During the inaugural installment of the Presidential Lecture series last Friday, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg urged students to find "common sense, common ground solutions" to difficult problems ("Bloomberg presents his B Plan,'" July 20). A few hours later, the student body received an e-mail from the Dean of the College with an update on the administration's decision regarding swimming options this summer. Signed by Acting Dean of the College Sylvia Spears, Associate Dean of the College for Campus Life April Thompson, and three members of Student Assembly, the e-mail effectively shuts off the dialogue between students and administrators about viable alternatives to the dock this summer. The decision and the manner in which it was made, however, make neither "common sense" nor reach "common ground." Alas, our first Presidential Lecturer would have been ashamed of the College's actions.
While the administration has agreed to provide shuttles to Storrs Pond and free use of canoes and kayaks through the end of the summer, this e-mail crushes any hope students may have had about compromising with the administration about use of the dock for swimming this summer. Forget trying to work with the administration this term, the e-mail effectively says, because the decision has already been made. Oh, and we regret to inform you that all of your proposals were rejected.
But more to the point of why this e-mail lacks "common sense" or "common ground" is what it says next, "We will be working with Student Assembly to form a Task Force to explore longer term options for use of the College controlled areas of the waterfront." We're still waiting to find out the pretentious acronym for this newest of committees. But for now, two things are certain. First, this administration believes it can placate students with committees that give the illusion of students having decision-making power. And second, this administration thinks it can stall its decision until students no longer care.
This stall tactic and illusion of power should not come as a surprise we have seen it before, particularly with the Student and Presidential Alcohol Harm Reduction Committee. A timeline of this committee's actions elucidates how ineffective committees and the administration are at working together to address major problems. In mid-February, College President Jim Yong Kim created SPAHRC to investigate alcohol-related issues on campus and to placate student concern over ever-changing Hanover Police policies. Three months later, the committee delivered its findings, and suggested more student monitoring of parties and a more liberal keg policy, among other things ("SPAHRC releases study findings," May 20). It's now been two months since the College began considering the SPAHRC's findings, and we're still waiting for any announcement regarding major policy changes.
SPARHC is but the latest in a long line of impotent committees at the College. The proposed Alcohol Management Policy is another example. After over a year of review by students and the administration, AMP which was set to replace the Social Event Management Policy was abruptly nixed by Spears in September 2009 ("Spears says College will not adopt AMP," Sept. 24, 2009). Given these two case studies on how ineffective administration-sponsored committees are, it is distressing to know that the future of the river-dock situation will be dealt with in a similar manner. The move also seems quite incongruous the administration has created a committee to hear our proposals when it has thus far rejected all the ones that students have submitted.
But for our class in particular, it is most unnerving to learn that no viable alternatives are possible during the rest of our Summer term. By postponing a compromise, the administration has effectively deferred any progress until after the crucial weeks when student dissent is strongest. It's going to be a lot easier for the administration to have its way when a decision about swimming in the river is made, for instance, in the winter. That is not to say that the administration won't compromise. But given their uncompromising stance this summer, it doesn't appear likely.
In retrospect, Bloomberg should have been addressing the administration and not the student body when he championed "common sense, common ground" solutions. He also should have been addressing the administration when he said, "if you take on controversial issues, people will respect you for it in the long run." The e-mail from the Dean of the College was not a genuine attempt to take on the river-dock issue, but rather a well-calculated move by the administration to push it off. And the administration certainly won't be respected for that.
