Larry, you got some splainin to do

As this year progresses, I realize more and more how much the Bacow administration reminds me of the Bush administration. No, compassionate conservativism has not run amok on this bleak hill in Medford. However, our administration has modeled its communications strategy after that of our 43rd President. That strategy is simple: tell them nothing.

This administration makes no attempt to keep students apprised of what is going on, even when it is very important to us. The only time students hear from administrators is when they need something from us (including participation in an event or program), when they are showing something off, or when something bad happens. However, each week, the administration is involved in many campus issues, of which many students need to be made aware. The fact that the Daily reports on many of these issues does not absolve the administration of the need to communicate directly with the student body. Even when administrators do talk to the Daily and other publications on any issue that is potentially controversial, they rarely give a helpful answer, and usually provide some spin.

The half-stories of what's going on on-campus from administrators leave many questions unanswered, and students out-of-the-loop. Take, for example, Sophia Gordon Hall, a dorm that was supposed to be nearly complete by now. What's going on, and why isn't the administration keeping us actively informed? Arguably, one of the largest student life problems on our campus is the lack of available housing, a problem that nearly all students will deal with in their time here. Not only is administration failing to keep students informed on this issue, but also is preventing students from having a say in what happens.

One of the phrases that the University has been trumpeting lately is its commitment to instilling "active citizenship" in its students (exactly which of its students is another column.) But while the jury is certainly out on what exactly "active citizenship" is (besides a broad, pleasant-sounding term to draw investment and make people feel special), it is safe to say that the place where you can be most active is in your own community. Unfortunately, by failing to include the student body in the dialogue surrounding most of the important issues on this campus, we are prevented from being completely active citizens.

You cannot be an active citizen in a community that inherently discourages knowledge and activism. For example, if students knew exactly what the hold up with Sophia Gordon Hall was, we could easily mobilize and lobby the City of Somerville, since many of us are taxpayers, and many more of us support the City via its draconian parking enforcement system.

Nevertheless, there are many students in our community that are extremely active. However, they receive no fanfare for this activism. That fanfare is saved for students involved in communities outside our own. Activism on campus in any potentially non-trivial realm is actively discouraged, because that activism would make the life of campus administration potentially difficult.

For example, it is far easier to invite already over-compensated members of our 'host communities' to meet with pre-screened, non-controversial, polished "University College Scholars" to eat scones and sip tea and discuss, for the thousandth time in a matter of months, ways to better serve their needs ("Bacow, students discuss community service work," Feb. 19). This avoids the possibility that a real issue may be raised that might not leave everyone feeling all warm and gooey on the inside. But the important things in life are not warm and gooey.

There are some who point out that President Bacow has no accountability to the student body. It is the Board of Trustees who can demand things from him (along with, in practicality, any big-bucks donor.) But, in general, the goals of the Trustees cannot be satisfied with a dissatisfied student body. After all, we pay the tuition, we fill the classrooms, and we will contribute donations as alumni in the future.

So for now, students are left to fend for themselves, and we do it pretty poorly. Sure, if we want to do something nice and uncontroversial, we get support. But take for example the completely antagonistic relationship between students and the Office of Residential Life and Learning. Since the beginning of the year, two of the most student-friendly senior members of the ORLL staff have left under mysterious circumstances.

Resident Assistants, who have been selected because they are student leaders and students relate well to them, are essentially banned from speaking out or even speaking up. Several RAs have commented on numerous occasions about how any comment they make is interpreted as insubordination. In defending the most recent gag order placed by Director of ResLife Yolanda King regarding an alcohol policy forum, Dean of Students Bruce Reitman defined the policy as saying, "They're [RAs] not authorized to speak for ResLife or to critique the policy." ("Controversy erupts over alcohol panel speakers" Feb. 18).

While I understand that RAs are not authorized to speak for ResLife, the concept that they cannot provide criticism is completely unacceptable in a learning environment. Who is to define what is discussing and what is 'critiquing'? This policy is overbroad, and its implementation makes RAs fear speaking about anything related to ResLife in a public setting. This creates an impossible situation: the students who have knowledge of the actual implications of policy cannot share this knowledge with the public, nor can they share their concerns with the ResLife administration without fear of retribution. So how can we make this work? Well, President Bacow can re-emerge out of the hiding he has been in all year, along with Provost Jamshed Bharucha, and maybe start answering some of our questions. Maybe he can even tell Yolanda King to abandon the crusade of Us vs. Them that has been created between anyone affiliated with her office and the student body. But more concretely, while it's great that students automatically receive e-News subscriptions with information about Tufts community members in the outside world, the administration should send students periodic updates of what they're doing on campus, on issues that affect our daily lives. Now that President Bacow has a Chief of Staff, how about an ombudsperson? Someone who actually has to listen to student input and complaints, and who will actually have an impact on the decisions that are made for us? You want us to be active citizens? Start letting us.

Adam Pulver is a junior majoring in Political Science and Community Health. He can be reached at Pulver@tuftsdaily.com