This is an open letter to The Rensselaer Polytechnic.

A university’s caliber can, in part, be measured by its commitment to its students. This benchmark reveals the willingness of an institution to nourish a stable learning environment and sustain a stable intellectual image. If a university encourages its current students to forge a path to change the world, as this one does, it must carve out an environment in which students can taste the challenges they may face that are essential to understanding the reality we live in.

As the Rensselaer Catalog outlines the Institute’s commitment to “transferring technology from the laboratory to the workplace,” I am confident we all understand why knowledge of the “real world” is important to the quality of education at our Institution. Unfortunately, this vital information is not always understood to be essential by students upon first inspection.

Particularly, there is the recent case of the removal of Wafaa Bilal’s “Virtual Jihadi” from campus. The work’s message may have greatly contributed to the ongoing national discussion of domestic security, but its presentation was overtly controversial. If any work was to qualify for free speech protection as part of the Rensselaer community, it was that of Bilal. Instead, Bilal’s project was removed from campus due to its controversial political content. However, this was not a blatant act of censorship aimed at crippling Rensselaer’s educational mission, but an administrative decision that should be perceived with some understanding.

It should not be assumed that the students on Rensselaer’s campus are blind to alleged free speech violations; several examples exist where censorship has been exercised by administrators regarding sensitive issues, such as with Bilal’s work as well as with faculty-related incidents. Various administrative decisions may appear to shed light on supposed grand schemes to limit both the individuality and freedom, yes, the very freedom, of Rensselaer students, no matter what form of righteous dissent they partake in. Is this a suspected plot by the highest administrative offices and their respective officers to eliminate voices of disagreement entirely from the campus, for reasons as petty and base as those officers, “not being partial,” to them? Let us truly ask ourselves this question.

As president, Shirley Ann Jackson’s goal has been to transform Rensselaer into a world-class institution. Her advances to add to the educational ingredients at Rensselaer, not just merely garnish the academic meal we all feast on, is evident in the construction of such facilities as Experimental Media and Preforming Arts Center and East Campus Athletic Village. To assume that such advances in the institution’s offerings were merely done to make it seem more pleasing to the world would be to truly insult every student and faculty member who would ever make educational or recreational use of them.

To suggest that this campus has suffered a great human tragedy in its “loss” of free speech protection, one which calls for an urgency on the level of a catastrophic, life-taking disaster, is to invite accusations of arrogance. Not only are institutes on a level of Rensselaer coherent in their educational commitments, they are cognizant of the reality of the marketplace. The concept of free speech and a vehement anger over its suppression do not belong in board meetings, job interviews, or the common workplace. One’s ability to exercise control and sensitivity are often seen as extremely important marketable skills, and, indeed, life skills, despite ideological dispositions we may have as teenage college students.

The above paragraphs may seem, to the frequent Poly reader, to take on a format and style similar to an open letter that appeared in last week’s issue. It is true that I have used this past letter as a template with the sincerest respect for its author in order to dissent from his opinion, and to bring forth some of the assumptions he made as statements that detract from the work administrators do for this institution. There are two sides to every story, and only so many parallels can be made within the realm of respect. We must all keep this in mind as we will all one day enter the world.

Sean Collins