“Distasteful and disruptive” would be my description of someone shouting an innocuous joke in a quiet area of the library. Annoying and frustrating to be around, certainly, but likely not worthy of serious consideration. Yet this is exactly the language Chancellor Andrew Martin used in his email to students, faculty, and staff sent on April 17, which discusses both the egging incident and the pro-Palestinian protest at Graham Chapel that occurred earlier this month.

The pairing of these two events in the same public statement is, to me, entirely absurd. The egging incident was a chaotic stunt that functioned solely to make the BD staff feel unsafe and give a few students an adrenaline rush for being the “cool kids” who don’t need to care about the aftermath of their messes. The Graham Chapel protesters were advocating for WashU to enact concrete institutional action to divest from a gigantic weapons manufacturer: Boeing. 

Martin insists that both of these events have “run counter to who we are.” His strategic use of “we” portrays the WashU community as a group with a uniformly agreed-upon set of social and political goals. I am absolutely in favor of an optimistic look at who “we” could be in the future. However, “we” as a university community hold a variety of opinions, perspectives, and experiences, and no individual — including Chancellor Martin — can speak for the totality of that community. There are students who have made dining workers feel uncomfortable and unsafe. There are students who have taken a stand against the active harm and destruction caused by WashU’s investments. Pointing out that contradiction within the University’s “we” is vital to accurately speaking on events affecting the entire community.

Martin is equating these two events points, in part, to his deeply narrow view of what a protest can and should be like. Discussing what sorts of protests are most effective is absolutely important. Even among pro-Palestinian activists, there is disagreement about what actions and statements are most likely to create positive change without making the student body — whose representatives have passed a resolution calling for divestment from Boeing — bear the negative effects of those protests. 

However, I am curious and would like to ask Andrew Martin if he has considered the definition and purpose of a protest very critically. I haven’t personally taken his course on free speech, but I am quite skeptical of the way he would discuss peaceful protests and their function. “Peaceful protest” does not mean “protest that doesn’t inconvenience anyone” or “protest that makes sure to follow the rules set by the group of people being protested in the first place.” Protests often work because of their public disturbance and inconvenience.

Unfortunately, it seems like Martin sees the protest at Graham Chapel as just another breach of the code of conduct to be addressed alongside another such breach — a position that both downplays the severe pattern of mistreatment toward dining workers and also displays a deep misunderstanding of political action and advocacy. Pro-Palestinian protesters should no longer face the not-up-for-discussion dismissal that they have been given thus far. Instead of acknowledging WashU’s continued inaction on its students’ desires, Martin makes no meaningful distinction between the protesters’ political goals and the environment that enabled the egging incident.

The incident at BD did not occur in a vacuum, and for many dining workers, it was another point to add to a long list of reasons why they feel unsafe and disrespected on campus. I would love to believe that punishing one fraternity and one sorority will stop the cycle of deeply harmful behavior towards not just dining workers but other students and community members of color. I also know that this belief is unbelievably naive. Regardless of whether we can “conclusively determine” whether a racial slur was used or not, it is horribly frustrating to see Martin not sufficiently acknowledge the greater harm this incident caused.

First-year Dion Hines recently wrote about how students of color who dare to call out “Andrew Martin’s silence on any and every social issue on campus” are dismissed as overreacting, as foolishly questioning the systems that have given them the opportunity to be at WashU in the first place. Since then, Martin released his statement on this issue, but his insistence on the egging incident as an isolated action taken by a small group of bad actors is no better than his previous silence. 

Instead of acknowledging that combating institutional racism requires — shockingly — institutional change, the Chancellor simply reminded the WashU community that the University “stands against anti-Blackness, racism, harassment, bigotry, and any form of discrimination against any group or individual.” Good for them for standing! It would be nice if they started walking towards progress.

Andrew Martin cannot be expected to solve racism and global conflict within a single email; it seems reasonable, however, to expect that he has enough self-awareness to realize that a few formal disciplinary procedures do nothing to change the conditions that brought about the events in the first place. 

Systemic racism requires action. Divestment from war and violence does too. Both courses of action continue to be ignored by the WashU administration. As a result, we have been treated to a confusing email from the Chancellor about how protests need to be less disruptive and how — hot take — people shouldn’t throw eggs in BD. I hope that the administration’s next statement will be equally as riveting.