Administrators at the University of Connecticut discussed removing one of the iconic spirit rocks numerous times after it became an outlet for student expression about Israel and Palestine following Oct. 7, according to The Daily Campus.
The spirit rock, located opposite North Garage at UConn Storrs, was painted numerous times with statements of support for Israel and Palestine “often in quick succession,” in the early days of Israel’s bombardment of Gaza. UConn President Radenka Maric, Provost Anne D’Alleva, Vice President for Student Life & Enrollment Nathan Fuerst and other administrators initially felt that “it would be in the University’s best interest to remove the rock entirely as we do not want to initiate any further tension amongst the UConn community.”
Another proposal from Maric included “retiring” the rock in the Dodd Center for Human Rights or Student Union. Others suggested moving the rock away from the campus entrance and to a “less visible, more student-centric” location. The final proposal, which stipulated the creation of a sign-up sheet and sign with guidelines for organizations painting the rock. As of Dec. 6, no changes have been implemented in the rock painting policy.
The Daily Campus Editorial Board’s stance on the scramble to remove and regulate the spirit rock is simple: This is administrative cowardice. In considering the removal of one of UConn’s most notable avenues for student speech, the administration subtly sought to curtail it. Additionally, the notion that student groups cannot handle tension and controversy is utterly infantilizing and demonstrates that the university’s preferred form of political discourse is highly policed and moderated.
Although their discussions were hidden behind an email exchange, the administration has made it overtly clear that when faced with controversy — especially one with the potential to impact the reputation of the university — their first instinct is to bury it. Should this prove difficult, logistically or ethically, the next best option is to impose more bureaucracy. This schematic is UConn’s typical response to controversy. The Editorial Board has recognized this pattern in UConn’s handling of campus sexual assault, which initially left students with rushed and inadequate investigations before students mobilized around the issue in February of 2022, and has now been consigned to ineffective reforms from a shelved task force.
The UConn administration’s tendency towards covering its missteps with technocratic reforms lays bare the importance of criticizing it — hence why the bulk of the Editorial Board’s work attempts to hold the university’s leadership to account. Without creating institutional memory for current students and those who come after, the UConn community will lack the much needed context to recognize and organize against harmful university policies. Being critical of UConn is not the product of a vindictive feud, nor is it testimony that other universities are better or worse. Our desire to highlight UConn’s shortcomings stem from our commitment to serve the community and not let oppressive systems from patriarchy to neoliberal austerity dominate the academy in silence. As the Fall 2023 semester comes to a close, we are fully committed to making noise in the next one.