In many ways, the protests were the height of academic idealism: Students saw the speakers as symbols of their communities’ values. “By selecting Lagarde as the commencement speaker we are supporting the International Monetary Fund and thus going directly against Smith’s values to stand in unity with equality for all women, regardless of race, ethnicity or class,” the Smith students’ online petition reads. At Haverford, protestors wrote a letter directly to Birgeneau, asking that he apologize for the November 2011 police violence towards the Berkeley students involved in the Occupy Cal movement. But in response, Smith President Kathleen McCartney and Haverford President Dan Weiss both publicly expressed their worries about narrowness of student thought, and opinion piece after opinion piece denounced the students for their inability to tolerate intellectual diversity.
On both sides, this created widespread hurt and frustration. Students at Smith were dissatisfied with their president's response to an open letter they wrote, saying it did not directly address their concerns.* At Haverford, the situation was somewhat better: Staff members attended a community forum.
For their part, administrators were frustrated with losing the opportunity for their students to hear from important public figures—especially ones who they might have disagreed with. They said the strident tone of the protests wasn’t in keeping with academic inquiry—or conducive to debate.
The narratives in the media didn’t help, either. Liberal-leaning outlets covered the incidents as examples of students trespass against the free-speech rights of the speakers. And the talk on the right centered on the old complaint that higher education has a rampant liberal bias.
But beneath these critiques lies a helpful truth: If college communities can’t handle political disagreement, who can? The university is a sphere wholly dedicated to the search for truth and exploration of how the world does and should work. Theoretically, the academic community should be a model for discourse in the rest of the world, even if that’s often impossible to achieve.
For this to happen, students and administrators have to figure out how to move forward—and start to understand each other better. “One of the sentiments that became evident in our campus conversations was the extent to which the current generation of students feels a deep connection to the Occupy movement, the frustrations about our society that the movement activated, and the progressive values it continues to represent,” Weiss told me in an email. “We learned that our community has work to do in constructively engaging the inevitable moments of discord so we can move forward together.”
Students also said that their intentions have been somewhat misrepresented in the media—the Smithies I spoke with said they never intended to silence Lagarde. Her “withdrawal surprised me,” said Ifetayo Harvey, one of the leaders of the protests. “Our goals in protesting were to bring awareness to the Smith community about the harm the IMF has done to women in our communities.” Both Smith and Haverford student activists emphasize that any protests held during the speeches themselves would not have been disruptive: They intended to wear buttons and armbands, or turn around in their chairs. They said they would have heard what they speakers had to say; their administrations question whether they would have listened with open minds.