If you were to rank the most important departments, initiatives and plans at UK, how far down the list would you go to find Student Affairs? The Student Affairs Portfolio Review Committee, commissioned by Provost Kumble Subbaswamy, apparently believes the Division of Student Affairs needs to be worked more into the overall plans of the university, as their recent review found there were several flaws on the comprehensive level that affect the working makeup of the Division of Student Affairs. The report came as a result of former Vice President of Student Affairs Pat Terrell’s resignation and a desire to determine the direction of Student Affairs for the future.

The committee, which found that Student Affairs needs to be retooled, restructured and revamped, yielded over 50 recommendations for improving how the division helps the university as a whole, including aiding UK’s ascent to its top-20 goal. Our student body is the most important part of the university and it has to be priority number one in any plan the university constructs. Associate Provost Carol Jordan said she began to see academics and student activities are linked, and its good to know that at least someone acknowledged the correlation between student activities and academics.

If student perception is that “there is nothing to do but go to bars or go home,” according to the report, something has to be done to fix the process. This specifically speaks to general programming and the Student Center, which were also an issue in the report. Programming was seen as boring and redundant outside of K Week, and recommendations included examining rules involving food, costs to hang posters and availability of certain facilities, among other seemingly unnecessary barriers. In more common sense strategy, the committee recommended that the Student Center should operate under Student Affairs to ensure that the policies and practices of the building are in tune with students needs.

UK must have a Division of Student Affairs that caters to the needs of the students and works to anticipate the ever-changing academic struggle for those students. The report proves that such a mission had not necessarily been accomplishable, but lays the ground work for change. The recommendations for restructuring allow for less micromanagement at the top, and allow those with direct contact with students to avoid ridiculous bureaucracy and directly work and advocate for student needs. From a facilities perspective, that means to consider modifying current bonding constrictions for campus construction, as the rules set in place not only affect the ability of the university to have satisfactory facilities, but they also may not be the best use of the state’s resources, according to the review committee.

That said, there has to be a movement to truly assess what it is the students desire and to seek opinions beyond what highly involved students think or what a select few decide. This year has been a prime example of what happens when ideas are made without consulting those who are to be affected. The report is a great start toward change, but a report is not enough. Hopefully we can move forward with the recommendations of the committee and have a Student Affairs collaborative that is working on the same page to better the university.