Remembering Students Against Peabody: A Reflection on Student Activism at Wash U
College campuses have long been considered hotbeds for young student activism. Between interactions with new people from a variety of backgrounds, and challenging exposure to classes addressing structural forms of inequality, it is often during their college years that young people start questioning their role within these systems and look to create change within their communities. This trend is no different at Wash U, which has a long history of student activism and protest. But speaking to students today, it is unclear if this same passion and drive continues to exist. To examine this issue, it is important that we place the current classes of 2018-2021 within a much larger context of student engagement.
Roots of Activism
Student activism has existed prominently since the 1920s, before truly becoming a well-known phenomenon in the 1960s with the rise of the counterculture. Wash U has been no stranger to this ebb and flow of activism. The University was one of many to adopt a Students for a Democratic Society during the 1950s, a New Left organization which aimed to lift up schools as a tool for social change. An anti-war presence has also existed on campus, culminating in episodes of setting the ROTC building on fire in protest of the Vietnam War in 1970, as well as protesters burning an American flag in protest of the U.S. presence in Iran in 1979.
In addition, Wash U students have been participating in direct action demanding better of the school itself for decades. In 1968, demonstrators staged sit-ins and protests in Brookings Hall in a call for better treatment of black students and the addition of a Black Studies program following the police beating of a black Wash U student. 2005 saw students’ lengthy sit-in and accompanying hunger strike to push for fair wages and benefits for workers on campus. In 2014, some Wash U students joined millions around the country in protest of the murder of Michael Brown, which occurred just a few miles away from Wash U’s campus in Ferguson, Missouri. In the wake of the shooting, Wash U joined other schools in the St. Louis area in calling for a better quality of life for students of color on campus. Through various acts of solidarity (including a campus-wide silent walkout), they spoke out against the routine killing of unarmed black youth by the police,
bringing attention to the systematic injustices at the root of his death. They demanded action from their administration and peers. So where does student activism stand today? Are students as passionate about demanding change as they were in the 60s, 70s, or even 2014? Or has apathy and disengagement taken place?
Students Against Peabody
This question can’t be fully answered without first reflecting on the largest and longest held student action held in recent years: Students Against Peabody (SAP). In the spring semester of 2014, hundreds of students occupied the steps of Brookings for 17 days in protest of Wash U’s financial and administrative connections to Peabody Energy Corporation.
Peabody is the largest private-sector coal company in the world. At the time of the 2014 demonstrations, its CEO, Greg Boyce, was a member of Wash U’s Board of Trustees. This meant that a man representing a company well known for its exploitative labor practices, occupation of indigenous land, environmental degradation, and human rights violations, held the privilege of contributing to our University’s administrative and financial decisions. In addition, Peabody also sponsored the creation of Wash U’s Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization, whose goal is to “foster the utilization of coal as a safe and affordable source of energy, and as a chemical feedstock, with minimal impact on
the environment.” Considering that Peabody is the world’s largest contributor to coal use, this move has been criticized as a way to cover up the real impact that Wash U’s continued investment in such companies has on the environment and our collective future.
Through various rallies, events, and occupying Brookings, over 2,000 students participated in demanding that Greg Boyce step down from his position, in anticipation of the upcoming Board of Trustees election. On May 2, 100 students marched to the Board of Trustees Office to deliver a letter of resignation to Boyce during a Board of Trustees meeting. This action was met by police in riot gear and the arrest of 7 students. Ultimately, Boyce was re-elected.
Activism Today
Despite the administration’s patterns of ignoring the outcries of its students’ protests, it joined its peers in announcing that high schoolers choosing to walk out in defiance of lax U.S. gun laws would not face threats to their admission. In February 2018, they tweeted “WashU22 Applicants: We encourage civic engagement. Your acceptance will not be rescinded if you are disciplined for engaging in peaceful protest. March on.” This declaration proposes another contradiction in Wash U’s image and rhetoric surrounding protest. Wash U’s Official Statement on Demonstrations and Protests, reads: “In pursuit of its mission to promote teaching and learning, Washington University in St. Louis encourages students, faculty and staff to be bold, independent and creative thinkers.” However, it goes on to say that students’ rights to free speech, assembly, and expression do not include “any activity that disrupts or obstructs the functions of the university or imminently threatens such disruption or obstruction.” These two statements seemingly contradict one another. Protests, the vehicle through which student can demonstrate their bold thinking and demand change, by their very nature are meant to disrupt—the SAP demonstrations lasted for as long as they did because of their disruptive nature, forcing the administration and student body to acknowledge the issues at hand. Within an atmosphere as regulated and insular as a college campus – with its hour by hour class schedule, perfectly demarcated walking paths, and swipe-access residential buildings, “disruption” is how activists force their peers to look up from their phones, pause from their booked schedules, and pay attention to issues that are larger than themselves. It promotes typically apathetic individuals to ask themselves critical questions about the status quo. How much weight can Wash U’s #MarchOn tweet truly hold when they overtly discourage disruptive activity on its campus? The University cannot both champion engagement in peaceful protests and watch on as its own students get dragged away in arrest for partaking in a peaceful direct action.
The Wash U Administration’s cold response to student activism may explain the results of the following survey questions. A majority of respondents indicated that they had taken part in an off-campus activist event, while less than a third had engaged in activism on Wash U’s campus. Indeed, our results also indicate that Wash U students perceive the administrative as unresponsive to student demands, with the majority of respondents rating the school a 1 or 2 out of 5 on a responsiveness scale. If a student body is made to learn the intensely stubborn nature of their administration, they may logically be less inclined to participate in campus activism. Protests falling on deaf ears will discourage students from pushing for social justice, but may drive them out to pursue activist efforts in the greater area of the University.
St. Louis is a highly politicized city. With high rates of police brutality, huge wealth discrepancies, and environmental issues of its own, the St. Louis area is ripe with opportunities for participatory democracy. As with the protests reacting to the Stockley verdict, some of these collective action events take place just adjacent to campus. 62.3% of survey respondents answered that they had participated in a St. Louis activist event off-campus. This trend negates the college stereotype of the “campus bubble,” as Wash U students who are willing to protest seem more inclined to go out into greater St. Louis than demonstrate within the bubble. Somewhat surprisingly, a typical respondent to our survey prefers to act on a much a larger democratic stage, electing to speak out as one voice in 300 million Americans rather than one in 7,500 students. Furthermore, as a sizeable U.S. city, St. Louis has taken part in nationwide Trump-era movements like the Women’s March and the March for Our Lives. These events take place on a massive scale, and are relatively easy and lowrisk to participate in, as far as activist events go. Could this changing political landscape signify an evolution of the concept of student activism itself?
Students may see calling for the action of city, county, state, or country politicians as a more productive use of resources than a call to action for an administration, or a board of trustees. But this conclusion is troubling – as students, we are the only people who can hold our university accountable for its actions – actions that impact the city of St. Louis and communities beyond our “bubble.” While participating in large marches is an important act of solidarity, they can’t be seen as a replacement for the important work of students on-campus. Instead, these forms of activism must work together and simultaneously, in order to both support those organizing beyond the borders of campus, while doing our part within it.
The logistical setbacks of student activism, and the body of students that occupy such a space, may also dampen enthusiasm for campus action. Student activists exist in a four-year revolving door, allowing administrative forces to employ successful stalling techniques. Empty promises hold little accountability when a fresh set of faces appears every few years. These new students have little to no memory or knowledge of a given movement’s history and progress, allowing those they are pushing against to continue a cycle of perpetuating false optimism. More typical political spaces, on the other hand, can actually develop when people have the opportunity to build upon a history of successes and failures. Larger-scale politics will in most cases be less of an uphill battle.
Activism Tomorrow?
As we approach the 4th anniversary of the Student Against Peabody, it is important that students reflect on past actions, both to learn valuable lessons and for future inspiration. Through its activism, SAP continuously emphasized the disproportionate impact that Peabody’s actions had on low-income communities, communities of color, and indigenous peoples; reflecting an intersectional approach to social justice, rather than one privileging white, middle class people – something movements as powerful as the Women’s March and March for Our Lives have been criticized for lacking. In addition, SAP proved that students with little formal organizing background could mobilize a campaign of this magnitude. The students of SAP, some of whom will be graduating this May, are our peers. They demonstrated the power of student voice, and the obligation that we as the beneficiaries of our prestigious Washington University education have in demanding that this education does not come at the cost of others. Ultimately, apathy is a choice. As Wash U students, as much as our predecessors did in 2014 or in 1960, we can choose action instead.
Hanna Khalil ‘20 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. She can be reached at hannakhalil@wustl.edu. Max Lichtenstein ‘20 studies in the College of Arts & Sciences. He can be reached at max.lichtenstein@wustl.edu.