Most of the excitement during the Jan. 28 faculty assembly came in the last half hour when a motion aimed at standing against disciplinary actions taken against community members who participate in on-campus protests hit the floor.

Prior to this, for the first hour and fifteen minutes, faculty members discussed two agenda items about voting procedure changes: One that sought to change the number of members required to be present during amendment motions failed, and the other adopting Zoom survey voting polls passed overwhelmingly.

Doug Struck, a senior journalist-in-residence, introduced the motion that addressed aiming for an immediate 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 administration has carried out a broad campaign of silencing critics,” said Struck. He also described Emerson College as having the “most restrictive policy on free speech in recent memory.”

Specifically, Struck alleged that at least 30 students and two faculty members have been summoned to appear at disciplinary hearings for leafleting. Another seven faculty members have also allegedly been called upon by the administration to answer questions about their protesting actions, he said in his introduction of the motion. Struck encouraged his colleagues to read the fourth edition of Discipline News, an anonymous claims-based blog that has been reporting on Emerson’s “surveillance and disciplinary actions” since last December.

“At each step, the administration has implicitly or explicitly warned [faculty] not to speak out lest there be more and greater consequences,” Struck concluded at the end of his statement. “I submit we have an obligation to oppose that, to stand up for academic freedom, for nonviolent free expression of opinions the administration may not like.” 

The motion comes amid claims of disciplinary action being filed against students and staff for various demonstrations. In recent weeks, many members of the Emerson community have been outspoken about their frustration with the disciplinary actions carried out by the administration’s response to the arrest of 118 protesters on campus last spring. 

Cate Schneiderman, a staff librarian, spoke in favor of the motion, explaining that faculty members who have voting privileges have more of a voice.

“The faculty are listened to—you have a powerful voice, and as a staff member I would appreciate that support,” Schneiderman said.

Some faculty members, including Gregory Payne, an associate professor, and chair of the communication studies department, were not in support of the motion as they were unsure of whether the claims were factual or simply “allegations,” Payne said.

“Some of what I heard simply is not factually accurate,” he said.

Payne also stated that the motion was “focused on the past rather than the present and the future.” He explained that he felt as though many were holding on to the events that occurred last spring, referring to the encampment and subsequent arrests.

“Some people want to hang onto that and I think there are lessons to be learned from that,” he said, “but as we are sitting here talking about this and other things we have a lot of things happening externally that are impacting our students today.”  

Payne said that he thought the focus should be on upcoming difficulties that will come as a result of President Donald Trump’s administration, referring to recent executive orders made by the president rolling back DEI initiatives in public sectors and pausing federal aid and grant programs (an order Trump has since rescinded).

“We can either continue to focus on a difficult spring or we can look at exactly what is staring at us in the face,” said Payne.

In response to Payne, Nancy Lyons, a senior executive-in-residence at the Marlboro Institute, expressed disappointment with Payne’s stance, stating, “I encourage you to look for yourself.”

Lyons also alleged that the lack of information on the matter was due to administrative silencing.

“Several organizations in the college have attempted to put out said information but have been asked by the administration not to,” Lyons said.

Jane Shattuc, a professor within the visual media arts department, argued that in light of the presidential election, it is more important now than ever before to have protections like these in place.

“The world is a very odd place right now, but that doesn’t mean we don’t keep our house in order,” Shattuc said. “We are not gonna let Trump set our agenda, so we need to do it in-house.”

Others in the Zoom chat agreed with both sides, assuring that the motion’s goals were important, but that more information was necessary.

“I agree that more information is needed, but I also agree that the students should be protected,” Thomas McNeely, a faculty member within the Marlboro Institute, said.

The motion did not come to a resolution but is expected to continue to be discussed during the next faculty assembly on Feb.18.