On Feb. 25, faculty assembly debated a motion for an “immediate end to any and all disciplinary action related to protests, demonstrations, leafleting and expressions of opinion by anyone not directly involved in bodily violence or substantial property damage.” In other words: A blanket pardon for any and all actions that did not cause physical harm. A few people spoke in support of and against this motion, but there were about a dozen more voices waiting to be heard when we reached the end of the meeting time. The assembly chair moved to a vote, with 50% of my colleagues voting to support this motion. 

The outcome of the vote is less important than the unfathomable words spoken by some of my faculty colleagues during the discussion. I heard faculty who claim they want to protect students say that the students should be pardoned for participating in “peaceful protests” and related activities, because—and here I quote as best as my memory can hold—“nobody got beaten. No property was damaged.” I still cannot believe I heard these words spoken by a faculty colleague. “Nobody got beaten,” therefore no harm was done and no discipline is warranted. “Nobody got beaten.” Is that really our standard? Physical assault cannot be the only metric of harm by which we want to measure our behavior. We must remember the lessons we have learned about emotional harm. About the pain and anguish words can cause. About the fear that lives in words and acts of exclusion. “Nobody got beaten” cannot possibly be the standard of the caring community we claim to be. 

I also heard faculty say that the discipline measures given to students were “unfairly applied.” How do my colleagues know that? Because they spoke with the students who received the discipline. They heard one side of the story. Would any of these faculty be happy with a student paper that only researched and delivered one side of a complex story? It is always interesting to look at which voices are heard and which are not. Like the voices of Jewish students who were cowering in their rooms in 2B last spring, trying to pray during Passover while listening to hateful, antisemitic chants, such as “globalize the Intifada” and “fuck you, Israel” outside their windows. I am sure those students would be horrified to find out that 50% of their faculty believe no harm was done to them. It is almost unfortunate they were afraid to leave their rooms. Had they stepped outside and been physically assaulted, maybe they could have made a case for being harmed that could have withstood the good intention of their faculty to “protect our students.” 

If you are a Jew who has not felt harmed by these chants and rhetoric, I am happy for you. But that does not give you or anyone else the right to dismiss the pain and harm Jewish community members like me experience. Where is our collective empathy? Where is our decency? Where is our care for fellow community members who have bruises on their souls, if not on their physical bodies? We would never tolerate “nobody got beaten” as the minimum standard of harm for any other minority group. 

After this assembly discussion and vote, I am heartbroken and ashamed to be an Emersonian. After 16 years, I no longer know whether there is room on this campus for me. Maybe the silver lining here is that—according to 50% of my faculty colleagues—community members like me, and the devastation we feel, don’t matter anyway.

Ruth B. Grossman is a professor in Communication Sciences and Disorders.