Where is the Moderate voice on campus affairs?

Table Of Contents

Where is the Moderate voice on campus affairs?

Here’s how the American political system works: conservatives on the right defend the status quo or advocate a return to an earlier era; progressives on the left push for reform and envision a different future. Conservatives typically align with older versions of capitalism; progressives, with newer, more socialist-leaning adaptations. The electoral system functions as a balancing mechanism, resetting the national direction every four years.

Campus politics should, in an ideal world, reflect a similar push and pull with healthy debate and discussions regarding campus affairs. A new student government proposes policies; the student body evaluates them and signals approval through democratic support. But on this campus, that middle ground, the moderate voice, has all but disappeared; we seldom hear public calls to not change something, as compared to calls for change.

Let’s take an example: the ramen bar is a policy was an awesome policy that was introduced by the Wonjin & Lincoln student council. But even then, the establishment of this facility was never actually vetted through the student body. The student body was never really given a transparent breakdown, or a choice: What does it cost to run? What were the trade-offs? Could there have been any alternative uses for that budget? Don’t get me wrong, I love the ramen bar, but I was also never given the option to not have it, right?

Now, occasionally, pushbacks do surface, but only when changes provoke enough public sentiment to become a campus PR crisis. Earlier this year, the DEI council attempted to rename Lunar New Year to “Asian New Year.” The public backlash was fast and widespread, prompting a reversal. The key here is that the dissent only occurred after the announcement. There was no proactive effort to solicit feedback that disagrees with the change from the student body beforehand.

The core problem is this: change is too often implemented without a mechanism for structured disagreement. And structured disagreement requires access to information. Without transparency, disagreement can’t exist, at least not in any meaningful way.

Encouraging moderate / conservative voice on campus affairs does not mean a PR crisis every time somebody disagrees with a campus affair. For example, a simple, all-school survey prior to major policy changes could allow for the kind of engagement that prevents backlash. This is especially important in areas as sensitive as DEI reform or cultural recognition. In the case of the LNY renaming, it seems reasonable that East Asian students, the group most affected, should have been consulted before any rebranding occurred.

Now, I know firsthand how unwelcome moderate voices can be. It shouldn’t have to be that dissent is tolerated only when it’s loud enough to be heard. The school administration has a responsibility to actively seek out moderate perspectives, not just react / cover up sentiment when things boil over.

We need more transparency in student council decisions, more proactive communication from school leadership, and an end to the quiet shaming of dissenting voices.

We need a moderate voice on campus affairs, not to block change, but to ask whether change is being made for the right reasons.