Upon entering Wellesley, all students pledge their agreement to the 31-word Honor Code that they will “act with honesty, integrity and respect, to themselves and to the community.” 

However, the vagueness of the Honor Code has long caused confusion among students, with very limited resources available to interpret its extensive applications. The Honor Code Council in recent years created the student code of conduct to clarify the Honor Code processes and rules, but this has instead generated further confusion regarding when each code applies and what truly counts as an Honor Code violation.

The Administration’s comment coincides with an increasing trend of food theft reports, frequent charges against unauthorized student AI use and a recent uptick of student protests in the past few years. 

Understanding the limits of both the Honor and the Student Code of Conduct is difficult, but adding to the overall confusion is the fact that current Wellesley students exist in a vastly different campus environment than those of past generations. 

 Representatives of the Administration during Senate meetings continue to place blame on students for the College’s lack of education and clarity, rather than addressing the systemic issues and breakdown of communication in place at the College. 

Students have more reason than ever to distrust the Administration and the Honor Code, especially when it’s not consistently applied. In the 2023-2024 academic year, student protestors were charged with an Honor Code violation, which stated that they failed to meet the demonstration policy during the Renewing Democracy Summit featuring Hilary Clinton on April 6, 2024. Instead of the established Honor Code processes, including faculty, students and staff, their cases were moved to administrative resolution — a process with no formal policies, faculty and student deliberation, or appeal process. The lack of transparency in the handling of this case only deepened student distrust, as there was no way to know whether the deliberation was performed equitably or fairly. The use of administrative resolution in this scenario affirmed to all students that the existing guidelines and procedures we are expected to abide by can be thrown out on a whim. 

The students of Wellesley fundamentally lack trust in the College, and the Administration does little to address this growing divide. If anything, the Administration continues to enforce changes without student input. Students have voiced concerns that vague threats of “being Honor Coded” are frequently used despite widespread confusion over what it entails.

In the Feb 3 Senate meeting, a student reported that they were threatened by a former Associate Director for Residential Life with an Honor Code charge while protesting, despite stating that they were following the College’s demonstration policy at the time. A member of the editorial board was also threatened twice by a Residential Life Community Director with an Honor Code violation due to complications while throwing a party in their dorm hall. These threats are very troubling for students if faculty and staff can threaten students with Honor Code charges to police their behavior. The tactic is effective — Honor Code trials are lengthy, stressful and carry severe consequences such as probation or suspension. Threatening students with an Honor Code charge is a way of intimidating them to change their behavior without any accountability on the part of authority figures to maintain clear standards and procedures for what exactly counts as a violation and how it should be fairly and reasonably addressed.   

Not only are students ill-informed on the Honor Code, they also lack the structural supports to ensure they are truly able to “live the Honor Code.” One of the biggest recent violations, food theft, is centered around residential life. Students presumably know that theft is generally unethical; However, the administration could do more to address the complicated web of factors leading to food insecurity, often a motive for food theft. Unlike other colleges including Emerson, BU, and UMass Boston, which fund on-campus food pantries, Wellesley does not offer any free supplemental food to students.

At MIT, students receive daily stipends to spend outside the dining halls at local businesses and grocery stores. Additionally, they offer donated swipe passes to students who run out of meal swipes. At Wellesley, students cannot use flex money from their meal plan over winter and summer breaks, despite the extreme cut in hours and locations. Even during the semester, students only receive $75 of flex points, a pitiful amount considering high grocery prices and the comparatively large amount of flex money offered at neighboring institutions like BU (which also has an unlimited meal plan).

Students’ lack of enthusiasm for the Honor Code has much to do with the community cultivated on campus. Dean Horton stated in the Nov. 18 Senate meeting that the Honor Code used to be “a way of living life” and that students used to carry themselves in the community differently, with more integrity and respect. However, the campus has undergone major changes and losses to extracurricular life over the past few years, leaving many students feeling disjointed and often at odds with each other. The state of the campus social life is depressing for most students, especially when compared to what it used to be. The Administration continues to impede co-ops, most notably continuing to prevent Punch’s Alley from reopening and delaying El Table and Cafe Hoop from opening until the end of the semester last Fall. These co-ops do not just operate as businesses but also serve as uniquely vital student spaces for organization, collaboration, and celebration. Even dorm spaces that historically served as gathering spots, such as the Tower Court apartments or 5th-floor blocks, have been systematically and purposefully dismantled by the Administration and residential life. There are few spaces where students feel that they can safely gather without faculty, staff or Administrative presence. This is especially true of spaces for students to consume alcoholic beverages. The campus no longer has its bar, where it safely provided alcohol to students of legal age, and allowed Wellesley students to party in a safe, controlled environment. In the years since the closing of Punch’s Alley, alcohol safety transports increased drastically, and dorm or off-campus parties have become the only other place for students to party with the use of substances.This is especially concerning considering the high prevalence of drink spiking in the Boston area. Quite frankly, the administration appears to be starkly against providing safe spaces for their students. 

The foundation of the Honor Code was never meant to be a tool for authoritarian punishment and intimidation. It was created by students, for students, as a means of fostering mutual trust, self-governance, and protecting the right to self-expression — especially in a time when women had little political influence. 

Over time, however, the Administration has transformed this once-powerful symbol of solidarity into one of fear and control, wielding it inconsistently and at times unfairly against students. If Wellesley truly values the principles on which the Honor Code was founded, the Administration must work to restore student trust by increasing transparency, ensuring fair and consistent application of policies, and addressing the systemic issues that drive student struggles — rather than punitively punishing those forced to navigate them.

8/8 Members of the Editorial Board voted in favor of this piece.

Less than twenty minutes down the road from Wellesley College’s campus sits MCI-Framingham, the oldest operating women’s prison in the United States. Established in 1877, its walls have witnessed over a century of systemic neglect and abuse of both the facilities and prisoners. Today, it remains a site plagued by reports of sexual misconduct, inadequate healthcare, and deteriorating infrastructure: complaints that have gone unaddressed for decades. Despite Massachusetts having the lowest incarceration rates in the country, the state is in the process of building a new taxpayer-funded $50 million “trauma-informed” women’s prison to replace MCI-Framingham: a decision that is marketed as, yet fundamentally misinterprets, a path toward justice.

The prison moratorium bill was reviewed at the Massachusetts state legislative biennial session early this January. Organizers and activists, many of whom have been formerly incarcerated themselves, have spearheaded the initiative including Andrea James, founder of the National Council for Incarcerated and Formerly Incarcerated Women and Girls. Inmates and bill proponents have expressed concern about the facilities’ conditions in Framingham, which they argue have been poor for decades; these calls for critical improvements have been ignored. This bill, which would pause any new prison construction for the next five years, crucially stipulates that renovations to existing facilities are allowed and even enumerates a list of essential repairs.

In support of the incarcerated and formerly incarcerated women behind the “no new women’s prison” campaign, we, the Wellesley News Editorial Board, energetically endorse the proposed prison moratorium bill and encourage members of the Wellesley community to take action in support of this cause. 

The spark behind this campaign, James, was serving twenty-four months in FCI-Danbury, when she helped create the Roxbury-based abolitionist organization Families for Justice as Healing (FJAH). Among many things, FJAH’s #FreeHer campaign advocates for decarceration through accountability processes and community-based services –– emphasizing the need to acknowledge how trauma from violence, sexual abuse, mental health issues, racism and poverty is often the catalyst for the criminalization of women and girls. FJAH believes that since prisons do not statistically prevent or deter crime, and only inflict more harm and trauma onto women, prisons “will never be the place for a woman or girl to heal and advance her life.” These words underscore a critical truth: a justice system that targets marginalized communities cannot be reformed through better facilities — transformation will only occur through divestment from incarceration and investment in alternative methods for addressing the root causes of crime.

During hearings in June 2023, twenty MCI-Framingham inmates testified live in favor of the prison moratorium, revealing details of their harrowing reality: rampant sexual violence, inadequate medical and mental health care, elderly inmates with dementia who “don’t even know they’re here,” and the psychological toll of long-term confinement. Additionally, the Women’s Project, a special initiative from Prisoners’ Legal Services of Massachusetts (PLS), which “aims to bring attention to unique experiences of incarcerated women throughout Massachusetts,” interviewed twenty-two women, nineteen of whom reported that they had either experienced or witnessed sexual harassment or sexual violence by correctional or other staff. Thirteen of the interviewees experienced physical and sexual violence before incarceration. Many of these women are incarcerated for “crimes of survival” — offenses committed in response to poverty, homelessness or abuse. Building a new prison will not solve these issues; it will only relocate them to a state-of-the-art facility.

Mallory Hanora, FJAH’s executive director, summarised why inmates insist against investing millions in a new building. “They’re asking for a focus on programming for their healing and well-being, and then really exploring pathways to release.” HDR, the contracted for-profit architectural firm specializing in carceral infrastructure, has already built over 275 prisons. We find it implausible that this prison would be any different just because of claims it will be gender-responsive and trauma-informed. In fact, HDR’s “most progressively designed prison,” has had numerous scandals, including continual rampant sexual abuse, eight wrongful deaths, and 25 medical malfeasance cases (including a woman who, in 2018, gave birth in her cell’s toilet after repeatedly being denied care). So-called “feminist prisons” do not ameliorate any problems nor aid in women’s rehabilitation. They further entrench a dependence on the carceral system, perpetuating the same conditions which fuel incarceration.

Massachusetts has an opportunity to lead by example. MCI-Framingham’s population has decreased from 600 to under 200 in the last decade. Instead of funneling millions into a new prison, we can fund transformative justice strategies which break, rather than continue, systemic cycles of harm. If the moratorium passes, it buys time for organizations to tackle the root problems facing the justice and carceral systems. For example, FJAH’s Reimagining Communities guaranteed income initiative, or New Beginnings Reentry Services, which provides housing, counseling, and job training to formerly incarcerated people — all of which are proven strategies for reducing recidivism and restoring dignity to those transitioning from prison. A successful moratorium would also give organizations time to develop realistic decarceration strategies for the 200 women currently serving time in Framingham.

Marketing in favor of “gender-informed” prisons conceals the truth –– through appropriating inspiring feminist quotes, phony celebrations of female empowerment and vague “women-oriented” recommendations –– but we must not fall for rhetoric which claims this new prison is “good” for women. There is no such thing as a feminist prison. We urge you to contact your Massachusetts lawmakers: tell them to pass the prison moratorium bill, and commit to a future of community care and justice.

To take action as a MA resident: https://tinyurl.com/stopprisondesign

To get involved: bit.ly/nonewprisonvolunteer

8/8 Members of the Editorial Board voted in favor of this piece.

Although Trump has denied any connection to Project 2025, at least 140 of his former staffers and allies drafted, wrote or edited the 900-page behemoth of a playbook, with JD Vance having written the foreword. It is clear to us that the President-elect’s coalition spent years preparing a blueprint to restrict freedoms and opportunities for women, people of color and LGBTQ+ communities. Project 2025 is already in motion. We must confront the stark reality that Wellesley College –– a historically women’s college and liberal arts institution — could face unprecedented challenges to core values like academic freedom and diversity, equity and inclusion. 

Project 2025 advocates for eliminating the Department of Education and accuses the agency of  doing “nothing to dampen the illiberal chill that has swept across American campuses over the past decade.” It also calls on the next President to issue executive orders curtailing DEI, critical race theory and gender programming. As a college that hosts one of the largest gender-focused social science research centers and produces extensive research on women and gender, Project 2025 is putting our institutional premise at risk — potentially impacting academic research on such subjects and resources at Wellesley.

Trump’s campaign policy is in lockstep with Project 2025 in its calls for the abolition of the Department of Education. This would require an act of Congress, and even if both chambers are majority Republican, it’s unclear whether this measure would pass. However, any significant funding cuts or major departmental restructuring poses a serious threat to educational quality and equitable access. Budget cuts would likely exacerbate financial barriers, especially for higher education, which is often a determinant of upward mobility. Without aid, the fees for attending Wellesley College are prohibitively expensive for the majority of our student body, approximately 60% of whom are receiving some form of financial aid. According to the National Center for Education Statistics’ most recent data for the 2021-22 academic year, 22% of Wellesley students were receiving Pell Grants and 18% were receiving federal student loans, for a combined 40% of our student body who rely on federal funds overseen by the Department of Education. If the department were dissolved, it’s possible these funds would be redirected and overseen by another, but would likely be accompanied by significant reductions, not to mention the capacity for other departments to distribute these funds efficiently. Higher educational access for all but the wealthiest students remains in jeopardy as long as this policy is on the table. 

The second Trump presidency not only threatens domestic students, but international ones as well. Wellesley prides itself in creating “a community of global citizens,” with students hailing from more than 80 countries and speaking more than 30 languages. Our international students make up 13% of our student body, coming from China, India, South Korea, Hong Kong and beyond. Their future in America remains uncertain pertaining to their ability to obtain H-1B visas or other work visas. Under Trump’s previous presidential term, denial of H-1B visa petitions rose significantly.The potential for stricter immigration policies under a second Trump administration could significantly impact these students’ ability to remain in the U.S. after graduation. 

Adding to concerns about Trump’s presidency is the tenuous future of reproductive rights. At a Wisconsin rally in the closing days of his campaign, Trump said, “Whether the women like it or not, I’m going to protect them.” His past record and future policies imply otherwise. He has openly boasted about restricting reproductive freedom –– “I was able to kill Roe v Wade” –– a direct consequence of appointing Trump-loyalists to the Supreme Court of the United States. His policies targeting women are also buttressed by a misogynistic past; Trump was found liable in court for sexual abuse on top of the dozens of women who have accused him of sexual misconduct. Despite saying he would veto a federal abortion ban if it lands on his desk, his campaign has proposed defunding Planned Parenthood and an attack on the Affordable Care Act’s birth control benefit. While medical abortions and access to contraceptives remain protected in Massachusetts, many students return home to states where this is not the case. 

A second presidential term for Donald Trump will also include an intensification of his administration’s opposition to LGBTQ+ rights, particularly those of transgender individuals. Trump’s official policy agenda, listed on his campaign website as “Agenda 47,” includes promises to “Cut federal funding for any school pushing critical race theory, radical gender ideology, and other inappropriate racial, sexual, or political content on our children,” and “Keep men out of women’s sports.” These policies pointedly stoke the anti-woke and anti-trans faction of Trump’s base and promote the same fear-mongering narrative he campaigned on. 

In the Spring of 2025, Wellesley College’s 150th graduating class will enter a world that may be drastically different from today’s. We should remember that when the Durants founded this institution, they envisioned a college that would prepare students for “…great conflicts, for vast reforms in social life.” This vision has remained steadfast as Wellesley graduates have consistently broken barriers, fought for equity, and driven progress across every field. The threats posed by Project 2025 and a second Trump administration, from restrictions on academic freedom to limitations on women’s and LGBTQ+ rights, directly challenge the principles that Wellesley stands for. Now, as we head toward another era of conflicts and reforms in an attempt to reverse our progress and gains, we must refuse to become complacent to the erosion of our freedoms, organize for and support those most harmed by this presidency and hold Wellesley College accountable for protecting members of the community.

On Jan. 24, a day after the Oscar nominations announcements, Hillary Clinton took to her social media accounts expressing her condolences and support for Margot Robbie and Greta Gerwig, who were widely regarded as being snubbed in the categories of Best Director and Best Actress for their work on the Barbie movie. The hot pink post and “#HillaryBarbie” quickly became a meme, adding to the already massive media frenzy surrounding the controversy.  

The post sparked backlash, with critics pointing out the hypocrisy of the former Secretary of State’s choice to immediately condemn the Motion Picture Academy over more urgent feminist causes receiving less attention.

For the commenters, Clinton taking a stance for the women in Hollywood was not the issue. Rather, seeing the scale of influence her statement had in garnering public discourse reminded them of her voice’s tremendous impact. Given that humanitarian crises disproportionately effect women, and Clinton has claimed devotion to such topics throughout her decades-long political career, she has neglected to properly call attention to the plethora of women’s rights concerns amidst many of the ongoing global crises, particularly in Gaza.

Though not as widely reaching as social media posts, in her Nov. 14 Op-Ed, “Hamas Must Go,” Clinton called attention to the atrocious accounts of rape committed by Hamas on Oct. 7; she further addressed the “alarming epidemic of gender-based violence (GBV) as a weapon of war” at a Feb. 9 conference hosted by Columbia University’s Institute of Global Politics and the Georgetown Institute for Women, Peace and Security. By mentioning the wide range of ways women and girls specifically suffer during global challenges, including but not limited to conflict-related sexual violence, but only calling out one side — “It is outrageous that some who claim to stand for justice are closing their eyes and their hearts to the victims of Hamas” — Clinton is contributing to a narrative of divisive empathy. Since violations of women’s rights are universal, so must be our empathy, advocacy and outrage.

In alignment with Wellesley’s core value that gender equality is “foundational to societal progress” we, the Wellesley News Editorial Board, call on our alums and administration to acknowledge and advocate for the largely unaddressed and ongoing women’s rights concerns in Gaza, Sudan, the Congo and other conflict zones right now. 

The devastation of these crises has a much broader impact than solely gender-based issues. The institutional and human loss is incalculable. However, in each of these regions, women are among the most vulnerable to the harms caused. The existing symptoms of war exacerbate gender inequality, most visibly through a rise in gender-based violence, increased economic strife, rapidly declining well-being, lack of medical resources and decreased access to education.

According to the Global Humanitarian Overview of 2021, at least “70% of women experience GBV in humanitarian contexts.” Overall heightened tensions within a region, increased instability, the chaos of mass displacement and lack of protection and safe havens all lead to more violence against women. Right now, women in Gaza seeking support after experiencing an attack or domestic violence have nowhere to turn because the territory’s only two women’s shelters, both in Gaza City, have been forced into closure due to the destruction and evacuations, as reported by the UN’s Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs. Furthermore, due to the electricity and telecommunication blackouts, the shelters cannot even provide services remotely, despite the increased need for such services.

In addition to facing increased violence, women are also disproportionately burdened financially. Because of patriarchal customs, women, especially in regions with a history of instability, are far less likely to be the breadwinners for their families; however, during and after humanitarian conflicts, the number of female-headed households rises dramatically. For example, according to a January 2024 UN report, approximately 85% of laborers in the Gaza Strip have been out of work since the war, and the “small number of women in Gaza who had an income before the crisis, has only gotten smaller,” while the number of women-headed households surged by 3,000 within the first six weeks. After losing a breadwinner, single mothers are suddenly forced into extremely difficult situations to provide for their families. Often, they are taken advantage of, for example, through sexual exploitation or exchanging hours of manual labor for a vastly unlivable wage. Feeding a family can become nearly impossible with the lack of opportunities for women to generate income compounded by food shortages. 

During a conflict and food shortage, women and girls deprioritize their nutritional needs in favor of their male family members, causing systemic malnourishment and creating entire generations of girls who have higher levels of health risks. The data reveals an even more grave prediction for pregnant women and new mothers since their malnutrition poses a threat to both themselves and their babies. From menstrual products to lifesaving drugs, blockades and shortages prevent women and girls from getting the care they need at higher rates than men. The UNFPA estimates that “5,500 women are expected to give birth in Gaza in the next month, of whom 840 are likely to experience pregnancy or birth-related complications.” They require additional medical care that is not available, according to the WHO’s report in late January that fewer than a third of Gaza’s 36 hospitals remain open. On top of that, the enduring hospitals are overcrowded, running out of fuel, supplies and “minimally functioning.” Demonstrating the state of maternal healthcare, as described in an article from Doctors Without Borders, one grieving mother in northern Gaza recounted how she was told there were no available delivery rooms; she had no choice, so she left, later attempting to birth her son, alone, in the latrines closest to her tents. This woman’s experience is not singular.

In addition to higher health risks and fear of violence, girls living in conflict zones are also systemically disadvantaged in education. A 2015 UNESCO study found that adolescent girls living through a conflict are 90% more likely to be out of school. That same report also highlighted the dangers for girls who are enrolled in school while conflict is ongoing, citing examples such as the targeting of girls’ schools during the Afghanistan war and the kidnapping of 200 Nigerian schoolgirls in April 2014.

The tragedy of the lack of education available to girls in Gaza is even more stark since education is a fundamental tenet of Palestinian culture, as evidenced by Palestinians having some of the highest literacy rates in the world. The Israeli government’s destruction of 280 government-run schools, 65 UNRWA schools, and 12 higher education institutions in Gaza has drastically limited employment opportunities for its young population. A seventeen-year-old girl from Beit Lahiya describes her experience, saying, “I was always an A+ student in my school … What else is there to do in Gaza for a girl?! Now, I am just sitting around … I am afraid that, with time, my parents will use the pretext of the overall insecurity and the closure of schools, as well as our status as strangers in the community, to have me married.” The lack of education for girls widens gender disparities even further for generations down the line.

Women being forced to forfeit their intellectual endeavors serves as a barrier to progress. As former Secretary Clinton has mentioned countless times, it has been extensively studied and shown that having women in political and humanitarian leadership roles aids in conflict resolution and peace processes and education is integral to getting women into those positions. At Wellesley, this notion is enshrined in the foundation of our institution. At the center of our mission is the understanding that educating women changes the world. In remembering our mission, motto and values, we implore Wellesley students, faculty, administration and alums alike, to call attention to the infringements on women’s rights around the world.

Four days after her testimony, President Magill resigned. Magill faced intense backlash from students, alums, politicians and donors over her response to Rep. Stefanik’s question. While we do not agree with her views, we recognize Magill’s resignation for what it is: a punishment because she implicitly affirmed the right of students and faculty to protest the actions of the state of Israel. These hearings, in addition to the House’s recent resolution that anti-Zionism is equivalent to antisemitism, serve to criminalize and discourage those who speak out against the occupation of Palestine. Attempts to silence pro-Palestine views and actions on college campuses in particular demonstrate an erosion of free speech that is of concern to us as students and as journalists. 

This renewed fervor against student activism is founded in fundamental untruths. Palestinians have repeatedly stated that “intifada” is not a call for violence against Jewish people. Many Jewish people and organizations have repeatedly stated that anti-Zionism is not antisemitism. Yet, we have seen rules regarding free speech and the right to protest changed and applied arbitrarily to pro-Palestine demonstrations based on these misinterpretations. At Columbia University, Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) and Jewish Voice for Peace (JVP) were suspended following a walkout they organized. Columbia’s event policy was changed shortly after protests began, and the change was made without consulting the student government or student organization leaders. Brandeis University suspended their SJP chapter on the same day they intended to hold a vigil mourning the lives lost in Palestine. At Wellesley, SJP has not been a constituted organization for several years, as student organizers fear administrative backlash. 

Those who speak out in favor of Palestine are accustomed to being doxxed, harassed and threatened — we have experienced this ourselves. Since Oct. 7, we have also seen an alarming rise in both students and faculty losing their on-campus jobs and housing as a result of their political views. The universities we attend hold significant power over our lives, and we find the weaponization of this power to punish students and faculty, specifically those who are BIPOC, reprehensible. Wellesley is guilty of this as well, as the Munger Residential Life team was put on probation after their email criticizing the Israeli government, and a Palestinian RA was forced to resign. Other Wellesley students have lost their work-study jobs or faced potential Honor Code charges for their pro-Palestine social media posts. The suppression and intimidation of pro-Palestine voices exposes the double standard Wellesley upholds with regards to free speech. 

Debates over terminology and hypothetical scenarios deflect attention from the real issue at hand — the genocide in occupied Palestine. The punitive actions against students and faculty expressing pro-Palestine views reveal a disconcerting erosion of free speech principles. The Wellesley College administration cracking down on students with threats of disciplinary action and Honor Code charges is unacceptable. The administrations’ actions have led to a concerning chilling effect on any pro-Palestine speech and even academic discussions of Israel and Palestine. Both students and faculty fear speaking out for Palestine for fear of repercussions. The Wellesley News Editorial Board demands that the administration stand by its proclaimed commitment to free speech and stop applying double standards when it comes to pro-Palestine speech.

As student journalists, we feel a responsibility to point out the failings of Euro-American media when reporting on the situation in Gaza. European and American journalists have dedicated the majority of their coverage to the Hamas attack on Oct. 7, focusing on Israeli captives and victims. The Editorial Board unequivocally condemns all violence committed against civilians by Hamas. However, we believe that the selective focus Euro-American journalism has on these incidents perpetuates the idea that Israelis are the only victims of violence. On Oct. 10, the Defense Minister of Israel, Yoav Gallant, issued orders for “a complete siege of the Gaza Strip,” which is home to 2.2 million Palestinians, almost half of them children. “There will be no electricity, no food, no fuel, everything is closed,” he said. “We are fighting human animals, and we act accordingly.” To launch a bombing campaign and cut off access to basic necessities is inhumane. The Israeli government is imposing collective punishment on a civilian population, which is a war crime as defined by the Geneva Convention. 

We believe that Euro-American journalists have failed to uphold journalistic ethics, displayed a blatant lack of fact checking, and resorted to passive voice and misleading headlines when reporting on Palestine. Tactics such as declaring the situation to be a “religious conflict” dehumanize Palestinians and ignore the decades of occupation they have endured. The story that Hamas beheaded 40 babies was published by many mainstream news sources including CNN, Fox News and the New York Post, amongst many others, before journalists were able to corroborate the story. This unverified claim was then widely repeated and amplified by American politicians like President Biden, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Rep. Elise Stefanik. Since then, an Israeli official has said that the government could not confirm that babies were beheaded by Hamas and news sources have also walked back their claims. Although corrections have been made, the damage has been done. On X, the “40 babies beheaded” claim had over 44 million impressions, with over 300,000 likes and more than 100,000 reposts.

As student journalists, we know that our words have tangible repercussions, thus, we choose them carefully. Journalism is fundamentally about reporting the truth. It takes courage to accurately report current events and criticize powerful states, institutions and people. We believe that Euro-American media has largely failed in this regard. 

The misinformation and propaganda that Euro-American media has irresponsibly circulated has real world consequences. On Oct.14, Wadea al-Fayoume, a six year old Palestinian American child, was murdered in his home near Chicago. Al-Fayoume’s killer was the landlord of the apartment building where he lived; he yelled “You Muslims must die” before stabbing al-Fayoume and his mother. The killer’s wife reported that her husband listened to conservative talk radio, and was fearful of the alleged “day of jihad.” 

The bias displayed in Euro-American media is part of a much larger pattern stretching back decades of sensationalist reporting that encourages outrage on Israel’s behalf. Euro-American media refuses to acknowledge the violence perpetrated by the Israeli Occupying Forces (IOF). For over 75 years, the Israeli authorities have committed crimes against humanity, including apartheid and ethnic cleansing of millions of Palestinians. The events of recent weeks can not be viewed in a vacuum; they must be recognized within their historical context.

As of Oct. 24, Israel has bombed 42% of all housing units in Gaza, in addition to a UNRWA warehouse, a UN school and the third oldest church in the world, where hundreds had taken refuge. These war crimes are being documented by Gazans and by journalists working in Gaza, Lebanon and Egypt. On Oct. 14, Reuters journalist Issam Abdallah was killed by an Israeli airstrike in southern Lebanon while he was filming Israeli missile attacks. In their own coverage of Abdallah’s death, Reuters did not mention who actually killed him, writing, “Reuters journalist killed in Lebanon in missile fire from direction of Israel.” These journalists are documenting some of the worst atrocities mankind has seen while their own lives are under threat. As of Oct. 24, Israel has killed 19 journalists, and has banned foreign journalists from entering Gaza. Israel also plans on banning reporters and correspondents from Al Jazeera, one of the few media companies with a physical presence in both Gaza and Israel.  

As these reporters risk their lives to show the outside world what’s going on in Gaza, their voices are ignored by Euro-American media. At Wellesley, there is little to no acknowledgement of the humanitarian crisis unfolding in Gaza from the College administration and academic departments. 

We urge the Wellesley College community to educate themselves about Palestine through a critical and diverse consumption of media. Primary sources remain paramount, but we should also look to the writings of theorists, authors and civil rights activists, who have dedicated their lives to understanding and elucidating systems of oppression. Looking at our own nation’s struggle for civil rights, key leaders in this movement not only advocate for the end of Israeli occupation, but link the struggle for Black liberation to Palestinian freedom. Prominent Palestinian novelist and journalist Ghassan Kanafani highlights how the struggle for freedom must be a global undertaking, “The Palestinian cause is not a cause for Palestinians only, but a cause for every revolutionary, wherever he is, as a cause of the exploited and oppressed masses in our era.”

The Wellesley News Editorial Board stands firmly in favor of affirmative action and believes that it is a necessary practice in the fight for racial equality in higher education and beyond. While this editorial can not reverse the Supreme Court’s decision, we believe it is important to formally commend the institutions across America who have strongly voiced their disagreement with the outcome of the cases.

President Paula Johnson, in an announcement to the Wellesley College community on the same day the decision was released, wrote, “I believe the Court’s decision on race-conscious admissions is likely to have profound negative consequences for generations of students, for colleges and universities, and indeed for our nation. If we are to achieve the educational excellence we aspire to, our students must have the opportunity to learn from each other across diverse backgrounds and experiences, as they do today. Where will they learn to do that if not in our classrooms and on our campuses, where we seek to teach the next generation of leaders and citizens?”

The Court’s decision overturned the precedent set by Regents of the University of California v. Bakke (1978) and Grutter v. Bollinger (2003), both of which allowed institutions of higher education to consider race as a factor in their admissions decisions, as long as it was to ensure educational excellence with a varied, inclusive community. Now, however, the conservative supermajority has ruled that admissions decisions should be made on a so-called “colorblind” basis. 

However, the Court’s argument against race-conscious admissions is ironically based on the 14th Amendment’s equal protection clause, as the majority opinion argued that race-conscious admissions violate Americans’ rights to equal protection under the law. The Court fails to understand that the historical damage affirmative action sought to correct is far from repaired. Being “colorblind” makes admissions decisions blind to how race impacts all aspects of people’s lives. 

Racism is systemic in the United States. The nature of our system, whether it is through historic red-lining, unequal access to banks, or housing loans, shapes where you go to high school, what neighborhoods you live in, and what resources you have access to, which compounds over generations. All of these are factors that heavily influence a student’s chances of being able to attend elite institutions like Wellesley. The reality is that race continues to shape our country, whether or not the Supreme Court believes it. 

Wellesley College, along with 32 other institutions, filed an amicus brief, a way for individuals or groups to assist in a court proceeding without being a party in said legal case, to express their support for continuing race-conscious admissions policies. The brief reads: “Because the outcome of this case could have a detrimental effect on admissions programs in higher education nationwide, the Court should consider the experiences of small, selective private colleges and universities that have applied Grutter faithfully and successfully for nearly 20 years. In a society in which race still matters, Amici’s experience has shown the educational benefits of a diverse student body and the societal benefits of educating diverse future leaders.”

According to the College’s website, the admitted students of the Class of 2027 hail from 46 states, Washington D.C., Guam, Puerto Rico, and 33 countries. 11% are international students, some of whom are dual citizens. Almost 64% of the class are domestic students of color, and nearly a quarter are first-generation college students. More than half speak a language other than English in their homes. About 60% of the enrolled class are receiving financial aid and about 22% are Pell Grant recipients. 

These students belong here. They have worked hard to get into Wellesley. But their hard-fought battles will only become harder for the next class as they navigate college applications without the appropriate recognition of their achievements taken in the context of their lived experiences. In fact, the class of 2027 had to work harder than most to get into Wellesley, as their class’ acceptance rate was 13%, one of the lowest in recent years. 

We, as students of Wellesley, have had the privilege of experiencing the benefits of diverse classrooms and a diverse student body. It allows us to encounter different perspectives of the world, whether in class discussions or through the numerous student organizations on campus. Engaging with diversity expands our perspectives and pushes us to be more open-minded, more curious and more inclusive. Our education and our community would not be the same without this heterogeneity.

Among institutions of higher education, Wellesley has remained committed to maintaining and increasing the diversity of its student body. President Johnson also noted how the College will continue to focus on fostering diversity in its student body by other means: continuing to be need-blind when looking at student applications, continuing to make applications test-optional, as well as increasing outreach to prospective students from different backgrounds.

While the actions being taken by the College are promising, the gap that affirmative action leaves will still have a resounding impact on future Wellesley students. It is important to understand this decision in its larger context: there is a growing backlash against the recognition of racial diversity in any way, whether it is in books being banned in states based on their inclusion of people of color and different gender identities, or in the “anti-woke movement” from the right. The effects of this case will be felt not only in the realm of higher education, but also in all of the nation’s public spheres, including selective primary and secondary education, employment opportunities, as well as diversity, equity, and inclusion programs in workplaces.

The Wellesley News Editorial Board firmly believes that the Supreme Court’s decision to strike down affirmative action will set back hard-won achievements of diversity in student bodies across the nation for generations. Simply deciding that race no longer needs to be a factor in the consideration of college admissions ignores the historic and ongoing oppression people of color face. Institutions of higher education like Wellesley were not built with the current student body in mind. The Wellesley community cannot afford to be set back by this decision without losing what makes our community so strong. It is affirming to see institutions throughout this country, Wellesley included, creating individual policies that work around this Supreme Court ruling. In a time where our country is governed by lawmakers and laws that move our progress backwards, we must always advocate for what is right. 

In our last issue, The Wellesley News Editorial Board voiced our strong disagreement with the March 6 email from College President Paula Johnson regarding the gender inclusivity ballot question. In that statement, we promised to write a more comprehensive editorial in response to the student vote, which has since passed in favor of the non-binding referendum to amend Wellesley’s language and admissions policy to recognize and celebrate our community’s gender diversity. According to an exit poll conducted by College Government’s Committee for Political Engagement, 90% of students voted yes on the ballot question. Despite overwhelming student consensus, College administrators have held their ground. We refuse to accept this forced stalemate, which establishes a troubling precedent where College administrators cease to incorporate student perspectives in their decisions. We aim to elevate student voices by contextualizing the media coverage this non-binding referendum has received, both locally and nationally. 

It would be naive to decree that transphobic rhetoric should never be covered or published, but it is also naive to claim that unbiased journalism about trans issues exists when trans rights have been swept up in the media’s “culture war narratives.” A 2021 opinion published on NBCU Academy remains all too relevant, wherein the author argues that “framing legislation that seeks to exclude trans people from having equal rights as a culture war reduces the trans community to a political football in an abstract policy debate. No longer is this issue about access to life-saving health care; legislation that focuses on trans Americans is a ‘wedge issue’ that reflects America’s polarization.” This reduction has real-world consequences by downplaying trans people’s humanity, the worst possible time to do so as trans people’s rights are currently under attack in 46 out of 50 state legislatures and the US Congress. While journalists are taught to be unbiased in their coverage, biases are not inherently good or bad; rather, journalists must disclose their biases and interrogate the impact of their journalistic practices. In a political climate fraught with misinformation, merely reporting on the “facts” without critical examination and a clear explanation of their context is irresponsible. As a result, despite best intentions, biases are pervasive in journalism, affecting even seemingly innocuous aspects such as the way that issues are framed in the media. 

Let us illustrate this point through a specific, relevant example. The New York Times —  one of the publications we’ve previously critiqued for their anti-trans editorial bias — was one of many publications to release an article regarding Wellesley’s gender inclusivity ballot question. While not outright transphobic, the article devotes an outsized amount of space to opposing perspectives — disproportionately high compared to what students, staff and faculty actually believe, as evidenced by the results of the exit poll and the number of academic departments and student organizations that have shared their opposition to College administrators and the Board of Trustees — and ends with a quote that is dismissive of on-campus organizing. This framing has the effect of minimizing the on-campus support for Wellesley’s trans community. When the article was updated to reflect the results of the non-binding referendum, Times subscribers across the nation received a breaking news push notification, provoking transphobic fury and attention toward the College community. While we are not inherently opposed to journalistic coverage surrounding marginalized groups — in fact, we believe journalism can be used to advance social justice goals, which we strive to do in our coverage and disclose this intention in our staff editorials — this coverage can achieve more harm than good if not conducted carefully and in regular consultation with the marginalized groups in question. 

While many cisgender people who are not personally affected by this referendum and resulting media coverage may have tuned out the conversation, the distance becomes less apparent when the “culture war” surrounding trans people is reframed to be a broader attack against bodily autonomy, as some articles about prior waves of anti-trans legislation have helpfully observed. The same Republicans proposing anti-trans legislation simultaneously champion anti-abortion laws that threaten the autonomy and lives of people with uteruses. This framing is useful because it helps build solidarity among different marginalized groups. It also renders the College administration’s recent actions unsurprising. We won’t let them gloss over their protection and platforming of Kristan Hawkins — a prominent anti-abortion organizer who wants to ban hormonal contraceptives — when she came to speak on campus in 2021. These actions of the College come together to form the narrative of an institution that is uninterested in protecting the rights and safety of its most vulnerable students.

Refusing the forced stalemate, we urge students to continue voicing and acting on their opposition to the administration’s decision. This opposition should be led by queer and trans students of color to ensure that our advocacy is authentically intersectional, given that trans people of color face unique challenges due to the overlapping effects of transphobia and racism. In 2018, a student created a “Wellesley Disorientation Guide” for a class final project, which includes a historical timeline of radical activism at Wellesley. In support of issues such as endowment divestment from South African apartheid and fossil fuels, students have conducted die-ins and staged high-profile protests and hunger strikes. The rich legacy of student activism at Wellesley, as well as that of the trans community, should serve as inspiration for our work in continuing to dismantle harmful policies the College continues to engage with. The courage of past student work serves as a reminder that tepid or performative actions are not enough to achieve the change we demand. Even current efforts to organize and protest on-campus are not experiencing enough turnout to be meaningful to administration. Wellesley’s past has shown the power of our student body, which requires collective action.

Vote Count: 5/6 Editorial Board Members Voted in Favor. One member abstaining 

India Lacey

Iris Martinez

Valida Pau

Andreea Sabau

Maimoonah Shafqat

Micol J. Zhai

We disapprove of and entirely disagree with President Johnson’s email. As journalists, we understand the power of rhetoric to do good or harm. The need for newspapers to take stances on their editorial standards is more important than ever, as demonstrated by the harm caused by The New York Times’ anti-trans pivot. In the past year, the Times has published “more than 15,000 words’ worth of front-page stories asking whether care and support for young trans people might be going too far or too fast.” This alarming “newspaper crusade” inspired over 4,000 current and former Times’ contributors to draft and sign a letter condemning the paper’s anti-trans editorial bias. This bias has real-world consequences, as demonstrated by the alarming spike in anti-trans legislation in the United States; 39/50 states have proposed and/or passed legislation affecting trans people’s ability to access healthcare, public facilities and safe spaces to be themselves in 2023. It is telling that President Johnson did not mention these legislative attacks against the trans community in her email.

In our next cycle, we intend to publish a longer and more thoroughly researched editorial that includes a response to the upcoming student vote on the gender inclusivity ballot question. For now, we would like to emphasize that President Johnson’s response is part of a broader trend of Wellesley’s administration and the Board of Trustees intervening in student discourse, which sets a problematic precedent. Much like when President Johnson condemned our editorial supporting the liberation of Palestine and student-led pro-Palestine activism, College administration and the Board of Trustees have once again monopolized conversations about Wellesley’s community and future, conversations that should be led by students, who make up the majority of the College community. We also want to remind the Wellesley community that President Johnson is the spokesperson for the Board of Trustees, which must be held equally responsible for the College’s transphobic rhetoric. 

We want to end with our unequivocal support for transgender, nonbinary and gender non-conforming people — at Wellesley and everywhere — who enrich all communities they are part of. We strive to reflect this principle in our coverage and refuse the use of our platform to spew transphobic rhetoric especially because of its very real consequences. 

VOTE COUNT: 6/6 Editorial Board members voted in favor 

The Wellesley News Editorial Board:

Andreea Sabau

Micol J. Zhai

Valida Pau

Maimoonah Shafqat

Iris Martinez 

India Lacey

The Freedom Project is one of many organizations and individuals in Wellesley’s long history of promoting intolerance in the name of free speech. It cannot be denied that many of the events sponsored by the Project, including those hosted by human rights activists, have brought insightful conversation to campus about the importance of free speech and pluralism. On its website, the Project reiterates its commitment to ensuring freedom for oppressed people around the globe, such as Indigenous people experiencing colonialism, political dissidents in authoritarian regimes and LGBTQ+ individuals seeking freedom of self-expression. At the same time, other speakers have brought harm to students, with opinions that seek to suppress and diminish their freedom to exist in a safe space without core aspects of their identity being questioned. 

Most notable of the Project’s missteps is when former Northwestern professor and bioethicist Dr. Alice Dreger arrived to speak at Wellesley in 2018. Dreger was met with overwhelming student backlash for statements she had made in the past supporting the autogynephilia theory, which proposes that trans women exist due to “a male’s propensity to be sexually aroused by the thought of himself as a female.” Her defense continued to perpetuate views that students found harmful — and yet The Freedom Project decided that the correct course of action was to extend a second invitation to Dreger the following year. 

This was not the only time The Freedom Project invited speakers who made students feel uncomfortable or unsafe. In 2017, the Project invited cultural critic and former Northwestern professor Laura Kipnis. Her talk entitled “Sexual Paranoia Comes to Campus (Intellectual Freedom Takes a Curtain Call)” spoke about how Title IX laws and academia’s approach regarding sexual assault have become “draconian,” giving young women a “skyrocketing sense of their own vunerability.” In response, Sexual Assault Awareness for Everyone (SAAFE), a student organization on campus, released a video objecting to Kipnis’s points and raising concerns about the implications of repealing current Title IX laws and the dangers it could pose for vulnerable students. Cushman released a statement on social media declaring Wellesley students as “tough-minded and crazy smart. But not the ones that made that video.” He later released an apology. Cushman’s response comes off as especially insensitive towards a group of students who felt their freedoms — including not having to worry about being sexually assaulted — were endangered. 

The issue extends far beyond the Freedom Project. the recent debacle with the College allowing Wellesley for Life to bring Kristan Hawkins, a pro-life speaker who has expressed transphobic and ableist views on Twitter, to campus, demonstrates that little has been done since 2019 to take accountability or prevent the presence of people espousing views that pose extensive harm to students. Rather than apologizing for the harm the administration’s inaction has caused in the past or present, President Paula Johnson “respect[ed] the right of [Wellesley for Life] to choose her as its speaker.” 

We think it is equally important for President Johnson to respect the rights of students who are transgender, who have had abortions and who are not able-bodied to feel safe on their college campus. Furthermore, Wellesley for Life should take accountability for bringing someone on campus whose presence was deeply distressing to their fellow classmates. 

Whether years ago or last week, these talks may very well bring overlooked conversations to campus and provide students with a new perspective on issues. However, when these talks, when injected into mainstream discussion, also threaten the safety and legitimacy of students and their voices, it is time to reevaluate if these speakers are really spreading the theme of “freedom of expression” on campus.

We propose a dual vetting system for future speakers at the College, regardless of which organization brings them to campus, involving the Office of Student Involvement (OSI) and the College Government Committee on Organization Recognition Affairs (CORA). The criteria for allowing future speakers on campus is simple: “Wellesley’s policies strongly prohibit discrimination and harassment based on sex, gender identity or expression, and sexual orientation, among other legally protected bases, and Wellesley requires that all student-invited speakers be advised in advance of Wellesley’s commitment to nondiscrimination and diversity on our campus,” according to President Johnson’s own email statement. 

The Freedom Project may be approaching its demise, but its flawed conceptualization of unfettered “freedom” has remained pervasive among certain groups on campus, as well as the administration’s responses to harm inflicted by speakers. With the Project’s end and Wellesley for Life’s recent choice in speaker, it is more dire than ever to prevent future harm  — which, contrary to what these groups might lead you to believe, is possible at the same time as continuing to uphold the human rights, pluralism and individual freedom that they so strongly advocate for.