Speak now or forever be a bureaucrat
by Roya Wolverson on May 7, 2007 in Opinion
This year’s Citizen editorial board came in with a mission: to make this paper more relevant and interesting to Kennedy School students. The editors have worked hard to improve the quality of writing and to become a more pertinent and credible source of information. And while we believe we’ve made progress, one of our most difficult tasks has been trying to convince students, faculty and administrators to go on the record about controversial issues.
When it comes to discussing the high-minded ideals to which this school aspires, our sources have been prolific and forthcoming. Professors have welcomed our writers into their offices and personal lives to document the motivations and struggles behind their careers in faculty profiles. In news pieces, administrators have provided data and perspective on matters such as enrollment, course bidding and the status of school policies.
Students too have responded to our requests for fair-weather fodder on personal histories, extra-curricular endeavors and student initiatives. But when it comes to the more salient and contentious issues lurking beneath the radar, the KSG community has repeatedly fallen silent.
Like any noble yet bureaucratic institution, the Kennedy School harbors its fair share of quiet controversies, misgivings and mistakes. And as with most bureaucracies, those misgivings and mistakes can fall through the cracks when left to the vagaries of official communication. In such cases, public exposure can be a potent catalyst for recognition, reform and greater accountability. One administrator recently told me that when students come to her with a complaint, her first word of advice is to take it to the Citizen so that she can actually do something about it.
And many students do come to us with complaints and requests for stories, but more often than not, those same students then refuse to be quoted about their indignation. And while some faculty and administrators have been remarkably direct and forthcoming about touchy subjects, others have refused to comment, been decidedly vague, or told us, in a matter of words, not to bite off more than our paper can chew.
Granted, there are times when keeping quiet on controversy is the wisest course of action, especially in a tight-knit community where relationships can be precarious, responsibilities ambiguous, and situations fragile. But the stories we have tried and failed to cover this year also carried weighty consequences for those involved: neglected student needs, escalated group tensions, sullied reputations. Unable to get students on the record for these stories, we watched problems fester into rancorous rumors and intense disputes that lacked due recourse or institutional remedies.
What’s worse, we struggled to find students to go on the record about even the least controversial issues. For instance, in our exposé on Sodexho, the university’s monopoly catering company, we nearly dropped the story altogether after numerous students we interviewed complained about their services and then refused to be quoted for fear of jeopardizing their next catering order.
Countless other students have declined to comment on innocuous subjects like the quality of speakers at Forum events or their perspective on religion at KSG, worrying that a quote might tarnish their image if one day they decide to run for office. One student who recently expressed frustration about an administrative issue said she didn’t want to be quoted because she was afraid of damaging her personal “network” upon graduation. Others have said they would only speak up if they knew many others would be speaking up too.
This ‘duck and cover’ approach to media may be typical in professional worlds where people are buried knee-deep in bureaucratic constraints, but the fact that students could be so hesitant so early in their professional lives to speak up about subjects as benign as their student catering service is an alarming indication that somehow, somewhere, we are failing in our task to train good leaders.
We come to this school wanting to effect change in the world. And while part of that task requires establishing personal credibility and building networks for future opportunities, another part requires having the gumption to know what’s right, to stand up for what we believe and to articulate our beliefs clearly, tactfully and specifically in public. People are understandably skeptical of the press and its impact on their image, but to what kind of leadership do we aspire when our concerns for image trump our assertions of real beliefs?
As technology renders media more pervasive, future leaders can’t afford to view media relationships as zero-sum games. Tomorrow’s leaders should seek, when possible, to harness media power for reform rather than working strictly against it. And that requires practice. Skillful interactions with the media allow us to couple the true nature of our opinions with the healthy doses of restraint and sagacity that help to persuade. And what better venue to start practicing that than here at KSG, where the red tape is rampant, the need for change is ever present and the repercussions for voicing our opinions are negligible?
Similarly, the most effective institutional responses to controversial media queries indicate a desire for transparency, clarity and specificity. Because without these public goods, problems grow amid confusion, rumors emerge and solutions get lost in anger and frustration. As one professor recently told the Citizen, “we are not served by ambiguity.” My fellow students, faculty and administrators: let us strive to say what we think and to mean what we say, both off and on the record.
Comments
Got something to say?
