Wed 25 Apr 2007
Kudos to College Council for devoting tonight’s meeting to Mary Jane Hitler. The more discussion, the better. Perhaps someone will live-blog it. Better would be a podcast by WCFM. I certainly hope that the secretary (Remington Shepard ‘08) takes Landsmanian quality minutes. (Alas, there seem to be no minutes posted since 2005. Or am I looking in the wrong place?)
Most productive, I suspect would be a review of current College policies and suggestions for changes. More below:
First, what is the policy about posting things on students doors? Rahul has argued persuasively that it is not allowed. Is he right? (I hope so.) And, if he is, can we expect security to take down the Holocaust Remembrance Day (HRD) posters next year?
Second, it is important to address the fact that some students did not like the HRD posters. Examples:
I found the HRD posters just as offensive. Saying they were not religious posters is bull. Saying that you were trying to call attention to all the atrocity in the world is backpeddling at best. There were no African children or Bosnian children on those posters. Only Jewish children. Not even the children of gypsies or any of the mixed race children that were experimented on and sterilized. Not a single one. There was a Star of David on the poster, and the way a small child died horribly. I take offense at ANYONE posting the methods of cruelty measured on any child, on my door.
The Hitler posters were completely out of line.
The Holocaust Rememberence Day posters, however, were also out of line, and especially insensitive just a couple weeks after the recent death of a Williams Student, while so many of us are still engaged in the greiving process.
I am not applauding the person who put up the Hitler posters, as it is utterly innappropriate. I am also not saying that there should be rules against posting things on student doors, but, rather, that students should exercise empathy and common sense when considering such an action.
The Holocaust Rememberence Day posters were intentionally crude, stating the exact manner of death of each of the victims. I found them confrontational and uncessary. Would it seem appropriate to put such posters up door to door in North Adams? The door to my room here at school is the door to the only personal space I have here on campus; it is my home, and I feel violated.
It would have been more appropriate to have displayed the Holocaust Rememberence Day posters in public areas only.
Personally, I was more offended by the Holocaust Rememberence poster on my door than by the Hitler poster that showed up a day later. Just the way I want to start my morning…a dead child on my door.
My point here is not to judge whether the students who found either set of posters (or both sets) offensive are right or wrong, reasonable or overly sensitive. I take them at their words. The point is to figure out a way to balance the ability of student activists to raise an issue with the rights of students not to feel threatened or harassed.
Third, I have a solution to this problem: my Eph Style Guide! Had we such a guide already, you can bet that it would have included references to Hitler, thereby providing a rationale for why security should take down posters featuring Hitler but not those about HRD.
My suggestion is to leave College policy the way it is with regard to widespread posting on student doors. It isn’t “allowed” but it isn’t punished either. Write an Eph Style Guide and use it to decide what posters Security will automatically remove. HRD posters would be left up. Hitler posters would be removed.
I realize that there will be dozens of edge cases, that no style guide can cover every eventuality, that the Julias of the world will always find a way to make trouble. That’s OK! The point is not to end controversy. The point is to channel it and make the resulting discussion and debate more productive.
Again, the focus of the meeting should be on college policy going forward. Have fun!
April 25th, 2007 at 4:52 pm
wow…this IS a special moment (one of those rare ones). Kane and I agree on the ideal resolution and future policy suggestions.
see…out of stupid, ignorant pranks, good can come :)
April 25th, 2007 at 5:05 pm
David, it’s “Bong Hits 4 Hitler” now.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Wouldn’t it be acceptable for a student to have an obvious notice on his door to the effect that no uninvited posts are welcome on the door? Would overheated activists respect the notice?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:12 pm
Frank, I think that’s probably the best solution — that students can “opt out” of any posts on their door from everybody with something as simple as a piece of blue painter’s tape in one of the upper corners.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:15 pm
“Controversial Posters & College Council
From: Kimberly Dacres
Posted: Wednesday April 25
Tonight @ 8:15 College Council will be adressing the controversial posters and subsequent ways of engaging and prompting discussion. Please come join us in Hopkins Basement.”
Will Ms. Julia (and perhaps, more importantly, her boyfriend) deign to attend?
April 25th, 2007 at 5:45 pm
Notes from CC:
David: we’ve been lazy about getting minutes online. our apologies, and now is a good time to get on it.
ephmom: we have invited Ms. Julia to attend, but the discussion will not be about her
College Council will be discussing appropriate ways to promote dialogue on controversial issues on campus. We are not going to revisit issues of free speech, what counts as anti-semitism or turn this into a personal attack on anyone. Instead, we feel that both the WCJA and Ms. Julia’s actions were controversial and want to establish a little more formally what bounds these types of action should stay within.
How do we face the challenge of bringing up difficult issues with people that don’t necessarily want to talk about them? Is this an inherent part of diversity at Williams? While this has been exceptionally effective at promoting dialogue, is it an acceptable way to do it? Or should promoting dialogue be done only within the bounds of our (albeit poorly defined) social honor code?
You are all welcome to come to Council tonight. For those of you who can’t (i’d be a little scared of moderating a meeting that all ephblog commentators could attend), we’ll keep you posted through the minutes, and I’m sure Andy G. will blog it.
April 25th, 2007 at 5:54 pm
I’m not Marcy Wheeler, and this isn’t the Libby trial. But I’ll probably take notes. Stay tuned if you’re interested.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
My guess is that the meeting will be a chaotic bull session (and possibly a shouting session), and the issues will not be defined in the least there - much less any proposed solutions settled upon.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:16 pm
Sorry, that’s ridiculous. Why should someone have to opt out of having someone else invade their personal space?
My door had photos and postcards and concert tickets and beer coasters. Didn’t everybody’s door look like this to some extent? I would want anything posted on my door that I didn’t put there. Why is that so hard to understand?
The Holocaust Remembrance posters should never have been posted on people’s doors. These Mary Jane whatever posters did not belonging on people’s doors (they were also pretty damn stupid to boot and we can debate whether they belonged anywhere).
If you have a poster, post it on the bulletin board, that is why they exist.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:18 pm
But of course I am an optimist and believe that probably there will be no bloodshed.
April 25th, 2007 at 6:42 pm
I’m having a hard time understanding the gripe with having something taped to one’s door. If you don’t like it or want it, rip it down and throw it out. What is the bid deal. Goodness knows we all get plenty of junkmail. I don’t think that its terribly different from having flyers put in everyone’s mailbox (although I suppose that it probably never done anymore in the world of mass e-mails).
I could understand a complaint of having uninvited strangers wandering through me suite at odd hours of the evening.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:06 pm
This won’t get to Morgan before the meeting tonight, but I wish him well and hope that he has considered the history of his position.
Every year that I can recall, the campus has taken on at least one “free speech vs. sensitivity to minorities”* issue per year, always to be hashed out in at least one CC meeting.
Meetings on these events were, I quickly realized, a major test of the abilities of CC as a deliberative body, and especially of the co-presidents who run the meetings.
At about this time of the year, Joe Masters ‘02 and Sarah Barger ‘02 were freshly-inducted co-presidents when the Mad Cow issue landed on their desk. I think I can accurately state that the meeting turned into someone that none of its participants foresaw, the co-preses did not control the meeting to a degree that even they would be satisfied with afterwards, and that the majority of members came to regret the action they voted to take in response in the heat of the meeting (derecognizing the Mad Cow, suspending its funding).
I don’t mean at all to suggest that I expect Morgan’s CC will go down the same road. I of course have no idea. But anyone in his position ought to know how the efforts of the good meaning men and women in his position before them played out. Morgan writes:
I can only hope that Morgan understands that, while good, these sentiments are only plans and wishes, and that he may find himself fighting a mass of people with other priorities in mind.
The fight can be won and HAS been won productively, but it takes a strong CC — especially strong leaders (who serve as moderators). Moderating discussion is, I think, the hardest undertaking to succeed at, period. It is especially so when the discussion is open to all parties, aimed at producing action, and charged with pathos. Moderating such a CC discussion is, I believe, harder than any comparable single challenge most professors will take on — I say this with the deepest reverence for their skills.
*I feel it’s important to note that these quotation marks indicate that I choose this phrase as one possible name for this group of issues. For each discussant in each of these controversies, different issues were at stake, and so this phrase will not seem fair to all. It does, however, capture what was at stake for many, and thus is a fair name to use from the choices, I believe.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:31 pm
Doors are different than mailboxes. First, there is the statutory difference–to a large extent what I do with my mailbox is regulated by the Postal Service. I can’t put a tin can outside my house and call it a mailbox and expect the postal service to deliver. Some people can’t even choose what side of the road their mailbox is located if they want delivery.
Second, I have an expectation about my mailbox. It is where the post office delivers things and if people other than the post office put stuff in my mailbox that I don’t like, I always have the option of reporting them. I also have an expectation about my door. Perhaps I am being too strident in this but: IT’S MY FUCKING DOOR. Why should I have to take stuff down from it. Shouldn’t the expectation be that others don’t put stuff on it unless they ask me first. Isn’t that always the default: people can’t park in your driveway or hunt on your land or use your dock or shit on your lawn (why complain, if you don’t like shit on your lawn, just pick it up and throw it away!). There isn’t some twist where, if the cost of maintaining your space is below X then it’s ok to for other people to do Z.
The better example is your inbox rather than your mailbox. I don’t want emails about penis enlargement. And people don’t have a right to send me those emails even though I could just delete them (don’t give me some half-assed bandwidth argument).
It’s my space and that’s is how we all understand it. I didn’t think we need rules about it, it seemed like good ole courtesy. Maybe we do since respecting other people–their property, identity, dignity, race, sexual orientation, religion–is so popular to talk about but seldom adhered to.
April 25th, 2007 at 7:48 pm
I get unwanted stuff on my door in philly all the time. from the clean water action girl who came by yesterday to the amazing number of pizza and chinese menus.
People don’t park in my spot because that has active negative effect to me: I now cannot park there. Similarly, shitting on my lawn has a direct negative effect on my lawn. Those are property spaces with uses that are fundamentally different from the door–which marks the beginning of one’s room.
I’m not arguing that this poster was or was not a good use of the door, but I still find the idea that a dorm room door is sacred and should not be posted on to be a red herring.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Congrats, people in Philly (maybe all big cities) suck and don’t respect your space.
And haven’t you proved my point: someone did something to your space which lowered its value to you. I value an open parking space and a shitless lawn and a door without other people putting junk on it. Why I take value in these things–to use or just knowing its mine and no one else can use it unless I say so–isn’t important.
Keep your fucking posters off my door. A man’s home is his castle, and his castle starts at his door.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:23 pm
Richard,
You seem amazingly pissed by the trivial act of having a poster on your door. The stuff placed on my door does not lower the value of anything, unlike parking in a space or shitting on a lawn.
And similar flyering tactics were used in my hometown of suburban Princeton, as well as when I lived in Amherst. So I fail to see how this is about cities or about putting unwanted things on doors as anything unusual.
my home is never violated–things get placed on my door, not in my house. in my house would be an issue. this is why, in order to keep people from doing so because it is such a big deal to some people, they place up anti-trespassing notices. it is an opt-out system outside of college, not an opt-in system as you seem to want.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:26 pm
sorry, that last paragraph is unconsciously poorly phrased. it should read:
my home is never violated–things get placed on my door, not in my house, which would be an issue. That difference is why, for people who don’t want anything placed on their door, people put up fences or anti-trespassing notices. Outside of the college environment, it is an opt out system, not an opt-in system.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:41 pm
If there can be no reconciliation on opt in/opt out, then the chance of settlement of thornier issues is close to zero.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
I’m starting to understand why Morty feels more community building would be useful.
Oh, well…cluster housing will probably help.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:44 pm
I am pissed.
I suppose the first 3 penis enlargement emails someone receives are no big deal. Now that I get one every 15 minutes, I’m pissed.
The analogy I have is trespass. If someone trespasses long enough, it’s no longer trespass. When we say its OK for a Holocaust poster then eventually doors become fair game for anything and everything.
No one should have the right to invade my space without a damn good cause. Whether that invasion is trivial or not is up to me, not you. The very idea that someone thinks its OK to interfere with my home space is noxious. And yes, your dorm room door is personal space. Just look at what we post on our doors.
We have public areas for posting things. Use it.
April 25th, 2007 at 8:57 pm
We can tell. It’s obvious that the Jewish students placing a flyer for Holocaust Remembrance Day has caused you to feel extremely resentful and angry.
I can’t imagine the rage if somewhere were to throw up in your hall or smash the flat-screen TV in your dorm common room.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:08 pm
Actually, I don’t give two flips at a rolling donut about the Holocaust posters since they weren’t on my door. If they were, then I’d be pissed.
What is acceptable to do to a person’s door? Can someone (besides the college) paint a meeting message in yellow even though I hate the color yellow? I assume you’d say no. So if they can put a poster on my door but not paint the poster on the door, the only explanation must be the cost to me of removing what I don’t want there in the first place. Why does that seem like a better rule than “don’t put things on people’s doors.”
As for your anti anti-social behavior crusade, the answer would be: really pissed. Way more pissed that a poster on the door. That just means I’d prefer rules against both.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:10 pm
And maybe if people were more outraged at puke in the hall and broken TV’s, you would see less of it. If everyone walks around thinking it is OK to violate private space and disregard public space, why would you be surprised at the result.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:16 pm
It’s not your door.
It’s Williams College’s door and they can do to it, or allow others to do to it, as they damn well please. Williams could take the door off hinges and throw it in the Hoosatonic River if they want to.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:23 pm
And Williams can let people puke in their hallways if they wish, what is your point since you are on the anti-drinking crusade.
Williams does make the rules and on of its rules should be, since people can’t seem to understand this without it being spelled out, don’t put stuff on other people’s doors.
Presumably you want Williams to make rules to punish those who puke in hallways…again, something that strikes me as self-evident.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:30 pm
There’s a serious health and safety risk associated with people puking in hallways. People postering on your doors…not so much.
April 25th, 2007 at 9:42 pm
We don’t want people puking in halls because its gross to see and worse to smell and terrible to step in when you are barefoot. We really aren’t worried about slipping and breaking a hip or contracting a disease. “Health and safety” are really of minimal importance. Not washing your hands regularly is far more likely to transmit disease and we don’t (except for food workers and health care professionals) mandate hand washing.
We shouldn’t be afraid of saying: “you have an obligation to respect others and making them see and smell and maybe step in your puke is disrespectful. so, if you do it and don’t clean it up, we will punish you.” We don’t need to hide behind health and safety because we are afraid to stand up for respectful behavior.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Jonathan’s comment was the best-thought-out comment of the thread. I wish more people would respond thoughtfully to his words, rather than bickering about who owns the door and gets to decide what goes on it.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:49 pm
Wow.
Obviously others are a lot more protective of their front doors than I am. I am not sure where you will end up living Richard, but you may be in for a rude awakening wherever you end up living next when you see what people might leave on your front door.
In any event, at Williams, if Richard’s views are anything other than unique (and its certainly not up to me to tell Richard that he’s wrong to feel the way he does, even if I try to convince him otherwise), perhaps it would make sense to explicitly prohibit posting flyers on (or under?) people’s doors. Such a rule wouldn’t, in my view, unduly restrict a group’s or person’s right to advocate its cause or promote itself, and would - apparently save people from feeling as though their personal space was violated. In any event, I wouldn’t think violations of such a rule would merit more than (relatively) minor discipline.
April 25th, 2007 at 11:58 pm
No kidding. I wish half the junk stuck in my front door were as thought provoking as a Holocaust Rememberance flyer.
I’m thinkin’ Richard’s only shot is to go straight from Williams to a gated community.
I live on a dead end road in the middle of East BumF..k in a town with 2 acre zoning. It’s not exactly like a city street. I get flyers just about EVERY day.
April 26th, 2007 at 1:18 am
Hwc,
I’m surprised you haven’t suggested a ban on theater recruits.
April 26th, 2007 at 8:57 am
So, if WSO is correct (!) the “boyfriend” is Robert Lindstrom, one of the writers on nazi.org. Really.
So, he really does believe this stuff and I guess we have to assume JC does as well. She sure hasn’t said otherwise.
April 26th, 2007 at 9:17 am
I posted something here a minute ago about the identity of “the boyfriend” that I read on WSO. It turns out it is untrue. Thank you to the modernators for taking it down (I don’t see it here) and my appologies for those who were mislead. Lesson: careful about trusting things on WSO!