During an hour of Senate questioning on the commencement policy Peterson conceded that student input into the changed policy was not directly solicited. He also added that the policy shift could have a negative effect on participation in co-op and study abroad programs.

While the atmosphere at the meeting was civil for most of the evening, at several junctures the mood became tense.

One of these moments occurred when Senior class Senator Chris Gill suggested that the new commencement policy be scrapped and that all the parties affected by the policy change gather to create a policy that everyone could support.

“I don’t think this will do—I don’t think it’s feasible,” said Peterson as he alluded to several factors including the effects that reversing the policy could have on the plans of graduates.

At several points during the questioning senators made references to the timing of the December 11 policy change announcement.

“We [came out with the policy near Christmas break] not to hide the policy change, but in order to give students the option to change their plans when they returned home,” said Peterson.

“My main concern is that the Senate did not have a chance to get student feedback before the commencement policy was changed. I thought I was well-informed being a senator, and I didn’t even know this policy change was in the works, ” stated graduate Senator Ayala Cnaan.

Grand Marshal Gil Valadez expressed concern towards on confusion of the graduation petition and appeals process. “I had at least seven plus come to me saying they went to the Registrar’s office and their petition was denied, so what exactly is the process?”

Gabriele offered that “Students should first go to the Registrar and file a petition; the Registrar then will make an initial screening. If the screening did not fall into the guidelines the petition is then reviewed by [Vice Provost Gary Gabriele].”

Valadez felt that the commencement controversy was primarily fueled by one source. “The fundamental issue is that the advising process here is crummy.”

Peterson informed the Senate that his office has been charged by President Jackson to improve the advising. “I think this is a problem that can be eliminated and help improve the situation—it is something that [Gabriele and I] are working on as part of our performance plan.”

At the conclusion of the meeting, the Senate passed a resolution questioning the judgement of the RPI administration and calling on them to “comprehensively review [the policy] with serious student input.”

In reaching final consensus on the wording of the resolution, the body attempted to balance their outrage at being cut out of the decision-making process with a desire to reach a compromise with Institute officials.

To this end the Senate toned down some of the language initially found in the resolution. Senators at length discussed if their true goal was to have the commencement participation policy repealed outright or even if that was a realistic request.

Senator Ayala Cnaan expressed a frustration at “always having to fight a rear-guard action—maybe this [resolution] will get us in the door at the start of the process.”

In its final consensus resolution, the Senate went from making specific references to President Jackson and condemning the policy to “questioning the judgement” of the administration. In the final paragraph, the Senate “requested” instead of “demanded” a review of the policy.

This final change stemmed not so much from the Senate being opposed to the premise of the “graduation being a ceremony of completion” as from them being opposed to the timing and implementation of the policy and underlying need to accommodate and grandfather the class of 2002.

Senate Resolution No. 2 on Commencement Participation Policy

It is the opinion of the Student Senate that the new commencement participation policy as set by the Institute is unnecessary and potentially detrimental to the student body. We believe the policy has several negative effects, and may divide and alienate the student body. Further, the policy was implemented, as other policies before it, without proper student input.

Therefore, the Student Senate questions the judgment of the administration in this sudden, significant policy change.

Further, the Student Senate requests that the commencement participation policy be comprehensively reviewed with serious student input.