This May, pro-Palestine protesters disrupted a commencement ceremony at the College of Staten Island. A crowd of students chanted, “Palestine will be free.”
The next month, Liam Carey, a Williams College sophomore, tied himself to a Williams campus flagpole, replaced the U.S. flag with a Palestinian one, and wrote pro-Palestine graffiti on Sawyer Quad. The Williamstown police arrested Carey on multiple charges—felony vandalism, misdemeanor destruction of property, and resisting arrest.
Carey illustrates how civic engagement, also known as “action civics,” can serve as training for ideologically extreme activism. In high school, he was involved in environmental campaigns and “collective liberation”—a trajectory that eventually led him to the Palestine movement. The progression from environmental activism to pro-Palestinian activism is increasingly common; Greta Thunberg is perhaps the most famous example.
The language of action civics itself encourages this shift. Students are taught to apply “pressure,” to “force” institutions to “take action,” and to “make our voices heard.” As Carey once wrote in an op-ed for the Williams Record:
But no matter how good an education we get at this college, it doesn’t matter if we don’t live long enough to use it. Only pressure from us, the students, will force the College to take action. Our moment is now: Let’s make our voices heard
Carey’s later criminal, anti-civic behavior demonstrates all too clearly what those euphemisms actually mean in practice.
[RELATED: They Drop the Chants but Miss the Canon]
“Student voice,” the so-called pinnacle of civic engagement, now means constant disruption of civil society. Civic engagement, also known as action civics, substitutes partisan activism, which is often violent, for genuine civic education. This education would have otherwise taught students about the founding of America, its government, and the key principles that define our nation. Student protests such as those at the College of Staten Island and Williams College are happening all over the country. A 2024 research survey revealed that 37 percent of students claimed to be involved in protests, walkouts, or encampments on their campus—and predicted that number would increase.
It is important to distinguish between civically productive expression and actions that undermine shared norms and traditions. Productive expression seeks constructive engagement within our social framework—through persuasion, dialogue, and reasoned debate. By contrast, destructive expression relies on intimidation, disruption, and even destruction, eroding the very fabric of civic life.
The costs of such disruption are profound. Take graduation ceremonies: they mark years of effort and sacrifice not only by students, but also by parents, families, and teachers who share in the joy of accomplishment. These ceremonies are more than personal milestones; they are civic occasions, celebrating the development of educated, self-reliant citizens who are essential to the republic’s flourishing.
When protesters hijack these moments for political purposes, the damage goes beyond inconvenience or spoiled celebration. They violate a civic rite. And in doing so, they impose a heavy civic cost on the community at large.
Moreover, these protests aren’t truly civic, in the sense that they are not intended to persuade. They’re more about a mob marking territory. They seek intimidation, not engagement.
“Protest,” moreover, is a deliberately ambiguous word that includes both legal and illegal actions. When protest involves property damage through graffiti, as well as trespass, harassment, and more serious crimes, “protest” is not merely civic engagement, but a criminal enterprise.
Far too many students take part in disruptive student protests. Yet, this surge in “civic action” contrasts alarmingly with students’ ignorance of the fundamentals of American civic knowledge. The American Council of Trustees and Alumni’s 2024 survey reports that current college students and recent graduates possess remarkably limited knowledge of American principles, values, and history. Fewer than one-third of students know when the U.S. Constitution was written or that the legislative branch has the power to declare war.
“Civic engagement” surely hasn’t increased civic knowledge. All it’s done is produce a generation of oblivious activists.
General education requirements in higher education don’t help matters, and they may make matters worse. Speech First, for example, found that 67 percent of the more than 200 colleges and unverties they investigated impose a “diversity, equity, and inclusion” (DEI) course as a graduation requirement. These DEI requirements force students to take “courses advocating far-left ideological perspectives and pushing far-left political advocacy.”
Dedicated offices promoting action civics do as much damage as general education requirements. At Williams College, the Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion actively promotes “Campus and Community Engagement.” The existence of this department alone is questionable, given President Trump’s order to shut down DEI programs.
[RELATED: Is Cracking Down on Political Protest at Graduation a Violation or a Necessity?]
However, its programs, such as the Davis Center Community Engagement Fellows, train students to “educate the campus on issues of identity, power, and privilege” and develop programming to “engage Williams’ diverse communities.”
This framework encourages students to become “peer educators” and “community organizers,” focusing on activism for social justice and collective liberation rather than acquiring foundational civic knowledge. This framework presents American institutions and history as being fundamentally flawed or oppressive. There is a present issue when students are encouraged to view society through the lens of “oppressor” and “oppressed.”
Such initiatives have transformed Williams into a place where disruptive protests are encouraged—Williams’ activist educators will undoubtedly praise Carey’s anti-civic misconduct as a sterling example of “civic engagement.”
This year’s outbreak of disrupted graduations registers America’s crisis of civic education. When student activists disrupt college graduations but cannot name basic American principles, we know they have suffered an anti-civic education. Our sadly mis-educated Liam Careys should know that proper civic education prepares you for graduation, not graffiti, and that you’ve gotten something wrong in your “civic education” when you tear down your country’s flag. As Minding the Campus contributor Benjamin Dorfman recently argued, cracking down on these disruptions is not a violation of free speech, but rather a means of protecting society from disruption. The only way they’ll learn is by deep-rooted reform of our educational institutions.
Our K-12 schools and our colleges need to abandon “action civics.” Instead, they should recommit themselves to true civic education: to educate, enlighten, and equip students with a comprehensive understanding for constructive participation to sustain our republic.
Image: “@Students Occupy March” by Lauren Metter on Flickr
