To the Swarthmore Community,

We, the undersigned members of the Religion Department faculty, are writing in solidarity with our students in the department who recently called for Swarthmore College to divest its endowment holdings from the fossil fuels extraction industries. We believe that continued investment in the extraction industries directly implicates our community in exploitative ecological destruction.

Ten years ago, Jim Hansen, former director of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said “We are on the precipice of climate system tipping points beyond which there is no redemption.” In acknowledging the truth of Hansen’s perspective, we are, at the same time, optimistic that with the concerted efforts of individuals and of local, national, and international communities, we can change the course of a warming planet, or at least slow down its effects. We remember other positive environmental changes – the banning of DDT in the U.S. in the 1960s and the general eradication of ozone-depleting CFC’s in the 1980s – and believe it is time to extricate ourselves from the Big Oil economy that was even then destroying the planet. And we recall the definitive reports by the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment in 2005, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in 2007, based on tens of thousands of studies by hundreds of climate researchers over many years of investigation, that made clear to us that our fossil fuel economy is the most important factor driving the dangerous climate changes we now see all around us.

Every generation has the opportunity to seize the moment and battle its own forces of oppression and degradation so that future generations can live safer, healthier, and more meaningful lives. Many of the great social movements in our country’s and Swarthmore College’s history – the abolitionist groundswell of the 19th century, the suffragist associations of the early 20th century, the civil rights movement in the 1950s and 1960s, and, most notably in recent history, the LGBTQ and divestment movements today – were energized by prophetic campus leaders, students, staff, and faculty alike, who brought together their passions for justice to animate a moral force for change more powerful than any other force to stop them. To paraphrase William James, and in the face of cataclysmic climate change, today we must wage the moral equivalent of war by becoming more disciplined, more resourceful, and more visionary in fighting the causes of global ecological depredation. Fossil fuels divestment is one such strategy in this effort, and, in concert with Swarthmore Mountain Justice and Religion students, we call on Swarthmore College to divest from extraction industries that are ruthlessly exploiting the environment for economic profit.

Steven Hopkins, Professor of Religion
Tariq al-Jamil, Associate Professor of Religion
Helen Plotkin, Visiting Assistant Professor
Ellen Ross, Associate Professor of Religion
Mark Wallace, Professor of Religion

I understand the hesitation to endorse MJ’s forceful action, nearly at the outset of the hour the Board had set aside publicly to dialogue about the proposed divestment of fossil fuel stocks from the College’s endowment.  After all, the room included students, staff, faculty, and alums who were interested in the dialogue.

By setting aside the hour the Board was showing a responsiveness to MJ’s researched and published proposal.  How can one justify panelist Patrick Walsh’s upsetting the applecart and announcing a new format, backed by some 200 students filing in and standing against the walls of the room, completely surrounding the gathering?  For some it was beyond forceful; it was “rude,” even “intimidating.”

Before leaping to judgment about unusual and shocking events, I sometimes try to analyze them from the opposite end: what, if anything, was useful, and what dynamics operated underneath?

The frequent usefulness of conflict is supported within sociology, psychology, and other branches of the social sciences.  Here at Swarthmore we watched a very characteristic feature of conflict: a drama unfolded in which a series of margins spoke out.  Women, students with Hispanic ancestry, working class people, the LGBT community, representatives of an over- stressed eco-system, African Americans, and so on, speaking with emotion, assisting those present, including Board members, to experience what cannot be rendered in reports.

Those of us who study conflict know that mis-assessments are often made by decision-makers for lack of information about what the stakes are.  Conflict reveals critical information about what the stakes are, information that is often only expressed when the conflict is hot enough. Open conflict corrects a bias especially celebrated in environments like Swarthmore, a bias toward cognitive linearity.  Wise decisions are in fact not made one-dimensionally, through linear thinking, but through interaction with other dimensions as well, including the capacity to read energy.

I write as someone who taught here at Swarthmore in the nineteen-sixties and then again a decade later, and I’ve found, this time around, a dispiriting degree of individual self-absorption.  Conflict often lifts attention away from the self and directs it toward the community.  So, it’s not surprising that members of Swarthmore who could release themselves into the process found new connections, gained new perceptions of themselves in relation to others, saw others in new ways, and sometimes even enacted before the whole — recall the Collection — rituals of healing.

To summarize these three uses of conflict ,we can imagine a wise medical doctor who pays attention to the parts of us that are ignored or over-ridden, who uses multiple perceptual avenues for diagnosing us, and who respects painful eruption as the body/mind’s agency in its deep yearning for wholeness.

Another way that conflict serves a place like Swarthmore is in its challenge of control.  It has been said that an empire in ascendency focuses on achievement, and in decline focuses on control.  Naturally, an elite college in the U.S. would reflect its unwritten mission through emphasizing control, including student self-control.  Even activists in elite colleges may serve this theme, trying to control others through political correctness.

The enactment Saturday morning, therefore, of up-ending control by creating a line in which everyone was free to stand, including Board members, and take their turn to speak authentically, initiated a counter-theme that energized the campus. It continued in the Parrish discussions, Collection, and the “teach-ins” in the IC and LPAC.

It’s time to underline the vulnerability of that challenge to control, however.  Gandhi was arguably the 20^th century’s most conflict-friendly politician, but is still rarely understood because he situated the wielding of power in a context of vulnerability, including his own.  If someone risks suffering, Gandhi believed, it should be the confronters.  The nonviolent way is one of confrontation, yes, but also risks vulnerability.

I see MJ as having chosen to take a risk by intervening. (What if the Board walks out?  What if no one stands in line to participate?  What if the whole exercise flops?  What if that great fear of many Swarthmore students – contempt by peers – is directed toward MJ?).

MJ also chose vulnerability by letting go of its signature issue – divestment – in order to allow other realities of marginalized student experience to be expressed strongly. As the days went by, I heard any number of students and faculty express their wonder that MJ would “give its time” to the well-being of the whole.

As a Quaker I can’t help seeing in all of this an analogy of another conflict-friendly legacy, that of 17^th century Friends.  They confronted often and vigorously, interrupting sermons, judges, aristocrats, and even the Puritan way of life in Massachusetts.  Then, when Friends “got their own way,” and set up Pennsylvania, they made sure that other faiths were free to practice, as well as theirs.  Perhaps this gave Lucretia Mott and Alice Paul some of the confidence they needed to do the confronting that they did, in their turn stirring conflict we’re now grateful for.

The Daily Gazette obtained the following set of charts, which were to be a part of Niemczewski’ presentation, and the accompanying FAQ sheet, from Welsh. These documents do not reflect original reporting or writing by students affiliated with The Daily Gazette.

The documents lay out the College’s estimate that divestment from fossil fuels would cost a total of at least $200 million (cumulative) over the next ten years. The value of the College’s endowment was approximately $1.5 billion as of June 30, 2012.

To summarize what can be read below, the estimate proceeds from Niemczewski and Welsh’s claim that in order to divest, the Investment Committee and the Board as a whole would have to remove all funds from “commingled funds” and likely from “separate portfolios” as well, types of investments that together account for the vast majority of the endowment. The estimate has little to do with the returns of fossil fuel industry stocks and hinges on the argument that fund managers will refuse to select investments based on a particular client’s company-by-company preferences. Dropping these fund managers, the College’s endowment would have to be invested in special fossil fuel-free index funds, which are predicted to perform $200 million worse over the next ten years than the College’s current investments.

For comparison, The Daily Gazette’s back-of-a-napkin arithmetic estimates that $200 million, if borne by 1500 students annually for 10 years, would cost students an additional $13,333 per student per year. This arithmetic does not try to take into account any form of inflation or cost, enrollment, or investment changes. It is simply intended as a rough means of understanding the scale of the College’s $200 million estimate.

Charts

FAQ from Niemczewski and Welsh:

Who is responsible for the endowment?

The Investment Committee of the Board of Managers has investment responsibility for the endowment within investment guidelines and policies adopted and reviewed annually by the Board. Members of the Investment Committee are investment professionals.

What is the investment strategy of the endowment?

The objective of the endowment is to provide a sustainable level of support for Swarthmore College’s annual operating budget while preserving the purchasing power of the endowment for the future. The success of the College’s investment strategy depends on having a diversified mix of investments and hiring the best investment firms to manage specific portfolios of investments. As of June 30, 2012, over 100 firms managed the College’s $1.5 billion endowment.

Why is diversification important?

Swarthmore’s endowment is invested in many asset classes, as shown in Chart 1. An asset class is a type of investment, such as stocks of domestic companies. Diversification is important because some assets do well when others are performing poorly. Also, various assets have different risk characteristics. Diversification helps the College to achieve good returns with lower risk. Furthermore, within an asset class, the Investment Committee selects professional investment managers who employ different investment strategies, which also provides important diversification.

How do investment managers invest our funds?

There are basically three ways an investment firm can invest–through an index fund, a separately managed portfolio, or a commingled fund. The simplest way is through an index fund. These funds essentially hold all the stocks in a specific universe. For example, a domestic stock index fund might hold all the stocks in the Standard & Poor’s 500 Index. The performance of an index fund will replicate the universe and will do so for very low fees. Using index funds is called “passive” management and is a good low-cost strategy.

Institutions like Swarthmore, however, hope that they can identify and hire investment managers to put together customized portfolios that will outperform the basic index approach. This costs more so the performance must justify the higher fees. Under this “active” management, there are two approaches.

The first is for a firm to create a portfolio just for Swarthmore and to buy stocks just for Swarthmore; this is called a separately managed portfolio. The second way is for a firm to pool together all its clients’ money into one large portfolio with each institution owning a pro rata share. This is called a commingled fund. An institution can have greater control over a separately managed portfolio, but fees tend to be higher. Commingled funds, because of their economies of scale, offer lower fees. Ultimately, an endowment seeks to invest where it gets the best return net of fees. Swarthmore has a relatively high performing endowment and does not use index funds. The endowment’s assets are in a mix of separate accounts and commingled funds. Swarthmore has been able to consistently achieve returns higher than what index funds would have earned.

How much of Swarthmore’s endowment structure could potentially be affected by divestment?

As Chart 1 shows, over 60% of Swarthmore’s endowment could potentially be affected by divestment. This includes 5 domestic equity managers, 8 international equity managers, and 30 managers of alternative assets (e.g., hedge funds and other private investments). These firms currently have no divestment constraints and could possibly invest in fossil fuel companies.

What would happen if Swarthmore decided to divest?

If Swarthmore decided to divest, we would have to find replacements for all the commingled funds because an institution has no power to impose a constraint on a commingled fund. Swarthmore’s commingled funds totaled $660 million at the end of the last fiscal year. Divestment would incur a very large cost.

Chart 2 shows that Swarthmore’s domestic and international stocks have added 1.7% and 1.8% PER YEAR during the past ten years over and above index fund returns.

With divestment, an option would be to hire a firm (such as Aperio Group) to design customized index funds for the endowment. This group could put together portfolios of stocks designed to match desired indexes but without using the divested companies. The firm customizes this approach for an endowment’s specific constraints.

If Swarthmore were to follow this approach, it would forego the 1.7% to 1.8% added return per year. This would amount to lost earnings each and every year. As Chart 2 shows, the loss the first year would be $11.2 million, but by five years it would be a cumulative $73.1 million, and by ten years it would be $203.8 million. It would be even greater if all the affected portfolios of the endowment were invested in this way.

What about the cost of divesting the endowment’s separately managed funds?

It is likely that not all the endowment’s separate account managers would agree to invest with constraints. Even if they did, a recent study* indicated we might expect a .4% annual cost. This would amount to over $5 million in the first 5 years and $14 million after ten years. When Swarthmore divested from stocks of companies doing business in South Africa over 20 years ago when the endowment was much smaller, it cost the College $2.2 million.

Could the College use all separately managed social investment funds?

We know that the index approach described above is possible. We do not know of any firms that have managed portfolios with a “sordid sixteen” constraint.

Are there other considerations with divestment?

Important considerations are whether divestment would have an impact and whether it might instead have unintended consequences. If Swarthmore were to divest, it could not participate in shareholder activism efforts, many of which have resulted in tangible progress. If engaged shareholders were replaced by shareholders without conscience on these issues, it would not deprive companies of capital, but would rather make it easier for them to maintain the status quo. Foreign ownership of domestic fossil fuel companies could also raise strategic geopolitical issues.

This is all very complex. What is the general conclusion?

Managing an endowment is very complex. Because the investment firms that manage funds for Swarthmore are among the best, our endowment has generated good returns over time. While determining a specific cost is not possible, a strong argument exists that a divested Swarthmore endowment would not continue to generate our historical level of outperformance and that divestment would entail a high cost for Swarthmore College accompanied by limited impact on the targeted companies or other unintended consequences.

Date: Monday, April 29
Time: 9:01-9:10 a.m.
Location: Worth Residence Hall
Synopsis: EVS reported to Public Safety that two dry chemical fire extinguishers were discharged within Worth Residence Hall I and J. Public Safety responded. Matter under investigation.
Status: Investigation

Theft

Date: Saturday, April 27
Time: 2:00-3:00 p.m.
Location: Willets Residence Hall
Synopsis: A male resident student reported the theft of his snake plant from the exterior of Willets Residence Hall to Public Safety. Matter under investigation.
Status: Investigation

Criminal Mischief

Date: Friday, April 26-Monday, April 29
Time: 6:30 a.m. Friday-6:30 a.m. Monday
Location: Intersection of Chester Road
Synopsis: Facilities personnel reported to Public Safety that a light which projects onto the Swarthmore College plaque was damaged at the corner of College Ave. and Chester Rd. A report and photos were taken. The value is $500. Matter under investigation.
Status: Inactive

Investigation

Date: Monday, April 29
Time: 9:39-9:45 a.m.
Location: McCabe Library
Synopsis: The Communications Center received a call from a McCabe Library staff member who discovered a student in McCabe Library before it was open. Matter under investigation.
Status: Investigation

Theft

Date: Friday, April 26-Monday, April 29
Time: -
Location: Phi Si Fraternity House
Synopsis: A female resident student reported the theft of an iPhone to Public Safety. The value of the item is unknown at this time. Matter under investigation.
Status: Investigation

Theft

Date: Wednesday, April 10
Time: 10:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.
Location: Mullan Fitness Center
Synopsis: A male resident student reported a stolen watch to Public Safety. The value of the item is approximately $150. Matter under investigation.
Status: Investigation

Theft

Date: Wednesday, April 17
Time: 10:00 a.m.-3:00 p.m.
Location: Sharples Dining Hall
Synopsis: A male resident student reported the theft of a wireless speaker to Public Safety. The value of the item is approximately $150. Matter under investigation.
Status: Investigation

Theft

Date: Monday, April 29
Time: 6:00-8:00 a.m.
Location: Science Center
Synopsis: The Communications Center received a phone call from a male resident student reporting the theft of $120 cash from his wallet while in the Science Center. A report was taken. Matter under investigation.
Status: Investigation

Investigation of Person

Date: Tuesday, April 28
Time: 2:59-3:10 p.m.
Location: Lamb Miller Field House
Synopsis: Public Safety responded to the Field House for the report of individuals riding bikes in and out of the Field House. The subjects were located upon arrival and identified. They left campus without incident.
Status: Cleared

Investigation

Date: Tuesday, April 30
Time: 4:07-4:09 p.m.
Location: Benjamin West House
Synopsis: A college employee reported that a student recorded a conversation without the employee’s knowledge.
Status: Investigation

Simple Assault/Not Aggravated

Date: Sunday, April 28
Time: 1:00 a.m.
Location: Olde Club
Synopsis: Male resident student reported that while attending a party at Olde Club, he was assaulted by a known male resident student. Matter under investigation.
Status: Dean’s Referral

Medical Emergency

Date: Tuesday, April 30
Time: 7:04-7:24 p.m.
Location: Mary Lyons
Synopsis: Public Safety responded to the report of an individual who had fallen at Strath Haven and Harvard Avenues. An ambulance transported the individual to the hospital.
Status: Cleared

Sexual Assault

Date: -
Time: -
Location: Swarthmore College
Synopsis: A female resident student was interviewed in reference to a sexual assault that took place on campus two years ago. The location of the incident is unknown at this time. The matter is under investigation.
Status: Title-IX Referral

Forcible Fondling/Forcible Sodomy

Date: -
Time: -
Location: Swarthmore College
Synopsis: A staff member reported on Wednesday, May 1 that a male resident student reported to her that a female resident student sexually assaulted him (forcibly fondled) during the 2011 academic year. At this time, no additional information was obtained about the date or time of the event.
Status: Title IX-Referral

Medical Emergency

Date: Wednesday, May 1
Time: 10:17-10:58 p.m.
Location: Cornell Science Library
Synopsis: Public Safety responded to Cornell Library for the transport of a male resident student to the Worth Health Center. Upon evaluation, the student was transported to the hospital by Public Safety.
Status: Cleared

Investigation

Date: Sunday, April 28
Time: 2:00-2:30 a.m.
Location: Wharton Residence Hall
Synopsis: A female resident student reported a complaint against a staff member.
Status: Investigation

Forcible Fondling

Date: Thurday, May 2
Time: 10:57 a.m.
Location: Swarthmore College
Synopsis: A forcible fondling incident report was submitted via the online Clery Form at 10:57 p.m. on 5/2/2013. The date, time, location or names of individuals were reported at this time.
Status: Title IX Referral

Fire Alarm

Date: Thursday, May 2
Time: 11:44-11:54 p.m.
Location: Woolman Residence Hall
Synopsis: A fire alarm was received from within Woolman basement kitchen area. Officers responded and discovered burnt food to be the cause of the alarm.
Status: Cleared

Noise Complaint

Date: Friday, May 3
Time: 1:00-1:03 a.m.
Location: Worth Residence Hall
Synopsis: Student walked in to Ben West to report loud music in the courtyard area. Public Safety responded; students shut down the music and left the area.
Status: Cleared

Investigation/Community Concern

Date: Friday, May 3
Time: 3:45-4:10 a.m.
Location: Worth Residence Hall
Synopsis: Public Safety Officers responded to the report from a resident student in Worth Residence Hall that there are several unidentified individuals in the hall. Public Safety identified individuals as students and a report was taken.
Status: Closed

Disorderly Conduct/
Hate-Race/Class/Gender/Religion/SexOrin/Disability-Hate

Date: Friday, May 3
Time: 1:06-1:32 a.m.
Location: Intercultural Center
Synopsis: A male resident student reported that an unknown individual urinated on the Intercultural Center door. Matter under investigation.
Status: Investigation

Criminal Mischief

Date: Friday, May 3
Time: 11:31-11:38 a.m.
Location: Worth Residence Hall
Synopsis: Public Safety responded to the report that a door in Worth Residence Hall had been vandalized. A report was taken and the matter is under investigation.
Status: Investigation

Criminal Mischief

Date: Friday, May 3
Time: 12:39-12:45 p.m.
Location: McCabe Library
Synopsis: Public Safety investigated the report of acrylic paint on a light pole depicting Delta Delta Delta insignia. A report was taken and the matter is under investigation.
Status: Investigation

Forcible Fondling/ Sexual Misconduct

Date: Sunday, April 28
Time: 1:00 a.m.
Location: Olde Club
Synopsis: A male resident student reported that a female resident student reported to him that a known male resident student forcibly kissed her without her consent. Matter under investigation.
Status: Title IX Referral

Alcohol Intoxication

Date: Saturday, May 4
Time: 12:43-1:00 a.m.
Location: Outdoor area/ fraternity houses
Synopsis: A female student was arrested by the Swarthmore Police Department for underage drinking and driving under the influence. Matter referred to Dean of Students Office.
Status: Cleared/Arrest

Alcohol Intoxication

Date: Saturday, May 4
Time: 1:34-2:00 a.m.
Location: Worth Health Center
Synopsis: A female resident student was cited by the Swarthmore Police Department for underage drinking and transported to the hospital for evaluation.
Status: Cleared/Arrested

Alcohol Intoxication

Date: Saturday, May 4
Time: 3:02-3:16 a.m.
Location: Parrish Hall
Synopsis: Public Safety responded to Parrish Hall Residence for the report of a male student asleep in the girls’ bathroom. Upon arrival, a male and female resident student were identified and evaluated for alcohol intoxication.
Status: Cleared

Theft

Date: Friday, May 3-Saturday, May 4
Time: 10:00 p.m. Friday-3:15 Saturday
Location: Clothier Hall Snack Bar
Synopsis: Public Safety received a report from a male resident student that he had a backpack stolen near the Clothier Hall Snack Bar. It contained a wallet with a debit card and had $40-50 cash.
Status: Investigation

Harassment by Communication/Sexual Misconduct

Date: Friday, October 26
Time: 11:45-11:50 p.m.
Location: Swarthmore College
Synopsis: A female resident student received sexually harassing text messages via cell phone in the month of October 2012. Matter under investigation.
Status: Investigation

Disturbance

Date: Saturday, May 4
Time: 10:44-11:00 p.m.
Location: Mertz Residence Hall
Synopsis: Public Safety responded to Mertz Residence Hall for the big white chair that was moved from the top of Parrish to the front of Mertz. Students were stopped and identified. The chair was returned to its proper location.
Status: Cleared

Intoxication

Date: Saturday, May 4-Sunday, May 5
Time: 11:56 p.m. Saturday-12:20 a.m. Sunday
Location: Pittenger Residence Hall
Synopsis: Public Safety responded to a report from students that a male student was injured. The student was located and an ambulance was dispatched.
Status: Dean’s Referral

Criminal Mischief/Theft

Date: Sunday, May 5
Time: 6:38-6:49 a.m.
Location: Wharton Residence Hall
Synopsis: Public Safety responded to the report of vandalism in Wharton Residence Hall. A plastic crate and a jar of sauce was removed from a refrigerator and damaged. A report was taken and the matter is under investigation.
Status: Investigation

Community Concern

Date: Sunday, May 5
Time: 1:19-1:24 p.m.
Location: Women’s Resource Center
Synopsis: Extra patrols of the Women’s Resource Center, the Black Cultural Center, the Intercultural Center and the surrounding exterior areas are being requested due to disturbing conversations overheard by an occupant in the Women’s Resource Center.

Disorderly Conduct

Date: Sunday, May 5
Time: 1:33-1:51 p.m.
Location: Worth Residence Hall
Synopsis: A Swarthmore student reported seeing people on the roof of Worth Residence Hall. Public Safety responded. Students were identified and a report was taken.
Status: Dean’s Referral

Criminal Mischief

Date: Sunday, May 5
Time: 3:30-4:30 p.m.
Location: Bond Hall-Residential
Synopsis: A window on the second floor of Bond Lodge was vandalized. The value of the damage is unknown at this time.
Status: Investigation

Marijuana Possession

Date: Sunday, May 5
Time: 4:20-4:22 p.m.
Location: Willets Residence Hall
Synopsis: Public Safety observed a Swarthmore resident student smoking marijuana in Willets courtyard. The student was identified and the marijuana confiscated. Matter referred to the Deans’ Office.
Status: Dean’s Referral

Disorderly Conduct

Date: Sunday, May 5
Time: 4:50-5:00 p.m.
Location: Old Tarble
Synopsis: Public Safety responded to the report of three subjects urinating on the brown double doors of Old Tarble. Upon arrival, the subjects were gone. A report was taken and the matter is under investigation.
Status: Investigation

Simple Assault-Not-aggravated/ Alcohol Intoxication

Date: Sunday, May 5
Time: 6:41-8:23 p.m.
Location: Cunningham Fields
Synopsis: While on patrol, Public Safety reported Observing an intoxicated male and female resident student in a domestic dispute. The students were taken to Worth Health Center and then upon evaluation were taken to the hospital. Both students were cited by the Swarthmore Police for underage drinking.
Status: Cleared/Arrested

Mia Ferguson ’15, one of the students who has filed complaints with the federal government alleging that Swarthmore violated the Clery Act and Title IX, was present at the StuCo meeting on Monday, the last of the semester. She discussed StuCo’s role in Sexual Assault Prevention and Survivor Advocacy (SAPSA), a group recently organized by Ferguson and Hope Brinn ’15.

According to Ferguson, the administration has not dealt appropriately with sexual assault, and it will be the role of SAPSA to train students to escort those going through the CJC process. SAPSA is different from the SMART Team in that the latter does not address all of the legal issues that SAPSA will, she said.

SAPSA will be updating the ASAP program to add “Know Your IX” education as well as education about rights for both victims and perpetrators. “Know Your IX” is a campaign to educate students about Title IX rights. SAPSA will be putting FAQ posters around campus.

Ferguson also mentioned that under the Clery Act, the College is supposed to publish the list of events that violate the act, inform the student body that the event occurred as well as the punishment for the perpetrator. She hopes to provide medical aid, psychological aid, and legal aid to students through SAPSA rather than through the College.

Social Outreach Coordinator Aya Ibrahim ’15 and Student Groups Advisor Lanie Schlessinger ’15 suggested that the Student Resource Guide (SRG), which will contain explanations about many of the procedures, organizations, and customs at Swarthmore, should contain information about sexual assault. Schlessinger also suggested sending students a single page summarizing developments surrounding the Cleary Act and Title IX.

Committee Reform

Appointments Chair Yuan Qu ’14 said that current committees are only comprised of certain sections of the campus community. In addition, she said, many people do not know which committees are doing what, and that some people are intimidated by the power differential between student and faculty representatives.

Ibrahim suggested standardizing committee feedback mechanisms. Co-President Gabby Capone ’14 said StuCo could hold study breaks to encourage students to apply for positions, which have often seen low applicant rates in the past. Capone and Co-President Victor Brady ’13 expressed a desire for more accountability and suggested requiring committees update StuCo on their discussions and actions.

PAs and the Urination Incident

Brady said that they met last Wednesday with Dean of Students Liz Braun and had a what Brady called “very good talk about community.”

In light of the urination incident on the Intercultural Center (IC) door Thursday night, Brady explained what they had heard about PA coordination for that night. Brady said Braun was told Wednesday that a PA would be stationed in the IC courtyard for the entire length of Thursday’s Pub Nite. As it happened, no PA was stationed there, though the PAs scheduled, as usual, to work Pub Nite were present and periodically checked around the IC area.

In April, Capone and Brady had suggested to Braun that a PA be stationed in the courtyard.

Ongoing Elections & Referendum 

StuCo’s election results were announced Tuesday, with Schlessinger elected as Co-President and Marian Firke ‘14 elected as Educational Policy Representative beginning in the fall. The three remaining open positions, Financial Policy Representative, Campus Life Representative, and Student Groups Representative, had no candidates, and those positions will be filled by special elections in the fall.

On Monday, with ballots still out, Campus Life Representative Tony Lee’15 suggested repositioning the timing of these elections, as they are not at the top of everyone’s list right now as it is a hectic time. Ben Goloff ‘15 agreed, adding that the IC incident, since it heightened concern for the campus community, might encourage more candidates to run.

Brady said that the StuCo Constitution requires a two-week period between the announcement of elections and the start of voting, so replacement elections could not be held. Capone said any students motivated by IC incident could run in the fall.

The ballot also contained a referendum asking students to vote for the balcony on the third floor of McCabe Library to be opened. The referendum, created by Max Nesterak ’13, failed due to lack of student participation. 421 students voted for the referendum, 21 against, and 41 students voted no preference. A referendum needs a majority with at least 1/3 of the campus voting, and only 29.8 percent of the student body voted. In a campus-wide email announcing the election results, Brady wrote StuCo would work on this issue as a “side-project” next year.

Max Nesterak ’13, the author of the referendum, is a Co-Editor in Chief of The Daily Gazette. 

Correction: Aya Ibrahim suggested standardizing committee feedback mechanisms, not committee structure, as originally reported.

After this weekend’s student-organized gatherings, which brought a number of campus issues to the fore of the community consciousness, Dean of Students Liz Braun invited everyone—students, faculty, and staff—to a last-minute collection Monday in the amphitheater.

There, several hundred students took turns speaking, in a Quaker style, to the emerging conversation. Interfaith Coordinator  Joyce Tompkins opened the collection along with Wellness Coordinator Satya Nelms. The two held out the promise of community–an elusive goal that many Swatties are still struggling to find amongst themselves. Tompkins began with a bit of history about Swarthmore’s founding Quakers.

Nelms made a request for students to see the best possible intentions in others, but this seemed one of the more difficult challenges of the collection. As student speakers were each handed the microphone, they wrestled with issues of allyship and friendship, oppression and support.

Later, students dining in Sharples had opportunities to sit and eat with faculty and staff members and talk about many of the things on their minds.

Early Tuesday morning, May 2, Mia Ferguson ’15 says she sent a preservation of evidence letter to the Deans’ Office. According to Ferguson, this letter ensures that the College cannot destroy any evidence gathered during an investigation, which can be used if a student wishes to file a lawsuit against the school.

Ferguson said she also received notification from the Department of Education (DOE) that they have filed her complaint, and, in addition, have sent a separate preservation of evidence letter to the College. In an interview with The Daily Gazette, Dean of Students Liz Braun said she does not know of the College having been contacted by the DOE.

Since filing the letter, Ferguson says she has become aware of the administration bringing in and questioning several of her friends, the two RAs to whom she reported her sexual assault, and her assailant—all without prior notification.

RAs are listed officially as “Campus Security Authorities.” Under that title, they are legally required to report any information about criminal acts—including sexual assault—as their role in the Title IX hierarchy, according to Dean of Housing Rachel Head.

“If an RA was called in because they knew about something, they are required to disclose what they know,” David Hill ‘13, an RA in Willets, said.

With the purpose of these meetings not made clear at this time, Ferguson says that she fears this lack of transparency, which she believes points to the larger problem of an absence of administrative collaboration with sexual assault survivors.

Ferguson said that she is waiting for members of the administration to reach out and initiate conversation with her. So far, the only meetings Ferguson has held with the administration was one that she scheduled herself with President Rebecca Chopp.

Braun has stated that she has not personally met with Ferguson or Hope Brinn ‘15, and she cannot say about other members of the administration.

On Thursday, May 2, Chopp announced that Margolis Healy & Associates had been chosen to conduct the independent external review of Swarthmore’s sexual misconduct policies. This professional services firm—which specializes in Clery compliance assessment and training, and safety and security program assessments—has been hired in the past by such schools as Amherst, University of Pennsylvania, and Dartmouth.

The external review could potentially overlap with the investigation that may be conducted by the DOE. However, Braun says that the college is committed to its own process, and is looking to get started as soon as possible

“We’re moving full steam ahead with getting things up and running for both the internal team and the external team, so again, it might be some time before we hear from the Department of Education. We’re not going to wait from them,” she said.

The investigation will span the entire summer, and will most likely extend into the next fall semester.

“Part of the intention is to continue [the investigation] into the fall so that students will have the opportunity to be a part of that,” Vice President Maurice Eldridge said.

According to Braun, Chopp went through hours of phone calls, intensive research, and extensive interviews during the search for identifying the firm that would handle the external review.

“We’re all ready to roll up our sleeves and get to work,” Braun said.

Chopp also revealed the members of the newly formed Task Force on Sexual Misconduct, which will work in conjunction with Margolis Healy & Associates. The Task Force consists of two members of the Board of Managers, two professors, two members of the administration, and three students.

Braun says she thinks the future collaborations between the Task Force and Margolis Healy & Associates is a promising start to addressing the issues that students have voiced so far.

However, Ferguson is apprehensive about the Task Force, and the degree to which survivors will be willing to approach such a newly formed committee.

“I have a very hard time believing that survivors who have encountered big problems with the judiciary system here are going to feel comfortable talking to this many people who they haven’t met before,” she said.

In response to a growing number of students calling for campus-wide action, Braun and Chopp met with members of the SMART team earlier last week. Braun said she was pleased with the meeting, in which she discussed the team’s long-term goals, as well as campus climate. Braun also said one member came up with the idea for Thursday evening’s candlelight vigil.

While Braun was fully appreciative of the vigil, many students held their doubts. Several students voiced their concerns to Braun and other members of the administration of the apparent paradox of honoring survivors who have been silenced in the past with a silent ceremony.

“It really was not meant in any way to signal that we think that there should be silence around this issue. I think it was more in the context of our history, our tradition, and also the power of silence,” Braun said.

In an open question-and-answer session that Ferguson and Brinn held on Thursday evening, May 4, Ferguson suggested remaining vocal, propagating discussion with professors, and supporting the SMART team as proactive ways that the students can remain engaged in the evolving issue. Ferguson has been particularly grateful for the support she has received from her professors.

“It’s been refreshing to have them open the door for dialogue instead of shutting me off as a threatening character. They want to understand things, they want to actually have these conversations so things can get better,” she said.

As the school year is rapidly winding down to a close, Ferguson and other supporters are not concerned about support dying down during the summer. Ferguson says she has faith that students who have been impacted by this issue will remain committed to pushing for change and showing their support.

Braun and Eldridge also see progress continuing, both in terms of student and administration activity. The school will continue collaborating with the external review board throughout the summer, according to Braun.

“From an administrative side, the work will definitely continue,” she said.

In the end, Ferguson’s ultimate goal remains the same: to push the administration into coming clean.

“I think if the college is able to come forward and become accountable for their past, I think that’s the most promising thing for moving forward. I want to work with the college. I want to be here for the next two years and be a positive, contributing member of the community,” Ferguson said.

In the near future, Dartmouth and Berkeley are expected to submit Clery Act complaints. Ferguson is also planning to submit her own personal Title IX complaint. As this movement continues to spread across the nation, Ferguson implores fellow Swarthmore students to stand up for survivors at other colleges.

“Those campuses, especially Dartmouth, have been a lot more destructive towards students who have been speaking out. I think what’s been awesome for me is that this campus hasn’t been particularly angry or aggressive at us,” she said.

However, both responses have manifested themselves in other universities throughout the country, and, according to Ferguson, the survivors and supporters receiving the brunt of the negative responses can use all the support they can get. Ferguson and Hope both urged students to follow pages such as “Stand with Dartmouth” during the question-and-answer session, as well as to join them in reaching out to survivors across the nation through the IX Network.

“Look, we see this is a national problem…let’s support the students around the country who are trying to address this for themselves, because we know that Swarthmore, in a lot of ways, can be a safe haven. Let’s make sure we’re speaking for other students as well who can’t come to Swarthmore,” Ferguson said.

A variety of important issues have recently dominated our campus discourse, but between the challenges we face as a community and the impending exams we will soon face as individuals, broader-scale problems remain. In particular, certain fossil fuel companies continue extremely destructive practices such as shale-gas fracking in an industry that inherently damages the ecology of our planet through increasing concentrations of greenhouse gasses in our atmosphere. We, the undersigned students of the Department of Religion, strongly support the efforts of Swarthmore Mountain Justice and urge Swarthmore College to divest from the sixteen companies they highlight. Their proposal is at the heart of the core mission of the College, to provide a high-quality, affordable education to its students, and offers an important opportunity to express our values in a meaningful way. To begin to divest would require a complete and thorough analysis of the impact such action would have on the endowment and the College’s budget, an analysis which is beyond the purpose of this article.

Through the lens of religion, we have studied a wide variety of social movements and seen how they galvanize. From the American Civil Rights Movement to Indian Independence, from environmental stewardship to the abolition of slavery, major structural changes are possible when large numbers of people come together to exert pressure. As we see it, Swarthmore College is in a position to lend its support to the issue of fossil-fuel divestment, which we see as a rallying point for a set of critically important and related issues, from particular extraction techniques that wreak havoc on a regional scale, to the rise in carbon levels in our atmosphere, which affects all life on our planet. If we divest, we will contribute to a movement currently gaining momentum across college and university campuses that is part of a much larger national and international push against our addiction to fossil fuels and the companies that supply them.

Aside from the role we can play as part of a movement, however, we still believe it is necessary for Swarthmore to do what it can to divest from these companies. An apocryphal story has it that William Penn, a young English nobleman and Quaker convert, once asked George Fox, a founding visionary behind the Society of Friends, whether or not it was acceptable for him to continue to wear his sword as a Quaker. Fox is said to have responded, “Wear it as long as you can.” We see our position with regards to fossil fuel companies in a similar light: knowing the many terrible things these investments stand for, it is unconscionable for us to continue to associate our name, that of Swarthmore College, with these corporations. Where we invest reflects on our values, and it is plainly obvious that the actions of the sixteen corporations Mountain Justice lists place them firmly at odds with the values of the community that is Swarthmore College. We urge all members of the College community to support Mountain Justice’s divestment campaign, and we are hopeful that our leaders will join us soon.

Jesse Dashefsky ’13, who, prior to retiring last semester, was chair for two semesters, said that “a problem SBC has is an informational one.”

Jacob Adenbaum ’14, who is chair this semester, agreed that there are problems with the way information is presented on their website. “We have a lot of resources online, but they’re not structured well.”

As such, Adenbaum has been focusing on making all of their resources more available and more clear. “Oftentimes, one of the most effective ways we disseminate information is when proposals are made,” he said. “I’m not happy with this. It’s not as efficient as I wish it were.”

Treasurers of student groups must submit proposals to SBC in order to receive funding. Daniel Block ‘16, who was the treasurer of College Democrats this semester, said that there is a degree of trial-and-error learning during the proposal process. “A lot of treasurers learn as they go,” he said, “I went in requesting things that I didn’t know they would not fund.”

The SBC webpage has been revised with ease of communication in mind. Whereas students in the past had to negotiate a chart to see who they should contact about funding, the new website has a form that efficiently gives specific information about emails and forms. “We’re moving towards a system that is automated,” Dashefsky said.

As Dashefsky put it, SBC runs into two types of informational problems. “Either freshmen [are] new and don’t understand how funding works, or seniors or juniors [are] trying a new type of event and don’t know what to do,” he said.

According to Adenbaum, another issue that SBC is trying to amend has to do with the type of groups that usually get funding. “What I want to see more than anything else is more outreach to groups that we’ve traditionally underserved,” such as smaller religious or cultural groups, he said, “What I think a lot of small groups don’t understand is that there’s money available to do some of the things they want to do. They could get off the ground with these funds.”

To help these groups see what’s possible with SBC funding, SBC has put all student group budgets on their webpage this year for the first time ever. Adenbaum said that this is important “because it means other groups can see what kinds of things we’re funding.”

He added that although SBC’s rules for funding groups have more or less stayed the same over the past few years, “There have been changes in what we fund. It changes from committee to committee.”

Erin Ching ’16, the treasurer of Cycling Club, said she found out that “If you’re a treasurer for the first time, the SBC is in some ways very approachable and in some ways intimidating and hard to navigate.” The Cycling Club, which was restarted in the middle of last semester, used SBC funds to redo its Bike Share partnership with StuCo.

“The website is very clear about what you do need to do in order to get money, that’s not to say that the actual process of getting funds is easy,” Ching said. As for the amount of planning students must do before asking SBC for funds, she said, “you need to know exactly what you want when you go to SBC.”

Block also said that his experience with SBC turned out well. College Democrats hold a few yearly events that require SBC funding, from State of the Union viewings to a lobbying trip to the capital. “I was satisfied with the amount of money we got,” Block said, “I thought that they were quite helpful.”

Although Block said his experience was mostly positive, he raised concerns about how final budgets were changed after being submitted to the committee, saying, “I would have liked more explanation.” He said, “obviously that’s a lot to expect from a small group of people managing a lot of money.”

The Dean’s office, which is a source of money for some student events, is also working to make it easier for students to get funding. For the last two years, Westphal has been meeting with SAC to “try to define who’s paying for what so we don’t have to figure it out again every year,” she said. “We’re undertaking a big initiative to make a how-to checklist for every event” so that students can spend time planning their event instead of learning how to work out funding.

She said that she was impressed with the partnership Dashefsky and Adenbaum have, saying that “Swarthmore students have more control over their money than most other students in the same position.”

Correction: Jesse Dashefsky was chair of SBC for one year, not three years as originally stated.

That meeting turned out to be much more “open” than many expected when upwards of one hundred students, many of whom were affiliated with MJ, abruptly entered the room [VIDEO], interrupting the first speaker from the Board about one minute into his talk, and unilaterally shifting the format of the meeting. Rather than split the hour between Board presentations and a Q&A, explained the students, they wanted the meeting to become a forum for students, faculty, staff, alumni, and Board members to voice their concerns about any issue affecting the Swarthmore community.

Board members and administrators like President Rebecca Chopp, Dean of Students Liz Braun, and Vice President for College and Community Relations Maurice Eldridge ‘61 chose to sit and listen to the 90-minute open forum. Towards the end, two Board members, Nate Erskine ’10 and Susan Levine ’78, spoke up, trying to address the students’ concerns.

The Board originally agreed to do the open session, which was held at 11 a.m. in Science Center 101 as part of a quarterly on-campus Board weekend, after MJ members asked Board members for a space where they could engage with students directly. According to posters spread around campus, this is the first such meeting “in student memory.”

In an email sent on April 19, Eldridge invited faculty, staff, and students to attend. A majority of the room’s lecture hall-style seats were filled. Besides students, the meeting was attended by a number of administrators and alumni and at least seven faculty members.

Board Finance Committee Chair Chris Niemczewski ’74 was starting a presentation entitled “The Cost of Divestment” just after 11:00 when MJ member Pat Walsh ’14, who was helping facilitate the meeting, broke with protocol.

Walsh, who was seated at the front of the room along with fellow MJ member Laura Rigell ‘16 and Board members including Chair Gil Kemp ‘72, began speaking into his microphone during a momentary pause in Niemczewski’s speech. Walsh read a prepared statement as the 100-or-so students marched in and encircled the room holding posters and banners marked with slogans like “This is what social responsibility looks like” and “Check your ignorance.”

“We stand before you this morning as members of Mountain Justice to address concerns about our environment,” said Walsh. “However, we are also talking about our environment in the Swarthmore community and what it means to create a safe and just environment. We ask that the Board of Managers listen to the voices of the students, faculty, and alumni who describe their concerns about this community. As the power-holders of this institution, you are accountable to the needs and well-being of students, and we fully expect you to take action.”

Joyce Wu ‘15 and Sachie Hayakawa ‘13 delivered a statement that followed on the heels of Walsh’s. “We have been asked to wait again and again,” said Wu. “We’re done waiting. Business as usual cannot continue, not while inequality and marginalization exist on our campus and in the world.”

Board Member Dulany Bennett ‘66, who helped facilitate the originally-planned meeting, conferred with Chopp before announcing that “Managers are prepared to stay and listen in this different format that you have created.”

Board Social Responsibility Committee Chair David Gelber ‘63, who is a filmmaker currently working on an eight-hour documentary about climate change for the Showtime channel, had been scheduled to give a talk at the meeting about ways to combat climate change besides divestment, but cancelled for family reasons. Reached after the meeting by email, he expressed his displeasure with the students’ change of agenda.

“One thing I heard pissed me off,” he wrote. “Chris Niemczewski, who’s a great guy and totally devoted to Swarthmore, spent a lot of time putting together an explanation of the real cost of divestment. I’m told he barely got through one sentence before he was interrupted. He wasn’t given a chance to finish his presentation. I consider that incredibly rude, aside from the fact that [Niemczewski] knows what he’s talking about and could have given the students a lot to reflect on.

Niemczewski declined to comment at this time.

At least one person was observed exiting the room after MJ and coalition members read their introductory statements. Five students, including Danielle Charette ‘14 and Preston Cooper ‘15, both of whom verbally expressed their discontent with the meeting’s change of format, also walked out after trying to return it to its original format.

“We came in a good-faith effort,” said Charette, standing up, “and we want to listen to the Board, [but] you’ve set up power relations and hijacked the meeting.”

Charette and Cooper approached Chopp, who was seated immediately in front of the podium, appealing for a return to the agenda they had expected. Chopp did not appear to ask the students assembled with MJ to stand down. Finding no luck, Charette and Cooper exited the room with three others.

As the meeting proceeded, several dozen students lined up at the front of the room for a chance to speak. Each of the students, most of whom did not bring prepared notes, spoke for a minute or two on the particular issue or issues they found most significant.

Though covering a broad range of student experiences and many aspects of campus life and policy, the main concerns voiced could be roughly grouped into four categories: ineffective prevention and dealings with incidents of sexual assault, a lack of administrative support to students of color, a lack of transparency in College decision making, and, of course, divestment. Many speakers echoed the claim made in the introductory statements that students want to see immediate action.

Physics Professor Frank Moscatelli, who, along with Economics Professor Amanda Bayer, was appointed as a faculty observer to the Board meeting, was surprised but impressed by many of the student statements that followed. In an interview later in the weekend, Moscatelli said, “It was an interruption, but it was certainly well-organized, well-done, articulate, honest. It’s in the best sense of protest. [...] The invention of the snapping applause is brilliant by the way,” he added, “I had no idea.”

In an email sent to friends and supporters, MJ member Sara Blazevic ‘15 wrote that MJ decided late last week to encourage students to speak on issues other than divestment during the open meeting. The group made this decision, she explained, in the wake of increasingly heated discussions on campus about issues ranging from Greek life to the choice of Robert Zoellick ‘75 as commencement speaker.

Chopp captured the intensity and urgency of these discussions with her phrase “the spring of our discontent,” which first appeared in an email she sent to students, faculty and staff on April 11. This discontent was particularly palpable going into the weekend after a student, accompanied by at least two others, urinated on the door to the Intercultural Center late Thursday night, according to a campus-wide email sent by Braun. The incident, which occurred at the end of Pub Nite, the weekly party held in Paces, which is near the Intercultural Center, was not the first of its kind this semester.

Hope Brinn, one of twelve students who filed federal complaints against Swarthmore College for non-compliance with the Clery Act and Title IX, was near the front of the line of speakers. When she spoke, she told the audience that she had been sexually assaulted.

“I would like to call on the leadership of this institution to take immediate action against the situation,” she said, “My rights, the students’ rights, our safety, our dignity, our integrity is being violated every single day in this institution.” Brinn said she hoped to see Swarthmore become a leader in what she termed a “national movement for supporting women and students’ rights” on campuses across the country.

Miriam Hauser ‘13, a SMART (Sexual Misconduct Advisors and Resource Team) member said that the group is working towards establishing sensitivity training for members of the administration and faculty members. “Students see the administration as people who are not aligned with them,” Hauser said. “So to that end we would like to propose the creation of a victim advocacy group at Swarthmore, which would be working specifically with survivors and not against them.”

Joshua Asante ‘14 said he believes that the president and Board need to be accountable to students on a list of “non-negotiables.” These non-negotiables, he said, are as follows: “We will not tolerate sexual assault, we will not tolerate people who are known to commit sexual assault to stay on our campus and stay in our College and we will not tolerate disrespect to our spaces, to our colleagues, to our friends and to the people we love.”

When it came to their turn, members of the Intercultural Center (IC) and Black Cultural Center (BCC) coalition spoke about the incident of urination on the IC door. These students said that their safe space had been violated.

Walsh also mentioned the IC incident in his introduction, and several student speakers brought it up in their statements in the context of their anger surrounding issues of social justice and diversity.

For example, after one member of the audience said that MJ’s meeting format felt intimidating, Watufani Poe ‘13, then at the podium, brought up the incident in response.

“I would like to tell you what intimidation is,” he said. “A student came and pissed on my safe space. That was intimidation. That’s why I do not feel safe ever.”

On Friday, members of the IC/BCC coalition organized a rally outside of Sharples to protest against the urination incident. In an event whose format paralleled Saturday’s, students took turns Friday telling the group and passersby how the incident related to what they had experienced at Swarthmore and what they hoped to see in the future. Later that evening, students filled the IC for a meeting facilitated by IC Director Alina Wong, who is also dean of the sophomore class.

At Saturday’s open meeting, many students made statements that spoke to their anger about what they see as a lack of administrative support in recent years.

For example, Uriel Medina ’16 and Michelle Castellanos ’16 representatives of Swatties 4 a DREAM, a student group that advocates for the DREAM Act, which would create a path to citizenship for undocumented student immigrants, thanked the administration for all the support they have given the group but said they would like to see equitable admissions for undocumented students.

Jusselia Molina ‘13 said that the IC/BCC coalition had started to push for an increase in students and faculty of color on campus. They also had worked to extend need-blind financial aid to international students and to increase support for students of color who wished to pursue a degree in the natural sciences.

When interviewed, Moscatelli said he had witnessed some of the difficulties experienced by students who want a major in the natural sciences but weren’t prepared up to Swarthmore’s expectations in high school. “Although we have some academic support in the form of Science Associates,” he said, “we don’t nearly do enough.” He said he thought that a solution to the issue might not be possible without allocating further resources to the natural sciences.

Molina claimed many student-led efforts to increase support for students of diverse backgrounds lost steam when some administrators encouraged them to work through the strategic planning process. The strategic plan, now published, states that one of Swarthmore’s core values is “our diverse and vibrant community of students, staff, faculty, and alumni.”

“You used us as a diversity tool but then you don’t take care of us, you don’t support us in the way we need support and so I want to call on the administrators and the Board of Managers that when you celebrate your 150th anniversary that you also recognize that we have been at the heart of why this college has changed,” said Molina.

Akunna Uka ‘14, who said she struggled during her freshman year at Swarthmore and studied abroad sophomore to take a break from Swarthmore, said she worried about students in her position who took take time off because of emotional and mental health issues related to negative experiences on campus. “Please research why people of color are not graduating in four years and explore these issues and see what students are going through,” she said. “Being the best liberal arts college isn’t about resting on your laurels and about being the best from five years ago. Google is the best because Google doesn’t rest on what it did five years ago.”

Mina Itabashi ‘13, another member of the IC/BCC coalition, said that when asked to be a part of strategic planning, she and other members logged their ideas into the online forms and joined relevant committees, but saw little change as a result. “Nothing has come out of it and that’s why I am here,” she said. “We’ve been doing so much work and what has happened is that all our effort has been silenced or co-opted.”

A lack of transparency and responsiveness in College decision making was a theme in many students’ statements on Saturday. Camille Robinson ’13 noted that processes and committees do not make clear what sort of actions will be taken to address these issues.

English Professor Betsy Bolton, the only faculty member who spoke at the meeting, echoed concerns about transparency. “I also want to speak for transparency on the part of the faculty, the administration, and the Board of Managers,” she said. “I think we can all do better on that front.”

She said that she believed Braun was one administrator who had been pushing in the right direction on some issues, particular faculty diversity. Bolton said, “Liz Braun has been pushing the faculty to confront their own limitations to see what we are not doing well and to work on what we can do.”

Bolton said that the student testimonies had moved and inspired her. She was hopeful that students, administrators, and Board members would come together to support one another. “We need to push together and we can’t waste our energy pushing against one another, we need to find ways as a community to push against the wall that divides us,” she said.

Nate Erskine ‘10, the youngest member of the Board of Managers, and the first of two Board members who lined up to speak, touched on the importance of trust. “It’s obvious that we do not have the proper trust and communication in the Board of Managers and the students,” he said. “I care for you guys, I want you guys to feel safe and empowered and that Swarthmore is doing all that it can for you.”

“I want you to educate me and at the same time I want to be able to educate you so we can be a better place,” Erskine said. “I have faith that as a community we will be able to do better and we can strive for a better future for everyone.”

Susan Levine ‘78 was the other Board member who got up to speak. “All the issues that you have been raising today we have been talking about with great seriousness and concern in our Board meetings,” Levine said. “We try not to be disconnected from students. We have young alumni networks who are recent students and student observers.”

Board Chair Kemp saved his comments for an interview with The Daily Gazette, which was attended by Communications Director Nancy Nicely. Nicely did not comment when questions were posed to Kemp. At the previous meeting of the Board, Kemp, who has long been a donor to Swarthmore, announced his donation of twenty million dollars to the College.

Kemp said in response to the student action on Saturday that “it was not what I expected, what we had prepared for. But I think a great opportunity to listen to obviously lots of different students. I was saddened by the hurt, pain, and anguish that a lot of people related, and heart goes out when people are suffering like that. But a good opportunity for Board members to directly hear this kind of emotional rawness.”

Kemp said that no immediate actions by the Board of Managers came to mind. However, he said he thinks that over the summer the Board “will have a telephonic review of divestment as an issue but proceed in September with the teach-in symposium that had been originally planned for May.” That symposium was moved, he said, because not all the speakers, such as Gelber, could attend last Saturday.

“An institution like Swarthmore doesn’t move on a dime,” Kemp said, “and it’s frustrating when you want it to. It’s just the nature of an institution that has a 150-year history and has to balance the needs of different stakeholders. As I think was hopefully eloquently put, and persuasively put, we’re here because we’re committed to students and devote our time and energy and financial resources.”

Moscatelli said he understood the slowness of change in academic institutions and said that administrators often find their hands tied by budget realities when considering adding new staff, support programs, and other services. “I’ve heard the administration say, ‘we can’t keep adding things,’ and in the very next breath ‘we need three more psychologists for CAPS because the caseload is so high.’”

“At Swarthmore,” Moscatelli continued, “there’s no CEO that makes direct decisions and then he or she gives those to department heads and plant managers,” he continued. “It doesn’t work that way. Indeed, the first response of any educational institution as I’ve seen over the decades is you start a committee. And then of course, committees are where issues go to die, often, and so that can be very frustrating to students.”

“Would I like it if things could move quicker? Sure. But again, I don’t know how,” Moscatelli said. He agreed with a statement made on Saturday by Bennett, the Board member, to the effect that “it’s really not the Board’s job to run the place,” he said.

Mountain Justice activists, whose goal for institutional change is clearer and more unified than some of the other goals suggested by other students, held most of their comments until the latter half of the meeting. When Sarah Blazevic ‘15 and Nathan Graf ‘16 approached the podium, they announced a timeline MJ demands the Board follow to achieve divestment.

“For me this a question of accountability. What we’re doing right now is holding you the Board of Managers to your values,” said Blazevic. “We want to hold you accountable to what we came here for, to what was on the brochures—civic responsibility, social responsibility, and environmental stewardship. That’s what we’re here for.”

“Regardless of what happens on divestment,” said Kemp, “I think the Board as individuals and collectively is absolutely committed to dealing with this issue of climate change, where there is unanimity and I don’t think there is any difference between the students, faculty, and Board in their awareness that this is a primary issue for us as individuals, or as members of this institution or of a greater society.”

Though Moscatelli said he didn’t consider himself a supporter of divestment, he said that students, staff, and faculty, including himself, needed to learn much more about the issue of climate change and ways to combat it. “Even from my friends and listening to some presentations at faculty lunch, for example, there’s a lack of knowledge,” he said. “The magnitude of the problem, climate change, and the magnitude of the response that’s necessary go beyond setting the air conditioning back a couple of degrees. That may make you feel good, but it’s not enough.”

Gelber wrote by email that he too hoped for alternative action. “I’d say there’s a consensus on the Board that climate change is on a short list of the most urgent issues of our time,” he wrote. “Speaking just for myself, I’d like to see the Swarthmore community take action on climate change which has greater impact and is less costly than divestment.”

But MJ members and supporters say they’ve heard calls for alternative action on climate change before and want to focus on divestment.

Though not a member of MJ, Duncan Gromko ‘07, who currently works for an environmental organization, approached the podium to say, “climate change policy and divestment are not two mutually exclusive things.” In response to a statement by President Chopp in the January edition of the Swarthmore Bulletin that, in part, addressed divestment, Duncan Gromko ‘07, wrote a letter that appeared in the April edition that articulated a similar argument.

Gromko, who attended the Rio +20 Conference in 2012, said that it was devastating to see the lack of movement around climate change coming from policymakers and that to expect them to engage in change is totally unrealistic. “This is an opportunity for Swarthmore to lead on an issue and improve their image,” he said.

Explaining that so many meetings and conversations had been held with administrators and Board members that MJ’s goals and the facts they have compiled on divestment should have already been well-understood, Graf spelled out a timeline for divestment that MJ demands the Board accept. The timeline calls for the Board to put out a report stating that they are committed to divestment by September 1. By December 6 and 7, they say, the Board should demonstrate that they have begun taking the first steps towards divestment.

“Over the past two years, we’ve had over 25 closed-door meetings with members of the administration and they haven’t yielded anything except a verbal, non-binding agreement to having a panel in September,” Graf said. “If the Board of Managers does not agree to [our] timeline,” Graf said, “then we will have to intervene in business as usual because business as usual is not working.

Danielle Charette ‘14, one of the students who walked out of the meeting, is Assistant Opinions Editor at The Daily Gazette.

Arts and Features Editor Lily Jamison-Cash ’15, Opinions Editor Aaron Dockser ’13, and Assistant News Editor Zoe Cina-Sklar ’15 participated in the student takeover of the meeting.

Correction: Duncan Gromko said that “climate change policy and divestment are not two mutually exclusive things,” not “are two mutually exclusive things,” as originally published. 

Correction: It was added to the article after initial publication that David Gelber was not present on Saturday because of family reasons that caused him to cancel. While it was implicit in the original published version that he was not present, it was not made explicitly clear, nor was a reason given.

Correction: Nathan Graf said that “Over the past two years, we’ve had over 25 closed-door meetings with members of the administration and they haven’t yielded anything except a verbal, non-binding agreement to having a panel in September.” There was no agreement about a report prior to the event.” NOT “Board members haven’t yielded to anything over the past two years except to a verbal agreement to have a non-binding report by September,” as originally published.

Correction: Miriam Hauser said that “Students see the administration as people who are not aligned with them,” NOT “Students see the administration not been aligned with them,” as originally published.

Correction: Pat Walsh said ”We stand before you this morning as members of Mountain Justice to address concerns about our environment,” said Walsh, NOT “who press concerns,” as originally published.

Image and video courtesy of Swarthmore Mountain Justice