Students’ emails and social media accounts were alight with notifications early this week; #GivingTuesday had begun.
During the campaign, Bradley was gifted $576,460 from 1,692 donors, and all of the reward goals were completed. In addition to alumni, the university asked current students for donations, which received mostly negative feedback from those students. Yik Yak, as it usually is, was filled with pessimistic comments.
There are several possible reasons current students were upset.
The first might come from a misunderstanding of what Giving Tuesday is truly meant to be. The movement was created four years ago to encourage an environment of giving and generosity among all sorts of organizations, not just charities. Other universities besides Bradley have been holding similar fundraising events for Giving Tuesday. Without background knowledge of what Giving Tuesday is, many people might see it as an improper promotion of something that was strictly meant for charity.
Money — and asking for it — is a sensitive issue. In recent years, student loan debt has risen along with college tuition. Many students feel the looming pressure of debt on the horizon, and they feel attacked when asked for money while they’re shelling out so much for their education already.
Beyond that, there seems to be a serious lack of trust in the university among students and faculty. They don’t always trust the university to use their money in ways that will benefit them.
One way the university can alleviate some of this uncertainty is by continuing their social media campaign, which, as of now, shows thank-yous for donations. They can post pictures of the equipment bought with donations or students’ stories of how these specific Giving Tuesday donations were used. If a nursing student gets a stethoscope or a classroom gets a new projector, the university should share those stories.
If students and Bradley community members are familiar with concrete examples of how these funds help real people, they might be more open and generous.
However, the hostile response from students wasn’t productive at all. These comments didn’t create a constructive environment or promote any change, but simply focused on complaining. The university campaign was excellently marketed and designed, if one overlooks the oversaturation of email inboxes.
Students need to be constructive in their criticism. If they want something to improve, they need to suggest some solutions or express in person how it should be changed.
