Courtesy of Adrien Landon
As the sun set on Connecticut College on the evening of April 18, rainbows streamed across the sky. With the warm hues of the sunset coating the horizon over the arboretum and rainbows arching from north to south campus, framing the Thames River and spreading a great deal of joy, the general assembly allowed for a late start to permit members to enjoy the view.
Gathering in 1941, the meeting began with the Student Government Association (SGA) Oath and roll call. The assembly welcomed Elena Crowell ‘25 as Manwaring House Senator—a first from the residence hall this school year. The assembly met quorum.
This week’s open forum invited Senior Associate Dean of Student Life Sarah Cardwell and Associate Dean of Equity Compliance Megan Monahan to talk about policy clarifications from the Student Handbook and going forward.
Student policies and the Student Handbook go through a thorough review every three years. The most recent review occurred last year. Though this year does not include a review period, it has included many discussions about campus posting policies for posters and chalkings.
Cardwell and Monahan explained that posters have many regulations that dictate acceptable locations, require contact information, and provide limits on the amount of time a poster can be displayed. Many of these regulations do not currently apply to chalkings. However, there have been standardized practices. Cardwell and Monahan are interested in bringing the written policies in line with the practice of the campus.
In addition, they discussed the current lack of regulations that apply to postings from non-student members of the campus community. There are only student posting policies, there are no institution posting policies. Cardwell established interest in developing an institution posting policy that would apply to fliers put up by faculty and staff members.
As the facilitator of the general assembly, Parliamentarian Timothy Friend ‘25 opened the room up for questions.
Presidential Associate Tenzin Choedak ‘27 asked for an explanation of what policies do currently exist for chalkings around campus.
Cardwell responded, “We say some things right now, we just don’t say enough.” Chalkings cannot be done on buildings and must be able to be washed away. Typically, this is practiced as allowing rain to erase a chalking. The words or symbols drawn cannot violate other policies on language and expression. And that’s about it.
Cardwell expressed a desire to further expand on these regulations and set time limits for chalkings, like posters, and perhaps specify the “no buildings” policy further. As an example, she said that Yale University does not allow chalkings on vertical surfaces. This would prohibit chalkings on fences or walls that are separate from buildings.
Monahan lamented that there is no practice or policy in place to inform students about what will happen to their posters or chalkings. When they are taken down or removed, students can sometimes be confused as to why, when it may be as simple as part of routine cleaning for a building or for campus. Because there is little information provided to students, they are more likely to feel confused or even hurt.
Chair of Residential Affairs Mel Rollins ‘25 asked about the relevance of posting policies in spaces designated for free expression like the tunnels and Earth House.
According to Cardwell, “It’s pretty hand off” as far as exclusively posting policies go. However, postings in these spaces are still expected to abide by other policies such as those dealing with discrimination and harassment.
Blackstone House Senator Abdul Dare ‘27 asked what students are expected to do when they would like to put up a poster but other posters are already taking up all the space in an area. Monahan responded that posters are not currently required to have dates on them. Monahan hopes to change that so students will be able to see when a poster went up and know when it can come down or be covered up. Cardwell added that adding policies that would regulate faculty and staff posters would also permit people to eventually take down or cover up posters put up by these groups when they are no longer relevant.
Cardwell and Monahan opened themselves up as resources for students to contact if they have any questions or suggestions for the posting regulations around campus. They expressed a mutual desire for students to clearly understand the policies that impact them on campus.
On an unrelated matter, Monahan announced new Title IX policies expected to be released April 19. As someone capable of breaking the fourth wall, I will let you know that they were in fact released on April 19. These updated regulations will be effective on August 1, 2024.
Following the open forum with Cardwell and Monahan, Student Activities Council (SAC) presented for a second open forum period. Co-Chairs Taylor Austin ‘24 and Ryan Rivera ‘25 discussed Floralia.
Throughout Floralia, there is a snack tent with free food provided by the Office of Student Engagement. This year, there will be free Floralia bandanas provided at the snack table as well. SAC is continuing a program they started in a previous year where they will be providing free Floralia fanny packs to students for each full trash bag of trash they pick up during the event. SAC will provide students with trash bags to participate in this clean-up assistance.
This will likely be reiterated at the Floralia assemblies, but it is very important that students participating in Floralia are safe and respectful of the grounds and facilities staff members that come to clean up after us.
Following the conclusion of the open forum period of the meeting, the general assembly moved to discuss nominations for awards. This conversation was private to those in the room, but not closed. Meaning, if you were there—elected representative or not—you know, and if you weren’t, you don’t.
Excitingly, Kazi Stanton-Thomas ‘26 presented four resolutions to the assembly. The resolutions (Google Docs) were projected onto a screen in the room as Stanton-Thomas read them aloud.
They first presented their resolution promoting the establishment of a Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion day. This resolution “establishes a day within the beginning half of September of the 2025-2026 Calendar Year and in perpetuity, as facilitated by the Calendar Committee, to dedicate campus-wide education around Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.” In defense of this position, the resolution recognizes the current orientation training to be insufficient to “train inclusive community behaviors,” and the increase of DEI training “will lead to a better community culture.” The resolution would assign responsibility for the organization of this day to the Chair of Equity and Inclusion; Committee of Equity and Inclusion; Director of the Center for Teaching and Learning; and Dean of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.
The general assembly suggested edits to the resolution to have the SGA “call on the college to establish” rather than simply “establish,” since much of this would require the work of multiple offices and departments outside of the authority of the SGA.
Stanton-Thomas’s second resolution calls for increased transparency and addressment of bias and discriminatory community behavior. They would have the Chair of Communications, Chair of Equity and Inclusion, Committee of Equity and Inclusion, Campus Safety Committee, and Committee of Public Relations—which are all SGA-affiliated bodies—send emails and messages to the general student body when incidents of bias occur to condemn this behavior. The resolution views the current communication model as insufficient and lacking peer-to-peer accountability. The resolution cites the Honor Code, the Student Handbook, and the Title IX Policy that all dictate acceptable behavior on campus.
Their third resolution relates to the interaction between the SGA and Student Advisory Boards (SABs). SABs, as technically under the umbrella of the SGA through the Board of Advisory, should be utilized as resources for the SGA, according to this resolution. Stanton-Thomas writes for “the SGA [to] connect with relevant Student Advisory Boards on relevant SGA topics and issues to increase the quantity and quality of informed opinions” in order to pass more effective policies.
Stanton-Thomas’s fourth resolution calls for the formation of a task force “dedicated to find an equitable solution to the lack of queer and gender expansive housing.” The resolution would have the Chair of Equity and Inclusion; Chair of Residential Affairs; Committee of Equity and Inclusion; Residential Life Committee; Gender and Sexuality Programs; Dean of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion; and Office of Residential Life collaborate to create and present a solution for a queer and/or gender expansive housing floor to be enacted by Residential Life by 2025-2026 and in perpetuity. They reference the inequity of having “single-sex” floors available for all class years and no floor for gender expansive students. The resolution would create a task force to analyze the details of this housing, but it also calls on the task force to ensure the housing is accessible, safe, and affirming. In addition, it promotes the floor as a potential “site of collaboration between GSP [Gender and Sexuality Programs] and the GSIS [Gender, Sexuality, and Intersectionality Studies] department for gender expansive-centered community education and support.”
Rollins, who meets regularly with Director of Residential Life Eric Barnes as part of her position, discussed this idea with him. She asked whether Stanton-Thomas could speak on the level of interest students would have to fill a floor like this.
Stanton-Thomas said, “Every gender-expansive person I’ve talked to has said they would prefer to live in gender-expansive housing than the current housing we have.”
Some expressed the idea that gender expansive students could utilize large group housing, which would work even if there were not enough interested students to fill a whole floor. Stanton-Thomas and others expressed distaste for this since it continues to perpetuate the inequity of providing one type of housing to cisgender students and not to gender-expansive students.
After the conclusion of Stanton-Thomas’s resolution presentations, Friend moved the conversation to committee reports.
The Information Services Committee felt like course registration went smoothly this year. While the general assembly expressed appreciation for the new system of registering with course plans, there were concerns about the function and efficiency of registration holds.
Most committees did not have anything to report, which is generally due to the fact that most committees do not meet on a weekly basis.
In officer reports, Rollins said that the Office of Residential Life is working on a system for providing housing deductions based on community engagement. The details have not yet been worked out, but it is an intriguing idea nonetheless.
With the conclusion of office reports, the meeting was adjourned.
