Editor’s note: This letter is in response to a commentary publised last week, titled “Oath of Inclusion is not inclusive of all Billikens.”
Last week, The University News published a commentary concerning the effectiveness of the Oath of Inclusion and its seeming lack of including all students in the effort. The main argument was to draw similarities between the current Oath of Inclusion campaign and the “We Are All Billikens” campaign from the 2009-2010 school year.
To begin, I want to address more accurately the “We Are All Billikens” campaign. I was on campus at the time so I think it would be best to provide some context that was not detailed in last week’s editorial. The “We Are All Billikens” campaign was a symbolic effort by one student organization. And while it was a laudable effort at the time, it was not a commitment written by students from all different backgrounds on campus, deliberated on for over a year, unanimously legislated by Student Government Association, presented to the President’s Coordinating Council, advocated to the Board of Trustees Student Development Committee, spoken about at the Federal Reserve of St. Louis, and integrated into SLU101 and Welcome Week events. The Oath, on the other hand, was.
The Oath has also been the catalyst to bring all groups that define themselves as “diversity or social justice” focused together each week through the Diversity Leadership Cabinet. This is an open forum where students can debate and program around community-building issues. The Oath has dictated passionate conversations from Griesedieck Hall to the floors of DuBourg. It has brought myself and a staff member together, in near tears, addressing what the Jesuit Mission lived out can do for this campus.
I state these accomplishments because I feel the article portrayed the Oath as another campaign without substance. I would encourage further research and deliberation before making such claims. Indeed, buttons and videos have been a part of the campaign. In coming weeks, so will t-shirts and place cards on dining tables. They are there to create other avenues to deliver the message. However, they are not the substance of the campaign, rather they are the indicators of its progress. The leaders of the Oath campaign do not think someone wearing a button will change this culture. We believe the buttons may spark a conversation between two people about what community means to them: a conversation that may not have occurred otherwise.
Throughout this campaign’s inception, it has never been portrayed as the cure all and it never will be. Nor has it ever been solely in the hands of Student Government. It has been a sincere, humble, and courageous attempt led by many students and supported by administrators and staff to create dialogue about our community, break down superficial barriers that divide us as Billikens, and put forward structural changes that will outlast our SLU career.
To conclude, I want to thank The University News for printing last week’s article. The Oath is an opportunity for us to challenge each other sincerely and to motivate one another to constantly push for a better Saint Louis University. As The University News editorial board alluded to last week, the Oath is an initiative that we have placed much emphasis and attention. Although we have made great strides two months into our term to improve study and casual spaces on campus, clean up the CSO financial process, improve academic resources, strengthen SGA’s relationship with students, and make CSO’s better connected on campus, we stand by our efforts to advocate for the Oath. We understand that we cannot tackle issues together unless all students feel safe and loved on campus. Pushing for an inclusive campus has been a priority of our administration, and it will continue to be.
I hope The University News, as members of the SLU community, will also embrace the Oath as their own. I hope they attend DLC events ready to engage students and interview attendees to gather further meaning. I hope, as “a voice for the students,” The University News promotes efforts pushed by students. I hope they realize while critique can be a justifiable and necessary message, so can advocacy.
Bringing up campaigns of the past cannot be the only direction from an organization of this stature. Looking to the future, pushing for a stronger community, and engaging all students, including your Student Government, has to be core to this paper’s efforts. It is not an option. It is your duty.
Together, this is the SLU we can believe in. This is the community you and I can build together. This is our SLU.
Matt Ryan is the president of Student Government Association.
Kripa Sreepada • Nov 4, 2011 at 5:20 pm
This is a great point, B. It’s very important to remember that our efforts in advocating for diversity and inclusion are not limited to what we can see on the surface. Rather, they extend to the marginalization that is not always so obvious, such as, as you mentioned, socioeconomic status. In a lot of ways, the fact that you cannot see socioeconomic diversity is the very reason why it is so hard to advocate for- that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t. I am not sure if you are aware, but there is a group on campus called Saint Louis University for Undergraduate Socio-Economic Diversity (SLU/FUSED) which has the mission of promoting socioeconomic diversity at SLU while coordinating efforts to ensure that all students are involved and included in our on campus activity, regardless of socioeconomic status. This group is certainly not the answer to the problem of marginalization based on socioeconomic status, but it is the first step in coordinating such advocacy. If you are interested in becoming a part of this group, they meet on Thursdays at 5:00 PM in the Student Government Association office in the BSC. Or, if you would like to have a one on one conversation on what more we can do to advocate for this important issue, please feel free to email me at [email protected], and we can work on this together.
B • Oct 31, 2011 at 10:57 am
Wouldn’t it be something if we actually focused our attention on those who are truly affected by being outcasts – those at SLU who are truly disadvantaged by the policies and general rhythm of standards at SLU? What if we were to have a program to take these downtrodden, outcasts and incorporate their needs so they had a fair chance to succeed with equality at SLU? I am not talking about SLU’s African-American, Indian, or even Asian population – no I am talking about a far more suppressed group: those of poor socioeconomic status and commuters. While racial inequalities may still exist in a minor fashion, racial groups here are proud of who they are, they are generally united, and they have an almost unfair advocacy from the school and supporting organizations. The poor and displaced however, have no real power, their suffering goes unnoticed. Their waning grades and constant monetary struggles affect not only their ability to maintain the proper and necessary mental state needed to succeed here at SLU, but also suffer the indignity of the lack of legitimacy in the difficulties of their uniquely challenging path. Their is no pride in not being able to be a full part of the SLU community due to working two jobs just to afford food, or the pain of feeling less as richies parade around in sweat pants more expensive then your entire outfit (when it was purchased some years ago). Yes, the burdens are many and the suffering is great. They have neither the pride of the races, nor the benefit these groups generally have coming from rich families. If SLU is to help include anyone based on the Jesuit Mission, it should be the poor and the suffering here at SLU before anyone else…
mandingo's friend • Oct 10, 2011 at 8:44 am
Yeah, no one cares about this oath. You guys can debate it all you want, talk about it all you want, but you keep debating and talking about it with the same freaking people. Ask about it around campus; people who don’t keep up with the U News or SGA will, by and large, have no idea what you’re talking about. It’s just another thing SLU plasters on a wall for us to look at when we get bored, and while I’m going to get blasted for not internalizing its message you can bet the majority of other people aren’t going to do it either.
And yeah, I know you’re going to promote it. But if it’s like anything else that gets “promoted” here, it will be on a flyer in the dorms that no one reads because no normal person wants to read a freaking flyer in their down time.
It’s amazing to me that you guys wonder why we don’t get excited about a kindergarten-level PSA about treating others with respect.
Billiken Fan 3 • Oct 9, 2011 at 11:41 pm
I completely agree with Eric. This “oath of inclusion” to me seems cultish and hypocritical. This school has a religious affiliation and bases their decisions on what their religion preaches. So to me, saying that the students here are accepting of all ideologies is garbage because the administration clearly favors one view over others. It is purely a way to make our school look better, but really offers nothing.
If the school really wants to show they are accepting of all students, they should drop their religious affiliation.
Eric Behna • Oct 7, 2011 at 8:22 am
The Oath of Inclusion is just something for the SLU administration to hide behind. They have this big PR campaign so it looks like they have made this huge commitment to diversity and to creating an accepting and diverse student body. Behind closed doors however, they have no intention of practicing the Oath, especially the part about embracing different ideologies and worldviews. At SLU we will unfortunately only get the opportunity to embrace the ideologies and worldviews that the administration deems Catholic enough and non-controversial enough so as not to raise any eyebrows or piss off any alumni. And any speaker we do have must agree to follow the ?Jesuit Addendum Clause?, a document that asphyxiates free speech and that most students don?t even know exists because it is not publicly available. The administration will inhibit diversity by continuing to censor student organizations through the Center for Student Involvement by denying speaker requests and using countless obstruction tactics such as contradictory forms, illogical signatures, and 20 day waiting periods. Perhaps the Oath will make students more accepting but no real change or promotion of diversity will occur when the people at the top would rather see the progressive CSO?s on campus wither and die. They actively facilitate this by placing numerous obstacles and lengthy red tape in front of even the most tame student organizations. I?m not very optimistic about the net effect the Oath will have on campus due to this obstruction and ignorance from above, but I hope for our sake history will prove me wrong.
Billiken Fan • Oct 7, 2011 at 7:52 am
Well written. I am happy SLU has someone like you leading them. Keep up the great work!
And “no one cares”, Mr. Mcgee? That’s bold words for someone who won’t even write their real name. Two years ago 3 hate crimes occurred on our campus, but hey, you wouldn’t know that right? No one cares right???
As for the university news, shame on you. We all know you are just trying to impress whatever journalism agency will take you after graduation by trying to spin something good. You should embrace this because you know what happened a few years ago when diversity was looked at negatively. Don’t try to look for a story and spin good intentions. Work in the interest of students for once.
Mandingo McGee • Oct 6, 2011 at 11:13 pm
Nobody cares about the Oath and diversity on this campus is a joke. where is the white student alliance? Stop trying to act all high and mighty because you think you are “diverse” and what not. This whole oath business makes me laugh. Nobody takes it seriously.