On Wednesday November 30, former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Claremont McKenna College. Originally, Rice was scheduled to speak at the Athenaeum, but due to security concerns, the CMC administration decided to move the event to Ducey Gym. The move frustrated CMC students, especially the Ath Fellows, because it compromised the unique atmosphere created by the Ath’s reception time, head table experience, and other distinctive attributes. The justification for the move was that outside protesters might pose a danger or disturbance to the event. Some at CMC predicted disruptive and unruly behavior on the part of the protesters. Yet, the organizers of the protest promised that they were not trying to provoke attendees of the event, but rather to offer peaceful counter-education teach-ins.
Throughout the evening, the Port Side provided live coverage of the events through live-tweeting and live-streaming video.
Overall, the events turned out to be pretty uneventful. The protest occurred as peacefully as advertised and promoted an exchange of ideas and (for the most part) civil discourse. Rice delivered an uncontroversial speech focusing on the value of education and then fielded some questions from CMCers.
The following are highlights and observations of the events from Port Side staffers who covered it throughout the night.
Jeremy B. Merrill CMC ’12 on interactions between protesters and attendees
The relationship between protesters and talk attendees was mostly uneventful.
Protest area outside Ducey (photo by Arielle Zionts PZ '14)
Ducey Gym was entirely fenced off, with numerous private security guards inside. A “protest area,” separated by fencing from the entrance to Ducey Gym, was set up by CMC. Before the event began, however, the protesters moved past the fencing into the parking lot near the entrance to Ducey Gym. During the move, a protester announced via the people’s mic — a call-and-response amplification tactic characteristic of the Occupy movement — that the protesters’ intentions were to protest nearer the gym entrance, but not to block it. No private security guards or Campus Safety officers stopped the protesters from leaving the protest area.
It was fear of outside protesters that precipitated the CMC administration’s decision to move the event to Ducey from the Athenaeum. At the pre-protest policy talk to assembled protesters [see 4:10], Spellman said regarding the decision to move the program, “It was not about what you intend to do tonight in any way.”
Though the vast majority of approximately 100 protesters were affiliated with the Claremont Colleges, a few were not, including a group called the Peace Vigil Committee. This group, which consists of anti-war retirees affiliated with Pilgrim Place, a Claremont retirement community, has protested against the Iraq War each Friday at the corner of Indian Hill Boulevard and Arrow Highway in Claremont. The group was profiled in the October 2011 issue of the Port Side.
Protesters in a teach-in (photo by Arielle Zionts PZ '14)
The protest participants — including community members — kept to organizers’ word that the protest would not be disruptive and did not block the entrance to Ducey Gym, attempt to sneak in to the event, or use amplification to try to speak over Rice inside Ducey. Event attendees did have to walk through the protest in order to join the entrance line which, at times, stretched onto Sixth Street.
Phil Crawford CMC ’15, who was standing in line on Sixth Street for the event, said “I don’t have an opinion on her [Condoleeza Rice]. I think [the protest] is unnecessary. I don’t even know what they’re protesting about.” When prompted, he said he had not asked.
After event attendees had entered Ducey, the protest crowd thinned. When about 30 protesters remained, closing remarks were offered. A speaker thanked the protesters and thanked CMC, sarcastically, for “rewarding [Rice] for murdering hundreds of thousands of people.” The speaker added “they expected us to be violent, but we were peaceful.”
After Kyle Gosselin CMC ’14 challenged protesters for evidence that Rice is, as the protesters claimed, a war criminal, a lively debate broke out between some protesters and some CMC students, including Gosselin and Sam Stone CMC ’14.
Though the discussion featured some raised voices, it seemed largely respectful.
“I find it ridiculous to call her a war criminal. You have grievances and that’s understandable,” said Gosselin, which elicited jeers from a few protesters.
“The teach-in didn’t bother me. I thought that was great,” said Stone. “My frustration is with the idea of ‘unwelcoming.’” He explained, “There’s a difference between ‘I have a policy difference’ and ‘I want you to have a bad time here.’”
Exchange between Kyle Gosselin CMC ’14, Sam Stone CMC ’14, and protesters (video by Dan Maxwell CMC ’14)
The protesters were peaceful and largely respectful towards event attendees. Stefan Vallecillo PZ ‘12 emphasized that “we are not here to protest CMC, but to protest Condoleezza Rice.” Some CMCers, on the other hand, were not so respectful; many expressed their contempt for the protesters in no uncertain terms.
One CMC student said, “I wish I had a bb gun for the protesters.” This student also tweeted this statement, before deleting it. A Port Side commenter, identifying themselves as “CMC Alum” and referencing a remark by a protest organizer, wrote “I would have tazed you for such a smart-ass remark.”
Brian Sutter CMC ’13 on the substance of the protest
To anyone who stayed long enough to listen, the message and actions of the protesters contributed to the academic richness of Dr. Rice’s visit to the Claremont Colleges. The protesters included Pomona, Scripps, CMC, and Pitzer students as well as community members and Claremont Peace Activists.
Pre-protest: Dean Spellman of CMC and Dean Marchant of Pitzer spoke to the group about the protest policies of the Consortium and the protestors agreed with the basic rules of peaceful protest. They asked Dean Spellman to elaborate on what would constitute a violation of “peaceful protest.” Dean Spellman replied that the security forces and the deans would determine what constituted unsafe or disruptive behavior when the situation arose.
With UC Davis fresh on the minds of both the protestors and the administrators, tensions were high. Pitzer Professors Dana Ward and Daniel Segal objected to CMC’s decision to designate a demonstration zone, which the protesters needed to stay in, declaring it an unprecedented violation of free speech. Professor Segal offered his support to any student wishing to protest outside of the “demonstration zone.”
During the protest: The protesters marched down to the pre-approved zone and soon left to assemble outside the entrance of the talk. In front of the entrance the protesters began holding multiple teach-ins pertaining to Dr. Rice’s role in the Bush Administration and the merits of whether she should be considered a war criminal. The message the professors and protesters conveyed to the audience of reporters and students waiting in line for the talk contained substance and academic merit.
A flyer distributed at the protest, written by Segal, charges that Rice “played a central role in circulating [...] false intelligence about Iraq” and that she “conveyed authorization to waterboard to CIA Director George Tenet.” The flier went on to say, “Waterboarding is torture and thus a violation of international law and a violation of basic human rights.”
The protestors professed a clear message: Rice is a war criminal because of her role in authorizing the use of torture and enhanced interrogation techniques as National Security Advisor and Secretary of State.
Professor Segal criticized CMC’s decision to pay Rice to speak at the Athenaeum and in effect aid in the rehabilitation of her political career. Professor Segal declared Rice’s book tour a rehabilitation effort focused on blaming Vice President Cheney for the ills of the Bush Administration and that CMC should not assist her in this effort. He also criticized the format of the talk, calling it “shallow theater” and claiming a board of experts on foreign policy should have accompanied her on stage to provide a deliberative, educational environment. Since CMC did not provide this environment, the Pitzer Professors decided to create their own outside the proceedings.
Professor Ward contributed to the debate charging Rice with waging a preventative war like the Germans were charged of doing at the Nuremberg trials. Students engaged in the political discourse as well; Michael Landsmen PZ ’14, one of the organizers of the protest, declared, “We are not protesting for the sake of protesting,” to which CMC students heckled him responding that they were. He went on to say, “We are protesting the loss of over 1,000 lives of U.S. soldiers in the name of an unjust war.”
Protesters demonstrate waterboarding. (video by Brian Sutter CMC ’13)
Dylan Howell PO ‘13 conducted a demonstration of water boarding in front of the entrance to the talk. The demonstration taught the audience what water boarding consisted of and more importantly what it looked like; the visual spectacle took on a powerful, symbolic meaning on this night of protest.
The protest lacked the wantonness and naivety that stereotyping and prejudiced people had predicted. The message of the protestors was controversial but substantive.
Mark Munro CMC ’12 on the atmosphere at the “Duceynaeum”
Line for photos with Rice (photo by Alyssa Roberts CMC '13)
It was almost as though Ducey Gymnasium, a place accustomed to sweat and athletic jerseys, had never experienced such an important moment. Either a former Secretary of State was speaking in an outdated basketball court or the Illuminati were holding their annual gathering. Chain-link fencing surrounded the facility’s perimeter and David Edwards, the manager of the Athenaeum, crosschecked each student’s ID with his list of attendees. Police officers formed a gauntlet to the door to ensure that no students would escape…or something like that.
Once I entered the building, there was black plastic on all of the lobby’s windows, as if the administration needed to prevent outsiders from seeing even CMS’s trophy cases. Stephan Siegel, CMC’s Associate Vice President for Development, invited me to join the throng of people waiting to have their photo taken with Condi. I declined. Gone were the wood floors and bleachers; Ducey had been transformed into a black box with black AstroTurf and coal-colored curtains. White wooden folding chairs, the kind one expects at a wedding or graduation ceremony, provided seating for guests. The stark atmosphere was a far cry from the Marian Miner Cook Athenaeum’s wood-paneled walls and round tables, both of which were part of a $4.5 million renovation done to the facility this summer. While the administration had done their best to (literally) turn this issue into a black and white affair, I couldn’t help but think about it in shades of gray. Intellectual discourse had just been cheapened with a photo-line.
Summer Dowd-Lukesh SC ’14 on gender, race, and the unfair representation of the 5Cs
Caricature on a protester's sign (photo by Arielle Zionts PZ '14)
While many of the conversations at Condolezza Rice’s talk focused on the differences between protesters and CMC students, some of the most interesting critiqued the entire structure of the event. While two questions posed to Dr. Rice after her speech addressed issues of race and gender, neither subject was a featured aspect of her visit or the events surrounding it. Erikan Obotetukudo CMC ’13 readily acknowledged, “I don’t know a lot about her [Rice’s] policies but I’m curious and interested in learning more.”
Obotetukudo attended the event in large part because she was interested in Dr. Rice’s identity as a successful woman of color. “I wanted to support Dr. Rice because of her image [as an African-American woman] and her relationship to my image as an African-American. I gather that some people are bothered by decisions made by Dr. Rice and I respect the opportunity to see her speak.”
Emily Arreta SC ’14 and Calyx Gaston SC ’13 stopped by the protest to observe. Gaston said, “Her policies aside, she is a successful woman of color and she represents an important image. The lack of opportunity for a strong Q&A about that is disappointing.”
Arreta and Gaston also commented on the way the forced binary between protesters and CMC students attending Dr. Rice’s speech represented the Claremont community and the context of the protesters. Gaston said, “The entire event has simplified the Claremont community, Condoleezza, and the history of the region into a binary.”
That binary, between student and community protesters and CMC affiliates, does not accurately represent the peculiarities and nuance in arguments. There was a real lack of depth to most of the confrontations because of this simplicity. All of the women I spoke with were concerned about the lack of a strong and comprehensive question and answer session open to all students at the 5Cs.
Closing Thoughts
CMC’s administration made the last-minute change to the venue of Rice’s talk due to concerns about the potential security threat posed by outsiders attending the protest. As Vice President for Student Affairs Jeff Huang wrote in the email announcing the venue change, ”there is a possibility that people who have nothing to do with the Claremont Colleges will attend this rally and/or try to disrupt the program.” While members of the larger Claremont community did participate in the protest, no disruption occurred. Given the peaceful nature of the demonstration, it is doubtful that a disruption would have marred the program at the original Athenaeum location.
Yes, the new location allowed for more CMC students to bask in Rice’s presence. But this was merely a side effect of the venue swap, not a motivation behind the change. Ath Fellow Jake Petzold CMC ’12 told the Port Side, “They did not change the venue so more students could attend. Yes it was discussed as one of the benefits toward this approach when evaluating the pros and cons of a bunch of approaches. But to say that was the reason is a lie.”*
Claremont McKenna’s decision to move the talk from our beloved Athenaeum because of the controversial nature of the speaker was a shameful overreaction. Students lost the opportunity to maximize the educational possibilities of Rice’s visit, for which the college paid a very high sum. Let us hope that the next time a controversial speaker is invited to the Athenaeum, the CMC administration shows more faith in its students, the Claremont Consortium, and the surrounding community.
Russell M. Page and Alyssa Roberts contributed to this report
*Editor’s note: Italicization added for clarity, per the speaker’s request
Lol, I read the other article since I was interested in the “CMC Alum” comment…but that was about inciting police and the remarks protesters made over the mic at security over the end.
I know you’re a bunch of second-rate drivel, Portside, but I know you have more journalistic integrity than that to use things out of context.
Or do you?
I believe this is the sentence you’re referring to: “A Port Side commenter, identifying themselves as “CMC Alum” and referencing a remark by a protest organizer, wrote “I would have tazed you for such a smart-ass remark.””
Here’s the CMC Alum’s comment, which we hyperlinked to:
“…the last snarky comment of the leader is “Thank you police, for not using force and pepper-spraying us like they did at UCDavis and allowing you and your admins to keep their job?”
I would have tazed you for such a smart-ass remark.”
He referenced a remark by a protest organizer. What’s out of context?
That it is written as though it is in contempt of a protester and not in combat of contempt shown by the protesters themselves. At least, that’s how I viewed it. Personally I thought that that is kind of a classless and elitist way to thank security. Maybe just me though.
Do you deny the validity of the comment? I was the one who said it.
What I said was: “Thank you, security, for being cordial and not employing the use of force. To the administration, thank you for abstaining from authorizing violence, and preserving your jobs; we don’t want a repeat of the events at UC Davis.”
The jab was not at security, but at the CMC (and Pitzer) administration, who attempted to limit free speech by relegating the protest to a “protest area,” or what was interpreted as a free speech zone (which is unconstitutional).
The CMC Dean of Students, who addressed us before the march, was very nervous. Why was she so adamant about “safety”? Because she didn’t want anyone to get pepper sprayed and lose her job, like the UC Davis Chancellor probably will.
A shameful overreaction? It’s you dolts and your protests at Karl Rove last year that led to it. If you had the courage to have a peaceful protest last time, instead of dyeing the fountain red and there being a bomb threat, there would have been no need for them to act like that. More like an understandable reaction given your shitshow the last time you people protested on CMC.
Also, you whine about the move and the peaceful demonstration. But hindsight is always 20/20. Given your shenanigans last time, there was every right to be cautious. You can’t just take your word it will be peaceful.
I hope you are not addressing this comment to the Port Side staff itself. “You dolts and your protests” would be an improper way of addressing reporters, who were neither the organizers of or participants in the Rice demonstration, let alone the Rove one three years ago.
Preserving the distinction between the Port Side as an independent campus publication and the protesters they covered is critical.
You have every right to criticize the protesters and to even call them “you dolts” or “you people.” But make sure you’re not confusing your actual targets with the staffers of a news team.
Thanks,
Michelle Lynn Kahn, Port Side Editor-in-Chief Emeritus
Definitely directed towards the protesters, not Portside staff.
I think you need to think about what peaceful protest means. Dying a fountain red is peaceful. Asshat.
A bomb threat isn’t, moron.
Plus, you clearly have never heard of vandalism, and the monetary costs it took to fix the fountain. But I guess there is only so much you can do for someone of your intelligence…asshat.
The Boston Tea party was an act of vandalism.
The monetary costs to fix the fountain = refilling it with water.
Learn about Karl Rove. Evaluate the global damages incurred by the Bush Administration, then come back and complain about damages to private property.
Monetary costs to fix the fountain were more than that. There was damage to the filtration system, the fountain itself, and stain from the dye. Maybe you should educate yourself a little.
“Claremont McKenna’s decision to move the talk from our beloved Athenaeum because of the controversial nature of the speaker was a shameful overreaction.”
I wonder if you were around when the protesters at the Rove event did thousands of dollars in damage to the fountain outside the Ath. Imagine how much it would cost if this time, instead of pouring paint in an old fountain, they’d thrown it at the Living Room, which is about 100 feet from the Ath.
As someone who witnessed the Rove protest — and was actually at the Athenaeum talk — I completely agree that the damage to the fountain was ridiculous.
However, the protesters for the Rice event explicitly and well before the event itself stated their intentions to take a completely different approach. You can read their plan here: http://www.claremontportside.com/?p=6583. To quote their letter, “Students agreed that they did not want to simply repeat the Rove protest. We instead imagined the demonstration creating a space for education, dialogue and debate.”
Given a clear statement of their intentions and how organized the protesters were, the CMC administration should have put more trust in Claremont Consortium students. And, as we in hindsight can see, the demonstrators did exactly what they said they were going to: no damage.
Still, I guess it depends on is it better to trust a protest organized by students, with no experience of how easy they can get out of control that says that they’ll behave, or risk security and thousands of dollars of damage? The bomb threat of last time was most likely a bigger issue, though not the costly one, when compared with the fountain.