When University administrators decline to comment, they are sending the community a loud message: GW doesn’t value students’ rights to information.
And that’s a problem.
Every time an administrator decides to withhold information, he or she does far more than simply limit the thoroughness of an article. These denials disrespect the very student body administrators have been hired to serve.
Earlier this semester, the University launched an online referral system to support students experiencing crises. This system is extremely laudable, and it demonstrates how the University is working to improve its existing mental health support system for students.
Yet Helen Cannaday Saulny, associate vice president and dean of student academic success, declined to provide basic information about the service, such as how the pilot program was modified, or protocol for when a student does not respond to e-mails or calls from the system.
Worse, Saulny declined to comment on whether or not the University would use the information gathered from the CARE system for disciplinary action. And while a different administrator provided an answer to that question – it’s no – GW only released it after being told that Saulny’s decline to comment would be included in this editorial. These basic, crucial facts should have been explained right away. There is no excuse why it was not included. No party-line can explain it this decision away. It was purely a commitment to reticence.
This is especially concerning because of the University’s poor record on mental health issues. A student was suspended from GW in 2006 after he sought treatment for depression and suicidal thoughts. Because of this history, the University needed to be extra candid about their plans for these records.
Last month, the University released a survey that claimed student satisfaction for J Street increased 11 percent. But University spokeswoman Jill Sankey declined to provide any contextual information, such as overall satisfaction.
There is absolutely no reason the University should have withheld more information on this survey. Student satisfaction for dining is “up,” but from what?
If dining is improving on campus and the University is continuing to make fixes to the current system, the community should be engaged in a dialogue with administration about it. Clamping down on information puts an end to these conversations that would ultimately benefit student life – an end goal the entire community should be working toward.
At the very beginning of the school year, the University Counseling Center decided to overhaul its fee structure and allow students to have six free counseling sessions. Former UCC Director John Dages expressed concern that it might constrain the center’s budget.
Months later, the Senior Associate Dean of Students Mark Levine has declined to provide information on the center’s financial status.
The University has also repeatedly denied any information regarding the ongoing UCC review. And while it should not necessarily be expected that the University provide every single detail of the review immediately, it is inexcusable that so much information was withheld on an issue essential to student health and well-being.
But the fact that the University continually declines to comment is indicative of a larger, more troubling trend throughout the administration. There seems to be a culture pervading the University that promotes secrecy and belittles the importance of sharing information. In other words, we go to a school where administration prioritizes image over openness.
That has long-term implications for the relationship and sense of trust between students and the institution. And that’s certainly something the administration can’t want.
It is unrealistic to ask the University to provide every piece of information to the community. But as consumers and stakeholders, it is ridiculous that students are continually denied basic facts and information even when they seek it out.
Maybe the frequency of “Decline to Comment” is not because of the University officials but because of the quality of reporting in The Hatchet…
how does the quality improve if administrators won’t give them a quote? The Hatchet doesn’t have the resources of the Washington Post. If bureaucrats won’t answer basic questions there’s not much that Hatchet reporters can do about it.
Perhaps the University declines to comment in order to announce initiatives via a non-confrontational platform that the Hatchet simply does not provide.
It strikes me as incredibly lazy to write an editorial about how hard it is to do your job.
Is a lazy, open statement and is incredibly condescending.
I don’t think the Hatchet is a confrontation platform. It is most of the student’s only portal into the inner workings of the university. Again, there is a lack of openness in this school’s administration and this paper is the only way most of us can find out what is going on. I also enjoy how Aaron elaborated so eloquently about how he believes the Hatchet does not provide quality reporting…
The Hatchet doesn’t have a confrontational tone.
i’d imagine there’s a host of legal minefields that exist around what the univeristy can and cannot say at certain times, especially to an independent student paper, so they always err on the side of caution.
it’s really a multi billion dollar business with tens of thousands of employees. this isn’t like getting a comment from your high school principal about why the water fountains never work.
@cb — Uhmmmmmmmmm, by your logic, the US government would cease issuing any comments, no?
@Rick Pierce: yeah… gov’t employees typically don’t go on the record about anything unless their legal council gave them the go ahead.
IN GENERAL: While I agree that GWU isn’t your “high school principal” I am of the opinion that these leaders can and should make comments off the record that clear-up any confusion. As a business school student who has an interest in a multiple degree program…. navigating GW’s bureaucracy can be extremely frustrating… and it’s even more annoying when people are not open about what they know when it concerns your academic plans.
And beyond that: when you’re spending $50k to $60k+ per year, I believe you are entitled to know how your money is being used and what’s going on behind closed doors. Students have a vested interest in the University’s success much more so than GWU employees. I find it really annoying when administrators forget who is paying their salary and that today’s college students are tomorrow’s donors. Casting away genuine student concerns will not prove to be a wise decision for the university in the long-run [and the lackluster fundraising here proves GWU administrator's inability to connect with alums].
I would also say that certain disrespectful individuals within the business school before the academic advising shake-up did not help GW’s image…. though thankfully those issues have since been fixed with said shake-up…
@Ummm “Students have a vested interest in the University’s success much more so than GWU employees.”
I am an employee and you better believe I have a “vested interest” in the success of this institution. It’s called a mortgage and all of the other miscellaneous I pay for for myself and my family.
@CB is correct-you have to be aware of what is coming out of your mouth at all times because an incredible sh#tstorm will rain upon you should you misspeak. I mean-look at the mainstream media…one wrong move and media is swarming all over the place.
I am tired of the 50-60K argument. And you divide that among how many salaries and services? Your tuition is chump change compared to the cost of even turning on the lights here. For God’s sake, quit bitching about it…whether you aren’t paying for it yourself, or aren’t paying the full price…you KNOW how crazy expensive this school is, so choose another school!
Stop being such an apologist for the failures of this university. While you, as an employee, certainly have a stake in this university, that is not to deny that the role of the university is ultimately to teach and support the growth of the students. While there are some things that the university must necessarily maintain secrecy about, most of the unwillingness to comment by the university administration is simply petty. It shows a complete disrespect for the students who pay to attend this university. While you might be sick of hearing about how much students pay to attend this school, the simply fact of the matter is WE DO PAY, and as such we should have a basic right to certain information. Why, for example, must the university fail to inform students that the online system used to refer students in crisis will not be used for disciplinary action? What possible reason could the university have for not releasing that information? Why shouldn’t the university be open about the context of statistics that it is touting? If statistics are going to be cited, shouldn’t the be cited in their entirety so that students might be able to understand them for themselves?
As a final note, the counseling center debacle is probably the most egregious example noted in this editorial. Please explain to me why there is any conceivable excuse for NOT letting students know about what changes are going on in the UCC, a service which exists solely for the benefit of students? If an assessment of the center was done, why can the university not be open about the results? Do students not have the right to know what they are walking into when they go to UCC?
If everything has the potential to cause such great embarrassment for the university, maybe the administration should focus on spending more money to fix the problems, instead of covering up problems and erecting new buildings.
If it is such a failure, why are you here? I don’t get it.
“The role of the university is ultimately to teach and support the growth of the students”
Really? That’s not happening? You are not being supported? No tutoring, computer labs, writing assistance, fantastic professors, cool events, career assistance, free lectures…I could go on and on. You are right. No one cares because someone didn’t answer your question fully. I apologize for that event, now get over it and go study and enjoy all of the things GW DOES get right.
Oh yeah, don’t forget that gym!!
Jake,
There is a very conceivable reason for student not knowing about the changes at UCC. And that is they themselves don’t know what the changes are yet.
I read an article a few weeks back where Mark Levine talked about some changes that have been made, like with the waiting room and new staff joining the center. It sounded like from their quotes in this paper that the review process isnt over yet. That sorta thing needs to go through all levels of the university.
I’m sure when they know what recommendations are and the president approves them they will be shared in a story here.