Acorn

My tenure as Graduate Student Association president in the 2003-2004 academic year gave me the privilege of working closely with Drew faculty, staff and administration on a number of issues relevant to graduate students. The two biggest issues I faced during that time involved the creation of the Graduate Division of Religion and the negotiation of a suitable library carrel policy with library administration and staff. Working with Theological/Graduate school faculty on the GDR issue was a delight.

I enjoyed the time I spent with different members of Drew�s Theological School and Graduate programs in religion. Our meetings were productive, decisive and characterized by legitimate concern for students� needs and interests. The committee appointed, to make recommendations guiding the creation of the Graduate Division of Religion, achieved quite a bit in the short period of time they were allotted. So that, by the very next academic year, Drew�s Graduate Division of Religion was in place. This rapid development was characterized by cooperation between students, faculty, staff and administration.

The library issue was, admittedly, at first, rather contentious and characterized by many graduate student complaints, but again I was able to develop in close cooperation with library staff and administration�especially with Andrew Scrimgeour, the library director�solutions to our mutual problems. These solutions began with a survey of Drew graduate students followed by specific recommendations not only for library carrel policy but for other library needs such as better microfiche machines, better computer support, better holdings and journals, better hours, etc. We realized that most of our requests were related to budget and space constraints, but pinpointing specific problem areas allowed us to pinpoint specific solutions.

Once again, despite the fact that many people were involved in the decision making process, decisions were still made�very good decisions�and in a reasonable amount of time.

Furthermore, during the survey process I learned quite a bit about Drew�s graduate students. Ninety students out of the 552 students enrolled in the Caspersen School during the 2003-2004 academic year responded to the survey. I discovered what I already suspected: The majority of graduate students work part or full-time for an average of approximately 22 hours per week, commuting an average of 44 minutes from home or work to campus. 72 percent of respondents are commuters. Almost half�47 percent �have children. Almost half consider themselves their children�s primary caregiver during the day, while slightly more than half rely upon daycare or spouses to care for their children.

Drew�s graduate students juggle multiple adult responsibilities and have significant life experience before coming to Drew. Many graduate students come to Drew immediately out of successful careers in non-academic fields.

So, when I heard of President Weisbuch�s decision to suspend admissions to English and MHL Ph.D. programs without consulting Drew graduate students, I winced. Drew�s graduate student population consists of mature adults with significant life experiences. They should be consulted. I was in shock, however, when I found out he did so without consulting Drew�s faculty.

This is not a threat to two programs, but to all programs�not a threat to Drew�s English and MHL department faculty, but to all faculty.

Before attending Drew I looked up Drew�s faculty and did an MLA search of their publications. What I found impressed me. I wanted to study under these people. I wanted to learn within the context of the programs they designed. I didn�t, however, care about or research Drew�s administration. Faculty makes programs work and attracts students. University presidents do not.

And given my experience as GSA president, I couldn�t conceive of any need to circumvent Drew�s tradition of cooperation. In the two specific instances I witnessed, both with potential for divisiveness, I discovered that we at Drew were able to work together and still make decisions in a reasonable amount of time. This became one of the University�s most endearing characteristics to me�that we not only called ourselves a community of learners but acted like one. Graduate program review is a good thing.

Perhaps reducing admissions numbers, so we can fully fund a few exceptional students, would be even better. But President Weisbuch�s recent unilateral decision to suspend admissions to Ph.D. programs in English and MHL poses a serious threat to all that is good at Drew. It also establishes a precedent potentially threatening to all Drew faculty and programs, including those of the College of Liberal Arts.

I hope his future decisions are characterized by more respect for the people he intends to lead and more communication about decisions, including Drew graduate student representation on the review committee. If not, I hope Drew faculty learns lessons from Harvard University faculty and follows their example.

Article Tools