Administration must improve communication

We have never lauded the University administration for its transparency. Indeed, over the past few years, we have often encountered a leadership whose opaque, need-to-know style of dispersing information seems better suited for a Cold-War era intelligence agency than an institution of higher learning.

The most recent example of this mentality occurred last spring, when we were presented with a grade-deflation proposal that was, for all intents and purposes, a fait accompli, despite the significant effect the policy may have on the post-graduation prospects of the entire student body. So it is with disappointment, but not exactly surprise, that we now find that student representatives not only lacked input in the recent report of the Faculty Committee on Grading but also were not even aware of its existence.

Such opacity on the part of the administration is not only disrespectful to the USG, but it is also bad policy. The University leadership may very well be made up of capable and committed individuals, but they are not students and cannot possibly make well-informed judgments without the added perspective of those whom their policies are going to affect most.

No doubt this is why the University's own "Rights, Rules and Responsibilities" handbook specifies that at least one member of a given USG committee has the right to sit on the parallel faculty committee. Administration officials who tell USG officers that the sessions of the Faculty Committee on Grading are, in effect, none of their business should refer to University regulations.

By no means are we suggesting that students should have the final say on all University policy. But accepting student imput is a very different matter from begging for student approval. As the plans for the new four-year residential colleges move forward, thus far with minimal student involvement, the University would be wise to recognize this fact.