“It’s your space. It’s your territory. I understand why it’s important to you,” Chair of the Parents’ Association (PA) Academic Affairs Committee Marjorie Weinman said of the Student Union (SU) suite. It is the one school space specifically allocated for student government meetings, student planning and simply lounging. Yet, our claim to that space is being disputed once again.
For the third year running, Weinman and the PA are proposing the expansion of the college office, which is currently in room 225. When the PA raised the issue of renovating the College Office for the first time in 2006 as a senior gift, Principal Stanley Teitel recommended the SU, along with the museum room, room 229, as possible relocation sites. The current proposal involves moving the SU, Big Sibs, Arista and The Spectator offices elsewhere in the building to make space for a renovated College Office. For the past two years, this proposition has met extreme student opposition.
The present concern over the situation in the College Office is indeed justified. Three college advisors now handle the applications for all 692 students of this year’s graduating class. The walls between each of the four rooms in the office are not soundproof, and space is limited. This makes it difficult to discuss confidential college aspirations with students and parents.
Due to the steadily increasing school population—next year’s senior class will have 786 members—future senior classes will also have more students. College advisors will have a harder time meeting deadlines with an even larger caseload. In fall 2007, they failed to send the applications for University of Michigan’s Early Response out on time. But Teitel said unless he finds more space, he refuses to hire another college advisor. If more space is truly necessary to appease Teitel’s attitude, then more space is what we need.
But the SU is not the space that the school should be considering. After multiple failed attempts, both Teitel and the PA must recognize that students are not going to relinquish their territory in the near future without a fight. By readdressing this issue, the PA—which should be advocating for students—is unnecessarily raising tensions between parents and students, while Teitel sits back and watches. The PA is determined to push its plan through. If the SU does not concede, it will appeal to the student body. If the students defeat the plan, the PA will go to Teitel.
But Teitel is taking a passive role in finding a solution, and setting up students for failure. Students will either lose out on college advisors who they sorely need or will lose the last remnants of student space in the building. Rather than forcing the students into this situation, Teitel and the PA should look elsewhere in the building.
Other, larger rooms, such as 250 and 251—currently devoted to electronics and communications—could be converted instead without causing tensions in the school community. If Teitel believes square footage is required, we should begin measuring our principal’s plush leather office. Perhaps he should, in the interests of Stuyvesant’s thousands of students, give up his spacious abode.