I’ve been reminded more times than I can count that the church is not a building. The church has a physical building, of course, but that isn’t what the church really is. The church is the interaction between pastor and the people, the exchanges that occur within the building. They transcend the physical buildings and institutions in order to transform human beings.

In a similar way, Ashland University is not a collection of buildings. Literally, it is, but that is missing out on what Ashland University actually is. It is the interaction between faculty and student; it is the exchanges in the classroom that make the university what it is. 

Ashland University is a teaching college, in the sense that it evaluates faculty on that interaction, not on their ability to be published in their fields. That’s not to say faculty ought not be active in their field, just that faculty here are called to teach students more so than to push the limits within their disciplines. This is pulled right from the university’s core value of “Excellence in Teaching,” which “emphasizes teaching supported by research and scholarship as the University’s central responsibility.” 

An emphasis on teaching requires students in a way an emphasis on research and scholarship does not. Even the most talented professor cannot teach an empty classroom.

This year, the prioritization process has cast its shadow across the university community. Professors and administrators are constantly meeting to determine the future of the university, to decide which programs will grow and which will shrink. Even with the future in flux, nowhere have I seen this core value debated. Ashland University still intends to be a university that prides itself on excellent teaching, at least from my perspective. 

As established earlier, teaching requires students. True students, by the way, not just bodies in the chair. A reluctant person in a classroom limits even the best professor, although there is quite a bit they can overcome. Which is why I am so perplexed by the refusal to hear students’ opinions within this prioritization process. Students are why this university exists, not for faculty and certainly not for administrators. Cutting students out of these decisions seems entirely counter-intuitive to this professed value of excellence in teaching, not to mention the eternal “Accent on the Individual.”

If Ashland University truly embodies “Accent on the Individual,” there would be room for a student senate proposal on the core curriculum. There would be room for an ambitious student to offer real feedback. There would be invitations extended to the public meetings faculty and staff attend. 

There wouldn’t be silence when, during the town hall meeting Tuesday, someone asked President Crothers why student input is not being factored into these decisions. There wouldn’t be some strained attempt to determine student opinions by claiming, “They vote with their feet.” There wouldn’t be the same empty comment, “There’s no reason they can’t have their input heard” that has been repeated time and time again, no halfhearted lamentation that there is no structure in place for students to speak out.

Not every student will take advantage of any opportunity. Most likely, only a handful would. But, that’s what Ashland University claims it is. AU claims it emphasizes “Accent on the Individual,” but right now, when it matters most, students feel shut out and ignored. 

I’ve been reminded more times than I can count that the church isn’t the building, it’s the people. I’ve learned that a university isn’t the buildings, it’s the students. If a church locked out the people, drove them away and allowed their concerns to fall on deaf ears, they’d be blameless in leaving and searching for greener pastures. So now I’m forced to wonder, ought we, the students, be thinking in that same way?