Currently browsing posts filed under "Classes"
Follow this category via RSS
Next Page →
Nice blurb in the Washington Post’s Sports Bog today about Dave Paulsen ’87 and how he reacted to an unexpected visit from Spike Lee to his team’s meeting recently. The opening paragraph of the story sets the stage nicely:
Dave Paulsen had his George Mason team at attention last Saturday morning and was ready to tell them about embracing the process. There was a basketball element to his talk — about not being obsessively results-driven, about not living and dying on every shot, about accepting coaching and enjoying hard work — but it also tied into the upcoming second semester, and how the Patriots needed to embrace their academics with a certain verve.
The rest of the story is worth reading for a few minutes. A quick perusal of the comments to the post shows lots of love for Dave, who is getting good reviews here at George Mason. I wonder if he ever gave any serious consideration to staying at Williams? I suspect the money available at Division 1 schools was simply too much to pass up, not to mention the professional challenge of succeeding at a higher level of basketball.
In 2015-2016, it will cost $63,290 to attend Williams. Comments:
1) Full e-mail from President Falk is below the break. (Thanks, as always, to our student sources.) What do readers think about Falk’s tone?
2) The class song for the great class of 1988 featured this chorus: “Sixty thou, to love with cows.” Of course, in that era, the total 4 year cost of Williams was around $60,000. For the class of 2018, it will be more than $250,000. At this rate, the class of 2048 will be paying more than $1,000,000 for their Williams education. I don’t see anything that will prevent this from happening. Do you?
Williams is a luxury good and few luxury goods are hurt by raising their prices. Indeed, among luxury good buyers, high prices are often perceived (correctly?!) as a sign if quality. I expect Williams to increase its price by more than the rate of inflation for decades to come. What would stop it from doing so?
Great advice from Professor Katie Kent ’88 on how to deal with “talkies,” students who tend to dominate class discussions.
I swear that Katie was using some of these tricks on me during Gargoyle meetings 22 years ago . . . ;-)
Professor Will Dudley ’89 is now a trustee at MCLA, the Massachusetts College of the Liberal Arts, the former North Adams State.
What should he do?
How should US states organize their higher education systems?
About a decade ago, the late Kermit Hall, then president of Utah State University, complained to lawmakers that the Legislature’s system of funding higher education encouraged schools to grow — regardless of what makes sense for the state and students.
But members of the state Board of Regents are proposing to change what many see as a flawed model for distributing tax dollars to Utah’s eight public colleges and universities, replacing the enrollment-growth model with one that recognizes each school’s mission and the contribution it makes.
Such a system would ensure stable-enrollment schools like Southern Utah University and the University of Utah get a fair cut once the Legislature has more tax revenue to invest in education.
“If we are a system of higher education as opposed to a compilation of institutions, then the institutions should do different things,” said Sen. Stephen Urquhart, R-St. George. And that means funding based on factors other than bodies on campus. The Washington County Republican, whose district includes high-growth Dixie State College, intends to sponsor legislation to change the formula. Urquhart has the support of Regents, who convened a task force last spring to explore the role of mission in an overhauled funding model.
During the recession, enrollment at Dixie, Utah Valley and Weber State universities and Salt Lake Community College exploded. Under the current model, they could monopolize new appropriations, leaving the state’s research flagship and other selective-admission schools out in the cold.
“Southern Utah University is a jewel in our system. It’s trying to be our stand-alone liberal arts institution. It’s tough to make that move under the way we currently fund our institutions,” said Urquhart, a graduate of Williams College in rural Massachusetts. “[SUU] is not going to have huge growth like here at Dixie and UVU. In that case, we need to fund excellence.”
If I were a Utah tax payer, I would hate to have my money spent subsidizing a new liberal arts college.
Sex, Money and Power: Understanding Student Social Culture
Lecture by Dr. Donna Lisker ’88, Associate Dean for Undergraduate Education at Duke University. Ever wonder what constitutes “normal” social life on college campus? Who fits in and who feels left out? Come hear a Williams alum talk about her research into student life at Duke University, and her thoughts on how this applies to Williams.
It would be interesting to read some of this research. Can anyone provide some links?
If you attend the lecture, please sure to say Hi to Donna from her friends at EphBlog. And, if she tells any stories about her roommate’s boyfriend from back in the day, well, let’s just say that there are two sides to every Gladden House romance . . . ;-)
Joe Thorndike ’88 wrote a Washington Post op-ed.
Americans don’t mind taxes — they hate tax loopholes
Americans hate taxes, right?
We vote for candidates who promise to cut them and punish candidates who pledge to raise them. We tell pollsters we don’t want to pay them. And we teach our children that the nation was founded to resist them. From the Boston Tea Party to Shays’s Rebellion to California’s Proposition 13, we are a nation of tax revolters. Hand us a pitchfork, and we’ll march on Washington — just witness the “9/12 Taxpayer March” on Sunday on the Mall.
This is the history underlying today’s battle over the Bush tax cuts, the economy and President Obama’s complicated call for new business tax breaks even as the nation faces crippling budget deficits. Yet it’s a history that doesn’t quite meet the test of, well, history. Oliver Wendell Holmes once observed that “taxes are what we pay for civilized society,” and for more than 200 years, Americans have been remarkably willing to pony up. It’s not that we hate the financial inconvenience of paying taxes — we hate the injustice of an unfair tax code. We’ve long agreed to pay the price for civilization. We just can’t tolerate anyone looking for civilization on the cheap.
Consider the Boston Tea Party, the creation myth for today’s anti-tax activists. It was a protest not against taxes but against tax loopholes. The colonists who dumped tea into Boston Harbor were objecting to a special tax exemption that Parliament had granted to the East India Company, a well-connected enterprise that in the early 1770s happened to be in dire need of a government bailout.
Hmmm. I agree with the general thrust here (no one likes loopholes) but question the history lesson. Speaking of which, here is a picture I took at the “Boston Tea Party” of April 15, 2009. Read more
The class of 2014 arrives today. Welcome! As a service to future historians, here (pdf) is a permanent copy of the schedule for First Days. Notice any changes from your First Days? I am pleased to see that my classmate, Professor Katie Kent ’88, is headlining tonight’s main event about “Claiming Williams.” Perhaps she will include a few words about those Ephs among us with unusual political views . . .
Below the break is my annual letter to the JAs about teaching themselves (and all first year students) “The Mountains.” Perhaps this is the year . . .
Cathy Paper ’89:
When do you really stop and pause and take a look at what’s around you in your life and what’s important to you? Some people do it in church or temple, others do it when they transition jobs- by choice or by force, others reflect deeply when they have a child, and a few take inventory with great, discplined regularity in annual goals and weekly status touchbases.
I am not quite so organized and find that one of the best ways to help my clients grab hold of what’s going on in their life is to take a look at the monthly schedule. Where is your time going? What are your big goals? What do you want to accomplish? Who are you spending your time with? What needs to change and rearrange to get more impact or improvement from your effort?
These are just a few questions you can ask yourself to take stock of where you are spending your energy and the progress you are making towards your goals. While many people call this exercise the basics of time management, I think of it more like walking the perimeter of my garden. When I employ this gardening strategy, I often don’t start by walking around, I just dive in with a section that needs to be weeded or tended to, and then I move on to the next segment. Soon, I’ve done a zoom in on the back beds, the front beds and the alley flowers. Thus, I’ve walked the perimeter. I’ve made a list of what can be improved on. I’ve noticed what is working. I’ve seen what needs to change and I’ve gotten connected to what really matters: things are growing and changing and it’s beautiful just the way it is in that very moment. Go get dirty and take stock of what you want to create.
Sound advice. But when I first read the title of Cathy’s post, I thought of a Marine lieutenant walking the perimeter of his unit’s position. Is that a better or worse analogy?
Carry a Chicken in Your Lap Or Whatever it Takes to Globalize Your Business, by Bruce Alan Johnson and R. William Ayres ’91.
This fun, modest-length volume comes from two principals of Baja Associates, a small consulting firm. Yes, it’s partly a sales pitch for their services. But it’s a good sales pitch — and an enjoyable standalone read for a broader audience of those not yet ready to hire a consulting firm, but ready to start thinking about expanding their activities internationally. The authors have in part targeted subgroups within the latter category, including employees thinking about an overseas assignment, and nonprofit idea-makers looking to expand their influence.
The faculty are voting today on the future of Claiming Williams. Here is the first page of the motion.
Click for a larger version. Comments:
1) How about some transparency, as Professor Frank Morgan demands? All motions should be posted on the web before the faculty meeting for all to read. Minutes of the faculty meeting (perhaps with minor redactions of sensitive content) should be posted as soon as they are available.
2) I believe that this motion was only circulated in printed form. I thought that Williams was supposed to be environmentally conscious. Think of Mother Gaiai! I believe (corrections welcome) that faculty meeting material is specifically not distributed in electronic form to prevent leaks. Didn’t work in this case! And, the more sources I cultivate on the faculty, the less likely it is to work in the future.
3) Interested in the remaining 4 pages? E-mail President Falk and ask him why Williams is keeping secrets.
4) I am pleased to see that Professor Katie Kent ’88 is one of the leaders of this effort. I can just imagine the fun debate that Katie and I would have had 25 years ago about this topic. It is nice to see that some things don’t change!
5) Who deserves credit for the phrase “Claiming Williams?” It works well. Future historians will want to know this sort of trivia.
I will deconstruct the key passages of this memo later today. Contain your excitement.
UPDATE: Just discovered that the motion is available on the Claiming Williams webpage. Kudos to them for excellent transparency! (And, before silly readers attack me, please note that I emailed two members of the steering committee yesterday to try to get a copy. One did not respond. One kindly responded but said that she did not think a copy was available.)
From Cathy Paper ’89:
Brainstorming requires all types of people at the table. Whether you are coming up with a new name, a new company, a new approach or a new product. I have always found it energizing to collaborate with others to create something new and innovative.
My daughter needed a new mouthguard. My husband took her to buy one and she picked out a new ShockDoctor in pink. He happened to tell her that her mom, that’s me, had named the product. She wasn’t sure what to make of that. It was in a big store and had a whole wall of products with that same name, ShockDoctor. Not that she doesn’t think I’m super smart and all, but I think it was a lot to comprehend since I’m her mom.
Indeed. My wife, Cathy’s classmate, goes through a similar experience with our daughters whenever one of her patients comes up to her in public to discuss some issue.
We ought to add Cathy’s blog to Eph Planet.
Original Eph Blogger Kim Daboo ’88 has moved her Three Dogs and a Baby blog over to ClumberKim. Check it out. I especially liked her live-blogging of the Westminster Dog Show.
Time to clean out my e-mail box of EphBlog material
1) Todd Pelkey ‘89 pointed out (two years ago!) this article about Michael Govan at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art.
2) From the Purple Bull mailing list:
Skip, a purple bull alum, just emailed me to let you guys know that Lehman will be here tomorrow at the Job Fair. He said:
“It will probably be most helpful for people looking at next year (current sophomores applying for internships next year and current juniors applying for full time next year).”
So, I encourage you all to check it out. Will be a good opportunity to get to know the Lehman folks, which is important since we’re not a core school for Lehman any more.
No worries on that front!
3) John Berger ’89 founded and runs (with his wife) The Emancipation Network: Fighting Human Trafficking and Slavery with Empowerment. Read about them here. Someone should invite him to give a talk at Williams.
Amity Shlaes on Bloomberg in December.
Youth is what the climate change conference in Copenhagen is supposed to be all about.
The advertising campaign for the United Nations Climate Change Conference on global warming that opens this week is even called “Hopenhagen,” to suggest that young people need to push their governments to save the Kyoto Treaty if they are going to prevent environmental apocalypse.
One reason that Hopenhagen has caught on is that youth fashion these days is as green as it gets. Copenhagen, thrift and handbags made of recycled seatbelts all go together in the under-30 mind. At Williams College in Massachusetts, some 50 students and faculty started a hunger strike to show their support for a climate-change agreement.
7) Most bizarre article featuring an Eph.
8) (d)avid points out this article (pdf): “Why do Institutions of Higher Education Reward Research While Selling Education?”
9) A letter from John Calhoun ’62:
Mika Brzezinski ’89 on The Colbert Report.
Thanks to nuts for the link.
Saddest Eph story of 2010? Will Morris ’89 on trial for fraud.
Carolyn Louper-Morris and her son William Morris are set to go on trial Friday in federal court in Minneapolis on charges that they conspired to defraud customers, the state of Minnesota, and a big retailer out of more than $3 million.
The federal allegations say the pair set up and ran a company, CyberStudy 101, that fraudulently promised a Web-based tutorial service it never delivered, and illegally received state tax credits as payment, all the while defrauding Kmart Corp. of computers it gave to customers. Louper-Morris and Morris allegedly used the money to buy a house, luxury cars, a fur coat and jewelry.
Louper-Morris and Morris, of Minneapolis, may be no different from other defendants who started off with an innovative idea, lofty goals and noble intentions before running afoul of the law. They have rebuffed news media inquiries and waited until the eve of their trial to speak about their now-defunct business.
I lived with Will in Carter House for two years. You could not ask for a nicer, funnier or more sensible housemate.
Morris, 42, graduated from Williams College, a prestigious school in the Berkshires of western Massachusetts. Later he earned a degree from the University of Minnesota Law School and interned at Best & Flanagan law firm in Minneapolis, which later hired him.
Now he works part time in a liquor store “to make ends meet,” Morris says. The business failure forced him into bankruptcy, which along with legal troubles have kept him from practicing law, he said.
What a tragic waste of real talent.
It is interesting to compare and contrast Will’s fate with that of Mike Swensen ’89, who made a fortune shorting the same housing securities that his firm, Goldman Sachs, was selling to its clients. Were Morris’s actions really more morally/ethically/legally suspect than Swensen’s? Reasonable Ephs may differ. Will an ambitious DA ever go after Swensen? Not in a million campaign contributions.
Next week is Claiming Williams. What do you think the biggest difference between Morris and Swensen is when it comes to how the criminal justice system treats them?
Other article selections below the break.
Kim Daboo ’88 tells us what’s in her bag. What’s in yours?
By the way, links to cute kids in Williams paraphernalia are always welcome!
Jim Duquette ’88 is providing video commentary about the baseball playoffs at MLB.com. Unfortunately, I can’t figure out how to embed the videos here. Suggestions?
Who is the most prolific Eph twitterer? I don’t know, but Dylan Tweney ’91 is impressive. And check out his blog as well.
This post concludes our trip down archive lane, exploring the controversy over the photo on the cover of the Student Telephone Directory in the fall of 1985 using Record coverage from September 17 and 24. Previous posts (1, 2, 3 and 4); on-line Record archive; and key pages (first and second).
To The Editor:
As the advertising editors of this year’s Williams Student Directory, we would like respond briefly to the “Sexism Flourishes” article in last week’s Record. We have no desire to offend anyone nor do we wish to draw this issue out in long debates in the Record as occured once last year. Though we too may question certain aspects of the cover scene, we do hasten to point out that it is the cover designer herself who is portrayed in the photograph and she alone who submitted the cover design.
David Bassett ’87
Rodolfo Ford III ’87
Kenneth Jones ’87
I love it! The woman pictured in the photo selected it for the cover herself. Do you think that Professor Lynda Bundtzen and her co-authors expected that? Recall their complaint:
The pose of the woman, who wears a sweatshirt branded with a bold “Williams” and has her backed turned toward the camera, implies that her body and nothing else is what matters about her. We can’t even see her face to know anything about the person inhabiting the body.
That the picture exploits this woman by displaying her as an object for men is appalling enough, but that it should have found its way onto the cover of the phone directory is doubling appalling. In all likelihood, the picture was taken and chosen in good fun. That being the case cannot excuse that such “fun” is not funny, but instead perpetuates exploitive attitudes and actions toward women.
But if the woman herself chose (and staged?) the picture can she really have meant to imply “that her body and nothing else is what matters about her?” Excellent question! Barring false consciousness — perhaps a more popular concept in the 80’s at Williams than it is today — the woman could not (?) have meant that. Yet it seems reasonable for Bundtzen et al. to believe then, and believe now, that the effect of the image, whatever the intentions of its creator, would be pernicious. Since none of the authors that I have tried to contact, nor the current Women’s Collective at Williams, seem interested in returning my e-mails, we may never know their positions.
The last letter is the one most similar in tone to my own writing at EphBlog.
To The Editor:
Antje Lewis and her friends, in their haste to be offended and appalled at something this year, decided to focus their attention on the phone directory but they made some errors in their interpretation of the cover photo. The picture portrays three men (how she conclusively identified them as Williams men we don’t know) on the sunny shore with not three, but four objects in their possession: a telephone, a beach toy, a pair of flippers, and a Pro Model Turbo Surf Slider. (The fact that Lewis and her buddies could have overlooked the Pro Model Turbo Surf Slider is perhaps the unkindest cut of all, but anyway, back to the story.) There is also an Eph-woman there (Donna Ching ’84, who designed the cover) with three objects in her possession, namely the three men.
The picture shows the woman to have the desirable qualities inherent in all Eph-women — good looks and intelligence — she is the only one of the three with enough brains to be looking at the sea, what else do you go to the beach for? At the same time the picture denigrates all men by portraying them as aimless and without purpose (the beach-bum on the left), childish (the poor guy in the middle holding the toy), and the guy on the right clearly represents all businessmen, past, present, and future (the phone) as hopeless bimbos completely out of touch with what is going on. Why, look at at him, you can’t even see his face behind those sunglasses to know anything about the person inhabiting the body!
This cover implies that the administration condones an attitude toward men as intellectually inferior, which we do not believe to be actually the case. To have to look every day at something, our telephone directory, that so blatantly exploits the men in the Williams College campus is unjust and unnecessary.
Fred Eaton ’86
Peter Dawson ’86
Craig Blackmore ’86
Andreas Halvorsen ’86
1) Now that our readers know all the facts, what say you? Was this photo an appropriate cover image in 1985? Would it be considered an appropriate cover image today?
2) Who were the three men in the photo? Surely history will want to remember their names. They aren’t just good looking Ephs in bathing suits. They are people too!
3) Regular readers will notice that one of the authors of that last letter generates a fair amount of traffic to EphBlog because he is one of the richest Ephs of his generation. Perhaps the Development Office should speak to Admissions about letting in more of the sorts of applicants that have a predilection for mocking campus feminists. Just a thought!
Another letter to the Record in response to the complaints about the cover of the student telephone directory.
To The Editor:
What is the big deal? Is the cover of the 1985 Williams Student Directory really going to foster chauvinist and sexist feelings on campus? Is it really going to “perpetuate exploitive attitudes toward women”? Does the telephone directory have that much impact on the minds, thoughts and feelings of Williams’ students and faculty?
I object to the letter in last week’s Record for two reasons. First, I do not find the cover so offensive and insulting, and I do not believe its impact will be so strong as anticipated by the authors of the letter. However, I acknowledge a difference in opinions concerning the picture on the cover, and I enjoy an exchange of views. Secondly, I object to the manner and tone in which the article was written. Come on. Let’s be level-headed in our approach to this topic. The tone of the letter is far from level-headed. Such sentences as “The cover . . . must offend and appall anyone who considers its message” and “The pose of the woman, who wears a sweatshirt branded with a bold “Williams” and has her backed turned toward the camera, implies that her body and nothing else is what matters about her” — such sentences are so tainted with extremism and pre-suppositions on the part of the authors that any well-intentioned message is lost. The article, imbued with its hypersensitive diction, just becomes polimical rant and raving.
A more moderate and level-headed letter could have objected to the cover and carried the same message. I still, personally, would not agree with the charge that the cover is objectionable. A more carefully written letter, though, would not have prompted me to write a rebuttal.
In conclusion, I would advise the writers of last week’s letter to more carefully scrutinize their word choice in order to convey a more credible message.
Jeffrey B. Lilley ’86
1) What do you think Professor Lynda Bundtzen would have said in response 24 years ago? What do you think she would say today? I sent Professor Bundtzen an e-mail on Tuesday but have not heard back. Do you think I will?
2) Jeff Lilley ’86 is the co-author of China Hands: Nine Decades of Adventure, Espionage, and Diplomacy in Asia and wrote this charming article (pdf) for the Alumni Review.
Are you only thinking about this controversy from a male/female perspective? Stop being such a bigot! Beach toys have feelings too.
To the editor:
I am an inflatable beach toy. Never mind how I passed through the college’s meticulous admissions procedures; the fact is that I am a matriculating member of Williams and I consider it my duty as such to express my opinion about the cover to this year’s student directory.
On behalf of inflatable beach toys everywhere, I must voice my contempt for the inflatable beach toy who allowed himself to be depicted as the possession of four Williams students. For from appearing offended by this appalling state of affairs, the unidentified inflatable beach toy is actually smiling!
Not that I have a right to poke my snout into anyone else’s business, I just don’t think that a college such as Williams should advertise this sort of behavior. That this offensive photograph was permitted to appear is only proof that discrimination against inflatable beach toys is alive and well on the Williams campus.
Freddie the Elephant ’88
with Danny the Ducky ’87
Sammy Swan ’87
as told to John Heck ’88
Adam Lesser ’88
First they objectified the beach toys, but I was not a beach toy, so I said nothing.
How do you think the authors of the “appalling” op-ed piece felt about being mocked so mercilessly the very next week? I bet that they were not happy. Another letter:
To the editor:
A swimsuit and sweatshirt-clad woman is flanked by three swimsuit-clad men, who, by posting with surfboard, flippers, and inflatable Dumbo, unambiguously express their full “worth and qualities” as Williams men. This photograph depicting four Williams students spending their summer as doubtless many did is somehow sexist. Why? Because the woman’s back is turned toward the camera. A frontally nude woman by herself would presumably be an improvement. Next year perhaps. In the meantime, Antje Lewis and company might find Iran a more congenial environment for their notion of that a woman’s body is never acceptable unless entirely concealed from public view.
Hart Murphy ’88
What counter-arguments should Lewis et al. make to Murphy’s letter? Should I have used Murphy’s comparison to Iran in arguing against those who claimed that I should not have posted a cover photo from Tattler of the Princess of York?
How did the Williams community respond to the cover of the Student Telephone Directory? An op-ed piece in the Record.
Telephone directory cover “exploitive and appalling”
The cover of this year’s student telephone directory must offend and appall anyone who considers its message. The picture which appears on the cover portrays three Williams men, apparently enjoying themselves tremendously on some sunny shore, posing for the camera with three objects in their possession: a telephone, a beach toy, and a woman. The pose of the woman, who wears a sweatshirt branded with a bold “Williams” and has her backed turned toward the camera, implies that her body and nothing else is what matters about her. We can’t even see her face to know anything about the person inhabiting the body.
That the picture exploits this woman by displaying her as an object for men is appalling enough, but that it should have found its way onto the cover of the phone directory is doubling appalling. In all likelihood, the picture was taken and chosen in good fun. That being the case cannot excuse that such “fun” is not funny, but instead perpetuates exploitive attitudes and actions toward women. It seems to imply that the college administration condones this attitude toward women, which we do not believe actually to be the case. It seem instead that soem student has misused the trust of the administration. Still, one can’t help but wonder: How could this have happened?
That it did happen shows us that, despite the admission of women to Williams, sexism flourishes here as well as it does elsewhere. At least someone at this college must still conceive of Williams as primarily a male institution in order to show such disregard for the worth and qualities of their fellow students who are women. Women are not here at Williams or anywhere else for men, but for themselves and in their own right. To have to look every day at something, our telephone directory, which so blatantly challenges that right, is unjust and unnecessary.
Antje Lewis ’87, Mike Best ’86, Wendy Brown, Lynda Bundtzen, Suzanne Burg ’87, Timothy Cook, Dave Fairris, Elaine Freedman ’87, Kathy Haas ’86, Martha Hughes ’86, Bruce Kendall ’86, Lila Abu-Lughod, Sarah McFarland, Melissa Perkins ’86, Cheryl Salem ’87, Chris Sayler ’86, Sheila Spear, Bob Volz, Mark White ’84
1) What set of facts about the students who took and selected this photo would most validate the claims made in this letter? What set of facts would most challenge those claims? What do you guess are the facts?
2) Among the non-student authors, David Fairris is now at UC Riverside; Timothy Cook passed away three years ago after moving to LSU; Wendy Brown is at Berkeley; Lila Abu-Lughod is at Columbia; Lynda Bundtzen, Bob Volz and Sarah McFarland are still at Williams.
3) Although I differ (!) in my ideological priors with these authors, I am also concerned with anything that “perpetuates exploitive attitudes and actions toward women.” I have two daughters, after all. Alas, I seem to be unable to make this point at EphBlog, at least when it comes to criticizing the behavior of male Ephs. Recall this newspaper description of the interaction between Mayo Shattuck ’76 and his wife Molly, a cheerleader (at that time) with the Baltimore Ravens.
In the Constellation Energy skybox last week, Mayo Shattuck managed to look both forlorn and delighted, switching from camcorder to digital camera to brand-new binoculars as he searched for a figure four stories down and half a football field away. He could just make out her face above a pair of churning pompoms.
“Just watch,” he said. “That smile will never come off.”
He was grinning pretty hard himself, flanked by executive buddies, some casting hopeful glances at their own wives.
My opinion is the same now as it was three years ago.
Hmmm. And what glances did those wives cast in return? The choices that Molly Shattuck makes affect more than just her own life and those of her family. Her choices affect all of us. The wives of those executives are unlikely to be cheerleader material, just as their husbands would not stand a chance at linebacker. But Molly’s choice changes the framework in which those executives think about the meaning of “wife” or, perhaps more distressingly, “second wife.”
You can be sure that some of the cheerleaders on Molly’s squad would welcome the chance to live her life, to marry a man who might provide for them in the manner in which Mayo provides for her. Those cheerleaders, many of whom did not go to college and almost all of whom went to colleges unlike those attended by Mayo’s “executive buddies,” deserve a chance at the happiness they see in Molly. Perhaps she could introduce them to some of the men in the skybox.
Placing a photo of an attractive, scantily clad woman on the cover of the student telephone directory affects, not just the students in the photo, not just the (male) students who look at that photo everyday, but the other female students in the Williams community. Mayo Shattuck, by inviting his executive buddies to the sky box to ogle his cheerleader wife affects, not just his wife and his buddies, but other women who are not a party to the event.
I wonder what Professor Lynda Bundtzen would say about Mayo Shattuck?
1) Ken/Derek/Ronit and others are very critical of the authors of the op-ed piece, using terms like “simplistic and reductionist,” “ideological,” “ignorance compounded,” and “reads like a Mad Cow parody.” Why does it always fall to me to defend the left-wing members of the Williams community? ;-)
More seriously, recall our discussion about posting the glamor photo of the Princess of York. I understand why someone would say that neither photo is appropriate, that the student in charge of the phone directory should not have used that photo and that I should not have used the glamor shot. I also understand why someone (like me) would argue that both photos are fine. I can’t understand why someone would argue that this photo is fine but that posting the Tattler cover photo was somehow beyond the pale.
2) During the Princess Eugenie discussion, Ronit wrote:
It’s not a question of whether or not David had a “right” to post something, it is more about whether or not the actual content being posted is the sort of thing that we, as a community, would like to see on EphBlog. What I’m proposing is that a voting tool would allow for some measure of editorial “democracy”, such that our readers would feel like their preferences are an important part of what shapes this site.
Exactly right. This post currently has a -45 rating, which is close to a record. Would the folks who voted No have voted Yes if I had not brought up Mayo Shattuck? Are there really no/few readers who like these sorts of posts? If no one likes them, I will devote my energies elsewhere, and no hard feelings either way. Just curious.
Thanks to Sports Information Director Dick Quinn for pointing out this gallery of photos from the vintage game on Sunday.
Walking and laughing is classmate Sean Logan ’88, who later on hit the winning two-run homer.
Scott Garfield ’88 (with gold W) and Lew Collins ’88 (directly behind the catcher) watch as Williams bats, with Brooks Foehl ’88 in the stands between Scott and Lew.
And please don’t make any snide comments about Sean, at least if you have a child who will be applying to Williams anytime soon. Sean is associate director of admissions. Between him and Brooks (new Secretary of the Alumni Society) and faculty member Katie Kent ’88 and Tom Smith ’88, is it fair to say that the class of 1988 is the most powerful Williams class? Probably not. We need some trustees. My application is still “pending,” for some reason . . .
Congratulations to all in what seems to have been a fun and well-planned event.
There are two interesting events on campus today. First:
2020 International Initiatives: Where should Williams be going?
2:45 p.m., Weston 10
International Studies Colloquium open forum on the 2020 International Initiatives. Come join the discussion!
See here for previous discussion about 2020. I think that there are a variety of issues that fall under the 2020 project and that this forum is just about the international ones. Or does the “2020 International Initiatives” phrasing mean that all 2020 issues are international? Updates on this important topic are welcome. And, as always, more transparency, please. Why can’t the rest of us see some of the background briefing material that the College gives to the Trustees?
Hooking Up and Effortless Perfection: Understanding College Social Culture
7:30 p.m., Brooks-Rogers Auditorium
Most people think of college as a special and carefree time, four years to learn and have fun before the pressures of the “real world” intrude. Research done at Duke University on undergraduate social culture suggests otherwise. Students described their drive for “effortless perfection” in academic and social endeavors, and a hook-up culture that met the needs of some, but left most dissatisfied. Associate Dean of Undergraduate Education Dr. Donna Lisker (Williams ’88) will describe her research in a compelling and entertaining talk highly relevant to Williams undergraduates.
Interesting stuff. “Effortless perfection” reminds me of effortlessly Eph as well as Brandi Brown’s ’07 work on Ephailure. But aren’t claims about a “hook-up culture” that leaves most students “dissatisfied” more associated with Wendy Shalit ’97? Just asking!
And if my friend Donna tells any amusing stories about her senior year roommate’s idiot boyfriend, let me just say that there is no such thing as bad press!
Click below for full image:
Click below for full image:
Click below for full image:
Click below for full image:
Click below for full image:
Next Page →
Currently browsing posts filed under "Classes"
Follow this category via RSS