The administration, by virtue of its position and its concern for this institution as a whole, will always prioritize its interests over those of the student body. I describe the administration's behavior not to demonize administrators, and I honestly believe those in power act in what they consider the best interest of the university in its entirety. This perspective, however, often seems to prioritize concerns of publicity and finance and minimize student concerns. If the administration is to maintain its benign neglect of student concerns, we must be more proactive in changing their minds. Lacking any formal power to do so, we must affect change by adopting strategies that will put student concerns in the vested interest of the administration. Our past tactics have amounted to glorified pleading, and we must now learn how to bargain.
I believe that despite being the student government, the Tufts Community Union Senate (TCU) is not constitutionally designed to accomplish student aims, much less bargain with administrators.
TCU's members, while being consistently sincere and energetic, are part of an organization whose primary purpose is to manage clubs, not to effectively advocate for the goals of the student body. Its constitution's purpose is to establish the function of TCU itself, including its responsibility to Tufts' clubs. Only in TCU's mission statement and in its description of the role and responsibilities of the TCU Senate does the constitution mention voicing and representing student needs, but it provides no effective method of implementing solutions to existing needs. If TCU is to effectively advocate for student concerns, it must depart from its formal constitutional guidelines and publicly separate its goals from those of the administration. Though hardly impossible, such a move is difficult to imagine in an organization that struggles to find a consensus over less drastic issues. Moreover, TCU has in the past been hesitant to break with the administration publicly, regardless of what actual disagreements exist.
It is exactly public disagreement with the administration that the student body needs because the issue of publicity is where the administration's interests lie. The administration has shown consistent and unwavering interest in its public image. A positive public image encourages more donors, new students, and new parents: in short, more funding. The administration is not at fault for its concern for the business end of academia but too often lets financial welfare eclipse student welfare. If the administration is to remain fixated upon Tufts' image to increase funding, the student body must target that image as well. Such targeting is not a smear campaign but the assertion that students have as much right to determine Tufts' public image as administrators do, especially if our well-being is at stake. Challenging the administration's image of Tufts may often make that image more accurate since while most students admit serious problems exist at Tufts, few Tufts brochures admit any whatsoever.
To challenge the administration's marketing, students can use media outlets, both local and national, to publicize problems facing students. Media interest is obviously present. When Tufts released the seemingly uncontroversial rule that two people should not have sex while a roommate is present, national news media from SNL to CNN covered the story. Should more important issues, such as Tufts' alcohol, sexual assault, or diversity policies for example, present themselves, reporters are waiting. Universities are big media targets, especially those with any claim to prestige and status. Substantial and publicized problems at any university challenge that university's ability to market itself. To preserve Tufts' flow of funding, the administration will need to respond to press reports of serious issues on campus. If students can learn how to direct coverage to make the only administrative response meaningful reform, students can stop relying on the beneficent will of their administrators.
In 2008, a similar strategy was adopted to address the quality of dorms on campus, and its success and execution are enlightening. Two students, Chas Morrison (LA '11) and Shabazz Stuart (LA '11), spearheaded an effort to renovate dorms on campus because of poor conditions and the reluctance of Facilities to fix health violations. After Morrison and Shabazz's 12 page report was released and endorsed by TCU, the administration adopted many of their recommendations in a notable success of student advocacy. A few details stand out from the story. Morrison and Shabazz, though TCU members, founded an independent group, Tufts Students for the Improvement of Residential Life, to organize the effort. Their 12-page report explicitly compared Tufts facilities to other Boston area schools and invoked how low Tufts ranked relative to them. In an interview with the Daily published on Sept. 26, 2008, Morrison noted that better dorms would also improve alumni relations in the future, which in turn would aid future donations to the school. When the two students first approached the school, they were rebuffed, but when they invoked publicity, Tufts' prestige, and financial consequence, the result changed drastically.
While writing about student advocacy, my thoughts were drawn to the April Open House (AOH) demonstration of last spring. Rather than the issue itself, I found myself fascinated by the strategy used by students involved. The AOH demonstration was public and it was in front of prospective students and parents, a venue sure to attract the administration's attention because of how important the event is to image and funding. In particular, race and ethnicity are loaded topics. Universities, especially those publically committed to diversity and tolerance, make large, media-sexy targets for accusations of bigotry. While this explains in part the administration's vitriolic reaction to the demonstration, it also shows the value of the issue and the tactic employed.
Though the university has publicly done much to try and diffuse accusations of racial bias, programs such as the proposed Africana Studies Major still leave much room for criticism. Some accusations have been against the campus climate and the Tufts University Police Department, while many administrative programs are top-down or academically oriented and cannot address some of the issues AOH demonstrators brought to attention. I draw attention to the AOH demonstration and its attendant issues not to assess the validity of anyone's position, but only to note that there is obviously room still to criticize Tufts' administration in an even more public arena, one that may yield more conclusive results.
Direct student advocacy to the media is not limited to issues of diversity and race on campus. Many students I have spoken with have no shortage of pressing and serious problems with the status quo as it exists at Tufts. The more serious the issue, the more traction it will have with the media, public opinion, and in the end, the administration. With President Monaco's letter early this semester stating his desire to seek continuity between his and his predecessor's tenure, the status quo shows no sign of moving on its own soon. It is time to remind administrators of their priorities.
--
Ben Van Meter is a junior who is majoring in Russian and Eastern European Studies.
