The latest “sexual assault” madness at Williams:

Here is the complaint (pdf). I was going to write about this when it first happened three weeks ago, but I held off in the hope that the Record was a serious paper and would soon cover the issue. And it did!

The Feb. 18 Doe v. Williams case alleges that the College’s findings that Doe “engaged in kissing and touching with another student without her affirmative consent” were based on the female student’s (pseudonymously referred to as Sally Smith) false allegations to the College, and that his subsequent suspension was wrongful and unjust.

According to the lawsuit, after Doe engaged in what the plaintiff describes as “consensual sexual contact on two occasions with a fellow foreign student,” the female student accused him of being “‘culturally insensitive’ to her conservative religious values by kissing her but then not pursuing a relationship with her” and only reported his behavior to the College months later.

Doe’s complaint features text messages Smith sent Doe after their first encounter including statements such as “the other night was amazing” and that she had been “feeling so different and liberated after it,” which, the lawsuit claims, the panel did not note in its decision.

Read the whole thing. Reporter Annie Lu is a rising star at the Record. But she should broaden the set of people she talks to. She does not quote (or interview?) a single Williams critic. Other comments:

1) This is a getting a lot of (unwanted!) national attention. See Barstool Sports and The College Fix. This story is crazy enough that it might break into the mainstream. Have fun Maud!

2) Should I spend a week on it? I find these stories depressing.

3) We have not covered this story yet.

This lawsuit is similar in nature to a complaint filed by another male former student on Jan. 28, 2018, which is now under investigation by the United States Department of Education’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR). The 2018 complaint also claims the College violated Title IX in discriminating against a male respondent in a sexual misconduct case. However, the OCR investigation is independent of the courts and operates separately from civil suits.

Could someone provide the details for this one in the comments?

4) Naive readers may wonder how Williams can possibly still employ Allyson Kurker as an investigator. She has ruined the lives of innocent students. Read The Campus Rape Frenzy: The Attack on Due Process at America’s Universities by former Williams professor KC Johnson for all the gory details. Kurker is a monster.

5) Kurker was hired by Meg Bossong, Director of Sexual Assault Prevention and Response at Williams. Kurker is paid by Meg Bossong and does whatever it takes for Meg Bossong to hire her again. Kurker may be a monster, but she is Meg Bossong’s monster. Williams gets what it pays for.

Why does Meg Bossong want to ruin the lives of male Hispanic Ephs? (Recall the John Doe of Safety Dance is also Hispanic.) I don’t know, but ruin them she does.

Entire Record article below the break. Do we need a scandal name? Perhaps “Amazing Night” or “Culturally Insensitive.”


Print  •  Email
MCLA’s Berkshire Cultural Resource Center (BCRC) is pleased to offer a free shuttle bus, the ART SHUTTLE, to all MCLA and Williams College students. The ART SHUTTLE will launch on Thursday, March 3rd, from 3-6PM.  The ART SHUTTLE will provide students transportation to tour and visit four art institutions in both North Adams and Williamstown. The tour will make a loop that take students to The Clark Art Institute, The Williams College Museum of Art (WCMA), MASS MoCA, Gallery 51. The ART SHUTTLE is intended to give students a means to explore and enjoy the world-class art in spaces just beyond the borders of their campus. These four partnering institutions are working together to better serve and engage students.


Print  •  Email

Update on coronavirus measures – Week of March 4th

Dear Williams students, faculty and staff,

Following is this week’s email on COVID-19. Because the situation is changing constantly, we’re going to launch a college website where you can find updates and additional information at any time. Look for an announcement once the site goes live later this week.

The first thing we want you to know is that the college’s academic mission and your health and safety are our top priorities. If decisions need to be made or actions taken, we’re going to do so with those concerns foremost in mind. A leadership team is conferring daily to review emerging developments and promptly make any necessary decisions.


Print  •  Email

Back in January, DDF did a series of posts about Johns Hopkins ending preferences for legacies in the admission process. In the comments, fendertweed said, “I definitely know of alums (who are alumni kids too) whose children weren’t accepted at Williams. It definitely left a bad taste there re alumni enthu$ia$m, etc.”

Gen X Alum responded with, “This certainly seems correct to me. This was one of the things I thought about as my kid was deciding on whether to apply to Williams. Not sure how I’ll feel if he’s not accepted this spring. He’s clearly academically qualified and is a pretty interesting kid (I’m biased, I know), but is probably short in the extra-curricular/leadership department. I’m sure Williams won’t miss my money, and I’d like to think I would still give, but I’m not sure how I’ll feel if he doesn’t get in.”

I was surprised by both of these comments. As my children go through the college admission process, it seems clear to me there is a large component of luck. Williams rejects a large number of high quality, well qualified, wonderful kids every year. Whether or not my kid was accepted was not going to change the kind of person they are or how I felt about them. Also, how I feel about Williams was not going to change based on whether or not they accepted my child.

I am curious if most people think along the lines of fendertweed’s contacts and Get X Alum or if they would respond more like me. How would you respond if Williams rejected your child?

Print  •  Email

As the Record points out in a slew of articles, two groups of students are being hit particularly hard by COVID-19: international students, and students studying abroad.

From “International students feel impacts of coronavirus travel restrictions”:

Many international students have changed or cancelled their plans to travel home during spring break. “I have already had to cancel my trip home to Dubai, but now I am unsure of whether traveling even within the U.S., like to California for example, is worth the risk either,” Simran Sohal ’20 said. “It’s hard to distinguish between paranoid and prepared.”

KJ Kogawa ’23, whose family lives in Shanghai and who also has Japanese citizenship, agreed. “It’s affected a lot of my plans,” he said. “I don’t want to be in a situation where I’m abroad and just being told, ‘you can’t fly back’…there’s a chance that I might just stay here, which is okay… Because I’m definitely not going home… And I don’t know if I’m even going to go back during the summer.”

There’s the obvious concern for students from those countries that have been hardest hit by the epidemic, who can’t even consider going home for spring break to see their family and are worried about whether their families will be able to visit them; the CDC has so far suspended entry of Chinese and Iranian citizens foreign nationals to the US, and has travel health notices for the majorly-hit countries. This worry about travel is on top of what must be fairly constant worry for their families in those countries.

But, as the article points out, there’s also a more general concern even for international students not directly from those countries; they’re stuck wondering if, by the time spring break rolls around–or even, as someone quoted mentions, by the time commencement rolls around–if flying anywhere means getting stuck in that country, being denied re-entry, or other such complications.

Meanwhile, juniors who are studying abroad in those countries affected by coronavirus probably aren’t having the phenomenal semester they were hoping for, either.

The Record highlights Italian study abroad programs that have been cancelled and directly affecting students; I don’t know how to tell if this is because Italy is somehow the only country in which junior Ephs are currently studying abroad, or if the Record just for some reason chose not to cover what’s going on with study abroad students in the other affected countries. In any case, in their article on Italian study abroad cancellations:

Ten students enrolled in study abroad programs in Italy are facing uncertainty about the rest of their semester due to the country’s coronavirus outbreak and subsequent program cancellations. Many students have already left Italy and will finish the semester through online classes. …

Students whose programs are suspended will not be allowed to return to the College at this point in the term, according to Chief Communications Officer Jim Reische. …

All of the students’ programs will be offering online classes, through which students can finish the semester. In a break from its standard policy, the College will grant these students credit for courses completed virtually, according to Christina Stoiciu, the College’s director of study away. The College will also provide support for students who will need to make up for course deficiencies over the summer, said Vice President for Campus Life Steve Klass.

That must be a pretty big letdown: to go from, say, studying classics in Rome to apparently having the entire program suspended, so that you’re sent home and left to take classes online, going from maybe one of those Williams students’ best educational experiences to probably one of the worst.

The article implies that, while other colleges are requiring that their students who are studying abroad return home, Williams hasn’t made any such demand of its students; instead, students are coming home because the programs they’re in are being outright cancelled.

It’s unfortunate, but makes sense, of course, that Williams can’t let them back on campus, but boy, must it be a bummer for those students. Next semester, though, they will be back on campus–and if coronavirus continues to preclude study abroad, then Williams will have a pretty big housing problem on its hands when those students who would have studied abroad are suddenly all on campus.

From the Record, the College is apparently thinking about contingencies for housing issues brought about by COVID-19:

If more juniors than usual are on campus because of disruptions to study away, students would be housed according to what Schiazza called a “stepped approach.”

First, students would fill all the beds in regular housing, typically by picking into “dingles” — doubles being used as singles — and thereby turning them back into doubles. Second, rooms that Schiazza termed “double-singles,” formerly known as flex rooms for their ability to function as either doubles or singles, would be converted into doubles.

If all the dingles and double-singles were to be used as doubles, and there were still not enough room for every student — a situation Schiazza called “not likely, but still possible” in his all-campus email — doubles of at least 230 square feet would be made to accommodate a third student. These larger doubles are called “triple-doubles.”

Fun stuff.

Print  •  Email

Excellent Record article about the recent Three Pillars election.

On Sunday, March 1, the Three Pillars Task Force released the results of its most recent election, which determined the members of the Williams Student Union and the Facilitators for Allocating Student Taxes (FAST). The election took place between Feb. 24 and Feb. 29, with a 26.2 percent turnout, and followed a student referendum abolishing College Council (CC) held earlier this month.

The Williams Student Union, in charge of representing the student body to the administration and serving as an advocacy body, includes three class representatives from each year. However, due to a lack of self-nominations, the junior class has only two representatives, while the senior class has one.

Three Pillars has already failed, as we predicted it would. If you can’t get enough candidates to run in the first election, when interest and excitement is at its highest, then you are an incompetent designer of new institutions.

Reporter Lucy Walker does a great job here. Is it just me, or is the average quality of Record articles much higher in the last few months? Kudos to her and/or to her editors.

Remembering chaos in CC and ineffective governing and advocacy, many students are hoping that the new structure and their role in it will help create positive change.

Future historians will want to know why CC was abolished now. Seems like controversies about Black Previews and WIFI were key. Or was there other “chaos” that we failed to cover?

Jonah Tobin ’23 emphasized the unique opportunity the Student Union presents. “Without formal power, this will be an experiment to listen to and act on the needs and interests of the student body,” Tobin said. “I hope to create tangible change for the student body and be an open sounding board to their ideas.”

“Without formal power,” the WSU will be a total failure. Is that not obvious? No wonder so few students bothered to run, or to vote.

The senior representative for the Williams Student Union is Sara Shamenek ’20, who was elected from a field of 22 write-in candidates due to a lack of applications from the senior class.


None of the newly-elected members of FAST responded to a request for comment.

That is a good start on transparency! Say what you will about the old CC, but its members would talk to the Record.

The turnout for the election was 26.2 percent, with 571 total students voting. The student turnout rate was 13.5 percent lower than the turnout rate for the all-campus referendum to abolish CC, which had 868 total votes and a voter turnout of approximately 40 percent.

Participation in the TABLE elections later this spring will be even worse.

Print  •  Email

From Twitter:

I am not a virologist, but should Williams really be hosting conferences in the midst of a global pandemic? Or should I believe President Trump when he says everything is OK?

Who wants to bet that PIER will be cancelled? I bet it will!

Print  •  Email

(This is in response to David’s post: The Parable of the Privilege Pill.) tl;dr: holistic admissions are necessary to admit the students most likely to academically succeed at Williams.

Imagine that there are two applicants from comparable schools with 3.8 GPAs and 1500 SATs. The question you’ll have to answer, at the end of this post, is whether you think that they are likely to perform similarly academically at Williams (a limited version of what it might mean for a student to be ‘successful’).

Applicant A.

Applicant A has parents who sit with her every night and make sure she does her homework.  Applicant A’s parents don’t ever discuss her homework with her or help her; they just make sure that she does the work.  The several occasions that Applicant B’s parents leave town, Applicant B does none of her work (but her teachers still make a one-time exception and allow her to complete the work late with no penalty).  As a consequence, Applicant A turns in 100% of her assignments, averaging 90%, which results in her getting mostly As but a handful of Bs.

When Applicant A took the SAT, she first took a practice test a year before, scoring 1200.  Her parents paid for her to have an SAT tutor, who, like many SAT tutors, spent the year teaching exclusively test-taking strategies.  By the end of the year, Applicant A didn’t know any more math or reading, but she was much better at taking the SAT — and scored a 1500.

Applicant B.

Applicant B’s parents each work two jobs, so they are not around most nights (or are exhausted when they are home).  Moreover, Applicant B has to work on and off through high school to help her family make their bills.  As a consequence, Applicant B sometimes misses assignments; she forgets, is tired, or simply doesn’t have the time.  Throughout high school, Applicant B turns in 90% of her work — but her work is always perfect, averaging 100%.  This results in her getting mostly As but also a handful of Bs.

When Applicant B took the SAT, it was the second time she had ever seen any part of the test (her 11th Grade English teacher spent a 50-minute class giving and discussing one reading comprehension section earlier in the year).  Applicant B doesn’t really know that people study for the test; most people in her high school and community don’t go to elite colleges, so there isn’t much discussion of it among her friends and family — and what little she hears is about how this is an aptitude test.  Taking the test effectively ‘blind,’ Applicant B fails to budget her time well, and leaves the last five questions on a math section blank despite being an excellent math student.  Nevertheless, she scores 1500.

The Question:

Who would you admit?

This isn’t a trick question and the answer isn’t particularly difficult: Applicant B clearly has more aptitude — and there’s little indication that she has any less work ethic (and some reasons to believe that she could have a great deal more).  These two applicants look identical based on their numbers, but Applicant A’s privilege renders her numbers misrepresentative vis-a-vis Applicant B, and to a fairly significant degree.

The More Difficult Question:

The more difficult question comes when considering Applicant A versus an Applicant C, who has a similar story to Applicant B but ends up with a 3.6 GPA and 1350 SATs (maybe because Applicant C’s 90% homework completion rate is distributed in such a way that she’s averaging 80% or 100% — and maybe also because she misbudgets her SAT time more badly, spending time triple-checking answers she knows).  The apparent SAT difference between Applicant A and Applicant C — 150 points — is large.  But Applicant A’s raw SAT aptitude is 1200 whereas Applicant C’s is 1350, implying that Applicant C may actually have significantly (150 points!) more SAT-measured aptitude.  Moreover, the apparent GPA difference between Applicant A and Applicant C — 0.2 — is large for these purposes.  But Applicant C actually performs significantly better (100% vs 90%) on each of her assignments.  And their difference in homework completion rate (90% vs. 100%) appears due far more to their respective home situations than it is to any sort of work ethic.  There is little reason to believe that, in the cushy environment of Williams (outside the reach of constant parental influence), Applicant C won’t turn in as much or more of her homework.  And there is good reason to believe that Applicant C will do better on what work she turns in, despite her significantly lower GPA and SAT.

The Real World:

Note: Applicant A is not wildly privileged.  There are many, many applicants to Williams who look roughly like Applicant A.  There are also many, many applicants to Williams who benefit far more from privilege than Applicant A does (many will get tutors, for example, who often just do the student’s homework for them).

Also note: Applicants B and C are not particularly underprivileged.  There are many applicants to Williams who look roughly like Applicants B and C.  There are also many applicants to Williams who have to overcome a lot more.

The simple point I’m trying to make here is that privilege is real, and that privilege regularly has a significant impact on GPAs and SAT scores in ways that have no bearing on a student’s aptitude (/ likelihood of academic success while at Williams).  For Williams to admit the class with the most academic aptitude–a goal that David espouses but I am not necessarily endorsing–Williams cannot simply look to the GPAs and SATs of its applicants.

Print  •  Email

tl;dr Enroll as many AR 1 applicants as you can, regardless of whatever “privileges” they may have had as children.

This comment from abl leads to the Parable of the Privilege Pill.

Imagine a family with twin sons, just entering 9th grade. The boys are average, both in their natural abilities and in their academic inclinations. Son 1 goes through high school with average grades and average test scores. According to Williams Admissions, he has an Academic Rating of 9. If he applies, he is rejected, as are all AR 9s. Note that Williams is not punishing him for bad performance in high school. The purpose of admissions is neither to punish nor reward. Williams rejects Son 1 because AR 9 high school students, on average, do very poorly at elite colleges.

Imagine that Son 2, on the other hand, takes a magic Privilege Pill on the first day of 9th grade, a pill which dramatically increases his academic performance for four years. He will receive excellent grades in high school and do very well on the SAT. Williams Admissions will rate him an AR 1 and, probably, admit him if he applies.

Williams would not (and should not) admit Son 2 if it knew about the Privilege Pill. By assumption, the pill only lasts for four years. After that, Son 2 becomes identical to Son 1, an AR 9, highly unlikely to perform well in an elite classroom. Admission to Williams is not a reward for strong performance in high school; it is a forecast of academic success in college.

The same reasoning applies to the Anti-Privilege Pill. Imagine a different family with twin daughters blessed with academic talent. Daughter 1 does very well in high school, is rated AR 1 by Williams and (probably) admitted. Daughter 2, unfortunately, takes an Anti-Privilege Pill at the start of high school and does much worse in terms of grades/scores than she would have done if she had not taken the pill.

Williams would (and should) admit Daughter 2 if it knew about the Anti-Privilege Pill. Recall that the pill, by definition, only lasts 4 years. Daughter 2 is, in truth, an AR 1 student whose underlying abilities have been masked in high school. We expect her to do as well at Williams as Daughter 1. Rejection from Williams is not a punishment for poor performance in high school; it is a forecast of academic struggles in college.

Things are different, however, in the case of a Privilege Pill (or Anti-Privilege Pill) which is permanent in its effects rather than temporary.

Consider a car accident in 9th grade which, tragically, leaves Daughter 2 with permanent neurological damage. Through no fault of her own, she will do only average in high school and will be scored as an AR 9 by Williams admissions. She will be rejected because, on average, high school students with AR 9, regardless of how they came to have an AR 9, do poorly at elite colleges. Even though she would have been an AR 1 (like her twin sister) were it not for the car accident, that sad fact does not influence Williams admissions.

The same reasoning applies to a Privilege Pill whose effect is permanent. If the Pill turns an average 9th grader into an AR 1, then Williams should admit her because she will, we expect, do as well as all the other AR 1s. The source of student ability — genetics, parenting, schooling, luck, wealth, special tutoring, magic pills — does not matter. Admissions to Williams is not a value judgment on the source, or justness, of student achievement in high school; it is a forecast of success in a Williams classroom.

With this framework, we can evaluate abl’s question:

If there are two students alike in every material respect (1450 SATs / 3.8 GPAs at the same school with comparable resumes), and you know that one student achieved her SAT scores after working with a private tutor with a long history of success stories while the other student did not have that opportunity — who would you accept?

The student without the tutor, obviously! In this scenario, the tutored-student has taken a Privilege Pill which, by assumption, is only temporary. She isn’t truly an AR 2. She would have scored 1300 without the tutor. She is really an AR 4 (or whatever). She is likely to do as well as other AR 4s at Williams. So, we should reject her (unless she is an AR 4 that we really want).

I honestly don’t see how any rational, clear-minded person can say that they aren’t going to accept the student who achieved her score on her own. That’s not because we are prejudiced against the student who got help: it’s that we don’t (or, at the very least, we shouldn’t) believe that her 1450 represents the same level of accomplishment and potential as the 1450 of the student who took the test cold.

Exactly how do you propose that Williams admissions determines “the student who achieved her score on her own?” While I am happy to answer your hypothetical question, the sad truth is that Williams has no (reasonable) way of determining which students achieved on their own and which did not. High quality SAT tutoring is available for free at Khan Academy, for example. How could you possibly know if a given applicant “took the test cold?” Answer: You can’t.

There strikes me as being a reasonable debate to be had about how and whether admissions officers should take these sorts of advantages into account in the admissions process. There is no reasonable debate to be had about whether or not privilege plays a role in student achievement as measured by SAT scores and by GPAs.

Perhaps. But the key question becomes: Are the advantages of privilege temporary or permanent? Does the Privilege Pill last through 4 years at Williams? If it does, then we can ignore it. Admissions to Williams is not a value judgment on the source, or justness, of student achievement in high school; it is a forecast of success in a Williams classroom.

Fortunately, this is an empirical question! Define “privilege” however you like, while using data available to Williams Admissions. I would suggest: A privileged applicant is one who attends a high quality high school (top decile?), will not need financial aid at Williams, and comes from a family in which both parents attended an elite college. (Feel free to suggest a different definition.) We can then divide all AR 1 Williams students into two groups: privileged and non-privileged. If you are correct that privileged students benefit from things like high quality SAT tutoring which makes them look temporarily better than they actually are, we would expect the privileged AR 1 students to perform worse at Williams than the non-privileged AR 1s. The same would apply to privileged versus non-privileged AR 2s, AR 3s and so on. Director of Institutional Research Courtney Wade could answer this question in an hour.

But don’t expect that analysis to be made public anytime soon. Courtney, and the people who do institutional research at Williams and places like it, are smart. They have already looked at this question. And the reason that they don’t publish the results is because of the not-very-welcome findings. Privileged AR 1s do at least as well at Williams as non-privileged AR 1s, and so on down the AR scale. The effects of the Privilege Pill are permanent. If anything, the results probably come out the other way because the AR scheme underestimates the permanent benefit of going to a fancy high school like Andover or Stuyvesant. But let’s ignore that subtlety for now.

The last defense of the opponents of privilege is to focus on junior/senior year. Yes, the poor/URM AR 3s and 4s that Williams currently accepts don’t do as well as the AR 1s and 2s in their overall GPA. But that is precisely because of their lack of privilege, or so the argument goes. After a couple of years, Williams has helped them to catch up, has made up for their childhood difficulties and obstacles.

Alas, that hopeful story isn’t true either. AR 3s/4s do worse than AR 1s/2s even after two years of wonderful Williams.

Summary: Admissions to Williams is not a value judgment on the source, or justness, of student achievement in high school; it is a forecast of success in a Williams classroom. It does not matter why you are an AR 1: intelligent parents who value education, luck in your assignment to a charismatic 8th grade teacher, wealth used to pay for special tutoring, genetics, whatever. All that matters is that your status as an AR 1 provides an unbiased forecast of how you will do at Williams. The Parable of the Privilege Pill highlights why the source of academic ability is irrelevant.

If Williams wants better students — students who write better essays, solve more difficult math problems, complete more complex science experiments — it should admit better applicants.

Print  •  Email

The results came in this evening, a little later than expected. I have included a link to the election results. JS is technically correct–turnout was lower than the Fall–but not by much (it was still, very, very low). It also appears that there is significant Task Force representation in the new organizations.

DDF UPDATE: For the benefit of future historians, here is a csv of the votes and here is an html summary.

Hello everyone,

The RESULTS are IN! We again would like to thank the many student leaders that ran for either WSU or FAST. Regardless of the results the student body thanks you for both putting yourself out there and embracing a bold vision of student government. We would also like to thank the student body for voting in yet another important election and providing overwhelming support for a student government founded by principles of equity, transparency, and accessibility.

As of March 1st, 2020, College Council is officially defunct. FAST and WSU will assume their roles.

A brief timeline of what comes next:

Tonight: The election closes and representatives for WSU and FAST are announced.

03/01: College Council stands Abolished. The referendum served as a constitutional amendment that rendered the Constitution, bylaws, and any other structural documents of the College Council null and void. FAST and the Williams Student Union shall begin the work of supporting the student body, and shall have all powers and responsibilities enumerated in their respective Constitutions and bylaws. They will host a joint meeting this Sunday where this transition of power will occur.


Print  •  Email

They have not yet sent out the results of the election, which closed yesterday.

The era of our new student government has finally arrived. We again would like to thank the student body for their overwhelming endorsement and support of the plan. We would also like to thank the many student leaders who have submitted self-nominations. Regardless of the results of this election, together we are all welcoming a new era of diverse, equitable, and accessible governance.

Here are the self-nomination packets for the Williams Student Union and FAST. Please take a look through and support the candidate that you feel will best serve our campus. Your VOTE and voice are integral to helping the Three Pillars succeed where College Council has failed.

Elections will open today and will end on Saturday, January 29th at 5 pm! You will receive a personalized voting link immediately following this email.

Good luck to our candidates and thank you everyone for voting!

Submitted to the Student Body by the Task Force on Student Governance

Print  •  Email

Three Pillars Emails will be in a separate post.


Print  •  Email

Evan Miller ’06 is one of the smartest Ephs of his generation. If you are interested in Coronavirus, there is no better source of information. Perhaps, in his next segment, Evan could address two issues:

1) If he were the president of Williams, what would he do?

2) What does he forecast that the president of Williams, and other elite colleges, will do?

I do not have strong opinions on either question. What say our readers?

Print  •  Email

GoRP, the most knowledgeable new commentator at EphBlog, writes about my “adamant disapproval of the structures of the new government.” My central problem with Three Pillars is precisely that they failed to create a “new government.” All they really accomplished was to destroy the old.

Don’t believe me? Believe Nicholas Goldrosen ’20, former managing editor of the Record.

The chief weakness of the plan is its creation of a separate advocacy body, the Williams Student Union, and removing the funding and appointment powers to separate bodies. Student government at the College has power to advocate for students through three main channels: money, appointments and direct advocacy. This plan undercuts the prospects of using all three by siloing them into separate organizations. In this ideal relationship, a central body can use these powers in tandem to achieve its goals. Say, for example, that student government is rightly concerned with increasing support for students of underrepresented identities on campus. It could use its funding power to increase support to Minority Coalition groups (as CC has done). It could use its appointment power to select a student chair for the committee on educational affairs who’ll advocate for course offerings that support diversity, equity and inclusion. Finally, its executive officers could serve as points of contact to advocate for these concerns to senior staff.

However, if separate bodies are supposed to advocate for student concerns, fund and appoint, no such coordinated effort could ever occur. The members of the Union would have no power to fund, no power to appoint and indeed “no executive or bureaucratic power,” per the proposed constitution. There would be no individual student leaders who could liaise with and advocate to the administration as the CC executive board could. Furthermore, I’m not sure, given the more controversial of CC’s meetings this past year, how less leadership could be seen as the correct solution.

Exactly right. To the extent that EphBlog has an ideology, its central tenet is that giving more power and responsibility to students is a good thing. CC may not have been the World’s Greatest Deliberative Body, but it was something. It had weight. The Administration felt it was a force to deal with. The Three (and, soon, Two) Pillars will be much weaker, much less important.

Goldrosen concludes:

Yet the answer to our student government not using its powers wisely and properly should not be to divest ourselves of those powers by splitting them into a decentralized structure that will ultimately fail to advocate for students.

Read the whole thing. It is the best Record op-ed in the last few years.

Entire Goldrosen article below the break.

Print  •  Email

A big win for the decades-long movement for Asian American Studies (AAS) at Williams! From Annie Lu at the Record:

Jan Padios, a professor of American studies at the University of Maryland, officially accepted a position at the College as a tenured associate professor of Asian American studies (AAS) in the American studies department on Feb. 17. …

The position is one of two tenure-line hires in AAS approved by the Committee on Appointments and Promotions (CAP) in February 2019 …

The hiring marks a significant step taken by the College towards the AAS program after over 30 years of activism, including protests at past Previews and graduation, as well as a photo campaign in 2018. To date, AAS at the College has been largely scattered across courses in several departments, including American studies, history, English and women’s, gender and sexuality studies.

Awesome news! Very cool, to me, that Padios will automatically come to Williams with tenure, and with the explicit purpose of teaching Asian American studies–not a visiting professor, on whose shoulders the work of teaching ethnic studies classes seems to often be put, and not someone hired for a more generalist position who might also teach the occasional course on Asian American studies-related topics.

On Padios herself:

At the University of Maryland, Padios is currently a tenured associate professor of American studies, the department’s director of graduate studies and an affiliate faculty member in women’s studies and the Asian American studies program. She is also a writer of creative nonfiction, essays and poems about “family, trauma and mental illness,” she said. … At the core of her work is a historical and anti-colonial analysis of the Philippines and Filipino people, particularly in relation to the U.S. “This is how I became a scholar of Asian American studies, a field to which I am very dedicated, and one of the reasons I decided to join the faculty at Williams College,” Padios explained.

To me she sounds eminently qualified, and the relevant people who are always quoted in Record articles about Asian American studies–notably, Professor Dorothy Wang, who is an American Studies teacher who has long shouldered much of the burden of teaching Asian American-focused classes in the past, and Suiyi Tang ’20, co-head of MinCo and a major leader of the student AAS activism movement–seemed to express excitement for her hire.

Looking ahead, the religion department will be hiring a junior professor in Asian American religions next year, for which a search committee has yet to be assembled. Once the hiring process is complete, all the faculty members teaching in the AAS field will have a discussion regarding whether AAS should become a free-standing program like Africana studies and Latino/a studies or remain a part of the American studies department.

This is the one thing that perplexes me. What are “Asian American religions”? As far as I know, there are no religions that were developed independently by Asian Americans, only religions practiced by Asian Americans that might have been brought from Asia. Certainly, I think “Religious practice in Asian American communities” is a great subject for a course, but for the second Asian-American-studies-specific hire to be in religion strikes me as a pretty unexpected choice. Given that the committee on appointments and promotions gave Asian American Studies two tenure-track positions, an American Studies professor certainly makes sense to me, so Padios’ hire fits the bill perfectly. For that second position, I would have thought it would fall to a literature field (English or Comp Lit, but more likely English), or maybe something like ANSO, maybe something like WGSS. But Religion? Does anyone have thoughts on why that’s the department where the next Asian American Studies tenure-track position will be filled? To me, it doesn’t add up.

Print  •  Email

This Record article provides an excellent overview of Three Pillars. Kudos to reporters Jeongyoon Han and Taryn Mclaughlin! Highlights:

Cabrera-Lomelí said he was “joyful” after hearing the news. “There is a weight off of my shoulders, off of [Sherman’s] shoulders, off of the Task Force…. The power is back in the hands of students, not in a room with [select] students.”

CC President Cabrera-Lomelí comes off as fairly buffoonish in this article. Is that fair? I am comfortable with CC presidents who take their responsibilities seriously enough that they really are a weight on their shoulders. I am comfortable with CC presidents who take a less serious attitude, recognizing that this is just student government at some tiny college, and nothing really matters. I find absurd a CC president (like Cabrera-Lomelí?), who acts like the job is serious and then destroys the very institution he has taken responsibility for.

Ryan Pruss ’20 concurred, particularly about the need for increased financial transparency.

No one loves transparency more than EphBlog! But wasn’t CC already fairly transparent, with live video of the meetings on Facebook and reasonably thorough meeting notes? And, to the extent it wasn’t transparent enough, then Cabrera-Lomelí and Sherman could have easily fixed this. Nothing (?) prevented them from, for example, putting every funding decision, indeed every funding request, on-line.

The Three Pillars will replace CC, which has received public scrutiny over the past year for its lack of student participation in elections; its bylaws, which were criticized as outdated and convoluted; its hesitance to fund Black Previews, or affinity programming for black students admitted to the class of 2023; and its decision not to grant registered student organization status to the Williams Initiative for Israel.

This seems like a great one paragraph summary of how we came to be here. Is it? (Commentary welcome!)

1) A big part of this debacle is certainly the pernicious influence of woke politics. If CC had just handed Black Previews money immediately, would Three Pillars exist?

2) Note how juvenile some of these complaints are. Student participating in CC elections has been low for decades. It is low at other schools. It will be low in the future. And that is OK! Students have better things to do. But a lack of participation is a lousy reason to abolish CC.

3) I agree that the CC bylaws were convoluted and outdated. (I do not know the history here, but, again, I think this was a product of misguided student reform efforts a decade (or more) ago. Who knows this history? Roberts Rules of Order are overkill for CC.) But, again, this was easy to fix. The bylaws can be changed by CC itself. Why didn’t Cabrera-Lomelí and Sherman just fix them? Why destroy a 50+ year old organization?

4) Did the WIFI issue play a role? I (naively?) see WIFI as a case where CC did the right thing from a woke point of view. That is, if you disliked CC’s hesitation about funding Black Previews, you would have applauded their decision to not recognize WIFI. Or did opponents of CC’s decisions — even though they disagree with and/or hate each other — just decide to gang up on CC as their common enemy? I am confused.

Entire article is below the break (because the Record can not be trusted to maintain its own archives).

Print  •  Email

Which Eph is most associated with Covid-19? Best I can do is Rich Besser ’81, former acting director of the CDC. Recent tweet:

Other suggestions?

Off topic: I still love this Besser smackdown from a decade ago. Media critic EphBlog is the best EphBlog!

Long-time readers will not be surprised to know that the EphBlog bunker is well-prepped for pandemic mayhem. Have you replenished your supplies recently?

Print  •  Email

Saw this article come across my email about Ephs Mike Needham and Oren Cass launching a new group called American Compass that aims to “reorient the right.”  As explained in the article:

Running as a populist, [Donald] Trump challenged Republican orthodoxy on free trade and tapped into the disaffection of blue-collar workers in the heartland who have been left behind by the growing, but uneven, economy. For the most part, however, he said conservative elites in the think tank world have not followed suit.  “The goal, long term, is to think about what the post-Trump right-of-center is going to be,” said Cass. “One of the reasons we think this is such an important project is that, even four-plus years after Trump emerged on the scene, there really has been very little new and interesting ferment in the right of center. It’s pretty much the same set of institutions and publications and so forth. … By and large, the establishment is what it was. And it seems to be keeping its head down and sort of hoping that everything can just go back post-Trump to the way that it was pre-Trump. To the extent that the future should sound different, and certainly I think it should, now is the time to start building the institutions and efforts that are going to make that a reality.”

Cass and Needham are not particularly recent grads (’05 and ’04, I believe), but its pretty amazing to me that leading conservative intellectuals have come out of Williams in (relatively) recent years.  Are the next Cass and Needham analogs currently in the Purple Valley?  Perhaps the angst about lack of ideological diversity is somewhat overblown.  I doubt they would have time, but it would be great if one of them would come to Williams and give a talk about their new organization.

Print  •  Email

Because there’s been a great deal of recent Ephblog implication (mostly from David) that College Council’s decades-long history at Williams demands a more cautious approach to its replacement, I wanted to dive a bit more into that history.

Here’s one interesting bit: College Council changed significantly in 2012 (in a referendum amendment, with 44% of the student body participating, of which 95% voted yes*, see

So what changes happened?  Well, they were pretty significant:

A. Composition Section A.

The College Council shall be composed of:
1. The Co-Presidents or President
2. The Five Vice Presidents
3. The Treasurer
4. The Assistant Treasurer.
5. Four class representatives elected from each class

There’s much more in the amendment itself:  Suffice it to say, the College Council that existed a month ago didn’t look much like the College Council that I knew from my time at Williams.  The Three Pillars plan changes the name of College Council (which, given its current unpopularity strikes me as probably a necessary rebranding), but I’m not convinced that the resulting student government structure is much more of a radical departure from the CC of 2019 than the CC of 2019 was from the CC that I knew.  Moreover, I suspect that student governance during my time at Williams differed significantly from that which David experienced: ACE and the Neighborhoods were respectively incredibly powerful influences on student governance while I was there, neither of which existed when David was a student.

Again, this isn’t to say that the Three Pillars plan is good, or that the amendment was proper.  My point is simply that closer inspection reveals that CC is far less of an unshakeable Williams institution than it might appear from a distance.

*To the extent you’re looking for precedent, this strongly supports my earlier contention that amending the CC constitution does not require 2/3 of the entire student body to vote in support.

Print  •  Email

Let’s spend a week going through this Three Pillars nonsense, the most absurd student reform movement in a generation. Disbanding College Council is a perfect example of Chesteron’s Fence — a change should be made only by those who understand the reasons for College Council in the first place. Day 5.

Even a glance at the Three Pillar Plan FAQs demonstrates the idiocy of this plan. (Recall that FAST is the Facilitators for Allocating Student Taxes and “are responsible for ensuring that registered student organizations and non-affiliated students can access funding for events that serve the interests of the Williams community.”) Examples:

Q: Can individual students receive funding from FAST?
A: YES, absolutely. Any individual student, even if they aren’t affiliated with an RSO, can receive funding, and the funding facilitators will help them write their budgets.

A random sophomore in Carter House can go to FAST and ask for, well, anything? How about a new big screen TV, the better to host gaming activities for him and his buddies? What could possibly go wrong? If you think that these scenarios aren’t possible, even likely, then you are a naif.

Q: Is it easier to get funding approved?
A: One of the most common complaints about the FinCom funding process was that the rules were hard to understand and many budgets were denied simply because the requestor didn’t understand the rules or how to write a budget. Under the new system, funding facilitators are available to help students write budgets which should eliminate this problem. In addition, no budget may be denied without requesting an amendment first, and it takes 4 out of 5 votes to deny funding.

An EphBlog parody, right? They can’t possibly be proposing this as a process for spending $500,000 each year . . . Indeed, they are!

1) I hate the implicit slur against generations of hard-working members of FinCom. Back in the day, there was no group of students on campus who worked harder (and without pay!) and who took their responsibilities more seriously. My understanding is that that dedication continued for the last 30 years. Has anyone heard differently? Has anyone heard that FinCom was not willing to help students prepare funding requests? Check out their page. Great stuff! Could you do better? I couldn’t. Odds that FAST will do better? Approximately zero.

2) In every money-disbursing organization on Earth, requests are “denied simply because the requestor didn’t understand the rules.” This is an unavoidable result of the human condition. FAST will, inevitably, do the same.

3) If only 2 FAST members are in favor, the budget goes through? And only one member is needed if only 4 members are at a given meeting? That is madness! What is going to prevent all the money from being used up in September? There are millions of dollars of (worthwhile!) projects that Williams students would like to spend money on. FinCom, sensibly, tries to spread the spending out over the course of the academic year. How will FAST do this if the default answer to every request is Yes?

4) What is to prevent the most obvious sort of back-scratching? Consider two members of FAST who happen to be friends, or at least willing to work together. One, a rugger, encourages the team to propose full uniforms for the rugby teams, including cleats. That is not unreasonable! Why shouldn’t a club team receive as much support from Williams as a varsity team. Another FAST member encourages the BSU, of which he is a member, to request funding for a three day trip to NYC, including hotels, food and tickets to Hamilton. That is not unreasonable! More funding for BSU might do a great job of helping the College’s recruitment efforts.

Now, given FAST’s structure, as long as these two members agree to not vote against each other’s favorite proposals, nothing can stop them.

Is there any member of the EphBlog community who thinks this is a sensible way of allocating student funds?

An even larger problem is that FAST does not have the history and institutional support of College Council to fall back on. FinCom worked because it was embedded in this history and structure. Its decisions also had to be ratified by CC, thereby providing a natural check on stupidity/dishonesty. What person/process will prevent FAST from running off the rails?

UPDATE: GoRP highlights, in a comment below, that several of the claims above are incorrect/implausible. See his analysis for details. And thanks for the corrections!

Print  •  Email

Update on coronavirus measures, week of February 17

Dear Williams faculty, students and staff,

Steve Klass and I are writing with this week’s update about the novel coronavirus (COVID-19) outbreak.


Print  •  Email

Congrats again! Together we created a new government that supports students. The time has come to constitute this government with voices across campus who are dedicated to the ideals of equity, efficiency, and advocacy outlined in their charge.

Submit your self-nominations for Funding Facilitators and the Williams Student Union before Sunday (02/23) at midnight! Self-nominations should be no more than 500 words and may include a photo of your choice.


Print  •  Email

Let’s spend a week going through this Three Pillars nonsense, the most absurd student reform movement in a generation. Disbanding College Council is a perfect example Chesteron’s Fence — a change should be made only by those who understand the reasons for the College Council in the first place. Day 4.

Is any aspect of this debate influenced by the Great Awokening?

1) I don’t know. Informed commentary welcoming!

2) Seems like current CC co-presidents Ellie Sherman and Carlos Cabrera-Lomelí are, personally, fairly woke. At least I remember some commentary to that effect during the election. Not that there is anything wrong with being Woke. Au contraire, mon frère! But, traditionally, the core function of College Council — managing its own affairs/elections and distributing money to student groups< --- has been independent of partisan politics. How much money to give The Elizabethans is not a question which maps easily on to contemporary US politics.

3) Did last year’s big blow ups — Wifi, African-American visting days funding — play a causal role? Or was this change always in the works?

4) Does anyone else find it sleazy that Sherman and Cabrera-Lomelí would run for office on a fairly standard Do-a-better-job-at-CC-platform and then, once elected, blow up the institution? I do! If they had ran and won with this promise, then fine. But they didn’t. (Corrections welcome.)

5) Any forecasts for how the new institutions will work? I predict disaster — or, at best, I predict that, in a year or two, we will end up with CC all over again, with all the same strengths and weaknesses — but have not gone through the details yet.

Print  •  Email

Let’s spend a week going through this Three Pillars nonsense, the most absurd student reform movement in a generation. Disbanding College Council is a perfect example Chesteron’s Fence — a change to be made only by those who understand the reasons for College Council in the first place. Day 3.

Competent social engineers know that:

In the matter of reforming things, as distinct from deforming them, there is one plain and simple principle; a principle which will probably be called a paradox. There exists in such a case a certain institution or law; let us say, for the sake of simplicity, a fence or gate erected across a road. The more modern type of reformer goes gaily up to it and says, “I don’t see the use of this; let us clear it away.” To which the more intelligent type of reformer will do well to answer: “If you don’t see the use of it, I certainly won’t let you clear it away. Go away and think. Then, when you can come back and tell me that you do see the use of it, I may allow you to destroy it.”

Is there any evidence that Three Pillars has done this? Not that I can see. (Contrary evidence welcome!) Maybe (maybe!) there were discussions about the recent performance of College Council. But I doubt that those discussions involved any testimony about CC before the arrival of these students on campus. I see no evidence that they wrote down anything that they found. Did these naifs know the first thing about the history of CC, the changes that were been made over the last 15 years, the reasons for those changes? Can they tell us about the amendments in 2016, the new constitution of 2012, the debates about CC in the decade before that? No. They are ignorant of that history.

They found a fence and they have no idea why the fence is there.

However, an ignorance of history might be (partly!) redeemed by a knowledge of the present. How much do the Three Pillars crowd know about how student government is handled at peer schools? Has Pomona gone through similar debates? Has Swarthmore made dramatic changes? How different is the current CC from student government at other NESCAC schools? Again, they had the time and the resources to display competence. They could have investigated these issues, wrote a report and educated the Williams community. They did none of that.

Laziness, incompetence and subterfuge are my three favorite explanations for these failures. What are yours?

Print  •  Email

I’m sorry to post up a storm (but I’m on a roll!).  Here’s my reading of the applicable part of the CC constitution (which I’ve copied below the fold).

Article VII, Sec. B requires that any amendment be “proposed by four-fifths majority of the College Council” and “ratified by a two-thirds majority of the student body voting in a referendum.” Article VII, Sec. A then requires that, for a referenda to be valid, at least 1/3 of students must vote in it. Section A (“Referenda”) also requires that two weeks notice be given, but Section B of Article VII (“Constitutional Amendments”) modifies Section A, and Section B only requires that “College Council [] take appropriate measures to inform and educate the student body about the changes proposed.” In short, I don’t actually think that there’s a two-week notice requirement for referenda that amend the constitution.

So, to properly amend the CC constitution you need to:

(1) have a proposal supported by 4/5 majority in CC;
(2) publicize the resulting referendum to the student body in an “appropriate” way that “inform[s] and educate[s] the student body about the changes proposed”;
(3) hold a vote in which at least 1/3 of students participate;
(4) have at least 2/3 of “the student body voting in [the] referendum” support the amendment.

How did that pan out here?

(1) I don’t know what the CC support for this proposal was.  Did the CC even propose this?  I know the CC voted (11-9, I believe) to form this task force, but that’s different from supporting the task force’s proposal (and, regardless, 11-9 falls far short of the 4/5 majority required);
(2) One can argue that if two weeks of publication is the minimum required notice for normal referenda, <two weeks is not “appropriate” for something as important as a constitutional amendment abolishing CC.  But I’m not sympathetic to such a formalistic argument regarding notice, especially since the Section B requirement regarding notice is, unlike the Sec. A requirement, not so rigidly defined.  Because I haven’t heard anyone raise non-formalistic objections to the adequacy of the notice given, I’m going to assume that it was adequate and that this requirement was therefore met;
(3) There was a vote with over 1/3 student participation;
(4) Well more than 2/3 of the students who voted supported the amendment.

I see (1) as the most significant obstacle here to legitimacy.  And to be clear, I don’t think that’s a minor obstacle.  Can anyone weigh in regarding CC’s support (or lack thereof) for this proposal?

Isn’t this all a question for the CC parliamentarian?  



Print  •  Email

I wanted to amplify a point made by PTC, because I think it deserves more attention:

So, actual notice of the plan had nine to ten days. How that and the year of general publicity leading up to the referendum meld into proper notice of two weeks is a technical matter.

Students had a lot of notice. They voted overwhelmingly to abolish the CC. The paper wrote about and endorsed this position prior to the vote as well.

I don’t think notice is a real issue. You can make a technocratic argument I suppose…

In short, from a purely formalistic standpoint, it does seem like the Three Pillars plan might not quite have complied with the CC guidelines re notice.  But the failure was minor, appears unintentional, and seems incredibly unlikely to have impacted the outcome.  And what is the desired ‘cure’ here?

In short, does a minor, technical, and almost certainly non-dispositive failure of notice invalidate the Three Pillars plan?  I lean toward ‘no,’ but I’d welcome arguments on both sides.

Print  •  Email

Let’s spend a week going through this Three Pillars nonsense, the most absurd student reform movement in a generation. Disbanding College Council is a perfect example of Chesteron’s Fence — a change should be made only by those who understand the reasons for College Council in the first place. Day 2.

The Williams Administration should ignore the results of this Referendum and continue with business as usual with the current College Council, even if some of its business don’t want to.

1) As our discussion yesterday demonstrates, Three Pillars failed to follow the rules. First, to have hold a Referendum, you must provide “two weeks of publicity.” They did not do this, so the results of the Referendum are invalid. Second, even if they did follow the rules, you can’t change/modify/abolish CC via a Referendum. Doing those things requires a Constitutional Amendment, the demands of which are (rightly!) much more onerous.

2) There are still students on College Council (I assume!) who are ready and willing to continue carrying on with their responsibilities, especially the distribution of funds. Their work should continue as normal. If the Three Pillars folks want to walk out, then let them. CC goes on regardless.

3) Students throw tantrums. Giving in to tantrums sets a bad precedent. A student vote can no more abolish an organization like College Council than it can abolish an organization like the Williams Economics Department or the Williams Ultimate Frisbee Club. Organizations have an existence independent of the opinions of the mob.

Print  •  Email

David–having issues commenting, but thought this was relevant. Not sure what the issue is.

The referendum was presented as unconstitutional; it was stated that the vote turnout did not need to meet the requirements set out in the CC constitution; nor did the margin of victory; it was not publicized for two weeks; it was not an official amendment, etc.

That being said, the vote met the constitutional thresholds for turnout and margin of victory, and everyone knew what they were voting for or against. That leads me to an interesting question @abl and others–if the referendum was unabashedly unconstitutional, but ended up meeting the important technical requirements, should it retroactively be considered constitutional? I don’t have an answer.

Also, there is a lot wrong with the Three Pillars Plan (so many poorly thought out small problems–perhaps enough to sink the ship), but I would hesitate to go to the lengths Concernedeph has in denigrating the process and the involved students. Fundamentally there is nothing wrong with the idea (practically, there is a lot wrong) and while there were a lot of ‘leftist’ students on the Task Force, it remains to be seen how the Three Pillars benefits them in any concerted way. The Williams Student Union (the activist wing) is toothless and there will be a vote in Spring 2021 as to whether to abolish it because it is pointless–if I had to guess, it will be removed. Unsure how TABLE can become political, but without the WSU, it just might end up being the ‘activist’ wing by being very biased in committee selections…if ever more than one person applies for a committee position, which is a trend that doesn’t seem to stand a good chance of changing. And FAST will just run out of money by March next year, not selectively give money to some and not others.

Print  •  Email

Let’s spend a week going through this Three Pillars nonsense, the most absurd student reform movement in a generation. Disbanding College Council is a perfect example of Chesteron’s Fence — a change should be made only by those who understand the reasons for College Council in the first place. Day 1.

Key Question: Are the Three Pillars folks even obeying the rules? (This point was first made by Current Student.) Recall the College Council Constitution:

Seems clear that there official rules have not been followed. (Admittedly, the situation is a bit complex since Three Pillars seems to not have been competent enough to figure out what they needed to do in order to accomplish their goals, or at least to accomplish them within the guidelines of the current rules.)

UPDATE: From a comment below:

Let’s be clear. This was not reform. This was a coup by radical leftist students who tricked the campus into signing away their government. Several of the students on the Task Force are known to be on the radical left, part of the “care now” complainers from last year, and part of the boycott English group.

1) Details, please! Which Task Force members specifically were part of Care Now. Which (others?) were English Boycotters.

2) What is their motivation? I understand what Care Now and the English Boycotters want to accomplish. (I disagree but at least I know what their goals are and how they hope to achieve those goals.) What do the Three Pillar folks have to gain by abolishing CC?

Print  •  Email

Perhaps the last post under the College Council tag.

To the Williams Community,

The Three Pillars Referendum Passes with 80.5% of votes in support, and 40% voter participation. Congratulations on welcoming a new era of student governance to Williams! The turnout for this election was the highest the College has seen in years, and the overwhelming support for the Referendum is a clear mandate for the Three Pillars Plan!

Forms response chart. Question title: Abolish College Council and institute the Three Pillars Plan. Number of responses: 868 responses.

The Task Force would like to thank every member of the Williams community who read the Three Pillars Plan, came to the Baxter Town Hall and voted on the Referendum. You all are the people that made this happen: you endlessly demanded structural change from an organization that hadn’t seen it in over forty years; you elected a diverse and representative group to advocate for your needs; and lastly, you voted for a radical new vision that puts equity at the forefront of governance! Thank you again, we should all be proud of what we have accomplished together.


As of 7:30 PM, February 14th, 2020, the Three Pillars Plan is ratified!


A brief timeline of what comes next:


Tonight: Self-nominations are now open for funding facilitators and members of the Williams Student Union. The solicitation period ends on 02/23 at 5 pm. Become a part of the Three Pillars!


02/24: The election period for FAST and The Williams Student Union opens. The voting period will end on 02/28.


02/27: Pub Night “Meet the Candidates” events. Come learn more about the students running for FAST and the Williams Student Union.


03/01: College Council stands Abolished. This referendum shall serve as a constitutional amendment that renders the Constitution, bylaws, and any other structural documents of the College Council null and void. Until March 1st, College Council shall be stripped of all powers and responsibilities except the oversight of FinCom.

03/01: FAST and the Williams Student Union shall begin the work of supporting the student body, and shall have all powers and responsibilities enumerated in their respective Constitutions and bylaws. Elections for TABLE will occur in late spring. Once TABLE elections have been held, the Task Force will dissolve and have no further obligations to their charge.


Congrats everyone!


Szőllősi Bálint ’22, Minority Coalition

Leo Lam Haines ’21, Community-Service Organizations

Onder Kilinc ’23, Minority Coalition

Porter Johnson ’21, College Council

Tyler Johnson ’21, Club Sports

Adam Jones ’21, At-Large

Shadae McClean ’21, Junior Advisors

Rebecca Park ’22, Faith-Based Organizations

Essence Perry ’22, Strategic Planning

True Pham ’23, College Council

William Ren ’21, At-Large

Natalie Silver ’22, Student Athletic Advisory Committee

Adly Templeton ’20, College Council

Hipólito Vázquez ’22, Minority Coalition

Nicolle Mac Williams ‘21.5, Performance Organizations

Print  •  Email

« Newer PostsOlder Posts »