The Language Of Money

The Guest Policy proposal created by the Student Union and BU Free is going to fail, and here’s the reason why: There is only one language John Silber understands, and that’s the language of money. The Student Union and Mr. Clay can write proposals until their fingers fall off, but their proposal doesn’t stand a chance of being seriously considered unless it is written in the language of money. Dr. Silber knows the Guest Policy is not popular with students. However, it is not enough of an issue to cause a significant number of students to leave the University. On the contrary, as Daily Free Press columnist Grant Myers noted, it’s a great marketing tool to appeal to parents. Parents pay the bills. Silber counts the money the parents pay.

The number and quality of students applying to BU rises every year. Clearly, then, the Guest Policy has not been a barrier to prospective students. As a result, Dr. Silber can count the reasons to continue to keep the Guest Policy intact dollar by dollar. Altering the Guest Policy is not likely to increase alumni donations, but keeping the Guest Policy unchanged guarantees parents of prospective students will continue to view BU as a safe place to send their children and, therefore, their money. Any change to the Guest Policy should be considered a near impossibility given that it provides no economic advantage to the University.

However, the Student Union and Mr. Clay unintentionally did the student body a disservice by asking the administration for radical, sweeping changes. If the Union and Mr. Clay had really done their homework, they

would have found out that since Dr. Silber arrived at BU, he has not responded to student demands for significant change. However, at lower levels in the administration, when small incremental change has been sought, it has sometimes met with success. For example, the ESO has sought and received approval for recycling in the College of Arts and Sciences. Yes, this is small. But more importantly, it was approved. This demonstrates the ability to achieve success when approaching the administration, but only when incremental change is sought, not sweeping change. The difficulty now posed by the Student Union having thrown down the gauntlet in a highly visible exchange where backing down is not likely is this leaves no room for starting a series of minor changes.

Lastly, if the Student Union and Mr. Clay call for more 3,000 students to demonstrate after Dr. Silber and Mr. Westling give a blanket negative reply to the Guest Policy proposal, as seems very likely, the most noticeable consequence we may possibly hope for is one more headline of bad press in The Boston Globe. The Silber-led BU has endured bad press many times in the past for transgressions ranging from financial conflicts of interest by the board and the chancellor himself to an investigation of the University administration by the attorney general, and yet, Dr. Silber has never changed his policies. What makes you think that he is going to start now? I would suggest to the Student Union and Mr. Clay to put their effort into less radical proposals with more chance of achieving a difference. If the Union is going try to change the administration’s policies, particularly if it addresses an issue in which the administration has shown little interest in the past, why not put some emphasis on creating a rape crisis center? At least students (more than half of whom are female) and administrators can agree that it is an important issue.