The independent student newspaper at Goucher College

Category archive

Opinion - page 3

Opinion: Why I Voted for Kamala Harris—A Candidate With Us In Mind

by

Photo Credit: Felix Knight

Voting in this election is not just a civic duty reserved for ultra-plugged in political participants like me. Voting isn’t just about demonstrating that you follow and care about the political world. Voting—especially in this election—is about demonstrating that you care for your community. If you care about women, transgender individuals, Black people, immigrants, high prices, climate change, gun control, health care, affording a home or an education—if you care about anyone at all who lives in this great nation, you cannot sit this election out. This Presidential election is a choice between someone who cares about you, fundamentally, and someone who doesn’t.

I voted for Kamala Harris, because she has always cared about the people. She became a prosecutor because she couldn’t stomach the thought of her friend’s stepfather getting away with child sexual abuse. She ran for California attorney general and took on domestic violence and gun violence, while enacting programs to ensure that nonviolent offenders could reintegrate in society. She fought against the banks for their predatory loan policies, and won—giving that money back to the community. Her career in the Senate focused on lifting up the working class and bringing down costs. Her entire career has been about fighting for people who need someone in their corner, and right now, all of America needs a President like Harris in their corner.

Donald Trump has only ever looked out for himself. This has been common knowledge since way before he ever entered the political arena. He is a man found liable for rape, and convicted in a court of law for more than thirty counts of white collar fraud. He isn’t like you and me, and he doesn’t care about you or me. Trump is a person who isn’t running because he wants to change America for the better, but because he realized that winning this election is the only way to keep himself out of jail. He is repugnant—the list of vile things he has said about women and non-white people is near-endless, and he incited violence against our elected representatives. He incited a violent mob at the Capitol, and made congresspeople fear for their lives, people we voted for hiding under desks or in broom closets. 

When Trump was told his supporters were storming the Capitol and wanted to kill his own Vice President, he said “So what?” He doesn’t consider anyone who disagrees with him to be worthy of simple liberties like living another day. He wants to deport legal immigrants and burn our economy to the ground. His pick for Vice President thinks women are subhuman, and the people he surrounds himself with want to create a registry of pregnant people to ensure abortion is punished.

Jill Stein is running a bad-faith campaign. She wants your vote because she benefits from the divisiveness and chaos another Trump term would bring. She doesn’t care about you, or the issues you care about. She doesn’t care about democracy. Stein thinks the war in Gaza can be solved with one phone call. She wants to bypass Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution to institute her own agenda. Her platform—if by some miracle did pass—would cost Americans even more than Trump; she doesn’t actually care about the working class. I encourage you to look at Stein’s website, and really think about what she wants to do. Because she doesn’t actually want to do anything; she exists just to draw the Democratic vote and mess around every four years. Jill Stein is one of the only people in politics less qualified to be President than Trump; she is a medical doctor who has never once won an election.

I understand that we are all frustrated with politics in America. We live in truly unprecedented times–everything seems to be going wrong, and we are all paying the price. Still, I implore you not to waste your vote on a candidate who does not care about you. Goucher is a vibrant and diverse community, known for its population of women and queer folks. It is our obligation to ourselves and our peers to stand up for freedom and personal liberties. A Trump victory would work endlessly to abolish healthcare for women and transgender people, as well as gut the Affordable Care Act, thereby removing thousands of people from their insurance coverage. A Trump victory would be catastrophic for all of us, and I am pleading with you to consider the realities of people who might be less fortunate than you when you cast your ballot.

Maryland has reproductive freedom on the ballot—Question 1 would enshrine it in our state constitution. But all of that work is meaningless if Trump wins and institutes a national abortion ban. Maryland might be a blue state, but no state in this country will be safe from Trump’s fascist agenda. It is crucial that we pass Question 1, but it’s even more important that we have a President who cares.

I love America, and I love freedom. Unfortunately, the reality is that both are under the threat of a man who would sleep well at night knowing he destroyed both. This is the most important election of our lifetimes. We must turn the page on Donald Trump, and his selfish, pseudo-leadership.

Election day is Tuesday, November 5th. Maryland has same day voter registration. It is not too late to make your voice heard! If you are from out of state, you can register with your Goucher address, and the nearest polling place will be at Towson University.

Love,

Felix

By Felix Knight, ‘27

Opinion: Locked In

by

In the annals of the past at Goucher College, I was free to roam the open pastures of every dorm building. Living in Trustees, I could not only access Trustees, but also Heubeck from dawn to dusk, permitted to graze the grasses with my fellow students. Now, in the year 2024, we are sectioned off and isolated from one another and our community is dying. Let us take a tour, a glance into the past, to see why things changed, and how they could be different.

I have conducted several interviews surrounding the topic of locked doors on campus. First, let’s focus on one I conducted with our Director of Campus Safety, Tiffany Justice. She has been at Goucher since 2017. The policy regarding locked doors in dorm buildings was updated in 2018, so she was quite knowledgeable on this topic. She states that what influenced the change was a “Bias Incident” happening in 2018.

Prying into this further, our Campus Climate Education Team (CCET) has listed as an example for Hate Crimes, a Goucher incident in 2018 that aligns with the “Bias Incident” Tiffany described, and she has confirmed that this was the incident. Whatever it was, it’s clear that hatred was spread in a dorm building, and Goucher’s response was to only allow students access to the dorm building in which they live.

Their logic follows like this: If someone writes slurs on the walls of Fireside hall, the most likely suspects are those 50 students who live in Fireside. If access were granted to the entire campus, that number would jump from 50 to 1000.

There are some flaws in this logic. The most blatant one is that not allowing someone into a dorm building does not actually stop them from getting in. We all know how it goes down– if I want to visit my friend in Alcock, I just sit outside like a lost puppy and wait for some foot traffic to come by and open the door. If someone is going to commit a hate crime, they will surely break lesser rules to do so. Onecard access does not stop the motivated hater.

Another flaw lies in the “most likely suspects” aspect. Whether or not someone has access to a dorm, the most likely culprit for a hate crime committed in P. Selz is still a student living in P. Selz. Studies analyzing and connecting where criminals commit crimes and where they live (Routine Activities Theory and Crime Pattern Theory) find that most criminals will commit crimes in the spheres they frequent the most. In the places the vandal knows the most about, they are more confident and capable to commit crimes there. Allowing non-residents access to these spaces does not stop this from being true. If someone lives in Jeffrey, they know when no one is roaming the halls, who lives there and how best to spread hate.

The most glaring problem, however, is that limited access to dorm buildings does not combat hate crimes in any real way. Limiting access inhibits and worsens our relations with each other. We get less opportunities to meet people who would broaden our horizons and challenge our views. The inability to mingle with strangers on campus who could change our perspectives makes people more likely to make false and hurtful assumptions about people. This is how hatred is born.

 A real way to combat hate crimes is to foster a community where people hold each other accountable and where dialogue is encouraged and allowed. Not allowing us to interact with students living in different dorms stops these developments in their tracks. Students in Welsh and students in Sondheim are not that different, but this severance imposes an identity onto the students living there, further rupturing our relations to one another. Enforcing isolation does nothing to stop the hatred found in one’s heart. Building a community where hate is discouraged and destabilized is something that does effectively combat hate crimes.

I am not saying that allowing dorms to be open to all students will magically stop hate crimes on campus. I am saying that allowing students to easily visit their friends and meet strangers that will challenge their biases will create a community where hate crimes are not accepted nor entertained. In a community where everyone knows one another, where ignorance must be actively strived for and knowledge is given out like free candy, hate crimes will actually be combatted at Goucher College.

Attached is an ancient scroll from Goucher’s past. From the bygone year of 2000, this was a posting found in Hooper that described the functionality of the new Onecard system. You can make out very little, but one part reads: “All residential houses will be under “closed access” [by default.] Houses can vote to “open” their house, however, status [will only be kept] until the end of this semester following the vote.” It also appears residential houses would have been able to choose what hours they wanted their doors open, and that the most likely time would be 7AM – 11PM, following Goucher’s quiet hours schedule. 

A more recent interview I conducted with our new Residential Life Director, Dr. Terrance Turner, regarding such a policy, echoes similar views to Tiffany’s. The following interview and dialogue over email could shed some light onto how the administration sees these problems.

I asked Dr. Turner the following: “If the determining factor is safety concerns, what do you have to say to the fact that other students not being able to get into other dorms leads to doors being propped open all the time, which is a much greater security risk than just having students being allowed into a dorm building?”

Dr. Turner’s response was this: “The foot traffic of guests in the open-door vs. guests through propped doors is something that’s difficult to track. Doors being propped open falls on the responsibility of those members in the community. We communicate that expectation and warn students of the potential risks. That is us addressing it.”

This response avoids the question I asked and puts responsibility upon the students. The students are willing to take on this responsibility. If students were informed of the potential risks of voting to have their dorm be an open dorm, it would be a better and safer way for ResLife to communicate and address this. 

I asked Dr. Turner: “What are your thoughts on how separating us in our dorms actually provide no protection from the things they say they do? Locking doors doesn’t stop a student from committing a hate crime. Locked doors do not stop someone, who is already breaking the rules, from getting into the building.”

Dr. Turner responded: “Controlling access to residential spaces serves as a key preventative measure in our comprehensive safety strategy. While it’s true that no system is foolproof, these measures act as a significant deterrent, making it harder for individuals who might intend harm to enter our buildings or residence hall rooms without detection. Limiting access helps ensure that only authorized individuals—those with legitimate reasons for being in the building—can gain entry, which in turn reduces opportunities for crime, including hate crimes.”

Is it right to assume that every student on campus is an “individual who might intend to do harm” by default? Community on campus is struggling because of a perceived divide– that some students are against others. This is simply not the case. A perspective that assumes some students are risks to other students villainizes the student body. Assuming most students are hooligans who wish to do harm creates antagonism detrimental to the campus environment. These measures are intended to add roadblocks to those who do intend to do harm, but in practice they are more like pebbles. But for those wanting to bridge connections between the student population, this is a permanent road closure. The community will never thrive if students are not allowed to feel like they are here together.

Upon further dialog, Dr. Turner responded:

“I want to be clear that safety concerns, particularly those related to residence hall access, are not up for a vote. The administration sets these policies to ensure the safety and well-being of all students, which is a responsibility I am not willing to compromise on. While voting on residence hall access is not an option, I would like to challenge and encourage you, as a student leader, to collaborate with your peers to find creative ways to enhance community building within the framework of our communicated policies. Opportunities for connection and interaction across campus must support both security and community goals that don’t compromise safety. While I appreciate your passion and engagement on this topic, I will not be responding further on this particular issue.”

This voting policy that gives autonomy to the students speaks to me in two parts. First, it gives us a view of the past and how much freedom we as students used to have over the place we call home for four years. Second, it provides us with hope for the future. A plausible experiment is presented here– how would we, 24 years later, fare with this kind of policy? This kind of policy requires the administration to trust us with a responsibility, but how can we ever prove that we are responsible enough if we are never given the chances needed to prove ourselves?

Onecard poster from 2000 found in Hooper.

By Jimy Kuhn, ’27

Opinion: The Q, The Election, and You

by
(Image Source: Melina Mara/The Washington Post)

Dear Reader,

While major papers like The Washington Post, USA today, and more neglect to endorse a presidential candidate, many of us in the Goucher community cannot afford to remain silent. 

In America, so much about the future of our country is determined by a single presidential candidate. Regardless of how you feel about it, the outcome of this election is predicted to be either Democrat Kamala Harris, or Republican Donald Trump. We know our student body. We know there is anger towards Harris and President Biden, and towards their words and actions during their ongoing term. We know there are those who would rather withhold their vote. We also understand the failings and limitations of a two-party system.

But we also know what a country under Donald Trump looks like. We know the need for, and the power of democracy. Goucher College prides itself on tolerance, diversity, and community. These are values that we at the Quindecim believe the whole nation, let alone all of humankind should prioritize. How can we uphold these values with a president who is comfortable inciting hate towards minority groups, and stripping Americans of their rights? We know that Trump intends to severely restrict reproductive rights, and criminalize abortion. We’ve seen how he encouraged a direct attack on our nation’s capital. We know the threat the The Heritage Foundation and Project 2025 pose to all LGBTQ individuals. If you are someone who reads this newspaper, or considers yourself the least bit informed, you understand what kind of president he has, and could make. 

The Trump administration has posed a threat to journalists, too. They’ve seized the phone records of New York Times journalists, which discourages and threatens sources that help inform the public. Trump is also notorious for creating dangerous lies to uphold his own prejudices and ego. Needless to say, as  a coalition of student journalists, we know that our obligation is to our citizens (our Goucher community) and the truth, and Trump has the interest of neither in mind.

Simply put, we want you to show up on election day, and we want you to vote for the candidate who will shape our country in the next four years. We want to speak out where other corporate-owned publications refuse to. Vote for the competent candidate that is not running on a platform of openly sowing division and bigotry. Vote for the candidate that isn’t looking to set the progress made on bodily autonomy and civil rights backwards. That candidate is Kamala Harris. 

I also personally believe that we are far past due in having our first woman in The White House. I believe that she is a better representation of the average American than Trump could ever be. Many have said that writing an endorsement only by disparaging Trump rather than lauding Harris is “dispiriting,” and I would agree. But one commenter in the New York Times said it best, especially with the short time that Harris has been in the running– “I think it is fair to say that we still do not have a clear vision of Vice President Harris – but we have a very clear and present danger in Trump.”

Go out, go vote,
Sam Rose
Editor-in-chief, The Quindecim

Should Goucher Require a Course on Satire?

by
Image Source: DigitalVision Vectors via Getty

The Goucher community should seriously consider requiring every Goucher student and administrator to take a course on satire as an art form and type of societal/political commentary. 

In our modern, hyper-political, online, art filled, interconnected world, there is more than ever a need to have the skill to distinguish satire and understand its intentions. Goucher is a school that is very art focused and has its share of art on campus that I frankly do not understand. We are also a politically charged school that has a long history of activism. Goucher is a global school and there are many forms of satire that spread across borders and cultures. We have a large number of international students and have a 100% study abroad program. Especially on our unique campus, both administrators and students would benefit from taking a course on satire.

What is Satire? Robert C. Elliott defines Satire in his Britannica contribution as “an artistic form, chiefly literary and dramatic, in which human or individual vices, follies, abuses, or shortcomings are held up to censure by means of ridicule, derision, burlesque, irony, parody, caricature, or other methods, sometimes with an intent to inspire social reform.” All art is ripe for interpretation and misinterpretation and none more so than satire. I would argue that it is both the greatest and most boring form of comedy. And like most jokes, if it needs to be explained it can ruin the joke.

There are many ways such a satire course could work. It could be like the required Title IX training in the form of a short online course. It could be a set of lectures by our wonderful art and political science professors. Or as this college is looking to have intergenerational full semester courses, we could do the same with this idea. There are many generations between our students and Edenwald residents which our current administration fills the gaps. This could be an opportunity to build more connections between the often disconnected parts of our community.

2024 is also a year with elections happening across the globe. Over a hundred countries such as India, the European Union, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, the United Kingdom, and the United States have/will hold large scale elections. In this global political landscape of change there is a lot of political and societal commentary, much of it is in the form of satire. In the Ath, we currently have a collection of political ephemera on display for a reason.

In an era of declining literacy, with more people failing to understand irony and satire, this is the time to guarantee that Goucher’s “global changemakers” understand these basic parts of media. Implementing this will help expand our incredible brand in new and interesting directions.

Tying together Art, Language learning, English, Political Science into a required interdisciplinary class fits well into our existing liberal arts brand.

What do you think? Do our administrators understand satire sufficiently, and if not should the college force them to join us in a class on it? Do you understand satire and irony? Do your friends? Do your friends’ friends comprehend satire? Should everyone be required to take a course as described here? If you have thoughts please share them with me, the Provost & Senior Vice President for Academic Affairs Dr. Elaine Meyer-Lee, Dean Smith, Associate Provost for Undergraduate Studies Dr. Isabel Moreno-Lopez, and if you see him maybe President Kent might have thoughts. I know he is busy addressing Miriam Katowitz (the chair of the board of trustees financial committee)’s impractical idea of reintroducing the dance requirement for all students.

-Max Ravnitzky, ’28

Addressing Aversions to Ancient Aliens

by
Image Source: Jimy Kuhn

Earlier this semester, Goucher announced a partnership with our neighbors at Edenwald senior living, with the intent to construct an Undergraduate Retirement Community (URC) on leased Goucher land.  In this edition, we have a wonderful piece discussing the nuts and bolts of this partnership, but here I would like to discuss the multiple opinions surrounding this development. 

Many students’ initial reaction to this partnership is not positive. This partially comes from the several concerns revolving around allowing the older generation into our community and our classrooms. Many current students, for example, want to know how prospective Edenwald students will be prepared to enter our existing community, especially regarding respect to our queer students and students of color. Qualms in this realm have concrete solutions: There are plans to have a multi-day orientation teaching these prospective students about our community values and informing them of the inclusivity of the modern age. Importantly, there will be a focus on pronoun usage and respect toward marginalized people, while also teaching more ordinary things, like how to use Canvas. 

The other cause for this negative perspective comes from a tendency of staunch ageism in our current age. Some of this comes from a place of validity; members of our queer community, for example, are concerned due to the fact that the older generation has been historically unaccepting of their identities.  Outside of Goucher, queer people still need to fight to find their space and to be seen, but here at Goucher these students feel able to be seen and to belong. It is true that the older generation is, in certain sects, unaccepting of the queer community, but these will not be the people we are inviting onto this campus.  However, in the same stroke, if we treat these people like the villains we perceive them to be, that is exactly what they will become. I would ask readers to reframe their thoughts and give these people a chance to prove us wrong. 

This construction begs the question why. Why is Goucher doing this? How can the powers that be focus on performing an experiment in academia when community is dying on this campus? Putting efforts towards this partnership for people who are currently outside of our community ought to come after we are able to address the concerns of the people who are currently here. How can we find the time and effort to spend on a URC, the first one in all of Maryland, but not be able to have Alice’s Cafe open? If the logic states that we cannot focus on community because we lack money and we are focusing on the URC because it makes us money, how can we ensure that the money Goucher earns is spent on the community?  This seems to be another case of Goucher having a blind spot towards the needs of our community, and because they do not see us, they just look away. 

By Jimy Kuhn, ’27

Does Sally Rooney Still Have It? Intermezzo Review

by
Image Source: Boston Globe

Sally Rooney is an award-winning Irish novelist who writes contemporary fiction, primarily about romantic relationships, economic class, and how interpersonal relationships affect those around us. Both her novels Conversations with Friends and Normal People have been adapted into TV Shows, and her third book Beautiful World, Where Are You? won the Goodreads award for ‘Best Fiction’ in 2021. 

It’s been three years since her last book, and now the world has Intermezzo. I’m here to talk about whether or not the hype, both on and offline, still holds up. 

Intermezzo follows two brothers, Peter and Ivan. Peter is a lawyer who is in his thirties, struggling to balance the relationships between his first love Sylvia who he still pines for, and grad student Naomi ,who doesn’t seem to be taking her life too seriously. Ivan, a competitive chess player at twenty-two who sees his older brother has inferior due to his own social awkwardness, meets Margaret. An older woman who has a complicated past of her own and very quickly becomes wrapped up in his life. 

Despite being brothers, they seem to have nothing in common. After losing their father, the two now grieve and their relationship takes unexpected turns. 

Rooney’s way of writing characters that feel like real people is astounding. The dialogue between all of these characters plays real, and Peter and Ivan’s dynamic has so many complexities to it that also play real. 

Her ability to put the spotlight on so many characters is impressive as well. As the reader, you are able to not only learn all about Peter and Ivan, but also Sylvia, Margaret, and Naomi. There is so much depth in the cast of characters, and I wish the book didn’t end. 

Rooney’s writing style is more striking and emotional than ever. I loved the way she explored grief, complicated family dynamics, and love in this novel. Some of it hit close to home for me, and I know it will hit close to home for so many other readers as well. 
Now, Sally Rooney is known for using no quotation marks and not many indents in her novels. This still holds true in Intermezzo, which certainly makes it a challenging read, but I would still highly recommend it. Rooney can do no wrong when it comes to picking up a pen, and I would say this is her best novel yet.

By Merryn Overbeck, ’28

One Year On: Reflections of the Events of October Seventh

by
Image Source: The Jerusalem Post


As we celebrate the Jewish New Year, we must remember October 7th, 2023, which was a devastating day for all: Israelis, Palestinians, and those in the Arab and Jewish diaspora. The event simultaneously marked the largest single-day massacre of the Jewish people since the Holocaust. It also marks the ongoing massacre and violence against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank. Since October 7th, Antisemitism and Islamophobia have been on the rise everywhere, especially in the U.S. The following stories are coming from the Jewish community at Goucher. I tried to contact Jewish students from a non-Hillel standpoint, but they sadly never got back to me. 

For myself, I remember the total shock to my core. I also recall feeling distressed because I have family in Israel and was worried about their safety and those of the hostages. I still am. In the following weeks, I constantly contacted one of my cousins to ensure they were alive and well. Like many Jewish people, I suffered from Antisemitism. No one wanted to work with or collaborate with the only Jewish organization on campus, Hillel, due to the conflict. It was hard for me because Hillel has given me so much. I have met and made wonderful lifelong friends at Hillel. I also got leadership experience from Hillel. For me, Hillel isn’t just an organization but a community. I know it may seem challenging; All grief is valid, but we shouldn’t hurt one another using it.  We’ve had so much lost; bring the hostages home!

When Rachel Haggard, a political science major, learned about the tragic events that took place in Israel on October 7th, she thought back to a trip she took with her high school to Israel just 18 months prior. “I remember visiting a town in the south, close to the border with Gaza, called Sderot. I hope all the incredible people I met during that trip were safe.” One year later, Rachel is still heartbroken that one hundred and one innocent people are still being held hostage, and families in Gaza are still suffering. She continues to pray for the release of the remaining hostages and an end to hostilities in the region.

The last reflection is from Tova Vacknin, a junior studying psychology and minoring in studio art. “It’s been a year, a year since Hamas terrorists invaded communities, homes, and a music festival by means of land, air, and sea to kill as many people as they possibly could. A year since homes were destroyed, people displaced, and hostages taken. A year since unsuspecting dancing people from all walks of life suddenly heard screams, gunshots, and the sounds of their friends dying beside them, knowing they would be next. A year since I got the news from my family that they had to hide from gunmen and run for their lives, barely making it out alive. A year of war, a year of violence, a year of suffering. It has been a year since October 7th, but we carry it with us every day. The echoes of the screams from October 7th will never quiet until we realize that human life matters more than destroying it.” Tova finishes our interview by saying, “מחזירים אותם הביתה עכשיו,” which means bring them home now!

By Sara Begelman, ’26

Unanswered Questions: Opinion

by
Image Source: Pexels

As a first-year student, my initial experience of Goucher’s campus felt almost idyllic,  with its nature trails, amazing food (at least I think so), and kind, engaging professors. However, it didn’t take long for the pristine little bubble of perfection I had built to burst,  leaving me wondering, “What did I get myself into?” 

The day of the vigil hosted in solidarity of Palestine I was astonished because I  gleaned that some faculty at Goucher were told to work from home. Based on rumors and what I had read from the Quindecim about last year’s protest, informing faculty to avoid campus seemed a bit extreme. If they believed their safety was at risk, why didn’t the entire campus get a notice to stay home? Do the students of this campus endanger the well-being of faculty? Did the safety of the faculty matter more than the safety of the students?  By talking to the leaders of the vigil, I got the sense they wanted to spread awareness of the genocide in Palestine and Goucher’s involvement in censorship of students. Nothing in their words made me think they wanted to instill fear or unravel the safety of this campus.  

I admire the effort it took for the vigil coordinators to bring it to life. Not only had they attracted a decently sized audience, but they had also filled the time with well-thought-out speeches, poems, and anecdotes. I am sure I don’t stand alone in deciding to attend college because of my ambitions to contribute to a more just society. I believe Goucher should foster the passion and dedication that students already have to bring awareness to pressing issues. Scrolling through Goucher’s websites I stumbled upon the progressive history of Goucher as a women’s college. At its heart, Goucher has always embraced change, and its students embody similar sentiments. For this reason, I am perplexed by the administration’s efforts to thwart activism. If we truly aim to continue Goucher’s forward-thinking legacy, we must support instead of oppressing efforts to address pressing issues of our time.  

-Cadita Attipoe, Concerned Student of the Class of 2028

Erroneous Emails: Opinion

by

The past few weeks we have been bombarded by emails. I would like to give some context to two emails, one sent from Isabelle Moreno-Lopez, our Interim VP for Equity & Inclusive Excellence, and one from our president Kent Deveraux, both regarding our tenacious policies regarding posters and demonstrations.

Some context before the context: The Office of Equity and Exclusive Excellence is currently in a state of transition after our previous VP for Inclusive Excellence, Jasmine Lee, left Goucher over the summer. In the interim, Isabelle Moreno-Lopez has stepped up to be our VP for Inclusive Excellence while we find a viable replacement. Isabelle is the Associate Provost for Undergraduate Students and also led the Policy Committee over the summer.

 Our Policy Committee is a committee consisting of many members of administration, and this summer there were two student representatives, Christian Houck, Vice President of the SGA, and I. I joined specifically in order to stop student’s posters from requiring a stamp to be put up, and to try and update our controversial demonstration policy. This took us all summer to do, it wasn’t until the very last Policy Committee meeting that we officially discussed both these policies due to the bureaucratic nature of this committee. Last note, the Policy for Posting Printed Materials was drafted with student input first by SGA after a town hall meeting last semester and was rewritten by Isabelle-Moreno-Lopez for the committee. 

From Isabelle,

“As you might have already heard, there is a call for a demonstration on Friday. The flyers were removed when they were reported for not including Goucher contact information, and for not being placed on bulletin boards. Please make sure to follow the Policy for Posting Printing Materials on the Goucher Towson Campus which was written with student input…Demonstrations can be scheduled following the Campus Demonstration Policy, which was also reviewed this summer with student input.”

This was in reference to the vigil held on Friday, September 27th by members of our community. While this was not done with permission of the administration and to call this a demonstration may not be correct. See Sam Rose’s article in this edition for more in depth details.

The Poster Policy referenced above gives FMS the ability to remove posters from unauthorized locations if, and only if, they determine them to be a fire hazard. Goucher FMS seems to think that posters posted on the metal poles outside Mary Fisher are a fire hazard, which is ridiculous. The part about not including Goucher contact information is more substantial however. In an email to the policy committee from Dean Smith, he stated that “For security purposes and to ensure all information sharing is protected, sending sensitive student or community related information to non-Goucher email addresses compromises the integrity of our community.” Therefore, allowing only non-Goucher contact information on posters is out of the question, but requiring every poster to have contact information, especially when it is unnecessary, could be up for debate.

From Kent Deveraux,

“Over the summer we worked very diligently, and with extensive student input, to incorporate any such limits in our updated Campus Demonstration Policy and the new Policy for Posting Printed Materials.”

I would like to speak specifically on the value both of these emails put on student input. In the original draft of the Poster Policy, Chrisitan and I had to defend our thoughts fiercely, tooth and nail, in order to represent the students’ voices. To her credit however,  when Isabelle rewrote the policy for the committee meeting, it included many things that the students wanted, most importantly not needing a stamp to put up a flier. Yet, the policy as it stands still allows student’s posters to be taken down from popular posting spots because they are ludicrously deemed to be a fire hazard. I am unsure if the administration is willing to value student input especially in light of the following.

After the policy committee approves the policy, compromises and all, it gets submitted to the President’s Cabinet for approval, where they apparently have the ability to change the policy however they want. 

Once the Poster Policy was submitted to the president’s cabinet, they decided to add wordage on handing out flyers, which included requiring a student who wants to hand out a pamphlet, piece of paper, to submit their “name, ID and Goucher email; (2) date of the event request; (3) location (Athenaeum-outside or lobby, Mary Fisher Lobby, Van Meter Highway, Welsh Patio); (4) start and end time; (5) set up and clean up time; (6) purpose for tabling; and (7) number of tables and chairs.” This wordage is treating handing out flyers as a demonstration, as these are the same requirements for requesting a demonstration. 

This salient section was added without informing the policy committee, nor the students who made this policy. The students had no say in one of the most controversial segments of this new policy. How can you value student input, when you deliberately subvert the student’s voices in this important issue?

As to the Demonstration Policy, we reviewed the policy but did not have time to thoroughly defend the student’s issues with the policy. We were told that the president’s cabinet had to send out an email saying the Demonstration Policy was reviewed with student input over the summer. This email was sent out on August 20th from the president, saying “I am pleased to report that our Policy Committee revised our demonstration, social media, and poster distribution polices with input from three student leaders who volunteered to serve on the committee over the summer. I am confident that these updated policies which will be posted within the week will better reflect the aspirations and values of our campus community.” 

We approved the Demonstration Policy with reservations, without many substantial changes, so that the president could send out an email saying thus. It was only approved so the President could send that email, not because the students would be satisfied with the changes made and I am not too certain that the updated Demonstration Policy actually better reflects the student’s values.

In our Policy on Policies, it states that “Any member of the college community may make a recommendation to develop or update a policy. These recommendations should be submitted for approval to policies@goucher.edu.” I encourage any member of this community to reach out to Policies if they feel that any policy sucks or does not reflect the climate on this campus. This of course should not be your only action, policies only change so much, but making sure these people hear your voice, and hear everyone’s voice, is an important step in changing this Goucher community for the better.

A bulletin board, one of the few approved locations to post flyers on campus.

By Jimy Kuhn ’27

Goucher Students’ “Vigil for Palestine” Makes Waves

by


Vigil for Palestine attendees holding distributed posters. Photo by Sam Rose.

The gray, damp, weather reflected the somber gathering of students and faculty in front of the Mary Fisher Dining Hall on Friday, September 27th.

On the week of September 23rd, two emails were sent out to the undergraduate student body, faculty, and staff. The first email, sent on Wednesday, September 25th  was sent by the Office of Equity and Inclusive Excellence. It informed the student body about the policy surrounding posters and printed material, as well as the updated Campus Demonstration Policy, which the email stated was “reviewed this summer with student input.”

The second communication was sent by President Kent Devereaux, entitled “Goucher College and Free Speech,” reiterated the sentiments expressed in the previously mentioned email. It informed recipients that Goucher College “has a fundamental right to limit the time, place, and manner of demonstrations of free speech,” and that students who fail to follow these policies will face the consequences outlined in the Student Code of Conduct.

These emails set the expectations for the advertised “Vigil for Palestine,” the first organized student activist demonstration since the semester began. The Office of Equity and Inclusive Excellence’s email reported that the flyers for the event had been removed for not meeting the policy’s requirements. Despite this, flyers remained in some harder-to-spot locations around campus, and the Goucher Liberation Collective group advertised the vigil through their Instagram page.

The first slide of this aforementioned Instagram post was identical to the physical fliers that had been posted and removed. The second slide, which was visible online and in less widely circulated fliers, provided further detail and cause for the assembly. “Goucher college and Hillel International normalize this colonial and imperialist violence by hosting exchanges with Israeli students, without giving context to the state of Israel’s history of colonization and crimes against humanity in the Middle East,” a portion of the text read. 

Goucher Hillel sent out an email on September 11th, which informed Hillel members that on the 27th, the same day of the Vigil for Palestine, Goucher Hillel would be hosting visiting students from Sapir College, an Israeli public college.

At 1:00pm, around thirty students, professors, and faculty joined in a circle right outside the dining hall entrance, unfurling a banner bearing the Palestinian flag. The organizers of the event made use of an amplifier and microphone to address the crowd. The first speaker referred back to last year’s display of student activism, a series of posters put up by an artist with the pseudonym Decades and Oceans. The posters had been removed, but the remaining ones were passed out among the crowd, and students were encouraged to display them in their personal dorm window, where the Campus Demonstration Policy does not have sovereignty.

A member of the Goucher Liberation Collective, who organized the vigil, identified herself as Elise. She acknowledged over the microphone that the event does actively violate the campus demonstration, but claimed that the Collective publicized their contact information, gave five days of prior notice about the demonstration, and gave the college as means to contact the organizers directly. “It’s been difficult for me to live as if everything is normal,” Elise stated, explaining the necessity of the vigil to her.

Several speakers who did not identify themselves by name took to the microphone as well. One student discussed their Palestinian family history, and how they had not felt accepted as a Palestinian student at Goucher. “Once I joined the encampment, I found my people.”

Another student objected to the supposed “entirely false and cruel narrative about student protestors” that they felt the administration created following during the spring semester, and spoke out against the language that was being used in communications by President Devereaux, as well as by Goucher Hillel.

“They try to frame our opposition to war crimes as an act of ideological extremism,” said one speaker. “You cannot be neutral on the genocide of Palestinians.”

Identifying themselves as an alum from the class of 2024, another demonstrator read several selections of poetry. Among these selections was “The Perplexing Smiles of the Children of Palestine,” by Marcellus Williams, who was executed just days prior for a crime with no concrete forensic evidence linking him as the perpetrator. Another piece read was “Oh Rascal Children of Gaza,” by Khaled Juma.

The vigil remained in front of Mary Fisher Dining Hall, and did not relocate or enter any of the buildings. This was in contrast to the alleged preparations that Goucher employees were told to take, specifically workers who were normally stationed in Dorsey Center and Mary Fisher. Offices such as the Office of Admissions were accessible only by approved OneCards. 

One IT employee from the class of 2025, who chose to remain anonymous for the sake of their continued employment, spoke about the communication they had received prior to the vigil. “We got a message on [Microsoft] Teams saying that we were not to work in Dorsey Center today, and that we were supposed to work in the Ath.” 

Another IT employee from the class of 2025, anonymous for the same justification, detailed the student employees’ reaction to the announcement. “All staff are working from home because of a so-called demonstration,” the employee said. “When we found out about this, pretty much all of the student workers were laughing about it.”

After the speakers had finished, the names of deceased Palestinian families, killed by Israel’s offensive attacks, were read aloud for five minutes. This list started with adults, and finished with children and infants, including victims under one year old. “[Reading them] would take days to finish,” said the student reading the names, disputing the possibility of reading a full list of the deceased in Gaza. Candles were passed around the circle, though due to the inclement weather conditions, they were not lit.

Some individuals observed from outside the circle, or stood to the side. Thirty minutes into the vigil, a moment of silence began. This silence was shortly broken by Professor Zahi Khamis, professor-in-practice of the Arabic Studies department, who had been only observing until then. 

Requesting to end the silence, Professor Khamis informed the crowd that he is Palestinian, and that the work of the student activists is meaningful to him. “I want to honor you and ask you to keep doing what you are doing,” he said, “Without that, the genocide will go on to no end.” Professor Khamis concluded only with, “I love you all.”

Following the conclusion of the vigil and the conclusion of the week, no further communication was sent out concerning the Campus Demonstration Policy, or concerning free speech at Goucher.

By Sam Rose ’26

1 2 3 4 5 … 15
Go to Top