Just months after the KSL Oval Gaza solidarity encampment, Case Western Reserve University’s administration issued a series of policy updates, from “clarifying” the posting policy to reestablishing the Freedom of Expression Policy Committee. In instituting these changes, the administration has repeatedly stated that they sought out feedback from student leaders and other governing groups around the university. In regard to policy changes for tabling, posting, Spirit and Advocacy Wall use and student organization standing, one of the groups solicited was the Student Presidents’ Roundtable (SPR)—an organization comprised of the highest-ranking officers of the Undergraduate Student Government (USG), University Program Board (UPB), Undergraduate Diversity Collaborative (UDC), University Media Board (UMB), Class Officer Collective (COC), Interfraternity Congress (IFC), Panhellenic Council (PHC), Residence Hall Association (RHA) and the Allocations Committee (AC), each serving in an ex officio capacity.
In a written comment to The Observer, the university stated that “Elected student leaders of the Graduate Student Council Executive Board, Undergraduate Student Government Executive Board and Student Presidents’ Roundtable were invited to review the proposed policies and provide input. Adjustments were made based on their suggestions before being adopted and implemented.”
The current form of SPR was established in 2016 by the Student Executive Council, and they have since been responsible for large-scale improvements to the campus community. In 2016, the organization lobbied and secured $44,000 in funding to renovate the Thwing Student Center and its ballroom. More recently, in 2021, SPR advocated to reopen Eldred Hall, previously vacated by the Department of Theater. Over a series of meetings, they were able to amass funding from the other board organizations to significantly improve the space so it could become available for community use. In 2023, Eldred was officially opened for students and continues to function as a study space and theater for campus and community productions.
Beyond campus initiatives, SPR’s duties include being a voice for the student body when interacting with the administration. In her Nov. 4 email introducing the revised tabling and posting policies, Provost and Executive Vice President Joy K. Ward and Vice President for Human Resources Carolyn Gregory stated the administration “shared these new or adjusted policies and guidelines with leaders of student government, Faculty Senate and the Staff Advisory Council to review and enhance, based on their experiences in and advocacy for their communities.” During the open forum of SPR’s Oct. 23 meeting, Director of Student Activities and Leadership Marc Hartmann and Vice President for Student Affairs Travis Apgar presented the updates to the group.
In response, student leaders asked clarifying questions about the policies, which Hartmann and Apgar attempted to address. For example, one member wanted to know if these updated policies “[applied] to university departments posting things on boards/kiosks,” while another one wanted to specify if the new social media regulations encompassed the current logo or previous ones as well. Students also asked whether these changes would prohibit larger posters from being displayed in Thwing Center. Overall, most of the queries could be deemed inconsequential compared to the more large-scale impacts that these policies have on student perceptions and campus culture.
To SPR’s credit, in the subsequent Oct. 30 meeting, one student leader brought up concerns about these changes, stating that the language could be generalized to regulate the way community members interact with the university and through social media. After a lengthy discussion, SPR voted 7-2 that they were “dissatisfied” with the updates as they were introduced and voted 5-0 to send their specific concerns to Apgar. According to the following meeting minutes, though, no further action on the topic has since taken place.
In a comment to The Observer, fourth-year student and Chair of SPR Lauren Eterno said, “SPR’s constitutional responsibility is to discuss current initiatives of individual boards and facilitate communication for collaboration between boards. The Presidents determine what topics are discussed at meetings and what actions should be taken based on those discussions. In the case of recent policy changes, SPR provided feedback and raised concerns, but this does not mean SPR agrees with the administration’s updated policies.”
On paper, SPR represents the diversity of our campus; however, how well they use this platform to enact real change and advocate for students is debatable. Specifically, SPR has overlooked the way seemingly minor changes in the letter of policy—namely the posting policy—can be perceived as retaliatory against certain groups and hinder the way students exercise their freedom of expression on campus. Even if administration is unreceptive to immediate repeal, SPR is in a unique position to question their decisions, communicate student concerns and criticism of university policy and open longer conversations that could lead to amendments at a later point in time.
Based on the most recent meeting minutes, SPR is focused on the most insignificant issues, squandering the time they have to collaborate, plan and organize projects that would address student suffering and improve student wellbeing. For example, SPR spent countless meetings clarifying the technical language of the spirit and advocacy wall policy and the rules of its enforcement, which had little to do with its actual student impact. Additionally, they dedicated time in at least four meetings to planning a mixer event for members of board organizations—resources which could have been better spent on the 6,000 undergraduate students facing an especially tense period in our campus history. These discussions reflect an apathy toward the administrative decisions in question and general hesitancy to voice student concerns—neither of which is enough to excuse the lack of initiative.
Meanwhile, there is also no record of discussions about the Nov. 8 alleged vandalism, the Nov. 11 and Nov. 13 student arrests and subsequent protests and the Nov. 19 Q&A with President Eric Kaler. Beyond these topics, there has been no planning for campus improvements at the scale of Eldred Hall or the Thwing Center renovation.
Students deserve better from their elected leaders. In its current state, SPR functions less as a representative voice of the CWRU student body and more like an endorsement of administrative decisions. Even when they have had the opportunities to confront university leaders on ongoing policy changes, no dissent or requests to amend have been effectively raised.
SPR members are in the unique position to serve as leaders of their respective board organizations and as members of a collaborative effort to advocate for students and initiate campus-wide change. While this may have been the motivation of members in previous years, recently we have seen a weakened SPR—one that sidesteps difficult conversations and often surrenders their power as liaisons to the administration. Perhaps SPR is not the panacea to engaging students in university-level decisions. Perhaps the administration should create a more direct line to engaged students—those who are truly invested in these decisions and their long-term outcomes.