Meredith College NC | Students walkout of class to support ‘overworked’ professors, affect on education quality – ABC11

Report on Meredith College Protest and its Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Executive Summary

A demonstration was held at Meredith College by students and alumni to protest recent administrative and budgetary changes. The core grievances center on a perceived decline in educational quality, faculty working conditions, and campus facilities, which directly conflict with several United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), notably SDG 4 (Quality Education), SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth), and SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities).

Key Grievances and Relation to SDG 4 (Quality Education)

The primary concern voiced by student protestors is the erosion of educational standards, a direct challenge to the principles of SDG 4: Quality Education. This goal aims to ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all. Student reports indicate that recent institutional changes are undermining this objective.

• Curriculum Integrity: Students, such as one in the hospitality program, report an inability to enroll in required courses for graduation due to faculty restructuring. This limits access to specialized education and compromises the quality and completeness of their academic pathways.
• Faculty Overload: The increased workload on remaining faculty members is perceived to be detracting from the quality of instruction and student-faculty engagement, which are crucial components of a quality education.
• Student Dissatisfaction: Statements from students indicate a belief that the “flaws are outweighing the benefits” of their education, signaling a critical decline in perceived value and quality.

Impact on Faculty and Alignment with SDG 8 (Decent Work)

The administrative actions taken by the college have significant implications for SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth, which promotes sustained, inclusive, and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment, and decent work for all. The timeline of events suggests a departure from these principles.

1. Staff Reductions: During the summer, the college laid off six percent of its staff to balance its budget.
2. Increased Workloads: Remaining staff and faculty were required to absorb additional responsibilities, leading to student reports of professors being overworked.
3. Administrative Restructuring: The college announced the elimination of dean positions, with these administrators returning to teaching roles. Students have characterized this as a “demotion” that further shifts administrative burdens onto other faculty members.

These measures raise concerns about the sustainability of working conditions and the well-being of the academic staff, which are foundational to providing quality education (SDG 4).

Campus Conditions and SDG 11 (Sustainable Communities)

Protestors also highlighted deteriorating living conditions on campus, an issue that falls under the purview of SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities. Specifically, this goal aims to make human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient, and sustainable.

• Students reported that campus living facilities are “not good whatsoever,” indicating concerns about the safety, adequacy, and quality of their housing environment.
• While the college has stated that facility maintenance is a top priority and has appointed a new facility director, student concerns persist, suggesting a gap between institutional policy and student experience.

Institutional Response and Path Forward

Meredith College administration has acknowledged the financial pressures driving the budget reductions, citing economic and demographic shifts. The institution provided a statement affirming its commitment to its mission and the quality of its programs. Key points from the college’s response include:

• An assertion that student feedback is taken seriously through established channels like campus forums.
• A commitment to ensuring that cost-saving measures do not compromise the college’s mission or program quality.
• Confirmation that budget reductions are a strategic necessity supported by the Board of Trustees.

The ongoing situation at Meredith College highlights the tension between fiscal responsibility and the institutional commitment to upholding the global standards set forth by the Sustainable Development Goals, particularly those concerning quality education, decent work, and sustainable living environments.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 4: Quality Education
   • The article directly addresses this goal as students are protesting because recent changes are “impacting the quality of their education.” One student, Emma Melton, states she “can’t take certain classes I want to take to graduate,” which highlights a decline in the accessibility and quality of the educational offerings.
2. SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth
   • This goal is relevant due to the discussion of labor conditions for the college staff. The article mentions that “Meredith laid off six percent of its staff” and that remaining professors are “being overworked” and have had more responsibilities “pushed on” them. These points relate to employment, job security, and fair working conditions.
3. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities
   • The article touches upon this goal through student concerns about their living environment. A student is quoted saying, “The living facilities are not good whatsoever,” which points to issues with the quality and maintenance of campus housing, a key component of a sustainable and safe community.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. Target 4.3: By 2030, ensure equal access for all women and men to affordable and quality technical, vocational and tertiary education, including university.
   • The students’ primary concern is the diminishing “quality of their education.” The fact that a student “can’t take certain classes I want to take to graduate” shows a direct impact on their access to a complete and quality tertiary education.
2. Target 4.c: By 2030, substantially increase the supply of qualified teachers, including through international cooperation for teacher training in developing countries.
   • While not about teacher training, this target’s spirit is about ensuring a sufficient and well-supported teaching staff. The article indicates a move in the opposite direction, with layoffs and remaining professors “being overworked,” which can compromise teaching quality and the supply of effective educators.
3. Target 8.5: By 2030, achieve full and productive employment and decent work for all women and men…
   • The layoff of “six percent of its staff” and the increased workload for those who remain (“professors are being overworked”) are directly contrary to the principles of full employment and decent work.
4. Target 11.1: By 2030, ensure access for all to adequate, safe and affordable housing and basic services…
   • The student complaint that “The living facilities are not good whatsoever” directly relates to this target, highlighting a perceived lack of adequate and well-maintained housing (dormitories) on campus.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

1. Indicators for SDG 4 (Quality Education):
   • Student satisfaction with education quality: This is a qualitative indicator directly implied by the student protest and statements like “the flaws are outweighing the benefits.”
   • Availability of required courses: A specific indicator is mentioned when a student says she “can’t take certain classes I want to take to graduate.” The number of unavailable but required courses could be tracked.
   • Student-to-faculty ratio: While not explicitly stated, the fact that professors are “scrambling to teach all of the classes” after layoffs implies a worsening student-to-faculty ratio, which is a common indicator of educational quality.
2. Indicators for SDG 8 (Decent Work):
   • Rate of staff layoffs: The article provides a precise figure: “six percent of its staff.” This is a direct quantitative indicator of job insecurity.
   • Employee workload: This is implied through student observations that “professors are being overworked” and that work was “pushed on everybody else.” This could be measured through surveys on working hours and responsibilities.
3. Indicators for SDG 11 (Sustainable Communities):
   • Quality of student housing: The statement “The living facilities are not good whatsoever” serves as a qualitative indicator. This could be quantified by tracking the number of student maintenance requests, as implied by the college’s statement that the “Facilities department…receives requests from students.”

4. Summary Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

Source: abc11.com