Student Listening Sessions

Notes from Steering Committee Listening Session for Students

Tuesday, September 30, 2014
12:30 – 1:30 pm
King 306, Oberlin College

Machmud Makhmudov, Ryan Dearon, Sophie Davis – Steering Committee Oberlin College Dialogue Center

Listening Session began at 12:34 pm.

Oberlin College Dialogue Center (OCDC) gave a brief outline of its role in facilitating the discussion, including a review of the ground rules for the listening session:

1. One speaker at a time
2. Expect to learn from everyone
3. Move forward, move back
4. Respond to ideas; don’t attack speakers
5. Intent vs. impact

With no further comments from the participants, the Dialogue Center gave the floor to the Student Committee members. Sophie Davis, Ryan Dearon, and Machmud Makhmudov introduced themselves. A brief overview of the background and membership of the steering committee was given. OCDC passed out note cards in case anyone had something to say but did not feel comfortable or have the time to say during the session.

The questions e-mailed to students in August were used as a starting point for the discussion:
What current or future challenges are most important for Oberlin?
What is the most important opportunity for Oberlin to explore?

The first issue raised by students was concern over the cost of tuition:

• Oberlin’s tuition, one of the highest in the country, is pricing students out of receiving an education. As this particularly affects students from lower income families, the trajectory of costs needs to change for the college to uphold its tradition of providing access to everyone.
• While acknowledging that the school tries to build diversity in the student population and needs a certain amount of funding to run, what are the need--- blind and need---based policies in the admissions process?
• The challenges of rising costs are a national trend. Oberlin could benefit from looking at what other schools are doing. As cited in recent New York Times articles, other liberal arts colleges such as Vassar and Wesleyan have similar endowments as Oberlin but accept more students with Pell grants. Within Ohio, 67 schools have a higher percentage of Pell grant students than Oberlin. This record seems at odds with the values that the school claims.
• Given these challenges, the college should acknowledge the current trend in rising cost is unsustainable and look at stemming tuition growth.

Participants were asked about thoughts on curricular development:

• Dissatisfaction with the economics department. It needs to change its neoclassical look and include other voices.
• What kind of influence will the committee have on curricular development? Committee explained that their focus would be on larger issues such as adopting alternative styles of pedagogy, but that specifics would remain at the departmental level. They also noted that the Working Groups would be addressing how students are being taught, so that curricular development would arise during these discussions.
• Glad to see the new Education Studies Concentration, especially given the former graduate program. Since education is the most popular field that alumni go into, peculiar that Oberlin does not have a more rigorous education program.
• Concern that language training will move in a cheaper, technological direction, omitting critical in---person teaching. As the college examines ways to cut costs, language learning has a particular need for interpersonal interaction and shouldn’t be replaced with technology.
• Need more departmental collaboration and exchanges. Departments that are just across the hall from each other still seem isolated.

The committee’s inquiry about Conservatory---related issues led to comments on facilities:

• Campus buildings should work as a whole unit and fit into the community of Oberlin; LEED may not be best aspiration for sustainability.
• Replace Hall with a prettier building.
• Need more facilities for performance.
• Would like better campus venues for social events.
• Athletic facilities might be used in other ways.

Several comments cited the need for better communication:

• The committee asked for suggestions on alternative ways of engaging with the student body.
• Professors can be useful in announcing events
• Need better communication with students regarding facilities and plans for the future.
• Explore new ways in general of connecting with people, not just for this.

Students were encouraged to ask questions about the planning process:

• What other venues are available for students to submit concerns? How much of the process students are going to be made aware of? Committee members explained that meeting summaries will be posted on the strategic plan website and encouraged students to look there for information, including relevant readings.
• Future listening sessions will be held in November.
• Working Groups will provide additional opportunities to bring in student input. There will be lots of room throughout the process, and students will receive e-mails about opportunities to participate.

Several comments addressed issues of inclusion in the process and at Oberlin:

• Not just economic, but racial diversity at the college is important.
• Make sure Student Union is considered in Steering Committee plans.
• Anyone from the Office of Disabilities on the committee?
• Take a campuswide look at accessibility.
• Would like to see more cooperation within staff, and faculty more unified with administration, so that students can have resources that are connected.
• Mental health concerns need to be addressed strategically at Oberlin.
• Include someone from Student Health on the committee.

The committee asked if the audience had ideas regarding sustainability, which was cited in many of the e-mailed responses to the committee:

• Replace paper towels in the bathrooms with air dryers.
• Is Oberlin Project involved? The committee responded that, in the same way that feedback was being heard and considered from all constituents, the Oberlin
• Project was also contributing comments and input.
• Study the impact of switching to natural gas. Others commented that this has already been studied and information is available.
• How can Oberlin prepare students for climate change; what skills would students need in a world that is more interdisciplinary. Just as different communities and countries are affected differently, climate change connects the natural and social sciences. This is a direction that all education needs to take.

---

Steering Committee Listening Session for Students — II

Wednesday, October 1, 2014
12:00 – 1:00pm
King 306, Oberlin College

Machmud Makhmudov, Ryan Dearon, Sophie Davis – Steering Committee Oberlin College Dialogue Center

The Oberlin College Dialogue Center (OCDC) began the meeting and reviewed ground rules for the listening session. The student members of the Strategic Plan Steering Committee then introduced themselves and briefly outlined the Strategic Planning project. As the three members cannot represent the entire student body; they will be hosting frequent listening sessions with many opportunities for students to raise issues and ideas for the members to convey to the entire committee. Notecards were passed out as an additional way to submit feedback. The questions posed in the August e-mail were used as a starting point for the discussion.

The first issue raised was financial accessibility:

• Alarmed at the lack of reference to this in the 2005 plan. Financial sustainability is of service to the college at the expense of students and faculty. Opposed to the direction that I and my friends and peers want Oberlin to go in. Soaring costs everywhere shouldn’t let the college off the hook in the choices it can make.
• A greater commitment to financial accessibility: Redirect funds from merit scholarships to need-based scholarships, a scholarship fund for undocumented students.
• How will Oberlin commit to changing the makeup of student body to include more low-income people of color, and trans people of color.

Comments addressed Oberlin’s relationships beyond the college:

• Questioning language: what does ‘excellence’ mean? The 2005 plan included language about diversity but how to reconcile admitting more students that can pay higher tuition with the need to keep diversity?
• How can Oberlin affect a situation where prisons have a high number of black and brown people, fed by the failure of the public school system? What is the college’s commitment to the town? To Ferguson? To admitting more black and brown people? Does the college have any investments or connections to the Prison Industrial Complex?
• In spring 2013, the Student Senate approved a divestment resolution from six companies profiting from Israeli occupation of Palestine. What is Oberlin’s commitment to Palestinian people? Since resolution passed, have heard very ambivalent to dismissive feelings from administration and trustees on this issue. If trustees and administration are committed to taking into account the demands of the students, why have they not made moves toward true economic divestment?
• Need to build a relationship with the town, not just high-rise hotels that the residents can’t afford to enter, but investing in places like Oberlin Community Services and local schools to build lasting relationships. Have more people from Oberlin High School attend the college.

Participants asked about the role of the students on the steering committee:

• With such a wide array of other members, do you feel like you have a voice on the steering committee? Do you feel empowered? What issues have the committee talked about already, and what are priorities?
• Committee: I personally feel I do have a voice within the committee. What I had to say was considered and valued. Regarding second question, have discussed financial sustainability, changing landscape, different external factors such as technology, globalization, increasing costs, ...
• Committee: First meeting was more of overview of process. Everyone on committee understands that the school is about the students, and so our voices are valued.
• Committee: Will be able to speak to content more in the future, once we’ve have had more meetings. The strategic plan website may help answer questions.
• In personal experience have not felt as though administration and trustees have really listened, just superficially nodded. What would an actual dialogue look like between this committee and the students? Why only three of you? How do we make sure you are listened to and what does that transparency look like?
• Committee: Understand it could be that way at a dinner, but on the committee, everyone understands that all are there together, so a different situation. We are kept accountable through forums like this. But not well attended so how can we do this better in the future?
• Committee: The environment is different from a dinner or a forum. Everyone all looking at the issues in a critical manner. Deeper discourse than at a dinner. So in that way, what we’re saying has a bit more weight to it. Hard to answer now, since only have had one meeting. As meetings continue, and continue putting things out there, proposing different ideas, will be able to gauge more, and convey what that dialogue looks like.

The issue of transparency was raised:

• Meeting notes were just as vague as the name of the committee. Transparency isn’t just having it on website, but putting language on the website that is accessible to students. Talk about real opinions, not just conclusions.
• Need overall college transparency, especially regarding divestment and financial sustainability, and who is responsible for those issues.
• We are a very progressive institution, teaching students these values, to question things, to build life around a moral compass that certain institutions don’t respect, so lining up what we’re teaching students with what we’re carrying out is not just a moral issue, but about sustainability. It’s a sustainability issue for the college to keep up with the values they’re teaching.
• Please push the administration toward greater endowment transparency as part of their strategic plan.

Several comments addressed the need for greater support for students:

• Support for students should be a priority in future budgets. Examples of long waits for accommodation letters, weeks to get an appointment at the counseling center, an entire year for title IX coordinator to get a budget, and that person is also a full-time dean. Realize funding more positions is expensive, but once we get students here, must support them.
• As a student advocate, have seen administration handle things poorly. Want to see Title IX things funded. Designed consent training for first-year students; that had never happened before. No one received funds or payment for this. Sexualized violence prevention should be funded. Other schools pay their staff for this. Frustrated. Need to fund the administrators and students that are doing this support work.
• There is a financial emphasis in the landscape report. Two things are missing: Sexualized violence, and rapid spread and lack of prevention on campus. Also 20% disability on campus. Need support for students with disabilities, not just complying with ADA laws.
• Direct funds toward support for students around sexualized violence, disability, and mental health. 
• Support for faculty. From students’ standpoint, when majority of staff is visiting, hard to develop relationships over four years and beyond. The college needs to develop these relationships, and a way to connect with former faculty.
• After March 4, every professor gave extra work because of missed class, with no mention of what happened. Think about emotional trauma, what people have gone through outside. Need to think about what the accommodations are going to be, specifically, look into “what is trauma.” Yes, need to learn, but if our communities are carrying all this trauma, how are we expected to learn? Who’s being looked at as scholarship for our strategic plan?
• Oberlin uses its endowment and its size to some degree as an excuse. Students feel alienated by the administration and thus not inclined to give back, perpetuating the cycle. Those on the steering committee have a vested interest in keeping the status quo, so hope you can change that. If students stop feeling alienated, endowments can rise and can lead to a more sustainable campus.
• Can athletics, especially Title IX, be addressed by the working groups?
• As a recognized "LGBT friendly school" what resources do we have for trans students (e.g., student health services help students get access to hormone therapy or surgery; a policy that teachers are not allowed to read off roll call at the beginning of the semester because some students have changed their names)

Several comments addressed communication and confidentiality:

• Just happened to see this on Facebook, but didn’t see it on the website or on events calendar.
• Communication a problem here overall. Wilder Desk, posters get covered up, events cal doesn’t cover everything. Suggest a way to subscribe to categories on the event calendar to create a network, and integrated community.
• Suggest communicating by contacting intentional communities such as MRC, Con Council of Students, listservs, student organizations. Announce to everyone you see.
• Why do some things need to be kept confidential? Who’s deciding? What is the process? Do you have information?
• Committee: Not in the business of trying to hide anything. Sometimes not helpful to reveal discussions while in process.
• Disagree. Communicating to students what options are can be helpful. I hope you can pressure the administration to be as transparent as possible.
• Doesn’t make sense to have it be confidential. We, as students, by default don’t have as much power. Committee has to understand the dynamics that are going on in that space. If you’re already believing you have equal stakes, then that’s already a problem.
• Want to have a direct dialogue. These are the questions that have been asked; these are the answers. Would feel more supported if I knew there are direct questions and answers being exchanged.
• Most important challenge is sustainability of what we’re teaching. No dialogue between students and teachers because students are “radical.” Need to create “actual” dialogue between students and administration, where both are being listened to.

Committee announced the next meetings in November and thanked all for coming.