Dylynn Lasky
Contributing Writer
“Bye Cherylllll how we celebrating?”
“One bad administrator down, two more to go!!”
“If Cheryl cared so much about the issues plaguing our student body, then she would stay on to fix it LMAO”
These expressions represent several student responses to the resignation of Cheryl Nuñez from her role as Vice President of Equity, Inclusion and Diversity. Among these responses, numerous students also “hearted” the email announcement from President McCall, implicating a kind of schadenfreude, where students derive pleasure from someone else’s misfortunes.
While many students celebrate this development, it remains unclear what warranted such a troubling absence of empathy and an abundance of hostility towards Nuñez. Recent actions initiated by the black community on campus suggest that her resignation may be linked to a failure to address ongoing concerns. A list of demands posted throughout campus highlights these concerns including creating culturally accurate menus in the dining hall, making interview processes more equitable, transferring the Black Equity Fund to the Multicultural Student Affairs office, among many others. Moreover, protest signs lamenting, “Respect Us. Bobbitt, Cheryl, Reid, Hope” and “One step forward, three steps back” reflect a growing frustration within the campus community regarding the lack of attention and urgency in meeting these requests.
Yet, it is worth asking whether these frustrations justified the overt resentment and explicit insults directed at Nuñez. Recognizing that the voiced student concerns were legitimate and deserving of attention, should we still endorse an approach to addressing issues that relies on punitiveness and moral grandstanding? The answer is a resounding no. At an institution aimed at the pursuit and transmission of knowledge, rational argumentation should be the rudder of our concerns. Instead, the reaction to this incident indicates a cultural custom at Wooster where we assume the worst in administrators and become blinded by our moral righteousness. Indeed, the list of demands was just a collection of slogans and claims that lacked any support as to why those demands were necessary to address.
Cheryl Nuñez did not deserve this extreme backlash. It is evident that through her persistent dedication to improving the modes of dialogue on campus, Nuñez has recognized the detrimental norms of discourse that have plagued our campus culture. In my numerous conversations with Nuñez, I witnessed first-hand her abiding care for students and tenacious devotion towards creating a space of belonging on campus. She has stood as a beyond competent and measured leader within our administration who admirably undertook the challenge of balancing values central to The College of Wooster’s character and mission.
It was clear that Nuñez had a long-term vision for the Wooster community in her time here. However, the long-term goals of the students calling for her resignation remain undecided. By advocating for the removal of administrators, the remaining officers are compelled to divert their focus from their primary concern – which involves the needs of students – to fill the vacant position.
As balloons deflate from the celebration of Nuñez’s departure, I urge my peers to question whether the listed means will achieve their desired ends. Instead of relying on demands that result from unsubstantiated claims, we should consider the efficacy of a more constructive approach through deliberate dialogue. This is a more strategic method because it eliminates a perpetual cycle where goals achieved through force are short-lived, while goals that result from persuasion tend to leave a greater legacy. Stated differently, campus activism should embrace the ethos of “per virtute et non vi” through virtue, not by force.
