Last Thursday’s Student Senate meeting was packed. Over 40 Covenant students gathered in Carter Hall 131 at approximately 6:00 p.m. to discuss growing frustrations with recent policies of Student Development. Senate’s goal for the meeting was for students to voice their concerns openly with Brad Voyles, Vice President of Student Development and Emily Ford, Associate Dean of Students.
Student Body President Alex Anderson opened the forum by asking students to move past specific grievances to larger issues.
“What we want during this time is for you to ask questions and share concerns, but also to offer constructive criticism that could lead to change. Please try not to focus on policies that are in place. Pull out a bigger theme that we can work on,” said Anderson.
Although hot topics such as Jackson Pond, virgin sacrifices, bonfires, and hammocks were brought up during the conversation, the dialogue centered around two things: 1) the nature of the relationship between the students and Student Development, and 2) appropriate ways for students and members of Student Development to communicate with one another.
“I think the majority of us are not here to fix something specific. This is about getting our relationship right. We are trying to get the right respect for you and you are trying to get the right respect for us,” said senior Will Lutz during the meeting.
Out of the 11 students who spoke during the meeting, seven live in Founders Hall, one lives in Carter Hall, and three live off-campus. Out of the seven who spoke from Founders Hall, four live on Catacombs. But of the approximately 40 students in attendance, many halls across campus were represented.
In regard to the nature of the relationship between students and Student Development, students expressed differing ideas on what they felt was appropriate. Sophomore John Drexler of Catacombs said that he thought Student Development had become increasingly paternalistic, and called for them to “close the power gap.” Grace Mullaney, a sophomore on 3C in Carter, said she thought certain rules and regulations did not foster the growth of students, particularly in regards to decision-making. Several students expressed the sense of powerlessness they felt about rule-making and housing decisions.
“What is the dynamic between the administration and the student body?” asked senior Luke Granholm. “Do you see it more like a representative government, or a parent-child relationship?”
Voyles responded by explaining his role under the Board of Trustees.
“We do not see ourselves as parents,” said Voyles, “but more of an older brother or sister. It is still an uneven relationship. We are here to connect students, but also to draw lines. Students have full say, but they don’t have final say.”
For Voyles and Ford, meetings like these are part of a cyclical process as new generations of students come in and out. “Every once in a while there is something that gets people upset,” Ford said later in an interview, pointing to the “shoe policy” confrontation three years ago. Many students then were indignant at new policies against bare feet and smoking in school plays.
Students, however, believe that there has been a growing shift, or tightening, in policy over the last few years. “Some students feel that the attitude regarding student influence has changed,” said senior Chelsea Moser after the meeting. “We need to figure out if that’s actually accurate.”
Ford and Voyles seemed confused by such claims, asking for specific instances. In an interview after the meeting, Voyles said, “I don’t see it, but I could be blind. What has changed? We have restricted the pond and hammocks. Tell me what else is changing. Words like ‘direction, tone, and attitude’ are thrown out without the attending examples.”
Junior Jonathan Casselberry, among others, believes that the role of Student Senate is crucial in this conflict, saying much of the tension between students and Student Development could be eased by a proper understanding of Senate’s role as an independent liaison between students and Administration.
“Largely due to actions of past senators,” he said, “Student Senate seems to have gradually slipped into the periphery of Covenant’s culture. The current tension shows the need for both students and the Administration to see Senate as a body that can mediate communication and act upon the concerns expressed by students.”
In the meeting, both Voyles and Ford encouraged further dialogue.
“Come talk to me,” Ford repeated throughout the meeting, saying few people actually come to her with complaints.
However, some students expressed frustration with this approach. “I appreciate that,” sophomore Robbie Brown said to Ford. “But when rules are made and then distributed that affect the whole student body or even just one hall, I don’t think it’s upon those individuals to find out why. We need you to come to us.”
Ford pointed out the difficulty of trying to satisfy everyone in communication, but in a later interview agreed, “We could more proactively offer opportunities for students to engage with us instead of expecting them to come to us. That is why we were there last night.”
Overall, both students and administration left the meeting unsatisfied. “After the meeting I felt like students were upset and Student Development was confused,” said Granholm.
However, Anderson hopes that this was merely the beginning of further dialogue and action. Senate worked for weeks to make this meeting happen and Anderson feels that it is a move in the right direction. “Please come on Mar. 22 ready for discussion. We want to move away from irreconcilable differences which just waste time. If you have constructive suggestions, pursue that.”
Another, hopefully much larger, Q&A is being planned for Mar. 22.
[Originally published here.]
No comments:
Post a Comment