Yale's PR problem lies in its attitude

DANICA NOVGORODOFF/YH

Many members of the University community view Yale as a brand name, which is perhaps the only way to explain how University spokesman Thomas Conroy would allegedly think that investigating a student's murder "can only hurt" Yale. Treating a student's death like a botched marketing campaign places the interests of an institution ahead of those of the students it exists to serve. It advances the sense that Yale exists for Yale's sake, that there is some mystical image of Yale University in the popular mind, and that we, not as students, faculty, or administrators, but as custodians of that image, must preserve it. We're seeing "For God, for country, and for Yale" taken to its surreal extreme.

The regard of junior faculty's anxiety about job security as a public relations issue derives from the same misguided mindset. Anyone who worries that he or she may lose his or her job tends to seek a more certain future. In the case of Yale faculty, that would mean working at a school which offers a better prospect of tenure. Thus, the University risks losing the scholars poised to lead its departments in coming years. That loss would dilute the academic and research environment's dynamism here. Only the brand-name mentality's skewed priorities could justify viewing a situation with potential for such drastic consequences as bad press.

A similar misperception seems to be tainting Levin's response to the SAS sleep-in on Beinecke Plaza—this, too, is about more than potentially bad publicity. Though much of Yale didn't bother to vote on last weeks' Yale College Council (YCC) sweatshop referendum, students who did voted overwhelmingly to join the Workers' Rights Consortium. Yet Levin's attitude hasn't changed much in response to the Beinecke sleep-in or the student mandate. His has instructed students to initiate changes in University policy through the YCC, the Graduate and Professional Student Senate (GPSS), or the Graduate Student Assembly (GSA). If the GPSS and GSA are anything like the YCC, they are essentially social activities committees with overly demanding admissions criteria. The YCC did get us two-ply toilet paper, but that's a far cry from altering Yale's fiscal policy. By attempting to divert SAS's push for change, Levin mocks Yale's ostensibly democratic decision-making process. This is an institutional problem, not a public relations annoyance, and it warrants a stronger reaction.

As for the drop in admissions numbers, why don't we just get over ourselves? Changes in admissions policies at other Ivy League colleges easily account for the drop—this isn't a matter of tarnished image, but of alterations to the rules of the admissions game. Yale may need to change its policy, but this year's 3.2 percent drop is hardly a crisis. Next year's freshmen will be just as talented and diverse as this year's. Nonetheless, a series of recent Yale Daily News articles focused on the fact that our numbers fell. This fixation stems from mindless competition, not a genuine crisis, contrary to the reports and widespread alarm that seem to indicate otherwise.

There's nothing mystical about Yale. As soon as the University begins to believe that there is, it loses sight of what ought to be its purpose. Yale isn't here to beat Harvard or Princeton—its purpose is to educate individuals and advance knowledge. This goal requires sensitivity to the needs and desires of its students and faculty, which in turn requires an atmosphere in which ideas circulate freely and decisions are made democratically. The University has to put people first and image a distant second. "Harvard sucks" sounds good in the Yale Bowl, but it's a terrible way to order a school's priorities.

Nathan Littlefield is a freshman in Ezra Stiles.

Back to Opinion...