Let me just start point-blank: the Administration is continuing to ignore and silence us.
Now allow me to enumerate some of the most telling moments that demonstrate the administration’s disregard for students. Considering that we are fed up with the ways this Administration treats us—i.e. unjustly silencing and ignoring us—their actions at the forum underscore their continued disrespect.
It was offensive when the administrators on stage talked to each other while students were speaking. For one, they should realize it gives the impression of collusion and of bureaucratic manipulation. But it also proves that they don’t care what we have to say. These administrators were leaning over the students sitting between them as if these students’ presence was completely inconsequential.
Bennet spoke out of turn and hijacked the mic from a student who was speaking. Instead of waiting for the organizers to let him know it was his turn to speak, he silenced another student. It is overwhelmingly apparent that Bennet is uncomfortable when not in power. When the students created a space that didn’t privilege Bennet’s as the most important voice, Bennet freaked out. I applaud the students on the stage who made this space student-focused. It made the administrators’ need to maintain their power undeniably visible.
I also want to address the point that another made on stage (repeated for the benefit of those not present): “I want to acknowledge that the administration did not speak during the open mic.” Despite being invited by the organizers, the administration did not participate . Again, my suspicion is that this format made them uncomfortable because it removed them from a powerful position. They could not handle being on the same level as students and felt the need to reassert their power over us by disrupting the flow of the forum.
The administration once again has silenced our concern, and surprise, once again it’s a paternalistic approach. Latin even gives us a fancy word for the illegitimate form of rhetoric they intoned: it’s called arguing ad hominem. Literally this phrase means “to human.” It is incoherent to tell people their ideas are wrong because of who they are or how the ideas were presented. It’s a bogus logical fallacy.
The administration started things off with accusations that we violated the academic and non-academic codes of conduct. Was anyone tried by the Student Judiciary Board? No. And the important part that Dean Patton is forgetting is that his ad hominem attack doesn’t make any of our concerns less true. He was distracting from the issue and pretending that we had to answer to this concern when in fact no charges have been brought against any students. We call it slander when a person makes untrue statements that require guilty verdicts. For me it proves the validity of our concerns because it shows that he has to resort to attacks on what we did as opposed to WHY we did it.
Demanding decency from us presupposes that “decent” means of petitioning to the university are effective (or worse, they demand decency knowing it is ineffective!). One of the problems, and certainly a reason we have so many demands, is because “polite” student voices are ignored.
We used all the methods available to us to appeal to the administration, and then they accuse us of violating the honor code! It’s completely unfair for them to obfuscate the issues behind their ad hominem attacks. We wouldn’t have resorted to this alleged violating behavior if the other means had proven to be viable. Time and again the administration has proven that “civilized” behavior is useless.
Along the lines of “civilized” behavior, I wanted to talk about my irritation with the term dialogue, which is being used as a catch-phrase of decency and equality. It assumes that we’re on a fair playing field, but we aren’t.
The administration is in the position of power—they’re the ones who make the decisions. When they pretend to be interested in dialogue, they are looking for a place to tell us what’s best for us. Dialogue means pacifying student concerns and belittling our needs.
For example, why does Justin Harmon refuse to set up a time and place to show the video of the forum? He claims it’s because the administration already gave those students who couldn’t get into Crowell the option. I say he doesn’t want students to see that these issues affect all of us.
And if you want some more proof of specifically Bennet’s ad nauseum refusal to deal with students, look at his response to us when we “civilly and respectfully” asked him when we could meet to discuss the next meeting.
“Thanks for following up. Because the agreed-upon rules of the forum were broken, the administration does not plan to send any joint communication. I have asked Dean Patton to work with the elected student leadership to structure the January meeting. DB”
When we act inside of the rules and organize dialogue, we get pushed aside and ignored. Bennet is teaching us that the only way to get him and his admins to listen is through mass protest. Doesn’t he want viable dialogue? His major complaint about the protest in the Campus Center was that it was not a conducive environment to real dialogue. Well, now we’re asking to meet with him with a group of students, and he refuses.
He is looking for an excuse to ignore student concerns again and I’m fed up with it.
Leave a Reply