And the name should obviously be “Willy N-word”.

This note is not about the continuing slurs conversation on which I have made a couple comments, but to inquire about the paraphrase of the Gen Phil Sheridan quote … I give up, what do you mean? Or is this a private reference between you and David K?

I understand the Sheridan quote in it’s original context. And in spite of ’scorched earth’ in the South and Indian atrocities in the West, the General did help Chicago and Yellowstone and I was separated out at the fort that bears his name.

But what did you mean in the ‘j.a.’ paraphrase?

Perplexed in Hood River

“Aparent”s” posting of the article was reporting. You should have stopped with that.

Your post above is rife with assumption. You have basically re-created the event, adding “details” and “motives” and “innuendo”, that, with a less sensitive and “loaded” issue, might be considered harmless.

In this case, which has been pointed out by many besides me, ( Neil, Will Slack, Dick, WillyE etc.) it has not been helpful…and puts unfair scrutiny on a lot of innocent people.

1) Reporting. Want to know what is happening at Williams? Then you need to read EphBlog and the links we provide.

2) Analysis. Want to understand the background, history and subtext of campus events? Read EphBlog. No student on campus even knows about the hoax from ten years ago (and none of the faculty members who recall it seem to have mentioned the incident). This background comes from EphBlog.

3) Advice. If you don’t want my advice, don’t follow it. If you think my advice is bad, then offer your fellow Ephs better advice. We are all part of the Williams Conversation. Don’t carp, instead contribute.

If you have specific criticisms of my reporting/analysis/advice, then make them. But be specific. Quote the offending passage and explain why you think it is wrong. I really can’t understand some of the criticisms above.

While I very much respect your desire to see justice done, I don’t agree that EphBlog is the place to accomplish that.

The entry, and their JAs, have made it clear that they, along with the school, are doing their best to find the “perp”. They are under a lot of stress and scrutiny. They don’t need more from an outside source that doesn’t have the facts.

I, like you, respect David’s curiosity and devotion to Williams, I just don’t agree with the outcome of it in this regard.

They don’t want to give “testimony” to EphBlog. Don’t bait Willy E to return and defend his/her comments. S/he was courageous in coming forth to defend the (many) assumptions and inferences in your post…about the JA, the reporter, the entry mates, how it happened….reread your comments above and perhaps it will be more clear.

Please, take a cue here and back off. Leave these kids alone. They have enough on their plates, and your (and anyone else’s) “curiousity” is not enough to justify adding to their troubles.

1) I did not write, nor do I think, that Richard McDowell had anything to do with this. Obviously! He is a JA and, according to folks I have communicated with, a great one.

2) What “assumptions” do you find “ignorant and potentially hurtful?” In this context, I am trying to tell the story of what happened to our hundreds of interested readers, especially alumni and parents who have no other source of news. I understand that you may find it “hurtful” to read someone speculate about how might be involved, but there is some truth out there, and I am going to do my imperfect best to find it.

What I think and hope it does is to sensitize non-minority students, parents, alumni, faculty, townspeople, and staff. Once I hear about something like what happened in Williams E, I start reexamining my assumptions about what a “safe” place Williams feels like for students and I also start reexamining my thoughts about race. I applaud Williams for bringing the incident into the open, as that is an important prelude to the discussions that can bring increased awareness, empathy, and understanding and help build genuine community.

On another note, the dean’s office and security are really dont a great job at investigating this matter. Myself included, they have interviewed everyone in the entry, checked where they were, what they saw, who they were with, and then went to those students and got their story. Granted, it will be hard trying to find out who did this, but they are really determined.

I’m with Neil at 11:52.

(It’s actually very alarming that I actually thought for a second about not posting this for fear that I would lack on DK’s suspect list)

Is this bad reporting? Please explain to me how everyone in an entry could think that something like this was “silly.” I could imagine a few students thinking that, or not really caring, but “everyone,” including the JAs. I am honestly mystified.

Honestly, I think this is par for the course at Williams. We could go on ad nauseum about cultural sensitivity and blahblahblah, but the fact remains that much of the community remains out of touch with minority issues. Whether or not this is actually something we should try to fix is another matter entirely, as I don’t think it will ever really change. Nor do I necessarily believe that Williams is unique in this sense among peer schools.

At the end of the day you throw up your hands in dismay, but I can tell you from (4 years of) experience that things are very unlikely to change.

Can anyone offer insight on that final paragraph from the Record article?

That night, Williams E addressed the incident at entry snacks. According to McDowell, entry residents did not share a belief that anyone had been directly targeted by the racial slurs. “Everyone thought it was silly,” he said. “They didn’t see it as directly attacking anyone, but some were obviously more affected.”

Is this bad reporting? Please explain to me how everyone in an entry could think that something like this was “silly.” I could imagine a few students thinking that, or not really caring, but “everyone,” including the JAs. I am honestly mystified.

Unless McDowell has a reason for spinning the story in this way, for wanting to put the controversy behind . . .

And the behavior of the 1:45 AM student is a mystery as well. Is it really plausible that there was one graffiti attack, noted at 1:45, and then more afterwards? If true, wouldn’t that suggest that it had to be an entry resident, or someone with a good excuse for making multiple trips to Willy E?

And we still need a scandal name! Don’t like names like Poo Fighters and Nigaleian? Help me out.

Willy N?
Black E(yed) Willy?
Willy E. Penis, Super Genius?

Surely our readers can do better . . .

What can EphBlog readers do to try to improve the situation? Is there anything we can do that would support the deans and the students who are affected, especially those living in Williams E?

I will lead off by noting that Williams is extremely fortunate to have the Junior Advisors to lead the first years and liaise with the administration. I would imagine that the Class of 2011 students living on the quad felt differently (meaning more protected and more able to process and address what was going on) than they would have if the JAs had not been living in their midst. That juniors, in what is a crucial academic year and when so many of their peers are off on overseas adventures, devote so much of their energies to younger students and take this volunteer job so seriously are extremely touching aspects of the Williams experience; their presence makes a substantial contribution to the strengths of the residential system. My attempt at trying to help is to thank them and to empathize with how much more difficult incidents such as the current one may make their work.

Prognosticating about the frame of mind is nothing less than gossip, no matter how clever one’s deductions are.

Focusing on the perpetrator and their frame of mind to understand the act is one thing, doing it to excuse the act is quite another.

Isn’t that the conversation we should be having? Under what condition scrawling nigger and drawing penises ought to be considered reasonable behavior for a Williams Student, and what an appropriate response by the Dean’s office should be.

That entry of students and JAs are going through enough as it is. The last thing they need is to have their names bandied about on EphBlog.

Discussing the nature of the incident is one thing, ( I always like to hear what Rory has to say about these issues), but taking on the official “detective” work is presumptuous and (as Dick implied) tacky.

And for ephblog to offer excuses, suggest extenuating circumstances and offer advice on how to cover tracks seems beyond simply irresponsible in elevating the status of the perpetrator, it borders on aiding and abetting.

‘Prank’ = a practical joke or mischevious trick. This ain’t one!

Cut the titillation, Sherlock, or make ephblog available at the checkout counter! ‘

And the door to the custodian’s office is in the stairwell itself on the second floor of Willy E. Everyone passes by it but it is out of one’s natural line of vision. The other two doors on the second floor of the stairwell lead to the entry common-room (which is located on the second floor in only some of the entries in Willy) and a hallway that leads to the rooms in question. Because E is on the corner of the building it is the only entry with hallways as such.

Having lived there in the past, the hallway is relatively private and even on a party night with many people about someone could have done this alone, without a lookout.

This strikes me as NOT premeditated, additionally, because unlike last years Mary Jane Hitler incident this was simply written on whiteboards and was accompanied by crude drawings of penises.

I mean, come on, if drawings of penises doesn’t scream ‘I am an inconsiderate drunk person’ then nothing does.

It elevates the identity of the perpetrator, which may very well be a private matter between the perpetrator and the school, over other aspects of the issue such as how these apparently not infrequent events affect the Williams College community.

The Dean’s office did not solicit the assistance of Ephblog to help find the perpetrator. Rather, it seems they want the issue to be handled as a private matter.

The College Council Co-presidents are not engaged in finding the perpetrator(s), that is the Dean’s job. The instead point out this is not an isloted incident and

“This incident is hurtful and alarming, but it is also an opportunity. We can focus the community around issues of respect, student citizenship and residential life… We can think about how the college should deal with incidents like this and what sort of community we want Williams to be.”

Why doesn’t Ephblog follow their lead?

especially on a Friday night during Winter Study

FYI, Winter Study ended a week and a half ago. Last weekend was the first weekend of spring semester.

Also, Rich McDowell is very definitively not African-American (although I think his co-JA might be).

Some thoughts:
1. the 1:45 vandalism was the word on a white board. that may have been a precursor to the larger effort (posters) on the second floor.
2. A friday night at 1:45 am leads me to think it was a drunk idiot (one who might not even remember doing it…not that that is much of an excuse). Further, if there were a party somewhere, the perp might have known the students were out (or away from campus on winter study) or even might have seen one of them with his/her love interest (which might explain the penis as well as the term).
3. It would be hard to isolate who did it if there were a party in williams or if a group of people entered–card swipes aren’t going to be definitive enough to catch someone, sadly.