Staff ed: The No Limits Project is valuable to the campus

In the days before spring break, the No Limits Project (NLP) published and disseminated a list of 14 demands calling for the implementation of a number of social justice-related policies. More than a month after the publication of the 14 demands, students continue to decry NLP’s approach as counterproductive to student agency vis-a-vis the administration, and to the implementation of their own demands. We hold, however, that their demands encourage student advocacy by increasing awareness and discourse about campus issues.

NLP’s demands include a number of long standing grievances, and also newer issues, which have been off the radar for many students. Since NLP attacked the merging of the Lilly Intern position with the Smounker RLC, the knowledge and discussion of the position has increased on campus. Though a certain faction of students would have always been concerned, NLP has opened the discussion up to the broader community by meeting this change with so much intensity. Students who weren’t even aware that a Lilly Intern existed are now involved in the discussion of whether or not the position should exist. This is the open communication, through [plans], over coffee and in lounges, that students yearn for.

The choice of the word “demands” and the intensity of NLP’s approach has been blasted as potentially inhibiting the ability of other students to approach administrators with ideas concerning College policy changes. However, if anything, NLP has opened other forms of approaching administrators. If students wish, they can still set up meetings with administrators about whatever and whenever, and because of increased dialogue these approaches will likely be more valued and wanted.
NLP indirectly encourages SGA, the administration, and other groups directly involved in campus politics to attack the issues they care about with added fervor. And any projection of Osgood, Houston or other top administrators turning a back on students because of NLP assumes administrators are lacking commitment to professionalism and their position as student advocates.

So to those who say NLP is hurting campus, look at what they have accomplished—you’re likely reading this, and likely have been talking to senators, student affairs and others about what should be done. NLP will likely have direct success on several of its beneficial issues, and the campus, as a whole, will likely have more success as well.