Students for Democratic Action applauds the collective student uprising begun Dec. 7. The action is a lesson to every student who wants to make change at this school: unity and solidarity within the student ranks makes power. We witnessed acts of defiance and leadership from individuals that can only be described as profoundly inspiring manifestations of DIY democracy. We are only surprised that something like this hadn’t happened sooner.
We believe that students should settle for nothing less than a fundamental restructuring of power relations in this school. In order to change the dynamic of students always having to respond to administrative policy, students should push for a real, binding voice in the decision making process. At a school where students (or somebody) pay $40,000 per year, where students live for four (or more) years, can the administration really say that we have no right to weigh in on decisions that affect our daily lives? We are students—the lifeblood of this campus. From the Suit perspective, we are also consumers at this university. For an even more cynical perspective, we are the future alumni donors/trustees of this campus (in good company with Bechtel, Colt, etc): perhaps the University would like to give us a reason to give one cent back to this university after we graduate.
The idea of student involvement in university governance is not a new idea to schools in general (look at South American universities), to American Universities (a search will likely reveal many governance structures), or to Wesleyan in particular. This year’s Argus activism timeline makes reference several times to a “University Senate” that existed during the 1960s or ’70s. As we understand it, this Senate was comprised of students, faculty and administrators and served the very idea of democratic governance at this University we mentioned earlier.
But the accuracy of our understanding of the Senate is beside the point: such a structure should exist at this school. At the simplest level, the WSA could be incorporated into such a structure; this sort of move would make the WSA voice meaningful, and attract real student interest precisely because it could make real change. A sense of democracy on this campus is appropriate both because Wesleyan is an institution of higher education, and claims to be a “community.” Here is where we have the most opportunity to learn how to be effective, “proactive,” and participatory members of American society. We feel that without such moves towards a sense of democracy on this campus, there will be no way to discontinue the perennial silencing of voices on this campus. In radio news, it has been revealed to us that:
1. President Bennet is shutting down WESU for the month of January (never mind that 50 percent of the programmers are community members who will not be going on break). Such a move is designed to kill WESU as it has existed, taking WESU’s audience along with it. The “new” WESU (NPR) will then be launched Feb. 1, for a whiter, richer, NPR audience.
2. President Bennet, in his letters to alumni and in speaking to the press, has said that (we quote from his alumni response form letter), “After much exploration, student leaders of WESU have decided to use feeds from WSHU in Fairfield, CT, to supplement original student and community programming.” Such a statement is misleading and dishonest: the decision to use NPR feeds originated from the Administration, not the students.
3. Last, we wonder how WNPR 90.5 FM in Hartford, the next frequency up from WESU on the dial, appreciates the Bennet Plan’s idea to oversaturate an already oversaturated NPR listening area.
Leave a Reply