In July, KAIST announced its new plans for the construction of the KAIST Museum of Art right behind the KAIST Main Library. But unsurprisingly, the news was met not with cheers for the celebration of the arts, but with scathing criticism from the students, leading to an almost immediate backtrack of the plans — for now. Looking back, it is mind-boggling why the university decided to announce the proposal at such sensitive times. Nevertheless, the situation spurred an interesting conversation on the necessity and growth of art on campus. But, more importantly, it brought to light the problems with the communication dynamic between the student body and the institution. 

I doubt there are many students who would not enjoy a new art facility. The stereotype that KAIST students do not appreciate art and culture has been disproven by the increasing number of students taking courses from humanities-focused schools such as Science, Technology, and Policy and Culture Technology. But the school might have wanted to rethink its decision to announce the plans right after students learned that a generous donation of 57 million USD by KAIST Development Foundation Chairman Soo-Young Lee would be given to professors for their research (refer to the related article). Namely, none of the money would be going directly towards the students’ welfare or facilities, despite many unresolved issues. Adding the news of the construction of an undoubtedly expensive new museum was bound to draw the students’ ire. 

All in all, the construction of the art museum felt like a display of incredible tone-deafness for the undergraduates. Many students expressed on social media that the school has not even satisfied the basic educational necessities, most notably a reliable internet on campus in the age of online-exclusive lectures. In fact, the art museum is likely to disturb the academic environment by aggravating the outsider influx problem, another issue currently on the backburner due to COVID-19. 

For the students, it’s difficult to understand how such intense outcries and opinions can go unheard. In the end, social media platforms like Facebook and Everytime are echo chambers of student-only discussion. There is no consistent and open communication channel between the school and the students unless the school takes the initiative, such as the occasional surveys whose results remain unknown to the public.

What about the Undergraduate Association (UA), the purported channel for student opinions? Unfortunately, the UA's credibility in representing the entire student population is being debated in light of some recent controversies. Regardless, relying on a single organization to relay the varied opinions of the public was never a great idea in the first place. A direct channel has to be created to absolve the frustrations that have been building up in the student body, who have been feeling ignored and dismissed on important issues.

That is not to say that the school is shirking its responsibilities. It’s been an amorphous year; the staff and faculty have had to make decisions and implement policies on the fly. The plan for the art museum was likely underway long before the world flipped on its head, and their attempts to reach out for student opinion through a survey on this issue is commendable. Their decision to wait on the construction — though unclear whether student criticisms had any direct impact — shows awareness of the situation, even if delayed.

Yet, we are left to wonder if the school will realize that the problem with the art museum is not related to art or museums at all. What we refer to as the “school” or “KAIST” has no clear subject. It is not a single person or a single department but a collection of relationships and responsibilities spread across individuals. Figuring out how to convey our message to a shapeless entity is no easy feat. But if there is one thing the non-existent art museum has revealed, it is that we need a reliable method of communication before its construction can be met with open arms.