Title VI prohibits any institution that receives federal funds from discriminating and harassing on the basis of race, color, national origin and shared ancestry, which includes Jewish ancestry, the Education Department wrote in its press release earlier today.

This letter follows the Education Department and Joint Task Force to Combat Antisemitism’s decision to cancel Columbia University’s $400 million in federal funding last Friday. 

The College said they are currently reviewing the letter from the OCR.

“Wellesley condemns antisemitism and other forms of hate and discrimination and has taken action to ensure that all our students, including Jewish students, have a strong sense of belonging at Wellesley,” said the College in a written statement to the News.

In Nov. 2023, the Brandeis Center, a Jewish legal rights advocacy group, filed a civil rights complaint against the College  on the grounds that Wellesley “failed to take a stronger stance and check their hostile environment” in protecting Jewish students.

The letter marks the latest action from the Trump administration that ramped up investigations against higher education on antisemitism. On Friday, OCR ordered enforcement staff to prioritize resolving antisemitism complaints, which the Education Department said were left “unresolved by the previous administration.”

“U.S. colleges and universities benefit from enormous public investments funded by U.S. taxpayers. That support is a privilege and it is contingent on scrupulous adherence to federal antidiscrimination laws,” said Secretary of Education Linda McMahon in the press release announcing the issuing of these letters.

 She noted, “The Department is deeply disappointed that Jewish students studying on elite U.S. campuses continue to fear for their safety amid the relentless antisemitic eruptions that have severely disrupted campus life for more than a year.”

Other liberal arts schools, such as Pomona College, Middlebury College, and Swarthmore College, were also among the sixty institutions to receive letters. Other Boston area schools on the list include Harvard University, Tufts University, and Boston University. 

The College stated, “We are continuing to make progress to improve the climate on campus and to ensure compliance with Title VI, including encouraging reporting and establishing mandatory Title VI anti-discrimination training for students and for other community members.”

The College also pointed to their improved grade of B in the Anti-Defamation League’s 2025 Campus Antisemitism Report Card, as evidence of the College’s substantial improvement over the past year.

The College has stated that their work on these issues is ongoing and that they look forward to sharing the results of this important work with the OCR.

Contact the editors responsible for this story: Ruby Barenberg and Valida Pau

Updated with fixing typos.

The College and the Union have gone back and forth on the three key issues of compensation, workload and protections, which prompted WOAW-UAW to call the strike authorization vote. 

The Wellesley News sat down with both the College and WOAW’s bargaining committee to better understand each side’s positions on core bargaining issues.
In an exclusive interview with The News, Provost Courtney Coile and Chief Human Resources Officer Carolyn Slaboden said they were “shocked and disappointed” by the Union’s act of calling for a vote, particularly while negotiations between the College and Union are still ongoing.

Following the announcement, Coile and Slaboden sent out an email to all faculty and students, emphasizing that the vote passing does not mean that a strike will follow.

The College currently has two other unions, including the Independent Maintenance and Service Employees’ Union of America (IMSEUA), and Slaboden said the College is “very familiar with working in a unionized environment.” 

Slaboden stressed the importance of this first contract between WOAW-UAW and the College as “a foundational piece to future contracts” which generally takes between 12-18 months to settle. 

“We’ve acquired the nine-month mark and continue to bargain in good faith with the union,” said Slaboden.

Compensation

In the College’s proposed compensation plan, the College touts competitive wage increases, with a total 3.7% wage increase in the bargaining unit salary line for the first contract year. This includes a 2.5% across-the-board raise for all unit employees and additional increases for union employees at the lower end of the wage scale. 

Coile stated that under the new plan, bargaining-unit employees (BUEs) would receive an average salary of $92,259 in the first year of their contract, well above the average market salary in the market for lecturers of $82,000, according to the American Association of University Professors. 

The College insisted that its proposal is “fair and highly competitive,” based on market research at peer institutions. Battat, on behalf of the Union bargaining committee, dismissed the compensation plan as a “nonstarter.” 

Battat argued that annual increases are standard practice across industries to offset inflation, resulting in no real wage gain.

Brubaker noted that this proposed 2.5% increase falls short of past inflation-adjusting raises, which have ranged from 2% to 4% in recent years.

The College did not specify the exact institutions they referred to as “peer institutions.” For context, in 2024, a visiting lecturer at Williams College was paid $64,900 while a lecturer in Mathematics at Amherst College received $80,000, according to data on the H1B Salary Database.

Coile continued by noting that the College provides “generous benefits,” adding 35% on top of salary in terms of the cost of the College.

The College pushed back strongly on the Union’s proposed compensation plan.

“As you know, I am an economist, but I have to admit that I am having trouble understanding where the Union salary numbers are coming from,” Coile said.

WOAW has lowered their demanded minimum salary from $105,700 to $90,000 in their latest proposal, submitted on Feb. 27.

Disclaimer: The data is an estimate and may be subject to change. 

Based on the original 6-figure starting salary demand, the College claimed that the Union’s proposal would more than double the salaries for BUEs at a cost of $12 million, with extra proposed benefits adding another $5 million. 

To put the number into context, $17 million is roughly equivalent to the cost of full financial aid for 190 students, according to Coile. 

“They have not offered any market rationale for their proposal to raise the minimum starting salary to $105,000,” said Coile, noting that the figure exceeds starting pay for tenured faculty. 

Slaboden emphasized the College’s long-term fiscal health in negotiations, while Coile argued that drastically increasing non-tenure track faculty compensation would impact other priorities.

“It’s not possible for us to do so much for one group of employees at the College without harming other groups and without harming our ability to carry out our mission.”

Workload

The College’s current proposal would require non-tenure-track faculty “to teach five courses to retain [their] current salaries,” a move, faculty argue, that would raise workloads by 25%.

The College counters that many BUEs have already taught five courses per academic year. All visiting lecturers teach five courses, and more than 20% of other BUEs voluntarily took on extra courses last year.

Brubaker felt that this claim was disingenuous since non-tenure-track faculty are often pressured to teach more courses to support their departments.

“We want to be good citizens, and the reappointment process is more fragile. We’re doing overloads to make ends meet because we’re not being fairly compensated,” Brubaker said.

“The fact that we have taken [on] five courses per year doesn’t mean there hasn’t been a cost to the education we can deliver and a cost to our own selves,” Battat added.

The College, in response, points to “extremely high” student satisfaction from student feedback in Learning Experience Reflection (LERs), regardless of whether instructors teach four or five courses. 

Coile then emphasized that while tenure-track faculty teach only four courses a year, they have significant research and College service responsibilities that non-tenure-track faculty do not.

Protections

The College and WOAW are also at odds about “when” grievance procedures should be enacted. 

The Union proposes that once a complaint is filed, a grievance can be initiated alongside the Title IX process. In contrast, the College’s proposal allows Union members to proceed with a grievance after 120 days, allowing time for internal review by trained personnel in the Office of Nondiscrimination.

Battat gave an example of how grievance procedures protect Union employees under their proposal. If a BUE is being harassed or stalked, they can ask the College to change their office location so they feel safe. If denied, the BUE can file a grievance.

“Our grievance procedure is not punitive and has nothing to do with the respondent. We are saying to believe people within reason,” Battat said.

The College, however, holds that the Union’s approach bypasses critical time for “independent, trained fact-finding.” 

“Only a sequential process ensures fairness and avoids the unnecessary confusion and inconsistencies that would inevitably result from having both a labor arbitration and an internal review proceed at the same time,” wrote Tara Murphy, Vice President of Communications, Public Affairs and Global Engagement, in a statement to The News.

Going forward

Regarding their strategy after the vote has been passed, Battat has said that the Union plans to bargain productively, offering the College as many bargaining dates as possible within their schedules.

Brubaker said that some Union members are already having conversations with students in classrooms to help them understand where the Union is in the negotiation process.

Similarly, Slaboden said, “When we get back in the room, nothing changes. From my perspective, we have been working on preparing counter proposals for the Union, and we will meet with them and bargain in good faith, as we always have.”

College leaders are actively developing contingency plans to ensure the College is prepared to maintain academic programs and other operations, including campus safety, in the event of any strike-related disruptions. 

“As teaching-focused faculty, students are our top priority. That really is guiding our vision in negotiation. If we did go on strike, it would be a short-term challenge that would result in a long-term benefit not only for students here today but for future generations of Wellesley students,” Battat said.

Valida Pau contributed to reporting.

Eligible voters in this election include instructors, lecturers and Mellon postdoctoral fellows who are currently employed by Wellesley College. If the vote passes with a two-thirds majority, the union’s bargaining committee is authorized to call for a strike if necessary.  

According to WOAW, a “yes” vote in the Strike Authorization Vote is an opportunity to “declare forcefully that unless [the College] make[s] significant progress towards a fair contract, they can expect a strike to follow.”

The call for the Strike Authorization Vote from WOAW is coming after claims that the College has stalled on major core-bargaining issues. 

“After 19 bargaining sessions and over 65 hours of face-to-face negotiations, we have not made sufficient progress on our key priorities, including compensation, workload, job security, titles, and prohibitions against discrimination and harassment,” wrote Erin Battat, a senior lecturer in the Writing Program, in an email statement to The News.

WOAW and the College have reached 15 tentative agreements out of 50 proposals, including health and safety, intellectual property, and workplace and materials.

However, the College described the vote as “premature.” In an email sent to faculty and staff on Feb. 14 from Provost Courtney Coile and Chief Human Resources Officer Carolyn Slaboden, they wrote, “It is hard to understand why the union would take this step toward bringing disruption to our students when negotiations are ongoing and in no way at an impasse.”

The main bargaining issues that the College and the Union went back and forth between in their communications are compensation, workload and protections. 

Compensation 

The College argued that their initial salary proposal is “comprehensive and highly competitive,” stating that it would bring “the average salary for all bargaining unit employees (BUEs) to $92,259, well above the average salary in the current market … ”

WOAW claims, however, that a few high earners skew the average under the College’s proposal, and still, 25% of bargaining unit employees (BUEs) make under $68,890.

WOAW unionized to address this particular issue of salary stagnation, pointing out that “the wage gap of $31,000 persists between BUEs who were hired before and after 2008.” 

The union pointed out that K-12 teachers in the region have higher starting salaries and much higher salary growth, to reinforce the efficacy of unionization.

The College describes the union’s proposed compensation plan as “unrealistic.”

On their webpage on Non-Tenure Track Unionization at Wellesley, the College states that “the cost of wages and benefits would more than double, from $12 million to at least $24 million, not including proposals for $5 million in additional benefits.”

At the same time, the College emphasized that they will continue to pursue a contract that is fair and responsible with “respect to the long-term financial health of the College, mindful of both the College’s structural deficit and new financial threats in the current environment.”

Battat highlighted the importance of the union’s organizing efforts at a historically women’s college.

“The people who have most to gain from our efforts are primarily young women stuck in a sexist and hierarchical system — one that devalues teaching as historically ‘women’s work.’ We are fighting to give our members, in the words of President Johnson,  ‘the economy she deserves,’” she wrote.

Workload

The current proposal from the College would require non-tenure track faculty “to teach five courses to retain [their] current salaries,” which, faculty argues, would raise workloads by 25%.

The College argues that the five-course workload distinguishes the role of BUEs from that of tenure track faculty. BUEs primarily teach, while tenure-track faculty are responsible for teaching, research, scholarship and extensive College and professional service obligations. According to the College, the “proposal is consistent with the teaching load at the majority of peer institutions, where lecturers teach five to six courses per academic year.” 

WOAW-UAW rebutted this justification from the College as an attempt “to ‘adjunctify’ non-tenure track faculty at Wellesley by insisting on increasing our teaching load while stripping aspects of our jobs that enrich student experience and are essential to the functioning of the College.”

Protections

Coile refuted the union’s claim that the College is refusing standard union protection for harassment and discrimination. She continued, “To be clear, the College’s proposal prohibits such discrimination and allows for the union to take such cases to arbitration after an internal review.”

The union maintained that it is a standard union protection to be able to enforce the contract by filing a grievance and that should hold for claims of discrimination and harassment.

The College stated that if the Strike Authorization Vote is passed and if the union bargaining team decides to call a strike, the College will remain committed to prioritizing students’ academic experience. 

“While we are hopeful this will not be the case, the College is actively preparing for a variety of contingencies to minimize disruptions and ensure the continuity of our academic program for our students.”

The Wellesley News reached out to the College with a request for comment. The College stated that they have no further comment at this time beyond the email they sent to faculty members.

“We have stayed in these unfair positions because we love working with our colleagues and we love our students. But enough is enough. Ultimately, our struggle to win fair compensation and working conditions will benefit everyone,” wrote Battat. 

The vote for the strike authorization is ongoing and will end at 11:59 P.M. on Feb. 20. Results will be announced the next day on Friday, Feb. 21.

Contact the editors responsible for this story: Galeta Sandercock and Valida Pau

Updated on February 20, 2025.

“Regarding the policy’s requirement for two days advance notification of ‘time, place and manner,’ some students want to know if this is intended to prevent protests. The answer is no, that is not the intent. Rather, we ask for this information to protect the safety of students protesting and allow for the operations of the College to continue. All of our peer colleges and universities have similar policies for this reason,” Dean Horton clarified. 

While Dean Horton emphasizes that the free expression policy is meant to ensure student safety, not prevent protests, she concluded her update with a note on other methods students may use to engage with activism, if they do not want to participate in demonstrations. 

“There’s a lot going on in the world right now. Some of you want to demonstrate to raise awareness and your voice. But public demonstrations are not for everyone. Some people prefer to talk in small groups to learn more and think together on strategies for engagement,” said Dean Horton.

 Dean Horton’s email announcement follows recent concerns voiced by students as well as alums about the demonstration policy. The Wellesley News reached out to alums who were highly involved with campus activism during their time as students to learn more about past efforts to engage with social issues and responses from administration.

Helene Furani ’88, Elizabeth Salsburg ’86 and Sarah Arnold ’87 are alums of Wellesley College who were leaders in Wellesley’s student movement to divest from companies doing business in South Africa. 

Salsburg claimed that the stark difference between social and political engagement at Wellesley and the institution she studied at during an exchange program compelled her to organize once she returned to campus.  

“I did my junior year at Wesleyan through the college exchange program, and I had gone there specifically to be at a college with political activism because Wellesley didn’t have that. When I came back, it was clear we needed to be politically active, and the topic that was on everyone’s mind in the world was South Africa and apartheid. The divestment movement was everywhere but not at Wellesley,” she said.

Arnold affirmed Salsburg’s statement, “Divestment was the burning moral issue of our undergraduate years. The way that Ukraine or Gaza is now. There was moral clarity around South Africa.”

However, Furani noted that she and her co-organizers had difficulty convincing other students to join them in their push for Wellesley to divest from South Africa. 

“I don’t think we were a minority in opinion on campus. We were a minority in terms of wanting to do something about it. I don’t think anybody would vocally say they were in favor of South African apartheid continuing, but it was a sort of apathy of ‘What does it have to do with us?’”

Salsburg and Arnold also felt bothered by the overall indifference they noted on campus during South African apartheid. Salsburg furthered on the importance of campus activism, “You’re not isolated and insular; you’re not just on a beautiful campus, what you’re learning needs to be expanded to the real world. Our duty as human beings is to help people.”

An article published in The Wellesley News on May 12, 2014 written by Michelle Al-Ferzly ’14, Catherine B. ’15, Dhivya Perumal ’14, Whitney Sheng ’14 and Laura Wong ’16 adequately summarizes the movement for divestment from South Africa at Wellesley College which Arnold, Furani and Salsburg helped orchestrate.

“The peak of Wellesley’s South Africa divestment movement occurred on a Thursday in late October of 1986. At their highly anticipated meeting this fateful Thursday, the Board of Trustees voted to reject Wellesley’s full divestment from South Africa. Trustee Luella Goldberg ’58 announced the vote results (17-14) on the Clapp library steps, and students stormed College Road, the main avenue that intersects the campus, hoping to prevent board members from leaving campus. Forty-nine students were arrested that evening; 44 were kept in the Natick Armoury overnight after they refused to identify themselves by their given names, choosing instead to adopt the name “Winnie Mandela” in the face of police inquiry. The “Winnie” moniker referred to the then-wife of Nelson Mandela, who was also a prominent female anti-apartheid activist.

Despite the unprecedented nature of the arrests, the students were well cared for: Wellesley business manager Barry Monihan provided students dinners from McDonalds that evening and doughnuts the following morning. Representatives from Wellesley’s administration also ensured the College community that the students were kept together throughout the night and were not separated into various Wellesley township prisons. The students were fined and released the morning following the protest, and charges were dropped as the demonstration was deemed to have occurred on the basis of “strong moral and religious grounds,” according to President Nan Keohane ’61.

Despite overwhelming resistance from the campus community, the College eventually decided on a selective divestment policy. As of 1985, Wellesley had divested approximately $1.5 million dollars from South Africa. In the aftermath of the 1986 protests, the Board of Trustees elected to divest from all companies that did not adhere to anti-segregation policies in the workplace. The College also sought to establish a scholarship fund for non-white South African students to attend Wellesley.

The divestment movement pursued its activism to fluctuating degrees over the 1980’s until the fall of the South African apartheid government in 1994. In the spring of 1988, students built a shanty on the Chapel green as a symbol of the deprivations facing the majority of South African citizens and led a series of rallies, vigils and lectures denouncing Wellesley’s remaining involvement with South Africa. In addition, several non-student groups, including the Radical Caucus of Faculty and Staff, a group of politically active and left-leaning employees of the College, and the Advisory Committee on Social Responsibility to the Investment Committee, established in 1975, continued to call for full divestment to no avail.”

“Did we accomplish our goal? Yes, South African apartheid ended. Did we accomplish our immediate goal to have Wellesley end divestment? No,” continued Salsburg on the role of activism at Wellesley in the larger movement for an end to apartheid in South Africa. 

On reactions from administration and faculty, Arnold expressed, “Faculty by and large supported us, at least I never heard faculty speaking out against our efforts. Nan Keohane supported us, not always, not everything that we did, but we felt like she was kind of on our side, at the same time respecting that she was in a tricky position as college president. … I think we got very lucky in that the administration was pretty darn liberal.”

All of them expressed that they never felt opposition from administration, more so from the Board of Trustees.

“Even though Nan Keohane didn’t come out supporting us, she made her administration very available to us. We didn’t break and enter, we entered. Someone from admin happened to leave the phone out, so we took over the office wing; [Furani] was able to talk to the press from this phone. We were supported, but we were supported quietly,” Salsburg commented.

Furani corroborated, “The trustees’ approach was, ‘Oh, you little girls, you don’t really know anything,’ that we were naive or we didn’t have any authority to speak. There was a different approach from administration and faculty. They liked to see us taking on roles of leadership and were very sympathetic to our asks, with a sort of protective mentality.”

When asked about Wellesley’s most recent policy on free expression and demonstrations, Arnold commented, “I can see where they’re coming from on that. At the same time, I can also imagine that it becomes a real topic of debate whether or not you feel the need to respect them depending on what you want your action to accomplish.”

She also noted that no such policy existed when she was a student. “They just had to put up with us,” Arnold said. 

Additionally, Arnold questioned if the “time, place and manner” requirement impacted the effectiveness of campus protests.

“Does that mean the general campus community can know before and can avoid that area? I wonder how that works especially when you’re trying to shock fellow students out of apathy, wearing their blinders and only thinking about their next exam.”

Arnold, Furani and Salsburg all expressed that their role as student organizers when at Wellesley is something they still carry with them decades after graduating.

Salsburg shared, “Those of us who were activists then are still activists now on a small level. There are different versions of activism. I happen to be a pediatrician in California, and I very consciously made sure that the practice I work in takes patients who are on Medicaid. I was also involved in setting up a medical clinic for adults who were in the foster care system or previously unhoused. [There is] a lot of marching and signing protests for causes, it continues … ”

MIT President Sally Kornbluth announced the suspension in an email sent to members of the MIT community, including cross-registered Wellesley students, which contained a link to a video of her speaking on the matter entitled “Actions related to a student organization.” In the video she declared, “Last night, members of the CAA, the Coalition Against Apartheid, once again conducted a demonstration on campus without going through the normal permission processes that apply to every student group at MIT.”

The demonstration took place at 5 p.m. on Monday, Feb. 12 outside the Student Center, around 24 hours before President Kornbluth’s announcement.

The relationship between the CAA and MIT administration had been contentious for months prior to Feb. 13. Vice Chancellor and Dean for Student Life Suzy M. Nelson had sent a letter to the MIT community on Nov. 8, 2023, titled “Campus safety and policies around protests, postering and free expression” where she stated that anyone planning a vigil, protest, counter-protest or demonstration may not disrupt living, working and learning spaces at MIT, that the only approved protest venues are certain outdoor spaces, and that failure to comply with these regulations will result in referral to the Committee of Discipline (COD).

In her email, President Kornbluth linked a letter to the community from the chancellor and provost posted on Jan. 31, 2024 to refer to as background on MIT’s policies around student organizing. The letter reiterated guidelines covered in the previous letter from Vice Chancellor and Dean for Student Life Nelson, but it added that organizers must meet with MIT officials at least three business days in advance.

The MIT CAA had posted to its Instagram account publicizing the Feb. 12 demonstration, which it referred to as an “Emergency Action.” The student group explained what compelled them to organize so quickly in the caption of the post:

“Last night, Israel began a bombing onslaught of Rafah, where almost 2 million displaced Palestinians from across Gaza have been concentrated. … At MIT, where we do projects for the Israeli Ministry of Defense at the tune of MILLIONS, it begins with ending these ties to the genocidal Israeli forces and sending a clear signal that business will not continue as usual.” 

Vice Chancellor and Dean for Student Life Nelson sent a letter to the CAA’s executive officers on Feb. 13 suspending the CAA’s privileges as a recognized student organization, effectively prohibiting it from reserving any space on campus, using MIT facilities, receiving standard funding of student groups, and organizing any further protests or demonstrations on the MIT campus.

The CAA disapproves of these guidelines.

“We feel like these policies are unjust. They go against the nature of a protest. If you do a protest, you want it to be disruptive. You cannot really protest against an entity by following the rules that that entity sets,” said Alejandro Tañón Díaz ’25, a MIT student involved in MIT CAA.

Tañón Díaz added that while MIT CAA did not register their protest, they had an open channel of communication with administration which had been established prior.

Furthermore, in an Instagram post the MIT CAA published on Feb. 16, the organization claimed, “MIT gave us a speaker system to use during the Feb. 12 emergency protest and affirmed their understanding of the urgency of our demonstration for Rafah prior to the protest. … We reached a mutual agreement to collaborate in good faith and as such notified the administration about our Feb. 12 emergency demonstration before the action, offering to work together to ensure safety without compromising the urgency of the situation.”

In the video sent on Feb. 13, President Kornbluth elaborated on the reasoning behind the interim action from the Committee on Discipline (COD). 

“I want to be clear that suspending the CAA is not related to the content of their speech. I fully support the right of everyone on our campus to express their views. However, we have clear, reasonable ‘time, place and manner’ policies in place for a good reason,” President Kornbluth said in the video. “The point of these policies is to make sure that members of the MIT community can work, learn and do their research on campus without disruption. We also need to keep the community safe, and we can’t do that without enough advance notice to organize staff and police resources.”

The CAA released a statement later that night demanding MIT to reinstate the CAA and to retract threats of suspension against student organizers. 

“Today, the MIT administration suspended the Coalition Against Apartheid for fighting for Palestinian liberation. They have further issued sanction letters to 13 student organizers threatening us with permanent suspension from MIT. For over four months, the MIT administration has continued to silence our voices by applying unjust punitive measures to our actions. We have held peaceful protest after peaceful protest in response to the genocide perpetrated by the Israeli occupation in Palestine,” the CAA said in the statement.

Tañón Díaz shared that the MIT administration has charged individual students who have been active in demonstrating on campus with harassment and discrimination. The charges were similar to those leveled against the student group and required students to undergo institutional processes. Tañón Díaz himself has been suspended from all non-academic activities as a result of his leadership in MIT CAA. 

“I am the President of the Association of Puerto Rican Students (APR). The sanctions from MIT that prohibit me from any leadership position prohibit me from fulfilling my role as President of APR and indirectly hurt a whole community on campus.”

Despite Kornbluth’s emphasis that the consequences enacted following past protests are not related to content of speech, many students feel that they represent a larger agenda of suppressing pro-Palestinian voices.

“It is in these moments, when we face the harshest repression, that we know the balance of power is shifting. [The administration’s] response today reveals that MIT fears the mass mobilization of our community, who have remained steadfast with Palestine,” the CAA said in its statement released on Feb. 13. 

Tañón Díaz also commented on the timeliness of the administration’s suspension against MIT CAA. 

“I wasn’t expecting a sanction after this event. It wasn’t as big as other stuff we’ve done. It kind of shows how pressures on admin have changed in the last couple months. It’s not just MIT. … There was the congressional hearing with Harvard, MIT, UPenn, and Harvard and UPenn both had their presidents resign. So, in some ways, it’s like MIT is the last one standing, and the president is trying hard to keep her spot,” Tañón Díaz continued. “Our individual notice letters that brought us to the institutional process, we got those the day after President Gay from Harvard resigned, so we can see how the decision to sanction us as students is kind of tied to pressure from millionaires and billionaires external to MIT.”

Some students at Wellesley agreed that the suspension of the CAA goes against the values endorsed by many institutions of higher-education. 

“Institutions like Wellesley and MIT love to paint themselves as progressive institutions and pride themselves on advocating for free speech, while simultaneously silencing students who participate in peaceful protests. The hypocrisy is infuriating,” Wendy* said. “Even if they violated admin policy, it feels like too heavy of a punishment to shut down an entire club based on it. It feels like they are being reprimanded for things outside of this violation, but admin will not address it directly.”

The suspension for the CAA has caused frustration in students who have noticed a trend of the limitation of pro-Palestinian voices. 

“Time and time again we’ve seen the silencing of pro-Palestinian voices on the basis that anything pro-Palestinian must inherently antisemitic. The suspension of the MIT CAA is representative of the unwillingness of society to acknowledge the mass murder of Palestinians and continue silencing the voices of students fighting for [a] ceasefire,” Tryn Fallon ’27 said.

Regardless of restrictions, Tañón Díaz shares actions that students, both at or outside of MIT, can participate in to show support for Palestine.

“Right now, we have the Scientists Against Apartheid pledge that students can sign to show that you are not going to be complicit in this genocide. In another statement we drafted, urging other organizations to sign onto, we asked MIT three things: [first is to] reinstate CAA as student org, second is to retract threats against student leaders and third is to remove the unjust protest policies.”

Additionally, MIT student organizations have the privilege of hosting websites for their organization using the mit.edu web domain. However, as of Mar. 5, MIT has revoked MIT CAA’s web domain. 

On CAA’s decision to hold their latest demonstration, Tañón Díaz responded, “Urgency is [of] the highest magnitude. We need to act immediately. In a genocide, three days is countless lives lost.”

*This student’s name has been replaced with a pseudonym to maintain anonymity and protect the student from harassment.

In early December of 2023 at the end of the fall semester, student organizers at Olin College of Engineering put up posters to bring awareness to how Olin-founded company Skydio is providing the Israeli military with drones to use in the attacks following Oct. 7. On Jan. 29, Olin students claimed they witnessed Babson police taking down the posters in their student campus center.

The posters that were taken down contained the following text: “Olin-founded company, Skydio, has sent more than 100 drones to Israel, with ‘more to come.’ Skydio is complicit in genocide. SKYDIO, WE SEE YOU.” 

Oscar, an Olin student who helped with postering, detailed his interaction with police officers removing the posters. “We actually saw a Babson police officer taking down our posters, so I went to just ask them, ‘How is it in the police’s jurisdiction to take down student postings?’ and the officer said that they are employed by Olin College and got a direction from the administration to take down any policy relating to ‘the conflict.’” According to the student, Olin does not have its own campus police department, so they hire Babson police for campus security needs.

He also claimed that the administration is planning to take further measures to identify students postering. “We heard that the next time people put up posters, [administration] will look at the CCTV footage and those people may or may not be subject to disciplinary action.”

The posters also included a QR code, with a link to a Politico article that addresses the political and ethical concerns of cutting-edge artificial intelligence technology produced in the United States being used by the Israeli military to target Palestinians.

According to the article published on Nov. 23, Israel contacted Skydio hours after the Oct. 7 attacks with requests for short-range reconnaissance drones. These drones are small flying vehicles that the US military uses to navigate obstacles and produce 3D scans of complex structures like buildings. AI ethicists have pointed to reports that since Oct. 7, the Israeli army has used AI to strike more than 11,000 targets in Gaza.  

The article quotes Matt Mahmoudi, author of Amnesty International’s May report, who commented on how historically, US technology companies contracting with Israeli defense have little insight and control over how their products are used, with several instances of the Israeli military using imported technology to closely monitor the movement of Palestinians.

Oliver, another student involved with organizing for Palestine at Olin, said he felt that Olin’s branding and education stood at odds with its ties to Skydio. “Olin is an engineering college, founded by Franklin W. Olin, who made his money by manufacturing ammunition. Olin has really strong military ties, as do a lot of engineering schools in the US, but we also try to be hashtag different. We’re lectured on ethics in engineering, and our motto is ‘Engineering is for everyone.’ When you see an Olin startup, which started out as a recreational drone company, now contracting with the military and sending drones to the Israeli military, where does ethics actually come in?” asked Oliver.

Otto, another Olin student organizer, elaborated on Oliver’s sentiment. “As engineers, it feels like we are even more implicated.” They explain that the close connections between Olin, which uses the success of the startup to bolster its reputation, and Skydio, which recruits from Olin, make Skydio a more realistic target.

“Skydio is Olin’s golden child. A decent amount of students work there afterwards. It doesn’t feel like I can push Lockheed Martin because they’re huge, but Skydio does care about recruitment at Olin. It’s important to let them know that students are not okay with what they’re doing.”

Alisha Sarang-Siemenski, the dean of Student Affairs and a professor of engineering at Olin College, sent out an email statement to Olin students addressing the posters on Skydio on Dec. 7, shortly after the initial round of posters was put up.

“You may or may not have seen posters around campus yesterday and today. They have been taken down, and I want to tell you why. Antisemitism is rampant, and has been increasing, everywhere in the world. By taking the posters down, we are addressing an immediate harm that people in our community are experiencing. Because of the immediacy of this harm, we were not able to take a nuanced approach to removing the posters with respect to concerns about the impact of their content (the part of the posting policy they are found to be in violation of).” 

Oscar said he felt insulted by the statement. “The Dean of Students basically equated being Jewish to being a Zionist. I thought that was incredibly antisemitic and out of touch.” He continued, “I am Jewish, and them accusing me [of antisemitism] is perfect in pointing out their hypocrisy.”

He addresses the administration’s rationale for removing the posters.

“There are provisions made for anonymous postings in the posting policy, and the posters were obeying the posting policy. Stop hiding behind the technicalities of a system you put in place to silence students.”

Otto is concerned that administration will override student councils to punish the students involved in postering.

“Admin ultimately has the decision-making power on disciplinary sanctions. I don’t think that there is anything stopping them from not going through the student-run honor board and unilaterally placing sanctions.”

The Wellesley News reached out to Olin’s Office of Strategic Communication with a request for comment but did not receive a response.

Oliver discussed how, especially with Olin being such a small school, organizing can be difficult, as student activists fear backlash from other students, faculty, or administration. 

“We’ve seen what’s happened at Wellesley, at Harvard, and we don’t trust admin to protect us.” 

As of Nov. 25, more than 14,500 Palestinians have been killed in Gaza since Oct. 7. In Israel, the official death toll stands at 1,200, according to live updates from Al-Jazeera.

According to an article from the New York Times, experts claim that the rate at which people are dying during Israel’s assault has few precedents in this century, citing both the scale of attacks and nature of the weapons used as reason for the massive civilian deaths. People are being killed in Gaza more quickly than in even the deadliest moments of U.S.-led attacks in Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan, which were themselves widely criticized by human rights groups.

On Oct. 20, President Paula Johnson published an email announcement to the Wellesley College community titled, “My reflections in this painful time”, in which she addressed tensions on college campuses surrounding the violence in Israel and Palestine. 

Johnson then shifted the focus of her announcement to an email sent out by students that worked in Residential Life to students living in Munger Hall which took a firm stance against Zionism. In her announcement, she assures the campus body that these students were disciplined for their actions. 

“It recently came to my attention that a small number of student residence hall leaders from one dormitory sent a letter to their housemates in their capacity as resident assistants that expressed views on the Israel-Hamas conflict. Our Student Life team met with these students and talked about their role and responsibility to support all students. They have since sent an apology to all students in the residence hall. That these young leaders were able to learn from this episode gives me hope.”

In the following week, outside media sources reported on the issue and information circulated online. President Johnson sent out another announcement on Oct. 25, titled, “Focused on our students’ safety”.

“I know some parents are concerned about the well-being of their students because of recent posts online. …While we embrace freedom of expression for everyone in our community, which is critical to a liberal arts education and to a democracy, I want to be clear: Wellesley College condemns antisemitism, Islamophobia, and any other form of hate. …. We also condemn the public targeting of our students online, and we are doing whatever we can to protect them from such targeting.”

Kyle Morris, a reporter who covers politics for Fox News Digital, published “Elite women’s college RA sent email threatening Jewish, pro-Israel students: ‘No space … no support’” on Oct. 27th. In this article, he named the residence hall, the student who sent the email, and directly quoted the email sent to the other students living in this dormitory despite the President’s announcement not providing any of this information.

The Wellesley News reached out to the students involved in this incident for a request to comment anonymously, but the students declined to comment or did not comment, fearing that it would further jeopardize their safety.

Wellesley Al-Muslimat, a student-run organization dedicated to supporting Muslims on campus, posted a statement on their public Instagram account in response to President Johnson extending an invitation to a webinar for Jewish students and their families over Zoom on Nov. 5th, potentially in response to the email incident in Munger Hall. 

In her invitation to this webinar, President Johnson wrote, “Dear families of Jewish students at Wellesley, Please join me for an update about how Wellesley is addressing the climate for Jewish students on campus in these challenging times.”

Wellesley Al-Muslimat, also known as ALM, called for Wellesley College and President Johnson to “extend EQUAL safety, support, and resources to ALL students.” 

“This discriminatory approach deliberately neglects the safety of the ENTIRE student body, particularly those facing an alarming surge of Islamophobia, racism, and doxxing. This unilateral communication sends a chilling and deeply divisive message that some students are given precedence over others, leaving the broader student body feeling marginalized, disregarded, and unsafe,” they wrote in their statement.

Wendy* said, “I heard about the webinar from a friend, and it was met with a lot of disbelief. How could you extend campus safety to only one group especially when other groups are suffering and worried for their safety? As a Muslim student, I feel invisible on campus and invisible in the world.” 

She continues, referring to the media coverage of antisemitism on Wellesley’s campus. “Our purpose is not to diminish any antisemitism happening on campus. We reject that, and there is no tolerance for it. … No one is saying the email should not have been sent. However, the only issue with it is it’s not equitable at all.”

Wendy also brought up a forum that was being planned for a later date in which Dean Horton and President Johnson would meet with Arab and Muslim students on campus to discuss their experiences. 

“The Dean told students that this email was sent to students in response to parents asking for it. That to me is not an excuse when I have my family telling me that I should not protest, use my voice, or visibly show my support because it will get me in trouble. [Parents] can reach out to admin because they know that admin is going to have their back.”

Wendy pointed out that the statement from ALM has also garnered attention from Wellesley alums, “So many alums, including Jewish alums, are reaching out to us, telling us how disgusted they are with how selective Wellesley is.”

Because of the statement, a group of alums wrote an open letter to college leadership advocating for student safety, specifically in regards to the rising anti-Palestinian, anti-Arab, and Islamophobic incidents on campus. In the letter, which was sent to President Johnson, Wellesley College Administration, and the Board of Trustees on Nov. 15, Wellesley alums claim that the College has responded with hostility towards students who have exercised their rights to free speech by advocating for Palestinian liberation. The letter states, “The full list of disturbing incidents … indicate an institutional bias against perspectives that criticize Israel’s well-documented human rights violations as well as a bias against any efforts attempting to center Palestinian perspectives, history, and/or context.” Until their demands are met, these alums have promised to halt all financial and other forms of contribution to the College. Around 950 alums have signed the letter.

Wanda*, a Muslim student, commented, “I feel like the administration wants to normalize selective advocacy and selective empathy and in the process, is silencing Muslim and Arab student voices and anyone who advocates for them.”

“Many students on campus are pro-Palestinian but fear speaking out because of the many tactics administration has used to condemn and humiliate students. I kept thinking to myself, ‘Will I be the topic of the next email?’ I did not know about what happened in that residence hall until the President sent that email. Administration can say that they were just trying to address ‘campus climate’, but the fact that that’s the only part of the campus climate they were trying to address tells me that’s not true.”

She further stated that the administration’s statements and student actions have contributed to an unsafe environment on campus, especially for those student leaders who the President referred to in her announcement.

“We have students on this campus who are feeding our business to news outlets, very biased news outlets at that. The only reason students feel empowered in doing that is because administration has not released an email on it. … People are getting doxxed. Someone on Twitter said they were going to burn down Wellesley. I know [admin] knows but they are not saying anything.”

On the upcoming forum where Muslim and Arab students could share their experiences with the President, Wanda expressed, “To be acknowledged by the administration is the bare minimum. I am not going to be grateful that they are listening to me, especially when they went so far out of their way to not listen to us.”

Wanda also spoke to a professor about the teach-in held to educate students on Israel and Palestine. “I was talking to some faculty members about it and expressing my concern, and a faculty member said that the only reason it was held in a small space and [publicized] at the last minute is because admin waited to see how other schools reacted. Were you not going to educate us before?”

Wendy wanted to address how students are feeling at this time. “My focus has been gone. I feel like we are at the forefront of fighting for recognition. Both of those burdens feel so heavy. At one point, you feel so defeated and hopeless. I’m either just scrolling through my phone seeing mass destruction and mass killing or working towards fighting admin’s response.”

On Nov. 9, the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Under Law filed a civil rights complaint against Wellesley College, a recipient of federal financial assistance, with the U.S Department of Education Office for Civil Rights for violations of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Brandeis Center states in their complaint, “Jewish students at Wellesley College are being marginalized and excluded from their dormitory community in the aftermath of an email sent to dorm residents by residential staff and assistants (RAs) (all students) stating ‘that there should be no space, no consideration, and no support for Zionism within the Wellesley College community.’ Instead, Wellesley President Paula A. Johnson ignored the discriminatory attitude of the College’s paid student residential staff by describing them as merely having ‘expressed [their] views on the Israel-Hamas conflict’ and baselessly insisting that these student ‘leaders’ had learned from the ‘episode.’ Contrary to the claims made by Wellesley’s administration, the student residence hall leaders have made it clear that they did not learn from their mistreatment of Jewish students.”

The complaint cites an Instagram post shared by a student in their complaint as further evidence of a hostile environment on campus. The complaint states that hours before Munger student employees sent an email apologizing for their words, one of the RAs posted on her personal Instagram that the email apology was being sent because she “had a gun to [her] head,” and referred to students who complained as ‘some weak bitches fr.’ 

The Brandeis Center states that “Zionism is as integral to Judaism as observing the Jewish Sabbath or maintaining a kosher diet” to support their argument that student leaders taking an anti-Zionist stance creates an unsafe environment for Jewish students.

On the other hand, Jewish organizations such as Jewish Voice for Peace, argue against Zionism. “Jewish Voice for Peace is guided by a vision of justice, equality and freedom for all people. We unequivocally oppose Zionism because it is counter to those ideals. …While it had many strains historically, the Zionism that took hold and stands today is a settler-colonial movement, establishing an apartheid state where Jews have more rights than others.”

Based on these events, the Brandeis Center argues that the College did not adequately discipline the students involved in this incident, thus, “denying equal access to educational opportunities and services to Jewish students on the basis of their shared ancestry and ethnicity.”

“Jewish students who celebrate the Jews’ ancestral connection to Israel are unable to participate with their full identity in Wellesley’s residential community and to receive the support of unbiased residential staff, whose job is to foster an inclusive and welcoming environment for all members of the Wellesley community,” the Brandeis Center concluded.

On Nov. 13th, a Wellesley student, Rose Goldstein, interviewed on CNN’s “The Lead with Jake Tapper” on a segment focused on “Hate Crimes And Protest Around The World And U.S. Campuses Because Of Israel-Hamas Conflict”. In the segment, anti-Semitic and Islamophobic attacks were discussed, on and off college campuses. 

In a televised interview, Goldstein stated, “The student residential staff of one of our dorms stated in an email that there should be no space for Zionism on campus whatsoever. There is a way to criticize, for example, the Israeli government and not be anti-Semitic.”

On Nov. 22, the College published another announcement in which they addressed the extensive media coverage of campus and the civil rights complaint.

President Johnson assured the Wellesley community that she was making an effort to communicate with students and maintain safety on campus, for Jewish, Arab, Palestinian, and Muslim students. She noted that she held a webinar in response to inquiries from Jewish families and alumnae, and met with members of Wellesley Al-Muslimat with Dean of Student Sheilah Horton. She also discusses future plans to schedule a webinar session with alumnae and families who have expressed concerns about the well-being of Muslim, Palestinian, and Arab students.

Despite administration’s insistence that they are working to protect students, some are not persuaded. Wanda, referring to the College administration, commented, “Do you care about us, or do you care about your image more? Time and time again, they prove that they care more about their image.”

*Students have been given pseudonyms to maintain anonymity and protect their identities.

Every year, Wellesley  students are invited by President  Paula Johnson to the President’s  House, at 735 Washington Street,  to trick-or-treat where students  collect candy and converse with  the President. This Halloween,  the tradition was scheduled from  5:00 to 8:00 p.m. However, on  Tuesday, Oct. 31 around noon,  Amanda Kaufman, the assistant  director of Student Involvement  & Leadership, sent out an  email to students announcing a  change of plans. Kaufman sent  out new spam indicating that  the President and Dean Sheilah  Shaw Horton would instead visit  students at “selected dining halls  and residential areas,” without  specifying an exact location, and  the event was also shortened,  now planned to take place from  6:00 to 7:15 p.m. Then, at 5 p.m.,  only one hour before the Trick  or Treat event was scheduled  to begin, Kaufman sent a short  email informing students that  the President’s trick-or-treat is  canceled and a Halloween pop up will occur at a later date. The  Office of Student Involvement  has not communicated with  

students since then regarding  the Halloween pop-up that  was supposed to have replaced  the Trick-or-Treat, and  administration has not shared  the reason for modifying plans  and eventually, canceling  the President Trick-or-Treat  on the day of the event. It  should be noted that a student  demonstration concerning the  Gaza events was planned for  the same evening, outside of the  President’s House.

First Generation College Celebration Week 

The College is celebrating  first-generation college students  this week, from Nov. 6 to Nov.  10, which is First Generation  College Celebration week. Nov.  8 is National First-Gen Day  where colleges, universities, corporations, non-profits and  K-12 schools celebrate the  success of first-generation  college students, faculty, staff,  and alumni. First-generation  college students are students  whose parents did not complete  a 4-year university degree. The  Office of International Study,  Career Education, Class Deans,  individual departments and  cultural houses are all holding  events this week to celebrate and  support first-generation college students.  

Registration Week 

Academic registration will occur this week, from Tuesday,  Nov. 6 to Friday, Nov. 10.  Students will register for Spring  2024 courses and can check  Workday for their registration  appointment time. There will  be a registration change period  beginning on Monday, Jan. 8 at  10 a.m. and ending on Friday,  Jan. 12 at 4 p.m., where students  can edit their registration after  the end of this week. 

Bike Share 

The Office of Sustainability  announced that Bike Share is  now live, as of Friday, Nov. 3  Wellesley Bike Share allows  students to check out bicycles  for 24 hours at a time, free of  cost, to promote sustainable  transportation. The Office of  Sustainability hopes to make  Bike Share easy and accessible  for all students on-campus and  advocate the benefits of riding  bicycles. Students can check out  a bike at the automated check out station located at Campus  Police, and they must bring back  the key, lock and helmet when  returning the bike.

Before the march, speakers at the rally shared their experiences related to the cause. A refugee from Gaza told the crowd of over 3,000 people that she had lost 50 members of her family in just that week. Two Harvard students spoke about their experiences being doxxed and receiving threats of unemployment, but maintained that they were dedicated to speaking out for the Palestinian cause regardless of the consequences.

Many Wellesley students joined the protesters gathering at Copley Square, taking the shuttle or driving to Boston, to show their support Wendy* heard about the protest on TikTok, and drove into Boston to attend the rally, even offering to drive other students who wanted to attend. 

Wendy emphasized the United States’ role in the situation in Israel and Palestine as her motivation to attend the rally. 

“Everytime, I see the news, it is just devastating. The US created and has continued to support Israel as a settler-colonial state and an arm of the US empire. The US is directly responsible for the genocide occuring right now. I don’t think a lot of people are aware of that. … If you look at the history and what’s happening now, there is no way to conceptualize what Israel is doing other than genocide. There is no way for me as an American to feel comfortable with what my country is doing.”

She noted that during the march, protesters walked through the city from Copley Square to the Israeli Consulate and back to Copley Square.

Wanda, who also attended the rally, heard about the event because she had seen her friends on social media, at Wellesley and at other schools in the Boston area, reposting Boston PSL’s post on their Instagram stories. 

“I honestly don’t know if protesting or raising our voices is going to change anything. [But], as a human being, I have a duty to serve and stand up for the people who have been oppressed for 75 years,” said Wanda on her reason for attending the rally.

Wanda said the rally made her optimistic. “It was fascinating. I didn’t expect that many people to come, and I didn’t expect to see so much diversity. I feel like Western media is trying to gaslight us by telling us [that] this is an issue of ‘Muslims vs. Jews’ or  ‘Arabs vs. white people’ to pull us into a war that is only serving their interests.”

Another student who attended the rally on Monday, Winter, echoed the same sentiment. “I thought it was really beautiful. It’s really easy to label the pro-Palestine movement as ‘Muslim’, but we can see Jewish, Black, Latinx and White communities showing their support. We can all admit that genocide is happening and all agree that Palestinians deserve right to self-determination.”

Winter was also moved by the amount of people who showed up to the march. “People were not afraid to show support for Palestine despite all the [potential] repercussions of losing your job or people seeing you differently. You couldn’t even hear where a chant started and ended or see where the crowd started and ended. There was a sea of people,” she stated.

Wanda highlighted the importance of speaking up and educating yourself on human rights’ issues. “It is the duty of humans to understand the suffering of other humans,” she said. 

“Invite your friends to learn and protest. Bring it up into your circle of friends and educate your circle of friends. The Israeli government wants us to be uncomfortable talking about this,” said Winter.

Wendy, Winter and Wanda all mentioned that they felt US media sources were biased, portraying events in Israel and Palestine inaccurately. Wanda felt strongly about social media bias, pointing out that Instagram’s translation feature had been translating the word “Palestinian” in user profiles to “terrorist.”

Since the rally on Monday, Oct.16, many Wellesley students have attended other off-campus events to show solidarity for Palestine, including rallies and vigils, at Harvard, MIT, and Northeastern. All students interviewed also felt strongly that the lack of action or statement from students on Wellesley’s campus had much to do with the College’s administration.  

Wanda commented on the lack of events or discussion on Wellesley’s campus. “Wellesley is a place that is isolated from major world events. For this, I blame the College administration. … The College has not handled situation[s] in a way that can promote the  freedom of speech or do anything for the students who [have been] affected. They have made it an unsafe place for students to have discussions on both sides.”

*All student names have been replaced with pseudonyms for safety purposes.