Susan Vanguider and Danielle Mebert, representatives from the executive search firm DSG Storbeck, met with attendees of Bennington’s student body on November 19th in Tishman auditorium to discuss what the students want in their next president.
These representatives aim to put their finger on Bennington’s pulse, and to glean from these numerous meetings and committees, from these boards within boards, the needs and wants of the school and the student body. The job of these representatives is to survey Bennington and assemble a number of candidates eligible to be the next president. Ultimately, they will create, as described by Vanguilder, a “document [they] will use in recruiting candidates,” almost like a job description. They then turn over their work to Bennington’s search committee, which makes the ultimate decision about who will fill the position. This document will also be used to “measure the success of the candidate” after they assume the role.
At the front of the room were two armchairs, offset from its center where the empty podium stood. The representatives wanted to have an open conversation. Angel Kwasniac, Bennington’s Associate Vice President for Facilities, was the moderator, passing the microphone to students who responded to the representative’s comments and questions. The forum had a small turnout; there were roughly 15 students present, but representative Vanguilder noted that the meeting rivaled those of larger schools. The small size could also have been due to the forum directly coinciding with class registration.
Their task, according to Vanguilder, is to find “what’s exciting, interesting, and compelling” about Bennington by probing the student body and to use this to entice candidates to come to Bennington. When asked to elaborate on who would be on the committee, Vanguilder listed “trustees…students, faculty, and staff, and also [she] believe[s], a non-trustee alumnus,” saying that it is impossible to give exact numbers as nothing is yet finalized. Both representatives were very clear that though they identify candidates suitable for the position, the choice will ultimately be the school’s decision and is out of their hands. Kwasniak added that she was “asked by the chair of the [presidential search] board” to join the current search committee. She was on the last committee as well, where members were voted in by their peers. Kwasniac believes that in the last search, “the faculty gave a list of who they want to be their representatives,” and wasn’t “sure about the students” because it “sort of all came together quickly.” However, they “all met with the candidates and gave [their] feedback.”
Since this event, the college sent out a campuswide email detailing the members of the committee, which is composed of eight trustees, two faculty members, two staff members, two students, and one alumnus.
Senior June Meuser, though not on the committee, experienced the last presidential search as well, adding that “although faculty were involved,” “in the end, [they were] represented by one collective vote” disproportionate “to [the vote of] the board of trustees.” Meuser’s sentiment, that “the faculty who have really shaped [their] education and the education of [their] peers” should have more say in the choice of the next president, was shared by students in the room.
Senior Pearce Miller emphasized how “imperative” it is that “teachers have a larger say in the college’s decision-making process, with another student adding that although the college “talks[s] a big game about how students are involved…when it comes to how decisions are made, the school makes its decisions and then starts to think about us.”
Numerous students raised their hands to expand on this shared grievance: the administration rarely factors in student options, wants, or needs into decision-making until the aftermath of any action they take. As one student poignantly asserted, while “all of 10 people…make all the decisions, we [the students] are just money to them, and I don’t want to feel like that.” This shortcoming in considering the student body in decision-making is especially blatant when considering the scale of Bennington. As one student added, Bennington’s size opens up opportunities for a “lot of relationships and communities that can be established,” and what the college needs is a “president that understands that.”
Vanguider, from her few meetings with administration and the breakfast she had earlier that day at the dining hall, could already sense “the difference in this process between a large school and a smaller school like Bennington.” The entirety of the student body at Bennington is a stakeholder. It is unclear the exact role of these forums and committees responsible for changing aspects of the school’s structure and governance. Do these meetings indoctrinate students into the business of higher education, casting the college as a company and having the students roleplay as—or butt heads with—shareholders? Or are these forums instead a step toward recognizing Bennington as a completely different kind of institution, one which tries to harbor some kind of intentional living community and promote self-governance while remaining a liberal arts college?
Transparency was a word frequently used in this meeting by students expressing demands for the new administration, and by the representatives characterizing the accountability they feel to students through the search process; a process that, the representatives argued, has the potential to correct Bennington’s institutional character. Mebert said that “there is no world in which we would pick old words out of old position specifications and throw them into yours.” The position of president is never static, but rather completely dynamic. It is a role that is charged with changing both the material reality of the college and the front the institution presents to those outside of it.
Freshman Mira Hotait called for administrative accountability, pointing to the recent email students received “about the office of DEI getting renamed…obviously a reaction to the current political situation,” and described the college as “just bending over to what is happening politically … not standing up.” Another student used this same language when speaking of Bennington, stating that it is “bending down to the government, who are actively trying to shut [it] down.” The national moment that these speakers gestured toward is one characterized by deep cuts to federal aid, ICE raids on college campuses, and violent crackdowns on student protests.
The school’s funding decisions were also criticized by the student body and identified as an area of administrative function that the future president has to change. Senior Roz Laberge noted the administration’s decision to cut the Flex-7 meal plan and make all students pay for unlimited swipes without “let[ting] us have any conversations about it” as an example of misrepresentative funding choices and a lack of transparency. Though more money was allocated toward the FLOW pantry and the AI vending machines were installed, students who relied on Flex-7, many of whom were “international students living off campus,” did not recover their losses in these small auditions. In short, as one student said, “using the funding for decisions that aren’t backed by students really hurts.” Students are acutely aware of the challenges the school faces, but in the decision-making, Laberge said, “we are given a backseat.”
One student spoke about the growing fear of ICE raids and the lack of proactive measures taken on campus to ensure that students feel supported and protected, “especially in an institution which has marketed itself as being safe and inclusive.” Meuser also pointed out the “large disconnect between Bennington’s purported” politics and actions. Meuser argued that “at a time when the mobilization of police against students across the country has never been higher…students should be able to criticize without fear of retribution,” and that the choice of Bennington’s next president should ensure that ability. The discussion inevitably turned to Bennington’s interim president, Elissa Tenny, whom many students feared would restrict student rights due to arrests made during student protests at the School of the Art Institute of Chicago during her presidency. Students spoke out against the possibility of her candidacy for the long-term position. Freshman Frankie Robinson said that if Elissa Tenny were kept on as president, “[he] would be out of here … [he] would transfer.”
With the “headwinds facing” higher education, as Mebert describes the cuts on federal dollars to higher education, Bennington is in a very vulnerable position. She argued that “a leader who can help articulate the value of a liberal arts education and Bennington in particular” has the potential to protect the institution. This forum revealed the malleable nature of the presidential role. Is a president an institution embodied, or are they here only to serve as a connector piece for the institution’s existing structure, brokering agreement between the college’s body of students, faculty, and staff? Ultimately, “who the president is as a person doesn’t really matter,” one student remarked; “what matters more is when it comes down to it, are they actually going to stand behind the students?”
Be First to Comment