Robin Miszkiewicz

Bureaucracy: a system of administration marked by officialism, red tape, and proliferation.

Although it may be the fourth definition on Merriam-Webster.com, it is the one used most often. Dictionary.com even includes a note on the bottom of its page: “Today, the term bureaucracy suggests a lack of initiative, excessive adherence to rules and routine, red tape, inefficiency, or, even more serious, an impersonal force dominating the lives of individuals.”

It’s a familiar scene, especially on a national level. In our nation’s capital, legislative bodies can take weeks to decide on the wording of a bill. Filibusters, pork barreling, and actual ideological argumentation can elongate the process significantly. At RIT, too, it seems as though we are a bit obsessed with how we do things, rather than why we do them.

We are all familiar with the extensive networks of administration present in larger businesses, as well. After five different people have made the same judgment on a rule followed mostly line by line — and not in spirit — there is a point where you realize how ineffective bureaucratization really is. Excessive resources are squandered on the system itself, the upkeep of its guidelines, and the strict following of even the most minute of rules.

However, this is not to say that bureaucracy is a bad thing. James Q. Wilson, noted public administration authority, speaks to the merits of bureaucratic action. His 1989 book Bureaucracy was the first of its kind, describing in detail how groups benefit from extensive organization. In his book, he covers the successes of the German Army during World War II, the Texas prison systems, and overcoming the commotion during the 1970s at Carver High School in Atlanta, Georgia. He touts them as the poster children of bureaucratic organization because of the successes they achieved through a greater emphasis on order.

Each group’s superior organization led it to greater success than its contemporaries, especially in the case of Carver High School. When its new principal entered, the establishment was in shambles. He restored the education by first restoring order to the schools. With this in mind, it should be noted that RIT is neither prison nor army, and the circumstances surrounding Carver High School were quite different. Yet we still see a heavy emphasis on order, guidelines, and control in facets of our campus lives.

If we look to the club guidelines, we see a swath of paperwork and rigid rules backed by nonnegotiable definitions. It is a process bound up in oversight and triple-documentation of every step made. It could easily be seen as a daunting process to any aspiring club.

RIT seems to waste time on frivolous goals, as well. The third apartment down from mine in the Riverknoll complex had acquired various objects to use as seats for their multiple rendezvous. It was nothing more than benign furniture, kept next to actual furniture outside. Days later, an email was issued to all residents in the area from Housing Operations stating that the items had to be removed, with implied consequences if they were not. It seems to be a bit too much work for something so ineffectual.

I am not saying that we need to change our policies on extraneous junk in the lawns or the club requirements. They clearly were created to maintain order and decency. However, I would like our campus to feel a little less like it is fighting to preserve order for its own good. As Wilson said in regards to Carver High, “Order was important, but only as a means to an end, not an end in itself.”