All aboard

University officials seem to sincerely want students to get on board with such initiatives as the new alcohol policy and the recently amended decision to add Spelman Hall 8 to Whitman College and an entryway of Little Hall to Mathey. Unfortunately, the administration undermines these good intentions by tending to seek student input well after the "policy train" has left the station.  Too often the University appears to design its policies based on consultation with only a few unrepresentative students who, in some cases, may feel uncomfortable engaging in frank discussions with administrators.  Then when the blueprints for a policy have been largely solidified in these often closed-door discussions, the administration conducts question-and-answer sessions in which students have little chance to derail or even substantively modify aspects of a plan to which they may object.     

Meaningful student input in the nascent stages of an initiative is necessary to create appropriate, informed policies for the University community.  Therefore, the administration should regularly distribute a "policy newsletter" to the student body to inform students as to what new policies are on the University's drawing boards. This newsletter would not only alert students about new policies under consideration but also elicit student input during the most crucial phase of planning, when the policy is still malleable and its course not yet fixed. Such a newsletter would provide much-needed transparency in University policymaking.  For example, the original plan to add Spelman 7 and 8 to Whitman could have been described to students as one strategy under consideration to expand options for independent and residential college students, allowing students to share their concerns and suggest alternatives before a seemingly final decision had been made.

For student views to be reflected in final policy, the newsletter must be coupled with a variety of mechanisms for student feedback, which might include electronic bulletin boards as well as open forums or workshops.  Furthermore, the USG could be tasked with the responsibility of soliciting student comments through e-mail and meetings, synthesizing the responses and communicating the variety of ideas and reactions to the administration. Under this arrangement, students would be able to easily contribute their ideas, and the USG would act as an effective liaison to the administration.

The USG and student publications are expected to report on and react to a policy once it is announced, but they should not have to undertake extensive investigations into the inner-workings of the administration to uncover basic policies in their formative state. The University should voluntarily provide students with this information. Direct communication from the administration to the students would appropriately give students greater responsibility to improve the University by ensuring that policymaking reflects their ideas and experiences. Open dialogue of this kind between students and administrators can help ensure that the University remains on track toward creating a better Princeton now and in the future.