Tag Archives: pomona college

Safe Spaces: Where Free Press Dies

It is unbelievable how freedom of the press, a right our Founding Fathers so cherished, has eroded in a country that prides itself on its liberties. It is unbelievable how the right to cover an open event, which freedom of the press entails, cannot be practiced on college campuses.

Last week, while trying to cover an open event discussing the role of the Asian-American and Pacific Islander (API) community in the Black Lives Matter movement, hosted by Pomona College’s Asian American Resource Center (AARC)—which considers itself a “safe space”—I uncovered the sad state of free press at Pomona College. I was hoping to objectively cover this event, to bring out the little-known viewpoints of the API community on the Black Lives Matter movement. This hope was greeted by resentment and hostility, and I left with one message: Freedom of the press does not belong, and is not welcome, in safe spaces.

The process of stifling free press begins right as a journalist walks through the doors into the safe space. While I was initially welcomed when I asked if I could record the event and take notes, further questioning revealed I was trying to cover the event for a student-run publication. Even then, the event facilitators extended their warm welcome, until it was brought to light that this student-run publication was The Claremont Independent, a conservative-leaning paper. No more warm welcome and no more recording allowed, but I was still permitted to take notes.

The death blow of free press in this “safe space” struck later, when I started to take notes on my laptop just as the event began. As I finished typing my second line of notes, I was informed that note-taking would only be permitted if it was approved by all participants of the event—if even one participant objected to my note-taking, I would not be allowed to take notes. Unsurprisingly, after a blindfold vote, at least one person voted against note-taking, and I was told to stop taking notes. I was told that taking notes made participants uncomfortable, and that I should respect the AARC as a “safe space.” In a subsequent meeting with the director of AARC, I was told the AARC functions primarily as a “safe space” where participants should feel comfortable, and that people’s fears and concerns of an Independent journalist taking notes should be respected in this safe space, adding that the AARC does not want its views advertised to an audience the Independent could reach.

Despite making it clear that speech at this event should make all participants comfortable, attacks on capitalism and “capitalist violence,” the “heteropatriarchal” society, and traits of the “model minority” (like working hard and obeying the law) were left unchecked, without the slightest consideration of whether I, with differing political views, would feel comfortable listening to endless assaults to values which I hold dear. Yet with free press dead, who dares challenge this hypocrisy?

In the college campus “safe space,” with no freedom of the press, there is no check on the lack of ideological diversity, no way for “safe spaces” to promote their messages through an objective third party, and no way for the public to know about and effectively help pressure and protest against the hypocritical “inclusiveness” of safe spaces.

Free press is the restraint that keeps “safe spaces” from becoming “hate spaces” that do not fear whether the stifling of differing views, the silencing of people from different parts of the political spectrum, and the venting and promotion of anger towards certain groups of people, will ever be exposed to and critiqued by the public, where there is no fear whether the public will pressure them to change. Because, without the restraint of free press on safe spaces, the public will simply never know.

Unless safe spaces are made accessible to the free press, journalists need to abide by a new rule concerning reporting in safe spaces: Don’t try. Yet I remain confident, and hopeful, that through the efforts of those who act to uphold our Founding Fathers’ values on college campuses, the rule for journalists will be “Dare to try. Dare to uphold and defend the diversity of opinion, freedom of expression, and freedom of the press.”

Claremont Students Say Masculinity is Hazardous to Mental Health

On Monday night, 5Cs Thrive hosted an event called “Masculinity + Mental Health.” According to the event’s description, the workshop focused on the mental health problems caused by masculinity.

“Masculinity can be extremely toxic to our mental health, both to the people who are pressured to perform it and the people who are inevitably influenced by it,” state the event’s organizers. “We would like to encourage discussion on how to openly talk about our emotions and our wellbeing, and how to engage in masculine identities in a healthy way. Relevant to this discussion is how masculinity can harm our relationships with people and one’s ability to cope when relationships are difficult or end. We want to create a safe and open space where we can talk about masculinity and its various intersections with our identities and experiences.”

5Cs Thrive describes itself as “A safe space for students at the 5c’s to talk about mental health,” and the “Masculinity + Mental Health” event took place at the Rick and Susan Sontag Center for Collaborative Creativity (The Hive). The Hive’s stated mission is “to accelerate the creative development of students across the 5Cs. We do that through Exploration – by creating a safe space to experiment and play, Collaboration – by bringing people with diverse backgrounds and perspectives together to be in the ‘intellectual muck’ together, and through Experiential Learning – thinking by doing.”

The event received some positive feedback on Facebook. One woman, Lizbeth Ramirez, posted, “THANK YOU from the fullness of my heart for having this available for my fellow brothers.”

Miles Robinson (PO ’18), who attended the event, told the Independent  that there was “a common consensus that masculinity is harmful both to those who express it and those affected by it” among attendees. “It was all talk through personal experiences,” stated Robinson. Robinson added that all of the organizers of Thrive—as well most of the attendees of Thrive’s weekly functions—are female, and the group hosted this event in the hopes of getting more men to come.

It seems Thrive’s efforts were not entirely successful, as some students avoided the event out of concern that it would alienate men. “If masculinity is described as something negative—a mental illness—then this is sexism against men,” stated Will Gu (PO ’20) in an email to the Independent. “Safe spaces… are supposed to make everyone feel comfortable. Criticizing masculinity makes males who adhere to traditional gender norms uncomfortable.”

Update: October 4, 2016

Sabine Scott, a leader of the “Masculinity + Mental Health” event, issued the following statement in an email to the Independent:

“Our ‘Masculinity and Mental Health’ event was created with the goal of providing a space to examine to effects of masculinity on mental health. In order to preserve the confidentiality of the space I’m not going to disclose what was discussed, but it was a productive conversation that helped people explore how masculinity impacted each person’s individual experience with mental health. Participants were able to find support in other people who have had similar experiences, and the meeting empowered both the men and women in the meeting to realize how the pressure to conform to stereotypical masculinity can have harmful effects on being able to share emotions and maintain healthy relationships.”

Correction: October 5, 2016

An earlier version of this story stated that 5Cs Thrive was part of the The Hive. A representative from Pomona College stated in an email to the Independent that 5Cs Thrive is not affiliated with The Hive, they just used the venue for their event.

Speedo Hike Canceled Over ‘Body Image,’ ‘Bro-iness’ Concerns

Yesterday, On the Loose (OTL), the outdoors club of the Claremont Colleges, announced the cancellation of their annual speedo hike due to concerns regarding body positivity. The event, which had previously been one of OTL’s most popular of the year, involved over one hundred students from the Claremont Colleges hiking up Mount Baldy in speedos.

“By having the Speedo Hike as our official welcome event each year, we unintentionally sent the message that to participate in OTL, you must be fit and comfortable with your body image,” OTL wrote on its Facebook page. “The name ‘Speedo’ itself inherently implies bro-iness. OTL is so much more than just that, but many potentially interested students get turned off to our club each year because of Speedo Hike.”

Clarissa Worcester, a staffer at the Outdoor Education Center, added, “the publicity/legacy surrounding that of the speedo hike is immediately and inextricably ostracizing. Not to mention how it directly excludes individuals with religious dressing practices. No matter what work you do, the ‘speedo hike’ will manifest itself as OTL taking out and funding a group of students that is nearly guaranteed to be almost exclusively outdoor-experienced, fit, and heavily swayed in the direction of outdoor—and otherwise—privilege that OTL is trying to work against.” Worcester added, “OTL’s decision to not put many folks’ organizational effort and time into an event that is widely associated with bodily shaming/exclusion just seems to make a lot of sense.”

Not all students agreed with the decision. “I want to express my profound disappointment in your decision to cancel the speedo hike. This decision is, in my opinion, a mistake that goes decisively against your responsibility as the heads of the club to enable transformative experiences in the outdoors,” wrote Jeremy Snyder, a Pomona student. “OTL should strive to serve as many people from as many backgrounds as possible, but this should be an additive process, not a reductive one. In terms of enabling outdoor experiences, taking the speedo hike off the docket is a net negative. No progress is made by its cancellation. If the hike is cancelled, every individual and group that would have opted not to participate will stay on campus that saturday just the same. The sheer absence of the Speedo Hike will not propel them outdoors, so it is not productive to that end. What does change, however, is that now every person who would have partaken—for whom the speedo hike could have been a fun, challenging, and socially transformative experience as it was for my friends and I—will now spend their saturday on campus as well, sedentary. The decision to cancel the hike has not propelled anybody new outdoors, it has merely erased the chance for students to have a new and singularly memorable experience.”

Samuel Breslow (PO ’18) pointed out that attendees of Speedo Hikes in the past were never forced to don speedos. “I think it’s important to note that wearing a speedo was not a requirement for participation in the speedo hike,” noted Breslow. “I can also speak to it from personal experience: I decided to keep my clothes on (for comfort/in order to lessen the sunburn), and no one ever pressured me in the slightest to take them off.”

“This has been a difficult decision for us to reach. We know lots of our beloved members will be disappointed that Speedo Hike isn’t happening this year,” states OTL’s Facebook page. “In an effort to make the club more inclusive and accessible to everyone, we didn’t want to advertise a trip that our staff felt like wasn’t representational of the full OTL mission and purpose.”

_______________

Image: Flickr

 

Pomona College Poster: ‘Everyone is Problematic’

New students at Pomona College were welcomed to campus with posters all over their dorms giving instructions for “How to be a (Better) White Ally.” The signs state that white people should “acknowledge your privilege” and “apologize if you’ve offended someone,” adding that offensive language includes words like “sassy” and “riot,” which are “racially coded.”

Screen Shot 2016-09-06 at 11.31.16 AM

“Everyone is problematic and even the most educated and well-intentioned people will screw up,” the poster states. The sign then gives three steps for white allies to follow:

  1. Be prepared to make mistakes.
  2. Listen and apologize.
  3. Make sure to change.

“Remember, just because POC [person of color] #1 isn’t offended by something, does not mean that POC #2 will not be offended by it either.”

The poster goes on to states that “social justice is about BOTH elevating oppressed groups and simultaneously unpacking the privilege of dominant groups. These aspects are equally as important!” Additionally, the sign claims that all white people are racist. “Understand that you are white, so it is inevitable that you have unconsciously learned racism,” states the poster. “Your unearned advantage must be acknowledged and your racism unlearned.”

Further, the poster claims that white people should “just listen!” rather than explaining their own perspective. “Comparing a POC’s situation with some experience of your own is not helpful. You do not & can not understand our oppression!” The guide recommends that white people should “listen to a diverse selection of marginalized voices” and notes that “POC will always understand racism in a way that you cannot—you need to listen to them!”

Pomona College had several events last year that white students were not allowed to attend. Pomona College’s website states that “Pomona College seeks to maintain an environment of mutual respect among all members of its community” and that discrimination on the basis of race “destroy[s] the foundation for such respect and violate[s] the sense of community vital to the College’s education enterprise.”

How #BlackLivesMatter Failed Black America

As a Black college student, I have felt immense pressure from other Black students to choose between joining the insular, single-minded Black community and being seen as a traitor. Being mixed-race has made it even more difficult, as both my Black identity and loyalty to my race are questioned when I express my views. I am quite openly proud to be Black, but I do not fit—and refuse to ever fit—into the mold built by the self-indulgent Black community here at the Claremont Colleges; I would rather be labeled a “shady person of color” or a “coon” by my Black peers than validate their insecurities and inaccurate opinions which have fostered such dysfunction and divisiveness within the Black community.

Black Lives Matter has been nothing short of a hindrance for Black people, especially those who do not subscribe to the fallacious narrative that America is a bastion of hostile White supremacy. In its constant bid for media attention, the group has blocked traffic on major highways, hijacked political rallies, disrupted college speakers, and, since last summer, have on a continuous basis preached anti-cop rhetoric. In the aftermath of the murders of police officers in Dallas and Baton Rouge, members of the group broke into a police officer’s house and praised the Dallas police massacre.

Black Lives Matter’s statistical illiteracy, specious rephrasing of events to fit their melodramatic narrative, and constant screaming when they do not get their way not only depicts Black Lives Matter as a movement of emotion-driven ideologues, but also paints all Black people as less credible.

Black Lives Matter also reinforces White superiority. In fact, it thrives on it. The movement as a whole operates and feeds solely on garnering guilt and pity from White people, which plays directly into the false idea that Blacks are inferior to Whites. As Dr. Michael Hurd has said, “Pity is based on the premise: ‘Your vulnerability allows me an opportunity to be superior.’” Once Black Lives Matter “wins” and the inferiority complex it promotes is satisfied, we as a people will fall decades behind in the fight for cultural equality.

The Black Lives Matter movement vilifies and punishes potential allies who aren’t “doing enough” for their cause, rather than embracing a constructive discourse. They block White students from their events and refuse to listen to any student who disagrees with them on even the smallest details. Black Lives Matter has become a discriminatory organization which only serves to whip the Black community into a frenzy, and it is only a matter of time before students on campuses radicalize and hold violent demonstrations like those which destroyed Baltimore and Ferguson.

What little central organization Black Lives Matter maintains has embraced militancy and the dream of rebuilding the Black liberation movement—a movement which secured its place in history largely through the lengthy rap sheets of FBI most-wanted terrorists, cop killers, and professional rioters who served as its leaders. Prominent Black Lives Matter leaders support mob actors who loot as a form of activism, such as Joanne Chesimard—better known as Assata Shakur—who killed a state trooper and committed multiple robberies, who flaunted opinions entertaining race war, and who believed that violence was an acceptable means to a greater end.

Some have disregarded the actions of these Black Lives Matter supporters as unrepresentative of the movement at large. But with no meaningful effort within the movement to expunge violent actors from its ranks, the organization has become a safe harbor for incitement, murderous rhetoric, and what can only be described as domestic terrorism. In fact, as defined by the federal government, Black Lives Matter fits within the definition of a domestic terrorism group under all terms of Section 802 of the U.S. Patriot Act. Despite this, a petition posted on the White House website to recognize Black Lives Matter as a terrorist organization was recently dismissed.

Advocates of the movement cannot pick and choose who they think represents Black Lives Matter; the organization has to claim responsibility for any and all actions taken under its name. In present day Black activism, Black Lives Matter members are responsible for not only the Dallas police shooting, but also for anti-police chants such as “Pigs in a blanket, fry ‘em like bacon!” and “What do we want? Dead cops! When do we want it? Now!” These violent slogans aim to intimidate the public, discourage police officers from doing their jobs, and threaten those who might stand in the way of the Black Lives Matter movement.

If Black Lives Matter really wants to make a positive difference for Black lives, they have to start by addressing the realities they have chosen to ignore. Black men alone have made up 40% percent of all cop killers in the last decade despite comprising only 6% of the population. They are also eighteen-and-a-half times more likely to kill a cop than a cop is to kill them. According to FBI crime statistics, Black people (both juvenile and adult) commit 51% of America’s murders, nearly 30% of rapes, 56% of robberies, and 33% of aggravated assaults. Despite these high violent crime rates, Blacks make up only 26% of police shootings. Black Lives Matter loves to complain about the “disproportionate killing of Blacks,” but a recent study from Harvard University confirmed that police shootings have no racial bias.

Any good work that Black Lives Matter has done for the Black community is overshadowed by the movement’s promulgation of anti-police, anti-White, and sensationalist sentiments. Beyoncé, a number of the parents of those shot (such as those of Michael Brown), and even Barack Obama have been ignored as they called for peaceful protest. Black Lives Matter must begin renouncing their violent members and setting the course for a new era of harmony and trust between minority communities and our nation’s law enforcement.

_______________

Image: Flickr

Student Leaders: Diversity Proposal Remedies “Unsafe Academic Environments”

Under pressure from student leaders, the Pomona College faculty voted last week to include a consideration of a professor’s “attent[ion] to diversity in the student body” in the College’s criteria for promotion and tenure.

The move follows the circulation of an open letter in support of the addition which received hundreds of signatures and the backing of several high-level officials in the College’s student government, including the current and former Student Body Presidents. According to the letter, the new language will ensure that faculty members must demonstrate a sufficient commitment to “diversity, equity, and inclusion” in order to be a successful candidate for tenure, promotion, or reappointment.

The letter also praised the motion as a significant step toward the realization of Pomona College’s diversity objectives as laid out in a document released last year by the President’s Advisory Committee on Diversity. According to the letter, the new criterion will help to alleviate the “unsafe academic environments” which have had a deleterious effect upon “students’ well-being and everyday lived experiences” by making diversity one of the top considerations for faculty advancement, thereby recognizing that “meeting the needs of a diverse student body” is “an essential component of exceptional teaching and service.”

Under the former guidelines for promotion and tenure, faculty members were required to demonstrate “intellectual leadership” (i.e. “good teaching”); “professional achievement” (i.e. scholarly productivity); and “effective service to the College,” its student organizations, or to professional organizations. The new guidelines qualify “good teaching” as teaching which “is attentive to diversity in the student body” and adds a requirement that faculty members seeking promotion should demonstrate competency or excellence at “fostering an inclusive classroom” in addition to the superior teaching skills which the College’s promotion criteria already mandate.

Potential candidates for advancement also must “specifically address their efforts to create and maintain an inclusive classroom.” These efforts might involve, as the new guidelines suggest, the “inclusion of scholarly and other works emerging from the perspectives of underrepresented groups” in the courses taught by the candidate or “any other classroom practices that support inclusivity and diversity.”

Student reaction to the change has been generally positive. The open letter in support of the new language has garnered hundreds of signatures from Pomona College students. “I support this criteria,” said one supporter, who asked to remain anonymous. “I appreciate the lengths to which the campus faculty and student body went in order to get input and consensus from so many people before implementing this criteria.”

Others, however, are less pleased with the new policy. “Professors should be hired and later given tenure because of their teaching abilities,” another Pomona student told the Independent. “When it comes to promotion, identity politics should be left at the door.”

Black Women Protest Campus Party Because Non-Black Women Are Invited

This Friday, Black Lives At Mudd (BLAM) is hosting an event for “Black Woman & Non-Gender Conforming People” in order to have “a celebration of what black women have done for this community through a presentation involving black men in the 5’cs [sic].”

“We want to build community and have a safe fun space to kick back and chill,” BLAM states on the event’s Facebook page. “Transportation, food, and tickets will be provided for Black Woman and Non-Gender Conforming people. Allies will be handled according to resources.”

The event comes in response to Friday’s annual “Dinner for the Sistahs” event hosted by Building Leaders On Campus (BLOC), an all-male organization for “self-identified marginalized” students with a largely black membership. Dinner for the Sistahs is designed to be “an opportunity for the men of BLOC and the WOC [women of color] of the 7Cs to interact and get to know one another.” This year, “Any WOC is able to attend” Dinner for the Sistahs, according to the event’s Facebook page. In previous years, the event “was catered to Black WOC” at the Claremont Colleges.

Many black female students did not approve of this change. “There have been several complaints by Black womyn about the BLOC event that is happening on Friday and from what I have seen, it seems to me that the men of BLAM wanted to explicitly make sure that the womyn who felt oppressed and not welcomed by the structure and advertisement of ‘Dinner for the Sistahs’ felt loved and wanted to create an actual safe space for Black womyn—with the input of Black womyn,” stated Ashley Land (PO ’16). “In my honest opinion, I feel like the dinner is being half-assed, it is last minute, it is devaluing black womyn by not even letting them have two hours with them as the focus (when the event was originally created for Black womyn…like how you gonna make the event called Dinner for the Sistahs when the word ‘sistah’ is historically seeded with Black womyn in mind???).”

Land adds, “I think this Thursday’s BLOC meeting needs to revolve around what work y’all can put in to make a more this campus a more inclusive community. You should question why the Black womyn are critiquing BLOC the way they are and what can we do to be better in the future. This is work y’all need to do on y’all on [sics throughout].”

“This is sh*tty and it ignores the fact that a sh*t ton of woc are anti-black on these campuses. Thanks for being complicit in the violence by opening the space. Gross,” stated Erin Houston-Burroughs (SC ’17).

BLOC responded to these criticisms by emphasizing that black women were still the focus of the event. “After considering feedback from all parties, we want to make it clear that this dinner is centered first and foremost around Black Womyn. The purpose of this dinner is to create a safe space for all participants in which they can enjoy themselves and feel unthreatened in a warm, community-based environment. We had no intentions of compromising this safe space nor did we have any inclination that opening up this event to all WOC would have this adverse effect.”

BLOC ultimately canceled Dinner for the Sistahs, and will instead host a forum to discuss the controversy.

___________________

Image: Facebook

I Resign: The Writing Center’s Mission is to Teach Writing, Not Ideology

Dear Professor Bromley, Ms. Liu-Rojas, and Ms. Snell,

I am writing to resign my position as a Writing Fellow. I wish that I felt I could continue in this role and am sorry to resign mid-year. As you know, writing is one of my passions and as you also know, that wasn’t always the case. It was my freshman seminar that convinced me I could write and that I enjoyed it. My professor, Dean Lozano, was instrumental in that process, and his Writing Fellow, Ben Brasch, was key as well. At the conclusion of the course, I decided to apply to become a Writing Fellow in the hope that I could inspire other writers the way I had been inspired. I was thrilled and honored to be selected to serve as a Fellow.

I had genuinely thought the purpose of the Writing Center was to teach writing. I hadn’t realized the writing instruction would be delivered with a side of ideology and that the ideology was not only mandatory but also more important than the actual teaching of writing. I’ve learned this over the past few months, which is the reason for my resignation.

First, Ms. Snell, the Writing Center Team Coordinator, asked me to meet with her. She accused me of being an obstacle preventing the Writing Center from being a “safe space.” This came in response to a news article I had written that detailed a series of no-whites-allowed “safe spaces” at the Claremont Colleges. Ms. Snell specifically mentioned my article, and noted she was concerned that my involvement with both the Writing Center and the Claremont Independent would lead students to associate the organizations with one another. Obviously, many other Writing Fellows contribute to campus publications. But as far as I’m aware, no one else has been told that’s a problem.

My next meeting was with Professor Bromley. She told me she was worried that I was not doing enough to make the Writing Center a space where students feel welcome. To rectify that, she canceled my appointments that night and asked me to read three packets about identity politics instead. One of the readings states that teaching English to non-native English speakers is an attack on free speech. Another criticizes “the hegemonic feminist theory produced by academic women, most of whom were white.” The third, titled “Heteropatriarchy and the Three Pillars of White Supremacy,” states that capitalism is racist. I read all three packets, as I had been told to do. I did not agree with the opinions presented in any of them, nor did I see any connection between these readings and my work at the Writing Center.

Ms. Snell then asked to meet with me again to talk about what I had read, and what role identity politics should play in the Writing Center’s mission. My peers have proposed their ideas for a new Writing Center mission statement, noting that we should aspire to “provide a space for students to work through their ideas with fellows trained in a writing pedagogy that considers how race, gender, sexuality, language, national-origin, and socioeconomic status influences and affects those ideas,” “educate ourselves so that we better understand oppression, liberation, and dynamics of difference and power as they manifest themselves in the Writing Center,” and “acknowledge and interrogate the ways in which the Writing Center, Pomona College, and academia itself perpetuate and have perpetuated injustice and oppression.” I told Ms. Snell that, in my opinion, the goal of the Writing Center should remain unchanged: to provide “students with a community of experienced readers and writers, offering free, one-on-one consultations at any stage of the writing process—from generating a thesis and structuring an argument to fine-tuning a draft.”

I guess that was the wrong answer, since the next day I was placed on probation and informed that I needed to meet with Professor Bromley and Ms. Liu-Rojas, the Writing Center’s administrative assistant, the following week. I was told the reason for my probation was that I had missed a mandatory meeting for Writing Fellows, but at my meeting with Professor Bromley and Ms. Liu-Rojas, we did not discuss that at all. Rather, we talked about my prior meeting with Ms. Snell. Apparently, “her feelings had been hurt” because of my “tone.” Professor Bromley and Ms. Liu-Rojas told me that if I did anything else they deemed wrong, I would be fired.

The following night, I worked my normal shift. I met with two students and I thought that both consultations had gone well. However, I soon received an email from Professor Bromley stating that the Writing Center had received an “anonymous complaint” from a student who had worked with me, that they were investigating the situation, and that my appointments would be canceled until further notice. Perhaps coincidentally, a quick Facebook search revealed that one of the students with whom I worked that night had dressed as “White Supremacy” for Halloween and appeared in photos with two other students who were dressed as “Steven Glick and his White Fragility,” yet she still chose to work with me as her tutor.

Based on these incidents, which have occurred over many months, it has become clear that the Writing Center is harassing me because of my political beliefs. This is unacceptable, just as harassment based on gender, race, religion or any other demographic or ideological construct is unacceptable. My probation is not related to any inadequacy of my work at the Writing Center. Rather, it is due to my political views, which differ greatly from those of the Writing Center leadership. Each time I have been asked to meet with Writing Center leadership, I am asked to talk about controversial political issues that are unrelated to my work at the Center. Soon after each meeting, I have been informed I’ve done something wrong on the job and need to be punished. I had hoped that President Oxtoby’s recent statement in support of free speech at Pomona College would be a game changer, allowing conservative, libertarian, and classically liberal students and faculty to share our honest opinions with our progressively liberal peers who seem to control the sanctioned conversation on campus. Unfortunately, I was naively optimistic. His words carry no meaning if they are ignored and countermanded by Pomona’s faculty and staff.

I wish I could continue to work at the Writing Center because I feel that it’s important for all students, whether black or white, on financial aid or not, conservative or liberal, to have a place to review and strengthen their writing. Unfortunately, the Writing Center no longer seems to be that place. Until the Writing Center can return to its apolitical mission and forsake its acceptance and appeasement of political harassment, I regret that I must resign my position as a Writing Fellow.

Sincerely,

Steven Glick

Editor-in-Chief, The Claremont Independent