Five days ago, student groups who had reserved either the Gargoyle or Mallinckrodt 100A over the course of this academic year received an email that neither space would be available after spring commencement. Those rooms, according to the email, will be converted to office space.

The announcement was met with anger and confusion on the part of the student body. An online petition circulated, quickly racking up nearly 1,000 signatures.

The outrage from students was well-justified. Groups rely on using the Gargoyle for practices, rehearsals and meetings, and for many of them, the email was the first indication that they will be losing that space. The University presented the groups with alternative spaces and research that they had conducted into the Gargoyle’s usage, but none of that research actually included input from the students themselves. That research, by the way, demonstrated that by a margin of 459 reservations to 245 reservations last year alone, student groups utilize the Gargoyle and 100A far more often than faculty.

The fact that the University went to the effort to conduct this research into a student space, but did so without actually asking for student input, feels backwards. While there might be a very real need for new office space, prioritizing it over a versatile open space for student groups without seeking student input is antithetical to what the University’s mission should be. Getting rid of space like the Gargoyle puts students second.

Worse than that, many of the groups that will be most affected by the change are precisely the kind of diverse cultural groups that the University should be supporting. Directly across the hall from the Gargoyle, huge posters promote Lunar New Year Festival, Black Anthology, Carnaval and Diwali. All of those celebrated performances will lose their largest rehearsal space as a result of the conversion of the Gargoyle. Other dance groups will lose Mallinckrodt 100A, one of the few mirrored dance spaces open to students.

In all the confusion surrounding this announcement, Student Union’s proactive response should be applauded. While SU has often been criticized for not doing enough outward-facing advocacy, it very quickly mobilized to try to help save the Gargoyle. This is precisely the kind of advocacy that SU can do at its best, standing up to the University when it makes decisions that adversely affect students.

But in this instance SU should not have to be scrambling in response to the University. There should have been meetings beforehand. The University should have polled groups before making this significant of a move.

The University chose to get rid of the Gargoyle without input from students. If it truly cares about the student body, it will listen to them now that it is being told that it made a mistake.