Carleton has always been murky on what is and is not allowed via their public display policy. There are specific pages on the website outlining the rules for the Weitz and Sayles spaces, but that begs the question of whether these rules apply to every building on campus or just those two locations. Joke posters, political posters and random student-made art often flaunt the established rules so long as they’re not too edgy. With a new policy announcement on the horizon, why does any of this matter?

A public space such as Sayles is very different from a dedicated gallery space since the expectation of difficult confrontations or challenges to one’s perspectives through art is secondary to the space’s function as a meeting spot or cafe. However, it is precisely this public nature that makes it so attractive as a spot for such displays. The protests for Divestment over the last few years  and the recent continuation of Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) protests have run through Sayles during common time for this reason, since these spaces provide a more informal and visible arena for these sorts of messages to be heard.

Students have long taken advantage of this public space in visual form not only to advertise their clubs and events, but also to spread their own messages regarding recent political events. There are examples like jokes and esoteric humor as well as guerrilla art projects aimed at questioning the use of the poster as a medium and the function of public spaces as areas of political speech. Now, whether there is enough space to do so is another question entirely (given the amount of posters stuck to walls instead of the boards), but what is undeniable is that these poster boards offer far more than just spaces for advertising and marketing.

The Carleton student population has always pushed the envelope when it comes to socio-political issues, often running in conflict with administrative concerns. Though the administration claims divestment as a point of advertisement for its willingness to get ahead on climate change, that decision only came after many protests, editorials, sit-ins and petitions from the students and faculty disrupting public spaces and making it clear to the administration that their refusal to listen would only lead to an increase in these displays and discontent amongst the student body.

As students, we push for what we see as ethical and necessary in a much more unrestricted fashion than the administration, which has to balance students’ wants with restrictions from the Board of Trustees and the federal government. The Carleton administration is now under even more pressure with the recent string of federal governmental grant restrictions and targeting of higher education institutions, and so, in my estimation, wants to draw as few eyes to the institution as possible. Being a top college in a very blue (though less so than in previous years) state, with a governor who has repeatedly drawn Republican ire, this reaction is neither pleasant nor surprising. A much less desirable outcome of this reaction is what I predict may happen with a new poster and chalk policy, as mentioned in the Carleton Today.

With the No Kings rallies, anti-ICE protest movements, and the pro-Palestine protest movement in full swing across America, there is no shortage of political causes that students at Carleton dedicate themselves to. The prior rules for posters and the lack of rules (that I could find, meaning they are at least inaccessible or hidden) for chalking were flexible enough for the administration to allow quite a few displays and selectively choose which ones to flag or take down. While this may have been unfair and vague, a more concrete policy runs the risk of overcorrecting, thereby affecting what has otherwise been a rich history of student-made art and public displays at Carleton. In the effort to ‘consolidate current site-specific guidelines into a single, comprehensive standard’, it is easy to see how this may result in more stringent policing of what content is posted, how it can be displayed and empower the administration further in removing posters and displays they find too ‘uncomfortable’ for the spaces, as we have seen with the repeated removal of the chalk outside Sayles and Burton done by SJP. The possibility of introducing consequences for students who engage in more politically-motivated or non-standard forms of poster making or chalking also introduces a new level of paranoia and fear about speech that the administration deems hazardous, which  could really be anything that is anti-authority or governmental at this point.

Given the current zeitgeist of restriction and censorious behavior on the part of the federal government, I fear a similar capitulation on the part of the Carleton administration, where, in an effort to prevent material from being spread off-campus, it impinges on the expression of Carleton students to act and develop political characters through their education. The mandate of a liberal arts education, such as Carleton’s, is to aid students’ growth into thinking and reasoning global citizens, not just docile workers. A task like that is hampered by these forms of expression being locked down amidst fears of reprisals. The current restrictions, limited only to Sayles and the Weitz, really only talk about the posters having to advertise a specific event (a guideline that many posters ignore anyways), and further re-consideration of the particular materials that can be posted (currently the only restriction is that they cannot be targeting a single individual or office (with the restriction on criticizing specific offices in poster form also being something that I feel is an oddly restrictive policy) allow for a wide array of student expression, and that seems to be something that the administration may be changing with.

I don’t know exactly how this new policy will pan out. Maybe there is a way for the administration to open up the policy, create a new exemption, and encourage more posters and chalkings that engage with political issues. Just typing it out, however, makes me realize how absurd that notion is. It is hard for me to imagine, in the current political climate, that the administration actually sticks to its commitment to the ideals of free speech and the liberal arts ethos over concerns about political targeting. Principles and commitments are not for when times are easy. I hope I’m wrong about this new policy, but I fear that this is yet another platform that will be closed off to students at a time when student voices are more important and at greater risk than ever.