No neutrality in a fistfight

As a martial arts instructor, I get the following question: When is it OK to fight?

There is a legal answer to this, but the real question I hear is: When will I know exactly?

I want students to be able to defend themselves. However, deciding when this happens is an individual decision. Your standard for when it's appropriate to engage in self-defense might be different than mine; They could pursue other avenues to de-escalate a confrontation.

Years ago, I once managed to dissuade a man from attacking me in the early hours of the morning outside George Howell. I'm proud of that, not for any bullshit macho reasons (I hope), but because the situation ended with no one getting hurt, even though I think I would have been within my rights to just start swinging. If someone else had fought the guy in the same situation, I wouldn't have blamed him. (To be clear: the smartest thing to do is to always just hand over your wallet.)

But I want my students to have options. I want them to see non-violence not as a standard but as a situational and not neutral choice.

***

Others have already commented on this, so I'll say it bluntly:

Emerson College should remove its statement of political neutrality as soon as possible.

I won't rehash other arguments. What I would fully add is this: Under a Trump administration, there can be no neutrality based on his stated goals.

Here's the end of Emerson's declaration of neutrality, the important part: “By maintaining institutional neutrality and mutual respect, Emerson College will remain an open, supportive and inclusive space for community members of all racial and ethnic backgrounds, sexual orientations, gender identities, religions, national origins, abilities, socioeconomic backgrounds and beliefs. ”

But the simple truth is that “institutional neutrality” and “mutual respect” cannot coexist under a new Trump administration. Disrespect and violence are at the heart of the administration’s vision—not just toward students, but toward Emerson itself.

Consider the LGBTQ+ community at Emerson. In our last one Emerson 360 survey, Almost a quarter of the students answered that they were bisexual, 13% as queer, 4% as gay and 7% as lesbian –everything well above the national average. The percentage of Emerson's transgender population (3%) is also double that of the U.S. as a whole (around 1.4%). Emerson is happy (and justified) to use this part of campus culture to attract more LGBTQ+ students.

But that's not a neutral stance when Trump said he would take action on “day one” to, as Michael Knowles said, “exterminate” LGBTQ+ people. If such actions are taken, must Emerson remain “neutral” toward such “political” moves?

If Emerson doesn't shift to “neutrality” to take a tough stance to protect his students, what about self-protection? JD Vance has taken measures to limit the independence of universities. citing Hungary's autocratic Viktor Orbán as someone with “smart” ideas for higher education: forcing schools to choose “survival” or basically right-wing ideological teaching. Does Emerson's declaration of neutrality mean that the company is giving up its right to self-representation? Will we simply collapse if Vance wants to dictate hiring practices, for example?

One might think that other Emerson documents already address these measures. The School of the Arts DEI Statement for example. And our hardworking Office of Equal Opportunity attempts to prevent identity-based violence. You might think, “Well, these other offices show that we are.” politically neutral, but of course we cannot allow attacks on the students’ identities.”

But there's no reason these offices won't come under attack, even under a Trump administration. The Heritage Foundation has argued (vaguely) that DEI initiatives are part of ““Woke” ideology and are fundamentally “discriminatory”. Taking away the ability of schools to censure hate speech, for example, appears to be part of the right's current agenda. What will we do if a student uses a racial slur and then objects to the school's response for political reasons, citing the neutrality statement?

These hypotheses may sound like scaremongering, but they are not outside the realm of possibility.

What we know for certain is that a declaration of political neutrality will limit the college’s ability to respond – and resist.

The declaration of neutrality was made as a stopgap measure in response to student protests for the Gaza ceasefire during the final academic year. For the sake of argument, let's admit that such a response was appropriate for this situation.

Even If True, the problems of a second Trump administration are issues of a different kind. All Jewish students (regardless of their political views) and ceasefire supporters have one thing in common: they potentially are both Goals for the violence of an anti-Semitic, racist Trump administration.

We cannot have “mutual respect” and remain neutral for our minority students – Black, Brown, Asian, Jewish, Palestinian, Trans, Queer, Immigrant – when a mainstream political agenda aims at the extermination, the literal death, of this student body.

***

When will I know exactly?

When I was almost mugged, there was no one around. I waited in the dim dawn for the cafe to open; I was a very worried young man who was hours early for everything. The man who wanted my wallet had followed me for two blocks. He was taller than me (most men are). But he was also visibly nervous and visibly unarmed.

But what if someone else was there, waiting with me? What if it was a student of mine? What if the man had a knife? What if instead of being some desperate guy just trying to make money, he was someone who practiced violence for its own sake?

I can't tell you when it's time to stop talking and throw yourself down. Knock-down, drag-out, etc. But I can tell you that it is not Time to disarm ourselves.

A good martial artist can afford to be held back. But when a fight is unavoidable, you want to have a variety of options.

In a fist fight, neutrality is not neutral.

What if our students are attacked?

Dude, we're in a fucking fistfight.

Peter Medeiros is a senior affiliated faculty at Emerson College and teaches at WLP and the Popular Fiction MFA program. His most recent work is “Hydroplaning,” featured in Giganotosaurus.