Qualifications for University-Sanctioned Protest

On Feb. 24, following the Parkland school shooting and resultant protests, Washington University sent out the following tweet: “#WashU22 Applicants: We encourage civic engagement. Your acceptance will not be rescinded if you are disciplined for engaging in peaceful protest. March on.” When I read this the first time, it seemed reassuring. I think that it is important for a university to reassure its incoming class of first years that they will not be discriminated against because they used their rights to assemble speak freely. On reading it again, when Chancellor Wrighton retweeted it, I began to think about why a tweet like that would be necessary, how it should go without saying that an institution of higher learning wouldn’t punish students for exercising their rights. Finally, I started thinking about how it compared to both the University and the chancellor’s response to protest and activism here, on campus, by currently enrolled students.

[pullquote]Finally, I started thinking about how this tweet compared to both the University and the chancellor’s response to protest and activism here, on campus, by currently enrolled students.[/pullquote]

Protest has been a defining feature of my time as a student at the university. A few days before I came to St. Louis to start as a freshman in 2014, Darren Wilson—a police officer in Ferguson— shot and killed Michael Brown. The St. Louis community came together both to memorialize him and to protest against the rampant police violence, militarized policing, and systemic targeting of people and communities of color. Some students went to join these protests. There was no statement in support of protest from the university.

Before Thanksgiving of that year, a grand jury failed to indict Darren Wilson, dismissing the case with no charges. People came together again to protest the judicial system’s treatment of the case, with a widespread feeling that the prosecutor was not trying to secure an indictment. Much of the protest was against the systemic racism within both the judicial system and the police force. Again, some students went to join these protests. Again, there was no statement in support of protest from the University. Instead, there was an email sent out on behalf of Chancellor Wrighton which said the following:

“At this point, we have experienced very little in the way of protest activity on or near our campuses, and all has been peaceful. However, none of us can predict what might transpire over the coming days and weeks, so we have taken every precaution to be well prepared. … Our Emergency Response plans are up-to-date and thoroughly vetted. We have solid procedures and infrastructure in place. If it might become necessary, we are prepared to activate 24-hour, 7-day-a-week Emergency Operations Centers to manage any necessary response across all of our university functions.”

Rather than supporting students protesting, this email celebrated the lack of protest happening on campus. It used fear-mongering and vaguely threatening language, talking about what additional (police) response might be necessary if students were to protest on campus, and alluded to precautions and responses for any scenario which might arise. This email was sent on the heels of then-Governor Nixon sending the national guard into the St. Louis streets, also as a “precaution,” a move which dramatically escalated tensions and ramped up the militarized police presence already in the city and county.

Nearly a month later, as the semester drew to a close, Chancellor Wrighton sent out an email that technically supported student protest. In it, he said, “I am proud of all of our students and of the work they are doing in classrooms, in laboratories and in studios and, yes, on the streets and sidewalks of St. Louis, to help raise the awareness of what is wrong and what, together, we can do to begin to set it right.” To me, and to many other students at the time, this was too little, too late.

[pullquote]Nearly a month later, as the semester drew to a close, Chancellor Wrighton sent out an email that technically supported student protest… To me, and to many other students at the time, this was too little, too late.[/pullquote]

Fast forward three years to last semester when the Stockley verdict comes out, which found another police officer not guilty after shooting a black man. This time, protest was not as removed from campus as it was in 2014. These protests happened in St. Louis City, outside city hall, in the Central West End, and on Delmar. Students joined the marches and witnessed heavy bouts of police brutality including kettling, mass arrests, and “nonlethal” weaponry such as rubber bullets and tear gas. Some student protestors were among the victims of this police violence, but still there was no tweet or email that sent by Chancellor Wrighton or the University supporting student protestors. The one email which did concern protests stated that the University’s position is to “certainly encourage [students] to stay on campus and participate in community activities here.” Rather than supporting students who went to join with the St. Louis community, university administration urged us to further silo ourselves off and stay in our safe privileged bubble.

So why am I writing this then? Shouldn’t I be happy that the WashU is turning over a new leaf, embracing the activist bent of their newest class, and making it clear that it stands behind them? I guess I would be if I really thought that’s what they were doing, but there are two distinct differences which come to mind between the walk-out movement currently happening and the Ferguson or Stockley protests, one which is more specific to Washington University, and one which is more universal. First, the impetus for the recent gun control protests did not start here in St. Louis. Thus, the protests are not going to be directed at power structures with which the university has any ties or complicity. Unfortunately, the university acts differently (with much less care) when a movement challenges something that the university or a member of the board of trustees has financial ties to, such as coal or private prisons.

Secondly, and this is a more global issue, is the racializing of different types of protest. The faces of the March for Our Lives are majority white and lighter skinned, while the faces of the Ferguson, Black Lives Matter, and Stockley protests were majority black and darker skinned. This has not just affected how Washington University has responded, but also how press and public opinion nationwide has reacted to them and is honestly deserving of its own article and analysis. One symptom of a systemically racist society is the difference in assumptions of behavior. When hundreds or thousands of black people marched, the university, the media, and the police all prepared for violence. When hundreds or thousands of white people march, the media is quick to give interviews and the university tweeted out its support. This doesn’t just affect peoples’ perception of protest. Rather, university-spread fear mongering gives cover to violent actions from police which puts already marginalized people of color (including students) in direct physical danger.

[pullquote]When hundreds or thousands of black people marched, the university, the media, and the police all prepared for violence. When hundreds or thousands of white people march, the media is quick to give interviews and the university tweeted out its support.[/pullquote]

That tweet was a risk-free move for the university. By widely sharing it through at least three university associated twitter accounts, Wash U gets good publicity for standing behind what is a widely uncontroversial—to its donor and applicant base—widespread youth protest movement, with no concern that the movement will make life uncomfortable for University administration or anyone associated, or that Wash U would need to take any real actions to back up their words. To me, that doesn’t count as “supporting civic engagement,” let alone supporting student protest and activism.

In the past few weeks, it has become painfully clear that there is a systemic national problem in different perceptions of protest based around race. It does not just exist within our university bubble. When I went to the St. Louis March for Our Lives, there were police smiling, relaxed, not expecting any trouble. I didn’t see even one cop with a hand on their weapon, let alone a full battalion outfitted in riot gear, hands clutching their batons and shields, yelling at us as happened to us just months ago, not three blocks away during the Stockley protests. However, however large the scope of this problem is, it does not give our community and leadership a pass to follow suit and do the same. Washington University’s response is one where we as a student body should have a say. As students at such a privileged institution, we have a responsibility to speak out. If we don’t, it will only be read as tacit support for the university’s default positions. With a new chancellor coming in the near future, it will be on the student body to demand that university administration respect student and community voices and protest rather than condemn them. History has shown that left to their own devices, the university will isolate itself from communal issues in the name of “safety” unless forced to do otherwise.

This is a case where I really hope I’m wrong. I hope I’m reading the situation incorrectly, and the next time students stand up to protest police brutality, systemic racism, discriminatory immigration policy, rights to unionize, or environmental justice, the administration will—freely and without prompting—publicly signal their support for those students. Given the history of the past four years however, I’m not counting on it.

Jonah Klein-Barton ‘18 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at j.klein-barton@wustl.edu.