Four candidates for VP of Student Affairs/Dean of Students visited the campus Monday through Thursday.
Meg Itoh
News Editor
Editors’ note: Because not all of the VP candidates’ names were released as of press time, we have decided not to include any candidates’ names out of fairness to those whose names could not be included in this article. We strive to provide as much information to readers as possible, but did not feel we had enough information in this case to provide a complete picture of the search process by press time. The names of all of the candidates should be widely available via campus-wide emails by the time of this issue’s publication.
In the interest of full disclosure, however, we want to inform our readers that we faced administrative pressure not to publish the names of the candidates to protect their confidentiality. We are concerned by this attempt to control the Voice’s content, and would like to make it clear that had we had all of the candidates’ names by press time, we would have published them.
The search committee for the new Dean of Students and/or VP of Student Affairs has selected four finalists who visited and interacted with the campus community this week. Each candidate had the opportunity to meet faculty, staff and students during the all-campus sessions. Student-only sessions were also held in the evenings at the Lowry Student Center main lounge.
According to Interim President S. Georgia Nugent, the search committee consisted of two students, one trustee, two staff members — both closely involved in student life — two faculty members and a faculty chair.
“They met with and interviewed 12 finalists over the course of two days last week,” she said. “Each candidate spoke with the committee for over an hour and then had a one-on-one meeting with me for half an hour. Overall, the committee spent two 12-hour days on the process. At the conclusion of the interviews, the committee selected four finalists to come to campus.”
Matthew Broda, associate professor and chair of the department of education, who was a member of the search committee, explained that a common element amongst all the candidates was that they “expressed a deep commitment to the residential liberal arts experience and a vision for a dynamic, inclusive and energized student life experience.”
Participation in the open sessions four weeks ago and the online feedback form leading up to finalizing the candidates was varied. “Unfortunately, very few students chose to take advantage of the open session. However, those who did offered a lot of very helpful input,” said Nugent.
“The faculty, students and staff that participated articulated a shared interest in transparency and consistency in campus communication, empowerment and advocacy for students and staff, the development of a collaborative and cohesive student life experience, and a visionary approach to designing and facilitating an integrated living and learning experience on campus,” said Broda.
Both Nugent and Broda said that the information from the open sessions substantially shaped the questions that were asked during the interviews.
“I think all constituencies are united in feeling that student life needs to be more vibrant and intentional, that policies and processes need to be more clear to all and decision-making more transparent, that the academic division and student life division both seek greater collaboration, and that — in general — there needs to be a strengthening of trust between students and the division,” said Nugent.
Regarding the role of student voices and their influence in the search committee’s decisions, Nugent said, “at this point, it is not so much a matter of reverberating voices from the community back to the community as it is of ensuring that those voices play an important role in the decision-making process. They have done so in the process up to this point and will continue to do so.”
As of press time, only one set of sessions had occurred and thus this article cannot reflect information from sessions with other candidates.
During the student session in Lowry Center on Monday, May 2, students brought up issues that they hoped the future Dean of Students/VP of Student Affairs would address in the upcoming years.
Topics discussed at the session included difficulties with communication between administration and students, the alcohol policy, residence life and issues related to Title IX and sexual assault.
Mike Long ’16 discussed the lack of communication between administration and the students, and wanted clarity on who within the administration is responsible for communicating what to the student body.
Emerald Rutledge ’17 also spoke on the administration’s communication with students, specifically in regards to the Campus Life Office’s lack of action in sending a check to speakers of the Black Women’s Conference. Furthermore, Rutledge emphasized that the retention of students of color at the College is low, students do not know about the book scholarship and the mental health access is poor.
Abby Moller ’17 said she appreciated how the candidate wanted to make a distinction between the dean of students position and the Title IX coordinator. “I think it would help Wooster in the ways that we handle Title IX cases because it will allow more attention to be put on each individual case and the victims of those cases,” she said. “It will help ensure that each victim is getting the tools that are needed for a physical and emotional recovery after a Title IX violation.”
“I also liked how she had a law firm come to [her institution] to investigate their process of Title IX bcause she wanted to make sure they were doing [Title IX] correctly and legally. I would love for Wooster to take these into consideration,” concluded Moller.
Heather Smith ’17 also claimed that some administrators do a lot while others do very little. She mentioned the administration’s poor communication with k(no)w, a student organization to bring awareness to and fight against the effects of rape culture and foster sexual respect at the College.
Sunny Mitra ’16 listed his concerns with a parental attitude toward students among the student life administrators.
Bill Swales ’18 asked Monday’s candidate about her opinion of Greek Life on campus.
Maite Knorr-Evans ’18 said she feels there have been increased animosity and loss of trust from students toward student life administrators.
Nugent explained that the final decision will be made by incoming president Sarah Bolton, who will be meeting with each finalist and will have feedback from the search committee; the open sessions with the students, faculty and staff; and all online feedback to consider for her decision.