In response to numerous complaints concerning the University of Michigan's office space allocation system, administrators have recently pledged work with student groups to undergo a "meaningful review" of the process starting in the fall. The Michigan Student Assembly, along with other student groups including the Review, will be working to fix many of the inconsistencies within the system.
An investigation by the Review has revealed that the office space allocation process has been implemented arbitrarily at best. What started as an inquiry into the Review's lease troubles resulted in the exposure of a flawed system that has affected the operations of several student groups.
The origin of OSAC's office space policy dates back to events occurring in 2000. In response to continued protests concerning Michiguama's (now the Order of Angell's) perpetual lease with U-M in 2000, then-President Lee Bollinger, with the help of a faculty and administrator panel, created a dual-track system for administering office space to student groups. The first track (the current OSAC process) applied to student groups that desired housing in the Union, League, or Trotter House.
The other track applied to specific groups that fulfilled at least one of several criteria, including being "given departmental status by the Regents, and/or receive student fees, general or departmental funds with which to operate, and/or are elected governing bodies, and/or provide a vehicle for students voices through campus media, and have specific programmatic responsibilities that correspond to the needs of the campus community." Instead of two-year leases, these groups received five-year leases.
In response to the Review's request for specific policies that would have altered the 2000 policy, U-M administrators claimed that five-year lease status was removed through the Student Organization and Recognition Advisory Committee (SOAR) guidelines released in 2005. After thoroughly analyzing the document, the Review did not find any reference towards student group office space allocation. These policies, to the Review's knowledge, have not been superseded by any other office space allocation system. It remains unanswered as to why certain student groups (like the Review) were denied five-year lease designations even though they continue to comply with the prerequisites established in the second "track." Ultimately, administrators' failure to either administer the current policy or reveal the proper policy changes has resulted in a system being overseen in an ad hoc manner.
In the face of these facts uncovered by the Review, university administrators were initially stagnant, refusing to acknowledge the inconsistencies within the system. After the discrepancies were brought to the Board of Regents, however, a comprehensive review of the system has been scheduled to occur in the coming months.
With a finite number of office spaces available on campus, OSAC and university administrators understandably have to make difficult choices. However, the absence of due process in the office space allocation process is extremely troubling, and a better system which allows for recourse must be initiated. A meaningful review of the process must address the established anomalies within the system. The status quo simply cannot stand.
Be the first to comment on this article!