Kenyon Observerthe

May 1, 2013

Kenyon’s oldest UndergradUate Political and cUltUral Magazine

State ofthe College

President S. Georgia Nugent | page 8

Kenyon Observerthe

May 1, 2013

The Kenyon ObserverMay 1, 2013

From the Editors

Cover Storypresident s. georgia nugent

State of the College

conrad jacober

Kenyon’s Ingrained Socioeconomic HierarchyThe Perpetuation of Socioeconomic Inequality at Kenyon and the Accessible Alternatives

ryan mach

Nobody’s a CriticWhat Kenyon Criticism Can Do For Kenyon Literature

tommy brown

Expanding College BureaucracyIncreasing Student Resources orContinuing the Slide to Camp Kenyon?

jacob fass

Vote YesWhy Students Should Care About the Mount Vernon School Levy

jon green

Our Modest Proposals forRe-Regulating Activities

5

6

8

10

The Kenyon Observer is a student-run publication that is distributed biweekly on the campus of Kenyon College. The opinions expressed within this publication belong only to the writers and do not necessarily reflect the opin-ions of the Observer staff or that of Kenyon College.

The Kenyon Observer will accept submissions and letters-to-the-editor, but reserves the right to edit for length and clarity. All submissions must be received at least a week prior to publication. Submit to tko@kenyon.edu

Cover Art by Nick Nazmi

Editors-in-Chief Gabriel Rom and Jon Green

Managing EditorMegan Shaw

Online EditorYoni Wilkenfeld

Featured Contributors Tommy Brown, Jacob Fass, Jon

Green, Conrad Jacober,Ryan Mach and President S.

Georgia Nugent

Layout/Design Sofia Mandel

IllustrationsNick Nazmi and Peter Falls

Faculty AdvisorsProfessor Fred Baumann and

Professor Pamela Jensen

12

14

“The most important function of a university in an age of reason is to protect reason from itself.” Allan Bloom

5

Dear Prospective Reader,

As we prepare to leave the Hill for these summer months, we at the Observer would like to take a moment to thank those who made this year a success.

Firstly, we would like to thank President S. Georgia Nugent for her service at the helm of our college dur-ing this past decade. Through all of the successes and controversies that have come and gone under her tenure, she has steered Kenyon with wisdom, composure and humility. Secondly, we would like to thank those who have submitted content to our publication this year. We pride ourselves on being able to fea-ture the best and brightest from across campus, whether or not they happen to be members of our staff. And, thirdly, we would like to thank you, our readers, for continuing the spirit of engagement, debate and discussion on our campus.

In our final issue of the year, the Kenyon Observer addresses issues pertaining specifically to our campus.

Headlining this issue, we are pleased to feature President S. Georgia Nugent’s final State of the College address. Also included in this issue, Tommy Brown addresses the growing size of Kenyon’s administration, Conrad Jacober highlights the myth of meritocracy in academia, Ryan Mach argues that our campus com-munity should challenge itself to embrace literary criticism and Jacob Fass explains why students should vote in the upcoming school levy election.

While this is our last print issue of the year, the discussion does not end here. We welcome readers to engage with and respond to content printed on our pages, and will continue to publish content on our website, kenyonobserver.com, through this last week of classes. We look forward to continuing the spirit of debate and discourse the Observer has become known for on Kenyon’s campus next year.

The Observer also regrets to bid farewell to graduating seniors Yoni Wilkenfeld, Nicholas Nazmi, Tess Wag-goner, Tommy Brown, Frederica Hill, James Neimeister and Harry Glass.

Your editors,Gabriel Rom, Yoni Wilkenfeld and Jon Green

FROM THE EDITORS

The idea that we l ive in a meritocratic society, that one’s posit ion in the social order is determined by one’s merit, is a pervasive myth; it f its perfectly with the “bootstrap” ideology that characterizes our indi-vidualized and antagonistic society. The facts, how-ever, are to the contrary: the vast majority of the U.S. and world population dies in the same socioeconomic class to which they were born. Rather than focusing on the deep polit ical and economic structures of our world society that must be destroyed and overturned to achieve a society that truly actual izes the tenets of freedom, reason, love, and justice, I want to focus on Kenyon policies that preserve socioeconomic in-equalit ies and injustices.

To begin, it must be noted that it is terribly prob-lematic that there exists no aff irmative action based on socioeconomic class, despite it being easily shown that the higher one’s class, the greater one’s access to supreme educational, monetary, experiential and social assets that cannon-fire any individual into higher education. Some do break past the iron chains of their lower socioeconomic class, but this occurs far less often than our direct surroundings and ideo-logical training would inform us it does. Everyone knows a rags to riches story; stat ist ics show their rar-ity. Despite al l of this, there is nothing in higher edu-cation admissions to compensate for the lower class’

unequal access to necessary educational and social assets. What exists in admissions is rather the op-posite: there is aff irmative action for the wealthiest students contrasted with intense competit ion for the poorest.

This is not unique to Kenyon; any school with f i-nances that are less than certain into the next decade must admit students who pay full tuit ion to ensure its f inancial stabil ity. This means that Kenyon and schools l ike it have much less competit ive admis-sions standards for wealthier students who can pay the full tuit ion and much more competit ive admis-sions standards for students beholden to a f inancial aid package. In effect, we have aff irmative action for the wealthy against the poor, despite that any un-derstanding would cal l for the exact opposite. Our “need awareness” ought to favor those who have been given fewer chances to succeed in l ife by their very birth, but it serves rather to ensure that the college is not burdened by the f inancial aid necessit ies of too many poor and lower-middle class students. It must be said that this is not the fault of Kenyon college, but of a society that is characterized by the dictates of profit and structures of socioeconomic inequal-ity. If the ends of higher education were of greater importance than those of the economic demands of profit, this dilemma would be non-existent. Instead,

Kenyon’s IngrainedSocioeconomic Hierarchy

CONRAD JACOBER

6

“Sheer ability, spelled i-n-h-e-r-i-t-a-n-c-e” Malcolm Forbes

THE PERPETUATION OF SOCIOECONOMIC INEQUALITY AT KENYON AND THE ACCESSIBLE ALTERNATIVES

higher education serves profit, and meritocracy is but an ideological myth.

To the college’s credit, Kenyon does have an ad-mirable f inancial aid system, whereby one-hundred percent of need is met in almost al l cases. Kenyon could, however, do more to f ight the injustices of economic inequality in which it takes an integral part. There exist institutions within Kenyon that perpetuate socioeconomic inequalit ies, even after one passes through the unjust process of admissions. The necessity for poorer students to hold one if not multiple jobs which pay at or near minimum wage is one problem. Because of the low wages of the student jobs on campus, poorer students must work more hours in order to make enough money to afford trav-el home, l iving necessit ies, and what remains after f inancial aid in tuit ion, room and board costs. In or-der to make enough money to pay my tuit ion, I must work as many hours as possible at Helpline in a given semester, taking more hours each semester and even adding an extra job for next semester. This is not just my situation, but that of many poorer students whose parents are not as well off as others’ parents, whose birth into their socioeconomic class is not a benefit as it is for the wealthy, but a heavy burden. Because I must work more hours, I have less t ime for school work, sleep and the activit ies many oth-ers have the leisure in which to take part. The cost of raising wages for student jobs on campus is not too great a burden for the college and would greatly

aid poorer students who survive on those jobs whilst also capacitating them match their wealthier peers in educational demands, as poorer students would have to work fewer jobs and fewer hours.

The steep hierarchy of housing prices is another easily alterable injustice that poorer students face at Kenyon. Our f inancial aid covers only a dorm dou-

ble, meaning that students whose parents are not as well off cannot afford to l ive in anything more than a dorm double. Even when the option for l iving in

an apartment or a single opens up junior and senior years, poorer students must opt for doubles or tri-ples, lest they increase the already heavy burden on themselves and their famil ies. I am, along with many others, faced with l iving in a dorm double or triple my senior year. I have the academic standing to ap-ply for an NCA or Morgan, but must opt out due entirely to the fact that I was born into a family of lesser socioeconomic standing. These apartments are reserved for those whose parents can afford them. This is the injustice many poorer students face; it is one that is easily undone. Many schools are turn-ing to f lat-rate housing to combat this problem, and even off icials of our very own Housing and Residen-tial Life are behind the idea. Money may have to be made up elsewhere, but that issue is no excuse for perpetuating the socioeconomic inequality of poorer students at Kenyon.

The problems of socioeconomic inequality go far beyond Kenyon, but there are steps we can take to make Kenyon a place that truly values the ideas of freedom and equality. Though meritocracy is but an ideological myth spread to pacify those at the bot-tom of the social ladder with the false hope that they are not bound by the cruel chance of their birth, one’s merit ought to count more than the fortune or misfortune of one’s family f inances. There are many policy changes, such as those argued above, that would lessen both the burden on poorer students and the importance of the wealth of one’s family in the opportunit ies a student is afforded. These injustices cry out to be righted. Let us actual ize the values of our college, of the quest for truth and justice.

7

“It is no measure of health to be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society.” Krishnamurti

TKO

“there is nothing in higher edUcation adMissions to coM-Pensate for the lower class’ UneqUal access to necessary edUcational and social as-sets. what exists in adMis-sions is rather the oPPosite.”

“i have the acadeMic standing to aPPly for an nca or Mor-gan, bUt MUst oPt oUt dUe en-tirely to the fact that i was born into a faMily of lesser socioeconoMic standing.”

Last year, I wrote a “State of the College” ar-t icle for TKO, and this year, the editors have asked me to do so again. I’m happy to respond to their request. Natural ly, in this f inal year at Kenyon, I have been ref lect ing a great deal on “the State of the College”—both looking back over the decade of my presidency and also trying to gaze into the crystal bal l to discern what the Kenyon of the future may be.

First, let me say I would reiterate my rather upbeat analy-sis of last year. Once again, I would as-sert that the College is “the strongest it has ever been,” that we are on sound f i-nancial footing, that successive entering classes tend to be more academical ly capable and more diverse than ever before, that the faculty as well attracts new members who are impressive teachers and scholars and also are a remarkably diverse group, and that Kenyon’s excel lence is increasingly well-known. All of these are great strengths that bode well for the

future of the College.But much has happened, in the world of higher

education and in the larger world, since April of 2012 that inf lects my view of the State of the Col-lege, as I sit down to write one year later. I regret to say that I am not as sanguine about the future today as I was one year ago. The reasons do not have to do

specif ical ly with Ke-nyon. They have to do with larger forces in our socio-cultural context which are af-fect ing higher educa-t ion—and wil l l ikely have an effect upon Kenyon—but over which the president or the College has very l itt le control.

A very recent sur-vey of college presi-dents by The Chroni-

cle of Higher Education found that more than 90% of college presidents were very sat isf ied by their professional role. And I have certainly found that sat isfact ion. Yet—as I have discussed with him--I do not envy President Decatur taking on the presi-dential role at this moment in t ime.

State of the College

PRESIDENT S. GEORGIA NUGENT

“Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. “ Will Rogers

8

Perhaps the most emblematic way of highl ighting the differences in higher education between today and one year ago today is the situation that occurred last year at the University of Virginia—with which, I assume, readers are famil iar. To brief ly re-cap: the president of UVa, Teresa Sull ivan (a very experi-

enced and highly respected president), was suddenly ousted by the chair of the university’s board (ap-parently without the knowledge of many members of the board). The ouster had to do with the board chair’s perception that the president was not mov-ing fast enough to enact change—and, specif ical ly, to develop online education. ( It was later made clear that the president had already taken steps to inst itute online init iat ives.) Faculty and students ral l ied in support of the president, and she was quite quickly re-instated. Firing and re-hiring a president within a matter of weeks is, to my knowledge, an un-precedented occurrence. And the governance situa-t ion at UVa remains f luid and unclear.

The UVa episode is extraordinary; but across the country, the relat ionships among boards of trustees, faculty members, students, presidents and/or other administrators, and alumni are increasingly com-plex and perhaps fraught. Who has authority—over what? Where does responsibil ity / accountabil ity l ie? How does an inst itut ion priorit ize (or balance) the necessity of f inancial viabil ity and faithfulness to its tradit ional academic mission? These are in-creasingly thorny questions. And, more and more, the mult iple (and, often, conf l ict ing) constituencies that every college or university has are contending over responses to those questions in a very public way.

In the past year, increasing use of social media has introduced an entirely different dimension into the l ife of organizat ions, including Kenyon. In the

world of Facebook, Twitter, etc. one voice can be amplif ied in extraordinary ways—even if its mes-sage is false. For tradit ional organizat ions, l ike col-leges, making the facts clear, in l ight of erroneous information out there, can be something of a chal-lenge. Reputat ional risk is huge, in an entirely un-precedented way. Learning to navigate in this new world is an aspect of the State of the College that simply was not on the screen one year ago.

Other contextual factors that wil l affect Kenyon have been visible on the horizon. For several years, I have been saying to trustees, faculty, alumni, and national audiences that four main chal lenges face a college l ike Kenyon today:

1. the (global) f inancial crisis 2. demographics (i.e., a potential col lege-going

populat ion that is more ethnical ly diverse and less aff luent)

3. information technology (e.g., how wil l MOOC’s ult imately affect higher education in general and l iberal arts colleges specif i-cal ly?)

4. the crisis of confidence in ALL inst itut ions, including higher education

Again, these are not issues that are specif ic to Kenyon, nor can they be resolved by a Kenyon presi-dent. But he wil l confront them.

I am hopeful that Kenyon’s sol id basis of offering an outstanding education, garnering terrif ic alumni and parent support, and continuing to attract ex-tremely strong students from around the world wil l result in the College f lourishing for years to come. I bel ieve that wil l prove true. Yet the past year has seen many developments threatening higher educa-t ion in general and l iberal arts education in part icu-lar that leave me troubled.

Liberal arts education, as it is practiced at Ken-yon, is a uniquely American phenomenon. And, I bel ieve, it has been the source of America’s leader-ship in innovation. Yet it seems to be either mis-understood or under attack in many quarters. I bel ieve Kenyon—with other l iberal arts colleges—must f ind ways to more clearly and persuasively make the case for this kind of education. I plan to work on this issue as a Senior Fel low at the Coun-cil of Independent Colleges in Washington. I know that President-Elect Decatur shares my commit-ment to this issue.

9

TKO

“Management works within the system. Leadership works on the system.” Unknown

“liberal arts edUcation is a UniqUely aMerican PhenoM-enon. and, i believe, it has been the soUrce of aMerica’s leadershiP in innovation. yet it seeMs to be either MisUn-derstood or Under attacK in Many qUarters.”

“The man of knowledge must not only love his enemies but also hate his friends.” Nietzsche

10

RYAN MACH

Despite Kenyon’s literary reputation, there persists a general feeling on its campus that a truly cohesive liter-ary “scene” has not made itself manifest in our commu-nity. In September of last year, a junior English major expressed in the Collegian his dismay at a lack of urgency on the part of Kenyon writers to carry on “the legacy of predecessors like John Crowe Ransom into the twenty-first century.” What the “depressed literary scene” at Kenyon needs, according to the article’s author, isn’t “die-hard Kafka enthusiasts or scatterbrained Thoreau lovers, it just needs nerds.” Though what separates the “nerd” from the very common literary-minded thinker at Kenyon is left somewhat unclear, the author points to poor attendance at Kenyon Review events, under-funded journals, and a lack of “any serious digital presence” as symptoms of a literary community lacking in enthusi-asm that nerds can apparently restore. If they are seek-ing enthusiasm, such critics are using the wrong barom-eters — while it is perhaps a loss to our community that Kenyon Review events are not as well-attended as they might be, this sort of delinquency is a lousy gauge of how much people care about literature at Kenyon. I find that stimulating literary conversation is quite common outside of these readings and lectures. With regards to the problem of insufficient funding, it should be noted that many students with great artistic and intellectual integrity are published in The Miracle Suit, an indepen-dently funded, published and distributed journal.

I see much promise, talent and passion about litera-ture in Kenyon’s community without having to look to its fringes, and would recommend that critics such as Mr. Ros consider the possibility of a collegiate society more complicated than the rudimentary dichotomy be-tween sports enthusiasts and “nerds.” That being said, these criticisms still lead us to a more central problem: how can we, members of a generation that is said to be less literary than its predecessors, live up to the high standards of our forebearers? I have the utmost confi-dence that there is enough raw talent and enthusiasm at Kenyon to create substantial and significant work. My

humble prescription for consolidating and refining this talent is the introduction to our community of that less romantic, less beloved literary art: the art of criticism.

Part of my intention in making this argument is to argue to Kenyon’s writers and readers that criticism is as worthy a channel of our artistic passion as literature

itself. Why are there so many undergraduate journals and magazines that lack even a peripheral focus on criticism of either published or undergraduate work? Though most writers become consumed with self-righ-teous passion whenever it is suggested that literature is boring or unimportant, they often implicitly concede that literary criticism is too dry and dull for publica-tion, and relegate their critical output to the academic sphere. But are our serious critical evaluations of the literature we love merely arguments whose validity is measured in A’s and B’s and C’s? Are they really just value judgments that have no real worth unless you’re afraid that the graduate schools to which you have ap-plied are watching? Such a belief misunderstands the mechanisms and processes by which great literature is developed and recognized.

Criticism, just like literature, responds to the advan-tages and anxieties of its time, and places the work that it reviews historically, mediating a work of art’s novelty with its inherited traditions as well as its global contem-poraries. It contextualizes literature, giving it an active role in an ongoing conversation instead of allowing it

Nobody’s a CriticWHAT KENYON CRITICISM CAN DO FOR KENYON LITERATURE

“i woUld recoMMend that these critics consider the Possibility of a collegiate so-ciety More coMPlicated than the rUdiMentary dichotoMy between sPorts enthUsiasts and ‘nerds.’”

11

to exist in an intellectual vacuum. Yet there remains the reductive tendency to characterize criticism as a refuge for unsuccessful writers. Surely, there are some writ-ers who are less concerned with theory, less “critically-minded” than others, but this cannot be a proper excuse for ignorance or even apathy regarding the role of criti-cism in literature. Even if he or she is not principally concerned with literary theory, a writer must at least be self-conscious enough to consider the theory behind his or her own work in a critical fashion. The fact is that the realms of literature and literary criticism are just as interdependent as you would expect, and an artist with-out critical sensibilities is as lost as a critic without the sensibilities of an artist.

It would also be wise to liberate students from a prevalent attitude on campus that is hostile to crit-ics. This attitude is often guised as humility or open-mindedness, though it is actually quite poisonous to any thriving intellectual community. It manifests itself when people react honestly to the poetry and fiction in student publications and can be summed in this decent-sounding admonishment: “if you don’t have anything nice to say, don’t say anything at all.”

People who believe in such a maxim cannot truly be interested in literature because they aren’t interested in distinguishing it from what is not literature — the banal, the trite, the hackneyed, the irrelevant; the things that allow us to separate the work that is important and valu-able from the work that isn’t. No, critiquing someone’s work isn’t always “nice,” but when it’s coming from an educated, critical standpoint, it is always constructive. Criticizing the canonized literature of the past does not make you a contrarian and criticizing the works of your peers does not make you a mean-spirited crank. Cri-tiques, when allowed to speak for themselves, can be as deep or as shallow as the writer allows them to be. But as long as they are limited to private conversation, they will always be perceived as petty and stemming from insecurity rather than intellectual energy. If we publish more criticism and give it the detached analytical setting it demands, so much aimless complaint can be given form and purpose, spurring more focused and delibera-tive discussion and fostering a sense of academic seri-ousness that nourishes the intellectual passion of aspir-ing writers. This is a much preferred alternative to the empty praise offered by uncritical readers in the interest of “open-mindedness.”

Giving critics a voice on campus will not only raise our intellectual standards, it will also inspire our best artists. Nothing is more stimulating to a writer than a bruised ego. When people see their work or a work they cherish criticized, they are pushed to respond to that critique, to prove the critics wrong, to explore their full

potential as artists and intellectuals. What results is a community of self-conscious and serious writers, writ-ers who think about their work as a craft and not as a mere outlet for their private anxieties and desires.

What’s more, introducing criticism to the Kenyon literary scene will produce writers of real character, writers whose methods and ideals have been shaped by the same critical environment, an environment that is uniquely Kenyon. A conversation on campus about literary values inevitably results in similarities between the values Kenyon students adopt and, consequently, between the works they produce. This is exactly the sort of phenomena that allows very unique artists to write their work in a similar spirit. Expecting a school like Kenyon to produce groups of talented writers is rational but useless — instilling in those writers an intellectual and competitive urgency is the best way to ensure that they live up to their full potential and reflect positively on the college that fostered it.

Clearly, I see much to be gained from the prospect of a critical community at Kenyon. All this being said, however, I also understand the reservations one might have about such an enterprise: talented people can also be very sensitive people, insecure about their abilities at articulation and the connection of those abilities to the very self they would hope to express. A bad review might discourage them from publishing their work, or even from ever writing again. Furthermore, some would argue that literature outside of the classroom is liber-ated from stifling intellectualism and that an uncritical environment is more open to self-expression. These ar-guments aren’t without merit, and as members of this community we are presented with a difficult choice about what we want out of our undergraduate experi-ence: a choice between poetry camp and poetry.

In poetry camp, we are taught the formal aspects of writing poetry, pushed and prodded in the right direc-tion, allowed to exercise our imaginations and, in the end, made to feel good about our efforts. This can be a fun, important and intensely meaningful experience for many people, but it is not the sort of experience that typically produces truly great works of art. If, when we are honest with ourselves, we decide that what we want is to become real artists, we must recognize that doing so is not always fun or nice — that it is a painful, frus-trating and very often cruel process that humbles us, angers us, pushes us into uncomfortable places. It is a process that isn’t for everyone, and we should make our choice with this fact in mind. But if what we really want to do is live up to our reputation as a literary school, to produce people who rival or surpass the talents of writ-ers like D.H. Lawrence, Robert Lowell or John Crowe Ransom, the choice, to me, is an obvious one.

“Either write something worth reading or do something worth writing.” Benjamin Franklin

TKO

“If government is the answer, how stupid was the question?” Judge Andrew Napolitano

A college education is seen as a prerequisite for employ-ment, and increasing access to post-secondary education is widely seen as fundamentally good across most political lines, but college tuition has been steadily increasing for de-cades. Theories abound as to why tuition has increased at a rate more than twice that of inflation, ranging from declin-ing public funding to increased financial aid. However, a national trend not often discussed that correlates well with this rise in tuition costs is the expansion of college bureau-cracies, as well as the consequences this has on campus.

A November, 2012 article in Bloomberg Businessweek notes that the growth of college administrators is a national trend, stating that “employment of administrators jumped 60 percent from 1993 to 2009, 10 times the growth rate for tenured faculty.” A December, 2012 Wall Street Journal article corroborates this finding, stating additionally that “[growth of administration is] part of the reason that tu-ition, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, has risen even faster than health-care costs.”

Examining Kenyon’s Audited Financial Statements since 2000, it is clear that we are no exception to this national trend. Since 2000, academic funding as a percentage of the College’s operating budget has remained at a steady 35%, consistently the largest slice of Kenyon’s budgetary pie. However, the percentage allocated to the administrators of the College bureaucracy (“Student Services” in the reports) has risen dramatically in recent years. In 2003 it represented 15% of the operating expenses and rose to 22% by 2012. Although this seems like a small change as a percent of a growing operating budget, what was a $7.75 million budget in 2003 has nearly tripled to a $22 million budget in 2012.

Kenyon, like many small liberal arts colleges, boasts an impressive student-to-faculty ratio. There is a faculty mem-ber for every ten students, and we can all attest to the ben-efit this has had on our education as smaller class sizes and more accessible office hours have allowed us to foster bet-ter relationships with our professors. The fact that the Col-lege has maintained 35% budget allocation towards faculty reinforces how central our relationship with faculty is to our experience here. However, a ratio not often promoted,

or even discussed, at Kenyon is that of students to admin-istrators. According to the Higher Learning Commission’s 2012-13 Institutional Update, while Kenyon enjoys a ratio of 10:1 for student-to-faculty, we have a ratio of nearly 7:1 for student-to-administrator.

There are many valid reasons college administration has expanded in recent years. Liability presents a major con-cern for any college, with Kenyon being no exception. The argument could be made that the existence of a large ad-ministration, one that requires students and student orga-nizations to adhere to an increasing amount of regulations, allows the College to ensure the safety of its students and reduce its vulnerability to lawsuits. However, even this ar-gument does not elucidate why the administrative budget of the College has nearly tripled in nine years. Going to col-lege today does not entail any more significant risk than it did ten years ago, and to my knowledge lawsuits against the school have not increased during this period either. College administration, especially in regards to liability, cannot be said to have become so increasingly complicated in the past decade so as to justify this increase in cost. Thus, concerns about liability alone cannot explain this expansion.

Increased administrative interaction with students and student organizations could also explain this increase. For example, there is a good reason for the administration to allocate money to the Student Activities Office, as offer-ing resources to students and their organizations to expand their outreach and efforts is certainly a good thing. How-ever, a well-funded Student Activities Office does not por-tend an active student body; it is not the existence of that office that drives students to become members of campus organizations, but rather the students’ drive to become en-gaged and involved on campus. If the administration were to merely make these resources available to student organi-zations independent of an administrative body, we would certainly still benefit from their use. However, under the current administrative structure, in order to maintain their organizations students must register them, receive approv-al, submit reports throughout the year and attend required leadership courses, among other bureaucratic hoops, every

Expanding College BureaucracyTOMMY BROWN

12

INCREASING STUDENT RESOURCES OR CONTINUING THE SLIDE TO CAMP KENYON?

“Do not look where you fell, but where you slipped.” African Proverb

single year. Recently, even the Observer itself was in danger of losing its recognition as a student organization because it had failed to submit a form self-evaluating events it never held or planned to hold.

Greek life serves as another example of administrative overreach. Nearly all current national fraternities at Ken-yon began as secret societies. Yet, today they must submit schedules of all their activities, attend the same required leadership courses and abide by the recently passed Stan-dards of Excellence. I contend that these organizations would remain excellent in the absence of the overwhelming administrative paperwork they must currently follow. Near-ly all Greek organizations hold regular fundraising events for different causes and the community service hours con-tributed by Greeks is significant. In requiring Greek orga-nizations to complete various assignments around campus, whether in co-sponsoring events or contributing a given number of service hours, the administration inherently di-minishes the fact that all Greek organizations already do these things without prompting. Additionally, a student elected to a position of leadership within their organiza-tion has already demonstrated to its members his/her leadership abilities. Requiring these student leaders to attend mandatory leadership workshops seems to be not only redundant, but pa-ternalistic.

To be fair, many positions lumped into the Student Services category offer important and widely used resources on campus, such as Health and Counseling Center employees. At least part of the blame, though, for this increased administrative spending lies with the intrusion of Kenyon bureaucrats into what should be the sole domain of student life. Summer Send-off serves as a good example. Amid increasing concerns about both risk management and liability the event has been restricted, regulated and staffed by the administration. Many of these concerns are justified, and thus justify a burden held by the administration. However, this year’s Send-off Part II was organized, funded and staffed exclusively by students on Saturday, save for the increased overtime for Campus Safety officers. Both days went off without a hitch. Friday indicated that there are areas in a Kenyon student’s life that have been necessarily curtailed or regulated because of re-alistic concerns by the administration. Saturday indicated that the students are still perfectly able to organize them-selves, engage their community and take the steps to ensure a safe and successful event.

Students’ relationship with faculty remains strong at Kenyon: according to the most recent National Survey of Student Engagement 71% of students surveyed said that their faculty was “available, helpful and sympathetic.” The

data on student-administrator relationships, on the other hand, suggest a less cozy relationship. Despite having a better ratio of administrators to students, according to the same NSSE survey less than half of students felt that ad-ministrators were “helpful, considerate and flexible.” This is certainly an improvement from 2008, when that figure was less than a third of students, but clearly underscores a void between students and administrators. There are many avenues for students to voice their concerns with the ad-ministration, both publically and privately. These concerns are justified and should be listened to by the administration. Viciously attacking particular administrators, as happened last week in response to the announced Send-off policies, however, is misguided, disrespectful and inexcusable.

This national trend towards increasing college admin-istration, especially if it directly contributes to higher tu-ition costs, is worrisome. It is encouraging that Kenyon has maintained its academic budget in the face of this, but the College has nearly tripled its administrative bud-get in the past nine years. Though much of this goes to legitimate and widely utilized resources on campus, such

a dramatic increase in spending certainly requires scrutiny. Once established, bureaucracies tend to defend themselves. And who can blame them, as trimming the administrative budget would likely include layoffs for certain administrators. However, if ad-

ministrative bloat contributes to higher tuition — with Kenyon being one of the most expensive colleges in the country already — it should be assessed whether or not such an increase in spending is justified.

Beyond rising tuition, though, Kenyon’s administrative growth has its own consequences. The reduction in student organizational autonomy, the requirements imposed on these organizations in recent years, administrative advising of student government, a decreasing concept of personal responsibility; all these are consequences of a growing administration. Student independence and autonomy, the ability to make and learn from our own mistakes, are the eventual costs. When each consequence is taken individu-ally, such changes seem benign. Taken as a whole, they in-dicate a movement towards a more paternalistic campus. This is a recent trend and its manifested costs today are largely the subject of a salty senior’s rant about the deg-radation of Send-Off, annoying bureaucratic hoops, etc. If the trend continues, though, and the campus genuinely shifts towards more hand-holding of students, towards more aggressively paternalistic policies that restrict student choice and independence, the graduates of this great Col-lege leave Gambier with a much diminished ability to think and act for themselves.

13

TKO

“the Percentage allocat-ed to the adMinistrators of the college bUreaUcracy has risen draMatically in recent years.”

On May 7th, our community wil l decide whether or not to provide its school system with emergency funding that would prevent layoffs and the cancel-lat ion of al l extracurricular act ivit ies for the com-ing year. The proposed $5.6 mil l ion in addit ional revenue, $14.75 for ev-ery $100,000 in property, would be the f irst increase in funding for the school system in sixteen years. Last November, a similar proposal fai led by roughly 200 votes (voters also re-jected a levy increase in May of 2011); as the state of Ohio has reduced fund-ing for publ ic schools by eight percent, years of steadi ly decreasing school funding have forced increasingly painful cuts to educat ion.

Voters in the Mount Vernon school district, in-cluding members of the Kenyon community, have

the opportunity to support local educat ion and bolster our community’s economic competit ive-ness by voting in favor of the upcoming levy.

Some have suggested that students should not vote in local elect ions. Some have even claimed that out of state students should not vote in Ohio at al l. These people argue that Kenyon students are not truly part of the local community, that we wil l not pay the property tax-es that the levy wil l raise, that we are not educated about longstanding local issues and that we wil l not stay in the community long

enough to witness the effects of the changes we are voting on. As a matter of law and logic such argu-ments are seriously f lawed.

Kenyon students l ive in Knox County at least seven months out of the year. Not only do we pay

Vote Yes

JACOB FASS

14

“A penalty for refusing to participate in politics is you end up being governed by inferiors.” Plato

“the average faMily Moves aboUt every five years. in-creased Mobility Means that we stay in coMMUnities for shorter Periods of tiMe; it does not Mean that we don’t have a vested interest in the fate of those coMMUnities.”

WHY STUDENTS SHOULD CARE ABOUT THEMOUNT VERNON SCHOOL LEVY

15

sales taxes when we spend money at local busi-nesses, we also do pay property taxes in the form of higher room charges (when landlords’ costs rise they transfer costs to their renters). Moreover, even if Kenyon students did not pay taxes, as Mitt Rom-ney inelegantly reminded us during the last elec-t ion, mil l ions of Americans do not pay income tax-es. No one suggests that they should not vote for candidates and issues that affect others’ tax rates. In real ity, most appeals for students not to vote come down to an emotional argument that, as resi-dents for four years, we are not truly rooted in the community. Yet this argument ref lects an unreal-ist ic ideal about the nature of communit ies in the 21st century. The average family moves about every f ive years, only one year longer than a typical stu-dent’s t ime at Kenyon. Increased mobil ity means that we stay in communit ies for shorter periods of t ime; it does not mean that we do not have a vested interest in the fate of those communit ies.

In fact, Kenyon students have a strong interest in seeing the levy passed, as the $1.3 mil l ion in cuts that wil l take effect if the levy fai ls wil l have a se-rious impact on the qual ity of educat ion in Mount Vernon and Gambier — educat ion that is a high priority for professors, both current and prospec-t ive, who have school-aged children. Al l extracur-ricular act ivit ies, sports, clubs and musical perfor-mances that enrich the l ives of students outside of the classroom wil l be cut; if the levy fai ls, the school system simply won’t have the money to keep the l ights on outside of school hours. Addit ional ly, six teaching posit ions, one administrator posit ion and two unspecif ied posit ions would be cut. These cuts are not a matter of trimming waste from a bloated budget; it’s not as if Mount Vernon has too many teachers as it is. Mount Vernon has been op-erat ing under severe funding constraints for years. The district has already el iminated bussing to high school, cut 24 teaching posit ions through attrit ion and frozen teacher salaries for the last two years. Already, these cuts have been cited by professors who have turned down offers to teach at Kenyon as their reason for going elsewhere. If our community does not have adequately-funded schools, profes-sors with chi ldren wil l not be wil l ing to move to our area.

It is true that the funding system for schools based on property tax levies is ineff icient and f lawed; many would prefer funding schools through an income tax instead. But voting down the levy for this reason would be cutt ing off our noses to

spite our faces. These cuts would have immediate and negat ive consequences for thousands of Mount Vernon students; those who place value on educat-ing them must be wil l ing to operate within the sys-tem in place in order to do so.

Kenyon students have benef ited tremendously from the very things that would be cut if the levy fai ls. Whether or not you had off-the-charts SAT or ACT scores, what got you into this school was what you did outside of class. You were the point guard on the basketbal l team, you were Maria in West Side Story, you played the tuba in marching band, you were the president of the debate club or you did something else to set yourself apart from your peers. If this levy fai ls, students in our com-munity wil l not have the same opportunit ies we had; they won’t be able to stand out in ways that we were able to.

The last levy fai led by a margin of only about two hundred votes, and it was Kenyon’s votes that made it close. Students came out to vote this past November in incredibly high numbers, and if you registered in the fal l your registrat ion is st i l l val id now. It is vital that we show up and vote to pass the school levy on May 7th. Our community needs our support.

“Not everything that counts can be counted.” Albert Einstein

TKO

“what got yoU into this school was what yoU did oUtside of class. yoU were the Point gUard on the bas-Ketball teaM, yoU Played the tUba in Marching band, yoU were the President of the debate clUb or yoU did soMe-thing else to set yoUrself aPart froM yoUr Peers.”

Student activities at Kenyon are nothing if not regulated, and the Kenyon Observer recently learned this the hard way as it was nearly disbanded for failing to fill out an end-of-year program evaluation form. In short, because we did not self-evaluate the programs we never planned or put on we were, for a short time, not officially rec-ognized as a re-registered organization for next year. While we found the exercise rather silly, we here at the Observer are nothing if not constructive. In the spirit of an efficiently-regulated extracurricular experience, we offer Student Council and the Student Activities Office a list of organizational hurdles that we feel we would be more likely to take seriously as we attempt to prove ourselves as a functioning organization next year:

1. English Premier League-style relegation for underperforming organizations

Hold weekly paperwork-filing competitions between student groups. Members of the two lowest-scoring groups at the end of the year must transfer to Denison.

2. Celebrity Apprentice: Kenyon Leaders

One alumni from each organization returns to campus and runs an event. Whichever alumni runs the best event secures full funding for their organization for the coming semester.

3. Leader Lunch and Lifts

Organization leaders eat lunch with, and then bench press, Sean Decatur. Organizations must complete fifty reps over the course of the semester in order to be eligible for BFC funds.

4. Introduce and mandate an OrgSync app

In an attempt to synergize the student life experience on multiple platforms, organizations whose leaders fail to download the OrgSync app must attend a supplementary technology re-education seminar with LBIS staff.

5. BFC By-Law Quiz Bowl

Three-member teams from each student organization pit their knowledge of BFC by-laws against each other. Winning organizations receive mandatory social fun-time with Christina Mastrangelo in her inflatable bouncy house behind the Gambier Community Center.TKO

JON GREEN

Our Modest Proposals forRe-Regulating Activities