The following is a statement from the Coalition of Under-Represented Voices to Martin Jischke, Iowa State University, Ames, and the state of Iowa.

Mr. Jischke,

CURV is seeking to open the current process of decision making and resource allocation at Iowa State University. As students in marginalized groups, we are asking this university to allow student participation in the decision making process. Decisions about curriculum, faculty, university policy … all affect our lives and education long after we leave ISU. We are not asking for total control, we realize that would not be realistic. We ask for a partnership with the administration. We ask for real student participation.

In 1969, Sherry Arnstein realized that participation without power was meaningless or worse. While she wrote about citizen participation in urban renewal, the ideas hold true for student participation in campus life. To fit Arstein’s definition to the present situation: Student participation is the redistribution of power that enables marginalized student groups, presently excluded from the process, to be deliberately included. It is the strategy by which marginalized student groups join in determining how information is shared, goals and policies are set, resources are allocated and programs are operated. The power holders at Iowa State are the administration and the Board of Regents. Some of the marginalized groups on campus are represented by CURV.

Sherry Arnstein described a ladder of citizen participation with eight rungs, or degrees of participation. For simplification, I will group these into three main categories: lowest on the ladder are degrees of non-participation, in the middle are degrees of tokenism, and the highest rungs are the degrees of student power.

Non-participation often comes in the form of rubber stamp advisory committees or boards that have no real function other then a public relations vehicle. These committees and boards are used to show that there is “grassroot” participation where none really exists. These committees are used to educate the students to the point of view of the power holders, and to engineer the support of student groups. Slightly higher on the ladder is tokenism. The first step toward true student participation is informing students of what is going on. Under tokenism, however, this is almost always a one-way communication, where information is flowing from the power holders down to the students. Furthermore, information is often only provided late in the process, when there is little opportunity left to influence the design of proposals. Another legitimate step toward true student participation is soliciting students’ opinions.

However, if there is no assurance that students concerns and ideas will be taken into account, this continues to be a sham on the part of the power holders. Often power holders are willing to go as far as to placate students. This is done by placing a few hand-picked students on boards and committees to serve as student representatives. Often these students are not responsible to their constituency (their fellow students), and current power holders continue to have the upper hand. The power holders have the majority of the seats on these committees and can very easily outvote their hand-picked student representative. Power holders allow students to advise to no end, because power holders retain the right to judge the legitimacy and plausibility of the advice. Power holders can still disregard any advice they disagree with.

The ISU Administration is currently engaging in the placation of the student body. A recent example is the appointment of Lisa Ahrens to the board of regents. The process used to select Ahrens reeks of tokenism, first Ahrens is a member of the Presidents Leadership Class; second, Ahrens was contacted by Mr. Jischke’s Office and asked to fill out the application; third, Mr. Jischke personally recommended Ahrens to Mr. Brandstad. To quote the Mar. 19, Daily editorial, “If the government of the state of Iowa is serious about having student involvement on the Board of Regents, then all students must be given the chance to apply and have voice in the nomination.” Students for a free Tibet were ignored when they voiced concern over the athletic department’s policy of using The Holiday Inn. The Ames Diversity Committee was formed without any student members.

When half of the population in Ames is students, ignoring the student voice is unforgivable. The President’s Committee on Recruitment and Retention of Special Groups was formed to study and propose how the University could improve the retention and recruitment of certain groups. This committee produced pages of suggestions, suggestions that will be filed away with no guarantee that the hard work the committee members went through will be rewarded with action. These are just a few of the many recent examples of the administration’s lack of commitment to diversity.

We ask to move beyond degrees of tokenism into degrees of student power and participation, where students and administrators share decision making responsibilities through such structures as joint policy boards, committees and mechanisms for resolving impasses. There are certain programs and policies — such as those of special concern to marginalized groups — that have a significant impact on students that will require students to have dominant decision making authority, this requires that students have specified powers and have a clear majority of votes on committees and boards. The administration must be proactive to resolve differences. The areas where students have dominant decision making power can be determined through negotiations between the administration and students.

The administration must address the alienation, anger and distrust many students feel toward them. CURV is giving an opportunity to Mr. Jischke and the administration to address this animosity. To re-establish trust and respect for the administration among students, the administration must be willing to sit down and re-negotiate the power and decision making structures at Iowa State. Ignoring CURV, and other student groups, will only worsen the problem. If the administration refuses to negotiate through these concerns the anger and distrust will only deepen.

The administration has said it is concerned about the recruitment and retention of minority students. The current climate on campus and visible symbols such as Catt Hall remind current and potential students of how little effort the administration has put into ensuring that marginalized groups are heard. Changing the status quo will require not only a re-distribution of power from Iowa States administration, but also from the Iowa Board of Regents.

We ask for serious negotiations with the administration with a neutral third party present who will: ensure productive discussions toward resolution of contentious issues, publicly evaluate the level of participation or non-participation of the conflicting parties and make recommendations to negotiate a settlement, reconciliation or compromise. CURV challenges the administration to open up the process, to bring real power to the students and to create a climate where students can participate in a true partnership with the administration.

Sherry Arnstein, “A Ladder of Citizen Participation,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners, July 1969, p. 216-224.

Jason Gross

Junior

Community and Regional

Planning

Programming Director, ISU LGBTA Alliance

The Alliances Representative to CURV