I've seen student representation on boards, committees and agencies from both sides. There's truth to what's being argued here, but it's not the whole truth. Emily McIntosh argues here that student representatives feel like they do not matter - no matter what they say, the decisions have already been made without them. McIntosh argues for "Authentic Student Voice (that) is not simply being listened to. It combines influence, ownership, and shared responsibility." I don't disagree with any of that. But if we go back to the beginning of the column we read that the student "had been invited to a significant institutional meeting as the 'Student Voice'." They were 'selected' or 'chosen', presumably because they could be counted on to do the research and to be responsible. Something like that. But an authentic student voice is often much less compliant that an especially selected student voice. They won't take the same truths for granted, and won't share the same background assumptions about presentation and decorum (and not should they; for all the good intentions in promoting student agency, we all know that as soon as agency becomes pushback there is the risk that it will be shut down).
Today: Total: [Direct link] [Share]
