Amidst the rise in student involvement on issues and in response to the confrontations earlier this week between the administration and students on several issues, I would like to note a few things to maybe think about concerning the lasting effect of the discussions that will hopefully take place as a result of the efforts of students who voiced their opinions on Tuesday (even in the downpour) and on Wednesday (inside and outside of Crowell Concert Hall).
It seems to me that the list of grievances presented to President Bennet stem from certain ideological vantage points that, in many cases, the student body overwhelmingly believes in (i.e. gender-neutral housing for Frosh). Yet, the administration seems to not take any of the issues seriously, and therefore give us the bureaucratic run-around (a.k.a walking out of office hours). I think this is because they are not necessarily familiar with some of the ideological views of its students. Because of the overwhelming support for gender-neutral housing policy by the students, as evidenced by the WSA Poll, many, including myself, wonder why does the administration act so differently from the wants and needs of its student body? What is the cause for the discrepancy?
The reasons for something like gender-neutral housing seem obvious to many of us who have been able to read theories on gender and sexualities, but to members of the administration, as well as donor alumni as I am told, these ideas may be foreign. In regards to why the University broke the agreement for gender-neutral housing, some administrators were quoted to say that they did not understand what gender-neutral housing would mean. Though for some of us, our probable initial response to such a statement would be to call certain administrators stupid, herbed out, wack, foolish or whatever you want to say; but I think we are assuming too much about the people who run things at our school. I am not defending any administrative wrongdoings; they were wrong in retracting something that they had previously agreed to without much student input. They have been very shady in many dealings (WENPRSU????), yes, I agree. But I think in hopes that there may be true discussion on an ideological level as well as a practical and policy level, we must educate each other and the community (diversity training for all staff and students, not just professors).
President Bennett has agreed to a response by the nineteenth of January regarding these issues. I hope that if (who knows for sure really?) and when these issues can be addressed with the administration in true dialogue, we, the students, can follow up on our demands with a certain responsibility to let them know where we stand ideologically. If this means xeroxing Judith Butler articles for President Bennett or inviting him to some of our classes, we should do it. I am not defending administrative ignorance nor am I suggesting a procurement of a base level of consciousness, for dialogue to occur. But I think that for discussion to take place regarding these issues, the parties involved should know where the other-side is coming from, even in the most general sense. I believe that the events of this week were important and necessary. Venting is significant and I truly believe the events resulted from frustration from a lack of any type of administrative transparency, not solely college-kid angst (though of course there was some of that inevitably). I would like to point that, as students, we must take it a step further. We must extend ourselves as not only paying customers demanding certain rights, but as fellow human beings occupying the same space-physical, spiritual, intellectual, moral or otherwise.
Leave a Reply