At the ’Tute, we all seem to live in the last minute. Countless times each week, we forget an event or class until five minutes before it starts simply because we are so busy. While it is understandable that sometimes tasks may become afterthoughts, any major change that profoundly impacts this campus should never be able to be counted among the forgotten, and should be relayed to the RPI community in a timely fashion.
Last week, The Poly printed an article which has raised concerns across campus regarding changes to the 2009–2010 academic calendar. Some of the information contained in the article was incorrect and other portions were inappropriate or poorly worded, so I would first and foremost like to apologize for those mistakes. However, for me, this experience has brought to light even greater concerns. These are the consequences of the Institute’s practice of keeping information close to the vest until the last possible moment, resulting in misinformation and inaccuracies.
The decision to accept the changes to the calendar was finalized by mid-March at the latest; however, we as a campus were not notified until March 31. Decisions regarding the schedules for the Curtis R. Priem Experimental Media and Performing Arts Center and the RPI Players had to be delayed, because the groups were unable to finalize events until they received news on RPI’s academic calendar. Sports teams have been put into the difficult position of deciding how to alter their schedules to work with the new calendar, as well as how to house student athletes during the extended January break. Many concerns have been raised about the change from various portfolios across campus, yet they don’t appear to have been addressed, which again demonstrates the breakdown of communication that has occurred at RPI.
While the change to the calendar does not directly affect our functioning as a newspaper, the timing of when we are notified of pertinent news information certainly does. Several of the latest policy changes and news-worthy happenings have been announced via e-mail on Tuesdays, putting The Poly in a difficult position. We are forced to make a choice: pull together a last-minute article and risk not getting the entire story, or leave it until the following issue and risk being told that we are not adequately informing the campus in a timely manner.
The article published last week is the perfect example of what happens when we choose the former. Faced with an important last-minute story, we had to scramble to get the information confirmed by several sources. Then, we had to decide which information we were confident enough to print versus what information needed further investigation.
In this particular article, we quoted Provost Robert E. Palazzo that the President of the Union is a member of the calendar committee. After speaking with former PU Rob Odell ’09, we discovered that it is not actually part of the PU’s job. When asked about this confusion, Palazzo stated that he was mistaken in his original statement; instead, he said that the Grand Marshal and one other representative appointed by the Student Senate sit in on and give student input to the committee. Even then, former GM Kara Chesal ’09 said the GM does not sit in on the committee; only the representative does so.
While it is unfortunate that this inaccuracy was printed in our last issue, this is only one of my concerns. Due to this miscommunication, we can see the larger problem looming: No student was actively partaking in discussions of the calendar committee when this change was being considered. The calendar committee never met again after current GM Michael Zwack ’11 was appointed earlier in the semester as its student representative. It would seem difficult for a committee to fulfill their responsibilities without meeting on occasion.
Six students were asked for input on the proposed change by Director of Student Activities Cameron McLean, since no student had been actively engaged in the discussion. These students raised valid concerns regarding the extension of the January break, and consequently the spring semester, into late May, but many of the issues brought up seem to remain unresolved in the decision to implement this calendar change next year.
Whether or not their concerns were addressed, their inclusion in the process was a positive step; however, I hardly think that a sample size of six students can adequately represent the concerns of our over 6,000- member student body.
Regardless of one’s opinion of the “Uprise at Five,” it did demonstrate an indisputable fact: Students do want to be involved in what is happening at RPI. This calendar change affects everyone on campus, and it presented a perfect opportunity for the Institute to make clear that student input matters; unfortunately, it ended in yet another example of miscommunication.
The way that we improve our Institute is to learn from our mistakes and to endeavor to create positive change in the future. If we simply repeat our mistakes time and again, feelings of mistrust will continue to brew and we will begin the vicious cycle all over again.
Regardless of where the miscommunication occurred on this issue, it obviously existed. In the larger sense, the bridges between the student body, student leadership, and Institute leadership must be repaired if we wish to move forward. Each group on campus is actively engaged in making decisions and forming opinions on tracks parallel to one another, but they rarely intersect. This practice wastes time and causes nothing but frustration for everyone involved.
Obviously, students cannot be involved in every aspect of the decision-making process; we are a private institution and there are boundaries that we, as students, must accept. At the same time, I believe that part of what makes RPI so unique are the varied student opinions across campus, and the fact that we boast some of the smartest students in the nation. We are students who can look at a problem, evaluate the pros and cons, and make an informed decision. If the administration were to display a show of confidence and involve students more in what goes on at RPI, I know we wouldn’t disappoint. I believe the “engineer’s approach” to problems we are taught in our classes would be an asset to the decision-making process at the ’Tute.
The near completion of the revised Faculty Senate Constitution serves as proof that RPI can overcome any obstacle when we choose to work together, even on something as sensitive an issue as faculty governance. Reaching a conclusion on something so controversial demonstrates that members of the RPI community can indeed come to an acceptable compromise as long as groups trust one another and are willing to cooperate.
We, together as an institute, must pinpoint where the problem in communication between the students and administration exists and work tenaciously to repair it. The perpetuation of the cycle we are currently in will only result in an inability to move forward, which is imperative if we are to keep Rensselaer’s reputation intact as a world-class institute.
