Why do Students leave school?

While the exact details of retention comprise a science in and of themselves, students leave for a variety of reasons, the most common reasons being money, relationships, homesickness, and issues adjusting to college. While the university has put much effort into keeping students on campus, students still bear most of the responsibility for their college experiences. There are no cure-all solutions; rather, students should be constantly looking for ways they can deal with challenges of campus life.

With the economy, more people are facing the effects of having an empty wallet. College is expensive; with financial aid declining, fewer students can afford to stay in school.

For a student worrying about paying for college, it may be beneficial to change his or her meal plan, taking fewer credits, or finding a job and saving up money during the off-school season. It would be wise to talk to financial aid early and plan ahead, as well as filling out a FAFSA form as early as possible. Also, cuts in luxurious spending can deifinitely be made–maybe that weekly Starbucks is not the best use of one’s money.

Sometimes a student misses a boyfriend or girlfriend back home, or he or she meets someone at college; his or her friend changes schools, so the initial student does as well. Bear in mind that relationships and people do change–in fact, over half of all marriages end in divorce. If a person is considering leaving or changing school of choice, particularly because of a relationship, he or she should think carefully before making the choice. In time, the student’s partner may realize that his or her partner has a different idea for his or her life. The counseling center offers relationship help to people on an everyday basis. Talking to someone else can provide a different perspective.

For some people, being alone away from home for the first time can be frightening. Some people just cannot deal with the shock at first. If feeling homesick, a student should try to be active in the college community. There are a lot of clubs, sports, activities ranging from intramural sports to the creative and performing arts. A new student shouldn’t mope around in his or her dorm; insted, he or she should go outside and see what there is to see.

College Is very different from high school. There are places a new student can go for advice. RAs can give advice. A first-year student should talk to one if he is having a problem. They are students, too. Peer Health Educators, Counseling office, Writing Center, Math Resources center, are also solid resources for students, they don’t charge students for services and they’re already on campus. New students should talk to professors as soon as they have a problem. They are people too, they won’t bite and tuition goes towards paying them–they’re an underutilized resource.

Students are not alone on campus. There are people and places that can help, but students need to take action, too. If a student has a question, chances are at least ten other people have the same question.
The only dumb question is the one that is not asked. Students shouldn’t wait until New Year’s Day. They need to resolve to take action now, before the problems get too big.

Justin C. Kokkinis is deputy opinion editor at The Saginaw Valley Journal.

“Hey, wanna go to the Ryder Center to work out?”

“I have class in Arbury at 4.”

“I have go to to Curtiss Hall.”

In everyday conversation, Cardinals mention names like Arbury, Wickes, Ryder Center, T.S.A.R.; they are an integral part of the SVSU culture. The full impact these building namesakes had on the university is too large to fit in this article. So, I present a brief summary from A to Z:

Arbury Hall is named after Dorothy ‘Honey’ Arbury, the granddaughter of the founder of Dow Chemical. She and her husband contributed and raised money for the building, and arranged for Marshall M. Fredericks to leave his collection to SVSU. She also served on the governing board for it’s first 25 years.

Brown Hall is named after Maurice Brown who served on the board from 1963-72 and personally negotiated the purchase of land to expand the growing school. Incidentally, the brick on the building could be considered a shade of brown.

Curtiss Hall is named after Charles Curtiss, the longest serving board of control member. He served for 32 years. During his time, he played a major role in shaping the campus we know today.

Doan Hall is named after a Ted Doan, the grandson of Herbert H. Dow. Mr. Doan was C.E.O. of Dow Chemical and one of the original incorporators of Saginaw Valley along with his father.

The Herbert Dow Science Building (better known to students as Science East and Science West) is named after the founder of Dow Chemical.

The Marble Lecture Hall in Wickes is not made of a fancy stone. It is, however, named after SVSU’s first president: Samuel Davey Marble. Marble is one of the founding fathers of the university. Before coming to Saginaw Valley, he was the President of Delta College. In 1964 he was appointed president of S.V.C., a position he held for nearly 10 years. During his tenure, Saginaw Valley grew from a small room in the basement of Delta to a full fledged college. The Lecture Hall was named in his honor.

The Ryder center is named after Dr. Jack McBride Ryder, who was the second president of SVSU from 1974 to 1989. After his presidency he taught in the College of Education until his retirement in 1991. During his tenure the college, the school added eight facilities and the student body increased 155 percent. He will always be remembered for the growth that happened during his time here at SVSU.

Groening Commons does not refer to the sound made by tired students after a night of studying. It was named after Bill Groening, who was vice president and general counsel for Dow Chemical, a member of the first governing board, and later served as chairman.

While I have never heard a student refer to the Robert Maurovich Student Life Center by anything but ‘student life’, Robert Maurovich was the vice president of student affairs and enrollment management for 15 years. It was named this year.

Wickes Hall is named after founding Board of Control member Harvey Randall Wickes. He founded the Wickes Foundation, and donated the first $1 million to the building fund and later left the bulk of his estate to the foundation. He played a major role in organizing SVSU.

Mel Zahnow was a member of the board, and the chair of the Wickes Foundation. The library is named after him.
So I wonder. What will be named after President Gilbertson?

Justin C. Kokkinis is a columnist and deputy opinion editor at The Saginaw Valley Journal.

A man once said, “The road to success is dotted with many tempting parking places.”

As I have grown throughout the years, this quote reminds me of just how hard it is to keep going sometimes. It is just too damn easy to throw in the towel when it comes to the challenges we face each and every day.

We can break it down any which way we would like, but the fact of the matter is that we are human. We grow tired, mentally and physically. The important thing is to keep moving forward. Ask yourself, what have I done today, to meet the goals I have set for tomorrow?

As your Student Association president, I ask myself that very question each and every morning. What am I doing today to ensure our collective voice as students, is being heard?

I talk about success, and goal-setting, because as your Student Association president, I have made it my goal to ensure the issues you as the students care about, are being addressed. A big issue I have been discussing with students is the new alcohol policy.

As Student Association president, I am speaking from the heart, and I am speaking on behalf of my own beliefs, which are beliefs shared by many concerned students I have talked with. It must be made absolutely clear that my opinion in no way, shape or form represents the beliefs of Student Association as a whole.

The new alcohol policy has come under fire, and to some extent, I can understand why. The limitations seem to be a controversial subject. Under the current policy, on-campus residents who are of age can keep a maximum of 12 beers in their apartment. I would like to see that number increased to at least 30 beers.

Before one should take a side on an issue, it is important to look at the issue from all angles. With the alcohol policy, one must understand the administration’s point of view. I completely understand the reasoning behind the strict limitations on alcohol for on-campus residents; but I feel that there are other solutions. President Gilbertson and the administration here at SVSU have the best of intentions in mind, and that is the safety and well-being of the students. Myself, and most others are supportive of policies put in place to keep students safe, I just disagree with the administration on certain measures, because I don’t see how such measures keep students safer.

When an issue arises, where students are in disagreement with a policy put in place by the university, it is imperative that the Student Association president and other campus leaders remain professional and respectful. For obvious reasons, students and the administration are not going to agree on everything, 100 percent of the time.

By asking questions first, and then proceeding to seek a compromise, Students can create positive, concrete change to the University we all call home. The Administration has a job to do, and it is a tough and challenging one. Let’s promote constructive, positive discussions, not negative, name calling rants.

Ted Goodman is president of the SVSU Student Association.

Editor’s Note: This op-ed also appeared in print, in The Valley Vanguard on 10 Oct. 2011. It is the policy of The Saginaw Valley Journal to not publish any op-ed submissions that are sent to other publications. Mr. Goodman never indicated to The Journal that this submission would be sent to another publication. If we had known it was going to be sent to The Valley Vanguard, we would not have published it. The Journal regrets the error.

Driving through Chesaning it’s easy to picture the ville — located near the center of an imaginary triangle connecting Lansing, Saginaw and Flint — as the epitome of small town America.

Best known for the 74-year-old Showboat Music Festival, Chesaning is also home to a charming family-run clothing store.

In continuous business since 1919, Ed Rehmann & Sons claims to be Michigan’s oldest clothing store. (The previous owner’s store, in the same location, opened in 1882.)

Summing up the history as well as the changing reality of the clothing business, Ric Rehmann, who practically grew up in the store and has worked there for 43 years, said: “At one time we used to carry everything, but we had to change things to stay alive.”

Competing with the big-name chains isn’t always easy, but the store has done just that by offering a variety of clothing that meets the demands of its customers.

Not only does the store sell clothing for everyday life, it is also known for its made-in-America suits, manufactured by Tennessee-based Hardwick Clothes. Besides classic American suits, blazers and sport jackets, Ed Rehmann & Sons is a long-standing outfitter of Michigan-based Carhartt clothing and Minnesota’s Red Wing Shoes.

While the haberdashery end of the business has declined over the years with the general trend away from suits, Mr. Rehmann says the store still does a good business with local lawyers, doctors and other professional types.

But he couldn’t help opine that at one point over 500 suits were stocked.

Old-fashioned service has helped Ed Rehmann & Sons remain competitive at a time when many prospective customers simply head to the mall.

“You can’t put a price on the service aspect of our business,” said Mr. Rehmann, who also noted that the made-in-America tag is a draw for many customers. “We are an old-time store with old-time service.”

The store has even been a destination for what Mr. Rehmann called “Japanese pickers,” who visited to pick up deadstock offerings from Levi’s and Red Wing that were then likely re-sold at significantly higher prices to clothing enthusiasts in Japan.

Walking through the basement and upstairs storeroom makes one want to crawl around looking for an obscure dust-covered box of vintage Nike sneakers or a suit from long ago.

In fact, that’s what happened when I spotted a storage closet with upwards of a dozen jackets. My eyes quickly scanned what was hanging — I was full of sartorial delight.

I instantly spotted a wonderful deadstock tweed jacket, which Mr. Rehmann said had been in storage for a while, though there were no signs of dust and the tags weren’t faded, as some sartorialists have reported upon discovering deadstock at O’Connell’s Clothing in Buffalo.

Normally I wear a 40-short jacket, but this particular one was a 40-regular and fit well. With natural shoulders and a single so-called hook vent in back, all that was missing was a traditional three-roll-two lapel.

I also found a wonderful corduroy sport jacket that was very professorial. Regrettably, it was a 40-large and thus too big for me.

When I went to buy the tweed jacket, I was rebuffed and Mr. Rehmann offered it to me at gratis by joking that they normally donate “the old stuff” to local resale shops and charities.

Back on the floor, Mr. Rehmann showed me the Hardwick stock, which included a splendid Harris Tweed sport jacket.

He also told me the store could special order anything a customer wanted from Hardwick with prices around $300. That presumably includes the three-roll-two Max cut of jackets.

If you’re anywhere near Chesaning, it’s worth paying a visit to Ed Rehmann & Sons, even if it’s just to have a look around.

Sure you can get more expensive suits elsewhere, but it’s doubtful you can surpass the service of this 92-year-old family business and frankly you won’t find made-in-America at too many other places, at least in Michigan.

Dennis Lennox is senior consultant for public affairs at Sterling, Hoffman & Co.

Judges aren’t suppose to be politicians, yet today’s decision by the Federal Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit striking down a voter-approved state constitutional amendment was conveniently released as Michiganders make the ritual drive up to Cottage Country for Independence Day weekend.

Read more in Opinion Journal.

Traditionally, parents have experienced a combination of pride, empty-nest anxiety, and sheer exhaustion when driving their newly-freshman students to campus. But they often receive a subtle vibe from school officials: “Thank you for bringing your child to our college. Now please go away.”

Due to the federal law known as FERPA (Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act), parents have another reason for concern — will they be able to get enough information about their children while they’re in college?

Mothers, fathers, grandparents, and other tuition-paying relatives are frequently surprised to learn that they don’t have direct access to their students’ college grades. Many are shocked that they can’t have detailed discussions about their sons and daughters with the administrators of student support services on campus. FERPA is the reason.

It was not always so. FERPA dates from 1974. The Act was designed to protect the privacy of student educational records, including disciplinary records and transcripts. It didn’t have much negative impact until 2008. In that year, the student privacy landscape changed greatly, when the U.S. Department of Education revised its regulations applying the law.

The most important 2008 ‘clarifications’ of the law were: (1) that universities must implement safeguards to protect student records, and (2) that a student must consent before an educational institution was allowed to release his or her records.

Because of the ways in which many colleges and universities have interpreted the 2008 FERPA revisions, we now live under an academic version of secrecy that is at loggerheads with American and educational notions of openness and transparency. Many universities now use FERPA for what former Senator James Buckley (who sponsored the original law) feared that it might become: “an excuse for not giving out any information they didn’t want to give.”

According to the Student Press Law Center, FERPA led to unconstitutional restraints on a newspaper. Allegedly to protect student privacy under FERPA, the Wyoming Tribune Eagle was not permitted to publish details of an investigation into the conduct of a community college president. A law designed to protect student privacy was now being invoked to protect the behavior of a school administrator.

Similarly, after an alleged 2009 sexual assault involving two male Wake Forest basketball players and a female band member, school officials explained to the Charlotte Observer that they couldn’t comment because “a federal right to privacy law prevents them from commenting.”

After NBC’s ‘Today Show’ ran a May 2011 segment about sexual assaults involving athletes at both Wake Forest University and Indiana University, here is how the universities used FERPA in their official statements:

Wake Forest: “The University adheres to federal law that prevents us from discussing the details of this case.”

Indiana University: “Indiana University cannot release information about the specifics of this disciplinary proceeding because at least one of the students involved has not signed a FERPA waiver.”

In early 2011, the University of Oregon refused to release information beyond a 127-word statement about possible NCAA violations by its men’s basketball team, citing the need to protect students’ education records. Once again, as Senator Buckley feared, the law was used as an excuse for remaining quiet about a university scandal.

Citing FERPA, schools frequently state that they will not tell anyone about information that could affect a student’s privacy. For example, on its list of questions and answers for parents of students at the University of Minnesota, the University states, “In most cases, the University will not contact parents or provide medical, academic, or disciplinary information without the student’s permission.”

Keeping student information bottled up can have bad consequences. How are parents supposed to know about a student’s sudden serious psychological or emotional difficulty if the university doesn’t contact them—or even respond to their calls? Perhaps the student will call home, but perhaps he won’t.

The idea of young people independently managing their own difficulties without the immediate intervention of hovering parents appeals to many professors and campus administrators, but this notion has dangerous potential. Suicide, along with unintentional injuries and homicide, is one of the leading causes of death for 15- to 24-year-olds. Not only are mental health issues that can lead to suicide prevalent on U.S. campuses, the consequences of psychological counseling — or lack of counseling — are felt in college towns and beyond.

The campus shootings at Virginia Tech and Northern Illinois University demonstrate the seriousness of mental health issues on campus and the need for outside assistance. Unfortunately, FERPA played a role in those tragedies.

“The Report to the President on Issues Raised by the Virginia Tech Tragedy,” by the secretary of health and human Services, the secretary of education, and the U. S. attorney general, specifically states, “Throughout our meetings and in every breakout session, we heard differing interpretations and confusion about legal restrictions on the ability to share information about a person who may be a threat to self or to others.”

Similar issues were raised in the official report to the Governor of Illinois after the February 2008 shootings at Northern Illinois University, including nine references to FERPA.

One of the key findings of the “Report to the President” on the Virginia Tech tragedy was that FERPA affected critical information sharing on campus. According to the report, “Education officials, healthcare providers, law enforcement personnel, and others are not fully informed about when they can share critical information on persons who are likely to be a danger to self or others, and the resulting confusion may chill legitimate information sharing.”

On the positive side, courts are finally addressing the expansion of student privacy definitions, sometimes ruling against claims that FERPA prevents the release of certain information.

Earlier this year, a federal judge ruled that FERPA does not prevent an educational institution from releasing the names and educational records of applicants. In that case, the University of Illinois, embroiled in a high-profile admissions scandal, had argued that it was prohibited from releasing the records on student privacy grounds. The Act was written to cover matriculated students, but the university wanted to expand the Act’s reach to prospective students.

Also this year, Pima County College argued that it couldn’t release Tucson shooter Jared Loughner’s emails because of FERPA. An Arizona superior court judge rejected the college’s position that it was excused from complying with the Arizona Public Records Law because of FERPA.

Caught between sometimes conflicting roles — educator, landlord, substitute parent, police officer, intellectual property incubator, etc. — some universities are working to strike a balance. Loyola University Chicago’s Behavioral Concerns Team encourages faculty members to report disturbing content in student work to other school officials, even if a student’s writing is FERPA-protected (according to Loyola).

The college student as an independent person, responsible for his or her decisions, is an important underlying assumption behind our institutions of higher education. As a society, we should support efforts for students to develop intellectually and emotionally. But FERPA takes this notion too far — and in ways that have little to do with the protection of student privacy. Wildly broad interpretations of FERPA by school officials are ironic, given that in the popular mind universities stand for transparency, inquiry, and the search for truth through open discussion and new ideas.

The time has come for the Department of Education to put together a FERPA task force to examine these issues and for Congress to consider reform of FERPA.

Steven Roy Goodman is a Washington-based educational consultant. This column was previously published by the John William Pope Center for Higher Education Policy. Re-published with permission.

Interpreting the Bylaws is a challenging task. The task becomes even more difficult over time and as individuals surrounding the original adoption of a particular section become more and more removed from the Association; thus, eventually, the Association is left with no current members who were present when a section of the Bylaws was adopted. This becomes disadvantageous because key information is lost, especially the motivation, the intent, and the original discussions regarding certain language.

Unfortunately, I think these things have become lost in regards to specific language on closed sessions. I disagree with Mr. Fleming’s interpretation, especially his opinion on the lack of limiting language. I believe that stating “The Association may . . . for the following purposes . . .” is limiting language. To say that it is not and to say that the Association may meet in closed session for other purposes not listed, makes it meaningless to list any reason in the Bylaws altogether. Essentially, this opinion translates into allowing closed session for any reason that is of a “confidential nature.” Since “confidential nature” is not defined, it is very ambiguous and results in further interpretation and opinion.

When comparing this language to other sections of the Bylaws, I think my opinion is reaffirmed that this is, in fact, limiting language. In other sections where the language is clearly not limiting, a phrase like “including but not limited to” is used. As a previous parliamentarian and co-author of many portions of the Bylaws, it is in my opinion that these phrases were used to distinguish between limiting language and non-limiting language.

However, that does not necessarily mean that the Bylaws disallow the Association from meeting in closed session to conduct interviews. In fact, one could interpret “[reviewing] contents of an application,” which is permissible in closed session, to include an interview. It would be more understandable if the interpretation reflected a similar opinion since it is an important and controversial topic that is currently being debated within the Association and it is something that should be decided carefully.

Jeremy Jones is a Student Association representative, a former association parliamentarian, and the author of section 3.5.1 in the association’s by-laws.

‘Reinvent Michigan’.

That was the campaign slogan Rick Snyder used to win the Michigan gubernatorial election last year. Along with the rest of us, he knew he would have to take the lead in solving Michigan’s financial crisis.

Funding for higher education for public universities in Michigan has suffered a steady decline over the last five years, forcing an explosion in tuition rates. It’s time for us, the students, to tell our political leaders that tuition rates are getting out-of-control and it’s time for Michigan to reinvest in higher education.

On Feb. 17, Gov. Snyder introduced a budget proposal to the legislature and Michigan citizens. His proposal included many funding cuts across the board. The higher education budget stands to take the biggest funding cut of 15 percent while other departments, such as corrections and transportation, could see an increase.

Despite the fact that the prison population is the lowest it has been since 1998, Gov. Snyder proposed a slight funding increase in the Department of Corrections’ budget.

Under Snyder’s proposal, over $2 billion will be spent on corrections, or about $34,600 per prisoner. Compare that to $1.36 billion for higher education, or a mere $4,500 per student.

Research indicates that education reduces crime. Instead of investing so heavily in throwing people behind bars, it would be wise to invest in education and reduce crime at the same time.

The state spends $34,600 to keep one prisoner behind bars. For the same amount of money, the state could completely cover tuition and fees for one student for 4 years at SVSU and still have money left over. Now is the time to fight and tell them this is unacceptable.

Well before the election, it was common knowledge that the state was facing a fiscal disaster. Solutions proposals were just as plentiful as the challenges themselves. Many people, particularly politicians, point to a spending problem. But Michigan does not have a spending problem; it has a revenue problem.

Michigan is one of the fewest states with a flat income tax rate, which brings in less revenue than a progressive tax code. Additionally, another culprit is tax breaks, like tax-free pensions and Social Security income. Even after the income tax hike in 2007, because of tax exemptions, the state government brings in much less revenue than it did ten years ago.

The governor has begun to address this issue by proposing to eliminate the pension tax exemption in addition to many other credits for individual income tax. This is a good start, but it does not solve the problem. We have to tell our leaders where Michigan’s priorities lie and they can no longer balance the budget on the backs of students.

Now is the time for us to stand up and fight for our education. We have to tell our politicians that they cannot rely on us year after year to balance their budget. We have to show them that we won’t accept this without a fight. We have to make it clear that we care. We have to show them that Michigan has to ‘Reinvest to Reinvent’.

On Thursday, Mar. 24, students from all 15 Michigan public universities will converge at the capitol in Lansing to rally together against these cuts. The Student Association of Michigan, in conjunction with all of the 15 student governments, are urging students from around the state to protest these cuts.

The annual rally, dubbed by students as the ‘Lansing Blitz’, is set to begin at noon on the steps of the capitol. The student governments at most of the universities, including Student Association at SVSU, are organizing buses to transport students to and from Lansing. Join us by reserving your seat on the bus in the Student Association office located in Curtiss 118. Now is the time to fight for our education.

Jeremy Jones is a representative in the SVSU Student Association.

It’s unfortunate that H.R. 10-09 has failed. It’s deeply troubling that, yet again, Student Association has failed to honor the rights of SVSU’s student body, which it has done numerous times in the past. The association is setting a precedent by voting down H.R. 10-09, a precedent which places the ‘right’ of association members’ opinions to remain private over the right of the student body to know how their elected representatives serve them.

The current model under which the association functions is based upon trust, trust that the administration will honor their requests and opinions, and trust that the association will honor the student body’s requests and opinions. A model based on trust is only adequate until the point where that trust is violated, we reached that point years ago. Currently, the public has the option of making policy by initiative, otherwise known as a petition.

However in the absence of such a petition, the association has proven it will actively advocate against the rights of the student body.

The specific policies that H.R. 10-09 would have modified came dangerously close to being tested during the same meeting where H.R. 10-09 failed to pass. On the agenda was a motion to formally review a representative, the representative resigned before such action was necessary, however. The circumstances that lead to the resignation are still disputed, in such cases the discussion should always be conducted in the open for obvious reasons.

Besides the issues outlined in H.R. 10-09, the association continues to allow an obviously illogical policy to govern their functions. Such issues are manifested in various places within the association. The most noticeable is the fact that members of the association who will be receiving salaries are entitled to vote upon the yearly budget, which contains appropriations for salaries.  It’s odd that nobody has raised this issue, especially given that recently the association barred any representative who belongs to a registered student organization that is applying for an allocation from voting on the allocation.

In addition to budget concerns, the installment and removal procedures of employees and representatives are of a particular concern. It’s unusual that some of the most critical functions of the association are delegated to employees, who are hired and fired primarily by the president. Whereas other critical functions are delegated to elected members. Its unfair to the student body to have arguably two of the top-five highest positions chosen by one individual. In regards to representatives it’s bewildering that the association is, for the most part, elected, yet the association holds the ultimate and final authority when it comes to removal of any member, including the president. In the past, the association could only put representatives up for a recall election, which makes sense considering that if the students elect a representative, that person should logically also be subject to recall by the students.

Besides procedural concerns, even the current mindset of the association is contrary to the purpose of the association. During the Oct. 18 meeting, Eric Curtis, a fellow-member, discouraged the consideration of H.R. 10-09. He believed it would be more beneficial to solicit donations from local businesses rather than spend time discussing the resolution. While Battle of the Valleys is a great cause, prioritizing a fundraiser over considering a resolution which would empower the student body is ludicrous. Although campus events are an important part of the association’s function, with a fully-funded Program Board there is no need for prioritization of campus events over the association’s other functions.

Another issue raised during the Oct. 18 meeting was that members of the association view it as ‘just an R.S.O.’. While Student Association may be an R.S.O. listed alongside other groups with Student Life, it is far from being just another R.S.O. The association maintains seats on various university committees that help to determine policy, it also assesses a fee to all students in order to fund itself. If the association is really just another R.S.O., then what’s stopping every other R.S.O. from demanding office space, copy codes, $130,000 from the students, and numerous other privileges?

The answer is that the association, despite being an R.S.O., is much more, or at least it used to be. The association as it stands is a withered form of the original Community Government between staff, students, and administrators during the 1970s.  While the faculty and administration have maintained themselves, the association has been downsized and split over the years, eventually resulting in a group which is, for the most part, simply advisory. The privileges and funding the association enjoys now are mere remnants from a much stronger student organization,  if the association really wants to be just an RSO it might as well do away with everything that separates itself from the other R.S.O.s.

However, if the association still wishes to effectively ‘represent student concern and advance student priorities,’ as it is charged to do in its charter, it will need to replace the priority given to the campus events committee with the student concerns and legislative committees. The association will need to fix its mindset in addition to it’s procedures before it can be taken seriously compared to both its sister organizations from other universities, and compared to what it used to be.

Many changes will need to take place in order for the association to effectively advocate for the students, both structurally and in terms of how members themselves view the Association. Measures need to be taken that will keep the true spirit and cause of the association alive from year to year, because currently, change, no matter how large, usually lasts at most five years before it is forgotten by the association.

To this end, the association has taken a step in the right direction by creating an ad-hoc committee charged with reviewing and proposing amendments to the governing documents of the association. Only time will tell if the committee serves its purpose, or it its real function is just to placate groups that believe the association needs reform. More importantly, time will tell if the issues raised today will even be remembered in the years to come.

Daniel Chapman is a representative in the SVSU Student Association

letters@saginawvalleyjournal.com

_____

COMMENT ON THIS OP-ED USING FACEBOOK

What does it mean to be safe on campus? The word is so often invoked—creating ‘safe zones’ or maintaining a ‘safe environment’—that it has arguably become meaningless.

Perhaps more accurately, it has taken on a second meaning, specific to the university. Whereas the real-world definition refers essentially to one’s physical well-being, in the campus context ‘safety’ has become synonymous with feeling comfortable, or not hearing challenging words or ideas—threats, simply put, to one’s emotional state and level of comfort.

This disparity transcends linguistics. It speaks to how the modern university prepares—or fails to prepare—students for the real world. There’s nothing wrong, per se, with administrators caring for student comfort in all of its forms. But when that encroaches on basic campus liberties as well as to the academy’s core educational mission, even those sympathetic to a given group’s cause must take a step back. Events over the past two weeks at the University of Rhode Island provide a clear example.

“It looks like we are going to get everything we need for our safety,” Brian Stack, a University of Rhode Island student, told the Brown Daily Herald three days after the end of a sit-in protesting the treatment of Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, and Transgender (GLBT) students at URI.

For eight days, students had occupied a room in the URI library, demanding, according to the newspaper, “a larger space to accommodate the GLBT Center, a full-time paid employee to address the needs of GLBT students, compensation for student staff members and sensitivity training for faculty, staff and resident advisers.” The administration reportedly complied with the above demands on October 1st, and the sit-in ended shortly thereafter.

What problem so energized the student protesters and so vanquished the backbone of the URI administration? In mid-August, students reported feeling “harassment” when a group of males shouted ‘faggot’ from their automobile before speeding off, according to the Herald. Further, in early September, GLBT students were frustrated at the ineffectiveness of their sensitivity training of resident advisors. “No one paid attention,” Stack told the Herald, “and some people walked away thinking ‘that’s so gay’ is freedom of speech and they don’t have to do anything about it.”

When the GLBT group began their sit-in, the atmosphere heated up even more after an anonymous note was “placed under a GLBT Center staff member’s door saying ‘shut up faggots we know where you live.’” VP of Student Affairs Tom Dougan explained that these incidents justified the $800,000 building program, the additional hiring (even in a time of severe austerity), and the sensitivity training: “We want to make this a welcoming and safe campus for everyone,” he said.

Well, perhaps not quite everyone. It is hardly evident, after all, that the campus is ‘safe’ for students who might want to say something that could conceivably give offense to a student with a different sexual orientation. This need not, of course, be simply a gross epithet like ‘faggot’. A gay student might report being offended by another student’s opposition to gay marriage, or by a professor’s leading a debate on the biological or other bases for homosexuality, or by a campus student religious leader suggesting the moral failings of alternative lifestyles.

When the search for a ‘welcoming’ as well as ‘safe’ campus becomes a primary goal in an academic community, all manner and kind of dissenting views—from highly intellectual theses to crude epithets and the vast array of forms of expression in between—become an endangered species. Pretty soon, the campus may (or may not) be ‘safe’ for students in self-described historically disadvantaged groups, but it surely becomes quite unsafe for disfavored views and disturbing words.

What, one may ask, is the problem with exterminating epithets? It is, for one thing, the inherent inferiority that this special protection implies to the targeted group. The implication that GLBT students can’t handle harsh words should offend any and all who believe in true equality.

This gets to the heart of why the measures taken at URI are ultimately a detriment to GLBT students. Campuses are surely entitled to establish, within the confines of the law, their own community values. But it provides a false sense of comfort when administrators reward thin-skinned responses to the sometimes-unpleasant realities of a free society. Once students leave campus, there will be no higher authority to redress a drive-by-shouting, or a nasty note. The major reason for this, of course, is that outside in the ‘real world’, the First Amendment (and various state constitutional equivalents) protects free expression. And, in fact, even though campus administrators often ignore this fact, constitutional protections for speech apply on all public campuses as well.

On a more fundamental level, bowing to the demands of those whose sensitivities have been offended runs counter to the very standard to which equal-rights movements have historically appealed and under which they have sought the shelter of liberty and equality.

When the highest court in Massachusetts ruled seven years ago that no valid reason exists to deny same-sex couples the right to wed, I examined the opinion in a three-part series for the Boston Phoenix—placing the decision in historical context; parsing through the misguided reactions; and debunking the idea, floated by lawmakers and then-Governor Mitt Romney, of creating civil-unions in marriage’s stead.

The latter proposal was doomed from the outset, I wrote, because civil unions—a new species of separate-but-equal accommodations—violated the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of “equal protection of the laws” and its state constitutional equivalent, a staple of civil society and the pillar on which the SJC’s decision rested.

Whether it’s in Hammurabi’s Code (‘an eye for an eye’), the New Testament (‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you’), or the U.S. Constitution (‘equal protection’), this so-called Golden Rule is the bedrock of social harmony and basic human rights. And it is nothing short of a violation of this tenet when a certain group is afforded more protection than others. That these campus codes create unequally treated categories of human beings, while carrying the mantle of ‘equality’, speaks to the power of political labels—’designed’, as George Orwell wrote prophetically in 1946, “to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind.”

Thus does the master observer of totalitarian tendencies explain how it is that students are ‘harassed’ merely by being called an admittedly ugly name (‘faggot’) by young people speeding off in a car (rather than any manner or kind of physical threat). What has happened to the notion that the presence of many different kinds of students and attendant beliefs on a campus of higher education is actually the essence of the liberal arts experience rather than a virus in need of official extirpation? And what self-respecting faculty, staff or resident adviser would, or should, put up with sensitivity training, a species of thought reform and control not unlike that in the dystopian world described by Orwell in his other classic writing, Nineteen-Eighty-Four.

According to a recent study by the Association of American Colleges and Universities, one out of every five students feels unsafe holding disfavored views on campus. It’s not unreasonable to think that, in their blinkered push to create ‘safe’ and ‘welcoming’ environments—thereby disregarding time-tested notions of equal treatment and intellectual freedom—administrators are making those who disagree with the reigning campus ethos feel, ironically, unsafe.

Harvey Silverglate, a civil liberties lawyer, is the co-author of The Shadow University: The Betrayal of Liberty on America’s Campuses (Free Press 1998, HarperPerennial paperback 1999), and the co-founder and current Chairman of the Board of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education. He thanks FIRE program associate Kyle Smeallie for assistance in the preparation of this piece.)

This piece first appeared on Minding the Campus on Oct. 12. It has been re-published with permission.