You have /5 articles left.
Sign up for a free account or log in.
The October 2024 issue of Written Revolution, which is no longer permitted to be distributed on MIT’s campus.
Photo illustration by Justin Morrison/Inside Higher Ed | Prahlad Iyengar
When a group of students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology launched a pro-Palestine magazine in the spring of 2024, they hoped it would serve as a platform for “revolutionary thought on campus,” according to its first issue: “We believe that writing and art are among the most powerful tools for conducting a revolution.” Housing artwork, literature and essays related to Israel’s ongoing war in Gaza, the publication, titled Written Revolution, began as a totally independent magazine before becoming an official student organization this fall.
Soon after the October 2024 issue of the magazine came out, however, administrators in the Division of Student Life emailed the publication’s editorial team, demanding that they stop distributing the magazine on campus, according to an email shared with Inside Higher Ed by Prahlad Iyengar, one of the publication’s editors. If they continued to distribute it off campus, the administrators wrote, they must remove any reference to MIT; if they did not comply, they could face disciplinary action.
According to the email, administrators took issue with an article in the October edition that Iyengar wrote himself. Iyengar, a second-year Ph.D. student, had been penalized for his participation in a pro-Palestinian demonstration last spring, and his disciplinary case was ongoing when the October issue was published. Titled “On Pacifism,” his article critiques pacifist movements, arguing that the pro-Palestinian movement must “begin wreaking havoc.”
“The article makes several troubling statements that could be interpreted as a call for more violent or destructive forms of protest at MIT,” the administrators wrote. “Numerous community members have expressed concern for their safety and well-being after learning of your article.”
They also noted that some of the images accompanying the article depict symbols of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, which the United States has designated as a terrorist organization. “The inclusion of symbolism from a U.S. designated terrorist organization containing violent imagery in a publication by an MIT-recognized student group is deeply concerning,” they wrote.
It’s the latest conflict between students and administrators over student expression related to the war in Gaza—and a vivid example of protesters, institutions and free speech advocates disagreeing on what exactly constitutes a call to violence. The issue has pervaded campus discourse since the start of the current pro-Palestinian protest movement over a year ago, with some harshly condemning phrases like “From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free” as a call to eradicate Israel and its people, while others argue it’s simply a cry for peace and Palestinian self-determination.
Iyengar said that the main call to action in his piece was not encouraging readers to commit violence, but rather reminding them that “we should be thinking of ways to connect to the community, and we should be thinking of ways that really subvert state power—because, to me, strategic pacifism is effectively an admission that the state should have a monopoly over violence.”
The publication has ceased nearly all distribution in response to administrators’ demands, according to students affiliated with the organization, and Iyengar is facing disciplinary action.
An email to Iyengar from the Office of Student Conduct and Community Standards regarding his alleged conduct violations used identical language to the notice sent to Written Revolution’s staff, adding that the new charges will be added to his existing conduct case. The email also described another incident, in which Iyengar sent a message to students working in a campus lab, describing why a pro-Palestinian protest had taken place outside earlier in the day. The message, the office wrote, targeted two professors for working on projects funded by the Israeli military and “exacerbated the distress” of the student lab employees. Iyengar shared the message with Inside Higher Ed; in it, he told the student workers that the protesters did not wish to “shame or intimidate” them and “invited them to participate in Graduates for Palestine’s efforts to end MIT’s research relationship with Israel.”
The student conduct office indicated that his article “On Pacifism” violated a policy that prohibits “threats, intimidation, coercion, and other conduct that can be reasonably, objectively construed to threaten or endanger the mental or physical health or safety of any person.” A separate email sent the same day said he would be restricted from campus access on an interim basis until further notice.
Free Speech Concerns
A campus speech expert with the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression told Inside Higher Ed that the writing in Iyengar’s essay does not constitute a threat and is not punishable under the First Amendment.
“When we’re talking about fears of inciting violence, it needs to be calling not just for some kind of illegal action, simply construed—it needs to be calling for imminent lawless action,” said Dominic Coletti, a campus advocacy program officer for FIRE. “It really does have to be directed at a group of people who can immediately do the thing you’re telling them to do. Your readers just can’t do that. They’re not sitting in front of you.”
Some believe the university has taken an overzealous approach to stopping the magazine’s distribution. Two students who had distributed copies of Written Revolution prior to its ban told Inside Higher Ed they were approached by a campus police officer and asked if they were distributing “banned fliers.” They were sitting and chatting in an area of campus where they had distributed the zines before they were told not to, but had no copies on them when the officer approached.
One of the two students, who requested anonymity, said they found it “alarming” that campus police would be involved in stopping them from distributing a publication.
Mila Halgren, the other student, said that, since that day, police have approached other pro-Palestinian organizers tabling on campus to ask about the materials they were handing out.
“[That] hasn’t happened before and doesn’t happen to other student organizations,” she said.
Students and faculty have pushed back against MIT’s decision to prohibit the zine’s distribution, calling it a “ban on free speech.” Nearly 100 individuals showed up to protest the censorship of the magazine last month, according to WBUR, Boston’s NPR station, and nearly 3,000 people have signed a petition asking the university to reverse the decision. The Middle East Studies Association has also stood behind Iyengar and Written Revolution, asking MIT president Sally Kornbluth and other administrators to end all sanctions against him and unrestrict the distribution of the zine.
“Notwithstanding MIT’s suggestions to the contrary, Iyengar’s email message and article—indisputably forms of expressive activity—fall squarely within his right to free expression and academic freedom, as articulated by MIT’s own policies and rules,” the association’s Committee on Academic Freedom wrote, citing the institution’s Statement on Freedom of Expression and Academic Freedom and Values Statement. “While some members of the MIT community may have been offended or distressed by Iyengar’s email message and article, according to the university’s own policies those feelings cannot be used to deprive Iyengar of his right to express his opinions on matters of public and scholarly concern.”
Kornbluth was one of several university presidents interrogated by House Republicans a year ago during congressional hearings about antisemitism on college campuses; she is one of the few presidents who participated in those hearings to remain in her job a year later.
In response to a request for comment, an MIT spokesperson told Inside Higher Ed that the institution cannot comment on specific students or disciplinary cases.
“MIT and its leadership are deeply committed to ensuring community safety, promoting student well-being, protecting free speech, and responding to policy violations,” she wrote.
The anonymous student who was approached by police over concerns about Written Revolution said in an interview that they thought the university’s ban on the zine, and subsequent punishment of Iyengar, had indeed chilled speech about Palestine in recent weeks.
“Most people have really not been handing them out in any visible way on campus. People have tried really hard to comply with the ban because we don’t want [Iyengar] removed from campus [or] to face any more harsh discipline,” the student said—noting that the issue is still available online. In addition, “they’ve claimed this is associated with capital-T terrorism … It’s chilled the spreading and sharing of the document.”
