Speak for yourself

His note was carefully crafted — filled with polite, inoffensive language and noncommittal points. The words danced gracefully around my questions, providing the illusion of an answer that — upon closer inspection — proved uninformative and evasive. Questions such as: “What role do academics play in mental health on campus?” or “Is there a racial bias in those students who seek counseling?” went completely untouched, laid to rest by the content-devoid claim that “CPS provides services for students from all backgrounds and class years.” Such equivocating not only suppresses valuable and useful information that the public ought to be able to know, but, in doing so, also stymies any attempts by the community to demand change based on pertinent and factual disclosure.

It isn’t that CPS doesn’t have the data that I’m asking for; one would hope that such an important campus resource monitored trends in mental health on campus. It also isn’t that CPS is trying to conceal pertinent information from the Princeton community — that would be a far more dire issue. The problem here is the spokesperson system allows for the transfer of answerability from campus organizations to a removed third-party. This bureaucratic redirection is an indirect act of information suppression in that it forces institutions to relegate information to an inherently less-informed office. This redirection comes with a host of problems.

One obvious issue with the spokesperson system is the degrees of separation. Those best able to speak on the subject in question, whether it be an academic department, student group or, as in this case, a University health institution, should be the ones doing the talking. Just as a physics professor would be the most reliable source of information about research being conducted in the psychics department, a CPS counselor would be the most informed person to speak about mental health on campus. They work at it every day, gaining insights which only they could understand. It’s impossible that the Office of Communications has this level of understanding. When the University funnels all of their announcements through a spokesperson, valuable information is inevitably lost.

When campus organizations redirect through the Office of Communications, they evade their responsibility to the Princeton community. Rather than take the time to be transparent and candid about what goes on in their respective circles, groups like CPS shunt their obligation to a third party. By transferring responsibility to the spokesperson, CPS demonstrates a lack of concern for the betterment of mental health on campus. If they really wanted to raise awareness for mental health issues on campus, they wouldn’t stand for this kind of concealment. Assuming a campus group holds a belief in the relevance and integrity of their office, they should have no qualms about being forward and forthright when questioned.

All of this wouldn’t seem so bad if not for the significant negative consequences arising from the polite stonewalling of the spokesperson. One might think: “Too bad, some writer didn’t get a bit of the information he wanted for a story” and leave it at that. But this concerns more than just stories. Stories are merely a vehicle for the spread of information, and it’s information that causes change. Information gives us the wherewithal to act in an informed and motivated way. Without a factual basis upon which to base our beliefs and opinions, there’s no reason for us to try to improve ourselves or our community.

Equivocation is the death of change, as it suppresses the fuel necessary for its occurrence. Maybe we could have a better handle on exactly how to go about dealing with mental health on campus if we had a better understanding of its causes, manifestations and tendencies. Because these potentially valuable inquiries are shredded by the politically correct meat grinder that is the spokesperson’s “official statement,” this greater understanding is impossible.

Though I’ve used my experience with CPS as an example of the failure of answerability on this campus, this is not a direct attack on CPS. It is rather a request to campus groups not to take the easy way out and punt to the Office of Communications. In doing so, these groups are complicit in the obstruction of truth. No group should be at peace with their voice being usurped by a bureaucracy. We all have the ability to speak for ourselves. We are the leading authorities on our own lives and the organizations of which we are a part. Relegating responsibility to a third-party mouthpiece can be harmful in ways most of us never think of. You have a mind. You have information. You have a voice.

Use it.