On the December
resistance
By Students for Democratic Action
Students for Democratic Action applauds the collective student uprising begun
Dec. 7. The action is a lesson to every student who wants to make change at this
school: unity and solidarity within the student ranks makes power. We witnessed
acts of defiance and leadership from individuals that can only be described as
profoundly inspiring manifestations of DIY democracy. We are only surprised that
something like this hadn’t happened sooner.
We believe that students should settle for nothing less than a fundamental
restructuring of power relations in this school. In order to change the dynamic
of students always having to respond to administrative policy, students should
push for a real, binding voice in the decision making process. At a school where
students (or somebody) pay $40,000 per year, where students live for four (or
more) years, can the administration really say that we have no right to weigh in
on decisions that affect our daily lives? We are students—the lifeblood of this
campus. From the Suit perspective, we are also consumers at this university. For
an even more cynical perspective, we are the future alumni donors/trustees of
this campus (in good company with Bechtel, Colt, etc): perhaps the University
would like to give us a reason to give one cent back to this university after we
graduate.
The idea of student involvement in university governance is not a new idea to
schools in general (look at South American universities), to American
Universities (a search will likely reveal many governance structures), or to
Wesleyan in particular. This year’s Argus activism timeline makes reference
several times to a “University Senate” that existed during the 1960s or ’70s. As
we understand it, this Senate was comprised of students, faculty and
administrators and served the very idea of democratic governance at this
University we mentioned earlier.
But the accuracy of our understanding of the Senate is beside the point: such a
structure should exist at this school. At the simplest level, the WSA could be
incorporated into such a structure; this sort of move would make the WSA voice
meaningful, and attract real student interest precisely because it could make
real change. A sense of democracy on this campus is appropriate both because
Wesleyan is an institution of higher education, and claims to be a “community.”
Here is where we have the most opportunity to learn how to be effective,
“proactive,” and participatory members of American society. We feel that without
such moves towards a sense of democracy on this campus, there will be no way to
discontinue the perennial silencing of voices on this campus. In radio news, it
has been revealed to us that:
1. President Bennet is shutting down WESU for the month of January (never mind
that 50 percent of the programmers are community members who will not be going
on break). Such a move is designed to kill WESU as it has existed, taking WESU’s
audience along with it. The “new” WESU (NPR) will then be launched Feb. 1, for a
whiter, richer, NPR audience.
2. President Bennet, in his letters to alumni and in speaking to the press, has
said that (we quote from his alumni response form letter), “After much
exploration, student leaders of WESU have decided to use feeds from WSHU in
Fairfield, CT, to supplement original student and community programming.” Such a
statement is misleading and dishonest: the decision to use NPR feeds originated
from the Administration, not the students.
3. Last, we wonder how WNPR 90.5 FM in Hartford, the next frequency up from WESU
on the dial, appreciates the Bennet Plan’s idea to oversaturate an already
oversaturated NPR listening area.
|
|
