Daniel Weaver, Campus Carrier Contributing Columnist

Several recent and major developments impacting the entire Berry community have shown a reduction of student significance in favor of an unequivocal administrative authority in enacting these new policy decisions.

The decisions I am referring to are: the rise of football as an athletic program in spite of substantial disapproval among a large number of the students and faculty/staff, the placement of the football stadium despite human and eagle community disturbance and disapproval, the LifeReady Campaign which has been given minimal explanation and so for most students appears a superficial re-appropriation of existing structures to defeat the need for implementing new programs that accomplish the program’s vaguely presented goals, and the tobacco free campus policy. This policy was delivered as an ultimatum by the highest power of the school without input from any other apparent sources.

The nature of the decision making process, rather than the comparatively trivial outcomes of the decisions themselves, is what leaves me feeling powerless and alienated within a community in which I am encouraged to be an integral part.

The urgency, specificity and absoluteness that characterize the various decisions lead one to believe that they are being enacted according to a primary value of maintaining or evolving Berry’s image as an institution to seduce higher admission rates or greater fundraising rather than being enacted to best suit the evolving needs of the Berry community.

There will always be a balance that has to be struck between allowing the student body a voice and intervening authoritatively to prevent that voice from getting out of hand or making mistakes.

But when, through a growing pattern of ignoring or acting against the interests of Berry’s student and perhaps staff population, one part of that balance silences the other then the mechanisms in place to give students their voice (SGA, committees, councils—official entities created by the school for the students to directly participate in Berry’s community) become nominal. This creates a divide between the perceived power of the administration making the final decisions and the perceived powerlessness of the rest of Berry’s student population.

I say perceived because I don’t fully know what comprises “administration.” It is obviously not an abstract, self-serving body but an interaction of departments, deans, trustees, etc. who do indeed take students’ input into account, but in ways seemingly just outside of our scope of understanding.

This certain lack of transparency and inaccessibility may alone be what leads students to feel excluded from decision making processes, though it may appear from the other side of things as entitlement to request greater visibility for student services that are already in place but are underutilized. The common theme from both perspectives, though, is a gap in communication.

So, while the decisions themselves do not directly affect me, the perception of at least a surface level imbalance in decision making power is strong enough to feel oppressive in the eyes of students such as myself, even if that sentiment is not actually accurate. The way in which the various decisions were conducted alienates me from the community that I want to feel a part of and that I am continually told believes in what I have to say.

This is a process which separates the Berry community into an image and a reality. The image is projected for admissions and alumni that is tightly controlled by administration. The reality is an institution that students actually live within but have only superficial power over.