Every good Eph lawyer knows that, in court, you only ask questions that you already know the answer to. Why doesn’t the College poll students on their opinions about anchor housing? Daniel Rosensweig ’08 notes that:
a choice not to poll the students indicates one of 2 things: first, that those in charge don’t care what the poll indicates; or second, that they’re afraid it will reveal overwhelming opposition. If they both cared about the results, and they expected the results to be favorable, then a poll would only serve to validate the system through evidence of widespread campus support.
Exactly correct. The more interesting question is why the 4 student members of the CUL don’t call for a poll. Indeed, as the anchor housing debate winds down, the last unanswered questions concern what those 4, relatively powerful, students request/demand on behalf of their peers. (If I were Anchors Away, I would be privately lobbying them to insist that CUL not institute the plan immediately, that it allow for 6 months of further discussion. If there really is widespread feeling against anchor housing, this feeling could be expressed during the spring College Council elections.)
My sense is that, despite the fact that CUL students like Noah Smith-Drelich ’07 and Karen Untereker ’05 have conducted themselves in an examplarly fashion throughout the debate, they still habour a bit of a we-know-better-than-you attitude. In other words, even if 80% of the students — once being fully informed about CUL’s every-detail-worked-out plan — were still against it, Noah, Karen and the rest of the CUL would still vote to impose it.
CUL knows best.
If I am wrong about this inference, I apologise! In other words, if a substantial majority of (informed) student opinion against the plan would cause Noah and Karen to vote against the plan, then I retract the above. But then Rosensweig’s question stands unanswered. Someone should ask Karen about this tonight . . .