Blog Post 2

In the weeks following the election, the Office of Inclusion and Involvement, formerly known as the Office of Multicultural Affairs, hosted a series of sessions. The purpose of these sessions was to allow a space for students, faculty, and staff to come together and discuss their feelings about the election. As the sessions continued, the conversation transformed into a discussion about the changes that the community wished to see at Rhodes. There was a myriad of things that the attendees wanted to see changed. A member of the Rhodes Activities Board and a member of RSG wanted to see a more engaged student population. Several students wanted to see a change in the white Greek culture that dominates the campus social life. Students asked questions about how our Honor and Social Regulations code apply to social media pages. Students also asked questions about the protocol that the administration follows when a racially charged event happens on campus like the sock monkey or YikYak. A faculty member asked if there was a move to make Rhodes a Safe Sanctuary campus. A staff member in the Office of Student Affairs commented that at Vanderbilt students organized and pushed for their campus to become a Safe Sanctuary campus.

The exchange between the faculty member and the Office of Student Affairs’ staff member mirrored the answers to all of the questions that students asked during the session. The idea the students of a college or university are responsible for making the change they want to see happen was pervasive throughout the conversation. One administrator in particular kept returning to the fact that students must be the group pushing for change because Rhodes is such a student-driven campus. I question the motives of this reasoning. On one hand, they could be referencing situations like we saw in Kinchen and Green’s books about student organizing. In both books, students are organizing to secure recognition of their groups such as the Black Student Association, campus funding, and black faculty. The students were the most powerful, but also the available of group to do the work that they wanted to complete. The students were eventually successful in securing these things, but was it in a four year span? However, on the other hand, I think administrator understand that students are racing against a four year clock to achieve the change that they want to see. So making the student responsible for this change almost ensures that the change won’t happen. What do you all think? Is the administration playing a time game here or do they truly think students are the best group to make the change?