Last week ASM's Academic Affairs Committee proposed the creation of a standing committee to address textbook issues as a more permanent way of addressing the financial burden of textbooks on campus. The proposed committee would be comprised of three students, three faculty members and three academic staff and, according to ASM Academic Affairs Chairman Jonah Zinn, would focus on ""things like electronic textbooks, open-source textbooks, getting departments to focus on certain textbooks, library reserve programs and the possibility of creating a textbook rental program.""
While we agree that the expense of textbooks is immense, and reducing this cost should be a priority for student leaders, the creation of a committee in and of itself does not solve the textbook crisis here on campus. The creation of a committee specifically dedicated to textbook issues, while not necessarily a bad idea, may be slightly superfluous. In fact, it often seems as though the only thing ASM does accomplish is create committees designed to accomplish something.
Zinn argues for the necessity of the committee saying, ""We want to make sure we get faculty buy in, academic staff buy in and student buy in on this issue."" But we are concerned about the level of student input in any decision reached by the proposed committee. The underrepresentation of students on the proposed committee is concerning. Student members would make up only one-third of the committee, meaning any recommendations would not necessarily represent the student perspective. As ASM's primary responsibility is to represent the interests of students, this is unacceptable. It remains to be seen why a faculty advisor to the Academic Affairs Committee would not be sufficient in gaining input from across the university.
While the input and participation of faculty and staff members is essential to the long-term success of reducing textbook costs, any recommendation made by a committee should represent the views and interests of the student body. Admittedly, a lack of faculty participation and action has been a main roadblock to reducing student textbook expenses. For example, despite requirements for instructors to make required reading material information available to students, not all do so.
It is about time that further measures are taken and other options explored, but it fails to be seen why Academic Affairs cannot tackle textbooks itself. By Zinn's own admission, Academic Affairs is not overburdened by textbook issues. The creation of a committee seems unnecessary, and even harmful if said committee was to be dominated by faculty and staff. We support a student-led effort by ASM to make textbook reform a reality on campus, and we encourage their solicitation of faculty and academic staff input. This would involve exploring the possibility of textbook rentals on campus and the possibility of making cheaper spiral bound or older editions available to students.
As far as we are concerned, any attention to this issue is good attention. But the need for another committee has yet to be proven. Student leadership is key for progress, but until instructors are willing to delineate reading assignments by chapter or section rather than page numbers, it remains to be seen how committed faculty are to reducing textbook costs, and unless they band together as a whole three representatives on a committee likely won't change that. We are encouraged by the success of ASM's textbook swap and support the input of faculty and staff when it comes to looking at ways to reduce textbook costs. However we would caution that the creation of a committee, for the sake of creating a committee, is not only a waste of time and resources but also detrimental to the cause.
