The aftermath: Chapman admin enforces new policies following campus protests

Photo by Emily Paris, Photo Editor

Chapman University updated its facility use and events policy after the campus encampment in May 2024 in solidarity for Gaza. Now, students are facing the consequences.

Among various changes to the policy, it states, “amplified sound is NOT permitted during weekdays in outdoor areas that could disturb classes, university business or nearby residents of Orange.”

Beginning April 8, five Chapman students were notified they were to have disciplinary hearings with the Office of Student Affairs regarding their use of “amplified sound” and “failure to comply” during the diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) campus protest on March 17.

“It’s a little strange and kind of unprecedented,” said junior vocal performance major and Students for Justice in Palestine (SJP) member Scott Tucker. “Generally, for events like this, the violations would fall on the clubs and not individual students.”

Four students, including Tucker and fellow SJP executive board member Michael Daniels, received formal disciplinary warnings.

“(A) formal warning is just like a first strike,” said Daniels, a senior creative writing major. “They essentially have a strike system. So if I get another violation, further action will be taken.”

SJP co-president Myth Moos, a senior philosophy and psychology double major, was the only student who received more than just a warning. 

Moos received two conduct violations — which will permanently remain on their academic record — and was instructed by administration to write a “values reflection” paper about organizing on campus.

“I think part of organizing is knowing there (are) always going to be risks,” said Moos. “(When) playing around with policies, sometimes you have to take a hit when it's an emergency and (you’re) doing what you believe in.”

Moos was also instructed to refrain from further violations of the conduct code within the near future or they could be faced with more severe disciplinary action such as probation, suspension or expulsion.

“(At the protest on April 23) we didn’t use amplified sound, so we didn’t actually break any policies,” Moos told The Panther. “We had backup ways to get our message out…it worked really well.”

The decision to target students as individuals is a change in protocol, according to club members.

“It seems like (the administration is) really trying to strike fear in us by targeting us as individuals,” Daniels told The Panther.

The disciplinary hearing emails each student received included an incident report, which stated that students were directly identified by Dean of Students Jerry Price and Assistant Dean of Students Tristan Hilpert or through video surveillance. 

“You’re being watched at all times,” Daniels said. “It’s total Orwellian.”

Administration is continuing to look for one unidentified student they have pictured holding a megaphone, which Daniels, Tucker, Moos and the two other anonymous students were asked to identify during their disciplinary hearings.

“I was planning on saying I refused to answer, but I genuinely did not know who the student was, so I just said no,” said an anonymous student who was asked to identify the student during their meeting.

The recent policy revision has also sparked the attention of faculty.

“I think the policy is poorly conceived,” said Chapman sociology professor Peter Simi. “I think (the policy) needs to be reviewed and revised to ensure students are able to experience freedom of speech. Obviously, there are some restrictions that inevitably need to occur, but I think this voice amplification issue needs to be looked at a little more closely.”

Furthermore, the Faculty Senate requested that the policy be rewritten to include feedback from students and staff, and that no disciplinary action be taken against individuals who spoke using “amplified sound” at the protest.

“I think that it’s important that the university listens to (its) faculty because they didn’t listen to the faculty when they changed the policy last time,” Moos told The Panther. “So what the faculty senate is pushing right now is extremely good, and I’m hoping that it actually leads to change on campus because it’s important.”

Moos further specifies that the change they wish to see is to convert the policy to something similar to what Chapman enforced prior to May 2024, where amplified sound was only punishable if professors or faculty directly complained about the noise levels.

“If anything, the noise in the crowd could have been more disruptive than the megaphone,” an anonymous student who received a formal warning told The Panther. “I just wanted people to hear me, and I have a lot of witness statements saying people couldn't hear me, even with the megaphone.”

Additionally, faculty members who used a megaphone at the protest were reported to Human Resources by Public Safety; however, some have yet to hear from HR.

“I think there were some selective enforcement issues,” said Simi, who also spoke at the protest. 

“While that protest was occurring, there were anti-DEI stickers that were being placed on university property, and to my knowledge, there hasn’t been any kind of disciplinary action, no hearings, or anything of that nature for those that engaged in that conduct, which could potentially be construed as misconduct,” he told The Panther.

Simi said that in the past, there have been anti-immigration stickers on campus involving one or more Chapman undergraduate students who were facing potential criminal charges. Yet, he does not see the same enforcement enacted now.

Price confirmed there were anti-DEI stickers; however, once the students were asked to stop, they complied, and therefore it warranted no further disciplinary action.

“These are all principles that we uphold — supposedly — and so now’s the time to stand together and unify around them, and I see these disciplinary hearings as doing quite the opposite,” Simi said. “I think that’s really disappointing and discouraging that it’s taking time, energy and resources away from what we need to be doing.”

Daniels thinks that the administration should be focusing on enforcing other policies and punishments.

“You think (administration) could be spending time on other critical sexual assault allegations or things like that instead of twiddling their thumbs at people holding a megaphone,” he said, citing no allegations or events in particular.

The Panther reached out to Chapman administration for comment and received a joint response from Price and Hilpert saying that they are federally prohibited from providing comments about the situation as it could jeopardize student anonymity and confidentiality.

“I think it's important for people to hear that we still need to show that we’re here and loud and assertive,” said Daniels. “This is a call to keep going, not a call to stop.”