The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

The Student News Site of Saint Louis University

The University News

Talking Points

A university administration can understand its relationship with its students in one of four ways: It may aim for partnership, in which students and administrators cooperate equally in assembling and assimilating knowledge for the good of the whole community. Or, perhaps more realistically, it may sell out to a supply and demand model, an ethical relationship in which students, as customers, pay tens of thousands of dollars for the goods and services associated with an education. Or, administrators may follow an authoritarian approach, single-handedly deciding for students what will or will not happen without consulting involved parties beforehand-or, alarmingly, without informing them of the decision afterward. The best way to conceive of the relationship might be that of a benevolent monarchy, in which a concerned ruler devotes his or her life to the well-being and betterment of the (re)public.

Which type of relationship do Saint Louis University administrators maintain? Let’s examine several recent examples of administrative communication:

The Graduation Fee: Approximately one month before graduation, administrators decided that seniors graduating in May 2005 should pay an arbitrary $75 fee to graduate. Students rallied in front of DuBourg Hall, protesting loudly enough so that administrators repealed the fee. University President Lawrance Biondi, S.J., later admitted in a July 28, 2005 article in The University News that the fee “was a mistake … not in the concept, but in its implementation.” It was reinstated the following year.

The bottom line: Students spoke out; administrators listened.

Fr. Michael Doody, S.J., and Fr. Bernard Barry, S.J.: These two beloved priests repeatedly advocated student interests and were known to clash with the administration. Apparently, voicing student concerns about the proposed 2005 graduation fee were the final straw; Barry was fired, and Doody was let go for refusing to fire Barry. They were terminated during summer break, conveniently, when it was most difficult to rally students. When students returned in the fall, the two priests had been gone for nearly two months.

Story continues below advertisement

The bottom line: Administrators decided; students bit the bullet.

FACHEX: University administrators revoked the terms of agreement for study abroad financing for students who received FACHEX scholarships. During the 2005-2006 academic year, administrators decided not to count FACHEX toward SLU-sponsored study abroad programs as they advertised they would. The problem? Students didn’t know about the decision until they had already been accepted into programs, filed paperwork, purchased plane tickets and received the administrative go-ahead. Furthermore, administrators didn’t issue a formal statement until after they had charged FACHEX students thousands of dollars.

The bottom line: Administrators decided; students bit the bullet.

Yearbook Fee: During the 2005-2006 school year, students voted not to fund SLU’s Archive yearbook, yet we still paid for its production. We still don’t know how the money was spent, or if we are still being charged for the publication of a non-existent yearbook in the future.

Bottom line: Students voted; administrators still collected.

Student Leader Stipends: Administrators drastically cut student leader stipends, then capriciously redistributed the funds among 19 leaders without increasing total funding. The decision to cut stipends, communicated by former Vice President of Student Development Phil Lyons, was not attributed to any particular administrator-only to “the administration.” As with the FACHEX cut, student leaders didn’t know they owed the University money-or, in some cases, that they had received a scholarship-until it showed up in their Banner accounts. SGA President Krauss drafted a weak proposal for how the money should be distributed next year.

The bottom line: Students leaders spoke out; administrators listened, but their decision remained the same.

Tuition increase: An annual six percent tuition increase is standard for American universities. Next year, SLU’s tuition will increase by 8.5 percent. Students complained, and Student Government Association President Evan Krauss set up a town hall meeting with Biondi to discuss their concerns (nearly a month after the announcement). Vice presidents justified the increase and explained what the extra charges would pay for.

The bottom line: Students spoke out; administrators listened, then went ahead with their plans.

Soderberg: In a monumental blunder that received substantial media attention in the past two weeks, SLU fired men’s basketball coach Brad Soderberg-almost two months after the season ended. The timing was embarrassingly foolish, as all qualified coaches are already employed elsewhere. Administrators issued a canned press statement and are refusing to explain or even discuss the move until recently. Strange, considering that Athletic Director Cheryl Levick backed Soderberg throughout his employment, and that Soderberg was on a recruiting trip when he learned that he was fired.

The bottom line: Administrators made a foolish choice, yet delayed in explaining it and hesitated in taking responsibility for their actions.

SLU is obviously not a democracy. Though inspiring in theory, direct democracy-considering each student’s voice before each administrative decision-is an improbable daydream, and an inefficient method for running an institution as complex as SLU. Little would get done if we were a direct democracy. True, we uphold a representative democracy in SGA, but that body cannot override administrative decision. It can only suggest a course of action to decision-makers. It cannot demand that they change their minds. Students and administrators do not equally share power.

SLU can be considered a business. As students, we are customers of this University. The University is supposed to provide us with all of the resources of a great education: superior classes, facilities, organizational funding and, above all, respect for our concerns. If we are SLU’s customers, however, the customer service we receive-especially with regard to respect for student opinions-has been sub-par, at best.

Attempts at respectful dialogue between administrators and the student body, like the recent town hall meeting, are commendable efforts. However, they should be commonplace, rather than rare novelties that students must struggle to bring to life. Each semester, upper-level administrators should meet with students to discuss issues of concern. They should poll students, seeking input before making unilateral decisions. If this is a business transaction, we must demand the customer service that we are paying for. (We would get better customer service at Wal-Mart). We must demand meaningful dialogue. We must demand a voice, and a noticeable return on our investment. SLU administrators, this is the reason we patronize your business. You are here to serve us. Respect us enough to do what we are paying you to do. Listen to us. Realize our demands.

Unfortunately, SLU resembles an authoritarian regime. Of course, a sweeping claim censuring all administrators without discernment would be unethical and hypocritical. But, we must question any organization-be it a university, a government or a Girl Scout troop-that makes decisions without consulting its members. We must question any organization in which an atmosphere of fear and secrecy is propagated from the highest rungs; where the faculty senate has called the administration “fear-mongering;” where employees dread speaking their mind for fear of losing their jobs; where we falter before voicing concerns, suspecting they will be blatantly ignored. We must question any organization that sets itself on such a shaky pedestal. Niccolo Machiavelli asserted that it is better for a ruler to be feared than loved. Boy, Machiavelli sure knew how to motivate people within the confines of despotism.

Yes, SLU is a private university, bound by different standards of honesty and revelation than a public university funded by taxpayers. SLU is funded largely by our financial input. As such, administrators have an ethical responsibility to disclose their actions and motivations to us when these decisions directly affect students, as public universities report to taxpayers, and the state. They cannot simply tout their greatness when they make appropriate decisions and cower when they err. Until then, any hope of classifying SLU’s administration as a benevolent monarchy is nothing more than an ephemeral pipe dream.

Leave a Comment
Donate to The University News
$1410
$750
Contributed
Our Goal

Your donation will support the student journalists of Saint Louis University. Your contribution will help us cover our annual website hosting costs.

More to Discover
Donate to The University News
$1410
$750
Contributed
Our Goal

Comments (0)

All The University News Picks Reader Picks Sort: Newest

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *