I love shared governance. I mean, why not? At Connecticut College, we pride ourselves in a “system of governance in which the perspectives of all groups are considered in the institution’s decision-making process.” I can rest easy knowing my perspective, my voice and those of more than 1800 other students are being represented. Last I checked, my peers and I thought exactly the same way on every issue, so there’s no need for me to worry.
But wait: what if, for some magical reason, I just so happen to find some disagreement or disapproval with what the College’s administrative body is up to? Or with the Student Government Association for that matter? Where does my voice come into play?
To clarify, for all those who might not know, “shared governance is a system in which separate constituencies are all represented fairly, each by a governing body that can address the concerns and policy issues facing members of the shared governance community.” These governing bodies consist of the SGA, President Katherine Bergeron’s senior cabinet, Staff Council and the Faculty Steering and Conference Committee (FSCC). While the system acknowledges our existence and allows us brief, yet limited, opportunities and spaces to participate in decision-making processes, it does not let us dictate what our priorities are as students, how we should go about achieving these priorities and who should compose or participate in each respective decision-making process. The sad fact is that the College Senior administration gains more from having shared governance than we – students – do.
But why should students have a voice? We’re just students. we’re not “qualified;” we’re not “experts.” We don’t know any better. In other words, “shared governance does not entail equal decision-making power for all bodies… Where it is feasible and practical, decision-making power should be shared.” The ambiguity of words like “feasible” and “practical” lets the administration decide when students become a part of the conversation at its convenience. The sad fact is that this distance from decision-making opportunities not only pacifies us as students but also as potential activists. Let’s look at sheer numbers. Students overwhelmingly dominate the campus population yet our ability to participate in the overall improvement of our college is limited to a myriad of nebulous and exclusive committees.
As people who live and study here, we have just as large a stake in campus ordeals as anyone else does, and with that comes a strong insight into many of the problems on our campus. It’s easy for the Board of Trustees or the senior administration to come into conflict with making the “right” decision when issues of profit and affordability contradict social well-being. Let’s imagine for a second that students had more decision-making power in regard to campus policies. How long do you think it would take students to realize that campus policies regarding school breaks and closed cafeterias largely target and marginalize low-income students? How long would it take students to create a solution(s) that would help students who cannot afford a flight back home and/or meals, but also take into consideration the lives of dining services staff?
While there are nuances in regards to student experiences here, there are also certain experiences that can and do impact us all and thus become more personal in our desire for real solutions.
Don’t fret, because the College promises: “where it is not feasible or practical, all efforts should be made to promote transparency and inform relevant representatives in a timely manner of the decision and its reasoning.” When Knowlton’s dining hall was to close, did residents receive a personal email informing them of this fact? No. SGA passed a resolution to discuss alternative locations, with overwhelming support from Knowlton residents, but no further response was made by the administration.
“But, there’s nothing better than what we already have!” I’m here to tell you, there is. I interviewed Alexander Kolokotronis, a BA/MA student from Queens College who is the Founder of SODA (Student Organization for Democratic Alternatives). One of SODA’s main goals is to promote participatory democracy in the CUNY (City University of New York) public school system as well as cooperative economics in the broader worker cooperative movement in NYC. To Kolokotronis, participatory democracy “is a process whereby people make decisions about matters that affect their lives in a direct democratic and deliberative manner… Rather than distant representatives setting policy, all people in a community have the formal and substantive power to set and influence policy making.” One note to emphasize here is the ability to deliberate. This means “people actively engaging and meeting with one another to reflect and discuss issues that concern and affect them.” A referendum is insufficient here because there is usually little to no deliberation before a referendum is held, and the process of its conception is usually top-down. Therefore, certain referendum questions are often phrased in obscure and confusing manners. One concrete way of promoting participatory democracy is participatory budgeting.
Participatory budgeting (PB) is a “direct and deliberative democratic process in which members of a community decide how to allocate and spend a portion of the public budget, instead of politicians or bureaucrats deciding for you.” A public budget includes the revenues and expenses of a public institution. It would also include where resources are being allocated. The word ‘public’ is usually a misnomer as people (including Connecticut College) are “neither encouraged or primed to actively look into or question the budgets of public institutions.” This apathy toward gaining access to the public budget is reinforced by the fact that people do not have the ability to exercise any concerns or suggestions toward the allocation of resources. Even though many people ask, “where is all my tuition money going?” they do not pursue the question further.
We, as students, know we have no more say in the matter. While the idea of PB may seem overwhelming and unrealistic to some, it is only because we are in an environment that is deeply embedded in bureaucracy and apathy, making it nearly impossible for most students, faculty and staff to exercise agency.
PB involves a four-step process. First, identifying and diagnosing a problem, then deliberating, discussing and proposing potential solutions after implementing projects and monitoring the completion of the project.
As an example, let’s say the campus community recognized we have limited access to healthier food options in the dining halls. The campus community determined that replacing Just Mayo, a vegan alternative to mayonnaise, with the mayonnaise we have now would be a healthier alternative, both for our stomachs and the environment. This would lead to voting on whether or not to supply Just Mayo in the dining hall. Finally, members of the campus community would directly and publicly engage with dining services on whether or not people are using, and enjoying, Just Mayo.
PB could also serve as a way to enhance the student experience here at Connecticut College. It could provide a space and opportunity for students to express their concerns, not just individually, but collectively. We are a community, aren’t we? It’s time we get past what’s best for “me” and start thinking about what’s best for us. Yes, that would mean longer meetings, as anything that is participatory is inherently longer, but this is a small price to pay for bridging the many social divides here on campus.
This is especially important given the talks SGA and many student organizations are having in regard to the allocation of club funds by SGA’s finance committee. Instituting PB can serve as a way to build trust between student organizations and SGA, create stronger transparency over the allotment of funds to clubs, learn about the common goals of each club and finally establish a collective dialogue over yearly academic priorities.
I see PB as one step toward creating an actual community that frames its thinking around the collective instead of the individual. For people complaining about apathy here on campus, PB is one tangible way to get people at Conn more involved and active.
If we are going to be sincere about having or building a democratic world, then we must learn democracy at school too. If we don’t learn democracy at school, where are we supposed to learn it?
Participatory democracy includes restructuring student government along lines of inclusive politics, and this can extend far beyond PB. When speaking of reconfiguring decision-making apparatuses, I think we have to talk about how faculty, non-teaching staff and students can play a significantly larger role in decision-making (if they cannot take most or all administrative power). Today, we have the example of Mondragon University, in Spain, which operates as a university cooperative, with students, teachers and non-teaching staff all operating the university together.
I am not claiming that PB or other measures of participatory democracy will fix every single problem. However, I do believe that when the greater campus community has control over funds, we can then shape our priorities, collectively. Solutions should not have to be decided by the senior administrators who, for the most part, do not interact with many students on this campus and have only been working here for one to two years, with the exception of Lee Hisle, Ulysses Hammond (who is retiring) and Paul Maroni (who is also retiring). •
