Student input has been the buzzword on campus since the Lagoon controversy. Administrators and students alike have tossed the term around so frequently that its meaning is fading. That is why the most recent attempt by the administration to solicit student input gives us pause.
University President Henry Bienen announced Wednesday plans for an advisory committee that would include students, faculty, staff and administrators. Although the committee’s responsibilities remain unclear, Bienen apparently wants it to give input on long-term campus construction projects and to help educate the broader community about the decisions the administration is making.
Establishing the committee is a step in the right direction for an administration that has failed to inform the broader community about its long-term vision for Northwestern. The decision to include the two administrators who know the most about construction on campus – the associate vice president for facilities and the associate provost for space – suggests that the new committee will have regular access to high-level administrators and an opportunity to express students’ concerns to them. And the presence of two deans likely will make administrators at least receptive to the committee’s ideas.
But we have reason to question whether this committee really will have an impact. As it is, there are student advisory boards throughout the university on everything from budget priorities to faculty hiring. In the past, many of these boards have proven ineffective because they don’t have any decision-making authority of their own and administrators often merely pay lip service to their proposals. Last year, for example, Weinberg administrators ignored recommendations on faculty hiring from a group of students lobbying to establish a Latino studies minor. Though some groups, such as the Undergraduate Budget Priorities Committee, have been effective in the past, many other advisory groups have made no headway.
As of yet, Bienen’s definition of the committee’s mission is unclear to us. The responsibilities administrators have articulated for the committee, such as “understanding the needs … of the university in terms of space implications,” read to us like “explaining to the rest of the university decisions administrators have already made to the create the illusion that administrators are seeking community input.” If the new committee boils down to a tool to help administrators avoid future public relations nightmares, then its creation is nothing to celebrate.
The success or failure of this committee will depend largely on the tenacity of the students, faculty and staff that form it. If the student representatives work aggressively to generate original proposals and give administrators useful feedback, then this group could make the university’s current administration more accountable to the community. But if the committee is run by yet another group of Associated Student Government pawns, we might as well give up hope for seeing greater student input in long-term decision-making anytime soon.
Even if the committee successfully provides feedback on capital projects, it is only a first step. In order to represent the diverse interests of this community, administrators need to give this student/faculty committee real power to make decisions and present proposals directly to the Board of Trustees, as the UBPC does with small-scale proposals. As long as student input on long-term planning is filtered through administrators, the value of that input will be limited. Once students work with administrators, faculty and staff to articulate and present their own long-term vision for NU directly to the Board of Trustees, then we will have meaningful student input. Anything less is a step in the right direction – but not a long-term solution.
