by Hannah Embree
Since my arrest during Homecoming weekend, I have had the opportunity to meet with many members of this campus. In doing so, I had hoped to explore as many perspectives on the John Marshall Harlan statue unveiling as possible. I wanted to ensure that I got my facts right. After numerous discussions I discovered incongruities in the narrative. This narrative on how we got here has been difficult for me to piece together and I am certain that I will say things moving forward that will upset some people. I can only speak on what I know and the conclusions I have come to.
The Controversy Behind Memorializing John Marshall Harlan
Though I am sure everyone knows by now why John Marshall Harlan is controversial, I will quickly summarize my qualms with his decisions and opinions. He is famous as the great dissenter. Infamous for his dissent in Plessy V. Ferguson – a landmark case in a chain of federal court decisions in favor of civil rights for African Americans. His dissent in this case, while, yes, a stepping stone in the court battles that would span the entire century, ultimately established the concept of “colorblindness” in the American Judiciary. I don’t dispute that this was a progressive decision, intended to decrease the effects of Jim Crow on African Americans. Harlan certainly would not have known all the effects of his dissent on the future lives of black Americans. His dissent, however, did impact future Americans and is not sufficient grounds for monumentality.
This wasn’t his only dissent, as his nickname suggests. It is his dissent in United States V. Wong Kim Ark that I find particularly inappropriate to memorialize at this moment. Harlan dissented in a decision to grant birth-right citizenship to people born on American soil, minus a few exceptions. I find the decision to memorialize an individual who actively argued in defense in anti-immigration policies reproachable. Under the administration’s reconsideration of the matter of immigration has there been a spike of anti-immigration sentiments in America. To the point that many legal immigrants have found trouble renewing citizenships and subjectivity to violent ICE raids. It is not a safe time to be an immigrant in America. Let us not assume that this does not affect students at Centre. Many students from immigrant families are watching as the Trump Administration encourages such sentiments – in fear for their own safety and the safety of their loved ones. I know this to be true, by the way. I have spoken to some of these students. This should be a time for Centre to support their students from abroad, immigrant families, or who simply resemble the two. Monumentality has meaning; What message does the statue present to those students currently under persecution? Should we not expect more from a college which prides itself on global citizenship?
Broader Implications: The Problem of Communication and Free Expression on Centre’s Campus
My protest has given rise to conversations surrounding Centre’s failure to consider the opinions of members of the college on the same level as they do for the desires of the Trustees and their Mr. Un-named Donor.
Administration:
This is what I have learned from conversations with Administration: The unveiling of the statue comes at the end of a four-year process in which a Public Art Committee was assembled to discuss the statue. Within the committee itself, there were concerns raised about what such a monument would represent to the student body and for the college. Members of faculty, students, and admin participated in this committee.
From what I have heard, the college seems to believe that this Committee (and message to faculty) would be a sufficient means of hearing thoughts from each group. As a student, I feel misrepresented and disappointed that I did not receive the opportunity to express my discontent when such discussions were taking place. A small group of students cannot be representative of the entire student body. Why were students not widely informed about the statue’s erection until after the ground was broken?
I am sadly aware that I cannot get the statue taken down. That would be my ideal solution. But I have other ideas. I have already talked to members of admin about how to make the space feel student-centered again. I proposed a seating area in the lawn in front of the statue, just as there had previously been. I encourage the building of more places for students to gather. Stripping the lawn of such a place seems out of place for a statue which is supposed to represent freedom of discussion. I know this is not a solution to the problem at large, but is what I can do in the present. I hope that my voice has been elevated and that I can continue to have similar discussions with admin about communicating with and hearing student opinions.
Faculty:
Following a trend sweeping the United States, there has been a push to bring Turning Point USA to the Centre. TPA has a system where professors can be reported for views which challenge the ideology of the right. In particular, professors who teach in the fields of anthropology, sociology, religion, and other such humanities feel threatened by this aggressive behavior. These systems of monitoring are a blatant attempt to silence academic voices. Our professors are trained academics. They don’t teach students to be “woke”; they give students the tools to form opinions on their own. This is the threat that TPA fears. That people will question right-wing politicians; that they will dissent.
I am saddened that the concerns raised by the faculty of our school were not given their due consideration. It’s disrespectful to the educators of this institution. I am worried that this is only the beginning. I see the seeds of censorship being planted on our campus. This is a place of learning, so why couldn’t our admin do what we do on the daily: listen and learn?
Students:
I can’t speak for the opinion of the student body because I do not know it. We students were not consulted in this decision. A small number of students were chosen to represent the entirety of the school. I don’t feel represented. You shouldn’t either.
We deserve to have the opportunity to express our thoughts. I was not the only student who felt angered by the statue, but I was the only one to speak. Not for lack of desire, but for fear. Students on campus are afraid to dissent. They were scared to join me in peaceful protest. They were scared to do anything but sit and watch in silent anger. That is not ok.
My arrest is what they are forced to fear. Admin was aware that there would be those in the crowd who had strong opinions about the statue. They expected a demonstration. They had a plan. Were a student to do what I did, the college planned to handle the situation internally. They were supposed to get to me first. But, they didn’t. Police officers were present at the unveiling. I believe this to be a failure of the institution to prioritize student well-being. Was it so necessary to have Mitch McConnell on campus? Did his slurred words and fragmented speech add anything to the ceremony? Does this college stand behind such a heinous man?
Was it worth it? Free speech is a fundamental human right, according to our own country’s Bill of Rights. Students in the crowd witnessed a student get arrested for doing what they had also wanted to do. Students are already hesitant to express their discontent with the college, and I can assume that witnessing such use of police force will not aid in amending that hesitancy.
Conclusion and Call to Action:
The college claims that John Marshall Harlan represents the positive effects of speaking out in the face of adversity. I assert that I did exactly that. I raised no crowd of protesters, I incited no violence. I did not interrupt any speaker, but instead spoke for a total of 22 seconds before being pulled, by police, down from the chair I stood on. I did not resist arrest. I walked with my hands behind my back but my head high. Ultimately, I stand on what I did and don’t believe that I broke the code of conduct with my actions. I was peaceful and concise and I did not prevent the ceremony from moving forward. I hope that I can make my demonstration mean something. I am trying my hardest.
To the students who have read my statement, thank you. All I want is to be heard. Here’s what I request that you do: Love and support your peers who are dealing with the rise of anti-immigration sentiments in America. Stand by your beliefs, don’t let anyone scare you into silence. Make yourself heard.
Sources:
Reed, Douglas S. “Harlan’s Dissent: Citizenship, Education, and the Color-Conscious Constitution.” RSF: The Russell Sage Foundation Journal of the Social Sciences 7, no. 1 (2021): 148–65. https://doi.org/10.7758/rsf.2021.7.1.09.
Harrington, Ben. The Citizenship Clause and “Birthright Citizenship”: A Brief Legal Overview. CRS Legal Sidebar LSB10214, version 2. Washington, D.C.: Congressional Research Service, November 1, 2018. https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10214.