I was incredibly appalled upon reading yesterday's editorial, and I am disappointed to have read such a negative article regarding something that could benefit several students at Ohio University.
While I am not going to go over every fact of last week's passed resolution, I am merely going to express my extreme dissatisfaction with the amount of research that went along with this article. It is undeniably apparent that Student Senate is looked down upon by journalistic publications here at Ohio University. Being one of two on this year's senate that is a four-year member, I have heard my share of criticism and disdain for certain ideas or opinions we have put forward, but never have I been told that an idea we have proposed was completely improbable. Hearing criticism of our projects has never stopped us in the past; if it did, what would be the point of student government?
Allow me to discuss how this resolution came to be, since that did not occur in the writing of your editorial. After discussing Ohio State's plan to implement a similar recovery house in Columbus next fall, and researching other universities' programs, the idea was brought to voting body. This has been a very recent research project - having met with Ohio State representatives during Week 6 of the quarter, and research being done immediately after in order to get it presented to the voting body. This resolution was in no way procrastinated or busy work for us. It was formed upon a similar premise as last year's medical amnesty resolution, which in turn created the Medical Emergency Assistance (MEA) protocol. With the implementation of that protocol this past year, dozens of students have been helped and it has proven to be successful. As the primary sponsor of that resolution as well as the current Director of Health & Safety, I played a large role in writing this resolution. Incredibly similar in form to last year's, this resolution calls to research the possibility of a recovery house on campus. In no way does it suggest that we are proposing the university take an automatic stance. Doing research for an idea such as a recovery house will most likely cover how it could be funded, setup, run, etc. The difference between substance-free and sober living are immense - any student in recovery can tell you that. What this house would be doing is giving students who need it an opportunity to live with others who have gone through similar situations and experiences to help overcome their addiction and make strides to better themselves.
Student Senate, as a governing body, is not trying to solve alcoholism as you have assumed. If one of the sponsors of the resolution or I had been interviewed for your piece, you would be made aware that we are trying to create an alternative for students in order to help them. The majority of my work on senate over the past two years has been dedicated to medical and safety issues on campus, and I in no way see this proposal as unrealistic. Have you discussed this with students in recovery to know their opinions? I have, and have heard nothing but positive feedback. Of course there could be obstacles ahead, but that makes future research more exciting and hopeful. Making something like this a reality is a stride for us as a governing body as well as the university as a whole. It shows that we are focusing on student health, one of the most important aspects of this campus.
Another criticism in your editorial came from a misrepresentation of last week's meeting. Kat Allen's proxy (Killian Evans) was quoted as saying that considering students with eating disorders would add a whole other dimension into the situation. Had you talked to one of us, you would also understand that we would at first like to look into substance abusers, and then look into that down the road. You stated that you know how rough it is to battle an illness in Southeastern Ohio and then compared that fact to Hudson Health Center. Again, had I been interviewed before your editorial, you could understand that, in fact, the university is taking big steps in order to improve our health center that are not always seen by students. This recovery house could be another great addition to what they are already building upon. Also included in this resolution are the names of several members of the university and Athens community to help us research such a project. The resolution is available to view in the senate office if you want to check - it's public record.
Conclusively, your editorial was negative to excess and completely misunderstood Student Senate's efforts. Change does not happen overnight, which we comprehend and which is why we are trying to make an effort to focus on the long run. An undertaking such as this will require considerable thought and discussion, which is exactly what we intended. The antagonistic view of Student Senate held by The Post in this editorial takes away from a positive change that could happen if they both could work together. The only way I see this being done is if an adequate amount of research is done by the latter to ultimately improve the working relationship. Hopefully in the future, editorials condemning positive changes to campus could be almost non-existent as well as fully researched.
Meghan Hanrahan is the director of health and safety for Ohio University Student Senate.
4 Opinion
Letter to the Editor
