On Tuesday evening the Harvard community was blind-sided by an unexpected Crimson article reporting that University Health Services would be terminating its overnight urgent care services after the fall semester in favor of greater accessibility during the day. UHS plans to permanently close Stillman Infirmary, a regular destination for students suffering from a variety of maladies, in June 2015. Since this news broke, there has been an outpouring of grievances from students who worry that they and their peers will no longer have easy 24/7 access to potentially life saving medical attention. Given this strong negative response, it is concerning to say the least that the decision to cut back on overnight services was made with virtually no regard for student opinion.
The restructuring plan clearly has direct implications for student health and safety. Nevertheless, it only became public once the Crimson acquired a copy of an internal email sent to UHS employees late last month. Therefore, at least 10 days after the university had decided to end its provision of overnight medical care, no effort had been made to inform the student body of what was to come. For an institution that repeatedly assures all incoming freshmen that their health is a top priority, this negligence screams hypocrisy.
Worse still, UHS Director Paul J. Barreira admitted that he hadn’t even consulted House masters or resident deans before deciding to restructure. Therefore, not only students but also the faculty closest to them were kept in the dark. In UHS’s defense Barreira claimed that he had heard recurring requests for more accessible daytime care. He must have forgotten to ask these patients whether such an improvement would be worth the sacrifice of after-hours treatment.
Major university decisions, particularly ones with such drastic consequences for student safety, should only be made after consulting the Undergraduate Council and other relevant student organizations. Since the report of Stillman’s planned closure, UC representatives have been left scrambling to initiate dialogue with UHS. The university’s apparent disinterest in outside input despite students’ visible desire for inclusion in the decision making process is cause for concern among those calling for a more accessible administration.
Last month, College Dean Rakesh Khurana came under fire for being insensitive to student sentiment in the wake of widespread death threats sent to members of Harvard’s Asian American community. Khurana accepted the criticism and acknowledged the need for better communication with students. The message seemed clear: the administration would open itself up to the concerns of the student body. However, after the revelation that UHS has decided to significantly alter access to medical care with little regard for popular opinion, it’s obvious that the university has yet to commit itself to much-needed student outreach.
© 2024 Harvard Political Review. All rights reserved.