Upholding Openness: Free Expression and Controversy at the University of Rochester

The University of Rochester, guided by its Meliora values—foremost among them openness—now finds itself at a crossroads. The recent expulsion of four students for distributing "Wanted" posters on November 10, 2024, has ignited a contentious debate over free expression, the boundaries of protest, and the university's role in fostering both intellectual engagement and campus safety.

The posters, which named certain faculty members accused of downplaying the humanitarian crisis in Gaza and Lebanon following the October 7 attacks on Israel, were part of a broader protest against the violence in the region. The students—Jonathan Bermudez, Naomi Gutierrez, Samantha Escobar, and Jefferson Turcios—were identified by the university’s Department of Public Safety. They face expulsion under the Code of Conduct and criminal charges for second-degree criminal mischief, a Class D felony. Their court hearings are set for February 4, 2025.

The expulsions have drawn sharp criticism, especially from the campus chapter of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP), which labeled the actions an “unjust and disproportionate response.” SJP argues that the university is using the expulsions to stifle pro-Palestinian activism and distract from its perceived complicity in broader systemic injustices. In response, the group launched a petition demanding the students’ reinstatement, a reduction in their punishment, and a comprehensive review of university policies on student activism.

Balancing Free Expression, Accountability, and Zero Tolerance for Hate

This incident raises fundamental questions about the university’s commitment to openness. At the heart of any academic institution is the principle that students should be free to explore and express ideas, even when those ideas challenge institutional norms or societal values. The students’ actions, while controversial, were aimed at highlighting what they perceived as a profound injustice. Their protest, rooted in global humanitarian concerns, should be viewed as an opportunity for dialogue rather than grounds for punishment.

That said, it is imperative to state unequivocally: there is no place for hate speech or antisemitism in any form. Any actions that violate this standard must be admonished and stamped out without hesitation. Protecting intellectual freedom and fostering a safe, inclusive environment are not contradictory goals—they are complementary and essential for meaningful progress. It is also crucial to recognize that in this instance, no evidence suggests that the students’ protest was motivated by hate or prejudice. Instead, their actions sought to draw attention to the ongoing humanitarian crisis in Gaza and Lebanon.

According to Palestinian health authorities, as of January 15, 2025, Israel’s military campaign in Gaza has resulted in over 46,000 deaths, more than half of whom are women and children. The students’ posters were a call to accountability, urging reflection on the roles individuals and institutions may play in perpetuating violence and suffering. While their method of protest may have been provocative, it was not inherently harmful or hateful.

Historical Context and Activism

The use of "Wanted" posters as a form of protest has a long history in political movements, from the civil rights struggle to anti-war demonstrations of the 1960s and 1970s. These tactics were often employed to critique authority, demand change, and amplify voices ignored by the mainstream. By distributing these posters, the University of Rochester students were continuing this tradition of dissent, challenging those in positions of influence to confront difficult questions.

However, with such methods comes the responsibility to ensure they are not weaponized to incite harm or hatred. Universities must take care to differentiate between provocative activism that fosters dialogue and actions that cross into intimidation or prejudice.

Transparency and Fairness

The university asserts that its conduct process ensures “fundamental fairness while effectively addressing actions found to violate policy.” However, concerns raised by SJP and others about the lack of transparency and fairness in this case cannot be dismissed. Allegations of unfair detainment and an expedited disciplinary process warrant serious attention. If the university is to uphold its values, it must address these criticisms and demonstrate that its processes are both just and impartial.

Moving Forward: Openness in Action

The University of Rochester must seize this moment to reaffirm its commitment to openness while unequivocally rejecting hate in all its forms. Intellectual freedom and campus safety are not mutually exclusive but must be pursued in tandem. Universities should be spaces where challenging conversations flourish, dissent is valued, and students learn the power of their voices within the bounds of respect and inclusivity.

To move forward constructively, the university should consider:

1. Establishing Clear Guidelines for Activism: Policies must explicitly define the boundaries of acceptable protest, ensuring that dissent remains a force for intellectual engagement rather than harm.

2. Facilitating Open Dialogue: Creating forums for civil discourse where students and faculty can engage with complex issues free from fear of reprisal.

3. Reevaluating Disciplinary Measures: Ensuring that disciplinary actions align with the university’s values and do not disproportionately suppress activism or student voices.

   
   

The University of Rochester now stands at a defining crossroads. Its response to this controversy will shape its identity—not just in terms of policy but in its broader commitment to intellectual freedom, moral courage, and inclusivity. Upholding the spirit of openness means allowing students to express their views—even when uncomfortable—while ensuring those expressions do not cross into hate or harm.

By fostering an environment that champions diverse perspectives, condemns hate unequivocally, and prioritizes thoughtful dialogue, the university can demonstrate that openness and inclusion are not adversaries but partners in the pursuit of truth and progress.