DN Fact Check: Have We Been Lying?

As reported in the previous issue of Discipline News, at February’s Faculty Assembly a majority of those present voted to approve a motion, put forward by Journalism faculty member  Doug Struck, that the administration dismiss “any and all disciplinary action related to protests, demonstrations, leafleting and expressions of opinion, by anyone not directly responsible for bodily violence or substantial property damage.” As also reported, just hours before the February Faculty Assembly, Provost Alex Socarides sent a document to all faculty chairs aimed at discrediting each of the examples of disciplinary action Struck had circulated among faculty in the days leading up to the vote.  

Given the gap between the administration’s alleged facts and reality, this issue of DISCIPLINE NEWS is dedicated to providing the community with a detailed understanding of the assertions made. Students, staff, and faculty directly targeted by the administration have provided first-hand accounts of their experiences. FOIA requests also provided further evidence. Below is our summarized account of each incident.

1. Doug Struck: Ever since the day of Jay Bernhardt’s inauguration, when 13 students were arrested for protesting peacefully outside his ceremony, the college administration has been on an unrestrained campaign to discipline students, staff and faculty who raise their voices in protest. It continues to this day.

Admin: This is not true. Twelve Emerson students and one non-student were arrested on 3/22/24 for intentionally violating local laws and refusing the direct order from the police not to block, kick, or bang on the doors of the Majestic Theater, creating a safety hazard that led to their arrest. The college works to actively prevent student arrests while protesting. For example, there were several public protests this academic year, including last Friday, without arrests.

DN Fact Check: During Jay Bernhardt’s investiture ceremony, 13 protestors chose to leave the confines of the “Free Speech Zone” pen the ECPD set up down the street from the Majestic Theater, in order to ensure that their voices would be heard by those leaving the ceremony. No exits were blocked, and there was no safety hazard as claimed. The actual charges against the students were “Disorderly Conduct and Disturbing the Peace.” This requires a public complaint, which was accomplished only when ECPD Officer Robert Bousquet stopped a random passerby and urged them to complain about the protest.

The assertion that the students’ actions violated local laws flies in the face of Articles 16 and 19 of the Massachusetts Declaration of Rights, which protects the right of free speech and assembly. The right to assemble supersedes the right to use a public walkway, and in this instance, no public way was entirely blocked at any point. The statement that there were several public protests this year without arrests is true in fact but false in spirit, since the administration has subjected numerous students and faculty who engaged in protests to disciplinary charges and hearings.

2. Struck: Students have been disciplined for peacefully handing out leaflets on a public sidewalk outside a theater.

Admin: This is not true. Simply handing out flyers on a public sidewalk is not against student conduct policy and would not have been subject to discipline. Other related actions, when performed, would be violations, such as giving out flyers indoors, presenting false information, or using a protected name, image, or likeness. These violations would have resulted in accountability through the student conduct process even if they are now being denied.

DN Fact Check: As audience members approached the Paramount Theater for a performance of the play Golda’s Balcony, students passed out political leaflets that looked like playbills for the show but included factual information regarding the history of former Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir. They did not distribute flyers indoors, and their use of the traditional playbill format did not involve unprotected use of name, image, or likeness. Nevertheless, those students—and some who were not involved—received notices of policy violations accusing them of failure to comply; disorderly conduct and behavior; presenting false ID or Information; using a protected name, image, or likeness; vandalism and property damage. Later, they were accused of also violating Emerson’s posting policy. For this act of “culture jamming,” which did not even occur on Emerson property, four students were put on probation.

3. Struck: Some 118 have been arrested and many disciplined for protesting peacefully in what the college then called a public alley.

Admin: This is not true. No students were arrested by ECPD or disciplined by the college for participating in the encampment. Individuals who violated additional policies at the encampment (e.g., harassment, improper building access, assault) are being held accountable for their behavior. It is important to note that 47 of the individuals arrested at the encampment were not members of the Emerson community. Boylston Alley is not owned by the college but by all those whose property abuts the alley. It is private land that provides egress to a government building. The alley also has a public right-of-way, which makes it subject to Boston police jurisdiction. 

DN Fact Check: The administration’s argument is misleading and implies that it had no role in the Boylston Alley arrests, but among other correspondence between Emerson and city officials, ECPD’s chief sent photos of the encampment to the Boston Police Department and specified in an email the hours when the alley was most populated and–to facilitate a mass arrest–least populated. Additionally, presidential communications sent to the community after the encampment was cleared—mainly to justify the clearance—were shared in advance with the mayor's office, which edited them. And it simply strains credulity that Mayor Wu would have authorized the police arrest of Emerson students at 2:00 A.M. without approval from Bernhardt. Following the arrests, Bernhardt has never once condemned the excessive force deployed by the BPD or voiced concern over the injuries sustained by the students.

4. Struck: Four students were disciplined for using the college email to promote an “unauthorized” student group.

Admin: This is not true. No students or staff, regardless of organizational status, are authorized to download college email directories and send protest messages to the entire campus community. Doing so is a direct violation of IT policies.

DN Fact Check: Students did not download college mail directories but simply utilized Google groups made publicly available by the college, nor did students send protest messages. They advertised an upcoming student union election and made mention of Emerson’s ranking #1 in the Princeton Review’s list of colleges judged by students to offer the  “worst financial aid in the country.” Students were put on probation for two charges: using email and using WiFi in the aforementioned ways without the permission of the College.

5. Struck: A student was put on probation for tapping-in another student to use the bathroom.

Admin: This is not true. According to Emerson’s long-standing policy, students may not give another person their own Emerson ID card to gain access to buildings or resources for reasons of safety and security. If a student misplaces their own ID, they can get a temporary ID from ECPD 24/7/365. If someone wants to be signed in as a guest, they can do so using the iVisitor system. These procedures are in place to ensure that those accessing our buildings have permission to be here.

DN Fact Check: The administration has no grounds for calling Struck’s statement untrue, since the student in question has reported his punishment to DN reporters. He does not deny that he tapped in his friend (who urgently needed to use the bathroom), but what we find so egregious here is the harshness of the penalty: a full academic year of probation. It is also worth mentioning that ECPD Officer Bousquet, having arrested the student in question a few weeks earlier, watched him tap in and chose to verbally harass him and pursue disciplinary charges rather than stopping him and directing him to use iVisitor or tell his friend to get a temporary ID.

6. Struck: Two staff members were formally rebuked for peacefully handing out leaflets on their own time.

Admin: This is not true. If staff members are accused of giving out flyers during the workday when they were supposed to be working, it must be investigated. If it becomes apparent after the fact that they moved their lunch break to 10 am so they could give out the protest flyers, they would not receive discipline.

DN Fact Check: The administration’s protest is disingenuous. Here are the facts. Staff members received official letters complaining about their leafleting that were put in their personal files; this in itself is punitive. Since they were leafleting at 10 A.M., the original complaint was that they did so during work time, but the employees explained that they were doing this on their personal time. One of them had chosen to take her lunch break early that day. The other hadn’t started work yet, having worked late the day prior by way of compensation, so he was also off the clock. Admin responded to the first employee by telling her that she should not have taken her break that early in the day. The letter was removed from her file only after her union grieved that the college does not have a policy prescribing when employees can take their lunch break.The other employee still has a letter in his file. Admin argued that he didn’t properly inform his supervisor he was starting late that day. Both staff members were distributing flyers that read, “Bring Back Bright Lights,” the screening program the administration unilaterally eliminated in August 2024. 

7. Struck: A graduating student was banned from campus for three to five years for showing the Palestinian flag.

Admin: This is not true. Several graduating students received discipline for commencement infractions that involved gross disruption of the entire ceremony from the stage. No one who simply held or wore a flag was banned from campus.

DN Fact Check: As reported previously in DN, a student did drape a Palestinian flag upon the stage podium at commencement and was punished for it. This action can hardly be characterized as a “gross disruption of the entire ceremony,” nor does it justify a 3-5-year campus ban. 

8. Struck: Several faculty members and at least four students have been summoned to OEO to explain their participation in peaceful protests or wearing a Palestinian scarf, and their jobs or school status remain in jeopardy.

Admin: This is out of context. Interviewing people is exactly how OEO works. Anytime a complaint is made, OEO must review it and investigate what happened. Being called into meet with OEO to discuss an accusation is not discipline. It is part of a review process so the individual can share their perspective, and the concern can be thoroughly investigated.

DN Fact Check: Disingenuous. Emerson does not have a dress code, and OEO should never have called a staff member in for a meeting because someone complained about their wearing a keffiyeh. In some cases, there was not even a formal complaint. OEO uses these meetings as an intimidation tactic. With regard to the four students, their disciplinary proceeding has lasted almost 10 months. 

9. Struck: Resident Assistants have been quizzed on their politics.

Admin: This is out of context. Resident Assistants answered questions anonymously during third-party training on managing difficult conversations. No one's politics were recorded or tracked, as falsely alleged.

DN Fact Check: Putting things in context, we need to acknowledge that this training was founded by a vocal Zionist who has repeatedly blamed student protestors for a rise in antisemitism on college campuses. The training asked RAs to disclose their political affiliations and answer questions about terrorism. A multiple-choice quiz asked RAs how they would label their political affiliation (e.g., Leftist, Conservative, Apolitical) and then asked for elaboration. The training also stated that the answers would be used as data for the institute that founded the training. Some RAs felt affronted by this line of questioning.

10. Struck: Critics have been threatened with lawsuits.

Admin: This is not true. The college does not threaten lawsuits against its critics. The college does protect its brand and intellectual property from unauthorized use.

DN Fact Check: In a Jan. 29 article in the Berkeley Beacon, college spokesperson Michelle Gaseau falsely claimed that Discipline News presented “potentially defamatory statements,” a clear threat.  On two separate occasions, administrators have brought up lawsuits: once as a threat of legal action against union officers, the other time as “friendly advice” about potential lawsuits against another union. The college has also sent legal notices to alumni and student groups ordering them to stop using “Emerson” in their name or to face charges of trademark violation.

11. Struck: Faculty and staff have been told, as recently as this month, they can be disciplined for their activities on their own time.

Admin: This is out of context. No one can be disciplined for activities on their own time unless they directly violate a policy. For example, if an employee assaults a student on their own time, then they are still culpable even though it was their own time.

DN Fact Check: Wickedly disingenuous! If an employee assaults a student on their own time, they will face criminal charges. The case Struck mentioned has nothing to do with assault. It involves a staff member who allegedly participated in a protest after-hours—and on a public sidewalk. What is really out of context here is the atrocious example used by the administration.

12. Struck: Students are held on probation, their graduation at risk, and told not to talk about their cases for fear of further consequences. 

Admin: This is out of context. Participants in investigations and cases are instructed not to discuss the details of that case or try to influence others involved. They are also informed that harassment, intimidation, or retaliation to others during or following a case is unacceptable. This process is a standard best practice for campus conduct.

DN Fact Check: The administration is not disputing Struck’s claim and is, instead, referring to policy. We have spoken with students being held on probation who have been warned that sharing information about their cases will result in further disciplinary action. One student was told by OEO that if, either before or after a sanction, they wanted to inform their parents that they might not graduate this year, they would first need approval from OEO. The administration uses its policies to isolate students, staff, and faculty.

13. Struck: The motion before the Faculty Assembly demands an end to all disciplinary action related to protests, demonstrations, leafleting and expressions of opinion by anyone not directly responsible for bodily violence or substantial property damage. The campus is now cowed and timid. This motion is necessary if we are to restore any sense of justice and give Emersonians their traditional voices back.

Admin: This is not accurate. There is no college, university, or school in the country with a policy that allows all forms of protest without time, place, and manner restrictions to protect safety and operations. In fact, the college is mandated by law to have such restrictions. Our demonstration policy is consistent with best practices and those of our peer institutions. The college has used discipline very fairly and judiciously this year, with no expulsions, suspensions, or severe punishments beyond warnings, education, and very rarely, probation, for anyone involved in protest-related violations.

DN View: While it is not clear what law mandates Emerson, as a private college, to have protest policies, given its recent history of unreasonable and inequitable meting out of disciplinary sanctions, we believe that the current administration has proven itself to be an unfair and discriminatory adjudicator of such processes.

14. Struck: Some argue we have bigger threats in the Trump Administration, and we should forget about the students, staff and faculty facing this discipline. But we can never unite to resist injustices from Washington while we cannot even do it at our own campus. New disciplinary charges continue today and the probations still loom. 

Admin: This is misleading. The internal division that this motion sows among the faculty and the administration will make it much harder to work together on the real threats the college and community face. 

15. Struck: Give students, staff and faculty a clean slate for the sake of campus unity. Attend the Zoom Faculty Assembly meeting at 2 pm Tuesday and vote YES on the disciplinary amnesty motion. You must be there to vote.

Admin: This is misleading. Even if Struck’s proposal passes, the college leadership has already clearly stated that these policies and conduct outcomes will not be changed. Passing this motion will add to the division between the faculty and the administration. Reducing this division and working together should be the goal of the faculty and the faculty assembly.

DN View (14 & 15): Accusing the Faculty Assembly motion for causing internal division at Emerson is pure gaslighting by the administration. Internal divisions have grown exponentially throughout the time Jay Bernhardt has served as president. They are a direct consequence of his persistent unwillingness to meet with and meaningfully engage with the community, of his unilateral imposition of highly restrictive policies curtailing free speech, and of the administration’s callous, complicit role in arresting students and imposing on them targeted and abusive disciplinary actions. 

The vote passed. And as promised by administrators  in advance of any faculty discussion, they are not changing any policies whatsoever. So much for not being divisive.