Students invited to the presentation thought that the meeting was about Wellesley College switching shuttle bus contractors, from Peter Pan to Local Motion. Instead, after discussing transportation logistics, administrators unveiled plans for an interim policy on demonstration and free expression.

“I would say that everyone was kind of blindsided, because we thought this was going to be a meaning about transportation and the bus specifically, but it ended up being this big presentation of this new policy,” said Pollack.

According to a copy of the presentation obtained by the News, the interim protest policy included time, place, and manner restrictions, and required organizers to register any planned demonstrations with campus police. 

When Dean Sheilah Horton announced the policy to the wider campus community via email two days later, it was met with immediate backlash. Six students wrote an open letter in response within minutes, and a petition opposing the policy began to circulate.

On Sep. 4, less than one week after Dean Horton’s official statement, President Paula Johnson suspended the interim policy.

Following the suspension of the interim policy, Wellesley College worked with members of the community to design a permanent demonstration policy. Administrators received input from the Task Force on Speech and Inclusion, which included students and faculty, as well as an Ad-Hoc Committee convened by College Government, which consisted entirely of student representatives.

Pollack, who was a member of the Ad-Hoc Committee, says that the biggest impact of student feedback on the final policy was the diminished role of campus police. As they recall, there was a disconnect between administrators and student representatives regarding the role of campus police.

According to Pollack, “A few of us brought up the fact that they [campus police] contributed to a feeling of lack of safety on campus, one of the reasons being that they carried guns. And I remember Dean Horton not knowing that campus police carried guns.”

Despite progress on the involvement of campus police, concerns about a lack of community input persisted. The Task Force on Speech and Inclusion held two town hall meetings to discuss the policy during the fall of 2018, and members expressed concerns about the lack of attendance.

Professor of Peace and Justice Studies Catia Confortini told Sophie Hurwitz ‘21 in a Wellesley News article, “I think the Task Force is doing a great job, but the number of people who showed up was a little bit disappointing for me. It’s frustrating when people complain that ‘this policy was written without me,’ and then don’t participate in important conversations when they have the chance.”

Revisions to the protest policy continued for over a year. The final policy on demonstrations and free expression was released to students via email on Nov. 25, 2019.

The permanent policy includes time, place, and manner restrictions similar to the interim policy with the stated purpose of maintaining campus safety and minimizing disruption to students’ education. 

Organizers are required to register protests with administrators, not campus police, but officers still retain the ability “to respond to threats of violence and acts of violence without first contacting demonstration organizers or Wellesley College administrators.”  

Mikayla Tansil ‘25, the Community Organizing and Inclusion Liaison (COIL) for the 2023-2024 and 2024-2025 school years, has also attempted to ease the registration process by offering organizers the option to communicate plans for demonstrations through the COIL instead of going to administrators directly.

The protest policy was thrust into the spotlight in spring 2024 in the aftermath of the Hillary Rodham Clinton Center (HRCC) Summit. The summit, meant to promote democracy and celebrate the recently created HRCC, was met by opposition from pro-Palestinian protesters who argued that the HRCC was complicit in the ongoing tragedy in Gaza.

While the majority of protesters remained outside of Alumnae Hall as instructed by administrators under the authority of the protest policy, four students disrupted panels inside the event. 

The disruptors were removed and charged with “disorderly conduct and/or failure to comply with administration.” Instead of being resolved through an Honor Code Hearing, which involves students, faculty, and administrators, their cases were adjudicated via administrative resolution, which involved only administrators and the student being charged.

In an email statement to the News, Dean Horton explained the decision to use administrative resolution, writing, “The administrative resolution is typically used with cases that do not require fact finding because the facts are clear, and the incident requires a swift response. […] Last spring, the facts were clear – it was a high level security event and a disruption would be considered a violation and there was an undisputed disruption.”

Further protests ensued outside of each of the disruptors’ administrative resolution sessions.

Alex Teasley ‘27, was at the original protest outside of Alumnae Hall during the HRCC Summit, and attended the protests for the second, third, and fourth disruptors outside of their resolution sessions.

Teasley alleges that at the protest for the fourth disruptor, a former Associate Director for Residential Life threatened them with honor code charges for using a megaphone, including a specific threat to process the charge using administrative resolution.

When asked by the News if it was typical procedure to refer a student to administrative resolution at the time of an alleged incident, Dean Horton stated that she could not confirm whether Teasley’s story was accurate.

As her tenure as COIL comes to a close, Tansil said that there are still changes she would like to see made to the protest policy, but “things have been a little quiet, it’s sort of just been swept under the rug.”

For more in-depth interviews on the creation of the protest policy and its impact on the Wellesley community, listen to the latest episode of the Word on Wellesley (WoW!), the Wellesley News official podcast, on Spotify.

Contact the editors responsible for this story: Sazma Sarwar, Jessica Chen and Valida Pau.

The growing number of these raids left many first generation and immigrant populations at Wellesley feeling anxious and uncertain about their futures. Paloma Ayala ’27, a Houston native, expressed her initial thoughts about the mass deportations occurring throughout the US Ayala explains that her family had been preparing for a Trump presidency for a while, and rushed to get their citizenship before he took office. 

 “Knowing that [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] ICE is now detaining naturalized citizens and residents, I am not only scared for my parents but also for my loved ones, the family of friends and my neighbors,” she said. “I feel helpless and every day I pray that nothing will happen to my mom or dad.” 

She emphasized that her parents are hardworking people who have sacrificed so much for their family, much like many immigrants, residents and naturalized citizens. 

“My heart just aches at the thought of so many families being separated,“ Ayala said.

Houston is a blue city within a predominantly red state. While it shares many of the same progressive views as other liberal-leaning cities, it exists in a state that supports more conservative policies. Despite this, Ayala explained how the Houston populace has come together in support of immigrant rights and have led numerous protests. 

“I am happy our community is speaking out on these issues back home. People of all ages are heading out to the hot spots in Houston to speak out against all of the mass deportations. There have been sightings of hate groups during these protests, and that is one of the things that scares me. I just wish there was more support with our state government, it feels like we are being left out,” Ayala said. 

On Jan. 14, disruptors carrying Nazi flags and white supremacist imagery gathered on an overpass in Houston, in response to recent demonstrations. This  is a reflection of the broader, dangerous ideology shared by these right-leaning groups, which continue to promote hate and discrimination across the country. Meanwhile, ICE agents have been criticized for acting on their own biases, disproportionately stopping individuals who appear to be Latinx. The hasty generalizations of immigration agents have led to the detainment of naturalized or birthright citizens. 

Another Houston native student at Wellesley College called the actions of ICE agents inhumane because of their tactics for arrest — often targeting places of community and culture. This has made people in the Houston community fear being in public spaces. They comment that while the Houston residents have protested, universities, which enroll many concerned students, have either remained silent or failed to provide adequate resources to support them. The student sees that same lack of action at Wellesley. They point out they haven’t seen any explicit aid from the administration or even statements that support students during a time of increased federal raids and intimidation. Ayala echoes this, saying she has only seen actions undertaken by students and the Office of Intercultural Education.

“Some clubs have been hosting support groups and there have been some emails that have been sent out by some individuals, but I have yet to hear anything from the college. Many students on this campus are terrified for their families, loved ones, and themselves. I think the least the college can do is to send out their support to the student body. The students are waiting for a bit of compassion,” said Ayala. 

Both students expressed that it is important for all community members, whether in a city or at a college campus, to come together to offer mutual support during such a confusing and stressful time. Ayala highlighted how it is disheartening for many students to witness a lack of proactive support from administration, especially when she believes their role should be to protect and progress the college and university collective, regardless of their immigration status. She believes it is through unity and shared compassion that people can ensure no one faces the challenges created by the new administration alone. 

Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

Contact the editor responsible for this story: Phoebe Rebhorn

“Regarding the policy’s requirement for two days advance notification of ‘time, place and manner,’ some students want to know if this is intended to prevent protests. The answer is no, that is not the intent. Rather, we ask for this information to protect the safety of students protesting and allow for the operations of the College to continue. All of our peer colleges and universities have similar policies for this reason,” Dean Horton clarified. 

While Dean Horton emphasizes that the free expression policy is meant to ensure student safety, not prevent protests, she concluded her update with a note on other methods students may use to engage with activism, if they do not want to participate in demonstrations. 

“There’s a lot going on in the world right now. Some of you want to demonstrate to raise awareness and your voice. But public demonstrations are not for everyone. Some people prefer to talk in small groups to learn more and think together on strategies for engagement,” said Dean Horton.

 Dean Horton’s email announcement follows recent concerns voiced by students as well as alums about the demonstration policy. The Wellesley News reached out to alums who were highly involved with campus activism during their time as students to learn more about past efforts to engage with social issues and responses from administration.

Helene Furani ’88, Elizabeth Salsburg ’86 and Sarah Arnold ’87 are alums of Wellesley College who were leaders in Wellesley’s student movement to divest from companies doing business in South Africa. 

Salsburg claimed that the stark difference between social and political engagement at Wellesley and the institution she studied at during an exchange program compelled her to organize once she returned to campus.  

“I did my junior year at Wesleyan through the college exchange program, and I had gone there specifically to be at a college with political activism because Wellesley didn’t have that. When I came back, it was clear we needed to be politically active, and the topic that was on everyone’s mind in the world was South Africa and apartheid. The divestment movement was everywhere but not at Wellesley,” she said.

Arnold affirmed Salsburg’s statement, “Divestment was the burning moral issue of our undergraduate years. The way that Ukraine or Gaza is now. There was moral clarity around South Africa.”

However, Furani noted that she and her co-organizers had difficulty convincing other students to join them in their push for Wellesley to divest from South Africa. 

“I don’t think we were a minority in opinion on campus. We were a minority in terms of wanting to do something about it. I don’t think anybody would vocally say they were in favor of South African apartheid continuing, but it was a sort of apathy of ‘What does it have to do with us?’”

Salsburg and Arnold also felt bothered by the overall indifference they noted on campus during South African apartheid. Salsburg furthered on the importance of campus activism, “You’re not isolated and insular; you’re not just on a beautiful campus, what you’re learning needs to be expanded to the real world. Our duty as human beings is to help people.”

An article published in The Wellesley News on May 12, 2014 written by Michelle Al-Ferzly ’14, Catherine B. ’15, Dhivya Perumal ’14, Whitney Sheng ’14 and Laura Wong ’16 adequately summarizes the movement for divestment from South Africa at Wellesley College which Arnold, Furani and Salsburg helped orchestrate.

“The peak of Wellesley’s South Africa divestment movement occurred on a Thursday in late October of 1986. At their highly anticipated meeting this fateful Thursday, the Board of Trustees voted to reject Wellesley’s full divestment from South Africa. Trustee Luella Goldberg ’58 announced the vote results (17-14) on the Clapp library steps, and students stormed College Road, the main avenue that intersects the campus, hoping to prevent board members from leaving campus. Forty-nine students were arrested that evening; 44 were kept in the Natick Armoury overnight after they refused to identify themselves by their given names, choosing instead to adopt the name “Winnie Mandela” in the face of police inquiry. The “Winnie” moniker referred to the then-wife of Nelson Mandela, who was also a prominent female anti-apartheid activist.

Despite the unprecedented nature of the arrests, the students were well cared for: Wellesley business manager Barry Monihan provided students dinners from McDonalds that evening and doughnuts the following morning. Representatives from Wellesley’s administration also ensured the College community that the students were kept together throughout the night and were not separated into various Wellesley township prisons. The students were fined and released the morning following the protest, and charges were dropped as the demonstration was deemed to have occurred on the basis of “strong moral and religious grounds,” according to President Nan Keohane ’61.

Despite overwhelming resistance from the campus community, the College eventually decided on a selective divestment policy. As of 1985, Wellesley had divested approximately $1.5 million dollars from South Africa. In the aftermath of the 1986 protests, the Board of Trustees elected to divest from all companies that did not adhere to anti-segregation policies in the workplace. The College also sought to establish a scholarship fund for non-white South African students to attend Wellesley.

The divestment movement pursued its activism to fluctuating degrees over the 1980’s until the fall of the South African apartheid government in 1994. In the spring of 1988, students built a shanty on the Chapel green as a symbol of the deprivations facing the majority of South African citizens and led a series of rallies, vigils and lectures denouncing Wellesley’s remaining involvement with South Africa. In addition, several non-student groups, including the Radical Caucus of Faculty and Staff, a group of politically active and left-leaning employees of the College, and the Advisory Committee on Social Responsibility to the Investment Committee, established in 1975, continued to call for full divestment to no avail.”

“Did we accomplish our goal? Yes, South African apartheid ended. Did we accomplish our immediate goal to have Wellesley end divestment? No,” continued Salsburg on the role of activism at Wellesley in the larger movement for an end to apartheid in South Africa. 

On reactions from administration and faculty, Arnold expressed, “Faculty by and large supported us, at least I never heard faculty speaking out against our efforts. Nan Keohane supported us, not always, not everything that we did, but we felt like she was kind of on our side, at the same time respecting that she was in a tricky position as college president. … I think we got very lucky in that the administration was pretty darn liberal.”

All of them expressed that they never felt opposition from administration, more so from the Board of Trustees.

“Even though Nan Keohane didn’t come out supporting us, she made her administration very available to us. We didn’t break and enter, we entered. Someone from admin happened to leave the phone out, so we took over the office wing; [Furani] was able to talk to the press from this phone. We were supported, but we were supported quietly,” Salsburg commented.

Furani corroborated, “The trustees’ approach was, ‘Oh, you little girls, you don’t really know anything,’ that we were naive or we didn’t have any authority to speak. There was a different approach from administration and faculty. They liked to see us taking on roles of leadership and were very sympathetic to our asks, with a sort of protective mentality.”

When asked about Wellesley’s most recent policy on free expression and demonstrations, Arnold commented, “I can see where they’re coming from on that. At the same time, I can also imagine that it becomes a real topic of debate whether or not you feel the need to respect them depending on what you want your action to accomplish.”

She also noted that no such policy existed when she was a student. “They just had to put up with us,” Arnold said. 

Additionally, Arnold questioned if the “time, place and manner” requirement impacted the effectiveness of campus protests.

“Does that mean the general campus community can know before and can avoid that area? I wonder how that works especially when you’re trying to shock fellow students out of apathy, wearing their blinders and only thinking about their next exam.”

Arnold, Furani and Salsburg all expressed that their role as student organizers when at Wellesley is something they still carry with them decades after graduating.

Salsburg shared, “Those of us who were activists then are still activists now on a small level. There are different versions of activism. I happen to be a pediatrician in California, and I very consciously made sure that the practice I work in takes patients who are on Medicaid. I was also involved in setting up a medical clinic for adults who were in the foster care system or previously unhoused. [There is] a lot of marching and signing protests for causes, it continues … ”