What was conceived as a listening session by the Standing Committee on Plurality and Equality on the future of the Multicultural Resource Center instead lapsed into a heated question and answer session between students and Dean of Students Peter Goldsmith.
The meeting, held Thursday afternoon in the Women’s Resource Center, was intended to address student concerns over the restructuring of the MRC. Representatives from a broad range of student organizations, members of SCOPE and Goldsmith participated in this dialogue.
Students highlighted the importance of their direct involvement in administrative policy making, while Goldsmith and members of SCOPE reiterated that student input must be facilitated through channels such as SCOPE. The students, however, expressed distrust of the administration.
“We are here as students. Why should we have to be watchdogs to the administration?” junior Shruti Sasidharan asked.
Goldsmith apologized for the circumstances surrounding the original intern cuts, which he felt violated the trust of the student body. He emphasized that the future of the MRC will involve a wide-ranging input.
“This cannot be about my vision,” Goldsmith said. “It has to be a collective vision. At the end of the process, SCOPE and I need to be fully in consensus of any kind of restructuring.”

“Why was this not a collective decision to begin with?” Sasidharan asked.
Other students were far more forward about demanding change.
“We are going to need very soon a written guarantee, a contract,” said senior Nicholas Stahelin, who later brandished a written contract.
The demands include that the College guarantee they will not make decisions over the summer concerning staff cuts and that students and faculty would have a greater role in future administrative decisions concerning the MRC.
At various points throughout the meeting, faculty members reiterated that the purpose of the meeting was to provide a forum for suggestions about SCOPE’s role and the future of the MRC.
Concern surfaced about the impact of the College’s budget situation on the creation of an effective MRC. While students and faculty felt that budget concerns may hamper necessary growth, such as new staff members, Goldsmith suggested that during the current budget crisis expanding the MRC might be fiscally impossible. “You understand this is not a particularly good moment for me to go to my senior colleagues and say I need my budget to be bigger,” Goldsmith added.

Several years ago SCOPE had recommended that the College add additional staff to the MRC. Several of SCOPE’s current members had been involved with the presentation of these recommendations. “I remember presenting that to Nancy Dye and she fell out of her chair,” Professor of Jazz Studies,bass and co-convener of SCOPE Peter Dominguez said.
“Was she happy?” SCOPE member and Professor of Sociology Bill Norris asked.
“No,” Dominguez replied.
The discussion quickly returned to Goldsmith’s role as an advocate for students. He was pressed once again to sign a contract with SCOPE as well as multicultural student organizations. The contract stipulated that decisions would not be made without consultation from students and faculty.

Goldsmith didn’t sign the document on the spot, instead suggesting a later meeting with student representatives. When pressed to sign the following day, Goldsmith cited scheduling conflicts and said that he would have to check his calendar. Eventually he agreed to meet students to discuss and possibly sign a revised contract today.
“I would like the opportunity to contribute some language as well,” Goldsmith said.

The discussion appeared to close on a positive note, with faculty reiterating that student activism is vital to the future health of the MRC.
“You are students and watchdogs,” SCOPE member and assistant professor of African American Studies Pam Brooks said. “This is your institution.”