that regard I believe they are abrogating their responsibilities.
Zaid
Great story. Follow up with Universities that do Paid For studies to show
What their corporate paymasters want their studies to say and how they
Pay our Hallowed halls of higher learning to say whatever they want in a “non biased” way
Thanks for your good work
Keep corporate money out pf Universities. Destroy K Street
Looks like a well worded theft of student assets. Typical of the Predatory Class.
I’m seeing reports that the number of student protesters was more like 1,000 rather than 100. Might want to check that and perhaps amend the article.
It was probably around 500 I didn’t count everyone but that’s what it felt like
Free speech philosophy requires great care. We always want to oppose the lesser censorship, but not at the expense of encouraging censorship at a higher level. What I mean is that RPI is a private entity. And even though “trespassing” sounds as if it were a legal charge, “operating a business” doesn’t, so I would assume this “judicial inquiry” by the university is not some kind of actual court process. (Though since nowadays universities routinely manage to field their own police forces and conduct their own rape coverups that can be harder to determine than one would expect)
Unfortunately, the bottom line is that a private entity has some leeway to enforce private rules. The Intercept does the same thing by delaying and sometimes deleting comments in its comments section. That said, of course, within any private entity the freedom of speech should always remain a core goal, because it is a good idea for private entities for all the same reasons it’s a good idea for governments. The ability of a private entity to infringe speech can rapidly undermine its character and essence. Additionally, there is the question of whether paying customers have specific rights under contract that supersede the private entity’s power.
All that said, in private situations there can be a positive role to be played in making some infringements of freedom if they are genuinely intended to protect free speech rights, just as there can be violence levied to defend against violence. The Intercept shouldn’t censor, but if the comments section is overwhelmed by a thousand spam postings is that freedom, or censorship of the legitimate posters? That’s a good argument for why private entities exist in the first place, so that there is a place for independent individuals to make decisions like that. The government needs to allow them that right. Sometimes you need the right to do the wrong thing… And so if RPI thinks it’s a choice between holding a fundraising event or holding a protest, maybe it can pick which.
The key thing is whether the administrators are honest, compassionate, directed toward the well-being of their students. Interfering with a student’s education is something totally against what a teacher is trying to accomplish. So long as they think that way, and look for ways to de-escalate and settle things quietly, they can do good academic administration. As long as they don’t get involved in any rape cases, that is! Some things are for real cops to sort out.
“said Richie C. Hunter, vice president for strategic communications and external relations at the school.“
Vice President for strategic communications and external relations…in other words how to manipulate words, in order to justify any institutional position or decision to outside entities. Priceless. As if people don’t know what these titles actually mean. What a crock.
exactly..lol…it’s like a secular seminary ..teaching..if they ask this..you say this..if they talk about this..you talk about that..
Wow..those YouTube clips added to the article..great stuff..lol..
I guess the administration is trying to show the benefactors, alumni and parents how Authority and Obedience matters more than Speech and Critical Thinking.
Free speech zones are bullshit; the same for the “reasonable time and place” restrictions that the asshole Supreme Court ruled the government may use to limit demonstrations. There are exceptions to everything, but when the First Amendment says that “Congress shall make no law … abridging the freedom of speech … or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,” it means NO LAW. Time & place restrictions like free speech zones are blatant violations of the First Amendment, but our cowardly, dishonest, and corrupt courts have allowed this to become the law of the land.
Mommy and Daddy are forking over $50,000/year to R.P.I. and the kids can’t protest?
Is that what mommy and daddy are paying for? “When you come home for the holidays, you’d better not tell us you were so busy studying that you had no time for protesting!”
Sure, of course. What you mean is “You’d better not tell us you’re standing up for the first amendment, instead of being indoctrinated to join the privatization class”. Is that it?
Maybe the university board of trustees should just rename the university “TigerSwan” and call it a day.
Have the administration of universities that institute Free Speech zones ever been polled as to why they implemented them? What were the motivations/inspirations for doing so?
Money. Need we even ask?
These circumstances have precedent at RPI and represent only the latest manifestation of long standing tensions between the university’s president (and Trustees) and the student body (as well as a non-trivial percentage of faculty). In the paragraphs below, I’ve outlined what I believe are some of the important origins of this tension:
In April of 1998, the faculty senate convened for a vote of no confidence in former RPI President Pipes. The measure passed and in the following days Pipes announced his resignation. Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson became president of Rensselaer the following year, bringing big changes with her. Among her top priorities was reshaping the institution—something recognized by the Trustees as being vital for RPI if it wished to be competitive with its peers. It was this desire that led to the development of the Rensselaer Plan in 1999, a document defining bold strategic objectives for RPI.
The period between 1999 and 2006 was a time of plenty for Rensselaer; the school gained significant ground in national rankings, especially with the dramatic rise of the Lally School (Thompson, 2008). Dr. Jared Cohon, president of Carnegie-Mellon University stated, “change at Rensselaer in the last five years has occurred with a scope and swiftness that may be without precedent in the recent history of American higher education” (Bourgeois, 2006).
While the Rensselaer Plan was well received by the Trustees and led to progress, it caused waves in the faculty community. It constituted a serious change in mindset for RPI , implying an attempt to redefine Rensselaer as a university as opposed to a technical school. There was serious debate among faculty regarding the nature of the plan and how it was to be implemented, especially with regard to the rate at which President Jackson wanted changes to be made. Faculty-Administration tensions exploded in 2005 when the Faculty Senate, under Senate President Bruce Nauman, voted behind closed doors to pass a no-confidence motion against Provost G. P. “Bud” Peterson (Hamburg, 2005).
In April, 2006, amid concerns of transparency in the university’s administration, changes to the defined-pension plan, and a continuing drop in graduate student enrollment, the faculty senate convened to take a vote of no-confidence in President Jackson (Tibbetts, Professors vote on Jackson, 2006).
Former Faculty Chair, John Newell’s words seemed to echo from 1998, “My next concern is with the level of discontent among many faculty. Faculty are very concerned that some administrative practices and procedures initiated by the President have caused, and may continue to cause, unnecessary division among the faculty. Of particular concern is the recent adoption of a new budgeting process which forces the schools and their faculty to compete for resources” (Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Faculty Senate, 1998). The incredible advancements that RPI experienced from 1999 to 2006 came at a cost: The faculty felt that their ability to contribute to administrative decisions had been significantly reduced.
Faculty turnout for the 2006 Faculty Senate vote was higher than it had been in years with 63.4% of eligible voters participating. The result was 149 in favor, 155 against, and 16 abstaining, resulting in the measure failing (Tibbetts, 2006). Prompted by the vote, President Jackson convened a meeting of the full faculty and administration. The meeting’s discussion was centered around a debate on the Rensselaer Plan and what roles faculty and staff would have to play in its execution.
In August 2007 feelings between administrators and faculty took a turn for the worse. Provost Robert Palazzo suspended the Faculty Senate, citing the Senate’s failure to amend its constitution as directed by the Trustees (Wasley, 2007). Palazzo decreed that in the interim, a committee of Rensselaer faculty would be assembled to study the issue of faculty governance and submit a report to the Trustees and the Office of the President (Wasley, 2007).
Works cited:
Bourgeois, T. (2006, May 3). Board of Trustees Enthusiastically Endorses Leadership and Presidency of Dr. Shirley Ann Jackson. Retrieved April 25, 2009, from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute: 2005-2006 News Releases: http://news.rpi.edu/update.do?artcenterkey=1520&setappvar=page(1)
Hamburg, J. (2005, April 27). Faculty Senate votes no confidence in Peterson. Retrieved April 25, 2009, from Polytechnic Online: http://poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=3992&part=1
Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Faculty Senate. (1998, April 7). General Faculty Meeting: April 7, 1998. Retrieved April 25, 2009, from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Faculty Senate: http://www.rpi.edu/dept/facsen/1997-1998/4-7-1998Minutes.htm
Tibbetts, A. (2006, May 3). No Confidence Vote Shows Faculty Divide. Retrieved April 25, 2009, from Polytechnic Online: http://poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=4858&part=1
Tibbetts, A. (2006, April 27). Professors vote on Jackson. Retrieved April 25, 2009, from Polytechnic Online: http://poly.rpi.edu/article_view.php3?view=4828&part=1
Wasley, P. (2007, September 24). AAUP Criticizes Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Over Faculty Governance. Retrieved April 25, 2009, from The Chronical of Higher Education: http://chronicle.com/news/article/3097/aaup-criticizes-rensselaer-polytechnic-institute-over-faculty-governance
When Dubya said that “[the Constitution] was a goddam piece of paper” he was just stating the obvious and uncovering the government’s view of the perceived rights of the citizenry. The only Constitutional right the denizens of the USan Empire seem to have is the one that allows (and encourages) them to buy guns at Walmart. Everything else is just goddam piece of toilet paper.