This issue of the Hermes goes to press at a time when the chalking issues seems to have come to a head. On May 12 President Bennet announced, via a campus-wide email (see p.9), that the moratorium on chalking had ended, and that in its stead would be a permanent ban. Many students feel betrayed, but certainly not surprised. After months (years if we go back before the moratorium) of debate, committee meetings, student protest, and campus-wide forums, Bennet made a unilateral decision to ban chalking. He also proved himself a smart politician: he announced his ban after exams had begun and after the Argus had stopped printing for the semester. Perhaps he assumed that dissent would be stifled by study sessions and a lack of media. His lack understanding of Wesleyan students is all the more exposed: on the night of May 12 a quickly-organized protest of about 75 students marched to his house making a racket. And the Hermes goes to print with a special issue on chalking. Wesleyan students have made it clear that they will not be silenced by Bennet’s decision.

At the same time, Sarah Norr has been facing SJB charges for having spraypainted on campus property in protest of the chalking moratorium. Though she was one of many spraypainters, she was the only one caught, and as of May 13 faces a fine of $1500. Despite the fact that over 200 students signed a statement claiming responsibility, the SJB has maintained the charge against Sarah. - Kate Standish

The following is the statement from one of those who spraypainted along-side Sarah, written before the Bennet announced the ban.

I spray-painted for a number of reasons. The administration, and President Bennet in particular, has made it clear that the avenues for communication about chalking are more or less closed. At the second community meeting about student of color issues, Bennet mentioned that he would be meeting with members of student groups in the coming weeks to talk to them about his final decision on chalking. When someone asked him which student groups he would be speaking to, he acknowledged that he had no plans to actually speak to any new students, and suggested that he had really been referring to previous conversations with members of the WSA chalking committee. This highlights what had been clear to us all along: Bennet had no intention of making this decision in communication with the members of this community. Ultimately, it comes down to his opinion.

The possibility of spray painting came up among people disturbed about the chalking moratorium from the very beginning. We really wanted to work through other means and hoped that with the combined voices of the students, faculty and the WSA, the administration would listen to what we had to say. After nearly an entire year of fruitless meetings, erased chalkings and administration silence, we've come to believe that this was the only way to getour message heard. None of us wanted to face hefty fines or the SJB for what we were doing, and we wouldn't have if we felt that we had another choice.

I stand by my decision to take part, however. For Dean Hill to complain that cleaning up the spray paint is wasting this institution's money exactly proves our point. It cost $8,000 for the zamboni to clean up two days worth of spray paint. How much of our money has the administration wasted running that zamboni for an entire year to enforce Bennet's moratorium? The moratorium is a disgrace to everything that Wesleyan stands for.