Representing who?

We have to confess that the prioritization process has left us confused.

It wasn't Jack Rutt's presentation, it was our own rating sheet. Yes, the Weather Vane received a prioritization rating as an administrative program. It seems that the Weather Vane, which has been cited numerous times as a medium for campus dialogue, which even President Swartzendruber has made use of when he wants to address the campus community, ranked in the zero percentile in support of EMU's mission and goals, and overall in the third category labeled "Below Average."

Are we to assume that the "vision, mission and values; operating assumptions; and goals of EMU" as cited in the rubric available on the PSC website has no place for open campus dialogue or student voice, two of the main services that a student newspaper such as the 'Vane provides?

Certainly that is the message that would come across if the Weather Vane were cut as a program. Such an action would be inconceivable, and really not in the institution's best interests. This is for two reasons: First, having a student-run newspaper reflects on the quality of the university. Secondly, students will make their voice heard whether through an EMU-supported venue, such as the Weather Vane, or not. Are we to revert back to the times when the student newspaper was censored and students felt the need to generate an underground paper? Type the word "Piranha" into the Weather Vane search box and you'll see what we mean.

Perhaps the real question is why the Weather Vane was classified as an administrative program. As we see it, the Weather Vane falls squarely under the stated mission goals of "scholarly inquiry," "guided practice," and "pursuit of life calling." We are an educational laboratory, developing practical skills in communication and journalism. Are we to tailor our self-description to the category we've been assigned?

The point is, we're not here to unquestioningly represent administrative goals or policies. We're here to seek and speak the truth. Community--a highly regarded value here at EMU--means keeping each other accountable.

It's also disturbing to hear members of the PSC report that their ratings might be affected by the amount of effort that appeared to go into different reports, and then to realize that our own report was not written by those who have the most direct participation in the program. As we now have the opportunity to respond, should our feedback focus on trying to make the Weather Vane sound more like the administration subset we've been categorized as, or on questioning the validity of such an arbitrary process?

You may wonder why we chose to put our feedback in print rather than submit it in a less visible manner such as e-mail. We gave you the news, and we felt it was necessary to ask publicly the questions we had, and to be the first, as the student voice that we are, to open ourselves up to this type of discussion and dialogue.

The students will have a voice. Who knows--if we had to go underground, maybe it would be easier to get writers.