Responding to Tristan

One of the major arguments in Tristan’s article is that WooSCRAM has “the ability to affect real, immediate change at Wooster.” They go on to cite Dean Brown’s office hours, the Student Development Meeting with the Board of Trustees, and the willingness of the president to meet with students as evidence that we can bring about change through the established avenues of communication and negotiation with the administration.

There are many problems with the claim that these so-called small-D democratic mechanisms are effective at bringing about change. Two major goals of WooSCRAM are to end police involvement with student drug violations, and to end non-consensual room searches by college security officials. The administration, even president Bolton herself, has made it crystal clear that these demands are off the table.

During a question and answer session on Black & Gold weekend, Bolton was asked explicitly about the drug policy of calling the police immediately when students are caught with so much as a tiny amount of an illegal drug or paraphernalia.

Bolton’s response: “[Our drug policy] must be consistent with the law. We don’t have an option for [our drug policy] not to be consistent with the law.”

This is clearly not true given the fact that a number of liberal arts schools in the greater NE Ohio area do not involve the police when students are found with small amounts of drugs. Rather, they handle such violations internally. This of course spares their students from the humiliation, loss of dignity, mental stress and financial burden of going to court and pleading guilty to a drug charge.

That being said, if any group were to confront Dean Brown in his office, or the Board of Trustees at their Student Development meeting, with the demand that the school cease involvement of the police when students violate the drug policy, they will ALWAYS be shut down by the same argument touted by our president: our hands are tied by the law. What good are these democratic mechanisms when the administration, which yields absolute power over its students, is in absolute opposition to our demands?

Tristan also makes the argument that WooSCRAM’s portrayal of the administration as primarily interested in maintaining order and boosting their prestige is “intellectually dishonest” because it plays into a “false narrative” of the administration. The evidence they use to counter our argument is the past successes of the student body to have their demands met by the administration. They cite the following:

• Administrative staff members for Greek Life and for service & civic responsibility
• A sexual assault notification system
• A fund for faculty diversity

While it is undeniable that the existing democratic mechanisms of the administration can be used to bring about change, the effectiveness of these mechanisms is very limited. The administration is known to use the lofty and morally righteous rhetoric of social justice as a tool to construct an image of themselves, to pretend that they are on the side of student activists. Instituting the changes listed above are consistent with this message of solidarity, and they indeed serve to build it up. The concessions made by the administration do not require that they end or fundamentally change an existing and deeply entrenched policy, but rather that they set aside funds here and create administrative positions there. These are not necessarily concessions, for they indirectly serve the interests of the administration by strengthening their narrative of being a force for good in the fight for social justice.

Furthermore, the actions of the administration behind closed doors reveal their true priorities. The following administrative actions and behaviors are the basis of our claim that they prioritize order and money over the well-being of students:

• Blatant and repeated censorship of activist organizations on campus
• Aggressive and unprovoked searches of student dorms
  • These are practically raids
• History of harassment and retaliation of students advocating for social justice
• Raising the already outrageous cost of attendance every year for four straight years
• Criminally high salaries for top-level administrators
• Inadequate support for financially distressed students
  • This is in regard specifically to student loans and financial advice
• Exploitative textbook buyback program through the Wilson Bookstore

To ignore the active role of the administration in perpetuating these slights at student dignity and financial and emotional well-being is to be dishonest about the student-administration relationship overall.

Tristan also fails to note the fact that much of the decision-making power lies not with the administration, but with the Board of Trustees. Even if president Bolton is in support of some of our demands, if the Board of Trustees is not on board with the changes, they will never be considered. This of course reflects the power and influence of those who give generously to the College, giving credence to the argument that the administration prioritizes money over the well-being of students.

We distrust the administration because of its actions and behaviors listed above. This distrust is justified and logical for any student organization that desires real change. While we cannot directly engage with the administration for fear of suppression or retaliation, we can raise awareness about administrative abuse and neglect for those whose stories do not reach the Wooster community, and support other activist organizations on campus who are working to protect students from such abuses.