Guest Opinion
On April 27, 2025, I wrote a letter to the editor critical of the immediate and public condemnation of Bryn Mawr students in the wake of the short (it is my understanding that the disruption lasted approximately 90 seconds) protest at Goodhart Hall on April 21. Hours after the incident, President Cadge sent a public message, posted to her website, censuring the students for creating a “…frightening environment with potential dangers to others’ hearing and safety.” In my letter, I raised concerns about the protesting students’ due process rights in the face of the President’s immediate, public, condemnation of protesters. I also expressed concerns that hostile outside forces might seize on the President’s characterization of the protest, and in so doing, harm the College and our students. In light of these concerns, the President’s public message struck me as rash and potentially dangerous.
Sadly, a few days later, I learned that my concerns were well-founded. Canary Mission, a notorious doxing organization, quoted from President Cadge’s remarks in an Instagram post focusing on Bryn Mawr. Canary Mission has played a key role in the spate of detentions of college students for their protest activities. As has been reported, most college students targeted by ICE for deportation in recent years have been identified through Canary Mission’s website. As should be clear, this is an organization hostile to the interests of many Bryn Mawr students, faculty, and staff. By immediately publicly characterizing students as creating a “…frightening environment with potential dangers to others….”, President Cadge’s communication drew Canary Mission’s attention to the College and provided content for its dangerous and harmful propaganda focused directly on Bryn Mawr. That a hostile external organization would seize upon the President’s public condemnation of Bryn Mawr students was foreseeable. To date, the President has not publicly acknowledged that her words were used by Canary Mission in this way or expressed any regret about the potential damage done to the College or community members.
Yet despite this chilling example of how the Administration’s public condemnations of Bryn Mawr students have been used by hostile external forces, the President has continued to issue public statements critical of Bryn Mawr’s students. On June 2, 2025, the President posted a public statement regarding incidents of vandalism on campus. The next day, the Inquirer picked up the story, illustrated with a large headshot of President Cadge, “courtesy of Bryn Mawr College.”
In recent days, allegations of serious due process violations have been reported in the Bi-Co News in connection to Bryn Mawr’s hiring of outside investigators to interrogate students regarding protests and vandalism on campus. According to this article, students were requested to appear at meetings with outside investigators without any notice about the nature of the meeting, who would be in attendance, or what their rights were. Many faculty, staff and students are deeply troubled by these reports.
The Administration has not given a clear account regarding the College’s hiring of private investigators. The Public Relations and Marketing Department has, citing FERPA, suggested that the College cannot comment on the reports out of a respect for student privacy. Since no one is asking about the disciplinary records of specific students, this invocation of FERPA is puzzling. At the same time, the President has once again issued public condemnations of Bryn Mawr students. In her December open letter and in her comments at the Big Cheese SGA event, President Cadge has publicly criticized student journalists and their student sources, suggesting that the reporting is inaccurate and intimating that the journalists are not abiding by basic journalistic standards.
The Bi-Co News reports that they have followed best practices and even exceeded these journalistic standards by giving the Administration multiple opportunities to correct the record and address any inaccuracies in the story. The Administration has not done so. If there are inaccuracies in the story, why hasn’t the Administration offered corrections? If the Administration has offered no factual corrections to the story, why is the President publicly condemning student journalists and casting aspersions on the Bi-Co News? While the President’s December letter stressed the importance of facts and accuracy, the Administration has not shared basic facts about the private investigations. And while the December letter decried a culture of personal attacks, much of the letter (and the comments at the Big Cheese) could be interpreted as a personal attack on Bryn Mawr student journalists and their sources as well as an attack on the gossip-mongering faculty and staff who read the Bi-Co News and start asking questions. Under these conditions, how does the Administration expect to earn the trust of students, faculty, and staff?
There is, potentially, a way forward. As the philosopher Jeffrey Kaplan describes in a recent Convocation address at Williams College, when we attempt to fully answer people’s questions by sincerely providing good reasons for our actions, we can successfully, and respectfully, create the conditions necessary for trust and even change people’s minds through the power of persuasion. In his speech, Kaplan tells the story of Richard de Crespigny, who was the lead pilot on Qantas Flight 32 when the aircraft suffered engine failure after takeoff. De Crespigny managed this emergency and landed the plane safely, although the passengers were forced to stay on the aircraft for another two hours after the emergency landing. What Kaplan focuses on is how de Crespigny related to the passengers after the emergency: de Crespigny patiently and directly answered every question posed to him, giving clear and direct reasons for his actions. As Kaplan describes it, the passengers walked away from this terrible ordeal satisfied with the explanations they had been given.
Notice what de Crespigny didn’t do: he didn’t criticize the moral character of the questioners, he didn’t dismiss any questions as offensive, he didn’t offer a narrative in which he was the real victim of the situation, he didn’t suggest he would only answer constructive questions, he didn’t insist that questioners adopt a certain tone in asking their questions, and he didn’t repeat vetted statements crafted by marketing professionals. Instead, he patiently and sincerely answered all questions until his audience was satisfied. Satisfied does not mean that everyone in the audience agreed with him or fully endorsed his course of action, but it does mean that everyone felt heard.
Of course, the role of airline pilot making an emergency landing is not fully analogous to the role of a college president navigating difficult times. Crucially, Bryn Mawr, like other colleges, is committed to shared governance, and Administrators should be consultative in their decision making in a way that airline pilots should not. According to Bryn Mawr’s Plan of Governance, faculty, students and staff should be consulted on decisions that affect them, with the faculty having authority over academic matters. In a college context, the Administration should participate in the practice of giving reasons for their actions, as de Crespigny did so successfully, when it comes to decisions they make that fall squarely within their domain of authority, but they, along with faculty, students, and staff, should also engage in the practice of exchanging reasons.
The language used in our Plan of Governance regarding the consultation of students is rather striking: “Students have a unique and valuable viewpoint on the College’s affairs and should be encouraged to continue their association with the College long after their time at the College ends. Therefore, in accordance with, and subject to, the policies set forth in Article I, the Boad, the Faculty, and the Administration should consult the Students about all matters that affect student life and the student experience at the College.” I have thought about these words over the past week as I’ve watched the Administration respond to the concerns of faculty, staff and students. Will this current group of students want to continue their association with the College in the future?
This is a fraught moment at Bryn Mawr; in addition to the revelations about private investigators on our campus, the protest policy has undergone a substantial revision, numerous cameras (potentially hundreds) have been installed indoors and outside, and private security firms are patrolling our campus. Many people are unhappy with these changes, and they do not feel heard or respected by the way that these changes have been implemented in the absence of genuine consultation with, or even direct notice to, students, staff, or faculty. Those of us who care about these issues chafe at being publicly compared to characters in a television series, and in sharing our concerns, we do not see ourselves as simply engaging in “good old-fashioned gossip.” Rather than dismissing or publicly condemning Bryn Mawr community members, I hope, going forward, President Cadge will publicly take responsibility for her past actions, listen carefully to concerns, and commit to governing through a process of genuine consultation involving the sincere exchange of reasons with students, faculty and staff.
Macalester Bell
Associate Professor of Philosophy
Bryn Mawr College
1 comment
This was an extremely grounding piece to read!
Macalester, you clearly articulate the duty to exchange reasons rather than default to reflexive condemnation. The obligation to provide reasoned justification for institutional action is foundational to stable, functional shared governance.
I am curious why these statements have remained unaddressed by the administration.
Thank you for writing this.
Shakira
HC ’17