When administrators announced Campus Drive will have restricted transit access this summer, some students leaders felt shut out of the decision-making process. Beyond the issue of students fighting for a stronger voice within the administration, there is a deeper problem: This case is symptomatic of an eternal struggle at this university between the long-term work administrators try to do and the short-term goals of students.
It’s simple math. Students are only at the university for a handful of years, whereas administrators work with things such as strategic plans, attempting to project decades ahead. This creates a fundamental disconnect between students and long-term university projects such as the restricted motor transit on Campus Drive. Granted, the entire list of the short- and long-term goals of the university is virtually never-ending, but that shouldn’t deter administrators and students from at least attempting to tackle the long-term menu for the university on a constant basis.
Student leaders were miffed at the announcement of a potential pilot program slated to start in June that would experiment with eliminating motor traffic around the Stamp Student Union. Although Vice President for Administrative Affairs Ann Wylie said yesterday in this paper that administrators are seeking input for the plan, that did not stop Student Government Association President Steve Glickman and SGADirector of Environmental Affairs Joanna Calabrese from expressing concern over the lack of a student voice affecting the issue.
Yet, administrators would respond that students were involved in the process: The call for a transit-free Campus Drive was mentioned in such places as the Facilities Master Plan, which was most recently updated in 2007. Student voices had an impact then and earlier, but obviously, many of those voices are now among university alumni. The nature of a university makes this problem virtually unavoidable: When administrators reach out to students for input on long-term goals, by the time those goals come to fruition — such as with Campus Drive — there is a whole new generation of students, potentially with different thoughts, goals and philosophies.
So how should the ever-changing student voice be incorporated into the long-term plans of the university? The best answer is a concerted effort by administrators to involve students every year in long-term goals. Instead of involving students in the process when the action is about to happen, administrators should be reaching out to take the pulse of students every year. This doesn’t mean re-writing a 60-page year-long effort because the student body presidency changes hands, but administrators could do something as simple as briefing relevant student leaders before a new aspect of a plan is implemented.
But some of the onus for this should fall on students as well. Members of the SGA were aware of the plan, but with so many pressing short-term problems, it’s easy to see how an issue such as this can disappear from the radar screen. A solution was proposed by defeated SGA presidential candidate and Vice President of Finance Andrew Steinberg, who suggested the SGA create its own strategic plan to drive its advocacy in the long-term. We hope Glickman, who in his second year should have a better understanding of long-term issues than most SGA presidents, picks up the idea.
There exists a major hidden advantage to such constant input, as well: If students have more input on long-term university goals, they will be able to identify when some long-term goals become stale. There is always the chance that goals in Strategic Plan made in 2008 could be outdated and no longer desirable by students, so administrators should be reaching out to see how to tighten the ship of the long-term plans. Such findings could save wasted time and energy.
Students always want a seat at the table. The university should realize the seat shouldn’t just be a guest chair.
