Our School, Our Rules: Student Representaion
In Loco Parentis: From “Children” to Activists
The generation that entered college in the ‘60s and ‘70s had witnessed the after-effects of a World War and were beginning to question their roles and treatment in American society. This was especially evident on college campuses, where students were being monitored and managed by administrators. The concept of in loco parentis in which administrators functioned with the authority of a parent over their students was a common attitude among universities around the country, according to Christopher Loss [1]. Students, however, believed themselves capable of being responsible for themselves and took it further by demanding more involvement in the decisions made by universities that directly affected them. Scholars Altbach and Cohen stated how, by the 1970s, student governments were more concerned with “the representation of students in a wider forum within the university” [2].
Student journalists demand entry into Faculty Collegium Meetings [3]
Anonymous students complain of "in loco parentis" treatment by faculty [4]
St. Edward’s Students Follow National Wave of Activism
This movement of student activism was happening all across the country and St. Edward’s was no exception. Students were vocal, especially in publications such as the student newspaper, about wanting more transparency in their student administration and more inclusion in university policy changes starting in the late ‘60s. Student journalists protested being barred from faulty collegium meetings, stating that students should be informed on the decisions that impacted them directly [3]. Students were insistent that the administration's duty was to the students and that students should be represented in administration. The concept of in loco parentis was rejected here as well. An open letter published in The Hilltopper criticized the treatment of students by the administration, stating that if this continued then the student body would have no choice but to “continue to react exactly the way they are treated- like children."[4] Students' activism on the St. Edward’s campus emphasized student independence and pushed for a more substantial involvement in their educational experience.
Student Activities Council endorses student representation [5]
Faculty open to opinions of students in discussion about graduation requirements [7]
Student openly criticizes mismanagement of funds by the Students' Association Incorporated [8]
Report of Students' Association Incorporated budget that was previously critized by Joe Striewe [9]
The University Reacts
The reaction of administration in the years of the late ‘60s and early ’70s that followed the climax of public criticism of administrations' exclusion of students demonstrated how students were able to attain a bigger role in university decisions. In 1968, the Students Activities Council approved the inclusion of student representation on the Council on Student Life [5]. As time went on students pushed for more and more involvement and power in administrative decisions, and were relatively successful. This followed the national trend of successes as proposed by Altbach and Cohen, in which students were most able to change university policies which directly affected their individual lives [6]. Faculty became more receptive to student input, especially in areas such as curriculum requirements which directly affected students [7]. The administration also followed this path. Starting in the 1970s and continuing for the next few years students criticized the SAI and their mismanagement of money for student activities [8]. Finally in 1975 students were able to have more input on how money was allocated for use by student organizations. [9]
While student activism continued, these changes demonstrated that St. Edward’s students’ push for inclusion was relatively successful and helped shape the campus into one that focused on the needs of students in both campus and academic life.