To those in favor of the current Code of Ethics under Student Programs and Leadership Development,
Before you begin to read this, I make one request . I ask that you not put up those barriers in your mind, or those glasses that make you see in such a way. I ask that instead, you uncross your arms from your chest, you lean forward over the table, and you listen, actively and engaged with the words of a student who is not looking to break the law, nor to break the student code of conduct, nor even to break the very Code of Ethics that has been the dispute of this letter. Please check your mental body language right now. Have you already closed off because you are set on the one approach that you are so sure will change the campus culture? Check those thoughts at the door, and open your mind.
It is my opinion, and through my experience as a New Student Leader; who did everything as asked, stayed true to a strict contract, and took pride in all of the hard work and effort put into every minute committed to the first year students and to the FYE program under the office of Student Programs and Leadership Development; that the SPLD Code of Ethics forces student leaders to choose between being a leader and being a warden.
The regulations on the COE appear very one-sided in a sense that they do not show an understanding of the student leader’s situation. The college culture will not change if this continues to be the approach. The way that this COE is constructed puts student leaders in a high-pressure position that results in the promotion of “fake leadership.” The COE mandates leaders not to lead, but instead it forces them to evade their responsibilities to follow the contract they’ve signed and cease to be the growing individuals. Although not the original intent of the COE, certainly this is the outcome.
I believe that a leader in development and for that matter all leaders should not be mandated. A leader must choose to be the mature leader that he or she is and choose to be or not to be responsible for his or her own choices and actions.
This COE does not inspire growth. It stunts it. The COE pushes an agenda that is not supported by the students, and it does not take steps to help students to understand or to deal with the campus culture in a positive way. Whether or not students want to be in the presence of underage drinking, this contract sets wrong and right very clearly apart in a way that the cost outweighs the benefit. The individual’s social life is sacrificed for an assumed potential outcome for the majority and an expectation of an idealized, unrealistic future possibility. Even if this leader were to choose to conduct his or herself in a mature and respectable manner while spending time with fellow students who choose to drink at this point in their lives, the leader would be labeled “unethical” according to the COE.
If the leader follows the contract, he or she is right: ethically, morally, and according to SPLD. If a leader does not follow the contract, (which I am aware that a large majority of the team does not) he or she is wrong (even if or not he or she does not drink alcohol) and he or she is no longer a “leader.” Rather, he or she then becomes a “leader in disguise,” because he or she is still a part of the “team” based on surface appearance. Thus, the “team” is no more than a blurred conglomeration of students who are labeled as “leaders,” but who are immensely struggling (and many failing as a result) to grow into better leaders to no avail due to an unrealistic agenda.
These students, who may in fact be true leaders, are driven to be ethically dishonest. Their potential as leaders is tarnished because of an unrealistic mandate that extracts leaders from the experiences and the culture that exists around them, over which they have no legal or real control. The Code of Ethics puts a maturing individual in a position that is unreasonable. It is a dividing factor for the team and for the entire university community.
This is not to say that many students do not wish to partake in fun, legal, social activities to develop friendships in situations in which alcohol is not present . I am one of those students. That is also not to say that I would not pass up an opportunity to develop friendships and to spend time with my peers who may choose to drink. It is not in my authority to alter or interfere with another’s maturation process when I myself am still finding my own way. Rather, the issue is that the COE pushes students to the point that they are forced to choose between being a part of the social scene and demonstrating true leadership by handling themselves in a mature manner or removing themselves from that same scene and leaving to find themselves in a lonely, ostracized position. Yes, I understand that a leader stands strong in the face of adversity and does not concede to the status quo. However, what I am saying is that your approach to “change the college culture” is ineffective under the current COE. It is one that is mandated by a supervising group that does not consider that there are effects of the COE that you cannot feel and you cannot see.
The student support for the responsibilities outlined on the COE is nonexistent. The students are the ones you are trying to influence. It seems to me that in order for this idealized college culture to come even close to fruition, there must be student support. If you are to say (and to demand) that students should attempt to stop the underage drinking they have encountered, then it seems reasonable that you would also make an effort to provide the tools, the support and the training for this challenging task. Any training that is provided, such as TIPS training for student leaders, is valuable, but it does not measure up in real life situations.
I respectfully request that you revisit the Code of Ethics with new eyes. And not just revisit, but re-write. Yes, I understand you think it is a valuable part of SPLD. Ethics are valuable. The goals and intentions are understandable, but the means to induce change are not ideal.
I have experienced the isolating, ostracizing effects of this COE and I have seen how it has divided a team of individuals, of leaders, and of maturing individuals who you have mandated. As leaders under the COE on this campus, we are forced to remove ourselves from friends, social scenes, and campus activities. We are not allowed, nor given the opportunity to lead by example or to exhibit good choices in prevalent social situations. Instead, we are forced to hide away. Leaders develop leaders—they don’t develop followers. Leaders must be in the presence of the community they wish to lead.
Even if you have read this entire letter, and you are still sitting back in your chair, arms crossed, shaking your head, I would like you to ask yourself one thing: Does it not speak volumes that an NSL who has prided him or herself in being so straight-laced, so ethically honest and true, and so determined to put in 150% effort in all Student Programs and Leadership Development responsibilities has spoken up about such an issue? If it is a challenge for me, I believe it is a challenge that others also face. This is an issue that requires immediate attention and an openness to change. Just as you have asked me to hold my peers accountable for their choices, I am holding you accountable. It is paramount that you open your mind to all of the points regarding the Code of Ethics. It is time to move beyond blatant resistance. After all, resistance never built a stronger community.
I know that change is possible. I know that this COE is not the way to achieve that change.
Sincerely,
A concerned student