The faculty assembly Tuesday afternoon adopted a motion that sought to end disciplinary action related to nonviolent protest that was then sent to the administration, as a direct stance against campus expression policies.

The motion, sponsored by Doug Struck, a senior journalist-in-residence, sought to end “all disciplinary action related to protests, demonstrations, leafleting, and expressions of opinion by anyone not directly involved in bodily violence or substantial property damage.” The voting body started debating the resolution last month, but was unable to vote as time ran out.

The meeting also featured updates on artificial intelligence use at Emerson and the AI Task Force and fears of potential federal threats toward higher education. 

When the motion to end disciplinary action was opened to debate in February’s faculty assembly, Russ Newman, an associate professor at the Marlboro Institute, moved to enter the voting body into executive session. This motion removed all non-voting members from the meeting, citing concerns about The Beacon reporting what would be said by faculty members. 

“The last time we had a discussion, everyone was reported out verbatim by name by The Beacon, and I don’t know if that’s the right environment within which to have this kind of frank discussion,” Newman said. 

In the September Assembly meeting, the voting body adopted a motion “to allow a Berkeley Beacon reporter to attend Faculty Assembly without vote or floor privileges for the Academic Year 2024-2025, unless otherwise voted on by the Assembly.” As part of this motion, the faculty agreed that The Beacon must obtain the explicit consent of those that are quoted after the meeting in the interest of “democratizing” the assembly’s practices, a caveat The Beacon has recently contested, claiming journalistic independence in the historically public forum.

Faculty members were vocal both in support and against the move to executive session. Struck, who authored the original motion that was to be debated, spoke against closing the meeting.

“I don’t understand why this faculty would be afraid of having its opinions and its voices reported accurately,” Struck said. “We ought to have the fortitude to have our opinions quoted accurately so that students have some confidence that this is being discussed and they know what’s going on. Why should we operate in secret?” 

The faculty voted 52% in favor of moving to an executive session, with 37% voting against it and 12% abstaining. In the executive session, the vote passed with 50% (96) voting in favor of ending disciplinary action, 42% (80) against, and 8% (16) abstentions. Several faculty members who spoke to The Beacon after the assembly raised the question of whether the vote needed 50+1 support (97 votes) to pass. Some also asked whether abstentions would count as “no” votes or function as a “present” vote, thus lowering the vote threshold needed for the resolution to pass. 

Regardless, the adopted motion was sent to the administration.

President Jay Bernhardt, in an email sent on Wednesday to the faculty council after the vote was certified, acknowledged the outcome, but declined to consider altering any disciplinary policies.

“Emerson’s conduct and disciplinary processes further our goal of allowing diverse viewpoints to coexist in an atmosphere free from discrimination, harassment, and intimidation,” the statement read. “While the college understands the faculty assembly’s interest in this matter, disciplinary procedures and conduct findings fall outside the assembly’s authority; hence, no changes will be made to any policies or disciplinary actions resulting from this vote.” 

“The college will consider this input, along with other feedback received, when considering future policy adjustments after the conclusion of the academic year,” he added.

Faculty members anticipated ahead of the meeting that the college would disregard this vote. Struck emailed most of the voting faculty late Sunday night to give more context to his motion and encourage fellow faculty to vote “yes.” 

The college drafted an annotated version of Struck’s email, which Provost Alexandra Socarides distributed to department chairs Tuesday ahead of the assembly. The four-page document, which was reviewed by The Beacon, challenged almost every claim Struck made in his email, which The Beacon also obtained, relating to disciplinary action.

Struck’s letter highlighted the alleged disciplinary actions the school has taken against protesters, including restrictions on graduated Emersonians for protest actions during commencement and at other points over the course of the academic year. The administration’s annotations denounced these claims, saying that “no students were arrested by ECPD or disciplined by the college for participating in the encampment” and “no one who simply held or wore a flag was banned from campus.” 

The assembly also included presentations from Liz Chase, director of the Office of Academic Assessment, a report from the Board of Trustees meeting, and an update on Emerson’s artificial intelligence policies.

Brooke Knight, the AI Task Force chair, and board member Russ Newman covered a few main goals of the task force, and invited faculty to participate in a retreat in March for both proponents and opponents of AI to discuss Emerson’s policy. Talks of adding a minor or major relating to AI were also mentioned by Newman. 

Keri Thompson, a senior lecturer in the communication studies department, gave the report from a meeting with the Board of Trustees, in which she communicated the faculty’s split feelings on AI, concerns with interim protest policies, and questions about how potential Trump administration policies could affect the college. 

“Faculty have mixed feelings on these issues, and I did my best to convey all faculty perspectives to our trustees,” Thompson wrote in an email to The Beacon after the assembly. 

The faculty then engaged in a discussion about “institutional plans in response to changing postsecondary education regulations,” where Socarides answered questions. Emerson faculty have previously expressed uncertainties about the future of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs at Emerson. 

Nelli Sargsyan, who leads the faculty assembly, briefly touched on some updates from the faculty council’s February report that included topics like Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents on campus, potential loss of federal funding, and support of transgender students. 

“I think students are looking for us as faculty to acknowledge the reality we are living in,” said Nancy Lyons, senior executive-in-residence at the Marlboro Institute. “We don’t have to give opinions about it, we don’t need to dedicate class time to it, but I think we need to acknowledge it.”

P Carl, who recently wrote a letter calling out Emerson’s lack of support for transgender students, echoed this notion. 

“The students just desperately need to talk in class about what’s happening,” he said. “It’s not about having the class become that, but it’s just acknowledging that the world is actually happening, and I think that’s important.” 

Carl also posed a question to Socarides, who was in attendance during the first half of the meeting, about the college’s response to potential threats against students and faculty, using transgender people’s passports being denied while abroad as an example.

Socarides said the college will address those situations as questions arise. 

“There has been communication to international students about going home for spring break and coming back,” she said. “I realize there has not been specific communication to faculty  about traveling on college business. If you have worries about that, send it to me.”

The next faculty assembly will take place on March 25.