What was the most interesting tidbit in the Record this week for any of the leaders of Anchors Away? This:

Schapiro said that the final CUL proposal will be the subject of his monthly conference call with the trustees on March 9, but the decision of whether to implement the system ultimately rests with him and Roseman.

I think that Anchors Away would be well-served to try to involve themselves in this conference call. Since Morty is unlikely to invite them to participate, I think that a single well-written e-mail to each of the Trustees on March 7 would do wonders.

I have covered before the general topic of reaching out to alumni and what Anchors Away should be working on previously. Perhaps now is too soon to reach out to the Trustees, but I think that the correct approach might still work. It would certainly be useful for Anchors Away to start framing the debate.

All of this advice is conditional on the type of report that CUL submits. I see no indication that they are going to submit the sort of report that I have argued elsewhere they should. If this comes to pass, if CUL submits a report that spends most of its time talking about implementation details and very little time talking about the evidence for believing that anchor housing will accomplish its goals, then Anchors Away may have standing for e-mailing the Trustees directly at this stage.

The purpose of the e-mail should not be to complain about the CUL or about anchor housing or about the administration. The purpose would be to point out the complete lack of evidence and reasoning provided by CUL. (Again, if CUL does provide good evidence than an e-mail to the Trustees denying this fact would be a mistake.) The e-mail would ask the Trustees (politely!) to ask for this evidence and reasoning. This is precisely the sort of oversight responsibilities that the Trustees have and take seriously. With luck, this would lead some of the Trustees to ask Morty questions, not about CUL’s conclusions, but about CUL’s evidence, or rather lack thereof.

I am not sure that this is the right tactic. The Trustees do not want to be contacted by students directly too often. But I suspect that, framed as a plea for more evidence and accompanied by a clear overview of how the CUL report provides no evidence, it might be useful.

Of course, if the CUL report is filled with this sort of analysis — as I hope it will be — then my suggestion is moot.

Print  •  Email