Fri 30 Sep 2005
Is it called beach volleyball if it’s only on a fake beach?
-
Archived Entry
- Post Date :
- Friday, Sep 30th, 2005 at 8:31 am
- Category :
- Photo IDs
- Do More :
- You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Fri 30 Sep 2005
Is it called beach volleyball if it’s only on a fake beach?
September 30th, 2005 at 9:31 am
It’s the area behind Perry near Bascom. Yet when I lived in both houses I never saw anyone there playing volleyball…
September 30th, 2005 at 1:35 pm
I lived in Perry and Bascom in the early 1980s. And I seem to recall that the volleyball court was in existence at that time, and was used periodically. So it may be a surprisingly old feature of the Williams landscape.
On the other hand, the black fire escapes on the wall of Perry are new to me.
I lived for one semester in the back wing of Perry, on the right side of the photo. At that time, the college still operated a cozy little dining hall in the front of Perry House (Spencer and Wood had them too). You could stumble down to breakfast in your bathrobe and pajamas.
The row house dining halls were shut down the next year, despite our vocal protests. After that, we were forced to cross Route 2 and eat in the crowded, sterile atmosphere of Greylock. It was harsh, but most of us managed to survive.
October 1st, 2005 at 1:04 am
At one time there were 15 cozy dining rooms on campus, to which proximate denizens could stumble for breakfast.
October 1st, 2005 at 2:28 am
I can remember small cozy dining halls in Perry, Spencer, and Wood. Also Fort Hoosac House, which if I recall correctly was turned over to the Clark Art Institute. I think Tyler had a dining hall too.
By the time I graduated, there were only five big dining halls left, in Greylock, Mission Park, Driscoll, Dodd, and Baxter.
Where were the others?
October 1st, 2005 at 8:29 am
Cal: Before abolition there were 15 fraternities on campus - you know or can probably project their location. Each of them had a dining room. The fraternity system had many virtues, small and large, which were lost on abolition and have not been and most probably never will be regained. It also had several large vices, which were targeted for extinction, - namely, racism, sexism, anti-intellectualism and encouragement of alcohol abuse - which certainly have not disappeared from campus and some of which, it appears, were not even reduced by the abolition. Rather than try to improve the system, an achievable objective, the control freaks in Hopkins Hall threw the baby out with the bath water. On balance a current reasonably modified fraternity system would be superior in terms of housing, tone of social life and innumerable small ways and would be no worse (and possibly better) with respect to vices than that which exists today. But of course then the administration would have less control, and no reasonable person would want the students to have the experience and outcome of exercising more self determination. After all, they might do things differently, and very possibly better, than the powers that be.
October 1st, 2005 at 7:12 pm
This is probably not the place to debate the wisdom of the frat ban; I personally think the administration made the right call. Nonetheless, I have to admit that the small house dining halls, which were obviously a vestige of the old system, are a fondly remembered part of my Williams experience.
I only brought it up for possible historical interest. I doubt that many current Ephs realize that Williams Dining Services continued to operate several small house dining halls for several years after coeducation. It was nice while it lasted, but presumably inefficient.
October 1st, 2005 at 10:54 pm
Cal: I apologize for ranting, but in 2005 one keeps hearing about “fixing” 2 sorts of things at Williams related to the abolition of fraternities (among others): namely, (1) those things that were “fixed” under the fraternity system in 1953 at the time of the administration’s first major move toward abolishing fraternities, then became “unfixed” by the abolition, never were “fixed” subsequently and currently remain “unfixed”; and (2) those things that were “unfixed” in 1953, were supposed to be “fixed” (in whole or in part) by the abolition, never were “fixed” subsequently and currently remain “unfixed”. One does not seem to hear about those things that were “unfixed” in 1953, were supposed to be “fixed” (in whole or in part) by the abolition, were actually “fixed” by the abolition and currently remain “fixed”.