I have written a lot of editorials in my time that some may consider “negative” or “cynical” or “downright arrogant,” so this week I am going to try to change that —well, OK, maybe not the last one. I have wanted to write about this topic for a long time, but I kept pushing it off until after I heard some of the reaction to editorials I wrote last semester. The problem does not affect just RPI, but most of the country as well, influencing most debates had. The question I pose to you is, why does everyone have to hate each other so much?
After my editorial regarding secrecy among members of the administration, I received request after request for more information from faculty, staff, students, and alumni. One alumnus who has been a major donor to campus for decades gave me several suggestions for whom I should talk to and what I should do in order to see President Jackson fired. This was not my intent; indeed, it was far from it. None of the editorials I have written came out of any sort of spite, malice, or mutinous spirit. If I see something that I think could be done differently and better, I write about it. This misinterpretation is a symptom of the problem this campus faces. There does not seem to be any room for grays in people’s minds; they only understand support and hatred.
A lot of people like to complain about the way things are done around here and think that a mass firing, or at least one firing, is the best solution. I disagree entirely. Having met many of the people in charge on campus, I can say that the current administration is full of a lot of good people who have ideas and the willingness to carry them out. The latter is especially important; many of the ideas that are most loudly argued against were first suggested and approved during, or even before George Low’s tenure as president. They are just now being followed through on. No one can argue that this is the ideal leadership for a college campus or any organization.
Now, as everyone knows, I do take exception to the way some of those ideas are executed, and a better job most definitely needs to be done gathering feedback and actually listening to criticism rather than dismissing it (for example, trustees should not ask a student her opinion and then lecture her on why she is wrong). These are not cause, however, for assembling a gallows on the ’86 Field, as many seem to want to do.
Many people talk about the need for a greater sense of community on campus and discuss the apathy, but few talk about the rampant hate. It needs to stop. Apathy and hate are the two biggest destructors of a community, and both run wild on this campus. New ideas can be debated and changed, but this debate should not involve pitchforks and torches. Today, a communications consultant will present findings to the Faculty Senate on the communications problems on campus. To that, I will add some advice of my own: This campus needs to be more reasonable with its criticism, and those being criticized need to be more open to discussion. It is the only way to move Rensselaer forward.
