I'll be home, exhausted, for Christmas

Last week, the Education Committee of the University Senate reached a consensus that its members believe will resolve the issue of the fall academic calendar. The proposal, pending approval by the full Senate on April 30, would allow students with one or more exams on Dec. 23 to submit a request to the dean of student affairs to reschedule their exams for a time that is convenient to student and professor alike. We fervently believe in the importance of compromise, and we appreciate the amount of time and energy that our senators have devoted to this issue. But be that as it may, this compromise—which does nothing to resolve the problem of the shortage of study days that brought about this discussion in the first place—does not address the problem in full and should not be accepted as a solution.

The content of the proposal itself isn’t bad. This past December, some students found themselves on planes on Christmas Day. The senators say that this proposal eases the burden on those who live far away and have to pay for travel, and insofar as this will allow them to get home to their families earlier and for less money, they’re right. The dean of students will deal with requests on a case-by-case basis, and the language of the proposal will be in favor of the students—if a student says that having an exam on the Dec. 23 presents “undue hardship,” that student will be given the benefit of the doubt. And the resolution will actually take effect this fall.

But there is still a tremendous burden on students that has gone unaddressed. The problem of not having enough study days and having too many tests in too little time remains untouched, and allowing students to move exams to before Dec. 23 actually exacerbates it. A compromise requires both parties to relinquish something. It is unclear how, exactly, the faculty gave up anything in this agreement. The burden of travel has been dealt with, but the issue of the academic burden has not been resolved. We realize there are those who think that the issues involved in the December portion of the calendar, to quote James Applegate, “do not register on the same scale” as the “systematic destruction” of women’s rights that some believe would ensue should we begin before Labor Day. Aside from the fact that there are female professors at other schools who begin before Labor Day (Cornell, for example, will start on Aug. 25, presumably without eroding feminism), to dismiss issues like economic inequality, international diversity, and mental health on college campuses is to flaunt the faculty’s disproportionate influence in the construction of policy.

Yes, the proposal is a win for students, but that win is incredibly limited in scope. To announce that the students spoke and the Senate listened is to say that the Senate has very selective hearing. This will be a true win for students only when both parties come to the table ready to make concessions and when students’ economic and educational burdens are eased. It will be a win for students when their senators continue to fight tirelessly for them come fall. It will be a win for students when the members of the University Senate refuse to accept this proposal as the final victory.