“The discussion of decisions with faculty and students needs to occur before the fact, and an authentic process of soliciting and incorporating a wide range of opinion on important matters needs to be established and communicated well and consistently.”
That’s what a group of outside experts said about how decisions are made at Wesleyan, when they issued a re-accreditation report for the university in October 2002. President Bennet never seems to mention that part.
Take a look at two recent decisions on campus: the complete elimination of all food service from the campus center on weekends, and the closing of the vegan café for dinners. Do you, students and faculty, remember your opinions being solicited before those decisions were made?
Administrators often claim that when it comes to dining decisions like these two, we should exercise our voice through our representatives on the ever-powerful Dining Committee, where the important decisions are apparently made. After all, the committee includes about three WSA representatives, an Environmental Organizers’ Networks (EON) representative, a United Student-Labor Action Coalition (USLAC) representative, and a representative of the dining service workers.
That parade of inclusiveness is a farce, though, not only because the last three representatives I listed are often not invited at all, but because dissenting voices at the Dining Committee are ignored, and because the committee is not where decisions are actually made.
When it came to approving sub-contracting of dining services to Thai Gardens, a dining service worker present at the committee voiced strong disapproval. Not only was her voice—and that of the other opponents—ignored, but malicious rumors were spread that she had in fact supported the plan (Middletown Press, 12/05/03). She has vehemently denied those rumors (Middletown Press, 12/13/03).
But perhaps more important, the real decisions aren’t actually made at the Dining Committee. When it came to the big Thai Gardens meeting, one might think all of the members would have wanted to be there. That wasn’t the case, though: Dean Mike Whaley, co-chair of the committee, didn’t find it necessary to show up to that seemingly-important meeting. He was painting his house that afternoon. One can’t help but think the committee’s ‘decision’ that day was pre-made.
The decisions to eliminate food at the Campus Center on the weekend and to close the vegan café for dinner, on the other hand, were not even claimed to be made at the Dining Committee. Would those proposals have gone over well if they had been discussed in some kind of public forum, as they should have been?
To recap: students should participate in the decision-making process through their representatives on the Dining Committee, some of whom are often not told about committee meetings. At the committee, what they say will be distorted, and will not factor into decisions. To top it off, many decisions, such as the cutbacks over winter break, are not even made at the Dining Committee.
The re-accreditation committee made a good point about the Administration needing to listen to student voices. Unfortunately, in a year and a half, the Administration hasn’t made any progress.
Leave a Reply