Letter I am sending to the DT Editors in response to most recent article on escalation of security measures at Bovard...
A clear contradiction exists between Todd Dickey claiming that the new security for Bovard will operate with a list, and DPS claiming he has only been instructed to prevent a student from entering if it is completely clear they will create a disturbance. Either the system operates with a list or it operates based on appearances, but this article and its quoted statements fall short of clearing up any disagreement.
Then in yet another twist of trying to explain their actions, DPS Chief Officer Drayton claims they want to prevent "these people, unknown" from doing "something" to people the building -- as if unknown, non-students plan to attack employees inside Bovard. Three differing reasons, coming from only two people, for why the administration increased security between themselves and theoretically their most important constituents, the students.
Furthermore, Dickey continues to propagate the falsification that students "took over" President Sample's office. In reality, the students sat peacefully in the waiting room, certain to allow ample room for anyone to pass through them, and merely performing the function that the room was built for -- waiting to talk to the President.
As many have said, USC's reactions to the SCALE protest have been ridiculous. The recently printed letter from the President of the FLA does a moderate job of trying to defend their actions (though while still missing key points). USC administration continues to fail to take the mature route of addressing the issues at hand publicly, in an intellectual and academic manner and instead has retreated to barricading themselves in Bovard’s ivory tower.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
The conflicting or unclear statements by DPS are just one more illustration of the folly of implementing significant policy changes as a knee-jerk reaction. Said VP Dickey, "We are a business. It's the only choice we have." Really? The only choice? That's knee-jerk talkin'.
First, although I am not a Trojan I was still under the impression that USC was primarily an educational institution. If the administration can't cope with the occasional student protest--if they are rendered unable to function because a dozen students are squatting in the President's waiting room--then the USC administration is quite simply incompetent. As a former Berkeley student, I have seen how a competent administration functions amid far more significant student activism. Every other morning, when I walked to campus for an early-morning class, I would see a private contractor sandblasting away graffiti on the steps of the administration building. This was just part of the routine, and the administration had long since stopped making a big deal about it. Having an vibrant, active, aware student population was far more important to Berkeley's educational mission (and international reputation) than the need for law and order. Encouraging free speech was worth a little sandblasting.
Second, the SCALE event was just a student protest. There is no call to check for student IDs because there is no indication whatsoever that the administration is "under attack" from anyone, let alone from outsiders. Some people like to use "security" as an excuse for all kinds of policies in the post-9/11 world, but this policy makes no sense.
Third... does the administration have no notion of the concept of escalation? One of the reasons most colleges put up with sit-ins and the like is that they don't want to have to put up with activities that are more disruptive. By barricading themselves into their offices, they USC administrators not only increase the perceived distance between them and the students they are meant to be serving, but it creates a "siege" mentality among administrators that hinders rational conversation. Lord only knows what makes it "clear" that a student will cause a "disturbance," and the mentality engendered by these so-called 'security' measures ensures that DPS officers will be under pressure to lower the threshold as time goes on.
I recall a major sit-in at Berkeley that lasted for days regarding the issue of affirmative action several years ago. The Chancellor personally spoke with the protesters many times and worked out a future course of action with them. He showed compassion and respect, and as a result, he almost shamed the protesters into showing similar respect. It ended peacefully and did not recur. That's what a competent, caring administration does. Sigh.
Very well put.
When they were served with suspensions for 'disruption' we joked that it was only a matter of time before they started throwing around post-9/11 terrorist/fear mentality jargon... and apparently it didn't take that long. The speak of protecting from "unknown" looking to do something to people inside the building is a bizarre connection to even attempt to make... yet they did.
As a student member of an important administration body at one point in my career, I had the experience of being the target of similar protest activities. Let me tell you, it is not fun--and frankly I am still angry at some of the nasty allegations that were leveled at me personally. So I have more sympathy for the what it's like to sit on the other side of the desk.
Although it felt humiliating, I did not fight back like I wanted to. I could see it would lead nowhere, and instead I just tried to make sure everyone could see what was happening. In the end, believe it or not, my strongest defenders were actually local leaders of the protest movement who were disgusted with how the national/state leaders had conducted themesleves. (Pardon my vagueness, but my blog is anonymous and I have to maintain that.)
Anyhow, my point is just that there are always choices and options for handling protesters, even when their behavior seems to be over the top. The suspension letters were a bad tactic, but to my mind they pale in comparison with this overall shift in policy toward isolation and the iron fist. That approach never works--it just makes aggrieved administrators feel a little better for a while. And I really think they should, as adults and competent educators, be above that.
Post a Comment