Currently browsing posts filed under "Policies"
The first time I came to Williams was the fall before my freshman year – my eighth stop in my college tour, and by then, I’d discovered that the best way to truly learn about a school, skeletons included, wasn’t through admissions tours or glossy brochures, but by dropping in on a class, looking at the person beside me, shaking my head, and declaring “Oh my god, I heard that problem set was so hard.” Fortunately (for me at least) this proved quite effective when I visited because it happened to be midterm season then. I sat in a physics lecture, looked to my right, and said: “Oh my god, I heard that midterm was so hard.” The girl seated beside me, Jaime, enlarged her eyes and nodded in agreement, and to my delight, began speaking in earnest, generous detail about her packed (to put it lightly) week: a dance show just three days for which she had daily rehearsals, some RA work that was due with the statistics department, planning a surprise birthday for her entrymate (Willy D!), holding office hours for a CS class she was TA-ing, and, of course, the lab element of her physics midterm. Jaime looked exhausted and sleep deprived, and had the bloodshot eyes to prove it. As she was about to say more, to my surprise Jaime stopped herself and shrugged: “Sorry, I shouldn’t be complaining. Forget what I just said.” Perplexed with this realization following her rant, I asked her what she meant. “Everyone at Williams is so lucky to be here. Sometimes it gets overwhelming but what makes this all so worth it, what makes this place unique I guess, is that everyone really cares.” She packed up her things, and in the face of a mountain of commitments the following day, proceeded to old Sawyer, where her tutee would be waiting. I was sold – no one in any other school said anything remotely as powerful.
It didn’t take long after I first arrived to realize how true Jaime’s words (and so, so much more!) are. Coming from the other side of the world, coming to Williams was a huge leap of faith; now, some years later, my roots are firmly planted in this fertile, Purple Valley. Some of my most cherished memories and most powerful moments include the all nighters I spent with fellow classmates studying for that last bio final in Science Quad; the conversations I’d have with professors-turned-mentors, where their passions exude in their excitement; the many times I’ve seen both friends and strangers drop everything to help a fellow classmate in need. As time went by, the four years here I once considered a mere stepping stone slowly became an end unto itself. As with the many who read and write for this blog, I’ve come attribute much of who I am today to the people I’ve met, befriended, learned from, and mentored (you go full circle at Williams!), and the ideas that I’ve explored with them here in the Purple Valley.
It’s for these very reasons that I, along with two friends from the class of ’18 and ’19, have taken to EphBlog as students who are very concerned with the state of matters in the college. As our affinity and affection for Williams grew, so did our awareness of the institution and internal workings behind the name. As many of my fellow upperclassmen will agree, the more time one spends at Williams, the more one begins to notice the disturbing cracks in the well: fellow classmates unceremoniously ignored or stonewalled by administrators, the rude and unfair treatment of students who want to start clubs (some elements of Williams make this shockingly difficult if they do not agree with you!), backwards and arbitrary use of policy, rampant and potentially systemic Honor Code violations, and so much more! It was a deeply sad and distressing moment for all of us when we realized that the Williams to which we aspired wasn’t the Williams we thought it was.
Unfortunately, Williams students are not ideally placed to solve, let alone notice, these problems. We students come and go every year, the Record is unable to report anything substantive (for good reason, which we’ll get to in a future post!), and no student will have any reasonable measure of institutional memory to draw on. What’s more is that in our efforts to get answers to issues, it’s been made quite clear to us that there is no place for questions, debate, and opinions (esp. if you do not agree with Williams) in the Purple Valley. Sometimes, these concerns may initially seem isolated to individual cases. However, as we began investigating and hearing more and more Hopkins Horror Stories (as they’re known among students) and other disturbing events from fellow students and professors, patterns just as perturbing started emerging that we could no longer ignore – especially since many of them are quite structural (and thus here to stay) in nature! Many of our professors, especially those who’ve been here longer, pointed (some willingly, most unwillingly) to EphBlog as a means of cataloging, reporting, discussing, and connecting these issues – where else can Williams students earnestly, meaningfully do this? It’s our hope that these efforts help usher a more transparent, fairer Williams that all of us can proudly call their alma mater. At the end of the day, we all play a role in shaping what Williams is, and what we ultimately want it to become.
All this said, though, we also love talking about issues at Williams separate from these concerns – to alums, please let us know what you’d like to hear! We’re very into Ephs doing cool things (so we’ll post a bit about that every now and then!), career advice for younger underclassmen (such as getting that internship), and which classes to take/professors to meet. Otherwise, if you have any tips or issues you’d like to discuss (other current students especially!), shoot us an email at email@example.com – we would love to hear from all Ephs!
As forwarded to me by a reader:
The tragic occurrence at Rutgers prods some colleges to open roommate selection opportunities.
Gender-neutral housing has been approved by the college following recommendations and discussions last March, 2010. as reported in The Record
The Committee on Undergraduate Life (CUL) and College Council (CC) both advocated gender-neutral housing last fall, following its proposal by the Queer Student Union (QSU). “I think there is a good chance that the NRC would have gone this direction anyway,” said Colin Adams, chair of the CUL and member of the NRC. “But the fact that CUL and CC supported and pushed for gender-neutral housing certainly helped to bring it to the forefront for consideration.”
In a campus-wide e-mail last week, Campus Life also announced that a gender-neutral housing policy has been approved by the College. According to the e-mail, upperclassmen can choose to live in a double with another student regardless the students’ genders, as long as both students agree to the housing arrangement. Gender caps will apply as usual to all dorms. The e-mail clarified that the gender-neutral housing policy is optional and unless students of opposite genders decide to live together, housing placements into doubles will otherwise be based on same-gender placements…
“I’m pleased that the College can go forward with gender neutral housing,” Dean Merrill said. “It’s been an issue that students have been talking about for at least as many years that I’ve been dean. There’s been a lot of student effort, both here, and around the country, and I’m glad that we can be part of a growing number of schools that offer it.”
Link to topix debate- Great stuff! Town and gown!
The Williams College heating plant particulate emissions ranking in the Commonwealth of Mass,with 0 being cleanest,and 100 being dirtiest in the state, is 90.
What exactly is the emissions data from the college power plant, how much growth in use has there been in the last decade?
Why be for biomass and other local fuel sources? It’s the war, stupid!
Sheafe’s contract has not been renewed for the coming year. Sheafe is 71 and has taught at Williams for over 40 years. He has always been a Lecturer on a four-year, renewable contract. This year, citing low student evaluations, he was told in late November that his contract would not be renewed.
For those who aren’t familiar with him, Sheafe is independently wealthy (at least, is rumored to be — ed.) and teaches because he enjoys teaching. All of his courses include a once-weekly “field seminar,” where he drives the class around in a large van to areas of interest in the countryside around Williams, and lectures while driving. He also takes all of his students out to dinner (in groups) at least once, and often invites them to his house. Rumor has it that he is paid something like $1 for the four-year contract, and Williams throws in free lunches at Driscoll (this last part is true; Sheafe told me).
Would you please consider writing a letter to the Dean of Faculty, Prof. William Wagner? His email is firstname.lastname@example.org. I think a lot of us never expected we would need to write such a letter — perhaps we thought we might show our appreciation at a retirement party someday. But we do need to write now and explain how Sheafe has influenced our lives, our teaching, our careers, our ways of understanding the world. We need to tell the administration about the gifts Sheafe gave us and continues to give students at Williams.
This missive comes from Mark Livingston ’72 and Belle Zars ’76. Full message from Zars below the break.
Sheafe’s classes are certainly some of the most unique at Williams, and when I look back at the experiences in class that I remember most from college, Sheafe’s class was certainly one of the most memorable. Please consider writing in on his behalf.
Not every would-be entrepreneur is in an encouraging community. Here’s the discouraging experience of one Eph emailer who graduated in the last decade (name and class year concealed):
I see great irony in the Alumni Review celebrating those who move back to Williamstown to start businesses, because the College was certainly hostile to current students who try to start them.
Over the summer before sophomore year, one of my friends and I hit on an idea for a web service in the online photo space. A friend of his mother expressed interest and asked us to draw up a business plan, and another friend put us in touch with a coding firm in Eastern Europe. Back at Williams, as we put the finishing touches on our business plan, we proactively notified the dean’s office about our plans and asked whether approval was required by the college regulations for “student businesses.”
Big mistake. We were told that it reaction was to confirm that they considered it a student business even though it wasn’t primarily aimed at selling anything to students — the fact that Williams students could be among the users was enough. And then, we were directly discouraged from proceeding. In repeated meetings, we were questioned about our grades, our course load, our other extracurricular activities, and even our social lives. Message: you don’t have time for this. Then we were told that we couldn’t use college Internet resources — not just for hosting (which we had never planned to do), but for design, maintenance, even communicating with the overseas developers. The process of getting permission dragged on for months.
In the end, we did get approval, but my friend had made the varsity  team, I started a new relationship, and we put the project on the back burner. . . .
Most interesting snippet in this month’s EphNotes?
Williams admitted 1,200 students out of 6,633 applicants–an 18 percent acceptance rate. Of accepted students, 659 are women and 543 are men, bringing the female to male admit ratio to 55:45.
I think I have heard that Williams, like most other schools, has a policy to accept female and male students in the same proportion as those who applied. So from this we deduce that 55% of applicants were female. However, this could (will?) create a significant gender imbalance at Williams.
I seem to recall arriving on campus in fall 2003 and learning that our class (’07) was the first class to have a 50-50 gender balance; all previous classes had more males than females. I found this interesting because I had also been a member of the first 50-50 class at Phillips Exeter, four years earlier. I am somewhat surprised that it only took seven years to go from 50-50 to 55-45.
This is a reflection of a larger trend, of more females pursuing higher education than males. Here is (fluffier but more recent) background from the NYT and (less fluffy, less recent) more background from the NYT on the trend of more females than males in college.
Project webpage is up and running. It will be interesting to see what angle the Williams students take for this research? Judging from the pictures on the webpage… I think they are getting a feel for the larger metaphor.
Update: Sign up to follow the blog for the Real Mayor here. If you have “stories or anecdotes” to tell about the gas station or Art, the researchers are looking for input.
Enough was enough, apparently. After receiving “a significant number of complaints last year from residents bothered by their roommates’ sexual behavior,” Tufts has banned dorm room canoodling when roomie is present. The policy further states that “any sexual activity in the room should not interfere with a roommate’s privacy, study habits or sleep.”
It wouldn’t be a new regulation from a campus life organization if there weren’t some doublespeak involved, so here’s Office of Residential Life and Learning’s Carrie Ales-Rich on why this new policy really isn’t a policy at all:
The sex policy, Ales-Rich said, is intended as a tool to facilitate conversation and compromise between roommates, rather than simply proscribe behavior. Ales-Rich emphasized that ResLife hopes students will be able to resolve the issues on their own instead of allowing conflicts to reach a point at which the office has to intervene.
“We want to make perfectly clear that we do not want to hinder someone from engaging in any personal or private activity,” she said. “But when it becomes uncomfortable for the roommate, we want to have something in place that empowers the residents to have a good conversation with the roommate.”
Yes, because those conversations always go better when one sophomore can threaten the other. Also note that the Tufts administration apparently did not consult the student government or really any students before it made the change.
ResLife saw a need to take the lead in addressing the issue due to its sensitive nature, according to Ales-Rich. “We found in the past that when it comes to sexual activity in the room, students find it an uncomfortable topic to talk about,” she said.
In short, Tufts bureaucrats don’t think their kids have the capacity to talk about sex, so they unilaterally created a new set of rules, which won’t have to be enforced because kids will talk about sex amongst themselves.
No word yet on whether the new policy will cover ties on doorknobs, condom theft, or threesome remorse.
Chotch links to some recent commentary from John McCardell, President Emeritus of Middlebury College, on the Amethyst Initiative (Williams is not, yet, a signatory). Perhaps the most interesting section:
Slowly but surely we may be seeing a change in attitude. This summer, Dr. Morris Chafetz, a distinguished psychiatrist, a member of the presidential commission that recommended raising the drinking age, and the founder of the National Institute for Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse admitted that supporting the higher drinking age is “the most regrettable decision of my entire professional career.” This remarkable statement did not receive the attention it merited.
More comments below.
Has been lighting up the news these last few days. My thoughts are that this could be very damaging to the United States. It has the potential to blow up in our faces big time.
This will damage Obama politically as well. The gain of chasing these demons could be more damaging to us than it is worth. I am sure others blogging here agree and disagree for a number of reasons.
Update 25 Aug 09: The Eph course below is sure to be interesting.
Philosophy 238 – Justice, Terrorism, and Weapons of Mass Destruction (Sames as Political Science 237)
What is generally known as Just War Theory (JWT), first clearly formulated by Augustine and then developing both theistic and non-theistic variants, both of which have been forced to adapt as technological advances have brought with them new forms of violence that the theories must take into consideration, are currently challenged by terrorism, torture, and weapons of mass destruction. This seminar will review prominent current forms of JWT, examining how each deals with these challenges; its goal will be to discover, or perhaps in part to formulate, the currently best available theory concerning the political ethics of torture, terrorism, Counterterrorism, and the production and uses of weapons of mass destruction. Enrollment limit: 19. Preference given to prospective and current Philosophy and Political Science majors.
More thought provoking than my original post no doubt, which rated about a four out of ten on the Mancow scale of relevance to all things Eph.
Dear EphBlog Family,
In the matter of a comment being removed without any indication of this taking place
1. The Board has given very serious consideration to the instance of a comment being removed with no notification or indication that this has happened.
By unanimous decision, The Board now requires that a note be put in to the post indicating that a comment has been removed along with the name of the person removing it, and hopefully, a note of explanation. A note has been sent by Ronit to those very few people entrusted with editing privileges informing them of this.
In addition, in the very rare occurrence in which this may happen, the person whose comment was removed may dispute this by contacting the Board, the Ombudsperson, or both to apply for mediation.
2. The FAQ will be rewritten:
My Comment was removed.
Comments may only be deleted if they are considered to be rude, obnoxious, off-topic, trollish, or SPAM .
Comments may not be removed because of ideological or political disagreement.
If your comment has been removed, the person removing it is required to replace your comment with a note “comment deleted by (name)”. We also encourage that a note citing the ‘reason why’ be added.
If this removal has happened to a comment that you have made and you wish to dispute the action, please contact the Board and/or our Ombudsperson Ken Thomas ‘93
The Board believes that these actions will best serve the interests and integrity of EphBlog.
For the Board,
Dick Swart 1956
One of the things we should to begin to explore is the lowering of Williamstown’s tax rate in order to accommodate more middle class owners in town. The town is strapped with the double whammy of a college that owns much of the property (a high valuation) and a high tax rate of 11.4 or 1,140 dollars of tax on every 100,000 of assessed value. That makes it hard for middle class buyers. Working people have fled the town, especially in the central areas. They simply cannot afford the taxes.
To put this into perspective- other towns like Lanesboro and Pittsfield have similar rates, but much lower values. The town of Hancock has the incredible rate of .2.98, while new Ashford comes in at 6.96.
A lot of the municipal costs, such as a large local police and fire department, cover the needs of the College. I took a look at the fire trucks during the parade and thought- ‘my god, this entire structure is in place to cover a possible large fire that could occur on college property.’ I believe that a study should be done to explore PILOT, in order to reduce the Williamstown tax rate below .10 to .099. That would make the town more affordable for local venders and home owners.
What follows is a conversation that began on “Speak Up”.
To recap a bit, PTC made a comment on this post. The comment was a criticism of Karl Rove, the author of the article to which Dave linked. There were no disparaging remarks made about the subjects of the post, the Krissof family. In fact, I would go so far as to say that if there is any one subject on this blog site on which all agree, it is that the Krissof family commands all of our deepest respect and admiration.
To continue: PTC’s comment was deleted. No note appeared in it’s place stating why and by whom. PTC then made a statement on “Speak Up” that his comment had been deleted and that is where the discussion (below) begins.
As a board member, I encourage the discussion to continue in a positive way, with the goal being more clarity on the EphBlog policy regarding the rules on editing, deletion, and censorship.
From another Record Op-Ed by Andrés López ’09:
Without a doubt, Spencer Neighborhood offers the best housing in terms of location and room quality, while Dodd and Wood neighborhoods include some awkward housing choices. When Spencer Neighborhood sophomores have access to spacious singles in West Hall, while some Wood Neighborhood seniors get stuck with far-off, hermetically sealed or basement rooms, there’s got to be a problem.
My question to you folks is this: what are the hidden benefits of certain dorms, and the hidden costs? We can look at the advantages of location and room size with a map and room blueprints, but there are other factors – living above Prospect or Morgan basement is likely less peaceable than Lehman. Another factor are the small things in life, such as the motion-sensor in my shower room that inevitably shuts off the light while someone is still showering.
What do you remember about your housing here from years past?
Edited at 5:30 in order to focus more exactly on the dorms as opposed to the housing system.
There was debate last week about whether or not the monthly Williams faculty meetings are public. The truth seems to be that, for decades, they were but that, very recently, things have changed. Pathetic. If you believe in the virtues of academia, then you believe in openness and transparency. Although many meetings at Williams will, of course, need to remain private, any gathering of the full faculty should be public. Aren’t all my progressive friends supposed to believe in open meetings? Details below.
Emily Spine ’11 and the other Ephs on the Committee on Community Interaction continue to do fine work. They are serious, thoughtful and — most importantly from a process point of view — transparent. Alas, their task is a hard one. How can we improve “the way people in this community interact with each other” at Williams?
My suggestion: Expand First Days (pdf) by one week.
Now, to be fair, the first part of CCI’s work is to determine if Williams has a problem. I think that too many people exaggerate the extent of, say, racism at Williams (c.f. the empty star chamber) but there is no doubt that a wonderful place can always be made more wonderful. Surely we can agree that the amount of drunken vandalism at Williams is suboptimal.
The key insight of organizations that try to change their members behavior (and even value systems) is that the best time to do so is at the very beginning. The Marine Corps places boot camp at the start of your service, not because it is critical to learn how to shine your boots the first week, but because that is the occasion for leaving behind your civilian values and replacing them with different ones. The same applies to religious cults. It is hard for the CCI to do anything which will significantly change the behavior of a Williams senior. He is what he is. You can try to change him, but don’t expect to succeed.
But the same student, as an 18 year-old first year, new to college and to Williams, having left behind the old landmarks of high school and family, trying to adjust to a new world with an unknown culture and foreign standards, that Eph is malleable. You can change his “heart and mind,” if not easily than with more ease than you can an older student, someone who has already found a place for himself at Williams.
Now, the exact mechanics of how we might make First Years better people, how we might change their values so that they are less likely to trash someone’s room or shout a racial slur, is a difficult topic. Yet we can all agree that that process takes time, that First Days are already too filled to accomplish much, that any effort to improve community interaction requires hours and hours of effort. Add a week to First Days and you have that time.
Imagine an extra week of First Days, a week that focuses almost completely on meeting your fellow Ephs, on learning their names, their dreams, their hopes and aspirations. Imagine a freshmen class in which every resident of Pratt knows, not just the names of everyone in her entry, but the names of every student in her dorm. Imagine a week cut off from Williams academics and Williams sports, a week spent focusing on your classmates, the students you will spend the next four years with and then stay connected with for decades thereafter.
If you want to improve “community interaction” then you need to strengthen the Williams community, and that begins by learning names and sharing meals. Such learning and sharing occurs in entries and during the school year, of course. But the more such connections are made, the stronger our community will become.
If Ephblog readers have ideas on doing this and making it work, as well as other possible uses (book swap / exchange?), I’d certainly welcome them, and will be inviting Joey to join this thread.
Rarely do I ask favors here, but this is a cause worth a bit of thought if you have the time. That goes for non-regular commenters too, all 800 of you.
The Campus Rape Myth is a long an interesting read, especially as a male member of RASAN (the Rape and Sexual Assault Network). Make no mistake, it’s quite provocative.
The campus rape movement highlights the current condition of radical feminism, from its self-indulgent bathos to its embrace of ever more vulnerable female victimhood. But the movement is an even more important barometer of academia itself. In a delicious historical irony, the baby boomers who dismantled the university’s intellectual architecture in favor of unbridled sex and protest have now bureaucratized both. While women’s studies professors bang pots and blow whistles at antirape rallies, in the dorm next door, freshman counselors and deans pass out tips for better orgasms and the use of sex toys.
The “Sex Signals” show mentioned in the article came to Williams as well, and I don’t think the writer was fair in her characterization of them, so take the article with a grain of salt. Follow the jump for more quotes. Read more
Readers may recall that I have made the point a few times that, when it comes to social issues, controversies, and student self-governance at Williams, there is a certain circularity that seems to escape the notice of most on campus. The last time I wrote on this it was to cover 2007’s resurrection of the idea to “lock down” campus dorms to non-residents after a certain hour, in the name of descreasing vandalism. This same idea had been almost foisted on students four years ago, nearly to the day. Thankfully, Security showed forbearance in 2003, and student voters showed good sense in 2007.
The present project of a large group of students to consider adopting a Social Honor Code is another case of nothing new, and as intrepid and proud of their work as today’s students rightly feel, I hope proponents and opponents alike are aware that their peer predecessors had the same concerns and solution. Once again, nearly precisely 4 years ago, a draft of a Social Honor Code was on the floor at College Council. Sabrina Wirth ’05 was its author and main proponent, and she brought it to the floor during the 14 January 2004 Meeting of College Council. The text of her draft and the debate over it are recorded in the linked minutes from that meeting, and included below the break for (highly) interested readers.
Back then, the project was allowed to be forgotten. A number of people including myself volunteered to work with Sabrina on the project, but it was never followed up on, due to a combination of timing, disinterest or suspicion by some in Council, including myself. Then and now, I did not believe in implementing such a code, largely because I knew it would be actually enforced by the dean, and not what I considered a true representative body of the community. The ability to “enforce community standards” is the most broad and vague source of disciplinary power for the Dean, and I had no desire to see it strengthened.
I don’t at all wish to impose my views or arguments on the students of today, though I do hope this:
- Students will read Sabrina’s work and the discussions of their predecessor peers.
- Students will not make the interpretation of community standards the discretion of a dean, who is already the executor and need not be made judge or jury as well.
- If they draft a code, students make it one amendable by students alone. The Academic Honor Code is amendable only by faculty and, in this way, is not a good model for a code of the community. Only a tiny percentage of the faculty are any meaningful part of the social community.
- The code be publicly deliberated and voted on, and written records kept of all deliberations. All of this will be crucial to properly implementing and revising such a code in the future.
Awful as scrawling “nigger” is, arguably worse incidents took place shortly before and after Sabrina’s code proposal, and it was not taken up by enough believers to continue her effort. I’d have to bet on the side of the idea of this code being eventually dropped—doing it right would take so much time and thought, and doing it wrong would be awful—but if a code is implemented, one thing is certain: administrators now and ever after will describe it as a mandate, as “the restrictions students convened to place upon themselves.”
They had better be smart ones. When you hand over the freedom to determine community standards informally—through public shame and subtler private mechanisms—no one ever hands it back to you.
In the WNY thread we recently had some argument over the usefulness of Williams’ requirements for graduation, namely the Quantitative Reasoning (QR) and Intensive Writing (IW) instituted in 2001, and the Foreign Language (FL) proposed but rejected then.
Not discussed as often is a fourth proposal then, that missed 2/3 acceptance by one vote: a Public Speaking (PS) requirement.
I’d like to reopen the debate on this issue. Should Williams have requirements for graduation beyond 32 classes and a major? David takes the con side of this.
For this argument, I’ll go pro for public speaking and division requirements but con for others. Prior comments show that others will take pro more generally, supporting FL if not other requirements. My opening points are below, and I’d love for others to join the discussion on this critical topic.
We never did cover what happened with that ill-timed, ill-considered vote about locking down the campus that so bothered me to see reconsidered. Andrew’s blog for College Council has got it covered: Students voted NO to letting houses restrict access by a margin of 1,349 to 204. That’s about as clear a response as you get. I hope the College gives up trying to solve the problem this way.
Andrew’s post excerpts some good free-response quotes appended to people’s votes and posts the whole collection of free responses. Way to go, Andrew, that’s fine work. If all surveys of students were so transparent, they couldn’t be used to justify actions that were against the respondents’ wills.
A comment to Andrew’s entry alleges
Sure, restricted card access is probably unnecessary. But there are so many problems with that survey that the whole thing just became a joke.
I wonder what made it a joke? Were there other bad questions? Was it poorly advertised or something? Details, especially a post of the original survey would be great if it was anything beyond yes/no and the comment box.
I am very pleased to announce that, in consultation with the Board of Trustees, the College has decided to eliminate loans from all financial aid packages and replace them with grants.
This applies to all future aid awards, including those of current
students. First-years, sophomores, and juniors will see the change
reflected in their award letters for 2008-09.
See the whole letter via the link below.
Four years and three days ago College Council debated this very issue, and decided overwhelmingly against restricted card access. Direct input from a large number of students was the basis of the decision; we had an unusually high influx of opinions that week.
I urge the leaders of campus today to remember the debate of four years ago, links to its records are in the extended entry. I urge them also to remember that no decision that provides Security with a new tool that they feel prevents danger and damages can be easily reversed. In other words, restricted access in even some dorms this year is highly likely to lead to at least as much restriction in future years, and likely more, and even if no benefit from such restraints were to materialize the restrictions will remain in place.
We are looking at not just an inconvenience this semester but likely an enduring change in campus culture. Students may well have this forced on them someday, but they ought not to take it by choice.
Although policies will be set by our board of directors, we will always seek community involvement. Let’s start by revisiting our policy on removals.
How can I get a post or comment about me deleted?
Just ask! EphBlog will delete almost any post or comment which mentions a specific individual at the request of that individual. We have been asked a dozen times to delete specific material and have complied with almost every request. This is not to say that we will delete anything that anyone wants us to. For example, important, news-worthy topics (e.g., here, here and here) will be covered even if that coverage makes the subject uncomfortable.
What do you want this policy to be going forward? In other words, I don’t want to revisit for now how this policy might have applied to Julia (or anyone else) in the past. Feel free to use Julia or other historical examples) in making an argument and specifying how a new policy might work. But, if you don’t like this policy, please provide a new one. Write down exactly what the FAQ should say. The nice thing, in my view, about the current policy is that it provides fairly clear criteria. We need rules based, not on how much we like the person behind a given request, but on criteria that are person/viewpoint neutral.
Currently browsing posts filed under "Policies"