Students Should Aid Principal Search
From the pertinent info we have heard so far, Principal Lisa MacFarlane is set to leave this school and be replaced by another trustee-appointed principal. However, any appointed body, no matter how benevolent, cannot possibly have an accurate measure on the policies required for effective governance without community input. The students are the ones who know themselves and their needs the best; the teachers know themselves and their needs the best. Students, teachers and the Exeter community broadly do not need some messianic principal and administrative body to determine their lives.
The administration’s failure to remain entirely transparent and open to community input has resulted in frequent community dissatisfaction with the policies and response imposed upon, and pertaining to, their lives. We must demand joint power between the students, faculty and administration. Otherwise, we risk suffering through another principal unfairly criticized for not taking into account every opinion available. The path to joint power will be difficult at its best and gruelling at its worst, but it is a path we must take if we wish to be a community where the voices of the governed are heard and seriously considered.
Of course, Principal MacFarlane cannot be held to the past administration’s errors. She has been admirable and persistent. But it is not the quality of her character that defined her PEA tenure. It is the very fact that Ms. MacFarlane, as principal, was separated from the community that she strived to serve. The powers vested in her, to override popular community opinion and unilaterally make executive-level decisions, directly led to apparently confused and non-transparent decisions over the past two and a half years. This has been an issue that precedes Principal MacFarlane.
Too many misguided decisions, too many failed proposals and policies could have been prevented through a formal organization of students, teachers and administrators. The current situation is as follows: the students, through Student Council, may suggest a proposal they believe to be beneficial to the state of the community. Teachers and administrators together deliberate this proposal and reject or accept it based on its merits. This same process of mutual agreement does not hold for faculty-administrative proposals. In this way, Student Council is nothing more than an advisory body with no formalized powers to stop administrative proposals that could gravely harm the student body. It is clear that we as students have no real stopping power when push come to shove.
The trustees have asked for community input on the next steps in the decision-making process. If the trustees are truly looking for community input, then we should oblige. Throughout history, undemocratic and authoritarian institutions of unilateral governance have never truly thrived and warrant their own abolishment. In light of these circumstances, every student and teacher should fight for a novel, just system of trilateral cooperation and development. For example, in the system of the House and Senate of the United States, legislation must pass through both houses before being signed into effect. For the most part, this governmental strategy has proven to be an effective way to balance the rights of states and the rights of their constituents. Why should we not adopt a similar balance of power, where, for a change to the status quo to occur, all affected parties must consent? We hold the same standard of consent to anything from national governance to private relationships. It is entirely inconsistent and to then refuse to advocate for trilateral governance, a system wherein all parties can and must consent before modifying the status quo. To do otherwise would be a relinquishment of our liberties and all semblance of ethical consistency.