Housing Part of Larger Problem

Once again, the campus is divided by tensions between students and administration; this time the issue is off-campus housing. The arguments on both sides of the issue have merit, however the main issue that seems to be emerging from this debate is one that goes beyond the housing issue: trasparency in decision-making.

The seemingly opaque decision-making process in which the administration engages has proven to be a recurring source of anger when these decisions affect the student body. Recent examples of contentious administrative decisions include the cutting of the London program and the Asian-American History position, the adoption of the Fearless marketing strategy and the closing of Biggs computer lab. In all of these cases, students mobilized to combat these unpopular decisions; the College has sometimes modified its decisions as a result of student concern and protest.

But limiting student input on influential decisions, whether totally or to “selected students” only, is one likely reason for last semester’s “no confidence” vote in Nancy Dye. This strategic plan of appeasement — first limiting student input, then placating them with partial solutions — clearly is not effective administration. Such behavior not only undermines the trust that students have in the decision-making power of the Administration, but also their authority. The College does not need to side with student voice in every instance, but it does need to increase the trasparency of its decision-making process.

Student groups, including Senate and committees, have a responsibility to fight for this transparency; representitives should make sure that information reaches the entire student body that would be affected by the decision at hand. They should publicize issues responsibly, not through misleading flyers strewn around campus.

The decision to limit off-campus housing to seniors is in the same vein as other College decisions. This decision is in direct conflict with handbook policies given to rising seniors as freshmen, policies that promised off-campus housing to all seniors. Although the College had explicitly stated that it reserves the right to make changes to the handbook, these changes should have been announced prior to the assignments coming out, instead of letting students learn from lists posted outside of Griswold.

The decision to let fewer people off-campus was publicized and in accordance with the Strategic Plan (approved and adopted by the General Faculty), but the actual implications of this policy and how the process for granting off-campus status functions could have been made more clear. The College and ResEd should have been upfront with students regarding the specifics of the off-campus policy: a simple number of students minus the number of beds yields the number who get off-campus. Regardless the intent behind those policies, it is now apparent that for students, the unclear, misunderstood policy feels like another example of the College’s disregard for student voice.

The administration must take steps to repair its relationship with the student body. It is important that the College advertise its decisions that significantly alter students’ lives before they feel an imediate impact, in order to reduce tension and facilitate student input. If the College does not alter its decision-making process to better include students, tensions will compound to an irreparable state in which no confidence clearly hinges on incompetence.
 
 

About us
Subscriptions
Advertising

Previous issue
Archives

Powered by