The tailgating policy change was first made known to the student body on Sept. 16 and since then there have been many student-led initiatives to discuss the change as well as the process by which it was made.
Such initiatives have included an open Student Government Association (SGA) Senate meeting where members of the administration were available to speak with students, coverage by multiple news outlets on campus and meetings between student leaders and administrators. However, according to SGA President Taylor Custer ’15, this issue will, for the time being, not be included on the agenda for the SGA for the upcoming year after the passage of the most recent resolution.
On Sept. 21, the SGA Senate held their meeting in the Robert A. Jones ’59 house to accommodate the extra students who came to listen to the discussion and pose questions to Dean of Students Katy Smith Abbott and Athletic Director Erin Quinn. The meeting allotted time for both senators and students to direct questions to these administrators regarding both the policy itself and the process that went into it.
“There was a lot of benefit of actually being there and being able to talk to those who were directly involved with the decision,” said Custer. The meeting concluded with the passing of a resolution (with a vote of 15-0-2), detailing how the administration will work with the student body about future policy changes.
“A resolution states the official position of the student body as presented by the SGA and its capacity as a representative,” Custer explained.
According to the resolution, “the administration should inform the President of the SGA and the Student Co-Chair of Community Council about all changes to college policy to ensure that the student body has an opportunity to voice its ideas and concerns about changes it believes will impact student life… [and] the President of the SGA and the Student Co-Chair of Community Council should inform their constituents about those policy changes that they believe students would like to have an opportunity to discuss.”
The SGA Senate meeting, the new resolution and student input have shown that one of the most troubling aspects of this policy change was the process behind it.
“Middlebury prides itself on being transparent, especially in the student to administration relationship,” said Junior Senator Sydney Sanders ’16. “The resolution that was produced was specifically about the lack of clarity in the policy-making process. We have SGA and Community Council for students to participate in changes like this and to work closely with the administration to discuss issues, especially surrounding non-academic issues, on campus.”
Custer noted that the common denominator between those who supported and those against the policy change was the belief that the lack of student involvement in the final decision was unacceptable.
“I’m hoping that the main outcome of this debate will be that the administration will be more open with us about what policy changes they’re considering. From there, we can take all that information and figure out which ones the student body will want to weigh in on,” he said.
Ben Bogin ’15, Co-Chair of Community Council, said in an email, “The administration is well within its rights to make a policy change like this without input from the SGA or Community Council, but I hope that students always have the opportunity to discuss policies changes that affect our social life.”
According to Custer, the way the policy change was handled could potentially set a bad precedent for future changes. “If we’re not involved in this policy change, who’s to say we won’t be included in the conversation on a policy change more relevant and seen as more important by other segments of the student body?” he said. “At Middlebury, given the mission of the College, it’s inconsistent if students aren’t included in the conversation.”
The student body has held conflicting views, however, about whether the issue of tailgating is really worth the amount of attention it is receiving. There have been many student responses through different mediums. The We the MiddKids petition to reverse changes made to the new policy received over 2,500 votes, which is over three times as many votes cast for the change to the Culture and Civilizations requirement. The Sept. 17 post on the student-run blog Middbeat generated close to 100 comments.
There have also been posters put up throughout the College addressing what issues students would like to see addressed over the issue of tailgating. These posters carry a call to action for students. They say, “Historically, students have been social justice leaders in critical movements around the world. Where will you invest your time?”
Guest contributors Ian Stewart ’14 and Cailey Cron ’13.5 noted in their opinions article that the type of attention surrounding the issue of tailgating has “dilute[d] the potency of words and ideas that are needed to fight real injustice — some of which is alive and well at Middlebury.”
However, as members of the SGA note, this upsurge of student advocacy will hopefully be representative of student involvement in future issues.
“I’m always happy when I see people passionate about an issue. I think if you’re looking at the tailgating issue as a process problem, then the amount of student attention is worth it,” said Sanders.
“People being passionate about this issue will hopefully transfer into students being more vocal about other issues around campus. This is just a starting point for people to voice their opinions and offer student input on other issues,” he added.
Custer also pointed out that the heightened attention to this matter also stems from parental and alumni involvement. The change in the tailgating issue more directly affects them when they return to campus, whereas other issues affect them in a less direct way.
Moving forward, the change in the tailgating policy will not be a major issue at the next SGA Senate meeting. As noted in an email sent on Sept. 23 to the student body, the administration stands by its decision. Any changes to the policy itself, as noted by members of the SGA, are very unlikely.
“Based on my conversations with the administrators, I know that they are very firm on their decision, primarily because it’s motivated out of their concern that it is a safe space,” said Custer.
While revisions to the passed resolution to make it more specific are being developed, the next step is witnessing how the administration to student relationship changes.
Custer said, “At the end of the day, it is a decision that is within the purview of the administration. The administration does get to make decisions unilaterally, but hopefully with our input. And if not, then hopefully with our concerns addressed.”
