Editor's Note: This letter remains in the condition in which it is sent.
On November 19th, the SA Senate unanimously passed a resolution I authored (S#10) asking UB to review its room allocation policies. The vote was 22-0. Not a single senator opposed it, after an initially cold reaction to the students of Room 373. S#10 asked the university to review its policies with students "in the room."
Prior to this, students from Room 373 and I attended a meeting of the Faculty Senate
Executive Committee to express concern about the issue. The result was a letter on behalf of the Faculty Senate to UB’s administration. I’d like to briefly praise the FS for demonstrating a strong commitment to good-faith efforts in advancing UB's shared governance by allowing students to speak. For those who are out of the loop, the University President and student rep on the UB Council (essentially the administration’s bosses) both regularly attend these meetings. Speaking at the FS-Executive Committee meeting allowed for these concerns to be heard directly by the administration, rather than being filtered through questionably motivated student leaders or naturally non-specific SA resolutions.
Despite these efforts, three months later, Room 373 is a commuter lounge. The booking system is unchanged. No new criteria for dedicated spaces exist. No formal consultation with affected organizations has taken place. The closest was a meeting I attended (on my own behalf) with Vice President of Student Life Brian Hamluk, where the University administration essentially denied all of the requests made by students of the former "Queer Space." I attempted to serve as a mediator and floated the idea of a student-body referendum on the issue. The only definitive statement by the University was the possibility of a "policy review" at some point in spring.
The current booking system does not account for the varying needs of student organizations. One example: large cultural or religious organizations running weekly programming for a hundred-plus students shouldn't compete for the same rooms as a study group of five. Think of groups that may need to pray multiple times daily. They shouldn't have to rebook a room every week and hope it's available, or have to wait on UB staff to access their spaces. This can delay some students' access to practice their religion without unnecessary interference. Students who need a private, familiar environment to discuss sensitive personal matters shouldn't have to start from scratch in a different room every time. Consider also: accessibility for students with disabilities or for students who require materials to conduct their activities.
The university's position has been that the booking system ensures equitable access. I'd argue it does the opposite. When every group gets the same limited number of reservations per month regardless of size, need, or history, the system is equal in the narrowest sense and inequitable in practice.
Here is where I would like to introduce a new problematic character: the SUNY Board of Trustees Rules for the Maintenance of Public Order, along with UB's implementation thereof, which serves as a confounding factor and is in part to blame for this shortfall. The student code of conduct at University at Buffalo indicates that unauthorized use of outdoor spaces may constitute a violation. Some students could potentially be adversely affected by these conflicting guidelines. I intend on writing further op-eds on the glaring problem of MPO, as it stands.
Plenty of colleges and universities maintain dedicated spaces for qualifying organizations alongside open booking systems. The two can coexist. What's needed is a set of criteria: organizational size, religious observance, demonstrated need for privacy, historical usage, etc. that allows the administration to make principled distinctions rather than applying a blanket policy.
In my view, SA has started working towards a solution. The resolution passed, but more specific requests are needed to truly follow through. That's why I believe it's time to hear directly from students. A referendum on whether UB should modify its room allocation system would give every undergraduate a voice on how their student activity fees translate into actual space on campus. The SA Senate can pass resolutions, but twenty-four votes carry a different weight than several thousand.
With all that being said, the people who run Student Life and the Student Union are responsible for a host of policy initiatives and programs that provide services and protections for students. My experience with the UB administration has been mostly positive. I find them to be fine people. The focus here are the policies that need improvement and students' right to be involved in bettering UB.
UB is a public university funded in significant part by student fees. The students paying those fees should be asked a simple question about how their spaces are managed. After, they deserve a clear answer.
Grant Peterson is a UB SA Senator and SUNY Student Assembly Delegate. He authored SA Resolution S#10 on student space allocation, cosponsored by Senator Joshua Brodsky. The views expressed are his own.
Photo: Courtesy of Sevda Abdavinejad
