Can We Make Dina Proud? A Guide to Havergal's Student Voice Movement.

The inception of Havergal’s student voice movement can be traced back to the Class of 2017, two years ago. The movement brought to light a need for greater student advocacy in our community. Dina Curtosi, for all intents and purposes the founder of this movement, addressed the needs of the school in a captivating Prayers speech:
“There is a disconnect within Havergal. Decisions that affect the student body are being made without speaking with the people they directly affect. If students are heard, it is only because we have taken the initiative to make sure our voices are heard, not because we were asked for our input beforehand. If feedback is asked for, it seems to be only after significant complaints have been made.”
My purpose in writing this article is neither to condemn student voice for lack of progress, nor to praise the movement for having successfully accomplished all of its aims. The status of student voice at Havergal is in a sort of ideological limbo; we have made some strides, but we have not accomplished our main goals.
But what exactly are the goals of student voice? According to Dina’s speech, student voice can best be accomplished in two steps. First, students must be given opportunities to share their opinions, criticisms, and questions with the administration on a regular basis; student feedback must be actively sought out. Next, students’ opinions should be valued the way that any faculty member’s opinions would be. It is my assertion that student voice is on the right track, having successfully opened major avenues for feedback from students. However, it is imperative that the issue of student voice is not considered “resolved”.
While students have been given every opportunity to speak our minds, it often feels as though we are screaming into the void. While we appreciate being given student forums, feedback forms, surveys, and more, it is nearly impossible to see what comes of these avenues for student voice. As well, when our voices are finally heard, it appears to only occur in response to trivial issues. Yes, I am relieved that the ban on nail polish has been lifted. However, relatively insignificant changes to the student code should not detract from the need for student participation in wide-scale decisions.
The new cell phone ban is a excellent example of a place in which student voices appear to be ignored. While surveys were sent out and focus groups were formed, the general dissatisfaction of the student body must not be ignored. Being one of many students who patrol the cafeteria during lunch, I still see many students attempting to use their mobile devices despite the rules. Seeing as so many students work around this rule every lunch hour, there is an indication that the technology ban may not be coming from within the student body. If a new rule need be so heavily enforced, how can we believe that the rule itself is a result of student activism? I don’t necessarily mean that the rule has no value for the community, but that perhaps presenting it as an outcome of student voice is not the best approach to be taken. There is a point in which the administration have the right to present policies that students disagree with for the sake of the students. Perhaps the new cell-phone ban falls within this point.

Still, maybe I’ve mischaracterized student voice. In prayers, Mr. Nichols presented a survey to the student body with apparent proof that students do crave a change regarding the school’s policy on cellular devices. And, one member of last year’s convened cell-phone focus group told me that all group members agreed there is a need for new policies. Perhaps my opinion is a minority in the scheme of the greater Havergal population. Having said this, several other students have echoed my feelings that this rule, although presented as the outcome of student voice avenues, is not characteristic of our values. Regardless of our takeaway on the cell-phone ban, we can agree that student voice should never be a tool of division in our student body.
None of this is to say students have no agency at Havergal, nor is it to argue school officials are conspiring against the student body. In the end, student voice must be assessed in terms of input and control. Input is to have opportunities to share feedback with school administrators. Control is to have your input directly used to inform administrative decisions. I believe that we have come a long way in terms of input; constant feedback forms and town hall meetings ensure progress. However, students do not necessarily possess any more control over the directions of our educations that we did two years ago. And, being told we have more control than we do is worse than having no control at all. The school has been quick to market itself as a champion of student voice, but fails to recognize that to speak out is not necessarily to be heard. On the other hand, maybe true student advocacy has become lost in our search for control.

Rather than greater student agency in administrative decisions, we would be better to focus on greater transparency from the administration. We as students need not agree with a decision. Instead, we must understand the decision. In her speech, Dina never argued that students’ opinions should be enforced; instead, she asked that they be valued. I believe this distinction must be made for any further progress to be made in student voice. Through transparency from all members of the Havergal community, students can feel more secure in the role their input plays in the decision-making process.
All in all, the student voice movement has been a whirlwind. But it is nowhere near completion, and the first item on the agenda is to define our agenda. What exactly do we want? Do we want input, control, transparency, or some combination of the three? Either way, we cannot achieve our goals by alienating any member of the community. We are not fighting a battle against the administration so much as we are fighting alongside them to better our community.