2008 Woodie Awards
Letter to the Editor
Issue date: 3/22/06 Section: Letters to the Editor
Dear Editor,
There is a battle brewing on campus. A battle that is not between the old rivals the Administration and the faculty, or even the Administration and the students. No this battle pits a few members of the faculty leadership against the students.
First, a bit of background: The Academic Senate consists of about 40 faculty, a few Administrators and 3 students and, as a body, it decides all academic policy on campus. It sounds idyllic except that as the Academic Senate rules are laid out, students have little to no say on any academic policy on campus. Issues such as how many times you can repeat a course, what GE looks like, advising policies, who gets priority registration and beyond, are all passed without the student voice and opinion being recorded in the public record. This despite the Academic Senate's mission statement which calls for input by all stakeholders.
Granted, we have a seat around the table. But a seat has little value when there is no vote attached to it. Sonoma State students, then, are effectively disenfranchised from the very process which they should have the most say in: what kind of policies are imposed upon us.
The logic behind this disenfranchisement is three-fold. First the faculty leadership has expressed its concerns about our "independence in voice." To quote the faculty response to our request for a vote "the fact that the students do not have a vote ensures their independent voice." I challenge the faculty leadership to explain how limiting our input makes us more independent.
As if that logic train wasn't enough, members of the faculty have asked about the "quality" of students. I sat in a room, defending our right to vote, and saw professors look me I the eye and ask me if I thought that the students were qualified to vote in the Academic Senate. Such a line of reasoning is paternalistic at best and insulting at worst. How could a member of the faculty imply that students are somehow not intelligent enough to articulate our interests to the Senate? And even if such implications were true, is that a reason to procedurally exclude the largest portion of the campus community from the process?
There is a battle brewing on campus. A battle that is not between the old rivals the Administration and the faculty, or even the Administration and the students. No this battle pits a few members of the faculty leadership against the students.
First, a bit of background: The Academic Senate consists of about 40 faculty, a few Administrators and 3 students and, as a body, it decides all academic policy on campus. It sounds idyllic except that as the Academic Senate rules are laid out, students have little to no say on any academic policy on campus. Issues such as how many times you can repeat a course, what GE looks like, advising policies, who gets priority registration and beyond, are all passed without the student voice and opinion being recorded in the public record. This despite the Academic Senate's mission statement which calls for input by all stakeholders.
Granted, we have a seat around the table. But a seat has little value when there is no vote attached to it. Sonoma State students, then, are effectively disenfranchised from the very process which they should have the most say in: what kind of policies are imposed upon us.
The logic behind this disenfranchisement is three-fold. First the faculty leadership has expressed its concerns about our "independence in voice." To quote the faculty response to our request for a vote "the fact that the students do not have a vote ensures their independent voice." I challenge the faculty leadership to explain how limiting our input makes us more independent.
As if that logic train wasn't enough, members of the faculty have asked about the "quality" of students. I sat in a room, defending our right to vote, and saw professors look me I the eye and ask me if I thought that the students were qualified to vote in the Academic Senate. Such a line of reasoning is paternalistic at best and insulting at worst. How could a member of the faculty imply that students are somehow not intelligent enough to articulate our interests to the Senate? And even if such implications were true, is that a reason to procedurally exclude the largest portion of the campus community from the process?