CMU should communicate more effectively with students
“I believe the students de-unified themselves.”
Those were the exact words of Athletics Director Dave Heeke on Tuesday, three days after thousands of Central Michigan University students rallied against the new tailgating procedures in Lot 63 outside Kelly/Shorts Stadium.
It was one of several improvident statements Heeke made that day. Saturday was one of the most effective stands by CMU students in protesting CMU policy and how it is developed.
Upset mainly with the six-beer limit and the ban on external sound systems, among other excessive procedures, students were certainly unifying in boycotting Lot 63, a parking lot they packed for so many years, and tailgating elsewhere.
They flocked to Main Street and other houses and apartment complexes to celebrate instead. That may continue Saturday before CMU kicks off against Akron at 3:30 p.m.
For many students, the protest is not necessarily about disagreeing with all of the policy. Interfraternity Council President Brandyn Lawson stated in his letter that students also were misrepresented in drafting the policy.
We couldn’t agree more. Not only did the university draft a flawed policy addressing problems that don’t necessarily exist, it poorly communicated with the people directly affected by it.
Miscommunication
After Saturday’s boycott of Lot 63, the university is staying firm on its tailgating policy and now toying with the linguistics.
Now the committee is saying the rules are “expectations” rather than “regulations.”
Heeke said students should give “the new tailgating” a chance, and that the new rules they are upset with will not be strictly enforced.
Where was this “expectation” message in Heeke’s letter to the editor last week?
Where was this message in August, when the 21-person committee finalized the tailgating policy? It was fairly evident students were upset with the policy when it was announced, was it not?
The university waited until Lot 63 tailgate dropped by thousands of students to finally send along that message. And instead of accepting responsibility for a serious failure of miscommunication to the students, Heeke - trying to avoid a classic public relations blunder - shifted the blame on them, the media and Facebook for sensationalizing the policy.
Crafty.
First of all, no one sensationalized the policy. We reported on it completely, accurately and fairly, and then gauged student reaction, which was overwhelmingly against it. We even sought input from Derek van der Merwe, associate athletic director who also sits on the committee, immediately following Saturday’s game.
And students never gave tailgating a chance? Why didn’t the university give its students a chance when drafting the policy?
Inviting three students to represent thousands to a committee of 21 people is a desultory attempt at working with students and giving them a fair and thorough voice on this issue.
This is a policy directly affecting students. Give them more credit than that.
It is asinine to assume they would be unreasonable regarding a new tailgating policy that would encourage safety and a great atmosphere.
