The Rhetoric of Ruthlessness and Rebellion

Photo courtesy of Zoe Dubelier ’23

Follow-up article to “The Rhetoric of Resignation and Resistance” by the same author

Board of Trustees Meeting with Students

On Feb. 24, the Board of Trustees was kind enough to set aside an hour and a half of their time to split up and meet with Conn students, faculty, and staff. At the student meeting, Sydney Lamb ‘21, Karen Quint ‘87, and Jonathan McBride ‘92 made up the trustee panel. The trustees attempted to make students feel seen and heard by immediately opening the meeting to student questions and comments, but proceeded to evade almost every question, and became more hypocritical by the minute. In response, students expressed their anger about the injustices they experience and witness daily at Conn, and through their deflective answers, the trustees further discouraged students regarding the possibility of real change. 

“We do feel a sense of urgency to address this, but transparently, we don’t have a timeline…I don’t know,” Quint admitted. Later in the meeting, she contradicted herself by saying, “We have very quickly, when we heard about the allegations brought by Dean King, initiated an outside independent review of the president; that is an ongoing review that is underway, it should be wrapping up shortly.” Quint acknowledged the prevalent sentiment that an independent review is counterproductive, but she stood by the decision, despite the faculty’s strong opposition in their letter with 162 signatures. “As a board, our responsibility is to support the entire College community, and that includes the president, and that is why we are standing in support of her today,” Quint stated. She essentially assured students that Bergeron is here to stay. It is not necessarily the Board’s responsibility to support the president under any circumstances, but clearly they prioritize loyalty and money over democracy and justice.

Quint claimed, “We absolutely are committed to shared governance,” while she and the trustees continue to undervalue and shut down student, faculty, and staff feedback. “Our job, as a board, is to support the vision and mission of the College and ensure that there are adequate financial resources to execute that plan,” she said. If the Board actually supported the College mission, Dean King would not have resigned, the Division of Institutional Equity and Inclusion would be fully staffed and paid fairly, and marginalized students would receive the support they deserve. Quint also said, “I don’t think it’s appropriate for us to comment on anything related to the bullying allegations,” implying that the allegations are groundless and mere rumors. Of course, white people have not been as impacted by Bergeron’s bullying as marginalized people, but that should not discredit King’s allegations. 

The trustees repeated the phrases, “We understand the urgency,” “This is a delicate process,” “Personnel matters are confidential,” and “We hear you.” These phrases might as well boil down to “You are overreacting,” “We do not care,” and “No comment.” Many students prefaced their comments by speaking about their personal experiences on campus, and it was demoralizing how shocked the trustees were. They had no idea about the mold in almost every residential building, and appeared to laugh at students’ angry comments about poor living conditions. They somehow did not know who Rachel Stewart was, our beloved former Director of Sexual Violence Prevention and Advocacy, who left Conn last year to accept a better job at another institution. The trustees spoke less and less as the meeting progressed, and students’ furiosity only increased.

Campus Update Email from President Katherine Bergeron

Bergeron sent out an email to Conn students, faculty, and staff on Feb. 27 at 10:40 a.m. (right as students gathered to protest outside Fanning), stating the obvious and not revealing any new information. She begins, “I am writing to make you aware that a group of students is engaging in a peaceful sit-in in Fanning Hall that began last night.” Make us aware? We are the ones currently on campus witnessing all of these developments firsthand! Student Voices for Equity leaders and supporters emphasize that the protest is a lock-in, not a sit-in; there is a difference. Students wish to remain locked inside Fanning Hall until their list of demands are met. Bergeron then claims, “Members of the administration continue to pursue constructive dialogue with the student leaders as we address the important concerns they have raised.” She does not detail what this dialogue looks like and exactly how the concerns will be addressed. Bergeron calls the concerns “important,” yet evades the fact that the main concern is about her competency as president. She then writes about the logistics of Fanning’s inaccessibility to outside students, professors, and staff members. Bergeron concludes her brief message: “My colleagues in the senior administration and I will do our best to keep you informed as new information becomes available.” There was absolutely no new information in this email. The College Voice covered the Fanning occupation the night that it happened. 

Board of Trustees Update Email

On Feb. 27 at 10:07 p.m., Debo P. Adegbile, Chair of the Board of Trustees, emailed the Conn community. In the first paragraph, Adegbile writes about the Board’s annual campus visit and meetings with the campus community, using inconsistent verb tenses. He notes that the Board “gathered on campus” (past tense), but then writes, “During this meeting, we conduct our governance work” in present tense. Adegbile states, “We adjusted our schedule to provide the entire Board of Trustees with deeper and more meaningful opportunities to hear from a broader cross-section of staff, DIEI team members, students, and faculty.” He implies that the trustees deserve praise for going out of their way to do the bare minimum: listen to the people they represent. Based on how the student meeting went, “meaningful” is not a very accurate description of the Board’s failure to provide any useful information. Adegbile explains that these meetings “created immediate and accessible ways for [the Board] to learn directly from people on campus about their experiences and concerns,” yet does not indicate any solid plan to act on these concerns.

Adegbile details, “Among the common themes we have heard across all these conversations are a desire for actions that will ensure mission-focused leadership, enhance our shared governance, execute our DIEI Action Plan for the benefit of our entire community, improve campus-wide communications and transparency, and make the campus experience stronger.” This list is correct, but Adegbile fails to be transparent and provide even a preliminary plan to address these urgent concerns. Also, in the original email, “DIEI” appears in a smaller font size than the rest of the words (Times New Roman 11 vs. Times New Roman 14). It is possible that Adegbile copy-pasted “DIEI” into that sentence and forgot to change the font size. Although it was most likely accidental, this mistake is symbolic of the Board and administration’s disregard toward and lack of knowledge regarding diversity, equity, and inclusion on campus. This is consistent with the trustees’ shock at the student meeting when they heard about overworked student staffers at DIEI and the poor conditions of DIEI spaces.

“We appreciate the desire for urgent answers. As Trustees we have a duty to reflect upon what we have heard, determine where we are best situated to make a difference, reconcile the reality of some strongly competing views, be thorough in our assessments, and, above all, be deliberate in the actions we take in the best interests of the College,” Adegbile writes. He suggests that it is not the Board’s place to make a difference in all aspects of the College when he says “determine where we are best situated to make a difference.” What are the “strongly competing views” to which he refers? Is this an acknowledgment that the Board disagrees with the opinions of the majority of the student and faculty body? 

Adegbile continues, “We also must complete the various aspects of our current but ongoing review with fairness to all involved. As we discussed in our meetings, the Board plays a vital leadership and governance role for Connecticut College, but it is the work of the president, senior administration, and entire community of faculty, staff, and students that drives the effective and successful day-to-day operations of the College.” It is debatable whether the Board is actually fair to the student body in providing transparency and taking feedback seriously. Adegbile shifts the responsibility away from the Board in the second sentence, implicitly justifying the Board’s inaction. The Board is at the top of our power structure and they do not empower faculty, staff, and students to “drive the effective and successful day-to-day operations of the College.” Some may even say that they discourage shared governance in practice.

“Together we are going to make some changes, and you will be hearing about them from the Board and administration as soon as possible after our assessment is complete. We share the imperative of acting expeditiously and prudently as well as your motivation to be guided by Conn’s mission and commitments,” Adegbile states. “Together” implies that the entire campus community, to which the email is addressed, will have input, but then Adegbile writes, “you will be hearing about them,” clarifying that we are not included in the “we” that will make changes. After claiming that they value student voices, the trustees hypocritically excluded students from the body that can spark change. The Board has made it very clear that they understand the urgency of this situation, but they do not provide the slightest bit of hope that they are seriously considering students’ demands in this email.

Adegbile’s email concludes, “With you, we will ensure that Conn College emerges as a stronger and better connected community of learning, personal growth, and achievement.” He once again separates “you” (the campus community, desperate for radical change) from “we” (the people who have power but refuse to use it meaningfully).