Four professors--from the History, Economics, and Mathematics Departments—were eyewitnesses to the events at Cunniffe House on April 27, 2017. They shared their account with the university administration on May 5, 2017, and gave permission for it to be published here.
We were present at
the student demonstration on Thursday 27 April and we were able to observe the
entire event. We write to share our account, and our concerns. We state at the
outset that we do not condone violence of any kind by anyone, including at
demonstrations and protests. A group of students, supported by numerous
faculty, held signs in front of Walsh Library and made statements and chants
through a megaphone. The demonstration then proceeded in an orderly and
peaceful fashion to Cunniffe House. The students were respectful and the
slogans were what could be expected for a protest but not profane, rude, or
inappropriate. They did not block people from walking through the demonstration
group or prevent people from crossing in front of them.
The students carried
no weapons and they were peaceful.
Once the
demonstration reached Cunniffe House, a sudden scuffle occurred as a small
number of students tried to enter the building and were physically prevented by
large, physically imposing security personnel, with some force on both sides.
At the time the scuffle occurred, we were standing on the sidewalk directly in
front of the stairs leading up to Cunniffe, and we had a clear view of the
patio and the exterior doors of Cunniffe. (Chris Rodgers, Dean of Students at
Rose Hill, was standing on the sidewalk along the road about 20-30 yards behind
us. We faculty observers were much closer to the activity and therefore in a
better position than Dean Rodgers to observe and to judge the activity).
An e-blast sent to
the university community from the News and Media Relations Bureau on 2 May
claims that “no protestors were injured.” To the contrary, we saw one female
student who looked to be about five feet tall leave Cunniffe crying and holding
her arm, and her arm or shoulder appeared to have been injured. It is not clear
to us that the degree of force used by security in this case was warranted.
The e-blast dated 2
May claims that the “director of Public Safety at Rose Hill sustained a gash on
his left hand and . . . another Public Safety supervisor received a cut to his
forearm.” Members of security are university employees like ourselves who
deserve our sympathy and who act on the decisions of superiors. We did not see
any security personnel emerge with injuries or cuts.
We think it is
important to know just how and with what evidence authorities reached the
decision to penalize the fourteen students and whether the University
considered as well the actions of security personnel and, more importantly, the
authorities that directed them. Greater openness on the part of the university
at this event can only lead to greater respect for their authority and
decisions and to better decision-making in the future.
Altercations between
specific student protesters and security that involved injuries to either side
need to be dealt with, of course, but in a manner conforming to ideals of due
process and justice. The punishments handed down by the Office of Student Life,
however, go beyond the few students involved in the scuffle and extends to
others, fourteen total.
The 2 May e-blast
states that, “given the seriousness of the protestors’ actions, a number of
students’ access to campus was suspended from Friday evening to Sunday
evening.” This letter intimates that the fourteen students who were banned from
campus were present at the demonstration and were involved in the scuffle with
security. As close eyewitnesses, we can categorically state that this
information is not true. There were not fourteen students inside the entry to
Cunniffe when the scuffle occurred. With regard to the students who were
standing on the patio, we observed no action that could be deemed
disrespectful, disruptive, or inappropriate. The students we watched and heard
speak at Cunniffe House read carefully prepared, thoughtful, and respectful
statements. They did not use profanities or condone a clash between the
administration and the students. Rather, their speeches implored the Fordham
University President Joseph McShane to listen to their pleas to live up
Fordham’s values of social justice. Their speeches aligned with the ideals of
Jesuit teaching and statements made by the Catholic Church. The students who
supported them held up signs and followed the chants, but were completely respectful
of others and of the security personnel. We can see no justification for some
of the punishments being handed down summarily.
Specifically, one senior Honors Program
student who was not even present for any part of the demonstration was banned
from campus last weekend. He was banned from using the university library to
work on his honors thesis. He was banned from attending all of his senior
spring weekend activities. From what we can gather from speaking with the
student, he was punished because his name was on an email to the faculty
inviting the faculty to support the demonstration. If signing protest emails is
a punishable offense at Fordham, not only is that a miscarriage of justice, but
then who among us is not guilty? Such punishments can only further diminish the
free exchange of ideas that should be hallmarks of a university education but
which are currently in short supply at Fordham.
Other than the brief
incident at the doors of Cunniffe, the only other “offense” students committed
was not getting the Dean of Students’ permission to exercise their right to
free speech. We are shocked that this is considered a serious breach at this
Jesuit university whose President challenges each incoming first year class to
“be bothered” by injustice and to act to effect change.
These students were
bothered by injustice. They acted to effect change. And now fourteen of
them—including at least one who was not even present at the demonstration—face
closed-door disciplinary hearings where they will not have access to
representation.
Given our close
observation of the events, we eyewitnesses believe it is important (as with the
altercation itself) for the Office of Student Life to explain not only its
policies on such matters, but its decision-making process in this case. We have
the uneasy feeling that these students are being accused and penalized without
consideration or opportunity to share their account of events and without
sufficient consultation of people who saw and heard what happened.
Thus, we ask that the
Office of Student Life should be directed to specify the charges against
students not involved in any altercation, as well as the harm caused by the
demonstration itself. A university disciplinary process that appears so
one-sided and prejudicial can only produce grave suspicion about the
university’s commitment to fairness and justice—to its own mission, in fact.
Please show us this is not the case.
Respectfully,
W. David Myers, Ph.D.
Professor and Chair
Department of History
Mary Beth Combs,
Ph.D.
Associate Professor
Department of
Economics
Member, National
Steering Committee on Justice in Jesuit Higher Education
Johanna Francis,
Ph.D.
Associate Professor
and Associate Chair
Department of
Economics
Melkana
Brakalova-Trevithick, Ph.D, M.Ed
Associate Professor
Mathematics
Department
Comments
Post a Comment