Spring Break
What about us?
John Jose, jjose@smu.edu
Issue date: 1/23/07 Section: Opinion
- Page 1 of 3 next >
Shame on Janis Bergman, David A. Freidel, Valeria A. Karras, Andrew Weaver, George Crawford, William McElvaney, and all others who have completely ignored the students of SMU and deemed them, by virtue of exclusion, to be irrelevant. My disgusted astonishment is so complete that I hardly know where to begin.
It is impertinent if someone is for or against the Bush Library and Institute; which side of the debate they fall on is immaterial. The sticking point that shocks me to the core is the complete and utter disregard of the true reason for a university's existence: the students. In their recent article, "Focusing the discussion on the Bush Institute, NOT the Library" (Jan. 19), Bergman, Freidel, and Karras expressed concerns about the independence and ideology, among other things, of the proposed Bush Institute. All well and good; in fact, dialogue on the issue should be encouraged, and I'm the first to applaud their discursive intentions. However, in their three-page, 1069-word article, the authors used the word "students" a mere three times, and each time it was preceded by the word "faculty," which was used fifteen times. Were I a math or psychology major, I might speculate as to the deeper meaning of using "faculty" five times as often as "students."
Speaking of intentions, I also heartily support William McElvaney's statement, "We feel we would be less than responsible if we didn't find out what people really feel," and agree wholeheartedly when he states that the discussions that have happened so far are "small and limited." Yet it seems strange that instead of calling for a truly open discussion involving the student body, not just the faculty, he would decamp to one side of the debate concerned with only a certain facet of the issue.
What concerns me is the obvious implication that the students at SMU fall far below the top of the list of priorities. This impression is not limited to the aforementioned professors; remarks by other members of the faculty, administration and representatives of the student body, certain existing policies, and actions noted for their non-existence reinforce the overall notion that, on the hierarchy of concerns at SMU, the student body's well-being sits shamefully low.
It is impertinent if someone is for or against the Bush Library and Institute; which side of the debate they fall on is immaterial. The sticking point that shocks me to the core is the complete and utter disregard of the true reason for a university's existence: the students. In their recent article, "Focusing the discussion on the Bush Institute, NOT the Library" (Jan. 19), Bergman, Freidel, and Karras expressed concerns about the independence and ideology, among other things, of the proposed Bush Institute. All well and good; in fact, dialogue on the issue should be encouraged, and I'm the first to applaud their discursive intentions. However, in their three-page, 1069-word article, the authors used the word "students" a mere three times, and each time it was preceded by the word "faculty," which was used fifteen times. Were I a math or psychology major, I might speculate as to the deeper meaning of using "faculty" five times as often as "students."
Speaking of intentions, I also heartily support William McElvaney's statement, "We feel we would be less than responsible if we didn't find out what people really feel," and agree wholeheartedly when he states that the discussions that have happened so far are "small and limited." Yet it seems strange that instead of calling for a truly open discussion involving the student body, not just the faculty, he would decamp to one side of the debate concerned with only a certain facet of the issue.
What concerns me is the obvious implication that the students at SMU fall far below the top of the list of priorities. This impression is not limited to the aforementioned professors; remarks by other members of the faculty, administration and representatives of the student body, certain existing policies, and actions noted for their non-existence reinforce the overall notion that, on the hierarchy of concerns at SMU, the student body's well-being sits shamefully low.
Viewing Comments 1 - 3 of 5
Asad Rahman
posted 1/23/07 @ 10:31 AM CST
Mr. Jose,
While what you say is correct and your goals admirable, I think you may be a bit off on your criticism. The administration has taken the students' voice as part of the discussion from the beginning. (Continued…)
Ben
posted 1/23/07 @ 5:46 PM CST
John Jose - I would like to have you step off of Olympus for a bit, stop passing judgments, and think about what you are saying.
First off - you primarily attack opponents of the library - but you leave the Chairs of the History and Political Science departments who wrote an article in favor of it out of your conversation. (Continued…)
Ben Hatch
posted 1/23/07 @ 8:33 PM CST
While Asad is right that the university has nominally attempted to garner student input, the idea that said attempts are substantial is belied by the lack of reference to student voices. (Continued…)
Post a Comment