Since returning for the fall semester, you may have noticed significant changes to various parts of campus. Perhaps you’ve seen the new set of tables and chairs in the Marketplace, or that a package pickup locker and a second window appeared in the post office. Or, for the residents on upper campus, a newly constructed beach volleyball court on Stewie Beach.
These changes are nice at first glance. For example, the post office can now service two people at a time, which improves the traffic. The new dining furniture looks sleek and clean, and Stewie Beach now has dedicated equipment for volleyball and other net sports. Overall, these contributions to our public areas seem to improve the life on campus for all students. But at the same time, these improvements don’t address the existing inequalities at Occidental.
The Marketplace’s furniture, in particular, was a big change. It rolled out quietly after the conclusion of last semester, without so much as an email. Many of us found out about this change from social media, from students who stayed on campus for the summer. I remember seeing mixed initial reactions on social media from fellow students — some up in arms about the MP losing its charm, others impressed with the aesthetic, a few indifferent. Then it became something we talked about mostly in passing. Nothing really changed, even when the whole dining room did.
I am indifferent to the new furniture; the seats are slightly more comfortable than the old ones and they also give the MP the feel of a nondescript corporate cafeteria. I don’t think the facelift significantly improved student experience, although measures like increasing student worker wages and removing the earnings cap could have a more substantial impact. It’s evident that the new furniture in the MP was a waste of money and time, regardless of the exact cost.
In my conversations with members of Rising Occidental Student Employees (ROSE), I’ve realized the administration has been very difficult when discussing union demands. When the college proposed an interim agreement during negotiations, the benefits for students came with unreasonable conditions. According to ROSE’s September 1st Union Bargaining Update, the terms include a clause prohibiting economic activity, which would prevent striking and meaningful protests, as well as the ability to hold individual students liable to be sued. Presenting such a tasteless agreement and then spending money on a repaint of the MP indicates the administration’s neglect of student workers.
As a writer for the school newspaper, I make $30 per article, since we work on a stipend. At most, I can take on one article a week without overwhelming myself. Writing involves many hours of brainstorming, interviewing, researching, etc. I would say I work six to seven hours per article, meaning I average a measly $4.60 per hour each time I’m available to write. That’s not nothing, of course; there are lots of college newspapers that don’t pay their staff writers, such as Amherst’s The Amherst Student, Davidson’s The Davidsonian and UCLA’s Daily Bruin. According to the Student Press Law Center, legally, most student journalists don’t have to be paid. On the other hand, I also believe we should protect all student workers — and people in general — against systemic inequalities, a point our classes repeatedly emphasize regardless of subject.
The college hasn’t just been frustrating to workers, either. The new post office lockers, while convenient in theory, were another example of repairing what wasn’t broken. In fact, it has introduced new problems as students can no longer access their mailboxes, limiting them to getting mail during opening hours.
But what is broken is campus accessibility, something the Disabled Student Union (DSU) is acutely aware of. I’m sure some of you had to walk up the hill to Keck Theater, or climb endless flights of stairs just to reach your dorms or access a building. Yet the concerns of disabled students don’t seem to cross the administration’s mind. The college states that a cornerstone of the Occidental mission is equity, including physical ability as one of the things that shouldn’t impair students’ access to any part of campus — but its actions appear to indicate otherwise.
When I attended DSU’s first meeting this year as a member, they recounted their experiences advocating for better accessibility on campus. Similar to ROSE, the administration has not been very cooperative with their demands. Their push for a campus shuttle has elicited nothing more than empty promises and constant roadblocks, and not for lack of effort. They have spoken to everyone from Disability Services to Occidental President Tom Stritikus, written and received signatures for petitions, vocalized their needs on social media, and collaborated with other student organizations like Students for Justice in Palestine. So far, they have yet to receive any plans or even a concept for the campus shuttle from the administration. But at least you can play beach volleyball on top of the hill, right?
Of course, these renovations are public works projects, and the administration likely planned them months or years in advance. Some could argue that the timeframe can’t apply to this argument, or that I’m appealing to nostalgia. I can see that, but I’m unsure how much everything costs or what kind of planning went into it. Who knows, maybe I’ll come to like the volleyball court or find that package pickup is much more convenient. However, their appearance is still undeniably terrible timing for the administration. From the college’s perspective, when they rebuff student activists’ demands, claiming they “we cannot afford luxuries” and “there are budget constraints,” the new shiny renovations will raise questions. Frankly, it’s about time we asked them.
I trust that the administration planned these changes with the students in mind. However, their questionable history when interacting with student demands leaves me to doubt whether the college prioritizes student voices. I am not asking for any immediate action or reform, but we should ask for transparency from the college regarding these demands. At the very least, we should understand the type of bureaucracy that prioritizes superficial improvements over student needs. Furthermore, why is it still running our school?
Contact Felix Yi at fyi@oxy.edu
