To whom it may concern:

I am writing this letter to bring to your attention some of the “alternative facts” that were presented in an email about the adjustment of the academic calendar, and some major problems associated with the adjustment. I understand that this decision has been approved and finalized, I just want you to understand my opinion on how the process was handled.

First and foremost was the exaggeration of “an extensive consultative process that included faculty, staff and students…” Dr. Terry Lindsey attended one SGA meeting to introduce the idea of moving the academic calendar back a week to the student leaders of our clubs and organizations. Normally, the attendance at our general meetings is roughly 25-30 students max, and this day was no exception. It would be a horrific exaggeration to say that the majority of our student body was represented by the students who attended the meeting. Digressing, Dr. Lindsey explained the introduction of the new academic calendar and then received the criticisms of many of the students at the student government meeting. Outside of that, many other students on campus were unaware of the changes, and I’m sure the majority would have voiced their concerns and objections if they were informed about the proposed changes to the calendar. Dr. Lindsey did an excellent job answering questions and taking our concerns seriously, but I feel they were not delivered in a way that the people involved in this decision were able to truly grasp the students’ repulsion of this idea.

Another statement I found to convey false information was “many of you have expressed a desire to start classes after Labor Day.” The students who met with President Dove for lunch and discussed critical issues, again, does NOT represent the majority of our student body. I myself attended one of these lunches, and the subject of Labor Day was never an issue that was brought up. Instead we discussed the poor condition of our academic buildings and underuse of our campus resources. The opinion of 5-6 students who express this idea is not what the majority of campus thinks. I suggest vetting more of the student population before deciding that Labor Day is such a problem. Personally, I never had a summer job that took issue with me leaving before the start of the semester.

Furthermore, we are not gaining a holiday, rather we are losing one. If we’re not starting until after Labor Day then how can we have that day off if we’re not enrolled? We’ve been misled – we’re not “gaining” an extra holiday. Unfortunately, we’re losing one, Columbus Day, to our new calendar. I know for me and many of my friends, this is the weekend our parents come up or we go home for the first time after the start of the semester. This seems to be an inconvenience rather than a “gain” for the students.

This late start also means finals are being pushed back, which would not be a problem if they weren’t over the weekend. To be quite frank, that is one of the worst proposed changes I’ve seen yet. Our weekends are meant to decompress and get our lives back in order after our crazy weeks – not to take hellish final exams over. Personally, I don’t ever want to get up on a Saturday at 8 a.m. to go take an Organic Chemistry II final. Saturday’s are for recovery and relaxation, so the stress of school and homework don’t become overbearing. Another problem also arises – RA’s will have to stay until midweek. That means the college is spending more money to have the RA’s stay here. The time with their family is also being impeded upon. You’re taking away time spent with family in order to adhere to the new academic calendar.

Outside of the misleading information found in this email, there were some other problems I noticed as well. One in particular, I would like to point out, was the introduction of winter courses. Yes, other colleges do provide these to their students, but they also have the resources, as well as students who want to be enrolled during their winter break. Here at Paul Smith’s College, we offer summer courses every year, and outside of the mandatory forestry summer session, barely any students sign up for them. Maybe instead of focusing our already strained resources on ventures that may or may not work for our college, perhaps we should fix what we already have.

The overall message I’m trying to convey is that the majority of our student body is not being heard here at Paul Smith’s. Mainly because of the higher ups, who do what they will based on low amounts of input from just a handful of students. You propose an idea, and instead of listening to all the people whose opinion you should be valuing, you’re all stuck in your own heads believing this is the next best thing – but it’s not.

For example, when the school name change was proposed – I found out about it through an article circulating on Facebook. There was no discussion or introduction to the idea. No asserted effort to advertise or publicize to the college community; it was announced suddenly and we were to just accept it. The discussions held about it after the abrupt announcement were more of a formality, and the peoples’ opinions were not taken seriously. This decision was met by a great resistance formulated by alumni and current students.

How could anyone think that a decision as large as the changing of a school’s name, which we were basically force-fed, would not be met with resistance or pushback? A suggestion for the next time someone tries buying our school: introduce the idea in a soft way so the people affected by the decision have a better opportunity to process and absorb the information, rather than having it shoved in their faces with the expectation they should just accept the inevitable.

On a side note, this is not attacking the generosity of the Weill’s. Without their dedication to this college, we would not have our wonderful student center and library. A huge thank you, and apology, needs to be issued to both Mr. and Mrs. Weill from both alumni, students, and faculty. Granted the name change was controversial, but the Weill’s have dedicated millions of dollars and hundreds of hours to our school, and the scrutiny they faced while this ordeal occurred was uncalled for.

Another example is the dining hall situation. Instead of fixing the quality of food, we’re remodeling the dining hall. After talking with several students, and also incorporating what was said at the student government meeting Dr. Lindsey attended, we can conclude we don’t want changes to our dining hall. What we want are changes to the quality of food. I’m emphasizing quality, because apparently this word has been mistaken for “remodeling” and I would like to avoid any further confusion where possible. The students have been complaining about the decreasing quality of food for years. Granted we’ve increased our options for food, which has been helpful, but it hasn’t helped with the quality. Any student surveyed on campus would be more than likely to tell you that the food here is not that great.

Here’s an article that sums up how the students feel about Sodexo: Is Sodexo bad for you?

There’s much to discuss in terms of what needs to be done with the school. I encourage talking with students, or getting the word out about open meetings that occur on campus so they’re input can be heard. Students here have great ideas on how to improve our campus, and we’re also the ones who know what works and what doesn’t. Listen to us.

Finally, to the students: don’t just complain to your friends; do something. We can’t blame the school for not fixing a problem that you refuse to bring to their attention. Attend an SGA meeting to let them know what’s going on. Talk to Dr. Lindsey, or even to Jill Susice and they can help you out, or at least point you in the right direction. Don’t just sit there and complain because that will get nothing done. Be proactive, and do something.

Thank you for your time.

Respectfully,

Esther Heafield