Editorial: PSU Coddling is Harmful to Students

James Kelly

He/Him

News Editor

10/30/24

Eyes drooped, students sweated, and the Plymouth State Student Senate neared the two hour mark of a meeting focused on student fee increases. Then, advisor Melina Baker-Murphy said the quiet part out loud. Ultimately, the Student Senate’s discussion had little meaning at all. Their role was superficial, political theater. Behind a facade of genuine power built with “points of inquiry,” resolutions, and officer reports, the Student Senate really has no power. “I do not push back on your recommendation,” Baker-Murphy said. “But at the end of the day, I do want to remind you that that is what it is: a recommendation.”

I have been covering the Student Senate for a year now, sometimes begrudgingly. Their meetings can be long and their purpose ambiguous, but as the only body designed – at least in theory – to represent student interests to University administration, it feels important to report their work. When I started, the Plymouth State Student Senate was called the Student Government Organization. They changed their name because, in then-Parliamentarian Jayden Candee’s words, they don’t govern.

The last year has made clear that, by and large, members of the Student Senate are spirited do-gooders. But their roles are purely symbolic, a way to feign student representation. That, for the record, is atypical. Most schools, including our sister colleges in Keene and Durham, give their students genuine power. Last year, The Clock began routine coverage of Plymouth State Student Senate to answer one question: “What does PSSS do?” We learned the answer is “practically nothing at all.” This year, we attempt to answer another question: “Why?”

To be clear, my – and The Clock’s – goal is not to attack PSSS as an institution, even though it can sometimes feel that way. I believe a robust mechanism for student representation is essential. It is my desire for a stronger student senate that fuels this beat. When I criticize the Student Senate, it is rarely criticism actually aimed at the Senate itself or its members, but a criticism of a broad, conservative institutional philosophy that distrusts students. Here, I believe, is the “why.” Plymouth State University wants to coddle you. Don’t let them.

Let us begin when I began, in the wake of what turned into a semester-long fight over student government transparency. The story is long and the legal arguments are convoluted, and this is not the place to lay them out – if you’re interested, I encourage you to check out last year’s award-winning reporting. But the summary is this: The Clock tried to record PSSS meetings, and PSSS said no and kicked us out. Maybe that’s because one of their members – the same one who objected to being recorded in the first place – expressed an unpopular opinion and Student Life felt it was their responsibility to protect his feelings and his reputation. 

But it is not PSU’s responsibility to protect us, and they are doing a real disservice to students in trying. I believe a good college education should provide to its students opportunities for two things: rigorous academics and moral introspection. In depriving its students of any formal power, or, more importantly, any opportunities to fail or be challenged, Plymouth State fails to provide those things. 

The Student Senate itself seems to be nearing a boiling point. A substantial portion of recently elected representatives have indicated in private and in public that they were motivated to run because of the Student Senate’s mistreatment of students. Former Parliamentarian Skylar Hammes resigned this month, motivated by moral conflict and a doubt that the Student Senate has the power to affect any change. A general frustration with the way PSSS operates, and particularly the fact that its advisors seem to run the show, has revealed itself in subtle but notable ways. When USSB Trustee Ethan Dupuis discovered that Student Life Director and PSSS Advisor Jess Dutille had a running list of future guest speakers, he expressed frustration that students had been left out of the process. “It would be really appreciated if [communication with speakers] is purely directed towards the e-board,” he said, “so it doesn’t feel like everything goes through you guys.” Dutille denied that claim. “It doesn’t, that’s why I pass this along to you,” she said. Of course, if the list was Dutille’s to pass on, it must have gone through her.

The slate of Student Senate guest speakers is by no means significant to the general student body, but it is symbolic of an opaque bureaucratic structure. The things actually affecting students that PSSS feigns authority over, namely Ski Day and club and organization allocations, are actually managed by PSU administration and, in the case of allocations, the Student Senate’s advisors.

This year, Student Life introduced a new “matrix” system for determining club allocations. This system was set up in the name of transparency. Yet, when The Clock asked to see the matrixes (in the name of transparency), Student Life refused. What we know about the allocation process is as follows: clubs apply for allocations in the spring, and they receive a decision in the fall. The Student Senate – and by extension, students as a whole – are completely excluded from the process. 

So, once again, why? I can’t answer for Student Life, but I can certainly try. I do not think Student Life is motivated by some despotic desire for authoritarian control. I think they believe they are doing what is right. But the consequence of this process is that it deprives students of any ability to assume responsibility. It doesn’t allow them to learn.

In the same way that my colleagues and I write for The Clock because we would like an opportunity to practice journalism and writing for our professional lives, many members of the Student Senate participate in student government to prepare for a career in public service. PSSS Speaker William Loughlin interned for Senator Jeanne Shaheen in D.C. this summer, and USSB Trustee Ethan Dupuis told The Clock he would like to develop public policy in the future. That’s great. We need thoughtful people like Loughlin and Dupuis in politics. But in shielding its members from any opportunities to make tough decisions (ever noticed that nearly every vote is unanimous?), PSSS fails to provide valuable experience for its members. At its founding in 1902, the student government was designed to mimic in every way the New Hampshire state government. It has since lost its way. 

This problem is not exclusive to the Student Senate, but it appears there, as an appendage of PSU bureaucracy, frequently. Throughout the university, there is a general, though less tangible, philosophical move away from challenges and towards comfort. I imagine this is motivated by declining enrollment, retention, and graduation rates; we cannot allow our students to be in any way uncomfortable because they will drop out or transfer, the thinking goes. But this philosophy is misguided at best, and harmful at worst. College should be a place to learn, for tough choices and moral development. College should be a place for challenges and mistakes. College should be a place for discomfort, not coddling.