Editorial: Student Affairs leadership must do better

Ariana Genna ’23, staff writer 

This past semester, a series of triggering and traumatic events have impacted students, and student affairs leadership has not adequately addressed these issues.

In September of the 2022-2023 academic year, the Progressive Pride flag displayed in LVC’s social quad was torn down. Although members of public safety and higher-ups in the student affairs office had been aware of the pride flag’s tearing down since the night that it happened, the incident was only recognized many days later, after students demanded that the college address this issue. Even though certain members of the student affairs office knew that the flag was torn down, they neglected to contact the Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Institutional Success, Counseling Services or faculty members to make them aware of the situation.  

Even more concerning, the office members aware of the incident did not even contact members of LVC’s Freedom Rings club to check in on the members. The initial response to this hateful act was organized by students, with the college lacking proactivity and a quick, effective response.

In the same semester, students that were a part of LVC’s Young Republicans club chalked pro-life messages across campus. This is completely within the students’ rights, as they followed all the college policies in their chalking efforts. Knowing that this chalking would take place, leaders in the student affairs office should have done more.  

Higher-ups in the office recognized that these messages would likely cause distress and frustration amongst many students yet they, again, neglected to make counseling services and the DEI office aware that this would take place. Had these leaders in student affairs made our staff who are meant to support students in times of distress aware, it would have better prepared them for the students who came to them as a result of this messaging.  

Moreover, the student affairs office could have taken proactive measures and made students aware that this chalking was taking place and that it was approved by the college. This would have both protected the students doing the chalking as well as given students distressed by the messages an opportunity to be aware and prepared for what they would see. If the office wanted to go a step further, they could have even worked with other departments to provide resources and/or discussion spaces to create healthy outlets for students on both sides of this controversial issue.  

However, none of this happened. Similar to the Pride flag incident, the leaders aware of these situations siloed themselves. They did not reach out to other departments to try to address any potential issues and did not react proactively to protect and support our students in times of need.  

So what can be done? Communication and proactive, meaningful action.

When leadership in the student affairs office is made aware of potentially harmful, triggering and even traumatizing incidents, they should reach out to other departments and faculty, especially the DEI office, chaplaincy, and counseling departments. Transparent and empathetic communication must also be extended to students, faculty, and staff members. To deem what situations require such communication, the office should work with professionals to develop criteria and protocols so that the college can be better equipped to effectively communicate in times of need.

Moreover, the department can act more proactively. In the second situation described, the department leaders could have created outlets and resources for students who would have been negatively affected by the chalking. By purposefully working with the DEI, counseling and chaplaincy offices, resources can be curated for and disseminated to students in need.

The goal of this editorial is to call attention to real, institutional issues that are negatively impacting students. And hopefully, this will provide not only ideas but also encouragement for progress.

This is an opinion piece written by a staff writer and does not reflect the views of the La Vie newspaper