On two recent occasions, Students for Change and Binghamton University administrators met to discuss a series of demands listed by the group that are intended to improve campus — particularly for people of color and sexual minorities. Discussions at both forums were unproductive. Both Students for Change and the administrators representing the University are at fault in different ways for the failures of these meetings. With a third meeting set to occur this week, both parties have an opportunity to begin working toward a more inclusive campus.
Students for Change is making demands that deserve to be heard. Hiring more minorities as faculty, accepting more minority students, making bathrooms inclusive and requiring cultural competency courses for students are all valid suggestions and should be seriously considered by anyone who wishes to cultivate a diverse, progressive campus environment. Up until this point, Students for Change has been effective at getting administrators to the table and bringing attention to these worthy causes. Now is the time to take the next step.
If Students for Change continues to employ alienating tactics, administrators will not listen. These students have every right to protest, to shout and to disrupt. If the group’s only goal is to bring attention to its cause and publicly shame administrators, these tactics work. If these students actually wish to have a productive conversation, these tactics only further polarize those put in place to help them and make it unappealing and unlikely for fellow students to join their cause.
That said, we understand why Students for Change grows more agitated with every encounter. Some administrators are eager to address the group’s demands within their authority, but others seem more interested in defending existing policies. This isn’t good enough. When pressed on the University’s failure to hire more POC and LGBTQ faculty, Valerie Hampton, the chief diversity officer of the Office of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion, answered that the University lacks resources to attract these highly sought-after candidates. When Students for Change asked for the release of the Campus Climate Survey raw data, representatives initially declined. Students can’t trust an administration that refuses to be transparent, never mind that the data should be available with a Freedom of Information Act request anyway.
However, it seems like Students for Change isn’t interested in moving from attention-garnering activism to the politics needed to progress. It isn’t unreasonable to want to meet with President Harvey Stenger, but the administrators whose jobs are to deal with their requests — like Donald Nieman and Brian Rose — have proved themselves readily available, and yet have been ignored nonetheless. The Student Association exists as an elected voice for the student body, and although the bureaucracy can be intimidating, it is effective overall. Infrastructure within both the University and the student affairs administration already exists to help Students for Change, but Students for Change must make a better effort to understand how these outlets function.
The types of tactics that Students for Change employs reflect those that have worked in other historical situations, but don’t make much sense here. There already exists at this University a system to empower students and help them effect change, yet Students for Change insists on working outside of this system. It’s easy to condemn a group that seems to refuse to work within a given system, but we must remember that many students within this movement feel that the system has failed them. Why work within a system that is broken? It’s important to remember that the administrators here do not comprise an evil racist plutocracy bent on oppressing people of color and sexual minorities. They are all highly educated, come from diverse backgrounds and want to work with students and make this University a better place. Some are well-versed in the history and structures of oppression in America, being scholars on the subject. The human faces of the administrators should not be masked under a veil of bureaucracy — their unique positions, backgrounds and training should be acknowledged, which should facilitate improved communication and real progress.
There is real work to be done here. It’s time to turn down the noise so that we can all hear each other.