Tue 8 Dec 2009
Slack’s Goodbye
Posted by wslack under All Things EphBlog, Blather, Uncomfortable Learning at 9:15 am
Readers,
I’m indefinitely suspending my participation in Ephblog. No more Best of the Records, no more letters, and no more reflections, effective now.
I also suspended posting activity last year, from November ’08 through January ’09 after a particularly riling piece posted here, though I never announced it.
David’s mocking “conclusions” below, reached through assumption, are the proverbial straw that has broken this camel’s back. While I appreciate Dave’s long thought and work that has enabled my own reflection on Williams, the fact remains that by posting on this blog, I add my own legitimacy to “Kaneblog,” as said by Professor Sam Crane, and I can’t do that anymore for two reasons. First, association with Ephblog personally makes my life more difficult on campus, as I have to consistently disassociate myself from other content here, especially in the many conversations I have about school policy in a variety of groups. I’m tired of people worrying that I’m on-the-record for Ephblog during a regular conversation. Second, I don’t know of a stronger way to convey the harm that such posts do beyond this action. They are anything but constructive, and instead of fostering the discussion that I value so much, they undermine it.
I know that Ephblog does many useful things. It informs alums of on-campus/off-campus news, it posts links to Williams related articles, and it provides a forum for reflection and discussion between alumni and current students. I have literally tried for months to get the Record to add a blog that could do the above, but the paper is well-attached to tried-and-true methods of journalism that preclude such a medium. That’s understandable.
I stayed largely because I believe the ~1,500 of you that read this everyday from Williamstown, Oklahoma, California, Washington, Texas, Minnesota and more should have good content, which I believed I helped to provide, but I can’t justify that any longer. I apologize for leaving so abruptly, but I’m sure about my choice. If I choose to start another blog, which is likely, I’ll let one of the other posters know about it in case that’s of interest.
I may visit occasionally to chime in, but don’t expect to see too much of me. Thanks for reading and commenting for more than two years, and a happy holiday season to you all.
Print
• Email
| « Discuss Magazine | Richard T. Antoun ’53, RIP » |
70 Responses to “Slack’s Goodbye”
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post
If a comment you submitted does not show up, please email us at eph at ephblog dot com. Please note that commenters are required to use a valid email address when submitting comments.
frank uible says:
Personally I’m resigning from the human race. Where do I surrender my key to the cellar door? Do I get a prorated refund for dues paid in advance?
December 8th, 2009 at 9:25 amDavid says:
1) Thanks to Will for his many wonderful contributions to EphBlog. He will be missed! We would welcome him back at any time.
2) The conflict between the role of EphBlog-author and student-working-with-administrators/groups is a real one, alas. Will’s decision makes perfect sense in this context. There are administrators/groups who hate EphBlog and, therefore, distrust any student too closely associated with us. I find that pathetic but there is little that Will can do about it.
3) I find the “KaneBlog” discussion above less persuasive. Assume that I dropped dead. Assume that, instead of me linking to that WSO announcement, it was Ronit. Instead of my comments on the announcement, assume that Ronit wrote:
First, note that this is not a hypothetical. Ronit said all those things in the comment thread. Second, as best I can tell, Ronit and my opinions on this topic are indistinguishable, at least from the point of view someone like “class of ’78” and others who object to any meaningful criticisms of the QSU on this topic. Third, Ronit and I are not alone in these views. There are a (small? large?) number of students/alumni who feel the same, who think that homophobia/sexism is far, far down the list of things, ranked by importance, that need fixing at Williams.
Just because I/Ronit/others believe that doesn’t make it true, but the issue is: Should that voice be included in the Williams Conversation? I think it should. I think (?!) that Will feels the same.
The problem, and this is the guts of my complaint to someone like Sam Crane, is that there are large portions of the Williams community who disagree, who don’t think that these opinions should be voiced at all. The “KaneBlog” accusation is an underhanded means of marginalizing opposing/unpopular views.
Fortunately, Williams has a long history of “uncomfortable learning,” in the spirit of Robert Gaudino. Stand by for another helping.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:26 amPTC says:
Will- Sorry to see you leave man. I understand why you are doing it… but I do not agree that it is worth giving up this widely read forum because DK posts nonsense sometimes. There is a service that guys like David and myself provide, and that is putting out subject matter that might be uncomfortable for ephs…
DK might be wrong, but he is certainly not alone or even in the minority when it comes to many of his views. I bet the majority of Americans reading about the sit in would have a snide reaction to it. Ephs should face that head on, outside of the purple bubble, in my opnion. Those who view you with suspicion because you happen to debate others in this forum obviously have no clue what you post about here, and your “angle” in this space. You are communicating outside of the boundaries of the school. That is what makes them uncomfortable. They are wrong.
Anyhow man take it easy. Have a great time in school. You have been an oustanding contributor to this forum.
Best wishes- PTC
December 8th, 2009 at 9:32 amrory says:
@David: stay classy, david! Instead of defending, why not consider whether they were helpful/necessary/valuable. So they weren’t “beyond the pale” (as though everything Ronit believes/touches is gold…or myself, or anyone) of everyone else. They were enough to push will, who has been a very patient and thoughtful member of ephblog, over the edge. They were the straw that broke the camel’s back. Instead of defending the individual act (“but those words weren’t that bad!”) contemplate the larger picture Will presented. He didn’t say they were homophobic or inappropriate, but rather did not further the conversation (due, likely, to the condescending tone and self-righteousness of them). I thought you were all about the williams conversation?
will–many of us have left, come back, left, come back. It’s sad to see you go as you’ve been a wonder author and member…but i completely understand your decision. thanks for what you’ve offered, and don’t worry about us–worry about enjoying williams as much/best you can. If you miss blogging about williams, do it under another site and send us a link!
December 8th, 2009 at 9:35 amPTC says:
Dave- You and I cross posted. It is not a matter of what you say… it is the sense that Williams does not want to hear it. That has been a major frustration for townies over the years. The school does not mix well with others or confront topics that it can ingore through controlling the dialogue.
No one has commented on my post about the students doing a research paper on B&L gas station. I think that is too bad… but again, Williams’ monopoly over the town and gentrification is a topic the school would no doubt like to avoid and control.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:41 amDavid says:
And that is the rub. We are talking about opinions that are widely held by members of the Williams community. You do not think that those opinions should be voice, either at EphBlog, WSO or, goodness forbid, any webpage under the williams.edu domain.
And that is where we differ.
Indeed, I am. Do the views that I/Ronit expressed in that post belong in the Williams Conversation?
December 8th, 2009 at 9:48 amJeffZ says:
Will, sorry to see you go. Thanks for your many contributions. Especially sorry to see the only regular student poster depart. No matter how many wonderful contributors, and many in addition to Will are missed, and no matter how many take long hiatuses in disgust, David will never get it, and that is a shame. He sees the world through the lense of conservative persecution, and there can never be any other reasonable explanation why someone might find participation in this blog embarassing or frustrating: certainly not the frequent tone of certain regulars on this blog (embittered, persecuted, petulant teenagers), the ENDLESS repetition of certain themes / arguments, the obsessive negativity, the constant goal post shifting / refusal to engage in honest debate / refusal to ever concede a point, the feeling of omniscience given off despite no current direct connection to campus, the frequent confusion of “uncomfortable learning” [a laudable goal] with “coming across like an arrogant jackass” [less-so].
I am sad to see so many frequent contributors who I enjoy depart and rarely return ((d)avid, junior mom, larry george, will, I am sure I am forgetting some other members of the Ephblog graveyard), with nary a hint of recognition that something OTHER than anti-conservative bias may, just may, be at play, something that conceivable could be corrected. It is, again, especially sad to lose someone whose connection to campus and status as a CURRENT student served as a bit of a reality check. But alas, nothing is going to change. I am not going to depart because I enjoy more aspects of the blog than I find frustrating, but I am empathetic to those who have chosen to do so. I only hope that Will and the others decide, like Dick in his return, decide they can contribute more via their presence than their absence, because unfortunately, the threat, or reality, of such absence will change nothing in the attitudes of those who remain, and the blog will, in the aggregate, just become more repetitive, divorced from the reality of campus life, joyless, and extremist.
December 8th, 2009 at 9:59 amJeffZ says:
PTC, please don’t insert (as you are prone to do) your own agenda here, which has nothing to do will Will’s departure. I and others have engaged (or attempted to engage, because debate with you on these topics is often extremely frustrating for reasons that have been discussed ad infinitum) at GREAT depth and length with you on town-gown issues. Just because we don’t choose to do so every single day does not mean those issues are ignored on this blog or on campu.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:01 amRonit says:
Will – I am sorry to see you go. Do you intend to cease participation on WSO as well? I believe some of the QSU’s statements have come in for mockery on WSO.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:03 amJeffZ says:
Ronit and David, The QSU post is not the sole reason for Will’s leaving, as he clearly stated, but rather the “straw that broke the camel’s back.” That discussion really can’t be viewed in isolation. Were it some sort of outlier, obviously it wouldn’t be an issue. Will has proven to be, without any doubt, a fair-minded and reasonable contributor to this blog, and if his departure doesn’t set off a few bells, I am not sure what will.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:10 amephling says:
I would guess, and have no stats to back it up, that EphBlog (which I find informative and useful while my child is there) is over 90% an alumni site and hard for almost all current students, teachers, parents, or administrators to be involved with. I think that is by design so Caveat Emptor to any passerby who thinks it looks inviting. Sort of an attractive nuisance, if you will like that unfenced swimming pool in your neighbors’ yard on a really hot summer’s day. One of the main issues is the insistence by many on using real names to prove ones bona fides (or the size of their…). The dialog would be greatly enhanced IMO if everyone, other than David, used a pen name, thus allowing those with something to protect the ability to engage without potential repercussions. Given that Williams, also by design, does such a bad job of keeping its community informed EphBlog should blossom, but that is not the point, and that’s ok. I have a great deal of respect for the rights of the guy who pays the freight.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:17 amBrandi '07 says:
Damn, David, you just lost on of your best bloggers. I read that Will was leaving on Twitter last night and wondered WTF happened. I don’t even know Will but he seems like a nice, even handed guy and, more importantly, HE STILL F’ING GOES TO WILLIAMS.
Damn shame.
FAIL, DK, EPIC FAIL.
Will, do you have a blog of your own?
December 8th, 2009 at 10:19 amrory says:
@David: “due, likely, to the condescending tone and self-righteousness of them”
it is not the message, but rather the tone that seems to have lost yet another member of ephblog to the ether. conservative viewpoints don’t scare us non-conservatives away, conservative jackassery pushes us away.
@Ronit: cmon…really?
@ephling: plenty of people do use pennames (especially those who started posting while at williams). and ephblog’s had…problems…in the past with some anonymous pen names, fwiw.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:23 amRonit says:
@ephling:
1. No reason you should know this, but small correction: actually about 22% of our visitors come from the Williamstown area; I would guess most of these are current students, faculty, and staff.
2. David Kane no longer pays the freight in any meaningful sense. He used to, and has undoubtedly invested some money and a great deal of time to build the site up. However, he does not provide the hosting (Ken Thomas does), and the ephblog.com domain is not registered to him (it is registered by me on behalf of the board, of which David is not a member). The software EphBlog runs on is free.
3. I kind of understand your point about pen names as it affects current students; it is pathetic that anyone at Williams would treat Will differently because he is involved with EphBlog. One wonderful thing about graduation is the ability to speak freely without fearing repercussions from the Williams administration. I recommend it highly.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:27 amJeffZ says:
Ephling, I disagree. I think that it makes perfect sense (and is probably better, actually) for parents of current students to use a pen name. I also understand why current students would want to use a pen name. Who knows, maybe Will or other students will be more inclined to post if they aren’t seen as campus pariahs for doing so.
But I really see no reason for alums to be anonymous. I feel like anonymity allows people to say nasty, scurrilous, or other problematic things without taking responsibility. Alumnni don’t have any inside info that would require anonymity. Also, and I speak from experience as one of the most prolific posters and someone whose best friends tend to be Ephs, no one outside of the Ephblog or Williams on-campus community is going to care or comment about what you say on Ephblog, on the off chance that they even happen to read it. In four or five years or whatever it is that I’ve been regularly posting hear, I’ve received not one comment off-line about anything I’ve said from anyone who is not a regular Ephblog participant.
Will, there may be no way to address your (totally justifiable) concerns about how your participation is viewed on campus. Were I a student during the blogging era, I likely would have done the same thing. But as I talked about above, I am afraid that (as I’m sure the others who have quit or threatened to quit will tell you) quitting won’t change the tone of this blog (indeed, the responses to date only show a hardening of views on that front), but will lead to a far greater balance away from actual campus news and towards an inflamatory, often inaccurate, perspective on campus life. Again, I don’t blame you, but it saddens me.
December 8th, 2009 at 10:31 amDavid says:
Rory writes:
The problem is that you define every Williams conservative you know as, at least on occasion, engaging in “jackassery.” Consider some examples: Me, Dan Blatt ’85, William Bennett ’65, Wendy Shalit ’97, Mike Needham ’04, Oren Cass ’05 and on and on. These are all people who you would describe (or have described) as “jackassery” at least on occasion. Can you name a single Eph conservative that you wouldn’t direct this accusation against? If not, then the (main) problem does not lie in the jackassery actions of any specific conservative but in your attitude to all conservatives.
Brandi: I am sad to see Will go. I hope (and expect) that he will return. But, as I have said on many occasions, authors come and authors go. EphBlog is more successful — more readers, more authors, more posts, more comments, a greater diversity of topics and opinions — now then it has ever been in the past.
Ronit: I don’t think that your question about WSO to Will is fair. The people he wants to work with at Williams (mainly tenured faculty and administrators) often (but not always!) hate EphBlog and wish it would go away. They don’t like that Will participates here and will be glad to see him leave. But those same folks don’t really care about WSO, so Will’s participation there is irrelevant.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:00 amrory says:
@David: as kthomas put it so eloquently recently: OVERSIMPLIFIED!!!
(I also would never compare what Mike Needham’s said/written in front of me to the jackassery that pushed will out. nope. I know Mike Needham, you sir, are no Mike Needham.)
December 8th, 2009 at 11:02 amDick Swart says:
My colleague Will Slack is leaving EphBlog.
I have enjoyed his first-person campus reporting, his views as a current student on the issues of the day, and most of all, his writing style and ease with wordsmithing. Will has provided much-needed contributions to a blog filled with oft-times repetitive scrawlings from the usual suspects.
As I understand his reasons, they include the specifics of writings and attitudes on this blog and the resultant view of himself as a representative on campus of these views by his classmates and peers.
I believe that this message needs to be taken to heart by those of us who are responsible for the quality of writing, the tone of our attitudes, and the ultimate belief that there is a line beyond which the blog ceases to be a reporter and ‘The Queens Loyal Opposition’ and becomes an active and virulent disease inflicting damage rather than constructive criticism on Williams and the Williams family.
Will, thank you for the time you have taken to add a fresh, informed, responsible, and entertaining point of view to EphBlog.
I will miss your writings.
Dick Swart 1956
December 8th, 2009 at 11:11 amPresident
EphBlog
ebaek says:
I always thought not using a pen name would add more credibility and responsibility for anything I write on here… I can see how that can sometimes lead to the “social pariah” effect for the current student writers if the readers believed that every writer agreed with every post on the blog, but I think that most readers see this is not quite the case.
But I know I’ve already been approached by students on campus who read my posts or comments on this website (some positive, some negative..) so I can’t imagine all the pressure on a more active student writer.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:14 amNeil says:
I call for an investigation. Clearly there is a significant issue when frequent contributors leave frequently in frustration, many never to return.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:18 amHenry Bass says:
Emerson said something to the effect that folks like him were often not pretty sights “in parlors and salons”. Emerson was not invited to Wiliams (after he had shocked Boston with his free thinking) by the administration or philosophy dept. He was invited to Williams by a bunch of students out of favor with the faculty, a bunch of eph blog types.
David Kane has always welcomed my own dissident views. He ran the essays of the class of ’57 in our 50th reunion book of those who began the movement to end fraternities. Most recently he allowed me to raise the question of Martha Coakley’s lack of courage on the Amirault case.
I do not agree with Dave Kane on lots of things. I don’t particiapate in threads I find a bit too acrimonous. But, free speech means speech that would be out of place in parlors and salons. Like Emerson I support speech that is out of place in parlors and salons.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:24 amDavid says:
Mike Needham has written a lot of great stuff. You would not object to, say, this?
When I use terms like “thought police,” “fundamental hostility” and “poltically correct,” you are quick to accuse me of jackassery. (Your latest complaint was my overuse of “star chamber.”)
I would certainly grant that, on average, Needham is a more measured, less inflammatory writer than I am. But it is trivial for me to find numerous examples where Needham writes in a way that, if I put it under my byline, you would be quick to attack the jackassery you see in every seriously made conservative argument.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:26 amWhitney Wilson '90 says:
Will,
Thanks for all of your posts over the years. You have really brought a lot to EphBlog and you will be missed. (On the other hand, from afar it appears as though you have a lot on your plate, so hopefully whatever extra time you gain will be used for fun/relaxation/sleep?). I hope you will be back from time to time.
I do have a personal request. Would it be possible for you to post campus-wide communications from senior administrators (like the ones about the recent common room vandalism) here at EphBlog, even without commentary, or a least send them to another author so they can be posted here?
Thanks again Will.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:26 amRonit says:
@Henry Bass: Thanks for the Emerson quote. Did not know about him coming to Williams.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:33 amJeffZ says:
Second Whitney’s request.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:35 amAidan says:
I think everyone should be assigned to watch PCU
I agree with David – we need to stop the creation of yet another tranche of persons about which nothing critical can ever be voiced. I hate claims to special experience. I’m not an airline pilot, and I can tell when my pilot does a great job on the landing. (Looking at you, Chesley Sullenberger.) I think this sort of lazy solipcism has no place in a great educational community, and we would all do well to be more critical about ourselves.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:38 amSam says:
Again, as someone who can speak for “someone like Sam Crane” (obviously an odious and dangerous lot): Kaneblog – best to leave him sitting in a corner jackassering to himself…
December 8th, 2009 at 11:41 amAnd I will consult with my friends in philosophy and English but I suspect they will agree that he is no Emerson….
JeffZ says:
There is a wide middle between the politically correct atmosphere that, certainly, infects some campuses and stifles productive dialogue (Williams included to some degree, probably, although WSO is a great forum that seems to showcase a wide range of perspectives), on the one hand, and the vitriolic and mean-spirited nature of some of the commentary and dialogue at Ephblog, on the other. No doubt, finding the perfect equilibrium between stifling political correctness and an utter lack of sensitivity is no easy task, but I do wish that Ephblog would at least strive a bit towards that middle ground. Maybe impossible, but hey, a guy can dream.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:43 amrory says:
@David: “Needham is a more measured, less inflammatory writer than I am.”
compare the long, unnecessary quote you added to a thread that’s supposed to be about will that compares you and mike needham to what you recently wrote (and what you generally write). If one were to choose one of the two as “jackassery”, which would it be? I thought Mike (in what you quoted) made a reasonable argument in a respectful tone. I disagree, but it’s reasonable and respectful.
Clearly, will and I both believe what you’ve written is neither. I’d say take that for what it’s worth, but it isn’t worth much in your eyes, i believe.
I disagree with Mike, but his tone was of thoughtful argumentation, not condescending mockery. He makes some poor arguments and some good ones, but all in the tone of trying to engage with respect. I’ve come to expect that of Mike in general and the few times you get condescenion and/or mockery, it’s the exception that proves the rule. Mike has earned himself more patience by me by being generally a respectful and respecting writer. You have not. it is what it is. Your writing style and his are world’s apart.
Please, let’s drop this. It’s tangential.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:43 amRonit says:
@Sam: Sadly, very few of us are Emerson. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people I know who are Emerson.
(Was that too vitriolic or extremist? Sorry.)
December 8th, 2009 at 11:50 amNeil says:
Emerson took no pride in being inflammatory although some perceived that way. David seems to choose it for effect. I can’t see how it can be construed as respectful to readers. It’s also manipulative to frame an argument as an even handed study of an issue. The issue here is not free speech, it’s far more. I afraid that for David, it’s all party and a party first. And if you’re not having a good time, you can leave.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:51 amDavid says:
Jeff: “the vitriolic and mean-spirited nature of some of the commentary and dialogue at Ephblog”
I can’t speak for everyone at EphBlog, but which of my posts over the last year or so would you describe as “vitriolic and mean-spirited?” Feedback is always welcome. (And note that I have not posted about person X since you and I had an e-mail conversation about it last summer.)
I don’t think that anything that I have written was anywhere near as “vitriolic” as your attack on Harry Jackson ’75. Not that there is anything wrong with that! We need more posts from people who strongly disagree with Jackson. The more open debate with a wide diversity of views, the better.
But, strangely enough, folks like Professor Sam Crane have no problems with the “nature” of your post about Jackson. Why do you think that might be? (To be fair, Rory attacked you for criticizing a black man. Can’t have that!)
December 8th, 2009 at 11:53 amSam says:
Jackasseration?
December 8th, 2009 at 11:55 amNeil says:
@David: … just as I feared defensiveness. Nothing will change.
December 8th, 2009 at 11:59 amJeffZ says:
David, I think it is telling that, whenever I am critical of the tone at Ephblog (and really, the only three people who are not banned from posting that I’ve ever been critical of, I believe, in this regard are you, HWC, and DCat), you point to the SAME SINGLE post out of my hundreds and hundreds of posts. I dispute that even that post is as nasty as many of your posts and comments that a large number of posts have been critical of, but assuming, arguendo, that it is, (1) two wrongs don’t make a right, and (2) that is ONE POST. In all events, I make the following pledge: if a regular poster, especially a current student, ever quits Ephblog citing me as part of the reason, I will at the very least take a hard, introspective look at my volume, tenor, substance, and style of posting. Maybe I’d change, maybe not, but it would at least give me pause.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:01 pmRonit says:
I think it’s nice that Will and Sam use the term Kaneblog to refer to this site, when Kane does not own the site, does not own the domain, does not own the server, does not run the site, does not have any kind of final editorial authority, and is not on the board. That is really fucking respectful to all the dozens of other commenters and authors who participate here and who have contributed to the site over the years. I’m glad the opinions of people like Henry Bass and Aidan Finley can be dismissed simply because they’re posted on EphBlog (I’m sorry, “KaneBlog”) and they happen to disagree with the latest sacred (purple?) cows.
I’m sure the many people from all over the world who are posting thoughtful tributes in the thread immediately above this one are heartbroken that Sam and Will have withdrawn their august legitimacy from the site and thereby diminished everyone else’s contributions.
How’s that for vitriol?
December 8th, 2009 at 12:06 pmDavid says:
Professor Crane writes:
“[T]o himself?”
Hmmm. I think that Sam may have forgotten the relevant link when it comes to sitting in a corner . . .
Unlike some blogs, we make our statistics public.
Jeff: Although it is fair to note that your Jackson post is just one post, I think that as a percentage of your writing, it is similar to my problematic percentage. I write more vitriolic stuff than you (by assumption) but I also write more non-vitriolic stuff. So, our think that our percentage of vitriol is similar.
(Needless to say, I love all your stuff and greatly appreciate your many contributions to EphBlog.)
And, again, can you cite some specific examples from 2009? As new readers may not know, I wrote much more vitriolic/objectionable stuff pre-2008 say. It has been feedback from you and other regulars that caused me to change things. So, opinions and actions (like Will’s departure) do “give me pause.”
December 8th, 2009 at 12:11 pmNeil says:
Good to know. I must go. See you all later.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:19 pmSam says:
@Ronit: no disrespect intended. But, face it, Kane undermines all that you try to accomplish here. You do good work but the the jackassifying effects of Kaneblog continue to drag down the best efforts of Ephblog….
December 8th, 2009 at 12:21 pmHenry Bass says:
Ronit,
In 1956 the students and faculty on the lecture committee invited Thurgood Marshall to lecture at Williams 2 years after his historic victory in Brown vs. Board of education. At the Faculty Club party before Marshall’s speech Fred Rudolph, eph historian, came up to the students on the committee and congratulated us for being in the tradiution to the dissident students who had invited Emerson to Williamstown a century earlier. The Emerson visit is all in Rudolph’s book.
Incidently, we invited 20 or so blacks from Berkshire chapter of NAACP to attend the party for Marshall. Several faculty members told us this was the first integrated affair at the Williams Faculty Club and that there were southern members of the Williams faculty who were sure to be angry when they found out. There has been some progress in Ephdom over the past 55 years.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:26 pmJeffZ says:
DK, I am not going to go through your posts and pick out the ones I find problematic, it is just too much effort; you’d probably be able to guess, and really, it is more of an aggregate affect in certain arenas. And I do appreciate the specific changes you’ve made, like no longer using specific students or prospectives as a jumping-off point for a critical rant. You have received more than ample feedback, from many sources, about those posts, in any event. I am glad to hear Will’s departure gives you pause. I certainly hope, at the very least, that he will return to Ephblog once he approaches graduation, or has already graduated. It does sadden me that anyone on campus would ever attribute anything written on Ephblog to anyone but the author of that particular comment or post, but there is nothing Will can do about that, alas.
December 8th, 2009 at 12:35 pmclass of '78 says:
Why, as at the very most an intermittent reader of this blog, do I feel such a strong sense of deja vu? I doubt I have looked in here within the last six months, yet I am sure I have stumbled upon a similar set of events here before, and circulating around the postings of the same author(s). Tell me if I am wrong, I would be glad to hear it, but is there some kind of recurring pattern happening?
December 8th, 2009 at 12:55 pmJr. Mom says:
Will,
You will be sorely missed. You have contributed so much great stuff here. Thanks for all of it.
And don’t let the sarcasm (and manipulative comments) about your reasoning get to you. It seems as if freedom of speech is a quite handy thing when it justifies “the ability to speak freely without fearing repercussions from the Williams administration”, but not so welcome when it means speaking your mind about EphBlog.
Stay in touch, please.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:08 pmhwc says:
IMO, the most problematic thing about Ephblog is the amount of time spent complaining about DKane’s posts. The readers of this blog should appreciate the effort that goes into a front-page post with links and references. Even if it goes against “accepted political dogma”, it’s still a point of departure for conversation. You can disagree with a post and still enjoy reading it.
What is really tiresome are the vitriolic ad hominem attacks. Professor Crane. We get it. You despise David Kane. We figured that out.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:10 pmRonit says:
@Jr. Mom: since you quoted me, PLEASE point out where I or anyone else said Will shouldn’t speak his mind about EphBlog.
I just happen to disagree with some of what he says about EphBlog. That is all. It is my freedom of speech that allows me to say that I (strongly) disagree. No one has mentioned censoring Will for his views here.
I mean, I know, at some point in the past I offended you and now you have to see a double standard and a hidden agenda behind everything I say, but there really is no double standard here.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:14 pmGuy Creese '75 says:
I certainly post less these days, and that’s not an accident. The frequently snarky tone of Ephblog gets to me. So even though David Kane is no longer “responsible” for Ephblog, I think his argumentative, tit-for-tat, “Williams is really screwed up” tone continues through others. The previous comments on this post are an example.
For a short time I tried to counteract that with more postings on Williams history and alums, but eventually going against the tide grinds you down.
I’m probably naive, but I think Williams deserves a gentler blog–one that takes the college to task when it veers off course–but at the same time realizes that in the grand scheme of things Williams does a pretty good job. Put another way, Williams may be screwed up, but most other colleges are a lot more screwed up.
I will continue to read Ephblog–enjoying the intermittent posts about alums and Williams history and ignoring the frequent over-the-top arguments about how many angels are dancing on a pin. I just wish the proportions were reversed.
December 8th, 2009 at 1:32 pmJeffZ says:
Wait a second, did HWC just complain about someone ELSE’s tiresome vitriol? … stiffling guffaws …
December 8th, 2009 at 1:37 pmrory says:
@David: wow. i’m speechless. did you notice where jeff and i actually, you know, discussed my criticism constructively in that post? lol.
ronit–the term “kaneblog” has existed for a while now and has had a specific connotation (David’s ideological views and condescending tone overwhelming the williams-ness of the blog, if you will) that was, at least originally, intended to try to create in some people’s minds the idea that there is good from ephblog–even when people disagree on something–and then there is kaneblog, an entirely different organism. Ironically, I believe it was Aidan who first used the term (i found one from “aidan’s conscience” in 2004…didn’t find anything earlier in a quick search).
December 8th, 2009 at 1:54 pmhwc says:
I know how you feel. I deleted all my blogs about accredition reports and Amherst’s budget cuts. I haven’t even considered posting a new blog, even as the annual reports from all of the top liberal arts colleges have been released over the last month.
It just ain’t worth it.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:06 pmJeffZ says:
HWC, I really don’t understand you. Your continuous stream of negative commentary, sarcasm, patronizing remarks, and attacks on Williams and its students are by FAR the thing about this blog that frustrates me the most, much more than anything DK has ever done. These types of comments come and go in waves, but lately, there has been a pretty intense wave of those comments. For awhile I tried to ignore them, then I got so annoyed that I started responding, but I am going to, henceforth, return to ignoring them because there is no point. You must be the lest self-aware person on Earth if you think OTHERS on this blog are nasty, tiresome, and vitriolic, but don’t see that common thread uniting much of your own commentary.
On the other hand, what IS valuable, what I and many others DO look forward to, are your excellent, thoughtful, informative, in-depth posts on accredidation reports, budget cuts, college finances, and the like. Why you’d continue with the former, but cease the latter, then express concern about the tone of this blog, is absolutely unfathomable and mind-blowing to me. My jaw just about dropped from your few comments on this thread. If you genuinely want to contribute towards making Ephblog better, I respectfully request that you devote the time and energy you take to bashing Williams and those associated with it with a stream of snide remarks to your far more valuable series of posts that you have strangely foresaken (and which, if I recall, almost always received very positive feedback).
December 8th, 2009 at 2:21 pmJeffZ says:
Oh and Guy, I hope you will reconsider as well; your posts were also excellent, and are missed.
December 8th, 2009 at 2:30 pmAidan says:
I do believe I should get credit for “KaneBlog.”
But seriously – I really believe EphBlog is a true voice of Williams, which is, at times, a fractious, boistrous, and argumentative commmunity.
At least, I’ve always thought so.
Cf. Wm Blake: “opposition is true friendship.”
December 8th, 2009 at 2:43 pmWhitney Wilson '90 says:
HWC: Your posts on accredition reports, finances, etc. are most appreciated, particularly with your informed commentary.
As much as I like Jeff and his many excellent posts and passionate comments, I disagree with him that your criticisms of Williams are unwelcome. I loved my time at Williams, but, like everyone here – including, I assume, Jeff – realize that its not perfect. Its good to have a consistent critic to help us look at Williams from a different perspective.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:00 pmJeffZ says:
I know you disagree Whitney, but lots of folks (many of whom have, unfortunately, been driven away) consistently express their vehement agreement with me on this point — NOT based on critiquing Williams (plenty of others do on this blog, like PTC, DK, etc.), which I think is totally fine, and I even at times agee with some of DK’s critiques, but with the unrelenting stream of sarcastisc, bile-filled, vitriolic nastiness, the refusal (unlike DK) to EVER have anything unqualified and positive to say about the school or its students, alums or employees. It is just unbecoming and puerile in my view. But, I am going to return to doing my damndest to simply ignoring it rather than feeding the troll.
You disagree, Whitney, I know (which I find odd and discouraging considering how gentlemanly you always are in your criticisms or commentary), but believe me, I am not alone, although at the rate things are going, I soon will be. Still, notwithstanding all that, I find it troubling that HWC would abandon what I think we all agree are his most productive and thoughtful contributions to this blog, something no one else here has the energy or knowledge to duplicate.
December 8th, 2009 at 3:17 pmWhitney Wilson '90 says:
Jeff, certainly among the “commenting” class here, I appear to be in the minority on HWC’s criticisms of Williams and, more specifically, the dominent social cultures at Williams. HWC’s comments simply doesn’t rub me the wrong way in the same way they do for others. Lucky for me, I guess. It is kind of ironic, because I suspect that I was the type of Williams student often singled out for criticism.
December 8th, 2009 at 4:02 pmeph'10 says:
Get lives all of you. Will stop being so righteous (if it’s the administration putting pressure on you I take this back). Professor Crane I would expect a more mature posting from someone like yourself – you check ephblog too frequently for someone who dismisses it as regularly as you do. No doubt DK should more often than not stand for Donkey Kong rather than David Kane. Still your opinions wrt ephblog are solely derogatory and concerned with David. Just move on for Christ’s sake – if you think it’s so worthless why do you keep coming back?
December 8th, 2009 at 4:06 pmJr. Mom says:
Whitney, I find this statement of yours interesting but wonder if you could elaborate. Singled out for criticism by whom? And what type of student would that be?
December 8th, 2009 at 4:28 pmSam says:
@eph’10: I come back because I do not want Kane’s assaults on various aspects of the college to stand, in the minds of some, as somehow representative of the community here. We have a long history (before you arrived at Williams, if you are, indeed, a ’10), going back to at least the time when he publicly, and falsely, suggested that one of my colleagues had uttered a racist epithet, a suggestion that was not appreciated by that person or faculty generally. And on and on it has gone in incorrigible repetition. Yes, over the years, I have grown tired, and perhaps lazy, and now can only muster the occasional snark. I should refrain. And perhaps he should stop invoking the loathsome “someone like Sam Crane.” But I’ll go first…and stop….
December 8th, 2009 at 5:32 pmfrank uible says:
Cool it! Do you morons know what is important in life? EphBlog is only a sorry ass, fuckin’ blog – for Christ’s sake. It amounts to less than a fart in a tornado.
December 8th, 2009 at 5:57 pmephling says:
The problem with fostering an environment that forces students and faculty to disengage is that EphBlog then loses most of its’ firsthand and timely information. You can say you will not miss Will or that students come and go but the reality is he is pretty much the only source of “inside” scoop the site has. There are so many things that happen at the school that may or may not have a real impact on issues being discussed that the site never hears about. I think the tenor of EphBlog echoes the position that Professor Susan Dunn puts forward so well in her Times editorial.
“Yes, we need some consensus and unity in our society — we must have a fundamental agreement about our constitutional system itself, and we must agree about citizens’ rights and freedoms. But there is something almost regressive in longing for more unity than that, for it suggests a dreamy nostalgia for an imaginary golden age of well-being and security in the bosom of a harmonious, loving family.
It may be comforting to believe that consensus and unity are somehow healthier, more noble, less disruptive and destructive than sharp partisan battles. But it is the rough-and-tumble game of adversarial politics that preserves our freedom. Three cheers for disunity!”
Current students can not hold up for long under the criticism they receive (at least that seems the case for the couple of years I have been viewing) for being involved here and that is a shame. It is too much of a full contact sport. As an aside I do remember an age of well-being and security in the bosom of a harmonious and loving family and so do my children. I feel for anyone who was denied that.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:04 pmephling says:
Washington Post…sorry.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:06 pmDick Swart says:
As unfortunate as it is. only 10 of the 61 comments to date have recognized the very real contributions that Will has made to EphBlog.
For some reason, the other 51 have started another downward spiral best described as “them steadily depressin’, low-down, mind-messin’, working at the carwash blues”.
In soggy shoes,
Dick
December 8th, 2009 at 6:34 pmhwc says:
At EphBlog, it is only considered appropriate to complain about posts and posters.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:41 pmanonsunited says:
hwc– Your posts on budgets, accreditation reports, etc. were very useful and appreciated. They are exactly the kind of things I wish there was more of on this blog. Just because they didn’t get 40 bitchy comments doesn’t mean they weren’t read.
Will– Your perspective as a current student was also most appreciated and useful. It will be missed.
December 8th, 2009 at 6:57 pmJay says:
I certainly appreciate Will taking as much time as he has to post to Ephblog – his comments have been valuable – I’m not sure about how any one poster here really bestows “legitimacy” to the site though…
But why not just post under a pen name? Wouldn’t that solve the problem of people associating you with the blog?
I don’t post under my real/full name. Commenting here is just a hobby, and one I don’t care to share with anyone who googles my name. Why not do the same?
But that would only solve half of the problem though, the other being the sometimes melodramatic meta discussion that happens so often here regarding DK.
December 8th, 2009 at 7:06 pmDick Swart says:
@Jay:
Perhaps if the ‘mesas’ were better handled, the ‘metas’ would take care of themselves.
http://www.gwiztraining.com/Whats%20the%20opposite%20of%20meta.pdf
December 8th, 2009 at 7:27 pmJr. Mom says:
Whitney:
Not sure why you haven’t responded to my query @57. I asked, because I would honestly like clarification.
Because, if you are presenting yourself as the “type of student” who might be “singled out for criticism” by HWC (or even EB, for that matter), that runs quite the gamut; from those “fasting for climate change”, to those staging a “sit-in at Hardy House” to the “neanderthals” who play particular Varsity sports, to students like Will Slack, who “complain about posts and posters”. Which were you?
Surely, for someone who admires the “consistent critic” who helps us to “look at Williams from a different perspective”, my simple question should not pose much of a challenge. Just try and adopt the same viewpoint with me that you grant HWC. Think of me as someone who views EB as “not perfect”, a “consistent critic” who helps you to “look at EB from a different perspective”.
If, in the interest of avoiding “meta” discussion, you don’t want to answer me here, please feel free to answer me privately. You can get my email from DK, or from the back of the site. I look forward to hearing from you.
December 9th, 2009 at 12:51 amkimi says:
Will,
I have truly enjoyed your posts on ephblog and will miss your participation here. I read this blog because (especially during a year away) it is a good source of information on all things eph. But I understand your decision to leave and share the sentiment that it is perhaps time for a new and improved blog by ephs about ephs :). Please let us know if this happens..
As for DK, I don’t know if he realizes that the post that “broke the camels back” is so offensive because of its insensitivity to those who have been discriminated against at Williams. I think people who are not of the minority in question should be more careful when declaring judgment about a community’s attitudes towards it. Indeed, if someone is not homophobic or racist (even if they are white and male), it could be difficult to understand that other people around them are this way. Racism and homophobia can be so systemic that self-righteous proclamations of innocence by individuals can ultimately be meaningless for those who encounter these problems. I bring up the issue of racism here because I encountered people of DK’s frame of mind during the other incidents that we’ve had at Williams regarding race. At the end of the day, DK’s point of view should be part of the Williams conversation.. I just wish it was more exploratory instead of obnoxious and thereby, offensive.
December 9th, 2009 at 6:41 amWhitney Wilson '90 says:
JrMom,
I thought I had replied to your question at #57 yesterday, but I see that it was never posted. I certainly hadn’t intended to ignore you. I didn’t see your comment #67 until a few minutes ago when I was alerted to it by a friend and fellow EpbBlog reader. (Thanks for the heads up!) Here is what I thought I posted yesterday:
“JrMom, I was referring to HWC’s consistent criticism of and commentary on the athletic and drinking cultures at Williams. I participated in both during my time at Williams, albeit to differing degrees. (To those of you who know me, no snickering :) )
December 9th, 2009 at 3:56 pmSuz says:
I have to say that I too have taken less of an interest in EphBlog because I was tired of David Kane’s constant level of commentary constantly attacking almost everything that I find good and important (the least of which was the post about how Williams doesn’t need an offsite storage facility for any of the library’s books. After all, it’s not like anyone was using them anyway. :p)
So this is more of a statement to say I hear you and your frustrations, and I wish you luck.
December 9th, 2009 at 9:23 pm