Spring Break
Student Council takes a stand
Issue date: 2/28/08
I must say in reference to last week's News-Letter article "Council issues stinging rebuke of University administration," I never thought I would see a day when the Student Council and News-Letter were on the same page.
I'd like to continue this strange bedfellows situation and applaud the Student Council for finally taking a position against the administration, which generally operates aloof from meaningful student input, a situation I believe to be engendered and enabled by one repugnant institution that reigns supreme at Hopkins: the committee.
Over my nearly four years here I have been a part of several of the committees referenced in the article, such as arts, disability, student life and the SAC.
There are three types of unacceptable committees that get set up at Hopkins: the fact-finding, the intermediary and the flat-out silly.
The fact-finding committees are set up to examine perceived problems on campus such as disability, gender issues, etc. Intermediary committees are composed of, at least in part, undergraduates organized to tell the higher-ups about general student concerns or give input on potential policy changes. The silly we'll get to later.
The primary problem with the fact-finding committees is that they generally have no oversight, funding or resources and don't regularly consist of anyone in a position of power not already familiar with the problems at hand. They amount to empty intellectual outsourcing with no muscle to do anything beyond think.
Also, the task of exploration tends just to get in the way of solving a problem. Take for example, a Homewood committee on disability. Levering Hall is a glaring violation of almost every recommendation in the Americans with Disabilities Act, not to mention an outright fire hazard for anyone with limited mobility.
We don't need a group to talk in nuanced intangibles while very concrete and obvious problems wait to be addressed. The ADA was passed in 1990. A period of 18 years is far beyond a reasonable time frame to make our buildings safe for all. Dialog regarding disability has its place but when there are glaring problems, the only way to solve them is action.
I'd like to continue this strange bedfellows situation and applaud the Student Council for finally taking a position against the administration, which generally operates aloof from meaningful student input, a situation I believe to be engendered and enabled by one repugnant institution that reigns supreme at Hopkins: the committee.
Over my nearly four years here I have been a part of several of the committees referenced in the article, such as arts, disability, student life and the SAC.
There are three types of unacceptable committees that get set up at Hopkins: the fact-finding, the intermediary and the flat-out silly.
The fact-finding committees are set up to examine perceived problems on campus such as disability, gender issues, etc. Intermediary committees are composed of, at least in part, undergraduates organized to tell the higher-ups about general student concerns or give input on potential policy changes. The silly we'll get to later.
The primary problem with the fact-finding committees is that they generally have no oversight, funding or resources and don't regularly consist of anyone in a position of power not already familiar with the problems at hand. They amount to empty intellectual outsourcing with no muscle to do anything beyond think.
Also, the task of exploration tends just to get in the way of solving a problem. Take for example, a Homewood committee on disability. Levering Hall is a glaring violation of almost every recommendation in the Americans with Disabilities Act, not to mention an outright fire hazard for anyone with limited mobility.
We don't need a group to talk in nuanced intangibles while very concrete and obvious problems wait to be addressed. The ADA was passed in 1990. A period of 18 years is far beyond a reasonable time frame to make our buildings safe for all. Dialog regarding disability has its place but when there are glaring problems, the only way to solve them is action.
Be the first to comment on this story