Questions Answered, Questions Avoided: AUSA "Town Hall"

On the Wednesday evening of December 6, the Andrews University Student Association (AUSA) hosted a Senate Town Hall Meeting inviting all students to ask a panel of university administrators questions regarding Andrews' current and future affairs. The members of the administrative panel that were seated in front of an overflowing Newbold Auditorium at 7 pm sharp were President John Wesley Taylor V, Provost Christon Arthur, the Vice President for Campus and Student Life, Frances Fahner, and the Vice President for Financial Administration, Glenn “Chip” A. Meekma Jr. Moderating the discussion was AUSA Executive Vice President Morgan Williams (senior, social work). 

 

Like any university or school community, Andrews University is not without its challenges. Wherever so many people meet, conflict of some kind is often bound to appear. To Taylor’s credit, he has come onto the Andrews campus exhibiting a desire to have personal engagements with students. This event, his weekly lunches in the student cafeteria with his wife, and his upcoming Friday night vespers program with students on December 8 exemplify this commitment–a quite laudable endeavor. One issue that was likely on the minds of every student, staff member, and administrator in attendance was the recent announcement that the position of Vice President of Diversity and Inclusion (later switched to VP for University Culture and Inclusion), a position that has been in place since 2017, would be removed in place of a new position entitled, Assistant to the President for University Mission and Culture. Some in the Adventist community are “pleased that Andrews has scrapped this position.” However, this move, and the subsequent news that would come out in the following weeks of this announcement has worried many students on campus regarding the Andrews administration’s commitment to giving voice and priority to matters of ethnic and cultural diversity. 

 Michael Nixon, Esq. had held the Vice President position since its inception but resigned at the end of the 2023 Spring Semester to become Director of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging at Beacon Health Systems. Dr. Danielle Pilgrim, the former Associate Chaplain of the university and the former Head Pastor of the largely student-organized New Life Fellowship church, was given the position as Interim Chief Diversity Officer in the summer before the 2023 Fall Semester began. She, too, would offer her resignation after experiencing “various demeaning, dismissive, and harmful practices demonstrated by the new administration,” according to Dr. Pilgrim herself in her resignation letter to the university administration that was posted and circulated publicly earlier this week. 

The conflict of the diversity and inclusion position is not the only pressing issue regarding the student body. A total of 28 questions, 18 of which were submitted before the program’s start, and the final 10 submitted as follow-ups to some of the original questions, were read by Williams to the administrators over an hour and a half. The auditorium remained packed full of lively students for the entire duration of the program, with many questions cut for time. The following are the topics covered in the order the questions were asked:

• Addressing Mold, Plumbing, and Infrastructure Issues in Residential Buildings, Namely Lamson Hall
• Physical Accessibility Being Improved Upon in Buildings Such as Nethery Hall and the Science Complex
• Understanding the Process of Hiring Senior Administrators for the University
• Student and Minority Representation in Administrative Issues
• ‘Coming Out Ministries’ Recent Acquisition of Property Near the Campus
• The VP for Diversity and Inclusion Position Being Changed to “An Assistant to the President” Role
• Cafeteria Meal Plans for Students and the Potential Addition of Options for Meal Plans
• Late Night Labs Interfering with Other Programs
• Athletic and other Creative Scholarships
• The Co-Curricular Program and its Necessity
• Laundry Machine Issues in Residential Buildings
• Undergraduate Curfews
• Parking on Campus
• Student Lounging Areas

Within the limited time frame, Williams and the administrative figures were able to touch on all these subjects with varying degrees of efficiency and productivity. For many of the tougher questions that were asked, some students thought President Taylor and his peers frequently side-stepped answering the questions and instead gave many lengthy answers that took a while to get a direct answer, if such an answer ever came at all. 

The first example of indirect answers came during the seventh question of the night. The question asked for any of the administrators’ comments on Coming Out Ministries' recent purchasing of a building that is almost directly across from Andrews on US Highway 31. Coming Out Ministries is a religious organization run predominantly by Seventh-day Adventists (SDAs), although not an official SDA ministry, to provide counsel, guidance, and fellowship to those in the church or interested in the church but struggling with sexual identity and sexual morality. Despite denying it fervently, Coming Out Ministries is rumored to have unethical practices found in conversion therapy as part of their programming, as described in a previous Student Movement article.

VP Faehner had prepared for this question and pulled out a piece of paper from which she read. She spoke about the university handbook and its code of conduct regarding the empowerment and protection of all students, as well as affirming with the president that harassment of any kind is not accepted at the university. After a few more minutes of building to answer, Faehner stated that the university follows the guidelines that romantic relationships, according to Adventist beliefs and the Bible, should be between a man and a woman but that respect for all contrary perspectives should be upheld. Ultimately, nothing was addressed by any of the panelists directly regarding Coming Out Ministries, other than a brief remark by Taylor, implying that the location of the building is strategic, and that the university has sought to purchase that property in the past with no success. 

The following questions regarded the new “Assistant to the President” position, which President Taylor spent plenty of time talking about. In repeating some of the same sentiments in his email to the entire university community last Friday, Taylor tried to assure the audience that the position “needed to be a full-time, senior, cabinet, position.” He claimed that the new position allows for a “campus-wide effect” on diversity and inclusion and that the former vice president position did not cover that. Taylor was not pressed further by Williams and declined to go more into detail about what he was basing his claims on, why this “campus-wide effect” could not be added to the existing position, and how any adjustment was necessary.

Another answer by Meekma left many in the audience unsatisfied. When asked why students are unable to get a refund on the money they do not use on their meal plans, he stated that “dining services plan out the whole year in advance” based on how many meal plans are bought. He did not offer a reason as to why the policy is this way or suggest that there may be a willingness to consider adjustments that would allow refunds to become available. Meekma encouraged students to eat the food more if their accounts were too high while Arthur mentioned that the incoming meal plan tiers may help address the problem with desired refunds. The audience had already expressed a feeling of dissatisfaction, which Taylor increased by stating that out of around one hundred Adventist universities he’s eaten at, “Andrews is at the top of the list” when it comes to its dining experience. Sarcastic exclamations were instantly let out by the audience, one pointing out that “just because we’re at the top don’t mean we’re good!” Regardless of one’s opinion on the cafeteria food, it can be objectively said that both the answers given and the dining process at Andrews have things to improve upon.

At one point, Faehner called upon the help of the Director of Co-Curricular Education, Dr. Steve Yeagley, to help give an answer that left a student's question unanswered. A question asking the administrators to explain the purpose of the co-curricular program was answered with Dr. Yeagley commenting from the audience about how the program is meant to lessen class loads and how there is a new co-curricular program that has been “green-lighted to take the next steps.” Neither Faehner nor Dr. Yeagley mentioned what should be expected with the new program or how the activity requirements help students' experiences at all. 

VP Faehner avoided the essence of a question regarding why undergraduate students have imposed curfews if they are legally seen as adults. Faehner’s answer diverted from the question, instead referring to other Adventist universities and academies and their policies. She emphasized that Andrews’ undergraduate curfews are later than many of the high schools that students went to before enrolling at Andrews and that there were parents who would like to see the curfews be earlier. Faehner appeared to fail to address the question itself as to why curfews even existed for individuals who have been deemed by United States federal and local governments to exceed the age necessary to be treated and seen as legal adults with rights and responsibilities. 

The moment that may represent the peak of reported student frustration and the administrators’ avoidance of student questions came with the third live question asked by Williams, the 21st overall. The question asked the administrators to share their thoughts and responses to the concerning matters that Dr. Pilgrim discussed in her resignation letter. President Taylor was the only person to answer the question, but initially spent time listing all of Dr. Pilgrim’s credentials and history at the university, something that was not asked for. After finishing, he said, “I will respect what she has stated [in the letter].” Students instantly displayed various expressions of dissatisfaction with what was seen as an unsatisfactory answer. One student made an exclamation to try to get the president to give a real answer, to which he restated, “I will respect what she has stated.”

Several questions prompted encouraging news, such as tiers to cafeteria meal plans coming soon, laundry machines scheduled to be completely replaced by the end of the coming summer, with Dean of Student Involvement, Leadership, and Activities (SILA) Darius Bridges hinting to potential new spaces being allowed for student gatherings. However, on top of the questions that were done a disservice, responses given by Meekma and Taylor on separate questions gave students pause and reasons for more concern as to what direction their university is being driven towards. 

The first sign of trouble came during the third question of the night. When asked if there is a plan to make more of the buildings on campus wheelchair-accessible and more accommodating, Meekma mentioned that this was something that is currently a part of the plans for Andrews’ next long-term construction project. Encouraging news then turned into shock as Meekma, in continuing with his response, claimed that when the renovation of Nethery Hall was being completed a few years ago, Andrews alumni asked for Nethery Hall not to be renovated to be wheelchair accessible, saying that it would “ruin the façade.” When a live question was asked in response to the “façade” comment, Meekma dismissed it, stating that what was decided in the past had already taken effect before he obtained the position of Vice President for Financial Administration and that Nethery Hall currently is not in the university’s plans for further remodeling anytime soon. The fact that, at the time, the aesthetic preferences of alumni was prioritized over disabled people’s actual needs and that VP Meekma did not seem to consider this to be a problem concerned many students. 

Another question asked if the search committee members would be announced publicly, likely with the hopes of increasing transparency in the hiring process. President Taylor eventually stated that it will be left to the search committee members to announce publicly that they are participating on the committee. The university will not announce the search committee members. This takes away an opportunity for Taylor’s still relatively new leadership team and the rest of the administration to display transparency and accountability to the school body during a time when confusion and questions regarding the university’s future continue to grow daily amongst students and staff. 

Another example of students beginning to become concerned with Taylor’s answers during the night came towards the end of the night, where the 24th question, a live one, was asked whether both the old vice president position and the new assistant to the president role could coexist on campus. Taylor used lengthy answers which were perceived to be avoiding the question, this time enthusing about what the new position was supposed to be able to accomplish. A student from the audience bursted out, “Is that a yes or a no?” Taylor declined to respond, and the program continued.

Ultimately, the Senate Town Hall meeting displayed and discussed a lot. Although most questions that were asked by students were serious inquiries that needed to be addressed proactively and efficiently, too many questions were avoided, unanswered, or answered unsatisfactorily—in students’ eyes—especially by President Taylor. Nonetheless, hopefully, all those who attended were able to glean something productive from the evening. Students had the opportunity to learn about different changes, for better or for worse, that may be arriving soon on campus. Morgan Williams, Dean Bridges, and the rest of the AUSA Senate had the opportunity to see what worked and what could be improved with this kind of program if they ever decide to host a similar event again. President Taylor, Provost Arthur, Vice President Fahner, and Vice President Meekma were able to learn definitively some of the topics that students are most concerned with. Hopefully, they come prepared to provide direct, concise, and straightforward answers at the next town hall.