Over the past year, Pomona College’s campus has been shrouded in fierce debates and protests regarding the college’s response to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Spaces across campus, including Pomona’s Carnegie, Marston Quad and Alexander Hall have been occupied and used for political activism.
The Walker Free Wall in front of Frary dining hall is no exception. Messages from both sides, including those criticizing the conflation of antisemitism with anti-Zionism, and concerns about potential antisemitic views among pro-Palestinian protesters, have turned the wall into a dynamic space reflecting ongoing dialogue at the colleges.
However, last week, Haverim, a non-religious space for Jewish students at the Claremont Colleges, painted over a section of Walker Wall that addressed the debate on conflating anti-Zionism with antisemitism in activist responses to the Israel-Palestine conflict. According to Haverim, the event – which encouraged participants to keep designs apolitical and inclusive – was an effort to “restore unity and fun to the wall and to [the] schools,” a step back from the acrimonious discourse that has consumed Pomona’s campus over the last year.
Yet, however well-intentioned, it is inherently contradictory to strip a free wall of its political nature. A “free” space should remain open to all forms of expression — without dictating whether it is political or apolitical — and an act that promotes apolitical content over political speech is inherently political. By claiming neutrality, Haverim imposes a stance on what should remain an unregulated platform for dialogue.
Whitewashing a political space under the pretext of neutrality isn’t just wrong — it’s a political act in itself. Apoliticism allows people to silence political voices without having to critically engage with them, while also depriving the other side of the opportunity to defend their beliefs. It also represents an acceptance of the status quo, which dismisses political dissent.
By uncritically accepting the status quo, we normalize the world’s issues rather than challenge them. These actions raise questions about the privilege of those who advocate for apoliticism and why some messages are deemed “political” while others are deemed “neutral.”
Attempting to strip politics with such an action not only fails to reduce campus tensions but also ignores the significant and far-reaching implications this discourse bears for both Pomona students and people facing political oppression around the world.
Furthermore, erasing political spaces doesn’t erase the real issues they highlighted, and concealing spaces that memorialize and address critical, serious matters doesn’t make them “fun” — it strips them of their true purpose. There are plenty of spaces on campus we can designate as “fun” and “apolitical,” but covering up an established political space is a blatant attempt to control and derail the narrative under the guise of neutrality. It uses the illusion of nonpartisan unity to diminish the voices of activists.
Since 1975, when Pomona students used the wall to express support for the then-incarcerated civil rights activist Angela Davis, Walker Wall has functioned as a living symbol of free expression. In its openness and public accessibility, the Wall is an open and democratic forum for dialogue. The ability of groups to freely and affordably paint messages supports this. It stands as a symbol of free speech and debate, of Pomona’s legacy of inculcating its students with a vigorous ability to critique and intellectually affect the world.
To erase the wall of its politics is to erase the advocacy of Asian American groups who paved the way toward creating our Asian American Studies department; to erase the history of Jewish Pomona students who rallied after the October synagogue shootings; to erase the history of AIDS advocacy at Pomona. It erases the work of students who led political change in the face of adversity, shaping the very identity of our school — something that should concern everyone, regardless of personal beliefs.
To be clear, work by Haverim has a rightful place on the wall, just as the previous expressions it covered did. But its “apolitical” message undermines the wall’s purpose as a space for free expression. Regardless of political stance, we should all agree to protect spaces for open political expression and cultivate a student culture that recognizes and respects free speech. This is vital to retaining the ethos of our community.
Walker Wall is more than a canvas for transient messages; it is a testament to the power of collective expression in our community. If we allow it to be stripped of its political significance, we risk losing a vital platform for activism, dialogue, and change. We cannot afford that in today’s world.
Eric Lu PO ’28 is from Salt Lake City, Utah. He enjoys walking past the Walker Wall every day and hopes that it will remain a space for political dialogue on campus.
Facebook Comments