The Oberlin Review
<< Front page News December 3, 2004

Students respond to strategic plans

As the College moves forward with its strategic planning process, reviews on it from students who have participated in the planning sessions have been mixed as to the level of student input that was allowed and the amount of information students have been given.

“I’m happy that the administration wants to listen to our concerns,” said junior Marshall Duer-Balkind, “but some parts of the session were somewhat frustrating.”

The weekend planning sessions were facilitated by the Oberlin College Dialogue Center and hosted by planning committee members and planning consultant Elaine Kuttner. They were devised by Professor of Religion David Kamitsuka and graduate Vivek Bharathan OC ‘04 as a way of gauging student opinion on issues pertaining to the planning process. As a former student senator Bharathan campaigned for greater financial transparency and more student participation in College decision-making.

“We’re trying to build a community of trust,” Bharathan told the Review on Nov. 12. “It’s important that as students and administrators we trust each other.”

However, some students still do not feel that the College’s interest in student input is entirely genuine.

“I thought there was genuine interest from Elaine Kuttner,” said College sophomore Ezra Temko. “But I don’t feel like the administration was that interested.”

Duer-Balkind agreed.

“I would have liked to talk to the administration directly and allowed them to listen to our concerns,” he said.

The meetings were attended by Associate Dean for Community Life Shozo Kawaguchi and President Nancy Dye has expressed strong interest in the information gathered, but students were still frustrated that much of the information requested in the sessions was not made available.

“Keeping information from students is not cooperation,” said Duer-Balkind.

Megan Shaughnessy-Mogill, a senior who has been involved in OC Solidarity and the Student Labor Action Committee, attended a planning session because she wanted to advocate for “institutional guidelines about labor practices and open decision-making” and said she felt “kind of disappointed” by the session.

While Shaughnessy-Mogill praised OCDC’s facilitation of the session, she felt that the session was not open to free discussion.

“Much of it kind of felt like an apology for what the school has been doing,” she said. “People say the College is beginning to feel more like a corporation and I think that’s a pretty good way to describe it.”

All the same, the students hoped that the College would continue to take an interest in student opinions as the planning process continues.

“It’s not enough to have three six-hour sessions every 10 years,” said Shaughnessy-Mogill.

Temko agreed.

“Students and administrators should have an equal say in these decisions,” he said.

Duer-Balkind hoped to sees more students serving on committees and stressed the importance of more immediate planning.

“Strategic planning is great,” he said. “But it’s not enough to just sit back and plan for 10 years from now unless we can address the concerns we have right now.”
 
 

   

The Review News Service: News, weather, sports and more, in your ObieMail every Sunday and Wednesday night. (Click here to subscribe.)