The Trustees' incredible boost to student funding demonstrated the University's capacity to exceed expectations and proactively address the needs of this community. But on other occasions the administration has defied broad input, such as last spring when we learned that Chancellor Green would be turned into a library. Or when the administration announced plans to curb the D-Bar's membership and activities. Or just weeks ago when the candle ban came down.
In these instances the University invited students' input through committees and private meetings, but counter perspectives held only peripheral influence on the final decision. Not surprisingly, the results were mixed. Graduate College residents crafted an innovative solution that kept the D-Bar thriving. But evenings by candlelight or in Chancellor Green Cafe are numbered.
It follows that administration-led meetings, well intentioned as they may be for the amorphous goal of community-building, sometimes resemble focus groups or chat sessions more than problem-solving task forces. Now, as the University addresses graduate student housing and the condition of its workers, it can demonstrate that the substance of participation matters as much as its appearance.
Last December, when graduate students organized a "Tent City" rally in Firestone Plaza to raise awareness about the graduate housing crisis, the Graduate School announced the formation of two committees to examine the problem — one addressing long-term solutions, the other dealing with next year's housing. Although the organizers of the December rally requested that proposals addressing next year's shortfall be presented by Feb. 16, in time for room draw, the short-term committee has not yet circulated a list of recommendations.
Moreover, committee members made no announcement on their work until the Graduate Student Government called a public forum last Wednesday. Consequently, as spring admissions and housing deadlines approach, the committee has already met four times yet has not acted with sufficient drive and transparency to allay graduate students' concerns about finding affordable living spaces for next year.
Another area where meetings merit an authentic discussion that they have not yet received comes in the University's response to the workers' rights campaign. Last Saturday's rally of three hundred staff members, students and faculty reaffirmed that workers are not being treated as fellow Princetonians and that the University should act promptly to address their grievances.
Professor Miguel Centeno called for a hard look at the University's different choices for addressing the living needs of its staff. Such scrutiny would demand greater reciprocity of commitment than the recent meeting between administration leaders and the WROC, since the University's representatives proposed only superficial changes to the current structure of wages and work.
To avoid the risk of crafting policies first and soliciting input later, discussions about graduate housing and workers' rights must move to a substantive level where Princetonians' ideas carry greater influence. The alternative — meetings without inclusive decision-making — will raise questions about the quality of participation possible in University "dialogue." Does the University want diverse opinions to help shape policy, or are committees just a way of cooling dissent and allowing staff and students to let off steam?
If administrators believe that students, staff and professors' opinions matter in these venues, then they can facilitate effective involvement by frankly communicating their committee's goals and constraints. This information will empower participants with both cognizance of their charge and pragmatism about its realization. Committee heads should also provide minutes and background information to committee members before meetings, thereby maximizing time for examining practical details.
Regular contact between participants in discussions and their peers on the outside enhances the accountability of committee work and reduces the chance that popular expectations will outpace committee progress. Committee leaders should therefore inform the committee as to how frequently it will convey interim reports about its progress to the broader University community.
For their part, students — often the youngest members of committees — can work conscientiously to ensure that meetings do not simply affirm previously developed ideas but instead construct new and superior solutions. Further, students' participation will be more rewarding and more effective if they initially seek a clear understanding of the committee's timeline and goals.
The closing of Chancellor Green Cafe offers a fortunately rare case of the University taking sudden and unpopular action without listening to broader input. More often, the University approaches and includes us in some form of meeting or committee. Yet only substantive and pluralist communication will incorporate all Princetonians as partners in the University's development. On-going discussions about graduate housing and workers' rights offer timely tests of that potential.
(Jason Brownlee is a politics graduate student from Raleigh, N.C. He can be reached at brownlee@princeton.edu)
Read More
For the record, video cameras at CPUC meetings must not go
Alex Norbrook“The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
“The right to video record is essential as a tool of accountability. Video allows journalists, activists, and spectators to capture a moment beyond what is said — it can record how someone speaks, or how someone reacts to speech.”
We need to keep breaking the glass ceiling of the ivory tower
Maria Luisa Vieira Parada“At Princeton, that means ensuring that there is upward career growth available for women. Women make up only 33 percent of tenured and tenure-track faculty, the people who could be potentially in line for higher administrative leadership at the University.”
“At Princeton, that means ensuring that there is upward career growth available for women. Women make up only 33 percent of tenured and tenure-track faculty, the people who could be potentially in line for higher administrative leadership at the University.”
Reactions: Guests respond to Eisgruber and Calhoun’s statements on protesting
Zeke DouglasRosenthal, Edward Yingling, and Wyatt BrowneGuests weigh in with their thoughts on free speech, institutional neutrality, and the role of the ‘Prince’ with respect to the University's statements on encampments.
Guests weigh in with their thoughts on free speech, institutional neutrality, and the role of the ‘Prince’ with respect to the University's statements on encampments.
