While Whitman College is a fantastic home for almost all of us, we all have complaints now and again. However, it seems that recent complaints are more focused around a common source : a lack of transparency and spaces for student and faculty participation in administrative decisions.
The clearest of many recent examples is the switch to the 3-2 teaching system. While the switch will have important benefits for the long-term health of the college, it is troubling that students were not consulted throughout the process and were left with little recourse to mitigate the effects of the change.
I am unclear, however, on the benefits of cutting the ski team. Or dropping the popular education minor. Or the push to cut German, had members of the faculty not been able to intervene. Or of cutting tuition exchange benefits despite their role in attracting high-caliber faculty.
In all of these cases, students (and sometimes faculty) not only lack a voice, but often ears in what will be cut.
Rather than address these issues, however, the administration seems to be making efforts to close off avenues of communication. President Bridges decided to postpone discussions about the tuition benefit cuts until June, when students and many professors will be unable to protest or present their side. This seems more in line with how shady corporations are run rather than a liberal arts college.
The administration needs to open up space not just for transparency but increased participation in governance. It seems ironic that at a school that touts its tight-knit community, there are no open discussions about some of the most important issues on campus. Whitman is an ideal place to maintain an open dialogue between all levels of community participants.
Many faculty and some administrators have made temporal arguments, however, suggesting that limited perspective leaves students unqualified to make sound decisions about college governance. We are so focused on our short four years here that we cannot think about the broader, long-term issues facing the college.
Not only am I troubled by the notion that Whitties lack the intelligence to think in the long term, but challenges to our expertise should not preclude us being at the table in some capacity. I would argue that students are more qualified to make certain decisions about the college than trustees, most of whom come to campus only four times a year.
Even if the administration asserts that we cannot make sound decisions, at least let us provide input. I would rather have my voice be ignored than have no voice at all. There needs to be a push for increased student and faculty agency in college governance.
Fortunately, this process has already begun, albeit slowly. ASWC’s push to get a student on the Curriculum Committee means greater representation, and our push to add a student to the Board of Trustees would only expand the student voice.
This issue is more than just having some students in committees, however. There needs to be a culture of consistent dialogue and deliberation if these issues can be addressed. Extra faculty meetings with trustees : such as the one which happened last weekend : are a fantastic first steps in this direction, but we can go further.
Middlebury College has had success in the past issuing a survey to administration, students, alumni, faculty and staff about budget priorities. The results of the survey were then incorporated into the distribution of the following year’s budget, soliciting input from as many parties as possible.
This sort of participatory budgeting process would let every member of the community have a voice in determining what Whitman values. This would not only strengthen the Whitman community, but have positive lasting impacts on the overall Whitman experience for students to come.
I have faith that the administration will listen to the sentiments of the faculty and students and open up more space for participation in college governance. It is something that Whitman can afford and should embrace with open arms.
