The Rhetoric of Refusal and Retaliation

Photo courtesy of Zoe Dubelier ’23

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

President Katherine Bergeron once again addressed the campus community in an email on March 1 at 10:23 a.m. She claims to have been “reflecting deeply on our current moment” and hopes to “speak candidly on two matters under intense discussion at the College.” Every past email from Bergeron has been the exact opposite of candid: guarded, avoidant, and insincere. Bergeron writes, “One [matter] has to do with the College’s and my own commitment to equity, inclusion, and full participation.” The phrase “has to do with” elicits a sense of vagueness and creates distance between Bergeron/the College and the “matter.” Her language is not exact; she dances around the true point. 

Bergeron continues, “The other has to do with allegations about the culture of my senior administrative team. On the latter, I am grateful for the review that the Board of Trustees has undertaken, and I intend to take to heart and with humility whatever steps they may advise as a result.” The constant use of the word “allegations” to describe Former Dean of Institutional Equity and Inclusion Rodmon King’s truly candid letter to the Board of Trustees, in which he explicitly recounts Bergeron’s “bullying” of him and his colleagues, suggests that King’s word is not enough. Bergeron did not take King seriously when he warned her about hosting a fundraising event at a racist and antisemitic social club, and she still appears to doubt his expertise. “The culture of my senior administrative team” does not acknowledge that Bergeron is the one who fosters the culture. Does Bergeron actually feel grateful that the Board is supposedly investigating her leadership? Does she really “intend to take to heart and with humility whatever steps they may advise”? Is she confident that the Board is completely on her side and would never ask her to resign? Or would she actually resign with grace and humility?

“On the question of our commitment to full participation, the past few weeks have thrown into sharp relief the ways our institution has fallen short of our collective aspirations,” Bergeron writes. Finally, she admits that Conn’s diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts fall short. “As president, I have been profoundly moved and humbled by the outpouring of frustration, anger, and disappointment from all quarters and by the overwhelming demand to bring our practices into alignment with our vision of Connecticut College as a more inclusive and equitable community,” she continues. Has Bergeron been “profoundly moved and humbled by the outpouring of frustration” directly aimed at her? Photos of her face with the captions “Resign” and “Bergergone” are currently all over campus.

Bergeron takes the opportunity to promote the College’s Equity and Inclusion Action Plan but then recognizes, “The campus, national, and global contexts have now changed, and I am determined to redouble our efforts in transforming our practices, policies, and campus culture.” This is probably the most promising sentence Bergeron has written to the campus community thus far. The question is, will the administration follow through and practice what they preach? Clearly, Bergeron sees herself as part of the future of Conn College. Although, much of the student, staff, and faculty body does not.

Next, Bergeron lists the steps that “are now underway” to make a change at the College. In comparison with the Student Voices for Equity group’s own list of demands, Bergeron’s list falls short. She prefaces her list, “Specifically, I have…,” taking full responsibility for the points to come.

First, Bergeron says she has charged the Vice President of Human Resources and the Interim Vice President of Finance “to review the personnel and operating budget of the Division of Institutional Equity and Inclusion so that we can ensure that the division is properly staffed and supported.” In contrast, SVE’s third demand reads, “Strengthen DIEI by guaranteeing salaried pay for all full-time professional staffers and increasing its staffing/programming budget to competitively hire and compensate additional qualified personnel, prioritizing transparency and the implementation of effective institutional spending reviews.” Bergeron’s statement appears weak and unpromising next to SVE’s strong and detailed demand.

The second item on Bergeron’s list reads, “Restructured student emergency funds in the office of the Dean of the College to better meet student needs.” SVE did not ask for the restructuring of student emergency funds, which are only available at the discretion of the Dean of the College. According to the College website, students can apply for emergency funds for “urgent needs, such as medical and dental emergencies not covered by insurance, prescriptions or medication, and some unanticipated events, including travel emergencies.” Right now, the focus should be on funding DIEI and repairing the several buildings on campus that are severely outdated, falling apart, and inaccessible.

Third, Bergeron writes that she has “identified new resources to support student programming for affinity groups and other student organizations in the Division of Equity and Inclusion.” What are these resources, and where will they come from? Simply identifying them is not enough. SVE’s fifth demand reads, “Establish greater and distinct resources for BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, undocumented, international, first-gen, disabled, and low-income students.” Students are not asking solely for resources to support affinity group/club programming; we are asking for resources for all marginalized students on campus.

Fourth, Bergeron claims to have “begun building a web presence about resources for BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, undocumented, international, first-gen, disabled, and low-income students so that students, faculty, and staff can more easily access these resources.” Bergeron’s response almost exactly mirrors SVE’s demand printed above, suggesting that Bergeron has, in fact, read their list. However, Bergeron focuses on a web representation of the current resources that exist, rather than promising to expand the available resources. This is just another performative action.

Bergeron’s fifth item is that she “approved immediate repairs of Unity House and charged Interim Vice President of Facilities Justin Wolfradt to work with the Director of Accessibility Services Jody Goldstein on addressing ADA compliance of Unity House and other DIEI spaces.” This corresponds with SVE’s sixth demand, “DIEI offices and affiliated identity-based spaces should be ADA-accessible and fully equipped to support the populations they serve.” These statements are similar enough to sound promising, although it sounds unlikely that the LGBTQIA+ Center and Women’s Center will be relocated from Smith/Burdick House. Also, there is a difference between ADA compliant and ADA accessible; Bergeron does not promise to make DIEI spaces completely accessible.

Lastly, Bergeron claims to have “worked with the Dean of the Faculty Danielle Egan to identify potential interim leadership for the division of Institutional Equity and Inclusion.” Aside from her inconsistent capitalization, this claim is insufficient. SVE demands full-time professional staffers in DIEI. Further, the faculty outline their expectation that the new Dean of DIEI position is filled “with a tenured faculty member” in their letter with 162 signatures.

Above is the extent of Bergeron’s list. She writes, “Other demands will require further deliberation, and I will provide additional updates as information becomes available. As you know, the Board of Trustees and I are prepared to make significant additional investments in our DIEI division, programs, and practices, informed by the campus community and outside experts so that those investments are impactful and lasting.” Once again, she justifies the use of “outside experts” and places herself in Conn’s future. 

Bergeron does address SVE’s seventh demand: “The maintenance of a consistent curriculum and retention of the courses necessary to complete an education within Africana Studies, East Asian Studies, Hispanic Studies, Global Islamic Studies, Jewish Studies, and Arabic Studies.” She writes, “The Dean of Faculty is planning to engage those associated with Africana Studies, East Asian Studies, Hispanic Studies, Global Islamic Studies, Jewish Studies, and Arabic Studies to develop strategies for more robust and consistent course offerings.”

SVE’s fourth demand is the “immediate prioritization of hiring more BIPOC faculty and staff throughout all offices with the inclusion of mandatory DIEI sensitivity, mediation, and equity training.” On this, Bergeron writes, “The Vice President of Human Resources is examining opportunities to resume training for staff and faculty on equity, cultural humility, and anti-bias. And the senior leadership team as a whole is discussing new approaches to search practices across all divisions of the College to improve our ability as an institution to hire and retain BIPOC faculty and staff.” The passivity of “examining” and “discussing” does not provide a sense of urgency or any real timeline.

In her email, Bergeron fails to address SVE’s remaining demands: her resignation as president, an immediate presidential search “along with the restructuring of the review and appointment process for presidents,” and “the implementation of SVE as a lasting body comprised of student representatives in communication with administration and the Board of Trustees.” Bergeron cannot claim to speak candidly if she neglects the fact that the majority of the student, faculty, and staff body calls for her immediate resignation. She promises to write about the “culture of [her] senior administrative team,” yet she never does. 

Bergeron then writes, “Over the past few weeks, members of the senior administration have been in meaningful dialogue with many different groups across campus.” According to SVE, this statement is likely false. “[The dialogue] definitely hasn’t been [going on for] a ‘few weeks,’ it definitely hasn’t been ‘meaningful,’ and we don’t think it has included ‘many different’ groups,” said a member of SVE. While it is possible that senior administrators have been in conversation with other students, no one in SVE has heard about these conversations. SVE also does not believe that Bergeron has “met individually with students,” as she writes in her email. 

To conclude her email, Bergeron writes, “It is my sincere hope that these collective efforts, especially the current vigorous engagement of many members of the community, will help open dialogue, restore trust, and advance the work we need to do to create the Connecticut College we envision.” We have been doing the work “to create the Connecticut College we envision” for years, and especially within the last few weeks. It is time for Bergeron to do her part, meet student demands, and resign. We are waiting.