Universities across Boston come together to protest attacks to higher education – The Suffolk Journal

Student Mobilization for Sustainable and Just Higher Education

Executive Summary

On November 15, the Education Freedom Project (EFP) at Northeastern University, in partnership with numerous local organizations, hosted the “Students Rally for Light, Truth and Courage.” The event convened students, faculty, labor leaders, and elected officials from 16 Boston-area higher education institutions. The primary objective was to call upon university administrations to defend students against federal policies undermining educational integrity. The rally’s themes directly addressed several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions).

Core Demands and Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

The rally highlighted a strategic disconnect between student needs and administrative actions, advocating for changes that align with global sustainability and justice frameworks. Key issues raised include:

• Inclusive and Equitable Quality Education (SDG 4 & SDG 10): Protesters voiced concerns over the dismantling of university Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) offices, the lack of resources for international students, and the failure to address intersectional challenges faced by students with disabilities. These actions were cited as direct threats to providing an inclusive and equitable learning environment for all.
• Peace, Justice, and Strong Institutions (SDG 16): A central theme was the demand for universities to act as accountable, transparent, and responsive institutions. Students challenged policies that suppress free speech and activism, such as forms threatening expulsion for unsanctioned protests. The call for student inclusion in policy meetings and decision-making processes underscores the goal of building effective and participatory institutions.
• Partnerships for the Goals (SDG 17): The event itself exemplified SDG 17, creating a multi-stakeholder partnership. The coalition included over 20 student clubs, labor unions like the National Treasury Employees Union and the Greater Boston Labor Council, and government representatives, demonstrating a unified front to achieve common objectives.

Key Stakeholder Testimonies

Speakers from diverse backgrounds provided testimony on the importance of the student-led movement in achieving broader societal goals.

1. Student Leadership: EFP co-founder Jack Masliah emphasized the need for organized, strategic action to ensure university administrations respond to student demands. Student speaker Anna Salvato criticized universities for failing to uphold their stated values, citing policies that restrict expression and a lack of support for vulnerable students as antithetical to providing quality education (SDG 4). Emma Albert, former president of Northeastern Diversability, spoke on the need for intersectional advocacy, noting that while student feedback is solicited, it rarely translates into policy, undermining efforts to reduce inequalities (SDG 10).
2. Labor Union Representatives: Ellen Mei, president of the National Treasury Employees Union Chapter 255, connected the students’ fight to the civic responsibility of federal workers to speak out against injustice, reinforcing the importance of strong institutions (SDG 16). Darlene Lombos of the Greater Boston Labor Council identified college campuses as critical grounds in the fight for democracy, linking the protection of student voices to decent work and economic justice (SDG 8).
3. Government Officials: Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley framed the rally as an act of resistance against efforts to create an uninformed and inactive populace. She stated that engaged, informed, and compassionate students are essential for building a just society and that universities are fundamental to the struggle for civil rights. Her call for “imagination, strategy and stamina” positioned the movement as a long-term project for shaping a sustainable future in line with SDG 16.

Conclusion: Fostering Accountable Institutions for Quality Education

The rally successfully mobilized a broad coalition to advocate for a higher education system that is equitable, just, and responsive. The event served as a platform to demand that universities uphold their commitment to fostering inclusive learning environments (SDG 4) and operate as transparent and accountable institutions (SDG 16). By bringing together a diverse group of stakeholders, the EFP and its partners demonstrated a powerful model for achieving systemic change through collective action, in line with the principles of SDG 17.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

The article highlights issues of student activism, free speech, institutional accountability, and inclusion within higher education, which directly connect to several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary SDGs addressed are:

• SDG 4: Quality Education: The entire context is higher education. The students’ fight is for an educational environment that is inclusive, equitable, and promotes values of human rights and active citizenship. The article mentions the dismantling of the Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion, which directly impacts the quality and inclusivity of the educational experience.
• SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: The rally addresses the need for inclusion and support for all students, including international and disabled students. Speaker Emma Albert’s mention of intersectionality and the call to provide resources for international students directly tackle the issue of inequality within the university system. The protest against the dismantling of the DEI office is a clear call to action against institutional practices that can increase inequality.
• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This is a central theme. The students are demanding that their universities act as accountable, responsive, and inclusive institutions. They are protesting against policies that “restrict free speech and expression” and force them to sign forms “under threat of expulsion,” which relates to the protection of fundamental freedoms. Their call for “transparency and change within their institutions” is a direct appeal for stronger, more just institutional governance.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

Based on the specific grievances and goals of the student rally described in the article, the following SDG targets can be identified:

1. Target 4.7 (under SDG 4): “By 2030, ensure that all learners acquire the knowledge and skills needed to promote sustainable development, including, among others, through education for… human rights… promotion of a culture of peace and non-violence, global citizenship and appreciation of cultural diversity…” The students’ rally is an exercise in active citizenship and a demand for an environment that respects human rights (like free speech) and cultural diversity (as represented by the DEI office). Congresswoman Pressley’s statement that “our colleges and universities have always been fundamental in the struggle for civil rights” reinforces this connection.
2. Target 10.2 (under SDG 10): “By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all…” The students are fighting for genuine inclusion in university governance. The complaint that students are “invited to panels and photo ops but not to policy meetings and discourse on belonging” shows a demand for meaningful political inclusion, not tokenism. The specific mention of failing to provide resources for international students also aligns with this target.
3. Target 16.7 (under SDG 16): “Ensure responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.” This target is at the core of the students’ demands. The article states that students felt a “disconnect between the needs of the students and the actions of the administration” and were being left “out of nearly every decision.” The entire rally is an effort to force the university administrations to become more responsive and participatory.
4. Target 16.10 (under SDG 16): “Ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms, in accordance with national legislation and international agreements.” The article explicitly details the suppression of student voices, citing policies that “restrict free speech and expression” and a form that forces students to “agree not to participate in unsanctioned activism on Northeastern property under threat of expulsion.” The students’ fight against these measures is a direct effort to protect their fundamental freedoms.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

The article does not mention official SDG indicators, but it implies several practical metrics that could be used to measure progress on the issues raised:

• For Target 4.7: An implied indicator is the existence and operational status of university departments dedicated to diversity, equity, and inclusion. The article cites the “dismantling our office of diversity, equity and inclusion” as a key failure of the university, suggesting that its restoration and proper functioning would be a measure of progress.
• For Target 10.2: A key implied indicator is the level of student representation in official university policy and decision-making bodies. The quote, “You’re invited to panels and photo ops but not to policy meetings,” suggests that progress would be measured by students moving from ceremonial roles to having a substantive voice in governance.
• For Target 16.7: An indicator is the degree to which student feedback influences university policy. The feeling of “shouting into a void” where “you never see change” implies that a measure of success would be the implementation of policies and changes that directly respond to student demands and needs.
• For Target 16.10: A clear indicator is the number and type of university policies that restrict student speech and activism. The article specifically mentions a form students were forced to sign. The revision or elimination of such restrictive policies would be a direct and measurable indicator of progress toward protecting fundamental freedoms on campus.

4. SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Table

Source: thesuffolkjournal.com