I’m sure by now that everyone on campus has realized that the two years of lobbying, arguing, and pleading with the administration for a new guest policy have all been for naught, as these new ‘Resident Passes’ have quickly proven themselves to be almost completely useless.
When this newer, seemingly friendlier guest policy came into being, it appeared as though the long battle for student rights had finally come to an end, and President Clay had gloriously fulfilled his campaign promise a semester ahead of schedule. However, now that this policy has been put into practice, the truth has finally come out.
It appears as though Chancellor Silber and Executive Vice President Mercurio have pulled a fast one on the students, as the enacted guest policy seems to be far less than what was apparently promised last semester, especially since no one mentioned that ‘signing in’ involved turning over ID cards, which could then be confiscated.
The ‘FYI’ email sent out by BU Free puts it bluntly enough, declaring that ‘Everything else is pretty much the same,’ and unless you actually live on campus, then you don’t even need to bother filling out those blue passes.
What were promised as serious changes in the guest policy have still not come to pass, and the frustrated student body is going to have to start this fight all over again. Tragically, members of the junior and senior classes now have to face the grim realization that we will continue to be under a minimum-security lockdown for the rest of our time here at Boston University. In other words, the new plan wasn’t the landmark achievement we’d hoped it would be; in fact, it’s almost a total bust.
However, along with the usual finger pointing toward the Montgomery Burns-like Silber, our current student leadership must take some of the blame as well. President Clay and the ‘True’ administration are just as guilty of short-changing the students as anyone within the BU hierarchy; and, after another semester of uncompleted tasks, the most promising administration I have ever seen here at BU still seems miles away from their goal of improving the guest policy.
As of this writing, the guest policy changes have been in place for almost two weeks, yet no one in the student government has stood up and declared the adjustments unsatisfactory, and no plans have been made for another push to change the new policy.
The only official response from the Student Union E-Board came yesterday in a letter published in The Daily Free Press (‘Immaturity hurts guest reform,’ Jan. 27, pg. 6). In the letter, our President and VP simply made a tacit comment about the policy’s shortfalls, preferring instead to concentrate on chastising the students for being rude to the security guards. The E-Board obviously decided not to express their outright disappointment with the new policy, nor did they state their plans for the future of guest policy reform. Needless to say, this is not encouraging.
I hope the E-Board hasn’t decided their work here is done, because their campaign promise, in my eyes at least, has not been fulfilled.
The ‘True’ Slate was elected by the students for two reasons: one, they promised to change the guest policy; and second, they had the president of BU Free on their side and were therefore the only group that had a chance at accomplishing this feat. Rather than promising us the moon, like most slates tend to do, ‘True’ had one key goal, and guest policy reform alone won them the election.
When Silber had apparently relented to the student’s demands, Clay and the E-Board considered it a major triumph. However, blinded by their success, they ignored (or chose to ignore) the loose and ambiguous language, and instead heralded these nonexistent changes as a ‘building block’ when it has now proven to be a brick wall.
Our E-Board just accepted Silber’s rulings, never bothering to ask the tough questions. For example, is it too much to ask for a student with a meal plan to simply swipe into the dorm of their choice past 8 p.m.? Why are BU students still forced to relinquish identification to the security guards? And why can our personal ID cards then be confiscated should we break the slightly extended curfew? And how about the insulting and intrusive demand for a ‘reason’ to enter a dormitory?
Frankly, President Clay should have thrown this proposal back in Silber’s face, as it was nothing more than a ruse, a cheap ploy to keep the students temporarily sustained until the grim reality could set in. The very fact that the student government accepted this policy change without complaint is an insult to everyone who elected ‘True’ into office.
For the next semester our student government needs to get back to the one goal the students truly care about: guest policy reform. Not bus lines, not impotent ‘resolutions,’ not childish political infighting but guest policy reform. President Clay needs to spend less time dancing at the hockey games, and more time delivering what he’s promised us.
The student body has learned not to expect much from our government, but we do demand they act as our voice. So this semester I implore our representatives to take this policy back to the administration, as it is unacceptable and an insult to us as adults in the year 2003.
This is an account occasionally used by the Daily Free Press editors to post archived posts from previous iterations of the site or otherwise for special circumstance publications. See authorship info on the byline at the top of the page.
