Wed 31 Oct 2007
Thanks to College Council Secretary Remington Shepard ‘08 for sending us the minutes from the last three CC meetings (10/17, 10/24, and 10/28) . Good stuff! The more that CC describes what it is doing to the larger community, especially alumni and faculty, the more power over events it will have. Although I hope that, at some point, CC will start posting all the minutes on its website, this is a good start. Thanks again to Remington.
Comments on the substance of the problem that CC faces (mainly a new Dean without, it appears, good instincts about the Williams community) and its proposed actions are welcome.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:12 am
One clarifying point, in reference to something mentioned in the 10-24 write-up. Rachel Ko mentioned that security followed her frosh to their screw pre-party, and attributed it to the new policies. I was a JA to the class of ‘08, and the same thing happened at our screw. It is not a new policy - it is pretty easy for security to pick out the group of well-dressed frosh going from the frosh quad to a co-op or greylock, esp. when the screw is registered for later in the night.
I think that allowing safe drinking environments is important. It is not just a fairy tale that curbing social drinking can lead to dangerous drinking. My sophomore year was the first year security really enforced the drinking rules at HC parties. So, when my friends and I found that out we went back to our rooms and took shots. We are not the only ones to have done this; I can confidently say this is a common practice at HC now, since the younger students want to be drunk for the parties but can’t drink at the parties.
This is obviously a problem - the idea that you need to be drunk at the parties to have fun, but this mentality cannot be changed overnight, and curbing safe drinking will only continue to increase the problems.
October 31st, 2007 at 11:17 am
Thanks to Remington.
Anyone know what the Princeton incidents referrd to in the minutes of 10/7 involve?
October 31st, 2007 at 12:53 pm
It may have been related to seeking (or not) medical care for an underage inebriated student in light of the legal consequences for providing alcohol to a minor.
From the March 16, 2007 Daily Princetonian:
“UHS and Public Safety do take actions, however, once a student is admitted that may very well deter an intoxicated student’s friends or bystanders from making sure that the student gets medical help in the first place.
Currently, UHS asks students admitted for alcohol-related reasons from whom or from where they procured the alcohol that made them ill. Based on the information provided by the student, Public Safety may then carry out a serving violation investigation. There have been an increasing number of situations on campus where students, fearful of such an investigation, have tried to take care of their inebriated peers on their own, even going so far as to stay up all night to watch them rather than take them to McCosh Health Center.”
October 31st, 2007 at 1:08 pm
Nah. I haven’t read the above minutes, but I suspect that it has something to do with their public urination incidents: story
October 31st, 2007 at 1:29 pm
It seems like something much less innocuous than public urination. From the 10/17 notes:
“Prigoff: With the recent Princeton incident in mind, it seems like the discipline policy for people 21 and over would make people less likely to go the hospital. …
Merrill: … If there is any ever worry about alcohol poisoning, call for help. There will be a written warning for the first offence and after that there may be disciplinary probation, suspension, etc. It is no longer tenable to not have anything in place to tell the students they can be punished for illegal behavior. The Princeton case is really important. Colleges need to react to 2 things: student deaths and police intervention. In an atmosphere where a student dies, such as Bowdoin, there is no time to think. The Administration will simply shutdown campus. The police may get involved if they’ve had enough like at Princeton. The administration will become much stricter with much tighter policies.”
October 31st, 2007 at 1:34 pm
From the October 18, 2007 Daily Princetonian:
“With dorms and dining halls buzzing about the Borough charges pending against several eating club presidents, Princeton’s drinking culture is at the center of attention.”
October 31st, 2007 at 1:43 pm
In the Oct. 11, 2007 Daily Princetonian:
“Three eating clubs were charged with serving alcohol to a minor and maintaining a nuisance yesterday. Cottage was the only club confirmed to be on that list, based on an email sent to members by club president Vince Ley ‘08.
Club presidents declined to comment on the charges. Interclub Council president Will Scharf ‘08, however, said that ‘the Borough Police continually targeting club presidents is ridiculous, and I thought we had moved past that.’
The charges come as Princeton Borough is exerting increasing pressure on the clubs to crack down on alcohol violations on club premises. Borough Police Lt. Sharon Papp said during a Borough Council meeting Tuesday night that University-related alcohol violations were especially high in September, adding that council members and the director of a local youth alcohol counseling center plan to meet with eating club officers on Oct. 19 to discuss the violations and with fraternity representatives tomorrow.”
October 31st, 2007 at 2:08 pm
http://www.dailyprincetonian.com/archives/2007/10/12/news/18975.shtml
October 31st, 2007 at 2:40 pm
Two months after students have returned to campus, David Kane has pronounced judgment on Karen Merrill, the new dean of the college, in his customary black-and-white, snide way. As the Princeton references make clear, there’s nothing special in the problems Williams faces and no dean so good that he or she has notably more success than deans elsewhere. Anyone who doesn’t acknowledge the complex and intractactable nature of these problems doesn’t understand them.
October 31st, 2007 at 2:56 pm
I have not “pronounced judgment” on Merrill. What part of “it appears” do you not understand, my friendly anonymous commentator?
But, to be clear, it is a stupid idea to have individual houses vote on whether or not to restrict access to just residents. I already discussed that here and, fortunately, students on CC seem to feel the same.
Exactly correct. Now. it is true that the minutes do not report whether or not Dean Merrill was in favor, opposed or in differrent to this idea. But there is no way that Schiazza would go forward with this if Merrill was against it. Odds are, she is in favor, if not using Schiazza as a stalking horse.
Anyone who thinks that individual houses should have the ability to restrict access to other students does not have good instincts about the Williams community.
By the way, do any readers recall this debate from 2003?
October 31st, 2007 at 3:41 pm
In 2003 it there were a similar string of incidents, with the usual suspect dorms (Perry, Gladden/Carter if I remember correctly) dealing with a lot of damage and cleanup issues. I am not sure how the idea was relayed to the campus, but there was such a strong backlash against the idea, with hundreds of students emailing the administration, that the idea was quickly forgotten.
October 31st, 2007 at 4:36 pm
I was on council for those debates. I don’t remember 100%, but from what I recall the campus “lock down” in question was in response to a slightly different sort of vandalism that is currently occurring–students were trashing entry common rooms (ripping down posters sort of vandalism). Like now, all signs pointed to the vandalism being caused by a very small group of students. While I can’t vouch for current students in the current situation, I don’t recall any students being in favor of the lock down in 2003…I would be surprised if that’s changed much even in the current situation.
October 31st, 2007 at 7:36 pm
Today’s Record (which seems to not yet be available online) states:
“According to Schiazza, the issue resurfaced only because it was initiated by student leaders. “I was quite surprised that students were suggesting this,” he said.”
I present this to point out that (at least Schiazza claims) the idea came from the students, not from Dean Merrill through Schiazza, as David has suggested as a possibility.