On Sunday, the Wesleyan Student Assembly held a very productive discussion with President Roth about the recent Board of Trustees meetings. Suffice it to say that we held a very informative discussion on matters such as the endowment, the new fundraising campaign, Greek life, and many other matters. If only the spirit of the meeting, and the tone of engagement, extended much farther beyond the WSA itself.
I sincerely hope that the WSA is not viewed as a bubble as much as it is the deliberative and representative student body. But the dynamic between the WSA and the rest of the student body has generally been more productive and thoughtful than the one between the rest of the student body and the administration. Both the WSA and the administration have mutually sought to hold one another accountable by the standards of transparency and by the virtues of “practical idealism” and progress. But the amount of engagement between the WSA and the rest of the student body is far short of where it should be.
To wit: only twenty students attended a recent forum with President Roth, sponsored by the WSA. The vast majority consisted of members of the WSA itself. The turnout fared only slightly better than the response to Andrew Trexler’s question. At the previous meeting, he reported that he received “a whopping eight” responses from the student body.
Trexler said in last week’s Argus, “Students are constantly clamoring for their (rightful) opportunity to take part in guiding Wesleyan forward, and I would be disappointed to see us throw this chance away.” It seems that when we—both North College and the WSA—just gave them such an opportunity, our efforts to engage the student body came to naught. I still stand by my own printed comments on the procedure that we took, since the timing and nature of the “all-campus” email when workloads tend to increase may have prevented many students from giving the thoughtful responses that they were capable of giving.
Does this disappointment mean that students are not willing to participate in constructive dialogues like these? I absolutely hope not. Otherwise, I would not have matriculated here. But it does seem that many students are more willing to use harsh language toward administrative decisions that intend to alter unsustainable status quos. In those cases, idealism seems to trump practicality rather than be translated to it.
Recently, we heard a large response to the decision to end the current paradigm of “senior cocktails” that has caused literal and figural damage to the University and outside actors. As a member of the SAC, I was among the first students outside of the senior class to find out about the decision. We talked at length about “Dinogate,” as I have started to call it, with Dean Whaley. And here I wish to correct a few major misperceptions.
For one, the move to cancel “senior cocktails” as we now know it for future classes was not a punitive action. The diversion of ticket sales to paying the incurred costs at the museum and the subsequent changes to Senior Week comprised the punitive part. What the administration, in concert with the senior class officers, did for future senior classes was a pre-emptive move. It comprises a better safeguard against the destructive effects of binge drinking than those that were put into effect on the bus and at the museum. After all, some seniors snuck harmful substances onto the bus, exemplifying the exultation of alcohol over class camaraderie. The resulting conduct was not “pathetic,” as President Roth called it before the statement was released, but far worse. It was completely appalling, dishonorable, and antithetical to our University’s values.
For another, the administration is not anti-Wesleyan-student, and their actions do not warrant the antagonism that many students seem to perceive. In Whaley’s and Backer’s cases, they are portrayed in a negative light by default due to the niches that they hold. These are honorable men, simply doing unpopular jobs. And they care for our community, as I have seen in many conversations with the two. In the President’s case, he is the public face of some recent unpopular but courageous decisions, especially with regard to the University’s finances and financial aid model. Perhaps his is a more palatable persona because of both his niche and his status as an alumnus here.
And the move should not be interpreted as a zero-sum game. As the Wesleying poster “pyrotechnics” (I do not know his name) noted, the paradigm used to honor student-faculty bonds and other things that supported the notion of the community. The disaster of February 15 was the result of a “gradual but mutually reinforcing cycle of behavioral change,” one that contradicts the traditions of class camaraderie and faculty-student bonds that attracted many students here, myself included.
Thus, I am disappointed once again in my fellow students for misconstruing the administrative decision. The ideal that we should leave the “senior cocktails” tradition as is, does not reflect the impractical matter of incurring legal and reputational costs from the culture of binge drinking that we should try to curtail. We should instead embrace the challenge of reversing the aforementioned trend, as it has eroded the shaky foundations upon which our relatively small amount of collective school spirit is based. Not that we should have the same traditions as other schools, but we should start creating a new set of traditions that reflect our values.
My critique shall not be misconstrued to be a full defense of the administration’s actions. It too is imperfect, and I am more than willing to hold them accountable for moves that I believe will cause more harm than good. I will certainly try to hold them accountable, as I try to do for my peers. For example, I, along with several other students, voiced concerns about the proposed development across High Street from 202 Washington Street—my old house—due to the problematic traffic flow there.
Instead, I wish to help the administration and my peers reinvigorate the paradigm where the student body and the administration hold each other mutually accountable while embracing each other’s desire to move the school forward. If we disagree with their actions, may we hold them accountable for those alone. Let us not describe them with unwarranted adjectives.
At the same time, as a member of the Wesleyan Student Assembly and of the University in general, I encourage all members to hold me accountable where necessary. We are all our brothers’ keepers, and we have not acted in that manner to the extent that I would have liked to see during my time here. This may be one of the ways in which my own idealism has overshadowed my practicality.
The WSA has tabled the vote on the controversial Neon Deli resolution in order to get more student feedback. Several representatives, myself included, have voiced the desire to generate a survey. I hope that if this happens, students will use this valuable opportunity to help shape the future of our school.
May we hope that the research discussion was an aberration in a long-standing tradition of all-campus dialogue. Hopeful as I am due to recent discussions on diversity on campus, I would like to see our ideals translated into both practicality and practice. Let us continue the dialogue throughout the break and beyond, for we all share the duty of being informed participants in productive discussions that will help move our beloved University forward.
1 Comment
Jason Shatz
Note: there is a typo. A sentence in the second paragraph should read: “But the dynamic between the WSA and the ADMINISTRATION has generally been more productive and thoughtful than the one between the rest of the student body and the administration.”