On October 5, Paul Murphy, Dean of Students and Residential Life, sent an e-mail to the student body alerting it that “sexually suggestive dancing, including but not limited to grinding is not allowed” at school dances. He also noted that adult chaperones may ask students “who are not adequately clothed” to leave school events. From this e-mail, it is apparent that there is very little room for true dissent, as the administration has already determined what it believes to be the best interests of the student body.
As Student Body Co-Presidents, we are concerned that in making its decision to ban grinding and in determining new parameters of appropriate dress, the administration failed to discuss with student leaders what would become a contentious resolution. Had we been asked to contribute, we would have explained that many students would perceive the rules as a constraint to their individuality. The administration instead chose to render an ultimate decision. We worry that hasty decisions such as that of Saturday do not build trust, but instead indicate that the administration is losing faith in its student body.
What is more worrisome than the ban on grinding itself, however, is the process used to determine it. The current governance model of the school does not clearly define student representation, and leaves the question of student leaders’ role unanswered. Currently, there are three rings of governance: one for the Head of School and the Board of Trustees, a second for the administration and a third for faculty. The interactions and power dynamics among these three rings are clearly established and codified.
Where do we stand? Do we—who are supposed to connect the student body to the Head of School, the Board of Trustees and the administration and the faculty—have any power in contributing to the discussion that directly influences us and our peers? The current system holds no real space for student leadership, leaving our role all the more unclear. We strive to work with faculty and administrators. We hope to be the central intersections between the student body and the three aforementioned rings. We envision more student involvement in decision-making. We need student representation.
What we are now facing is larger than the controversy over prohibitions on grinding and inappropriate dress. What we want is a place in this established structure and tangible power for the student body. Theoretically, we, as Co-Presidents, wield power. Yet as history informs us, this power can only sway: it cannot push, move or inspire. We occupy a precarious position, despite our title as the liaisons between students and faculty. Nevertheless, the student body expects us to have a say in the administration’s decisions. So while we have a voice, we lack a clear mechanism to amplify it, and thus our goals and visions are virtually impossible to realize. Last week’s decision makes clear that we, at the moment, have very little concrete say in matters that affecting students’ daily lives.
What is the purpose of Student Council if it cannot honor the most basic of its charges: to help make decisions in the best interests of students? Is there a place for a theoretically powerful organization? How can we help make decisions when they have already been made for us? Are we mere figureheads, or can we be something more? Can we make Andover a place at which students have a place in the diagram, or are we resigned to the way things are?
It’s time for us to decide the direction we wish to pursue.
