This Letter to the Editor was submitted by Tom Vosganian, political director of BC Democrats.
Chestnut Hill residents best know three sounds: an early 2000s rock arpeggio, thousands cheering, and the melody of the nation’s oldest school fight song. Since they live near Boston College, they’re quite familiar with the Eagles’ pride and distinct identity among a sea of other universities in the greater Boston area. Lately though, members of the BC community have noticed a more troubling aspect of the school’s identity. Last year, Boston College was ranked 189 out of 257 for free speech due to both campus policy and culture surrounding the discussion of controversial topics, projecting a dramatically more reserved school image—which doesn’t make sense.
Most BC administrators would likely describe the school’s identity as “Jesuit” for its belief in cura personalis, discernment, and other Ignatian values. For Boston College, these values inform a tradition of routinely appointing members of the Society of Jesus to serve as university president—a tradition recently upheld by the announced ascension of Reverend Jack Butler, S.J. to the presidency. Colleagues have said of Butler, “He’s a Jesuit who loves the Jesuit mission and history”. If that’s true, one Jesuit tradition would be new to BC after he succeeds Father Leahy: controversy.
Saint Ignatius’ famous call to “set the world on fire” is an inherently provocative one; and the history of the Jesuits doesn’t exactly describe obedience or idleness. Despite reciting this call to all first-year students at each incoming class’ convocation, the Boston College administration hasn’t allowed students to actually realize it—especially in the realm of political advocacy. During last year’s election season, the administration barred BC Democrats and BC Republicans from advertising phone banking sessions; and on paper, neither group is allowed to officially endorse political candidates—as if doing so harms BC’s image, rather than simply reflecting a politically diverse student body. Climate Justice BC faces “tedious” registration restrictions when attempting to demonstrate; and they’ve routinely seen censorship for their calls for the university to divest from fossil fuel—as if doing so is an attack on the school, rather than an actualization of Pope Francis’ call to environmental stewardship. BC Palestinian rights advocates faced an 80-day-long process of itinerary and speech revisions in a captious attempt to silence calls for BC to disclose any financial ties to Israel—as if doing so indicates bigotry, rather than a desire to stop BC from contributing to violence in the Middle East.
Notably, February’s pro-Palestine demonstration was particularly conscious of this BC policy issue, dedicating as much, if not more, focus to repressive speech policies than to Palestinian rights. Israel-Palestine is admittedly an especially contentious subject in the United States, obviously due to its historical, religious, political, and social relevance; but if anything, these characteristics make a college campus the first place people ought to discuss it. With any topic, controversy is a plea for resolution, and there’s no better place to resolve a difficult intellectual conflict than an institution with multiple libraries, hundreds of distinguished professors, and thousands of high-achieving students; and to think otherwise misunderstands the purpose of the university—and of the Jesuit community, no less—as an institution.
It’s an incredibly cliché statement at this point, but the university as an institution is meant to be the most intellectually diverse forum for open discourse. Whether it be in the classroom, the dining hall, or the quad, any university would take pride in a student body dedicated to an exchange of ideas—no matter how niche or subversive. Boston College doesn’t practice this idealized university tradition—not just because of its administrative policies, but also because of a self-censoring campus culture. Boston College isn’t uniquely averse to political advocacy—especially in an increasingly materialistic society that increasingly only values a college education by its job prospects. However, more so than other schools, BC seems to proudly wear the apolitical badge.
When asked by the Associated Press about the lack of political involvement at BC, one student said “It’s just not the vibe at this school,” with another telling The Heights that the understanding among students is to “put your head down and learn.” As restrictive as the administration is in practice, though, these sentiments aren’t based on written policy, but implicit, collective assumptions. Boston College students generally avoid politics for the same reason that most people do: they don’t want to appear self-righteous or moralistic; and they especially don’t want to incite conflict with their friends and classmates. However, to hold these fears is to essentially label oneself as not mature enough to engage in civil debate. If asked directly, though, most BC students would probably defend their ability to disagree with someone and still respect them as a person. Even the most politically active people on campus have close friends with diametrically opposed worldviews. The ability to have such a relationship encapsulates multiple Boston College values; meaningful conversation in which the participants seek to resolve a pressing societal injustice while respecting each other as children of God is the most quintessentially Jesuit tradition.
It’s currently unclear whether Father Butler will deviate from the current administration’s censorious approach to campus speech; if he doesn’t, it’s up to the student body to initiate a campus-wide culture shift. At Boston College, there are clubs from all over the political spectrum—BC Democrats, Libertarians, and Republicans, Climate Justice BC, the Platypus Society, etc. Today, they largely exist as affinity groups; they set up their tables for the involvement fair, and maybe during an election cycle, but generally speaking, students who aren’t already members have to actively look for these clubs to participate most of the year. All campus advocacy groups should regularly set up tables in areas that see frequent foot traffic, handing out petitions, event flyers, and other eye-catching announcements; most literature will immediately be thrown out—if passerby take any at all—but members of the BC community need to see that their peers are engaged, passionate, and ready to share their views. These clubs should host more parties to show students that a partisan group can also be fun and open to less politically committed—but still curious—community members. Partisan campus groups need to organize around a shared commitment to free speech, petitioning the administration to allow the publication of their activities, the open and frequent advocacy on important issues, and importantly, the defense of their beliefs to the public. None of this is to turn Boston College into a university like Georgetown—where politics defines virtually all aspects of campus life—but to free the school from its self-imposed censorship and normalize civil discourse. Expanding campus free speech doesn’t just help these clubs or students who are already politically involved; students who identify as apolitical undeniably benefit from a respectfully argumentative campus community as a means to inform them on important contemporary disputes.
As a Jesuit institution, dedicated to cultivating a liberal arts environment, Boston College cannot afford to follow the repressive tendencies of other American universities. It must cut against the censorious grain for its intellectual and academic environment to flourish; it must open communication between its administration and student groups to end the culture of encouraged self-censorship; and it must become a forum for free thought and discussion from which students can go and “set the world on fire,” and truly allow for eagles to scream.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.