A year after pro-Palestinian protesters pitched tents in University Yard, campus discourse feels as fractured as it did the days, weeks and months after Metropolitan Police Department officers cleared the demonstration. Since then, officials have moved swiftly and quietly to initiate student conduct proceedings, install permanent fencing around U-Yard and increase security presence during pro-Palestinian protests. GW leadership rightfully understood it was their responsibility to return campus to a state of normalcy, with University President Ellen Granberg vocalizing last May that officials had “rebuilding” to do. She also promised the Board of Trustees that she was “personally committed” to what she called “important work.”
But a year later, the divide between the encampment’s participants, opponents and GW leadership remains raw and unresolved. Officials attempted to heal campus by shoving the immediate and residual effects of the encampment — including the fear, pain, anger and distrust it sewed — under the rug, which impeded the community’s ability to rebuild. As an institution of higher education, GW has a responsibility to teach its students to reflect on their experiences, empathize with opposing sides, communicate their reasoning and admit when they make mistakes. University leaders must take the lead in discussing the fear and pain on all sides and their decision-making processes both during and following the encampment. They must show vulnerability and humility in their reflections on the demonstration and be candid about their mistakes. This includes answering questions and concerns about their response to the encampment and explaining their reasoning behind the behavior some community members criticized.
University leaders took steps in the right direction after MPD cleared the encampment by addressing the demonstration directly during Faculty Senate and Board meetings and through messages to the community. Granberg and Provost Chris Bracey wrote in a statement directly following the clearing that it “pains” them that the arrests of more than 30 protesters were necessary, and they “recognize that many members of our community on all sides are hurting.”
Those steps also included efforts to bolster free speech, safety policies and productive discourse on campus. Officials updated the Strengthening our Community website in August to tackle free speech concerns and created working groups over the summer for faculty to give recommendations about “identified community challenges.” They also hosted community discussions on having “difficult and nuanced conversations” during November’s Interfaith Week.
But the encampment stirred heightened emotions for everyone on campus, including administrators, which will continue to linger until officials address them head on. It’s understandable why officials were fearful of the two week long demonstration, as it attracted people who aren’t affiliated with the University, including students from other colleges, counterprotesters and members of Congress. The unease was evident as Bracey asked a protester, “You think I’m afraid of this?” as he walked through U-Yard, flanked by demonstrators. Granberg later defined the encampment as “potentially dangerous” on the protest’s second week. We ask that officials publicly reflect on their vulnerable moments during the encampment as they evaluate the lasting impact the demonstration has had on community discourse. Having honest, emotional conversations about the encampment and current campus dynamics is necessary for community members to begin trusting each other and the University again.
Students and faculty, through reports, resolutions and social media posts, have asked officials to address their concerns about their handling of the encampment but have yet to receive a public University response. A Faculty Senate subcommittee last semester drafted a report, which was later endorsed by the full senate in February, identifying discrepancies between students arrested during the encampment and officials’ accounts of the University’s role in disciplining the students arrests. In order to build back trust, officials must publicly explain the discrepancies the committee identified and chart a path forward.
While we wouldn’t expect GW to have perfectly handled the demonstration due to its unprecedented nature, officials must use these conversations to address concerns and questions raised by community members about their response to the encampment, and acknowledge where they went wrong. This starts with University leaders showing humility and accountability.
The editorial board consists of Hatchet staff members and operates separately from the newsroom. This week’s staff editorial was written by Opinions Editor Andrea Mendoza-Melchor, based on discussions with Research Assistant Carly Cavanaugh, Sports Columnist Sydney Heise and incoming Contributing Sports Editor Grant Pacernick.
