In the past, I have lambasted the Bridges administration’s neglect of student input. My specific concerns were derived from the fact that they refused to consult students on the date of the symposium (in case you haven’t heard, this year’s symposium will be held on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day in January). It was inconceivable to me that the administration would attempt to plan an event for students without consulting students about when they could or would attend.
Since that time, a planning committee with the goal of developing a symposium has met once, elected student, faculty and staff co-chairs, and begun the work of planning the symposium. One subject for the committee’s discussion was the date of the event. Some other students and I presented concerns like-mindedly: A three-day weekend like Martin Luther King, Jr. Day is not conducive to the symposium. This is for two major reasons: First, many students will go out of town to Portland or Seattle. Second, staff and faculty who would normally have the day off are now required to come to campus again on MLK Day if they want to participate.
Asked whether the faculty would be willing to cancel a day of classes, the committee heard a general consensus: “I doubt it.”
Melissa Wilcox agreed. “It would probably be challenging to get another class continuation,” she said. “For most of us, our classes build chronologically, and losing a class day can throw that out of whack.”
Regardless of whether or not the faculty should cancel classes for a symposium (which I didn’t discuss with Professor Wilcox), it appears as though it isn’t going to happen. As I understand it, then, Martin Luther King, Jr. Day may well be our best chance to invite students to attend a symposium.
The Bridges administration selected the date of the symposium without asking students. Additionally, they did so without consulting the faculty to see if it would be possible to cancel classes. However, it seems that there may be no alternative. How do we reconcile these standpoints? President Bridges didn’t get any input from anyone to decide when to hold the symposium, but it appears as though the decision he made was correct.
I’m of two minds on this issue: First, I’m upset because the students weren’t consulted. However, at the same time, if we had been consulted we likely would have suggested the policy that was eventually enacted. I don’t know about the rest of the student body, but outrage over not having suggested the correct decision (when it was eventually made anyway) makes me feel a little bit petty.
Regardless of whether or not we are right to be offended, I think that most of us can agree that this format should not be standard practice. We need to be consulted, and the symposium committee is making progress on that front. A critical mass of students sit on the Symposium Planning Committee, and it appears that they will have real input on what shape the event eventually takes. The symposium will be powerful if the students make it so.
Unfortunately, that’s not sufficient. “The Race Symposium was very powerful, but it’s not enough; it can’t be,” said Professor Wilcox. I couldn’t agree more. Last year, Professor Wilcox and I both met with the president’s Advisory Council on Diversity. It was at this meeting that then-student Ajay Abraham, in his infinite wisdom, distributed copies of CODA (the resolution calling for a student-run symposium planning committee) to everyone in the room. Students, faculty and staff talked to President Bridges and members of his staff not only about the symposium but also about other approaches to understanding diversity on campus. I didn’t support all of the suggestions offered in that meeting, but many students did. I would hate for the administration to leave them behind.
