Column by Wesley Robinson

Thursday’s State of the University addresses by UK President Lee Todd and Student Government President Tyler Montell did a good job of stating where the heart of campus is for students in relation to the Top 20 Business Plan here at UK.

For Todd, the Top 20 Business Plan is of utmost importance, as is the Campus 365 Plan for Montell. The problem is that to the average student, and to some extent the faculty and staff, those plans are like an indecipherable foreign language that hold no merit with them — they are just words to make the executives look good and make money.

Honestly, how many people know what this plan entails? To most, the terms are vague, and very few people have the time to wade through the 40-plus pages and really digest what the plan is seeking to accomplish.

The problem with the Top 20 Business Plan and the State of the University Address is not what they address, but the fundamental misunderstandings between mainstream campus groups and the rest of campus that prevent UK from obtaining its goals.

Those misunderstandings come from an inability to work together in the simplest forms. It has gotten so bad on campus that, when it comes to collaboration or cooperation, you would think groups on campus are acting like they’re refusing to negotiate with terrorists.

Two prominent issues on campus are diversity and sustainability. On one side, diversity groups and environmentalists feel they are being suffocated. There is a desire for change, but very few individuals are willing to cross the lines to actually work with those who are making policy.

And I don’t mean sitting down in a room because you are forced to and throwing stones in various forms from long distances. I mean honestly sitting down and looking at the issues. Furthermore, it requires dealing with issues in a way that is realistic, and not what you absolutely think you have to have.

On the other side of the problem, you have forces seemingly unwilling to give diversity and environmentalist groups a seat at the table to discuss these issues and participate in the process of moving forward toward change.

One thing we learned in elementary school is that there are two sides to every story, and as much as I would love to see diversity flourish at UK, I recognize if all efforts for recruiting, retention, scholarships, etc. are diverted to strictly diversity, then the university would not be able to operate and there would be a different kind of problem to be solved.

Similarly, if UK gave into every advocacy cause for sustainability, what would that do to the economy of the state, and what would that do to contributions to the university?

I believe diversity and sustainability desperately need change in a positive light on statewide and campus levels, but I recognize that there are other sides to these issues.

To me, the state of the campus is in dire need of repair because working together is seen as the worst thing to be done on campus. I would like to reiterate that I am a strong advocate for diversity and I am someone who really would like to make this campus more sustainable and generally environmentally friendly. But we have to be realistic on both sides.

Is it too much to embrace faculty and staff who rock the boat and desire a change in policy and practice, who desire to change the underlying feeling at the university? Is an $8 fee for sustainability too much in the important pursuit of incorporating renewable energy resources?