Lowering a flag at Hampshire

ON APRIL 26, the Hampshire College community received an e-mail from its president, former president of the World Resources Institute Jonathan Lash, that announced his decision to flip the campus American flag upside-down and lower it to half mast.

The e-mail articulated that this action was meant as "a two-fold statement:...a reclamation of mourning, and...an act of resistance against the symbolic violence of the American flag."

He went on to make powerful assertions about the coercive ways in which the state uses the flag to perpetuate a culture in which the state violence of the police and military is condoned, in which mourning over events such as the Boston bombing and 9/11 are channeled into a racist and bloodthirsty patriotism, and in which dissent and alternative reactions to tragedy are repressed and silenced.

Throughout the day, the e-mail spread rapidly over social media and through word of mouth. Dozens of people thanked President Lash for his words of solidarity with those oppressed by state violence. Others marveled that such a statement would come from an administration with a "decades-long streak of complacence with neoliberalism."

A friend who is of Arab descent was thrilled at the statement and sent President Lash a personal letter of thanks, saying that she was "more proud than ever to be at Hampshire."

Halfway through the day, this same friend received a response from the president. It said that he had not written the e-mail. This was accompanied by a campus-wide response that read, "This afternoon someone falsely sent out a message under my name regarding the flag. It was not written by me. Hampshire welcomes discussion and dissent, but not by misrepresentation."

Apparently, a student or students had written the original statement and hacked his account to send it under his name.

THE MAJORITY of the criticism of the action accused the students responsible for assuming that all in the community shared their sentiments. A subsequent e-mail from the campus IT director asserted that the action had "blatantly trampled the community's right to debate and arrive at a common position."

Such a forum for administration-approved "discussion and dissent" was created a few weeks earlier when students facilitated an open dialogue about the campus flag. Numerous international students, some of whose home countries have long histories of colonial oppression at the hands of U.S. imperialism, expressed outrage and personal discomfort over the flag's presence on campus.

In this discussion, the administration promised to at least partially acknowledge these concerns by putting up an earth flag on Earth Day and leaving it up permanently. The earth flag flew for one day and was removed.

The argument that all differing opinions concerning the American flag are valid and must be given institutional weight misunderstands mechanisms of oppression and destroys the prospect of solidarity. It is the responsibility of the institution and all those who benefit from U.S. colonialism (via white privilege, class privilege, settler status, etc.) to support those oppressed by this legacy of violence.

The personal patriotism of some individuals should not obscure the real violence committed on the world and members of our community under the symbol of the flag.

Those arguing in favor of the American flag have significant power over those opposed. They have the power of the state, the power of a long history of colonial genocide and the power of the continued legacy of white supremacy. They also have the power of the administration, which continues flying the flag without the consent of the community.

Advocating for a "common position" in this regard would inevitably involve compromise on the part of the oppressed. This is not solidarity. This is the perpetuation of racist and colonialist dominance and oppression in the tradition of liberal "democracy."

Sending the e-mail was a powerful act of resistance used to expose the oppressive nature of institutional power at Hampshire. The students responsible rejected the channels of resistance established for them by the administration and claimed the authority of the president in order to subvert that very authority.

By releasing a statement that spoke forcefully and directly against state violence, the students exposed the administration for being complicit with that violence by espousing an empty rhetoric of commitment to some vague notion of "diversity" and "social justice."

The e-mail challenged the administration and the campus to transcend the tradition of mere lip service and work toward a tradition of true solidarity with those oppressed by the state.

President Lash failed this challenge. His response did not engage with the argument of the forged e-mail whatsoever, and the American flag continues to proudly fly over the center of Hampshire's campus.
Emily Keppler and Dylan Fitzwater, Amherst, Mass.