In the immediate aftermath of Winter Storm Alfred, a flurry of student activism arose with a mission to provide needed services as well as demand institutional changes in administrative treatment of staff during crises (and beyond). The first goal was to fill in the existing gap of care being provided through student volunteering. The second was to ensure that yesterday’s problems do not become tomorrow’s reality. As an active participant in that ad hoc movement, I am writing in response to last week’s editorial piece, titled “’Students for Staff’ Lacks Input From Those They Represent,” which brought many problematics of student organizing to the surface.

It is absolutely false that a group dedicated to communicating with staff was created 24 hours after a demands group was made, as they were both formed at the same moment, and students spoke with at least 50 staff members throughout the process, contrary to what was editorialized in the Argus last week. Nevertheless, the issues of participatory justice, paternalism, and failings of nomenclature highlighted in the editorial are valid, and warrant longer debate. I aim to fill a small part of this desperately needed discussion, and I call on others to follow with their own thoughts and reflections.

Was this student movement perfect? Certainly not. Was it conscious enough of its own privilege? Likely, no. But were the students involved reflecting on their privilege, seeking out dialogues with staff, and speaking only as students, for students? Yes. I do not believe this movement was too hasty in its approach nor oppressive in its implementation, and I continue to stand in full, unflinching support of the “Call to Action.” This collectively-written statement is highly cognizant of paternalistic dynamics, and is carefully worded to avoid judgment and assumption. It is made very clear in the preamble that the Call is speaking along with the staff voices we had heard, not for them.

In my numerous discussions across three different sectors of Wesleyan staff, none expressed concerns about our work unintentionally causing harm, and many enthusiastically supported the effort. Others argued, despite differences in opinion as to the appropriate solution, that the sheer act of forcing a conversation about staff treatment within the administration made the entire movement worthwhile.

I believe that this student movement cannot be delegitimized for failing to initiate an all-staff dialogue on this issue, as the editorial advocates, since no formal channels for communication between students and staff exist (but they should!). Such a worthwhile event would be entirely unprecedented. If anything, this is the job of the administration, which knows all the appropriate channels through which a conversation of that magnitude could occur.

The editorial is right to point out the failings of the term “staff,” since it is vague and encompasses too many unique sectors of staff. I argue, again, that students cannot be blamed for utilizing this language, since the compartmentalization of the Wesleyan community (into its cozy categories of students, alumni, faculty, staff, administrators, parents, trustees, etc.) comes directly out of the administration’s own nomenclature, and was well ingrained in the campus consciousness when we entered this institution. I feel it would have been paternalistic had our “Call to Action” specified which staff sectors needed which services, because that would require unfair assumptions about who needs what.

I truly feel this was a self-reflexive movement, albeit an imperfect one which needs to reflect even more on its position and privilege. I welcome all perspectives to respond to mine, and ask all who agree to sign on to our petition for the “Call to Action,” which was submitted to Dean Whaley and forwarded to John Meerts last week, with 365 signatures gathered over the course of 4 days (the link to the petition is on Wesleying).

But I have a more urgent point to make. We need more calls to action! We need to make the process of demanding the best of each other a part of daily campus existence. If we truly are a community, the “Wesleyan Community,” then we are a highly fragmented one. Communication across boundaries is scarce, and antagonism is high. If we have any hope of being accountable to each other, we must always be able to call on each other to change when needed.

In this spirit, I would like to issue a number of “Calls to Action” of my own.

TO THE ARGUS:

Thank you for being a reliable source for transparency and dialogue on this campus, and special thanks to the Argus editorial staff for raising your valid concerns and inviting feedback. I call on you to use the same critical lens to which you analyzed this student movement, primarily concerned with participation and paternalism, onto all sectors of campus life, especially that of the administration, in the service of improved transparency. How often does the administration make decisions without consensus or adequate participation from those the decisions impact? With this lens, I imagine you will have far too much to write about.

TO THE STAFF:

Thank you for everything you do, from food preparation to cleaning to campus maintenance and safety. This campus could not exist without you, and my personal relationships with staff members have been some of my most rewarding experiences at Wesleyan. I call on you to engage openly in this dialogue, if you are able. Please, I ask that you inform student organizers if their efforts ever become unnecessary, paternalistic, insulting or misguided, and to engage with interested students so we can appropriately leverage our student privilege in support of labor rights. I do not want to place the burden of teaching students to be cognizant of privilege on you, but because students can easily get ahead of themselves, I feel we would all benefit from an honest student-staff relationship which can tell itself to take a step back when need be.

TO THE ADMINISTRATION:

Thank you for caring for student needs during the snowstorm, and for managing the impossibly difficult behind-the-scenes work that keeps Wesleyan running. I call on you to meet the three-week deadline of the “Call to Action” in a way that is participatory and transparent. You have the ability to access many resources and networks students cannot. You have the power to implement the changes I and many others wish to see. Host the forms of dialogue presented in the “Call to Action,” and hear from those you are not familiar speaking with, such as ABM staff. Take it as a challenge to enhance your working relationship with all sectors of campus life, and diminish existing antagonisms. I challenge you to prove the demands of this student movement wrong in the process of adhering to its call. The three-week deadline expires on Monday, November 28th.

TO THE STUDENTS:

Thank you for being delightful, unique, creative and present, and for making my time in this university rich. I call on you to engage with the politics of the institution in which we live, and cultivate a culture of activism that leaves lasting changes on this campus. Talk to each other, be involved and get your hands dirty. Continue to engage in dialogue with staff, and consider joining the United Student Labor Action Coalition (USLAC), which has been engaging with staff on campus for over two decades. As the major consumers of this academic experience, it is time for us to check our privilege, recognize our power, and take back this campus in the service of justice.