“A university is definitely not a democratic institution. When decisions

begin to be made democratically around here, I will not be here any

longer.”

-Herbert Deane

Vice Chancellor of Graduate Studies

Columbia University

April 24, 1967

Twenty-nine years ago, life on campus was a lot different. Students were

protesting a depraved bloodbath in southeast Asia while groups like the

Black Panthers and the American Indian Movement (AIM) were calling for

radical social change. When internal police forces had to crack down at

Kent State and murder people like Barry Seales and incarcerate Leonard

Peltier, campuses, inner cities and Indian reservations became sites of

domestic bloodbaths. The quote above typifies the feelings of elitist

university administrators who felt student groups protesting the war were

really just a bunch of disorganized scoundrels looking for a reason not go

to class, but rather to stay out in the quads and smoke pot.

Nevertheless, despite all the rumblings of those who would never feel the

pain of the draft, Agent Orange, cluster bombs and napalm, these student

groups, like SDS (Students for a Democratic Society) had very much to do

with the internal disruption of what they perceived as an oppressive

political order which eventually led to the pull out of American forces in

Vietnam. Yet these students were not only interested in stopping the war,

they were also very active in trying to improve the organization of the

educational establishments they paid to attend.

Reflecting on the aforementioned days long gone, a professor friend of mine

told me, “If we had been faced with this technology fee, there would have

been sit-ins in the chancellor’s office.” By this person’s opinion, things

have indeed changed. The idea behind this fee-that university computer

systems and services should be upgraded-is a sound notion. Yet the point is

the WAY in which this decision to increase student payments to the

university was made. Yes, the university does face a severe financial

shortfall with more to come this next fiscal year. This points out the two

incongruent competing visions: that spending in education is an investment

versus fiscal responsibility takes precedence over the education of a

population. For example, notice the state’s priorities: $50 million the

state paid for the Houston Oilers versus the $8 million shortfall this

campus faces. Surely a few rich investors in Nashville might benefit by the

acquisition of this football team, but what does this decision really

signal in the days of “temporary assistance” to welfare recipients and

increased liabilities on behalf of the students? Just think if we had a

lobby as strong as the business interests who convinced our

“democratically” elected and influenced legislature that the Oilers are

adequate economic development while keeping our university adequately

funded is not.

The exact same analogy could be used for this campus. While those of us who

would like to learn how to dance, take a persuasive writing course or need

help from the now defunct computer assistance services (CAS) must go

elsewhere, the university can now boast it has the largest stadium in the

universe. To say the football team is self-supporting is like saying our

military gets its funding only by looting. And even if it was

self-supporting, how much money is left over after they’ve supported

themselves? How badly was the athletic department hit by the budget cuts?

How much money does one game make and where does the money go? All this

reveals volumes about how the university is managed and which power

interests influence decision making. Legally, the university is a

corporation and all power and authority to govern and direct the

institution is held by its governing board. There are no students on this

board. Obviously the interests of those in the student body who would

rather see money go to keeping the dance department where it is, having CAS

alive and well and generally to support what should be the primary mission

of this establishment-education-are obviously not involved in the decision

making process; a process which exists at the university, state and

national level.

What representation we do have is meaningless and inadequate. Our student

government, for all its good intentions, is a puppet government. They were

going to vote and then postponed this vote ON A MATTER OVER WHICH NEITHER

THEY OR WE HAVE A VOICE. But now after a few weeks of publicizing the

proposed fee and hearing the Chancellor exclaim the fee would go to the

Board of Trustees without additional changes, the light of democracy shines

through. Please remember: the ombudsman’s office is now GONE which means we

have to take any problems we have to offices directly under the aegis of

the chancellor. This incredibly important office, an office which was the

vanguard against the occasional private tyranny of faculty and

administrators, was abolished in the name of budget cuts…after most of us

had left for summer break. And most importantly, all these decisions-to cut

CAS and the ombudsman’s office, to extort $100 from each student, to build

10,000 new seats and to cut significant portions of our university’s

budget-were all made totally and completely without meaningful student

input. The gentleman’s comment from Columbia University aptly describes our

predicament. The decisions made at this university collapse when the

maxim-those who must obey the rules should make them-is applied.

The following suggestions are offered to change the predicament described

above, to make this university better for all, students, faculty and

administrators. One- There must be administrative accountability. This

means first there must be full disclosure of how a decision is made. For

example, why not a tuition increase? Is it because our benefactors really

want to let us believe that our funds are earmarked for the tech. fee OR

because that if there was an increase in tuition the state would have to

match that increase, a politically impossible task? Two- There should be a

right of petition by those affected. If the lack of confidence spreads to a

significant minority (like what seems to have happened here), then there

should be an understood channel of petition to whatever level is

responsible. Three- There should be a reappraisal of competence of the

administration and the community’s confidence. Ultimately the student

government should be abolished as it simply reflects the existing power

relationships at this institution, it simply exists at the pleasure of the

university. Do we need something else, like a student union? There should

be no “concession” by our administrators that we be allowed this time to

amend a decision which we didn’t have any input to make in the first place.

How often will we sit on ad hoc committees touching up a piece of

legislation only to validate the status quo?

John Dewey, Alfred North Whitehead and Ivan Illich were all in general

agreement that education and learning are best achieved under conditions of

active participation. Right now, these ideas are nowhere to be found on

this campus. This is why our administrators thought it possible for us to

be force fed a proposal to which there were to be no further amendments.

This fee is a debasing slap in the face, an entirely insulting concept that

the supposed technology deficit is to be balanced on our backs without our

input. Right now, we’re governing ourselves about the same way a baby’s

steering wheel drives daddy’s car. We, as students of this university (who

contribute 1/3 of its funds, a controlling interest) should have an

inalienable right to help steer the university in whatever direction we

feel it should go.