Forum
SPB’s WILD email is a lesson in transparency
On Oct. 14, the Campus Life Instagram page announced that this semester’s WILD was canceled due to “safety concerns.” Specifically, the statement mentioned that because capacity would be capped at 3,500 people, there would be no equitable way to distribute tickets and, thus, to host WILD on the Brookings Quadrangle.
Unsurprisingly, I was frustrated. WILD is lauded as one of WashU’s hallmark traditions, yet, due to COVID-19, it was canceled for four semesters straight. Canceling the fifth WILD in six semesters feels like a step backwards in rebuilding the vibrant campus-wide culture that once existed prior to the pandemic.
I was, like many others, skeptical that safety concerns were at the heart of the cancellation. While there certainly were safety issues that needed to be addressed, they did not seem irreparable. After all, WILD has been hosted in the same space, with roughly the same amount of people, for decades on end without issue. I then speculated, with no particular evidence, that there was an issue securing an artist. Maybe there was a contract dispute, or the funds had run dry. In any case, I was searching for more than an amorphous statement buried on an Instagram page.
Then, in what can only be described as a bombshell, Miri Goodman, the President of the Social Programming Board (SPB), emailed students with a detailed timeline from SPB’s perspective of how and why WILD was canceled. The email was unabashedly honest and transparent, explaining all that the SPB did to accommodate, in a quick and timely manner, seemingly unreasonable demands from the University. It not only exonerated the SPB and dismissed concerns about not securing an artist, but it also pointed out a continued disconnect between the organizing students and campus partners.
For me, the email didn’t erase the frustration I felt. It did, however, provide a much-needed dose of transparency that the administration had failed to provide. As other students have noted, nondescript administrative jargon poses more questions than it answers and often fails to address student concerns. I understand why being fully transparent is difficult when there is sensitive information to protect or when the details may be misunderstood out of context. But when the lack of transparency shifts blame around and causes confusion among the student body, I question the administration’s motives.
Miri — I suspect at great personal expense — gave an account of what happened that does not paint the administration favorably. I wasn’t in the room during the conversations in question and can’t validate the claims made. That being said, I’m far more inclined to believe an email with this level of detail compared to a one-page statement that was not widely circulated. Miri, along with the rest of the SPB executive board, won the battle for public opinion because of how transparent they were, not because their statement took the blame off of the SPB.
There is nothing the administration could have done to quell campus-wide frustration, especially when it seems like they are to blame. There is no silver bullet to delivering bad news, which is exactly why the administration needs to change its messaging strategy. Surprisingly, using the same one-page, “speak-without-saying-anything” format does not always work. Sometimes, honesty is the best policy.
In this case, the honest truth does not reflect well on the administrators involved. Specifically, Associate Vice Chancellor for Student Affairs Rob Wild is described as particularly uncooperative. SPB writes in their statement that Wild “never answered any questions directly.” When Wild was asked, “How can we avoid miscommunications like this in the future?” the SPB claims that he stated he “was comfortable” putting a target on himself for the concert’s cancellation — only to release an “unclear statement” that resulted in student anger towards SPB.
What is unfathomable to me is the claim that Wild was happy to take the blame behind closed doors, yet the aforementioned statement claims zero ownership for what happened. The temptation to obscure the details and deflect fault is understandable. However, owning the mistakes (as Wild himself had suggested) would have garnered trust for the administration among the students. Had the statement from Campus Life been written with empathy, regret, and the details of exactly why the safety concerns could not be remedied — and why all other alternatives would not work — I would have been (begrudgingly) understanding. Maybe others would not have been, and I wouldn’t blame them for being stubbornly upset, but I — and, I suspect, many other students — will always take a hard pill to swallow over a sugary placebo.