I was thrilled when I got accepted into Emerson’s journalism program in 2022. Now, entering my third year, I am filled with dread.

Emerson’s Instagram bio reads, “Where independent minds give voice to daring ideas.”

Except, as of August 23, our independent minds have been silenced and our daring ideas dismissed. Of course, Emerson was never really the type of place to foster a welcoming environment where this sentiment felt sincere. The only difference now is that we have the college’s attempt to censor its students in writing. 

The recent policy changes don’t come as a surprise. Emerson has a history of picking fights with its students who dare to do the very thing they supposedly encourage. Said policies seemingly target one group, however—those who stand in solidarity with Palestine, as they are being implemented in response to the aftermath of SJP’s solidarity encampment.

In short, Emerson has banned acts of civil disobedience because “[a]s a private institution, Emerson has the right to time, place, and manner restrictions on speech.” So much for “giving voice to daring ideas,” right? And this is likely just the beginning.

The college will also create new programs informed by the Anti-Defamation League (ADL), an organization Wikipedia deemed unreliable concerning the Israeli-Palestine conflict. The ADL has also been under fire because of leveled charges of antisemitism against leftwing Jewish groups, Black Lives Matter, and Palestinian rights groups. Emerson’s Board of Trustees adopted a policy that “[p]recludes the College from taking official positions on complex geopolitical issues,” which is completely contradictory. What message does this partnership send to students?

As we enter a new year at this so-called inclusive art school, we also enter an environment that is incredibly proactive in its attempt to censor any criticism about the Israeli occupation.

Emerson is not alone in implementing suppressive and unconstitutional policies. In the same vein, New York University has updated its student conduct guidelines, which now claim that words like “Zionist” could violate the university’s Non-Discrimination and Anti-Harassment policies. It won’t come as a shock if Emerson follows suit. 

These policies set a harmful precedent for the future of our education, as they infringe on students’ First Amendment rights. As a journalism student, I fear what the implications that come with censorship on college campuses will bring. The industry is regressing, and Emerson is only adding fuel to the fire. 

I was at the encampment when it began and I stayed until the very end. I attended classes, made art, conversed with my peers whose voices had not been heard by the college, and ultimately I locked arms with my peers when Mass. state troopers forcibly removed the encampment and brutally arrested 118 protesters. 

I was instructed not to report on the encampment. I obliged. Internally, I knew I wanted to do the very thing that brought me to Emerson. I wanted to report. I wanted to be a storyteller, to uplift my peers’ underrepresented voices. The press was failing them. Other news outlets were relying on police reports to gather information. Some of their reporting was false and prematurely published. As a journalist who was on the scene, this felt like a slap in the face, and there was nothing I could do about it.

However, I am proud to say that several Beacon staff members produced commendable content throughout the encampment, free of any censorship barriers that the college has now implemented. 

It’s understandable why I wasn’t allowed to cover the encampment. But what’s going to happen when the implementation of new policies affects my fellow reporters at The Beacon? Will they be reprimanded for shedding light on perspectives that don’t align with the college’s?

Is it a coincidence that the closure of the Bright Lights Cinema Series and Anna Feder’s termination came after she screened the film “Israelism”?

Students and faculty alike are being silenced for having views that oppose the college’s.

Now consider the bigger picture.

Since Oct. 7, the Israeli Occupation Forces has martyred 116 to 170 Palestinian journalists. 

Palestinians have long been poorly and underrepresented in Western media, and coverage of the Israeli occupation from major news outlets tends to favor Israel.

Since day one as a journalism student, we have been told that we as reporters have the responsibility to remain objective because taking a stance will tarnish our reporting and credibility as journalists.

Should a reporter dare take a stance for Palestinian liberation, they jeopardize their career in the journalism industry. 

So, to that, I say, objectivity simply does not exist within the journalism industry, whether one wants to admit it or not. When journalists remain silent about the atrocities that Palestinian people are facing or favor Israel in their coverage, they surrender their objectivity and become complicit in genocide.

This type of censorship extends beyond the universities where aspiring journalists grow into reporters. Western media outlets are guilty of promoting the same ideals. 

The 76-year-long Nakba, the mass ethnic cleansing and dispossession of Palestinians across the diaspora, never ended, and western journalists are enabling it.

An analysis from The Intercept examined coverage from the New York Times, Washington Post, and Los Angeles Times and found that “for every two Palestinian deaths, Palestinians are mentioned once. For every Israeli death, Israelis are mentioned eight times—or a rate 16 times more per death that of Palestinians.”

In a leaked internal New York Times memo obtained by The Intercept, journalists were instructed to restrict the use of terms including “genocide” and “ethnic cleansing.” They were also told to avoid using the phrase “occupied territory” when referring to Palestinian land.

The memo also instructed reporters not to use the word Palestine “except in very rare cases” and to avoid the term “refugee camps.”

“Issuing guidance like this to ensure accuracy, consistency and nuance in how we cover the news is standard practice,” said Charlie Stadtlander, a Times spokesperson. “Across all our reporting, including complex events like this, we take care to ensure our language choices are sensitive, current and clear to our audiences.”

At a time when Palestinian people need representation, media outlets and universities are doing everything in their power to silence those in positions to platform the people who need to be heard most.

To my fellow journalists and journalism students who are reluctant to speak out because of a nameless, faceless “future employer,” you are not alone. Journalism is changing; we’ve seen that in every foundation class we’ve had to take. Challenge what you are taught. Suppression of free speech on college campuses is a setback, but we still have the privilege and obligation to use our voices. The estimated 40,000 martyrs did not.