Work with dialogue
By E.J. Winter
This past Tuesday I headed to Crowell to attend the forum with President Bennet
and other members of the administration and like hundreds of other Wesleyan
students, was unable to secure a seat inside. This wespeak, however, does not
address that issue, but rather words that were said by some students outside of
the Crowell Concert Hall. While I wholeheartedly agree on the importance of
nearly all the issues being raised by students over the past weeks, months and
in some cases years, and I realize the importance for action, I do not agree
with the way we are speaking about the action that has been taken.
During the forum one student outside described the protest the day before where
students filled the stairwell of President Bennet’s office and shut the lights
off so staff members were working in the dark. Peter Patton described such
action as in violation of the code of non-academic conduct. One student asked,
“What do we have to say to that?” Others cheered and responded “Hell yeah.” Hell
yeah? I disagree with this sentiment entirely. We should be saying, “Wow. It
really sucks we had to go to such drastic measures to be heard. It really sucks
the administration would not listen to us when we tried other tactics. We did
not want to take that course of action on Tuesday but we were left with no other
choice.”
Later in the Forum students outside, angry about not being let in, wanted to
charge into Crowell to disrupt the meeting. Why? Why would we disrupt something
we worked so hard to attain and so clearly undermine the cause we are fighting
for? Granted Crowell was not the ideal space for the Forum due to its limited
seating capacity, but it was still a step in the right direction. Charging into
Crowell, whether it was several students or a large group of students,
undermines the cause of the entire student body, many who disagree with such
tactics. It makes us appear to care more about being loud and aggressive than
actually enacting change. Disrupting the meeting inside, the first step to a
productive dialogue would be incredibly detrimental to the cause. Absolutely
nothing good would come from such an action.
At the end of the meeting other students suggested we figure out where Bennet
was going to leave the building and block him in. Again why, why? What would
that possibly accomplish? After a productive meeting, an important first step
for change, why would we go undermine our cause?
I realize the sentiment that I am criticizing only reflects the views of a small
population of the student body yet their actions weaken the cause for everyone.
Additionally, this small group often seems to be loud enough to overpower the
majority of the school that disagrees with such tactics. The things we are
fighting for are real and important. I challenge all students to question what
you want in this struggle; to achieve the aims we are asking for or to be loud
and angry in a way that is unproductive. Now that we have the administration in
some sort of dialogue, no matter how small, lets attempt to work with them in a
productive way to achieve our goals.
Winter is a member of the Class of 2005.
|
|
