Many students saw the unilateral nature of Pryor's decision this fall just another example of the administration's power over students.

"The dissolution of SAC...in a decision made unilaterally by the director without any consultation of students, sends a clear message: meaningful student input is not welcome," Choi wrote in an e-mail message sent out to the Undergraduate Council e-mail list shortly after Pryor's decision.

Choi is one of the most adamant supporters of student input for a group that is made up of students. She says she is insulted that Pryor did not consult with students--and that he has billed his move as part of the continuing restructuring process.

"If you want to restructure a body, you take their input into consideration before making change," Choi said. "You don't first dissolve the body, then ask for comments. When you proceed without a plan of action, you can't consider it part of a larger restructuring process. This move was not something that had been thought about."

Choi says the problem with student-staff relations was that student input in the organization was being cast aside, with lists of student suggestions disappearing and relations with the staff on a personal level beginning to erode.

"On the whole, we were concerned that our voice in the organization was losing out," Choi says. But when they voiced those concerns, students found the staff unreceptive. "To some extent, this created an atmosphere that the staff found threatening," she says.

At the same time as staff-student tensions rose, campus-wide student involvement in the IOP began to thin out. Attendance at weekly study groups decreased, and both students and staff felt that their mission to inspire students was becoming less successful.