At Boston College, silence has become the safest language to speak.
A few weeks ago, I recorded a video of a man shouting a racial slur at Black students outside St. Mary’s. I hesitated before sharing it. I did not hesitate because I doubted what I saw, but because I was afraid of what might happen to me if I reported it. I worried that if the man turned out to be faculty or staff, I’d get in trouble for recording without permission or for some other irrelevant reason. That fear says everything about this university’s culture: at BC, accountability feels riskier than racism.
I eventually decided to circulate the video among students, hoping that if enough people saw it, it couldn’t be ignored. But, despite these efforts, it almost was. The administration issued a vague response, and most students went on with their week as if nothing had happened. The message was clear to me: At BC, as long as it doesn’t touch you personally, it’s not worth caring about.
That pattern keeps repeating itself. Nearly a month has passed since Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) was seen operating near campus. UGBC is still debating whether to release a statement condemning ICE’s actions and presence. Meanwhile, those affected most directly, such as immigrant students, first-generation students, and students of color are left to wonder if anyone will ever speak up for them.
How much silence does it take before we admit that neutrality is not neutral?
BC prides itself on forming “men and women for others.” Yet, when faced with moments that demand moral courage, the institution and its students often choose comfort instead.
Administrators hide behind “ongoing investigations” and “official procedures.”
Students hide behind the excuse of being “apolitical.” But there is no such thing. To say nothing in the face of injustice is to protect the status quo. Silence is a statement and it says that this isn’t my problem.
Maybe it’s easy not to care when injustice feels far away. But I can’t separate what happens here from what happens back home.
I’m from Cicero, Ill., a community that has frequently been the target of ICE operations. I’ve seen videos of officers dragging people away as their families cry out, powerless. I’ve seen neighbors disappear overnight. When the background of those videos is the grocery store I go to, when the people being taken look like my friends and relatives, I don’t have the luxury of not caring.
The lack of outrage at BC stings so deeply. I’m surrounded by students who can debate ethics in class but go silent when those ethics require action, students who will repost infographics during an election year but say nothing when ICE shows up a few blocks from campus, and students who will analyze “privilege” in philosophy seminars but refuse to recognize how their own safety depends on others’ vulnerability.
There’s been a dead mouse on the steps outside my dorm for weeks now. No one’s moved it. People, including myself, walk over it on their way to class every day. It is still there, shriveled into something unrecognizable, a reminder of how easily we can step around what’s uncomfortable.
To me, that’s what BC’s bystander effect looks like—not loud cruelty, but quiet neglect. I understand the instinct to stay silent. I’ve done it myself. But silence doesn’t make anything better. It just lets it rot.
I went to the protest after the ICE sightings. I showed up because I’m tired of pretending that caring is radical. It shouldn’t take a protest to make people pay attention. It shouldn’t take fear, or proximity, or personal loss to make us act.
BC teaches us to strive for greatness but not to risk anything for justice. It teaches us to be kind, but not to be brave. We are encouraged to volunteer, donate, and write reflective essays but not to challenge the systems that create the very suffering we claim to care about.
When you tell yourself you’re “staying out of politics,” what you’re really saying is that your comfort is worth more than someone else’s pain. You’re saying that your silence is worth protecting, even if it means others are left unheard.
So, I have to ask: What will it take for you to care about someone other than yourself? Does it have to be your friend, classmate, or family member being targeted before you decide that silence is no longer an option?
This isn’t just about one incident or one policy. It’s about a university and a student body that has grown far too comfortable watching from the sidelines. It’s about the fear that if you speak up, you’ll be punished, while those who harm others will be protected. It’s about the illusion that BC can remain a “community” while ignoring the suffering that happens in plain sight.
I don’t want to be afraid to speak anymore. I don’t want any student to have to choose between being safe and being heard. We can’t build the kind of community BC loves to advertise without the willingness to confront what’s broken within it.
BC can no longer afford to stay silent, and neither can we.
Because silence might protect your reputation, but it will never protect your humanity.

Saya Hillman • Nov 7, 2025 at 7:17 pm
Thank you for writing this and for being vulnerable and for speaking up
I’m a BC ’00 grad, grew up in Evanston, and spent 20+ years in Chicago — what’s happening there now with ICE is terrifying and disgusting. Tiny rays of light are the communities coming together, Chicago politicians refuting inhumanity, and those with privilege recognizing the privilege and using it to help those without.
I too am looking at BC to be a voice. To be on the right side of history.
Keep on speaking up!
Gregg Sparkman • Nov 7, 2025 at 11:52 am
Very well said. The campus should take a more vocal stand on this and other major issues of the day when the values it espouses are being violated out in the world (or here at BC). BC may think it’s protecting its students by ‘keeping its head down’ during difficult times, but silence on important matters can easily do more harm than good as it reduces students’ belonging and well being: e.g., students already worry they may be targeted by ICE, but now they do so feeling like the broader campus community is apathetic on the issue. BC should foster a culture of speaking out, including practical efforts like bystander intervention training (we have this for sexual violence, but it is relevant to more issues than that). Moral responsiveness is a skill–it requires practice and education. Seems exactly like the type of thing BC would want to provide for students.
Nahum de la Sancha • Nov 6, 2025 at 5:19 pm
I really proud of you and always I will be supporting you on these topics?
Love you!
NSA
Carol Gilbert • Nov 6, 2025 at 2:13 pm
This alum is glad you spoke up!
Curious George • Nov 6, 2025 at 1:49 pm
True compassion shouldn’t be compelled by social pressure or dictated by institutions. It’s voluntary. Demanding that students or administrators take political stances undermines the very freedom of thought that a university should protect. At a place of higher learning, people should be free to speak — or not speak — without being branded as immoral.
Your call, Magali, for mandatory outrage is a symptom of the collectivist mindset that dominates our campuses. It’s one thing to condemn racism — which any moral person would do — but it’s another to demand that others adopt your preferred political response. Liberty means respecting others’ right to form their own judgments, even if you think they’re wrong.
Moral outrage is easy. Upholding free speech and its implications is harder. Universities should protect free and open discourse, not weaponize it to enforce ideological conformity.
My point is that we don’t need university committees to tell us when to care or not to care.
Magali De La Sancha • Nov 6, 2025 at 2:13 pm
I’m all for open debate, that’s the point of writing. But if you’re going to use my name, have the courage to use yours too. Dialogue requires mutual accountability, not anonymity.
I also want to clarify something. My op-ed was never a call for “mandatory outrage” or for university committees to dictate when students should care. It was a call to recognize that we already live under an unspoken system that teaches us not to. When students hesitate to report racism, when ICE shows up near campus and no one says a word, when we’re more afraid of institutional backlash than of injustice itself, that’s not freedom. That’s silence reinforced by structure.
True compassion is voluntary, yes, but true freedom means being able to express that compassion without fear. Right now, BC’s culture rewards quiet compliance more than moral courage. It’s not about forcing people to speak; it’s about questioning why so many feel safer when they don’t.
We don’t need committees to tell us when to care. We need a university that stops discouraging it.
Free speech is more than the right to stay silent. It is the right to speak with conviction and stand by your words, name included.
Curious George • Nov 7, 2025 at 10:39 am
I appreciate your response, Magali, but I think the real issue isn’t what you call a “lack of moral courage” — it’s the growing belief that moral courage can be collectively prescribed (which it can’t).
You’re right that silence can be reinforced by the structure of an institution, but so can speech. When universities or social climates reward only one kind of “approved” moral stance, students don’t become freer — they just learn to repeat the right slogans to stay out of trouble. That isn’t compassion; it’s forced compliance.
A truly free society — and a university that truly upholds freedom of speech/thought — doesn’t demand moral unanimity. It trusts people to form their moral convictions freely, not under the weight of social pressure or institutional approval. Conscience can’t be mandated; it’s born of liberty, not from authority.
As for my choice to remain anonymous, it’s not about hiding; it’s ultimately from principle that I choose to use a pseudonym. Ideas should always stand on their own merit, not on the name attached to them. In an age when speaking freely unfortunately carries a price, anonymity, in my opinion, becomes the last refuge of intellectual honesty.
So, I will repeat myself to conclude: The moment we start treating disagreement as a moral crime and silence as complicity, freedom of thought becomes a mere formality, not a fact. Real compassion can’t be coerced; it must come from a person’s individual choice. That’s what freedom truly is.
Curious about you George • Nov 7, 2025 at 4:53 pm
Ok I think I get it. You don’t want people to be forced to respond to ICE or racism, but the bigger point I am taking away from this op-ed is the hollow betrayal she (and myself after reading this) felt because it didn’t come naturally to more students and people involved at BC to show outrage or even some form of emotion about things that should offend us all.
Drew • Nov 7, 2025 at 6:23 am
“At a place of higher learning, people should be free to speak — or not speak — without being branded as immoral.”
Why? You make this assertion as though it’s a fact, when it’s actually an argument that you don’t elaborate on. Why does attending an institution of higher learning exempt you from criticism? That seems antithetical to the entire purpose of attaining a respectable education. If your arguments can’t survive challenge, that ought to be considered a learning moment, not a moral violation.
“Liberty means respecting others’ right to form their own judgments, even if you think they’re wrong. ”
The author isn’t challenging your right to form your own judgement, they’re challenging the judgement itself. Challenging ideas is the heart of free speech (and a defining feature of universities).
“Universities should protect free and open discourse, not weaponize it to enforce ideological conformity.”
Sure. “Free and open discourse” is a noble thing to chase. A racist tirade doesn’t facilitate that, though–just the opposite, in fact. It aims to silence others based on anything except the merit of their discourse. By taking a strong stance against racism, an institution fosters the exact sort of dialogue you claim to want. By ignoring it, they invite the exact sort of silencing you claim to abhor.
“My point is that we don’t need university committees to tell us when to care or not to care.”
And your point is directly addressed by the person you’re replying to: silence in the face of challenge is as much a choice as action is. You may choose not to speak–others may use their speech to call you out. That’s not a violation of your rights, it’s a consequence of your choices.
Curious George • Nov 7, 2025 at 10:57 am
Drew — I agree that criticism is part of free discourse. I never said anything contradicting that. But there’s a difference between criticism and moral branding. The former sharpens ideas; the latter silences them.
I’m not arguing that students should be shielded from ideas or opinions that challenge their own; far from that, in fact. I’m rather arguing that students shouldn’t be treated as immoral simply for refusing to join a political chorus. A real university defends the right to think freely. It shouldn’t demand participation in “approved” forms of activism.
Free speech protects more than the right to speak, Drew—it also protects the right to refrain from speaking. When silence is condemned and dissent demonized, we begin sacrificing intellectual liberty for social control.
Condemning racism is, of course, right and necessary. But when virtue becomes a test of public compliance — when “caring” becomes a social requirement — we substitute genuine compassion/moral character with ideological obedience.
The point of liberty is that moral conviction (in this case, “compassion”) must be voluntary. Coerced virtue isn’t virtue at all; it’s called political theater.
T'Challa • Nov 7, 2025 at 2:12 pm
I would point you to the end of the Op-Ed when the OP writes that they don’t want to be afraid to speak anymore. They also don’t want their peers to choose between being safe and being heard. What struck me the most is what the author describes as an inconsistency in what we preach vs practice on campus. I am on this campus daily and am inspired by how we talk about service at BC. Yet, this author prompts me to think about what the limits are to me truly practicing service in ways that are safe and perhaps not safe (maybe losing a job or being ostracized by peers). Are those limits self-imposed or are they imposed by the very institution that tells me to care about questionable incidents? In fact, do I avoid the debate of real incidents so that the federal government doesn’t target BC and instead retreat to the safety of hypotheticals, which can draw far less attention? Do I use a pseudonym to protect myself because I don’t want to draw more attention to myself when I am often interacting with people both internal and external to BC (that is referring to myself…not you). I think the author raises very thought-provoking questions using two real-world and recent campus incidents. I think the author also asks the campus community to be consistent in our professed morals. “We are encouraged to volunteer, donate, and write reflective essays but not to challenge the systems that create the very suffering we claim to care about.” That might be the line that strikes me the most. While I will concede that many factors go into someone’s decision to remain silent on issues about which they care, I think you are missing the point of this article. I think the author is saying that IF you care about these issues, there comes a point when you need to not just be silent. Honestly, the article was a reminder of the poem “First They Came”, which I interpret as a reminder of what complicity can reap. I prefer to think about why some may choose to stay silent, which could be very practical. In which case the author seems to be offering a critique of the institution that created conditions for people to have practical reasons not to speak up in our campus community.
Drew • Nov 7, 2025 at 8:40 pm
George, the phrase “moral branding” does not transform free speech into something else. It’s a distinction without a difference that you have yet to justify.
Nobody is being “coerced”, forced into “compliance”, or being threatened if they’re not “obedient”. Nobody is under strict “social control”, and nothing about this article demands “involuntary” action. None of your arguments using those words touch upon the actual content of the writing. The author is simply asking the university to use its speech to stand with the student body it relies on to exist. Mischaracterizing an optional appeal as coercion is the foundational flaw in your comments.
The idea that we must allow overt racists to denigrate the members of our community on grounds of free speech, but that an institution denouncing it would be a political attack on our autonomy is fundamentally flawed and one-sided. You would have the exact same “intellectual liberty” to disregard it that the immigrant students on campus had to exercise when their backgrounds were used to attack them.
The Real Curious George • Nov 7, 2025 at 10:08 am
What you call “liberty,” I call a convenient excuse for moral laziness. You’re dressing indifference up as intellectual virtue. Saying compassion should be “voluntary” sounds noble until you realize it’s the oldest shield of the comfortable — a way to do nothing while pretending to defend principle.
You warn that expecting people to speak up “undermines freedom.” But freedom without accountability is moral anarchy. Universities aren’t supposed to be museums of neutrality; they’re meant to be crucibles of conscience. When institutions refuse to take a stand, they’re not protecting thought, they’re protecting apathy and harm.
You call it “mandatory outrage.” I call it moral awareness. When someone’s humanity is under attack, silence isn’t neutrality, it’s consent. History doesn’t remember the people who politely declined to get involved. It remembers who stood up.
No one’s asking for ideological conformity… we’re asking for courage. The courage to say that racism, bigotry, and dehumanization are wrong — not as political stances, but as basic human truths. To hide behind “freedom of thought” as a reason to stay silent is to twist liberty into license for cowardice.
Yeah, moral outrage is easy. But pretending that apathy is enlightenment is easier. And far more dangerous.
Curious George • Nov 7, 2025 at 11:12 am
I think you’re mistaking liberty for apathy. Freedom isn’t an excuse to do nothing — it’s the condition that makes moral action meaningful. A person’s compassion only means something when it’s freely chosen, not demanded. A choice made under pressure, threat, or moral shaming isn’t virtue; it’s compliance.
I agree when you say freedom without accountability is chaos; but you don’t seem to understand that, on the other hand, conscience without freedom soon becomes tyranny. Real compassion can’t be commanded — it has to come from within, or it’s just politics wearing the mask of morality.
Universities should and are, in my opinion, even obliged to form their students’ consciences properly and responsibly — but through persuasion and open debate, not enforced conformity. When people are told what they must say to prove their moral decency, we don’t encourage fortitude — we build conformity. Free thought isn’t the enemy of compassion; it’s what gives compassion its worth.
History’s worst mistakes have come from people who thought their moral certainty/righteousness justified silencing others. . The freedom to speak, dissent, or even stay silent is what protects all other freedoms, including the freedom to be “compassionate.”