Why I Support “Vandalism” As An Act of Social Justice

, by Mica Taliaferro,

Dear Mytheos Holt,

You are correct, the language of the alumni open letter was exclusionary. But I’m not apologizing. The letter wasn’t meant to be an objection to the particulars of this specific hearing. It was meant to declare opposition to the entire paradigm that led the administration to send the students to the SJB at all. Of course, my primary objective in organizing around this issue is to support the accused students. But I am compelled to act in solidarity by my core beliefs, not by a disagreement with the technicalities of this hearing as an isolated incident. If there was a rally to support these students, I would certainly support inviting you and comrades to attend. But I did not extend you a special invitation to sign the letter, because it was not intended to advocate for a Burkian “fair and consistent rule of law.”

Of course Wesleyan has the legal right to punish any student proven to have destroyed University property. I reject your claim that that is their “moral” right. I reject your passive invocation of some sort of universally accepted, or, even worse, “objective” moral authority that Wesleyan “ought to” abide by.

I call upon Wesleyan to act under a different framework. I’m not some kind of oxymoronic radical dictator who desires to impose my arbitrary political beliefs. I just want Wesleyan to sincerely embrace the values it professes. The #thisiswhy campaign implores me to give my money to Wesleyan because I believe in changing the status quo for the better, because Wesleyan taught me how to fight for and win the causes I believe in, and ultimately because Wesleyan itself is my cause. Wesleyan is not my cause.

I refuse to condone the administration’s conduct by writing a check addressed to Wesleyan University. I’d rather share my money and other resources with the Wesleyan faction that I know would use them to fight for social justice. I’d sooner entrust student activists with a financial contribution knowing that it would be used in the spirit of transformative, rather than punitive, justice.

If Wesleyan’s actions reflected a genuine commitment to the values it espouses, it would not have responded by punishing the students. My idea of an un-hypocritical response to the Pissed Off Trans* People’s direct-action campaign would look something like this:

“Wesleyan University’s general position on vandalism and/or destruction of University property is that students who are accused of these acts will be brought to the Student Judiciary Board, which will require them to pay the cost of the damages if it can be proved that they were responsible. However, this policy is not appropriate for this particular instance. The students in question took action based on their lived experiences of oppression, which manifested in many forms, including active harassment. We recognize that it is the responsibility of the administration to do everything in its power to create a campus environment where students of every gender identity feel safe, respected, and supported. The actions of the students in question reveal that we have not been living up to this responsibility. As such, it would be counterproductive to the goal of creating an inclusive community to punish these students in accordance with our standard policy. Instead, we will invite these and any other trans*/gender-nonconforming students to collaborate with the administration on a broad initiative to work towards a thoroughly anti-oppressive Wesleyan. We have already ordered permanent versions of the signs that the students put up, as minimizing the presence of binary gendered bathrooms is a clear, tangible first step towards our larger goal. We would like to extend a sincere apology to any students who have felt marginalized as a result of the administration’s inadequate support of trans*/gender-nonconforming students.”

You see, Mytheos, the open letter in no way represents a blanket support for all forms of free expression as a principle. You’re entirely right to assume that the authors of the letter would react differently to actions taken to enforce rather than fight against oppression. This is far from hypocritical. It is entirely consistent with the central value of social justice that the letter expressed support of.

And yes, Mytheos, I know that my version of a just response from Wesleyan is idealistic. That is clearly not how the world works. But unlike you, I do believe that it is how the world should work, in Wesleyan AND out.

Another world is possible!

Taliaferro is a member of the class of 2012.

1 Comment

Leave a Reply

Twitter