Student voices ignored in athletics decision
by Jonah Kreniske
Discussions of our values as an institution inevitably address the issue of consensus in the abstract, but rarely do they begin to define it as a practice. As such, there is much talk of institutional values, leading to little in the way of political manifestation. The controversy surrounding the proposal drafted by the Athletic Committee this past week has served to expose the degree to which student voices have become marginalized in Earlham’s political conversation.
The athletics proposal was written in response to a request from Doug Bennett for the evaluation of Earlham’s participation in the North Coast Athletic Conference (NCAC). The document calls for Earlham’s abandonment of the NCAC (10 nationally respected liberal arts colleges), in favor of the Heartland Conference (local, less selective colleges) for a variety of reasons. The issue here, however, is not the content of the proposal (though the content is controversial), the issue is the process by which this proposal was produced.
At the crux of my concerns regarding process is a lack of transparency. It is unclear when exactly the Athletic Committee began the discussion of this particular proposal (the online minutes have not been updated in nearly a year). What is clear is that the committee agreed on a policy of confidentiality.
The two students on the committee were advised not to share information regarding the committee’s deliberations with their peers, which in practice meant ending open communication with their student government representatives. This was the first breach of guidelines outlined in the faculty governance documents (FGD), which advise that “student members of committees” be “encouraged to communicate actions that affect students to Student Government.”
At this point we find the initiation of a continuing disconnect by which the two student representatives on the committee were prevented from effectively representing their constituency when considering an issue with broad ramifications for the student body.
The second point of disconnect came towards the end of the proposal discussion. Meetings of the Athletic Committee were held on Mondays — the committee decision to send the proposal to Doug Bennett was made on a Wednesday afternoon, in spite of the request of one student athlete for a different time. In fact, it seems, this was an inconvenient time for many committee members: “consensus” was reached with only seven of 14 members present. One of the two student representatives was absent.
Having been made aware of “consensus” the day before, the student representative made his first breach of confidentiality in an ESG cabinet meeting on Thursday of last week. The revelation of the athletic committee’s confidential deliberations allowed for the first open student review of the committee’s activity and decision. The proposal faced resounding opposition, as did the committee’s policy of confidentiality.
In an effort to fulfill his representative responsibilities, the student committee member sent a dissenting e-mail using the exact phrase “block consensus.” The committee disregarded the dissenting voice and sent the proposal to the president the next morning.
Faculty governance documents demand that “committee decisions be reached by a process of consensus that is respectful of the roles and persons of all committee members.” In this case one committee member’s voice was clearly not respected. This is the third point of disconnect; here a disconnect between committee principles and committee practice.
At three distinct moments in this process student voices were either downplayed or disregarded by the committee. To cite faculty governance documents once more, “Faculty, student and staff members of committees are of equal status,” and yet in this decision other voices seem to have enjoyed a little more equal status than did that of the student.
The stormy political climate we currently find ourselves in at Earlham is only exacerbated by the disrespect of student voices; yet time and again we find decisions being made without our educated input.
If the issues discussed in this piece arouse your concern please contact the author at jskreni07@earlham.edu and become a part of the movement to encourage educated polyvocality in Earlham politics.
Jonah Kreniske is a sophomore undeclared major and can be reached at jskreni07@earlham.edu.
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
