In mid-September, a video of Wash U senior, Fadel Alkilani, went viral after it was released on social media by the Young America’s Foundation, a conservative youth organization. Alkilani had been recorded collecting flags from a College Republicans’ 9/11 memorial as a part of an uncompleted counter-protest. Outrage and controversy – including threats against him and his family – ensued within and beyond the Wash U community, as intended by these organizations.
On Monday, October 22nd, StudLife published an article describing the sanctions the university had leveled against Alkilani after his student conduct investigation: probation for the remainder of his enrollment, a $500 restitution fine, and a reflective essay.
After his video blew up, Alkilani released a statement giving more context for his actions. He explained that he had intended to relocate the flags and construct a new memorial which would also raise awareness of the many Muslim lives lost as a result of the surge in Islamophobia in the wake of the terrorist attacks. Only, he was interrupted and harassed by the recorder of the video, leaving his project incomplete. Those ignorant to the context of his actions were appalled and insistent that he be punished for disrespecting the nation and the victims. People defending Alkilani believed his cause honorable and current memorial practices benefited from his modification and improvements that dispel the Islamophobic, pro-imperialism sentiments, and help unify communities of different identities in our society.
If Alkilani’s protest was meant to acquit us from Islamophobia, which indeed has been excluded from the 9/11 memorial narrative over the past two decades, I can hardly see how he has disrespected his nation. Rather, Alkilani was advocating for a multifaceted perception of an extremely traumatic event and trying to give a voice to marginalized Muslims to promote mutual understanding.
As for accusations that he insulted the victims of 9/11 and their families, I do not reckon his actions were more offensive than the practice of representing all 2,977 individuals indiscriminately with the American flag already is. Not only did the 2,977 victims include foreign citizens from over 90 different countries, but the terrorist attacks were also a direct response to U.S. military operations in Saudi Arabia. By representing each of the victims of the attacks with an American flag, College Republicans made it impossible to challenge the dominant narrative regarding the cause and aftermath of 9/11 without also bringing American hegemony and one’s own patriotism into question.
Debates about the memorial and method of protest aside, I am most disturbed by the university’s subservience to the right-wing organizations that circulated the video to begin with. When Islamophobic comments and threats, including some by Wash U students, overtook social media, Chancellor Martin censored Alkilani and failed to acknowledge or condemn this hateful speech in his email to the community. After College Republicans pursued disciplinary actions, it seems that the administration did not take Alkilani’s statement into account and simply pandered to the conservatives’ desire for revenge. The extent to which the university has gone to appease these political organizations at the cost of free speech and support for their own student is rather alarming.
If the administration wants to put someone on probation to de-escalate the situation, I recommend Nick Rodriguez, chairman of WU College Republicans. He is responsible for using the video to garner political attention through the Young America’s Foundation and other news outlets, thereby instigating national outrage and death threats against Wash U students. He even posted his own threat against Alkilani on social media: under an image of him standing triumphantly behind the restored flags on Mudd Field, he wrote “@fadeloh come touch Old Glory again, and you will fuck around n find out.”
Rodriquez’s actions make it apparent that he has failed to learn how to tolerate different opinions, how to view an ideology critically, or how to sympathize with his less wealthy and less protected peers. Investing educational resources in individuals of his kind seems like a massive waste and a disappointing acquiescence to the toxic legacy of American imperialism and the continuation of injustice in our society. I do not pay over $50,000 of tuition every year so that my alma mater can kiss up to maniacs who doxxed a student and threatened the lives of his family as well as those of the broader Wash U community. I did not choose to become a part of a community whose leaders implicate themselves by taking no preventive measures, advise instructors against excusing absences due to safety concerns, and implement excessively punitive sanctions. I find my principles at odds with the values of this university, whose persecution of individuals and suppression of free speech at some right-wing extremists’ behest are utterly unacceptable-a student should never be oppressed, terrorized, or silenced when they express themselves.
Yet, as a ‘progressive’ institution, the university not only endorses conservative politics supporting American hegemony but also attempts to re-educate a student whom it deems too liberal with a mandatory reflective essay. In a confidential letter released by College Republicans as a celebration for their victory, the administration claimed that this educational remedy was meant for Alkilani to produce “meaningful reflection on his actions and their impact on other members of our community,” justifying it with violations of the Wash U Student Code of Conduct. It appears that one other individual whose actions had much more noticeable impacts on us and who could really use a reflection of this sort has completely escaped them.
The very first section of the code states that “nothing in this Code should be construed to limit the free and open exchange of ideas and viewpoints, even if that exchange proves to be offensive, distasteful, disturbing or denigrating to some…The University reserves the right to take necessary and appropriate action to protect the safety and well-being of the campus community, notwithstanding the provisions in this Code.” It seems to me that the university has failed to follow its own code of conduct, which leaves me wondering: What does our school truly value? Undoubtedly, some will find our actions, including this article, “offensive,” but I anticipate the response from Washington University in St. Louis solely, not as a mere appendage of said groups, but as an institution of higher education, whose raison d’être is the nurturing of critical thinkers and free minds.