In three separate motions shared with the Emory University’s College Senate President Bree Ettinger on Oct. 21, Professor of History Clifton Crais critiqued the University’s response to a student-led protest last spring and proposed changes to Emory’s approach to open expression. Ettinger shared the motions with the College Senate’s Executive Council later that same day.
The protest, led by Emory Stop Cop City members, ended around 1:20 a.m. on April 25 after Emory Police Department (EPD) officers asked the protesters to leave the Quadrangle or face arrest. The protesters complied with the request.
Crais, who is an at-large member of the Senate, claimed that Senior Vice President and Dean of Campus Life Enku Gelaye “no longer has the confidence of the faculty of Emory College Arts and Sciences” due to allegedly violating the University’s Respect for Open Expression Policy in her response to this incident. The policy, which the University adopted in 2013, outlines how members of the Emory community can hold open expression demonstrations. Crais recommended that the University Senate “immediately suspend” the policy, according to documents obtained by The Emory Wheel.
The Wheel obtained the files, which have not yet been made public, from a source close to the situation on Oct. 26, one day after Emory Stop Cop City members organized another campus protest. At this event, organizers presented an Office of the President staff member with a list of 12 demands for University President Gregory Fenves, some of which pertained to the University’s response to the outbreak of war in Israel and the Gaza Strip.
Fenves responded to the rally in a University-wide email on Wednesday evening, condemning the participants’ use of what he called “antisemitic phrases and slogans.”
Crais’ motions included a statement of principles, a resolution expressing lost confidence in Gelaye and recommendations for the University Senate regarding the open expression policy. These recommendations follow appearances at recent College Senate meetings from the chair of the University Senate Committee for Open Expression Ilya Nemenman, Gelaye and three students who were present at the spring protest when EPD arrived.
Ettinger told the Wheel that the Senate “has received a bit of criticism” from the Emory administration for conducting its own investigation into the matter.
“I wonder myself why they and the University Senate have not seen more urgency in resolving this issue,” Ettinger wrote.
According to Ettinger, the Senate Executive Council will review and discuss the motions to determine if they will go on the Emory College Senate’s agenda. At this meeting, the bylaws stipulate that the Executive Council will choose either to accept or deny the motion’s place on a Senate meeting agenda or table this decision for the Council’s next meeting.
‘No confidence’ in Gelaye
In his first motion, Crais alleged that Gelaye — who he wrote holds a “central position” in Emory leadership as the “most important advisor” to the University president, provost and other senior administration members — violated sections 8.14.7.1-3 of the open expression policy during the spring protest.
In an August letter to Ettinger, Associate Professor of Philosophy Dilek Huseyinzadegan, Associate Professor of Religion Sara McClintock and Associate Professor of Comparative Literature Sean Meighoo also claimed that Gelaye violated these sections of the policy.
Specifically, the letter alleged that Gelaye violated section 8.14.7.1 of the policy by delegating her authority to EPD “in the absence of an emergency,” as the policy defines emergencies as “imminent serious bodily harm; serious threat; imminent life threatening behavior; reckless disregard for human life; or threat to life, limb, or property.” Several protest attendees have said that the gathering, which consisted of about 20 students pitching tents on the Quad, did not pose a threat.
The University claimed that they support the rights of free speech and peaceful assembly, but that they also have to hold members of the Emory community “accountable to our code of conduct, local ordinances and the law while taking steps to ensure their safety.”
The open expression policy states that Gelaye and the Committee for Open Expression should help protestors avoid violations and identify ways to continue their demonstration without violations under section 8.14.7.2. Attendees alleged Gelaye and the committee did not meet these requirements at the April protest, as protesters and University representatives never reached a consensus as to where the demonstration could take place besides the Quad.
Additionally, Gelaye has not published a statement regarding the protest’s termination, which is required under section 8.14.7.3 of the open expression policy. The policy does not stipulate how soon Gelaye is expected to release a statement after an incident.
These alleged policy violations caused Emory College faculty to lose confidence in Gelaye, Crais wrote.
“When I committed the ECAS Senate to [taking up this issue] last spring, I implicitly and incorrectly assumed that the Dean of Campus Life would have made a statement as per the Freedom of Expression policy and that the Committee for Freedom of Expression would have finished their report over the summer,” Ettinger wrote. “Then the ECAS Senate could reflect and make suggestions. This didn’t happen.”
Although Crais wrote in the resolution that Gelaye is “responsible for ensuring that students are safe and supported” as the dean of campus life, he noted that she does not hold the sole responsibility.
“While the [dean of Campus Life] bears direct responsibility, ultimate responsibility rests with the President of the University, Gregory L. Fenves,” Crais wrote.
Ettinger wrote that the motion of no confidence does not have a lot of support among the College Senate’s Executive Committee.
“It is hard to ask for [the dean of campus life’s] job without noting the role the Committee for Open Expression has played,” Ettinger wrote. “Calling APD appears to be a dangerous mistake given the circumstances and was a shared responsibility between the two parties via the policy. I also worry that [a] motion like this will distract us from making … substantive change.”
Open expression policy recommendations
Among Crais’ documents is a list of recommendations for the University Senate regarding the open expression policy, which first calls for the Senate to “immediately suspend” the policy and conduct a full review.
The policy is currently upheld by the Senate’s Committee for Open Expression, which Crais alleged is so complex that it is “inflexible,” especially when it comes to responding to unplanned events.
“[The open expression policy] is a cumbersome, unnecessarily complicated document, especially for students,” Crais wrote. “It is less a document that defends free speech and protest as a policy that attempts to police speech and protest.”
The policy went into effect on Oct. 29, 2013 and was last revised on Sept. 21, 2018. The open expression policy began as a task force in summer 2011 after being requested by former University President James W. Wagner. The task force issued its first report in February 2012.
Crais’ document also labels the policy as “inherently contradictory,” citing the fact that, under the policy, “the Committee is in charge of evaluating its own conduct, as well as the conduct of the responsible official for [open expression policy]” as an example.
Secondly, Crais recommended that the University Senate should adopt the language he wrote in his motion “Statement of Principles” regarding freedom of expression.
In the statement, Crais wrote that it is common for Emory College community members to disagree, “sometimes vehemently,” with opinions they believe to be “unwelcome, disagreeable, or offensive.” However, Crais alleged that this is not reason to shut down discourse unless the expression violates the law, results in false defamation, poses a “genuine” threat, “unjustifiably” invades privacy or prevents teaching and research.
“We greatly value civility and respect, though there may be disagreement about their definition,” Crais’ statement reads. “However, concerns about civility and respect can never be used as a justification for ending discussion of ideas, however disagreeable those ideas may be to some members of our community.”
Discussing ideas that some may find “offensive, unwise, or wrong-headed” is vital on campus, according to the statement of principles.
“Freedom of expression is important precisely because it establishes the environment for the creation of ideas that may be provocative, new, unorthodox, even disturbing,” Crais wrote.
The policy states that the University is committed to creating a space where the open expression and debate of ideas is “valued, promoted, and encouraged,” recognizing that members of the Emory community have the right to peacefully demonstrate, while others have the simultaneous right to “pursue their normal activities” without facing injury or property damage.
“This Policy reaffirms Emory’s unwavering commitment to a community that inspires and supports courageous inquiry through open expression, dissent, and protest,” the policy reads.
Currently, the policy also acknowledges “the challenges of the creative tensions associated with courageous inquiry in an ever changing community,” noting that civility and mutual respect are “important values” at Emory that community members should consider when exercising their right to open expression, although they do not limit the rights protected by the policy.
Under the open expression policy, protest termination or arrests “must be the option of last resort.” Potential reasons for termination include to avoid injury, property damage and interference with educational processes.
Next steps
The Council’s next meeting is on Nov. 8, and the Senate is scheduled to meet on Nov. 15. Ettinger wrote that “all motions to be considered” will be made public before the Senate’s meeting.
In the statement of principles, Crais wrote that “discovery and the dissemination of knowledge” are the core of the Emory community, which requires responsible debate.
“The College has a solemn responsibility not only to promote the lively and fearless freedom of debate and deliberation, but also to protect that freedom when others attempt to restrict it,” the statement reads.
