the
eporter Vol. CXXII
Issue 5
Stetson University | DeLand, Fla.
Literally Nobody Wanted This
Damn Rock
A rocky contradiction concerning Stetson’s newest monument An Opinion Piece by: Kaley Fulton Staff Contributor Stetson’s newest “monument” has caused a lot of controversy. For those of you who are unaware, I’m referring to the pile of stones situated adjacent to the CUB, collectively known as “The Rock.” Yes, I’m talking about those boulders that are supposed to represent our three core values of intellectual development, personal growth, and global citizenship. In fact, the administration aims to start a new tradition, entitled “Chalk the Rock,” which encourages students to draw, write, and otherwise reflect their thoughts and values on the rocks themselves. This practice has already led to the display of drawings that violate the Code of Community Standards and even an incidence of vandalism. But why? Let me attempt to provide an easy answer to a complicated question: Literally nobody wanted this damn rock. Much of the controversy surrounding this “monument” concerns how it was financed and the lack of transparency and student approval of the endeavor. The administration has set a cap of $30,000 for this project. The total cost has not been determined yet, as additions, including signage have yet to be considered. Additionally, the graduating classes of 2013 and 2014 have “donated” approximately $2,900 to the project as part of the Senior Class Gift. The university claims that seniors were fully aware of what they were funding. And in fact, they were. Seniors were required to donate $50 toward the Senior Class Gift in order to go skydiving at a discounted rate. The news release by Stetson Today read, “We’ve booked a limited number of spots for Stetson
students at a ridiculous rate. Usually the cost is around $150, but all you need to do is donate $50 to the Senior Class Gift.” But did they really care about building The Rock? Or did they just want to go skydiving? The administration shouldn’t use the donations for the Senior Class Gift as a justification for building The Rock when in fact, the student activity was used as a key incentive. Contrary to the illusion of transparency that the panel on the SGA forum tried to illustrate, this all looks very murky. Another area of concern for students is whether The Rock will increase a sense of community, which was a central aim of the administration in developing
the project. As a student with a physical handicap, I speak from personal experience in saying that The Rock is not accessible for all students. I applaud the university’s efforts to consider accessibility and the Americans with Disabilities Act when developing this project. Despite their best efforts, The Rock is not pragmatically accessible. I cannot safely balance or sit on the rocks to “chalk the rock” and students who use wheelchairs will also have great difficulty in participating in this new tradition. The areas surrounding The Rock (grass and uneven gravel) are unsafe and largely inaccessible seating options. The university claims, “The gravel does allow for
wheelchairs to traverse the area and enter the space.” Traversing gravel in a wheelchair is quite difficult, and for someone like me, walking on uneven gravel poses a fall risk. Thus, while technically accessible, the space is not easily accessible, and therefore is less welcoming for certain students. How can The Rock be meant to be a “space for every member of the Stetson family” when certain students cannot fully access the rock? Furthermore, the topic of freedom of speech needs to be addressed. Recalling the “Chalk the Rock” initiative, students have been voicing their opinions on the creation of the monument itself, heavily criticizing the adminis-
tration through writing their messages in the stones with the chalk provided by the university. As a result, The Rock has been pressure washed every morning since the pieces of chalk were sent out, surely eliminating expressions that did not violate the Code of Community Standards in the process. If the administration was determined to use $30,000 to purchase and install a monument and in addition, heavily encourage students to express their “values” at this new place on campus, it should fully expect some critiques. The university should under no circumstances wash earnest messages off The Rock. Perhaps most significantly, The Rock is an example of Stetson attempting to assign meaning to landmarks without student consent or input. The most powerful traditions for students have meaning because students establish their significance, not the other way around. The abundant use of Stetson’s core values and assigned symbolism to justify the creation of new projects and pursuits like The Rock or the Tobacco-Free Plan by claiming that these endeavors represent or support Stetson’s values, pose a risk that Stetson’s values will become clichéd, rather than a genuine philosophy for the university. At this pace, our values will have the lifespan of our “dare to be significant” motto, which has been overused to the point where it has lost all its value and has been frequently used for ironic remarks and bad jokes. With a lack of transparency from the administration and seeming disregard for student opinion concerning The Rock, many contend that this new monument does not reflect Stetson’s values at all.
R R