A Fait Accompli at the Institute of Politics

Yesterday's Crimson editorial argued that former Sen. David Pryor, director of the Institute of Politics (IOP), "could have been more adroit in his intervention" to disband the institute's Student Advisory Committee (SAC). This is a remarkable understatement. Pryor's decision, reached without any consultation of SAC, was insultingly dismissive of student input. As a student newspaper, The Crimson should have taken a stronger stand in favor of student control and against Pryor's unfortunate fait accompli.

The decision to disband SAC, announced in a Nov. 9 breakfast meeting, was not preceeded by any meaningful process of discussion with those students who would be most directly affected. It is especially worrisome that Pryor saw fit to discuss the changes with concerned non-SAC students but did not feel that SAC members deserved to be consulted. Although SAC had been making several efforts to increase student access to leadership roles at the IOP--most notably by reducing its own size and by creating the senior associate program to devolve responsibility to students outside SAC--it was never given an opportunity to respond to Pryor's concerns. Had Pryor outlined to SAC his vision of a new structure for student participation, or had he merely presented the students with an ultimatum demanding quick reforms, he would have been more considerate to the student leadership and less disruptive to student-staff relations.

Furthermore, the decision was not just about SAC: other student-run IOP committees that provided valuable student services have also been axed or have been left in administrative limbo, with their existence after Dec. 1 unclear. Students might thus lose the benefits of IOP programs that they might have retained had the reforms emerged through discussion rather than dictate.

What organization will rise anew from SAC's ashes is still unclear. Some have worried that in pursuit of equal access to students, the IOP may not provide for any leadership roles through which students can channel their concerns. Perhaps these fears will be alleviated at this morning's breakfast meeting. Perhaps also Pryor's actions will not set a dangerous precedent, and the leaders of this new structure will not live in a state of permanent unease that they, too, may find themselves suddenly undesirable.

As it happened, the damage done by Pryor's disregard for student input has undercut the benefits that may arise from any reforms. Whatever SAC's faults, the students who have devoted much of their college careers to laboring to make the IOP a better place deserve more respect than they received.