Today I read in my local Trenton Times that Rutgers University president Richard McCormick has decided to cancel RutgersFest, a student-organized, campus-wide musical and carnival event that had run for 30 years. McCormick made the decision in the wake of two unrelated shootings near campus that involved college age persons who had no connection to the university.
RutgersFest, according to the story, did not even take place on the New Brunswick side of the campus. Divided by the Raritan River, the university's flagship campus is located in two towns: New Brunswick and Piscataway. The university acquired much of its land holdings in Piscataway when the U.S. Army deeded Camp Kilmer, a former military base, to them. The football stadium is perhaps the only building on the Piscataway side of the river that dates back more than half a century. This year's RutgersFest was held on the Piscataway side. Students and guests were bussed to and from the program, which attracted a reported audience of nearly 50,000 people.
But while the main event, a concert, ended at 8 PM, and it did not take place on the same side of the river as the shootings, the New Brunswick police chief blamed the university for inadequately addressing the city's security concerns. The reactions can best be described as over-reactions.
I understand why President McCormick decided to cancel the event for future years. Concerns about safety may or may not have stemmed from RutgersFest and he has the responsibility for the lives of the people who live and work on campus. This could be interpreted as doing the right thing.
However, RutgersFest is not the only campus event that attracts large audiences. The university plays six or seven home football games every season; in good years the average attendance has exceeded 40,000, just like RutgersFest. The alumni relations office runs a Rutgers Day held in late April in conjunction with several class reunions. Lastly, but not least, the university plans to host commencement in the football stadium next month, and Rutgers is a school that hands out a lot of degrees. All of these events are connected to informally organized social activities. Which leads me to ask: why was RutgersFest more difficult to secure than, for example, a football game?
But public relations-wise this school year has not been a good one for Rutger's main campus, which had become a more spirited place in recent years. The Tyler Clementi suicide; Eric LeGrand's spinal injuries; the poor record of a football team that was expected to have a promising season; Snooki-gate; and now these shootings are a lot for one campus community to face over two semesters. The university community came together over the tragedies, however the other incidents have embarassed the school in ways that put its profile in front of the state legislature at risk and likely hinder what has been a successful capital campaign. Cancelling RutgersFest was a decision that was within the president's control. So, he also did the right thing for different reasons.
Then there are the questions over student fees that have come out of Snooki-gate and RutgersFest. Should students be allowed to opt-out of them, as one legislator, Joe Kyrillos, a Republican, has proposed? Or should adults step in and set tighter conditions over how the monies collected from students are to be spent?
I would argue no, to the first question. the fees cover numerous student services and activities. While each and every student may not use each and every thing covered under their fees another student will. In addition, individual students should not be allowed to opt-out of all fees because the activities board brought in a speaker they didn't like.
While Snooki is no example of a scholar, she was an entertainer many students wanted to see. Toni Morrison will speak before a larger audience, but that is because the event is commencement. But, had the university offered a chance to hear her speak in a less formal setting, would she have drawn a larger student audience than Snooki? I've read many comments about the quality of the student body--if they invited Snooki, that says it all--but those are short-sighted and unfair. Anyone who took the time to look would see that Rutgers attracts many speakers on various topics and viewpoints, and the student affairs office handles any protests, as appropriate.
Should wiser adults step in and provide more direction on where student money should be spent? It depends. If these efforts are part of a marketing strategy that will still draw audiences, then sure. If they are intended to ban speakers that students would like to hear, then no, unless security cannot be provided for the speaker and the audience, while the event remained free of charge to the university community.
The Rutgers community probably could have re-designed RutgersFest to allay some of the security concerns. But the New Brunswick police chief might have been so adament about non-cooperation that nothing could have swayed him. Further, he would be free to speak his mind on any other matters of town-gown relations and campus security, and that would have been far more damaging to the reputation of the university in the eyes of many, including future prospective students and their families.
That, to me, was a risk that Richard McCormick could not afford to take. There will be no future RutgersFest because a police chief could not account for crimes in the neighboring community that did not involve students. It was not because Rutgers did anything wrong.
0 comments:
Post a Comment