The Performance, Presentation and Speaker Policy currently under use by the administration began two years ago as a result of student support for a change in the speaker-approval process. The proposed title for this was “Speaker Policy” when it was first introduced by Student Government Association. The title, among other things, has since been revised by the administration, failing to include student feedback.

This is an unseemly gesture from the administration that claims that “the exchange of ideas and the opportunity to critically analyze and express different viewpoints is essential to the University’s mission” but has failed to accommodate an “exchange of ideas” before it revises its speaker policy.

Student leaders are aware of the daunting process they must go through in order to get speakers approved. This process has become so time-consuming that often, instead of providing encouragement, faculty advisers have discouraged the pursuit of many speakers and programs, presuming they would not get approved. This is not exactly the best way to encourage scholarship and the pursuit of truth by students, and it gives the organization advisors too much decision-making power.

While there is no question that the University should have a speaker policy to preserve not only its mission, but also the order and peace of the campus environment, the process through which this policy was implemented has become the main focus of criticism.

The speaker policy was originally put forth as a proposal from SGA, including input from student leaders that were – directly or indirectly – elected by the student body. The administration made changes to the policy over the summer, in the absence of the student assembly. This put the students’ input at a great disadvantage to give feedback on how the policy should be implemented.

Lack of transparency in the changes made to the speaker policy and the administration’s failure to include effective student input severely damage the bridge of trust. What is worse, however, is that this policy creates the illusion that students’ voices are important to the administration, while, in reality, they were never taken into account in the revision of the policy.

Ultimately, it is only with transparency and honesty that such issues can be prevented. The administration’s respect for student voices and input reflects how much it expects students to become responsible and powerful individuals in their future. At this point, this expectation does not appear to be very high.