Photo courtesy of Hannah Foley ’23
On Mar. 2, 2023 at 9:24 a.m., President Bergeron contacted parents over 72 hours after the lock-in protest began at Fanning. She did not beat around the bush; she opened her email to parents acknowledging once again that Dean King’s resignation has upset people on campus. President Bergeron then referred to the current Fanning lock-in as a sit-in, again, downplaying the language to avoid concerning parents. She reassured the parents that the College respects the students’ First Amendment rights to peaceful protest and the safety of those locked in – once again, trying to mitigate worries.
It is important to point out that both pieces of President Bergeron’s communications with parents were only written in English. She did not provide a copy translated into Spanish – the second most prominently spoken language in the United States – nor easy access to view her communication translated into other languages. This leaves her parental communication inaccessible to anyone whose parents do not speak English as a first language. Her communication in and of itself is not inclusive or accessible to all, highlighting why Student Voices for Equity (SVE) is fighting for these demands in the first place.
Two weeks prior, on Feb. 16, President Bergeron opened her message to the parents explaining that the College had been engaging in “a series of complex and difficult conversations” since Dean King’s resignation. She outlined that his resignation was in protest of scheduling a fundraising event at the Everglades Club because of its discriminatory history and how she canceled the event on Feb. 8. She then acknowledged his resignation and opened a can of worms to discuss equity and inclusion concerns on campus.
Next in the same email, President Bergeron appealed to the sense of community evident on campus since the first meeting at Hillel on the night of Dean King’s resignation. She wrote that students, staff, and faculty are banding together on DIEI causes, thus sharing the same commitment she herself has to Conn. With many parents aware of their student’s involvement in DIEI-related groups and offices, her attempt to catalyze student involvement seemingly aimed to gain parental support for her current actions. She, then, extended herself to parents focused on providing resources to students by ensuring parents knew what offices their students could reach out to if necessary. By providing transparency and a list of 15 people to contact, she reassured parents that the campus adequately supports students…something the recent Student Voices of Equity (SVE) demands would beg to differ on.
President Bergeron did not state the college’s actions in response to SVE’s demands. She avoided having to discuss the list of demands entirely, effectively hiding the root of the issues she was supposedly meant to be addressing.
She emphasized that the College has resources available for those protesting and not protesting. She encouraged students to reach out to deans, the remaining DIEI staff, professors, and academic advisors for support. Most professors have been understanding, supporting protests by scheduling classes on Zoom with recordings so students can attend or tune in when they are able. To touch on the context that Bergeron omitted, professors have also canceled classes for the week and extended deadlines, given the current circumstances. Some have been less understanding, continuing to hold class in person with little leeway for protestors. Bergeron did not mention the class cancellations nor alternative work schedules, only briefly alluding to class boycotts two paragraphs prior. She, instead, explained that the College has “taken steps to minimize disruptions to classes, advising, and co-curricular activities so that all students are supported”.
Bergeron’s former comment may be a ploy to appease parents and ward off any potential uproar that their student isn’t getting the education they are paying for. However, it blatantly ignores the volume of faculty standing with students and canceling class to protest SVE’s demands. It is as if she wishes to paint a picture to parents that the College is business as usual right now when, in reality, it is far from that.
The concluding sentiments in her past two emails are remarkably similar:
2/16 – “One of the hallmarks of a liberal arts education is the ability to grapple with complexity in the pursuit of knowledge, truth and justice. We will continue to provide space for exactly this type of dialogue
3/2 – “Working through critical issues, engaging in difficult dialogue with each other, and developing shared solutions is how we build the community we want to be. Please know that we will continue to create opportunities for exactly this kind of work.”
Has President Bergerron run out of things to say? It seems she is just rewriting permutations of her past emails to both the College community and parents. How much of a dialogue can the President engage with students if SVE, at a letter-writing event on Wednesday night, made it clear that she has not spoken to the group? There can be no shared solution without proper communication. Yet it seems that in President Bergeron’s eyes–or at least in the eyes that she desires the parents to see her in–her communication is perfectly adequate.
The movement has been picked up by the media across the state of Connecticut and has gone national. Broadway World wrote about Into the Woods postponing their show until demands are met and The Daily Beast covered the Fanning lock-in. At this point, it is not as if parents cannot find more information about what is actually happening on campus. It is clear the parent community is also reading The College Voice based on the numerous comments they have left under articles covering the movement. These articles give them a much fuller picture of the events happening than the president’s emails. She is not hiding the ball, she is simply hiding.
So, how adequate is Bergeron’s communication? Only time will tell.
As an alum (’77) it’s been helpful to read The Voice and articles such as this. Change doesn’t come easily, and it takes voice, courage and conviction. Hoping for the best possible outcome for Conn, for the students, for the faculty, for the administration, for the entire community.
It is simple. KB realizes very well she and her behaviour are at the center of this controversy.
That is the reason, why she is not trying more to engage directly with the students.
I wonder if the Trustees feel kind of caught out too by the protests and therefore are not doing more direct listening …
I am disappointed I must admit. I would have expected more direct engagement, listening and active and public (transparency!) actions by the Trustees.
They are the ones who have let this situation evolve.
Trustees, where are you and what are you doing?
Your college community is suffering.
With so many parents living within a few hours drive, perhaps it is time for parents to show up (this weekend) and support their students. If SVE could identify a time that would be helpful, it would be shared on the Conn Parents group pretty quickly. I don’t know if you would get hundreds but you would certainly find support..
Yes, as parents of a ’21, we would certainly show up!
As a middle class, eighteen year old, white male freshman in 2000, I often felt uncomfortable at Connecticut College because of the extreme wealth of much of the student body. I struggled to relate to individual students and to the place as a whole. So I can imagine how a person of color, who also doesn’t come from wealth, might feel even more uncomfortable than I did.
However, the sad truth is that Connecticut College needs rich, white money in order to compete against other elite liberal arts colleges. Because of America’s history, the vast majority of money in this country is controlled by rich, white people. The less of their money the school gets, the less it will be able to give lower income students. There are not alternative places to get money.
It’s very hard to take the SVE demands seriously when their “spark” issue (the fundraiser) is so lacking in logic. They’re demanding more money spent on specific programs while at the same time rejecting fundraisers (“racist money”) without good reason. If one goes back 50 years, every dollar in this country is connected—in one way or another—to discrimination and/or outright exploitation. Every. Single. Dollar. Thus, all fundraising would be rendered impossible if we were to abide by the misguided philosophy of these protesters. Bergeron SHOULD be taking money from wealthy, historically privileged places like country clubs and using it to pay for the education of people of color. That’s the general idea behind restorative justice.
The club country club was just a venue. Furthermore, there is absolutely no evidence that the club continues to discriminate. The fact that Jewish and black people continue to not belong to the club is not evidence of discrimination. Rather, it’s evidence that Jewish and black people are not interested in joining the club. This, of course, is understandable of black and Jewish people, given the club’s history. But it’s not a reason to avoid the club altogether.
Are we so sensitive that we can’t even walk into a venue that discriminated 50 years ago? Do we now need to know the 50+ year racial history of every venue that the school uses, and whether or not they’ve acknowledged past harms? How does doing such things actually help anyone?
All country clubs are exclusive, elitist institutions that frequently deny people admittance. Do you know what other institution is exclusive, elitist, and frequently denies people admittance? Connecticut College. We’re practically a country club on steroids. Should we not hold fundraisers on our own campus?
And shouldn’t the school newspaper be asking such questions, instead of reflexively jumping on the protester bandwagon?
If the history of this country club had never come to light, and the fundraiser had moved forward, no one would have been harmed. No one. In contrast, the protesters have permanently made it more difficult for the school to raise funds that are needed to provide financial aid, maintain the campus, and pay staff. Ultimately, this will harm low-income students most of all. The protesters’ behavior is the very definition of performative activism as opposed to real activism. And sadly, such performances are very fashionable on college campuses these days.
Rather than calling people racist, trying to get people fired, and creating obstacles to fundraising, I wish the protestors would consider the other ways they could be helping people in need. They could be working to end the War on Drugs, helping to build more affordable housing, grappling with ways to improve public schools, advocating for the funding of vocational training for the working class, helping ex-convicts get jobs, teaching financial literacy, or volunteering at local schools. Such actions are much more difficult than occupying a building and holding up a “Resign” sign, yet they would actually make a difference in the lives of people who are struggling.
(Also, can someone give give a specific example of how Bergeron “verbally abused” people? That’s a heavy claim that’s being thrown around without evidence to back it up.)
So…you’re just going to post this novella to every single story on TCV…desperate for attention are you?
You are quite out of touch with all of the significant issues the students, faculty and staff are seeking action on. Watch the utterly apathetic behavior of the BoT at the student meeting https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t7RSyYZg6ok. Take the time to actually talk to people on campus and really understand what is happening. The fundraiser was the catalyst that opened the flood gates of an extensive list of problems that have been left to fester for years and are all coming to light at once. 150+ faculty wouldn’t risk their reputations and careers over “just a venue”. Would the money raised have helped the College? Probably. Would it have “hurt anyone”? Maybe, depending on their moral compass and DIEI status. Could it have provided funding for marginalized groups and programs? I doubt it because even with the 50 million dollar donation they received last year, and the tuition of the extra 200 students in the class of 2026, there are no repairs being made to dorms, “meeting financial need” of students means drowning them with loans after freshman year, and students are doing the work of staff in the under-staffed offices all over campus while still trying to maintain their classwork and activities. One cancelled fundraiser would never rectify all of these issues if 50 million didn’t make a dent. Will all of this hurt Conn in the short term? Probably because I sure as heck wouldn’t send my student there as a freshman.
The lack of authentic outreach and communication from Administration and the BoT is shameful. The failure to provide authentic, sincere, useful communications to parents is beyond disappointing at best. It is also a sad state of affairs when the BoT has a dinner event after their meetings with faculty, staff and students last week and, completely oblivious and totally insensitive to the fact that STUDENTS were staffing the event, stood to toast and cheer KB. What kind of message does that give students? It is a slap in the face to the students and all of the struggles they are having. It shows that the BoT is NOT interested in the students or the campus but in the mere status of being a BoT member.
It appears that the current state of Conn between senior Admin, KB and the BoT has become a self-feeding organism of only people of the same management style and mindset coming together to the detriment of the institution, its mission and most importantly – to the people that matter most – the students.
I read about and watched students’ testimonies. Frankly, I didn’t hear anything that convinced me that any of the college’s policies were “dehumanizing”, “oppressive”, or “abusive” (words favored by the protesters).
Just because you feel “oppressed” and “abused” does not mean that those word accurately describe your condition. Hey protesters, try this: Tell the people who cook food for you every day that you feel oppressed. Tell the people who clean your bathrooms that you feel oppressed. Walk to downtown New London and tell the people working for minimum wage, the construction workers suffering from arthritis, the immigrant taxi drivers, the public-school teachers, or the single parent living on food stamps that you feel oppressed. Head to a domestic shelter and tell them that you feel “abused” because you’re a minority living in America and attending one of most expensive colleges in the country. Or hop on a plane and head to the border—I’m sure the migrants there would love to hear about your oppression.
It is irrelevant that your movement consists of people of various races, creeds, nationalities, sexual orientations, gender identities, disabilities, and socioeconomic statuses. The people who disagree with you are also a diverse group, though many are too scared to speak up for fear of being labeled a “racist”, a “white supremacist,” an “oppressor,” “abusive”, or a person who is “complicit in their own oppression.” These are the names that people get called when they even question your movement.
DIEI and SVE have no real plan for improving the lives of the people for which they claim to advocate. Their most specific demand regarding improving the lives of students is this one: “Establish greater and distinct resources for BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, undocumented, international, first-gen, Disabled, and low-income students.”
But if you’re calling for “distinct” resources, wouldn’t that require a little specificity? What resources would make a difference, and HOW exactly would they make a difference? Are there currently no resources for BIPOC, LGBTQIA+, undocumented, international, first-gen, Disabled, and low-income students? If there are resources, how are they coming up short? Should we simple create more resources, or should we focus on improving the resources that currently exist? Did SVE or DIEI think about these questions before SVE began occupying Fanning? If there was detailed forethought, I have yet to see evidence of it.
Since this movement is wholeheartedly against accepting any money from institutions deemed insufficiently antiracist, I guess we’re going to need to start cutting programs to make room for all the new “distinct resources” you’re envisioning. What exactly should we cut?
The work of SVE and DIEI will be counterproductive as long as their strategy involves calling as many things as possible “racist”, “abusive”, “oppressive”, and “dehumanizing”. This is because using such extreme language makes it utterly impossible to identify and prioritize key problems and their potential solutions.
Their work will be counterproductive as long as they are creating unnecessary obstacles for fundraising while simultaneously asking that their favored programs receive more funding.
And their work will be counterproductive as long as they are not specific regarding how their plans will help people.
All in all, SVE and DIEI are hurting the people they claim to be helping.
Where can i find the Spanish translation of this article? It is not very inclusive or accessible to not publish it in the second most spoken language in the United States!
Are you that dense ?
Hypocrisy bingo is an easy game to win when the opposing team are unhinged anti-White extremists.