Wendy Raymond, president of Haverford College released an email to Haverford students, staff, and faculty on Tuesday, which included the Policy on Expressive Freedom and Responsibility, an articulation of Core Values, and a revised Honor Code. As stated by Raymond, the updates follow six months of feedback from the Haverford community and are designed to “to define expectations and bring greater clarity to our policies governing time, place, and manner of expression.” The revision contains an added definition of the term “hostile environment” and clarifies the prohibition of “acts or threats of violence” as well as “shutting down events.” It also clarifies the scope to which the policy applies.
The guidelines included definitions of important terms such as expressive freedom, expressive activities, college resources, and hostile. These definitions give members of the Haverford community an explicit guide to how these terms apply when they are used in the later section, which elaborates on prohibited activities.
The policy section of the document details the “Time, Place, and Manner Rules” of the aforementioned expressive freedom. The policy rules pertain to: Prohibited activities, responsibilities of expressive activity organizers, use of college space and scheduling, candlelight vigils and other expressive activities using open flames, amplified or otherwise loud sound, interruptions and disruptions of speakers or events, the use of college space and financial resources, visual media, erecting structures, requests for identification, photos and video recordings, masking, applicable Law, the application of the policy in classroom settings, and considerations for special settings and events on campus.
When, Where, and How
The guidelines detail an allowance of amplified noise on Founders Green Monday through Friday between 12 to 1 p.m. or 5 to 9 p.m., and Saturday and Sunday, noon to 9 p.m.. In addition, the policy notes the places where they can occur, such as Founders Green, and cannot occur: Living spaces, libraries, offices, labs and research spaces, commencement, college-sponsored events, and the dining hall is all prohibited, unless the activity in the dining hall is short and infrequent. The manner of which activities and expression occur is also mediated through these rules, which elaborate on what makes a venue of expression acceptable or not. It should be noted that while this policy applies in most spaces on campus, classrooms adhere to Haverford’s policy on Academic Freedom instead.
Disputing Perspective on the Policy
Despite the intended purpose of the updated policy, which is to increase the clarity of definitions within it, one faculty member at Haverford voiced concern.
In respond to a request for comment through email, Professor Tarik Aougab urged community members to see this policy in the context of the wave of new protest policies at other institutions, which have arisen as a response to the student-led protests for Palestine. “I see this policy as the school’s attempt to thread the needle between needing to codify some of its commitments to freedom of expression, while simultaneously feeling the need to appease the MAGA-aligned politicians in congress and at the department of education who are actively investigating us,” he wrote.
Aougab questioned how much of a substantive change this policy is from the 2024 policy, specifically examining the definition of a “hostile environment,” which he understands as referring to expressive activities “amount[ing] to unwelcome conduct”, an ascription determined by the appropriate College office, per the policy’s language. He noted the potential risk of this statement’s vagueness, given the rhetoric of some current elected representatives’ who espouse “genocidal racism towards Palestinians (not to mention towards immigrants and other Black and Brown people) and who are extremely motivated to convey even the most basic acknowledgement of Palestinian humanity as contributing towards a ‘hostile environment’.”
His concern with this definition lies also in his belief that the federal government’s scrutiny of Haverford will complicate just ruling enforcement of the policy. Aougab added that he sympathizes with those tasked with making and updating this policy, saying “it’s an extremely stressful political landscape to be operating within,” though he ultimately believes the attempt to generally define a “hostile environment” was unsuccessful.
Campus Safety
In regard to members of the community not identifying themselves or concealing their identities, the policy states that Campus Safety and members of the Dean’s Division are authorized to approach students if they observe that they are violating campus policy. Community members are expected to comply if identification is requested. If not, Campus Safety is permitted to take and share photos and videos of non-compliant individuals with other College offices, though not to any external organizations. The policy also refers to masks, which are permitted, though community members are requested to comply by revealing their face and identity to Campus Safety and members of the Dean’s division.
Future Review and Policy Administration
The policy document ends with an explanation of how the policy was developed and will be reviewed going forward. As previously mentioned, students, staff, and faculty members collaborated to produce the policy. Further, the policy will be reviewed at least once a year. Community members that have engaged in violation will be referred to the Dean’s Office if they are students, Human Resources if they are staff, and the Provost’s Office if they are faculty. For further information on the policy and related codes and guidelines, there are several links listed under related resources.
Contrasts to Bryn Mawr’s Protest Policy
This document came shortly after Bryn Mawr released its own set of guidelines. Bryn Mawr’s definition of what constitutes a violation is based on whether the expression threatens “health and safety,” although the policy lacks a definition of what this term encompasses or excludes, something which has been criticized by free-speech experts and the college’s faculty. While the Haverford policy reinstates the College’s commitment to robust dialogue, Bryn Mawr omitted its previous statement of commitment of protecting the “expressing ideas without hindrance.” Bryn Mawr’s protest guidelines were also created without insight from faculty or student consultation, and the policy does not include plans for reevaluation.
Love the Bi-College News? Want to support independent student journalism? Donate to us.
1 comment
Hi Friends,
Very thankful to the Bi-Co News crew for continuing to cover these updates with care and depth. It’s been powerful watching the Bi-Co grow in real time as an alumna.
I agree with Prof. Aougab in urging the community to recognize the complexity of this policy as it works to reconcile political and social tension while Haverford remains under federal scrutiny. The College’s attempt to broadly define “hostile environment,” though imperfect, is an early and important first step to expanding that conversation beyond the Title IX framework.
The College’s updated policies on civil rights and free expression show real movement toward fairness and accountability. There’s still room for growth, but we can’t heal by pretending the past didn’t happen. Growth from collective trauma means confronting it, learning from it, and making space for repair.
I hope this new wave of policy deepens fairness and increases accountability between students, faculty, and staff, as well as within the greater alumni and Quaker communities.
Regardless, we all recognize that genuine accountability can be quiet, unwavering repair, but never erasure.
Shakira K. HC’17