Middlebury College’s mission statement states that it seeks to “foster the inquiry, equity, and agency necessary for [students] to practice ethical citizenship.” Yet, our ability to do so is currently under attack. This is not only a result of the Trump administration’s “Compact for Academic Excellence in Higher Education” leveraged at Middlebury in October, but also because of the college administration’s conviction that silence will protect us. At a time when our community’s rights to safety and speech are being threatened, Middlebury’s current systems for the expression of student voice do not seem able to meet this moment.
Earlier this semester, we contacted the Student Government Association (SGA) with a proposal to protect students’ rights to safety and freedom of speech on campus. Our proposal included five requests: first, for the college to reject Trump’s compact. Second, to provide free and confidential legal resources on issues of immigration. Third, to promise not to voluntarily share student data with the federal government. Fourth, to require Middlebury officials to show proof of their own identity before demanding that students present identification. And fifth, to clarify that pamphleting and social media use are core expressions of free speech protected without restriction by the college.
We asked our student representatives to pass a referendum, which would allow the entire student body to vote on these issues. Over the course of five weeks, we met with our representatives, attended SGA meetings and presented a petition signed by the leaders of various student organizations.
After a three-hour closed-door meeting on Nov. 5 that we were not allowed to attend, the SGA voted against holding a referendum on these five issues. After a discussion with the Vice President of Student Affairs, Smita Ruzicka, the SGA’s executive team presented us with a list of their reasons as to why the referendum was rejected. They worried that a vote would be “disingenuous,” because administrators were already working on some of the demands we had proposed (however, students and faculty had been unaware of this “progress”). Furthermore, we were told that a referendum would draw too much attention to Middlebury. We wondered, why are discussions of free speech held behind closed doors?
We are deeply concerned about Middlebury’s supposed fear of attracting attention. Silence has never protected communities, and it will certainly not protect us now. By suppressing student voices out of fear, Middlebury is passively complying with the erosion of our rights. If we live in a state of fear, afraid of drawing attention, what does that say about the college community we are currently living in? What does that say about Middlebury’s mission of “inquiry, equity and agency”?
A referendum would have been a powerful tool to express student voice. It would have shown the sheer number of students who are willing to take a stand on these issues, thereby holding our college administration accountable into the future. Administrators say they are already addressing some (not all) of our demands. But how do we know they will ultimately adopt the changes students call for, especially when the SGA has no direct say in the specific wording or content of changes to the College Handbook? And even if administrators do make the changes we want in a timely manner, who's to say they won't change their minds three months down the road?
Our failed attempt to enact a referendum through our student government raises broader questions about who really makes decisions at the college. Rather than being proactive participants in the formation of college policy, we are being handed down prior decisions and permitted to respond after the fact –– at least, until the meeting becomes closed-door. Decisions are being made that affect our lives, and we deserve to have a voice.
We’ve already made a start. On Nov. 7, inspired by the Frontline for Freedom movement, we joined hundreds of students on campuses across the country to take action to defend student safety and freedom of speech. Here at Middlebury, we hosted a teach-in. As students spoke about their experiences, we began to notice a disturbing pattern.
Last semester, students in the group Migrant Justice at Middlebury were told they could not use school resources to produce Know Your Rights (KYR) cards. This past summer, college administrators investigated and threatened Ryan Ulen ’26 and Violet Gordon ’26 with disciplinary action because they handed out pamphlets about the CIA at an informational event. We discussed concerns around what will warrant administrative action, who gets to define protest and how the college should support us in our time of need.
At this time of unprecedented attacks on our human and civil rights, it is crucial that our decision makers hear from us. When the current systems for the expression of student voice fail us, we must create new methods of discussion. Meeting this moment will require us to come together as a community to defend our rights to safety and speech through a campus-wide conversation. Talk about this with your friends, in the dining hall and in your own magazines. To join the students who are already organizing, follow @firewall_midd, read our petition at go/ourvoice/ and find a more detailed explanation at go/ourrights/. If we don’t take action, who will?
