Pomona College is obsessed with the word dialogue.
In fact, Pomona partners with the Sustained Dialogue Institute, a third-party organization that hosts workshops aimed at creating “the right setting for open exchanges” across campus. In addition, Pomona engages in the “Bridging the Gap” program every year, which hosts a meeting that facilitates the exchange of ideas between Pomona students and students from Biola University, a conservative Christian university. We Pomona students, especially those who frequently check our email inboxes, are haunted by Gabi Starr and her passion for the word “dialogue.” Clearly, this concept of dialogue plays a role in the way Pomona approaches problem-solving.
Dialogue, as Pomona sees it, unpacks the major issues facing colleges and allows for civility and respectful exchange of ideas on these issues. Dialogue sessions are hosted to foster conversation and allow all voices to be heard and supposedly listened to. But when was the last time dialogue actually led to something productive?
I have one major concern over the way in which Pomona, and seemingly the 5Cs as a whole, approach dialogue: 5C administrations promote it so that they appear to endorse student discourse, and then proceed to make decisions without this student input in mind. If we are to foster a relationship between the student body and administration in which various inputs are actually welcome, this discourse must be followed by concrete action.
I use Pomona as a case study because it is the school I have the most information about, and its strategy for handling conflict is aptly emblematic of the issue at hand. But the oversaturation of dialogue to no purpose is a problem that permeates the 5Cs — for example, Pitzer’s Presidential Initiative on Constructive Dialogue.
Take Pomona’s recent engagement in exclusive negotiations with Claremont Graduate University, which many professors and students felt blindsided by. Professors have told me that the Claremont Independent’s breaking news article was the first they had heard of the decision. It was only retroactively that Pomona administrators decided to host an open forum to garner input.
The space created here was not one where criticism was to be honored. We, students, were expected to heed the rationale of decision-makers and value the opportunity to share student perspectives, even though this gesture was so clearly an afterthought.
The development of Pomona’s Center for Global Engagement is yet another example of administrative efforts at dialogue failing the student body. This center will replace Oldenborg Center, which currently hosts lunchtime language tables and houses roughly 140 students. Oldenborg is set to be demolished in June 2026, with the construction of the new center estimated to take two years, opening in fall 2028.
According to an email from three ASPC senators, the destruction of Oldenborg may come with alterations to the Coop Fountain’s schedule, effectively reducing hours and students’ access to the space. Current plans for the new Center for Global Engagement will not include an industrial kitchen, and as a result, Pomona Catering will have to be relocated to the Coop fountain area.
Pomona students have largely been kept out of the decision-making that goes into this change. Many remain confused, in the dark about what this will mean for the reduction in beds and how this will shift the campus’ culture as it relates to foreign languages, dining and leisure. While Pomona has offered dialogue sessions on the project, it is clear that they have not been sufficiently informative or responsive to students’ fears and uncertainty over residency and culture.
“ The 5C administrations must do a better job at cultivating a relationship with their student bodies in which real criticism can be made, while issuing a coinciding promise that tangible action will be taken as a result of that criticism.”
Students often make demands of their institution — a necessary component of advocacy on college campuses. But the administration has used dialogue as a crutch to appear as though they are taking action and listening rather than addressing those demands: They refuse to divest from an ongoing genocide, refrain from taking meaningful action to stand up to the Trump administration’s overreach on education or protect vulnerable populations — including international students, students from immigrant families and many more. For example, there has been no communication from Pomona about their plans to implement the SAFE Act, a California law that mandates colleges to alert community members in the case of immigration enforcement officers on campus, despite the law requiring this plan to be made public by March 1, 2026. The suggestion of dialogue has served as a stand-in for real action.
While the administration and the board of trustees promote dialogue and free exchange of ideas as the best thing in the world, their actual actions are out of touch and completely unaligned with the needs and opinions expressed by the student body. Alexander Hall is locked down, and yet we are somehow supposed to feel as though our input is valued by the administration because Gabi Starr showed up at the performative male contest?
The 5C administrations must do a better job at cultivating a relationship with their student bodies in which real criticism can be made, while issuing a coinciding promise that tangible action will be taken as a result of that criticism.
Meanwhile, as students seek to address the community at large, we can turn to actionable items as opposed to redundant conversation. Get trained in how to protect neighbors from ICE, participate in mutual aid and attend rallies and protests on issues that matter to you. We have frameworks from which to work. The 5C-wide initiatives to help distribute food during the SNAP benefits freeze prove that this kind of action is in the realm of possibility here at the Claremont Colleges.
Dialogue is important; having informed and thoughtful conversations about ongoing issues is necessary for addressing them. But that cannot be the extent of our engagement with the issues. Instead, it should be only the first step of many towards the goals we seek to achieve and the changes we hope to bring forth.
While civilized debate and constructive discourse are necessary for a functioning democracy, our college campuses are using dialogue as a facade for action, which upholds a broader sociopolitical system where people learn to expect a lack of responsiveness and meaningful change from their leaders.
Alex Benach PO ’28 is from Washington, D.C., and really, really, really hopes this article does not disqualify him from a future dinner at Gabi Starr’s home.
Facebook Comments