From SGA to Community Council, we have a system of student liaisons to the administration whose key purpose is to keep the two groups on the same page. Yet last week we were all surprised to receive an email announcing that alcohol would no longer be allowed at tailgating events. Though students are all over the map on the policy itself, and we on the Editorial Board reflect this divide, we all agree that this process was flawed. The decision came directly out of the athletics department, bypassing and undermining student organizations, which are meant to represent the student body’s interests in exactly this type of decision. If the administration wonders why it is receiving such negative feedback, it is because it has failed to properly communicate with the student body. They are treating the student body more like a group of sixteen-year-olds than adults. The email from President Liebowitz, Dean Collado and Director of Athletics Erin Quinn on Sept. 23 acknowledges this failure to communicate, but actions speak louder than words, and what matters is how they will act differently going forward.
There are many other, more transparent paths this could have taken. First, directly following the unacceptable behavior prompting this policy, Erin Quinn, Director of Athletics, should have sent out a message calling out what had happened. He should not have deliberated over this decision for almost a year, as indicated in his email, without ever seriously petitioning for student input. Though the Sept. 23 email mentions consulting Community Council, evidently it was not a thorough enough discussion for the SGA and the rest of the student body to not be blindsided six months later. Quinn should have suggested the policy change and gone to student (and faculty) forums to modify his ideas and brainstorm other ways of dealing with the problem.
The lack of communication shows that the administration does not have confidence in the student body. This could have been an opportunity for students to step up and be more conscious of their actions, which they might have done to preserve tailgating. This disconnect is clear in that by and large, the student body was not aware that the behavior at these events was troublesome, but the Sept. 23 email illustrates the administration’s longstanding concern with tailgating behavior and an inability to self-police. If told that our behavior was out of line, things could have been different. Perhaps students would have found innovative ways to maintain high standards of behavior while still tailgating. The issue at hand here is the lack of discussion and transparency. With one department making a decision for everyone, we are not upholding the ideals of our community.
The loss of tailgating brings questions of Middlebury’s identity to the surface — questions that must be answered as a community. We as a school must consider what football games should look like, whether we want to engage in events that encourage day drinking on our campus and whether this decision was, in fact, the best thing for Middlebury students. Although our Editorial Board does not agree on the answers to all these questions, we agree that they were not one person’s decision to make; they are questions that belong to the school as a whole.
That being said, we need to take responsibility for engaging in these discussions. The forum on Sept. 21 is an example of a failure on our part. Though the WeTheMiddKids petition has 2,500 votes, only 20 students attended the forum, letting an opportunity to meaningfully engage slip through our fingers. Being drunk in the dining halls is not an effective way to make your outrage known.
Moreover, the behavior at last year’s tailgates was out of line. There is absolutely no excuse for this behavior. Although there are only four tailgates per year, and most alumni and parents attend only one, students must deal with the consequences to a far greater degree. Everyone involved in this has caused the many to be punished by the actions of the few. The egregious actions of all offending parties are far more insulting and disrespectful to the Middlebury community than any miscommunication on the part of the administration.
Everyone has done something wrong, from the administration’s failure to communicate to the disrespectful behavior of the students and the alumni at the tailgates. This is an opportunity for us to learn from our mistakes and ensure that going forward, everyone’s voices are heard. Student input should not just be lip service. With the Presidential Search Committee and other decision-making bodies with student representation, we need to know we are valued. Tailgating is the hot button issue of the moment, but effective communication will guide Middlebury into era of the College, and we hope to still be proud to call it our alma mater.
