As many readers may have heard, on Friday, October 6, the President of University of Oregon planned to deliver an address regarding the state of the university. According to another school official, the president originally intended to deliver this address privately but decided to reframe the event into a more public setting open to staff, faculty, and students across campus.
The event was interrupted by students taking the stage in protest. According to the students, concern festered among them regarding pending potential tuition increases and an apparent lack of response to Nazi propaganda on campus. These concerns arose in the context of an anonymous gift to the University totaling $50 million.
There are numerous points to address here.
One among these is the misunderstanding of reality. The student speaking in the video claims that students’ tuition is the sole source of funding for the University. This is obviously false. Like the aforementioned gift, many Universities are largely funded through donations and gifts. Major investments, especially, are funded through non-tuition dollars.
Another misunderstanding, according to familiar parties, is the idea that the president is not a true president because he is not democratically elected. The President of a University is more similar to a company president, not to a nation’s president. More importantly, the President is not elected but student input is invited and accepted when a new a President is chosen.
The next point is the message itself and its delivery. The students taking the stage can be heard chanting “Nothing about us without us,” which seems referential to the old adage “No taxation without representation!”
This raises an important concept fundamental to democracy: if an organization is making decisions that affect its members or constituents, leaders should include them in the decision-making process in some substantive and meaningful way. In this context, as a former/continuing student leader, I must agree that the University should definitely include students in decisions that affect them when possible. It is essential to determine tradeoffs of the decisions.
Regarding delivery, the message itself seems poorly framed and the students are lacking organization and impactful self-direction. I learned in undergrad how important it is to frame ideas and issues in ways that are as constructive as possible. Avoiding pointed or leading questions, inflamed finger pointing, and combative tones is essential at the outset.
As for delivery, one should pursue an effective platform for voicing concerns. The students certainly have the local media’s and the University’s attention. Perhaps the most effective next step would be to gather further support from fellow students. Organize and frame the desired message. Garner support and begin working with student groups, particularly the Associated Students, if possible.
Reach out to the administration and seek a meeting. Protest and advocate before the state legislature if you must. Little can be done JUST by chanting and voicing concerns. Taking your message where it will have the most impact. Only when that has failed should you decisively (though peacefully) return to the method of civil outcry and protest.
A word of caution, however: be sure to reflect on your message, your intent, and the effects of your actions. If your intent is not to make things better, if your actions are no longer likely to have such effect, or if your message becomes laced with malice, then it is on your honor to recognize its necessary abandonment.
Now, a few words to and for the President of the University, who walked away from the event. Removing this event to a public forum, in contrast to the original plan, speaks volumes. That demonstrated the value you placed in the intended announcements and in making such announcements in an open, public setting.
However, seeing the video and hearing the story of your reaction to these students, many- including me- are disappointed by your reaction. You had before you an opportunity to address these concerns in the moment- to talk directly to the students under your charge. You did not take it. You walked away, let the pre-recorded video be distributed, and provided a short rant on free speech.
Yes, I am aware that, as president, dealing with students directly may not be your primary role. Regardless of your position and your primary duties, you hold a position of leadership –someone students should be able to look up to. Maybe you had good reasons for walking away– maybe you didn’t trust yourself. Regardless of all of that, as a leader, you have a moral and professional obligation to stand up and address these students yourself.
For that, I respectfully submit to you sir, is what it means to be a leader.