By: Steven Lazickas

SIPA has consistently disappointed me. 

The first time was at Admitted Students’ Day in April 2019. Over a year ago, I sat in an auditorium filled with prospective students and we were introduced to a proud SIPA alumna. The alumna was an executive at a top global financial institution and there to tell us how excited we should be to attend this institution. Then, in no uncertain terms, she described climate change and its effects in the Global South as exciting investment opportunities in emerging markets (a sentiment I have heard echoed by SIPA students and professors alike). Without a hint of cynicism and with a healthy dose of pride, our esteemed alumna described the struggles of survival in some of the poorest parts of the world as entry points for the same institutions that financed the climate crisis (and contributed to vast inequality and exploitation the world over). Within 30 minutes of my first time on campus, SIPA had shown its true colors.

Later that day, I watched a panel of posh professors discuss climate change and how the rippling effects of inequality would only worsen over time. One well-publicized professor chuckled dispassionately while describing research that indicated parties to existing climate change agreements have little incentive to honor their commitment, as any meaningful enforcement was a pipedream. When asked what could be done about this, the panelists grinned and shrugged. Mind you, this event was intended to get us excited to come to SIPA. Inspiring.

At orientation, we were proudly told how popular SIPA is to recruiters for consulting firms like McKinsey and Booz Allen Hamilton - firms with illustrious reputations for their work on commendable projects such as working with ICE to more efficiently build concentration camps or building the equivalent of the NSA for an autocratic regime known for viciously cracking down on dissent.

Late into our first semester at SIPA, many of my classmates and I were furious at the passing of the Citizenship Amendment Act and National Register of Citizens in India by the fascist government. We were shocked and scared for the students at Jamia Millia Islamia and other universities who were victims of police brutality and state endorsed violence against Muslim students. Protests, demonstrations, and petitions appeared almost instantaneously as a result of the work by students I am proud to call my friends. In the face of injustice, SIPA students spoke out - and spoke loud enough to be heard around the world.

What was conspicuously missing from the chorus of voices raised against blatant injustice was a response from SIPA administrators. Not a word condemning violence, not a statement expressing support for the embattled universities, not even a bland, innocuous phrase could be mustered about the importance of education in a democracy. SIPA had a choice, as an internationally lauded institution, to say something. SIPA’s administrators – deans, provosts, anyone with a platform – chose to say nothing. In the face of more-than-incipient fascism and brutal expressions of Islamophobia, SIPA chose silence.

I write this now as a familiar scene plays out in Minneapolis and around the country. Police have once again publicly murdered a Black man. The racist and extrajudicial killing of George Floyd has resulted in protests by Americans sick of seeing Black people being murdered -  protests violently suppressed by police in military grade gear. The President of the United States is publicly quoting an infamous white supremacist police chief and threatening social media companies because one dared to fact check him. As the United States has descended into conditions as close to fascism as ever before, SIPA remains silent.

SIPA’s considerations on these matters are, without a doubt, financial. As a student representative on the Committee on Instruction, I participate in meetings where new programs, courses, and other additions to SIPA’s academic offerings are discussed. In these deliberations, the first question invariably is, “How much will this cost?” Before any discussion of academic value or educational benefit to the student body, the first and most debated point is finances. SIPA’s academic decisions are made with respect to how many dollars are flowing into the institution versus how many dollars flow out. It’s not hard to see a throughline here: As crises like climate change are worth paying attention to only when they become exciting investment opportunities, classes are deemed pedagogically sound when they provide SIPA a solvent revenue stream.

SIPA’s silence met cries for transparency in the case of Professor Mukhopadhyay’s troubling tenure denial (note the number of tenured professors of color at SIPA next year when she leaves), and that same silence rebuffed earnest, frustrated calls for tuition reimbursement in the COVID-19 crisis. These are echoes of the same silence SIPA sounded when refusing to publicly condemn the NRA and CAA. The decision to remain silent is a conscious choice. 

Silence as a response to students’ calls for accountability and transparency speaks volumes. The silence says clearly, with elegant simplicity, that the institution is not ours. SIPA is not beholden to the students. Our untenably expensive tuition does not give us anything but access to the employers so proudly advertised to us at orientation. SIPA’s administration gives no response because they see no value gained from doing so. We paid our tuition, and they do not need anything else from us.

Silence about the violence in India. Silence about the global trend toward authoritarianism. Silence about the bigotry and racism affecting our fellow students. To say something would be too risky - it would not be a good investment.

On SIPA’s website, under the “Mission & History” tab, a prospective student can read that SIPA “provides committed students the skills and perspectives necessary to be responsible leaders.” With the example SIPA’s administration has shown in the last year, responsible leaders are sure to be silent about injustice. If we were to examine our own school as a case study in leadership, how would we score on the striking lack of conviction to consistently stand up for shared principles of justice and equality?

The website also states SIPA’s mission: “to support the global public interest by educating students to serve and to lead, and to produce and share new knowledge on the critical public policy challenges facing the global community.” Some SIPA courses live up to this vague aim. But when we look to SIPA’s leadership, we often find them doting on private interests like those of McKinsey and Booz Allen.

SIPA’s decisions are, unsurprisingly, cold calculations. Whether these decisions concern the academic curriculum shaping the education of tomorrow’s leaders or speaking out against easily condemnable violence, SIPA chooses the option that will keep financial bankruptcy at bay. 

As a result, SIPA’s silence has tended toward moral bankruptcy. 

Steven Lazickas is a second year (‘21) MPA student studying Human Rights and Humanitarian Policy and editor at The Morningside Post. He’s decided to turn some of his rants into writing.