Last week, Ciara Colvin blogged on a change in HPER center policies that have (1) forced student employees to wear uniforms; (2) stripped
workers of their ability to study or do homework while working; and (3)
instituted some new policies that have made entrance more difficult, most namely: students are now forced bring student ID’s to be admitted.
Ciara’s blog raises a lot of great points, and is provocative,
spurring various reactions that hold a multitude of compelling takes.
For me, the policies are problematic in various ways: that
is, they are anti-labor, anti-student, anti-consumer (i.e., Wittenberg
student), and, ultimately, anti-Springfield.
To begin, forcing student employees to wear uniforms may be
professional, but it’s also regressive. If a student employee works 10 hours a
week (the typical amount of hours a student employee works), the cost of just three polo
shirts and pairs of khakis—which can be estimated at $160—ends up being half of
one’s monthly paycheck. Sure, this won’t have to be repeated monthly, but if
this has to be bought at the beginning of a work semester, it—combined with
books, food, and rent—will make meeting bills really tough for some students.
Furthermore, banning homework is incredibly regressive for
students academically. Certainly, students should have to work for their money, but
out-lawing homework will have serious negative implications on the academic
productivity wellness of students. Elizabeth Doll wrestles with this problem
really well here. Is academic success really a price we’re willing to pay for
higher-quality HPER center customer service? [whatever high customer service at
HPER would be like].
In fact, Wittenberg shouldn’t be given arbitrary discretion
over how the money is spent, because the money isn’t provided by Wittenberg.
Rather, most of it is ponied-up by the federal government through the Federal
Work-Study Program.” Hence, theoretically, the money is beneficial in
four-ways, twice over for the student, and twice over for the schools that
participate: the student receives money for working on homework and work
experience while in school; while the university gets subsidized — almost
free — labor, and another selling point to market to perspective students.
Ultimately, Wittenberg is already making-out on this “Federal Work-Study
Program;” they shouldn’t be getting any greedier.
Finally, one particular change that I feel nearly everyone
has overlooked is the ID requirement. The ID policy is essentially to ensure
that non-Wittenberg residents aren’t able to access the HPER. Though Megan
Weirber claims — according to Colvin’s blog — that these policies are a mechanism
to further “community service,” they actually serve to separate the
communities. More specifically, as the policy seems to be to solely for keeping
non-Wittenberg residents, it is presumed that the HPER administration feels
that non-Wittenberg residents pose a threat to those who use the athletic
facility, most prominently in terms of theft.
[Side note: After all, the resources in the
HPER center aren’t finite; they can be used and shared by everyone, including
people in the surrounding community. Many won’t agree with this point; they’ll
refute it based on the fact that Wittenberg owns HPER, and students and
faculties—with tuition or labor—pay for the gym membership. Point taken, but
the federal and state governments subsidize Wittenberg and Wittenberg students
in various ways; thus, the HPER center is made possible via surrounding
residents’ taxpayer dollars. They, therefore, deserve the right to at least
purchase the gym service.]
HPER, however, doesn’t have the crime statistics to justify
such a policy change. That is to say: they don’t have the empirical data to
warrant their suspicions of residents. “But, hey, most surrounding residents
look poor—so keep ‘em out,” so the logic goes. This policy is, in short,
another way to fortify the Wittenberg bubble.
This ID requirement is not only further evidence of the
Wittenberg bubble, but it is also troublesome for students. Most students use
their Witt ID as a debit/ credit card, as the money we are paid for student
employment is administered via WittenbergOne. The same also holds true for the
surplus grant, loan, or scholarship money students have after tuition is paid.
Ultimately, at any given time, there can be hundreds and thousands of dollars
on these credit cards that we are now forced to bring into a facility. This, in
fact, gives student-thieves a prime forum to rip people off. In short, HPER has
not made Witt students more secure, but has actually institutionally made
students more susceptible to theft.
Wittenberg snobbery has, in a sense, perpetuated the problem
it intended to solve. Poetic justice?
No comments:
Post a Comment