President Ian Baucom entered his tenure with multiple public statements asserting “the freedom of our students to express and explore thoughts outside orthodoxy, inside and outside the classroom, without fear or hesitation.” And yet, the reality of students on our campus dictates otherwise. With the Trump administration’s threats to the autonomy of academic institutions, Middlebury is capitulating by intimidating and silencing its students. Free speech at Middlebury is in crisis and this administration is faltering in its commitments to open expression.
Violet Gordon and I are two seniors from the class of 2026. Like many of our peers, we joined the Middlebury community because we are concerned about the world’s greatest issues and are committed to engaging with difficult questions. This summer, because we shared information about the CIA’s involvement in global destabilization and violence, the college threatened us with disciplinary action.
On July 16, in response to a CIA information session held at Middlebury Language Schools, we shared educational pamphlets outside Axinn Center. We were respectful and followed policies; we did not block entrances or coerce people to take our pamphlets. Without cause or introduction, Vice President of Public Safety Demitria Kirby, wearing civilian clothing and a mask, demanded our names and IDs. She asked questions about the nature of our pamphleting, and whether they were registered with the office of Events Management. Because we were compliant, Officer Kirby allowed us to continue.
Two weeks later, the Dean of Students, Joe Russell, sent us respective emails, informing us of ‘very concerning potential policy violations of two community guidelines’ — Demonstration and Protest Regulations and Respect for the Authority of Middlebury Officials. Essentially, we were found in violation of the student handbook for distributing pamphlets without prior registration and for not immediately presenting our IDs to an unidentified officer.
For over six weeks, I had multiple meetings with Dean Russell regarding ‘potential policy violations.’ Despite framing these policy violations as only potential issues, Dean Russell asserted at my first meeting that I had two options: I could admit fault through a Dean’s Disposition (an official document issued by the Dean of Students outlining my violation and disciplinary action) or face a drawn-out judiciary board process. Terms such as “educational sanction” and “permanent record” were used. I was warned that disputing any part of Officer Kirby’s report would automatically send my case to the judiciary board. In other words, it was already determined that I was in violation of a policy.
With the support of multiple faculty and students, my charges were dropped one by one. Meetings with Dean Russell were spent asking about the specific policies I violated and receiving indirect answers. On my behalf, faculty and students pressured President Baucom and administrators to commit to free speech by clarifying their policies and dropping both my case and Violet’s.
Violet was given an apology for a disciplinary action process that, “should have never happened.” These cases were built on a sham charge that the administration perpetrated: That handing out pamphlets constitutes a protest, and therefore must be registered.
What began as a confrontational act of intimidation was shut down, but only through hours of preparation, meetings with faculty and proper strategy. Any other student without these advantages would have had to accept responsibility. This is not acceptable behavior from an institution that claims to be a beacon of free speech.
Many students at Middlebury have shared unregistered information through a poster, a flyer or a social media post. And yet, few students have experienced these methods of intimidation. Most students would also not give their name to a masked individual without that individual introducing themselves first. Violet and I were targeted with arbitrary charges because we shared information that the government deems controversial and threatening.
The college’s inconsistent and incoherent execution of protest policy raises an alarm. We are drifting toward institutionalized authoritarianism in a direct strike against the ethos of our college, submitting and surrendering to the values of the Trump administration. Sharing information is the most basic foundation of our institution. As students, we constantly share information in our classes through clubs, organizations and online platforms. While our Open Expression policy commits to these fundamental rights, our college administrators do not. Student disciplinary codes are not aligned with Open Expression.
Now, our college’s response to the Trump administration’s threats to higher education include creating an academic environment where this sharing of information is a reserved, registered privilege and not a guarantee. If this is our college’s basic response to two students pamphleting, what does this say about their potential reactions to further dissent?
We do not believe that protesting the CIA’s record of overthrowing democratically elected governments constitutes an unorthodox opinion. But even if it did, President Baucom has affirmed our right to express it. In this especially volatile national political moment, Middlebury must be committed to protecting free speech. If our administration cannot provide clear and sufficient justification for the disciplinary actions it pursued against us, then it fails to uphold the very principles it claims to safeguard. Free speech is not a preference, nor an aspirational goal. Rather, it is a binding obligation, one we must insist our administration honor with integrity and vigilance in moments such as this one.
The college has an opportunity to protect free speech by clarifying its policies around protest and aligning the student handbook with the Open Expression policy. Pamphleting is not a protest, and masked employees should not ask for identification without introducing themselves. To learn more about Violet’s and my demands, read our petition for a policy clarification and change at go/freedomofspeech/.
