By the Mount Holyoke Student Government Association
Dear Mount Holyoke community,
We, the Executive Board of the Student Government Association of Mount Holyoke College, stand against the closing of the Gorse Childcare Center and in solidarity with our staff, faculty, students and South Hadley community members affected by this decision.
We are thankful that the College has chosen to extend their contract with Bright Horizons for one year, giving affected families guaranteed childcare during that time. As an advocacy group, we applaud the work of students, staff, alums, faculty, community members and everyone else who rose against the closing of Gorse and pushed for this action. It was this communal organizing effort that made these changes happen.
However, we also recognize that this is a temporary solution. As long-term conversations begin, it is crucial that the principles of shared governance are at the forefront. This is a decision that will impact the entirety of the Mount Holyoke community, therefore the interests of all community groups must be incorporated into the decision-making process.
Based on the concerns expressed by faculty, alums, staff and students, the SGA Executive Board outlines the following recommendations:
First, the College stated that the decision to close Gorse was based largely on financial equity, citing that members of the local community and the staff were disproportionately unable to afford to use the center. It is imperative that the data, facts and figures that were used in drawing this conclusion be shared with the Mount Holyoke community at large in order to promote transparency. We believe that any equity statistics should be made available to the community, so that equity can be investigated and centered in talks about the future of Gorse. Keeping Gorse open, but only for select community members who can pay exorbitant fees, is not acceptable.
Second, as a shared-governance institution, when a significant decision needs to be made pertaining to life at Mount Holyoke, representatives from the groups that would be impacted most must be brought in for consultation and discussion. As equal members of this community, we are all stakeholders in one way or another. This includes, but is not limited to:
Parenting staff, students, faculty and locals who will be without childcare,
Students who will lose the opportunity to teach or study in the center,
Local children and families who have built communities at Gorse,
BIPOC faculty and staff that Mount Holyoke employs who found a much-needed community within a majority-white area and at a predominantly white institution
Gorse staff whose job security is threatened.
The lives of all of these groups have effectively been destabilized in the middle of one of the most intense periods of public health, political and economic instability in recent history.
Third, there must be comprehensive redress of systematic issues in the way communication happens at Mount Holyoke. The closure of Gorse is not the first time that many have felt blindsided by a decision made behind closed doors and without any space for community feedback. Unilateral decisions undermine the foundation of trust our community is built on. Therefore, we strongly recommend a concentrated program of action be taken to institutionalize transparent, frequent and accessible communication. For this purpose, we ask the following:
For real communication to occur before final decisions on issues are made. We have found that once plans are finalized, there is often no ability for community members to ask for changes. If communications included ideas and progress reports, then we could weigh-in during planning stages. If discussions of closing Gorse were shared earlier, then the community could have joined and changed the conversation before the closure was abruptly announced. As a community, we don’t want to just be told decisions: we want to be invited into the process of discussing them.
For a change in the tone and style of college communications. In the SGA Senate, we have spoken about the emails from multiple departments being curt, aggressive or condescending. With email being the main form of communication right now, we believe that solid time needs to be devoted to make emails inviting spaces that make students and other community members feel able to engage in conversation. That doesn’t necessarily mean cheery: we are also looking for the college to meaningfully acknowledge when information is complicated, disappointing or traumatic instead of sugar-coating it.
Burying the announcement of Gorse’s closure in the middle of a long update email — and barely including any information in the email itself — felt that the school was saying the closure was just a footnote. It didn’t give space or time to explain, engage or acknowledge the emotional impact of such a decision.
With these points having been made, we call on Mount Holyoke College to expand its definition and practice of shared governance.
As of right now, shared governance seems to take three main forms:
Being polled in a survey, from which the results and action steps are rarely shared
Being part of an exclusive list of 2-3 students on a committee as observers, not decision-makers
Individual students sending emails to possibly-relevant administrators often receiving a short or vague response to their concerns
The fact is none of these are true shared governance. The SGA Executive Board understands shared governance to be:
A network of decision-making rather than separate lanes,
Sustained and genuine conversations between all facets of the community,
A system where all key groups have decision-making power, in addition to advising each other,
Beginning at representation, which serves as a stepping stone to integration,
Proactive collaboration, rather than reactive.
The bottom line is: students, faculty and staff need to be welcomed and treated with respect and authority in advisory and decision-making spaces. And, more of us need to be allowed into these spaces. We believe there is not a single Mount Holyoke community member who does not deserve power over their experience. Getting a few students in the room is an important step towards shared governance, but it is not enough. There are a limited number of perspectives that any group of two to four Mount Holyoke students can provide. Some student perspectives will inevitably be missed, and those in the room often face immense pressure to try and represent all students.
The topic of shared governance is a frequently discussed topic at Mount Holyoke. Students, staff and faculty have all identified similar issues with the decision making process, and are asking for institutional change. While our needs are distinct, we stand in coalition with one another.
We invite any members of the Mount Holyoke community to join us in this conversation.
Thank you,
The SGA Executive Board