SMU is arguably the best-watered piece of fertile ground in Dallas County. The university is continuing its watering campaign. Last week, an email was sent out to the student body that said, “The seeds must be kept wet so they will germinate properly. This means they must be watered several times throughout the day for about two weeks.”
Beyond the ethical implications of over watering in a water-deprived world, there is a larger problem with SMU’s water policy: a complete lack of transparency.
As with many university policies – from student fees to tuition increases – there is a lack of data available to the student body. Questions like “How many gallons of water per day are used by SMU?” and “How green does the grass need to be?” will remain unanswered until SMU releases numbers to its student body.
Transparency is key to any stable institution, especially a university where faculty, administrators and students must trust each other. As students, the consumers pay SMU, the supplier, for a quality education (among other things apparently), students have the right to know where their money goes. In the status quo, this is not the case and it has long-term implications.
Robert Staub, a writer for The Business Journal states, “Anything that damages the faith and trust of those within an enterprise damages the ability of the leaders to lead and of the enterprise to accomplish its mission and goals. Thus, at the forefront of any leader’s mind should first be the establishment and maintenance of the faith and trust of the people comprising the enterprise that they serve, whether it be a department, an organization, a community or nation.”
The current dynamic at SMU ignores the fact that the university serves the students. Without student tuition payments, the university would not be able to support itself. And, thus, the fundamental question should be asked: what do students want?
As a Tier 1 university, SMU students surely value rigorous classes, top-notch professors and research opportunities. If this is assumed to be the first priority of the super majority of students on campus, the university should move to increase funding, disproportionately, towards the wants and needs of students.
While a beautiful campus is a potential recruiting tool for students (and increased water usage for even greener grass is a necessary element in that plan), it will not attract the best students – better academic opportunities will.
It may be that SMU’s water usage is reasonable, especially on a per capita level. It may be that SMU is allocating more and more money towards research and professors. But, the fact that SMU is not completely transparent – in what percentage of its operating budget goes towards aesthetic improvements in comparison to academic ends – will continue to frustrate this board and SMU students.
Unless SMU plans to release more detailed numbers about its spending, another email about increased watering will only lead to increased frustration.
