TSV Copy Editors
Barely three weeks into the opening of The Motley Coffeehouse on Sept. 12, President Amy Marcus-Newhall sent an email on Saturday, Oct. 5 at 6:01 a.m to the Scripps student body announcing its indefinite closure. Three minutes later, Scripps Human Resources sent out a separate email to all of The Motley employees, notifying them that they were no longer authorized to work at The Motley.
With no explicit prior notice, Scripps administration put 50 student workers, the majority of whom are on work-study, under financial uncertainty and physically locked them out of their former place of employment.
Scripps College also hired private security who were stationed at The Motley and its surrounding areas from Oct. 5-7.
The Motley first began facing pressure from administration when they were issued an ultimatum days before their opening night: take down a Palestinian flag or remain closed. The staff refused this demand, asking for clarification on what policies they were violating by keeping the flag up. They were given no clear answer.
Yet, The Motley continued to operate with the Palestinian flag up in the space amidst almost a month of emails and meetings between Motley managers and Interim Special Advisor to the Vice President for Student Affairs Deborrah Hebert, Executive Director of Facilities Management & Auxiliary Operations Josh Reeder, and Vice President of Student Affairs and Dean of Students Dr. Sha Bradley, until their forced closure.
A day after the Oct. 5 email was sent out, The Scripps Voice sat down with four Motley managers and one barista.
The Aftermath
Scripps College’s Oct. 5 emails shocked many managers and baristas who felt blindsided by the administration’s decision.
“To have woken up on Saturday locked out of our place of employment with no notice, having been accused in a schoolwide email of refusing to cooperate with a dialogue that we have been actively engaged with since we got to campus, has done incalculable damage to the trust we had previously been operating with as we entered these discussions with administration,” a manager said.
Scripps College changed the door locks, effectively locking out the managers who held the keys to open the student-run coffeehouse in the morning. To some students, this strategy resembled a union-busting tactic known as a lockout. A lockout involves the withholding of employment, wherein an employer either locks employees out of a workplace, creates a work stoppage, or lays off employees to hinder union organization or gain leverage in labor disputes.
“Our baristas left at 9 p.m. And then sometime between 9 p.m. and 6 a.m., they came and changed the locks,” a manager said. “They locked us out. It was a lockout. We have gallons of milk in there. We had a pastry delivery. We have items that we left in there thinking, oh yeah, I’ll go there tomorrow and get it.”
Additionally, managers were aghast by the increase in private security around the space and the implications of this addition. “[They] hired private security ’cause they clearly see us as a threat,” a manager said. “It’s dangerous to paint this narrative [of] Scripps students, especially Scripps student employees, that [they’re] so threatened by us that [they] hire private security to guard the building.”
Another Motley manager further explained how painting the Motley team as a “threat” contradicts the care the staff visibly upholds towards the space.
“As if we would ever do anything to vandalize our own space that we take care of,” they said. “We clean, we decorate, we fucking screw, screw, screw the espresso machine every day. It’s just wild to think that that’s the space we [take] care of. Like what exactly are they afraid of with that?”
This decision follows a larger trend of increased militarization and security across all the Claremont Colleges this semester, including the use of a military-grade “sonic cannon” to disperse protesters at Harvey Mudd College on Sept. 25.
Baristas initially assumed the Oct. 5 emails meant they were fired and would lose their income.
One barista said that the part of the email from HR that shocked them most was the link to Handshake, accompanied by the suggestion to search for other work-study jobs.
“It was a hyperlink that you could click on, too, so you could go start browsing,” the barista said. “And it just really solidified the degree to which it feels like they do not care about their student workers. And it’s an odd prioritization of donors and the board over the literal lived experiences of your students.“
The Motley is also an uncommon and valuable opportunity for work-study students, as The Motley can pay wages after their allotted work-study runs out.
On Oct. 8, after three days of silence from the administration, Motley staff received two emails clarifying that student employees would continue to be paid until Oct. 20 during this period of negotiating a reopening.
“I think this was probably an attempt to address the significant pushback from alumni and parents of current students,” a manager said. “But I want to make super clear that there was no suggestion that we would be getting paid when they initially delivered the news of closure to us.”
One barista reflected on the situation as a work-study student. “I’m a low-income, first-gen student who was advertised this school so heavily,” they said. “And then to come here and feel like they don’t care once you get past the admissions door is incredibly disappointing. Although not surprising.”
A Motley manager explained how this temporary plan of compensation was not a solution but rather an attempt to appease complaints, highlighting administration’s disregard for the long-term financial well-being of their employees.
“Scripps has clearly demonstrated their lack of respect and consideration for us as students and as employees in the callousness with which they treated our team, many of whom rely on this income,” said another Motley manager. “Their concern for our financial security was obviously an afterthought, still motivated by a desire to protect their bottom line and their image rather than by a commitment to protect their students.”
Meetings, Meetings, Meetings
Motley managers also expressed their frustrations about the numerous meetings they had with Hebert where she claimed that The Motley was failing to comply with the “Advertising, Publicity, and Solicitation” policy 4.1 from the Scripps Guide to Student Life and Code of Conduct, which specified that only flyers, not flags or other decor, must be approved by the Office of Student Engagement (OSE) before they are posted. The Palestinian flag, which is printed on page 12, would be permitted under these regulations.
“Those meetings [with Hebert] drain the absolute life [out] of you, just talking in circles with administration and them not being able to answer like a fucking simple ass question,” a manager said.
During these meetings, Hebert stated that she would now need to give executive approval for all Motley decor that went up, a system that managers emphasized had never been implemented before this semester.
“There has never been restrictions put on the art that goes up on the walls, the decorations,” a manager said. “Why now? What specifically about this moment in political history means that we have to suddenly restrict all of the things that are in our space.”
After receiving no clear answers, Motley management emailed Bradley for further clarification.
“[Motley managers] decided that we needed to speak to Dr. Sha directly,” they said. “So we met with her and we had this long conversation. Both of us were late to classes. She was late to her own meetings. Like we were in this room for an hour and 40 minutes detailing the things we were confused about.”
In this meeting and subsequent email, Bradley emphasized the need for open call submissions which she defined as, “submissions of visual artifacts representing identities, cultures, home countries, etc., [open] to the entire Scripps community.”
After this initial meeting, Bradley sent multiple follow-up emails to the Motley managers asking them for their availability for future meetings to further discuss this open call for submissions.
The managers emphasized the effect the repeated meetings and communication had on them. “We do not have the energy and capacity to be students, to be leaders to 50 people, and to be successful at all of these things and also be engaging in these tiring, roundabout conversations with administration.”
Because of this, they decided to establish a set of parameters with the administration in an email to Bradley in order to proceed with future meetings more comfortably and productively.
Instead of responding to their parameters, Bradley continued to push for an open call for submissions.
“We were asking very specific questions, which were just met with responses about ‘How exactly is the Motley ensuring that it is inclusive? How exactly is the Motley ensuring that it is making everyone feel welcome?’” a manager said.
One of the managers emphasized that the original purpose of these meetings was to get The Motley to remove their Palestinian flag, not to revise rules regarding the coffeehouse’s policy on inclusivity.
“We cannot forget that this began with them saying that you need to take down the Palestinian flag,” they said. “This did not begin with them saying, you need to be inclusive to everyone. It started off with discrimination. It started off with, there’s a flag on your wall that needs to get taken down in order for this business to open.”
Discriminatory Policing of Political Expression
On Sept. 13, Palestine Legal released a statement regarding the possible legal backlash that Scripps opened itself up to by demanding that the Motley staff remove the Palestinian flag on the grounds that it was “unwelcoming.”
“It is discriminatory and deeply offensive for administrators to claim that the existence of a Palestinian flag somehow makes the Motley unwelcoming to the community—particularly so when Scripps itself is the one being unwelcoming to Palestinians in violation of the law,” Zoha Khalili, a Senior Staff Attorney at Palestine Legal, wrote in a statement.
The managers expressed similar sentiments. “This notion that Scripps is a place where you’re able to freely express yourself. Inclusivity [for] who, right?” they said. “And this, this is what we’ve been asking them since the very beginning, since that first meeting. Why would we take down the Palestinian flag? Why are you saying it’s unwelcoming? Who is it unwelcoming of?”
Another manager contrasted the administration’s reaction to the Palestinian flag to the rhetoric given to other flags, such as the Ukrainian flag.
“I also want to point out that in that first meeting, we had a person on staff who is both Russian and Ukrainian [who] talked about putting up a Ukrainian flag in the space — and there was no issue with that,” they said. “It’s not the fact that the [Palestine] flag is inherently political. Because there are politics surrounding the Ukrainian flag as well. It’s the fact that they want to repress non-white voices. Like that is exactly what they’re doing. And that is exactly what all of the repression around the 5Cs of Palestinian activism is representative of.”
This idea was emphasized by the Palestine Legal statement. “Scripps is sending a clear message to current and future students that Palestinians and students who support Palestinian freedom are not welcome on campus. This is a violation of federal civil rights laws that prohibit the college from discriminating against students and applicants on the basis of race, color, or national origin.”
The statement also outlined how Scripps could be in violation of labor laws. “If Scripps takes action against the Motley, it may also find itself in violation of California labor laws, which prohibit employers from controlling or directing the political activities or affiliations of employees. California law also prohibits the school from punishing students for their free speech activities.”
The Motley managers felt as though they were being forced to choose between their ability to work and their right to free speech and expression. “It sucks that we are in a position in which we have to think about financial security or our other rights that are supposed to be protected, that are supposed to fall under these protections that come with not only employment, but come with going to a historically women’s college,” they said. “I think a majority of us are in a position in which we don’t see the value in giving into administration at the cost of bending our own morals or political beliefs or the right to stand up for humanity and practice all the things that we want to be able to practice as people, as employees, as students.”
History of Motley’s Political Expression
The Motley Coffeehouse has a long history as a hub for political expression and community engagement.
Scripps politics professor Mar Golub emphasized this aspect of the Motley’s history. “One of the things that makes the Motley the Motley – and why it’s so important to a lot of students – is its long tradition of student independence,” they said. “It has always been student-run and student managed, and it has always been explicitly committed to a set of core values: intersectional feminism, sustainability, social justice.”
Golub continued, stating how administration recognizes the impact of the space, making their decision even more confounding. “The College even celebrates this on its website and in its marketing materials. This is why students love the Motley: not just as a place to hang out and drink good coffee, but as an important space of community – especially so for students who may not always feel at home in some other places on campus,” she said. “That’s part of its feminist commitment. This is why the Motley is so important to our students. And this is what the administration is trying to take away from them.”
Rita Cano Alcalá, a Scripps Chicanx-Latinx studies professor, also expressed her thoughts on the history of The Motley. “While I understand that The Motley is housed in a Scripps building and technically a business of the college, since its inception it has been a student-run endeavor, from top to bottom,” she said. “If it weren’t for students, there would be no Motley. Returning alumni from all 5Cs don’t go to The Motley to see what is going on with Scripps officially, institutionally. No, they go there to see what the hubbub is among students. To see what has been happening among the students politically, artistically, musically, socially.”
A manager echoed Alcalá’s sentiment and noted that The Motley’s importance within the institution may be tied into why the space is being targeted. “I think that’s why they’re pointing a finger at it and trying to restrict it because it’s a powerful place that impacts their admissions, it impacts their money, it impacts their donations,” a manager said. “It worked for them, you know, marketing The Motley as like the central hub of political feminist, intersectional feminist conversations and events and all that stuff. It worked for them until it didn’t.”
The manager elaborated on how the Motley’s active support for Palestinian liberation posed a threat to the college. “You can’t be in an intersectional feminist space without being in solidarity with Palestine,” they said. “There is a tie between capitalism and Zionism. So the people who are in these positions of extreme wealth are probably going to have views that do not align with the voices in support of Palestinian people. Our definition of inclusive is people whose perspectives, ideas, and identities resist and challenge what the hegemonic structures are, right? We’ve always been leftist in our values and to be inclusive has been to include people that are usually sidelined, who are usually marginalized.”
Going Forward
Despite feeling disheartened by administration’s recent actions, The Motley staff highlighted how they have been able to rely on community support to reassure them. “We have a lot of different organizations like Nobody Fails at Scripps, CSWA [Claremont Student Worker Alliance], all of these different organizations that care very deeply for students. It’s beautiful to see that [this] can exist even when we don’t feel institutional support.”
A manager revealed how the empathy and kindness of the community has impacted them throughout this situation. “I’ve never been come up to more and just offered a hug, offered a ‘how are you,’ you know, like people’s sympathy and people’s support has been overwhelming. Not only just through statements, but also in person, just genuinely having that care.”
That same manager concluded that the fight to reopen The Motley is not over and will continue to be fueled by the overwhelming support and love of the Scripps student body. “That is the community that Scripps is harming and that’s the community that they don’t see,” they said. “They’re trying to cultivate this other bullshit notion of community and inclusivity. And it’s like, you don’t even know what you just did. You don’t even know the harm that you guys just caused. But it’s okay because we have support and we will be back and we will fight.”
Photo Courtesy: Claremont Undercurrents
The post “Inclusive for Who”?: Motley Workers fight back Against Repression and Closure appeared first on The Scripps Voice.