Maybe paternalism is a nationwide movement. The GOP now has control of the Congress and the Oval Office, and pundits have been saying Americans want a strong father-figure to guide them and keep them safe.
Whether it’s the national mood or not, ugly paternalism has landed at the University, threatening students’ ability to speak out against the institution they’re paying to attend.
The University, through Strategic Communications
Associate Vice President Harry Battson, has announced that any materials a student group produces — like
business cards, letterheads, posters or flyers — now have to be branded with the “O” logo. Compliance is required immediately, or else Daddy “O”-bucks won’t let the group purchase any new materials.
What is going on here? Have we returned to the 1950s, when college administrators “knew better” and “guided” student expression so it would be “appropriate”? This
policy — which was decided without broad student input or support — is the most corrupt move the University has made in years.
Student groups are student funded. Students pay an incidental fee to have groups formed and run by students. And many groups have concerns about the direction of the
University, or about certain policy decisions made by Daddy “O”-bucks. And they have the right to express those ideas without an administrative seal of approval. How are students expected to think freely if they can’t spend their own money to produce materials that reflect their ideas?
If you’re not outraged yet, here’s some more: Battson has said that if, say, the director of the Multicultural Center wants to have a business card, the “O” logo must be proudly
emblazoned across the top. The Multicultural Center logo, if it really must be put on the business card, can go on the back. On the back? Has the administration lost its mind?
It gets worse. Student groups were told Wednesday that their own logos now need to be approved by Battson. Logos that have been used for many years probably will be
approved, groups were told. But… old logos probably need to be updated so they appeal to a “contemporary audience.” Could the University please choose one side of its mouth to talk out of?
“No, no,” Daddy “O”-bucks says. “This is about perception.” Everything that comes out of the University, everything that everyone says, must be “on message” with the identity the University is trying to promote. After all, that’s how you get to be a nationally recognized top-tier program.
This message-molding also has its hands on administrators and faculty. A draft document was recently circulated among administrators, listing the “themes” that were appropriate to use when promoting the University. So now no one on
campus can express an idea about the college unless they have been vetted by Daddy “O”-bucks? Sounds like a scary private university. So much for public education, or freedom, or critical thinking.
Actually, here’s the irony: In that draft document, one of the “themes” administrators are allowed to promote is,
“Faculty care about teaching … and demand the development of critical thinking.” Really? Well, faculty may demand critical thinking, but the University only seems to want to
allow it when it is “appropriate.”
In response, we wanted to encourage student groups to
refuse, to stand up for their rights, to demand free thought. But it’s not like they have a choice; the University won’t allow materials to be printed if they’re not approved.
The issue made us so angry, in fact, that our imaginations envisioned a
fantasy world: Student groups ordering boxes and boxes of the “O” letterhead and posters, piling them high and burning them to the ground.
In reality, however, students must find a rational way to let the University know this policy is not acceptable.