It feels like in the past few weeks, many changes have come through Ashland University. Changes to the RA compensation policy, the freshmen meal plan structure and parking pass rates have been justified, at least partially, by comparing Ashland to other schools known as benchmark institutions. These 25 schools are, according to the administration, similar enough to Ashland to merit comparison. Ashland would not compare itself to Ohio State, for example, but would compare itself to Baldwin-Wallace University. 

In theory, the existence of benchmarks makes some sense. Getting a pulse of what your closest competition is up to is basic business sense. Coke wants to know what Pepsi is doing and vice versa. Things like admissions and marketing strategies seem like things to compare across the board. I am far from an expert on these things, but all of these schools would seem to be tapping into the same student population, so understanding their strategies to appeal to students would be advantageous.

It even makes sense for benchmarking to confirm a policy decision. A policy enacted by no other institution is either innovative or reckless; benchmarking can help ensure sound decisions. Benchmark schools can function as laboratories, experimenting with policies the University may want to enact. 

However, the arguments presented justifying these cost-cutting moves seem to rely mainly on the usage of benchmark institutions. Since this is done by most of our benchmark institutions, the argument goes, it is fine to enact the same policy at AU. Coke would never try to be Pepsi.

This logic is offensive in a few ways. First, it cheapens what Ashland University is. AU emphasizes “Accent on the Individual,” encouraging students within a supportive community as individuals. Students came to Ashland for this, because of what Ashland stood for, what it should still stand for. Students, myself included, came to Ashland because it does stand out from the pack. Justifying decisions by this logic leaves Accent on the Individual in an untenable situation, along with anything that could keep Ashland unique.

It also cheapens the public discourse that should occur around these decisions. Students should question why these changes occur, and be met with a rational argument for why such a change is made. Justifying a change with benchmarking is the same juvenile logic a kindergartener uses for an extended bedtime or an extra cookie. Students deserve a better explanation for any substantive change to their University. 

The University is also incredibly inconsistent with its usage of benchmarking. When services are cut, everyone else does it. For things like the alcohol or housing policies, however, benchmarking is dismissed. The administration has also dismissed unfavorable rankings by Forbes or Moody’s, while touting any positive comparison. These inconsistencies lead to a lack of trust in the University, since benchmarking does not universally apply to all policies. 

Students came to Ashland to come to Ashland. Driving changes to the school by benchmarking insults students who decided Ashland University was the place for them. The current changes may not have changed the nature of AU, but the logic behind the changes should frighten any student. Benchmarks have their place, but they are being trotted out as sacred arguments for the various changes being made. It encourages a defeatist attitude and signals an end to Ashland University being anything unique. Students deserve better, but they have to demand it. Please, help keep AU, AU.