Mon 3 Mar 2008
The Baxter Fellow program is a failure. See here and here for excellent Record coverage. This highlights a fundamental truth about life at Williams: You can’t pay people to create community. If anything, the more money you spend, the less community you have. Instead of providing commentary on those articles, let’s take a trip to memory lane.
Lots of ranting and I-told-you-so below. And never forget The Tablecloth Colors!
Three years ago I complained (with regard to the lack of “community” in student life):
D’uh! Is it too much to ask that the CUL fess up and admit that it, and other parts of the College, are the direct cause of this unfortunate state of affairs? Consider:
1. The College now has a Director of Campus Life and 4 Campus Life Coordinators. I have no doubt that they are all fine people dedicated to making Williams students happier. I am eager to believe that the money directed to this new bureaucracy — a bureaucracy largely created by CUL — is well worth it.
2. The College now has 29(!) Housing Coordinators. I am still a little hazing on the role that HCs play. It sure seems like they do all the stuff that house officers (presidents, vice presidents and social chairs) used to do. Does Carter House even have a president anymore? If so, what does she do?
3. The College facilitated the creation of ACE. Again, without being on campus, it is hard to know if ACE is a good thing or a bad thing. ACE certainly seems to make real efforts and Drew Newman ‘04 provides an impressive argument as to its origin, function and worth.But, whatever else made be said about DCL/CLC/HC/ACE and any other acronyms you’d care to name, they do not increase student autonomy. By definition, they do things that students used to do for themselves. Back in the day, the students of Carter House decided who would be president, what dues would be levied and what sorts of parties to throw. Maybe they did it poorly. Maybe they did it perfectly. But they did it themselves.
Moreover, this was still the case up until 2001, at least. Perhaps these additions have made students better off. Perhaps not. Perhaps we would have been better off with them during the era of affiliation housing. But there can be no denying that they decreased student autonomy. (And yes, students are heavily involved in many of these acronyms, but each represents a centralization of planning, control and standards.)
And they were, to a large extent, CUL’s idea. CUL has no business blaming free agency for decreased autonomy when free agency co-existed perfectly well with autonomy without DCL/CLC/HC/ACE. If DCL/CLC/HC/ACE have not improved student life in the last 5 years, then CUL should recommend their elimination. (Unlikely, since DCL and one CLC and one HC are on CUL.)
See original for further links and context. The College has spent hundreds of thousands of dollars, hired dozens of people, and things are no better — in terms of “community” — then they were eight years ago when Morty showed up. Total abject failure.
If the College wanted to argue otherwise, it has the evidence to do so. It could release the COFHE data that it has for Williams and demonstrate that things are better. Since it doesn’t, you know they are not. We never did learn about the magic 13% statistic, did we?
Two years ago that I predicted:
The more that professionals are hired/paid to make your community vibrant, the less vibrant it will become.
Last year that I warned about:
tension between the neighborhood leadership and the BFs [Baxter Fellows]
And so it has come to pass.
Read all the above for more context, but the central problem is that same as it was when I started blogging 5 years ago.
You can not buy community!
In fact, the more money you spend on it, at least in terms of salaries for full-time professionals and part-time students, the less that you get. No matter what anyone tries to do, no matter how much money they throw at this, the system can not work.
What to do? Easy! First, fire all the Baxter Fellows. Then, fire all the CLC’s. Take the money that you were spending on them and give it all to the Neighborhood Boards. Don’t forget to demand transparent accounting. Their budgets should be on-line for all to see.
Elected, unpaid student leaders will spend that money wisely. They know what students want and will give it to them. If they don’t, the students will choose other leaders.
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:31 am
Other than the “firings” which is a little over-dramatic (these positions are mainly one year positions in any event) I have to say, once again, that on this particular crusade, I agree with David 100 percent. Just think how many amazing concerts / lectures / performances could be brought to campus for the several hundred thousand in salary and benefits being spent on all these positions. And bringing in professionals interferes with students’ ability to grow from their own participation in campus leadership. I don’t discern any difference in the quality or quantity of interesting events happening on campus (can’t speak to social life, more generally, since I’m not there) than when students were totally in charge of planning campus activities. I realize that a big argument from admins here is that most of Williams peers have big student life bureacracies as well, but so what? I’d rather Williams be the outlier that puts more faith in its own students to take responsibility for their own social lives. Because when that responsibility is passed off to paid professionals (or even paid students) it’s so much easier to refuse to take ownership in what is going on (and perhaps even contributes to the recent current spate of negative events on campus).
March 3rd, 2008 at 7:42 am
I’m sorely tempted to say it. Of course, you all know what “it” is. In a magnificent exercise of restraint I won’t.
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:09 am
Completely disrespecting Frank’s restraint, I’ll say it: Bring Back Fraternities!
March 3rd, 2008 at 8:31 am
Two words on my opposition to frats: Goat Room. ‘Nuff said …
March 3rd, 2008 at 10:35 am
“(…and perhaps even contributes to the recent current spate of negative events on campus).”
I think there’s something to this. It seems the social activity is built on the ‘getting together’ and partying, rather than on events. And from what my frosh says, even that has now halted (because of security scrutiny since the ‘incident’), at least for the younger students.
All I can say is, thank goodness for sports.
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:07 am
1. I totally agree with you that you cannot buy community. I do not think the Office of Campus Life or the CLC Programs have been successful. The HC/Baxter Fellow Program is part of that general system and I think it is debatable whether that’s been successful or not (more on this later). You’re correct–all of these are an attempt to “buy” community, and in doing so, take a significant degree of autonomy away from students. It is important to note that this was all a product of the pre-Neighborhood Housing CUL proposal, the one that was seeking to avoid moving to a Neighborhood Housing-type system.
2. The move to Neighborhood Housing increased student autonomy by putting a significant amount of money into locally elected students’ hands. Unfortunately, the system has been tied up by the Office of Campus Life and CLCs–there is a built in power struggle there that students fairly consistently lose.
3. Don’t assume based off the Record article that all Baxter Fellows are a failure. Each neighborhood was given significant leeway to shape the program as they saw fit. The Record article assumes that the goal of Baxter Fellows across neighborhoods is building house community. This is simply not true; some of the neighborhoods designed their system so that Baxter Fellows’ primary role was neighborhood planning. My sense is that the neighborhoods who have done that have been pleased with the outcome and would disagree with the Record’s statement that the system is a failure.
Now all of that said, when push comes to shove, I really couldn’t agree with you more. Like I said at the top, the Baxter Fellow/CLC/OCL system was designed to fill the observed need that Neighborhoods fill now. Regardless of your feelings about Neighborhoods, I think most people would agree now (as they would have before Neighborhoods) that the HLCs/Baxter Fellows/OLC/CLC program was almost a complete failure. Sure, there are students and groups who are well supported by the CLCs who wouldn’t want the Program done away with, but those students are few and far between (and I doubt there is any organization that would take the support that the CLCs give them if given a choice between that and their cut of the CLCs’ salary).
Looking at the reality of Williams now, though, I can’t help but wonder where we should go from here. Neighborhoods–love ‘em or hate ‘em–do have some real potential as engines of student-based planning and real student autonomy. Furthermore, it is unlikely that they’re going away anytime soon. Similarly, while the OCL may be the antithesis of student autonomy, it is also unlikely that this office will be closed or paired down any time in the near future. I know on this board the push tends to be as much against Neighborhoods as it is against the OCL–given the history of the neighborhood system, I’m not surprised.
However, let’s think about where the real problem lies. Which side of these campus life developments saps student autonomy, and which allows potential for student leadership? Given that it is unlikely that either side is going anywhere in the near future, how can we act to maximize student autonomy and minimize administrative paternalism?
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:19 am
1) I agree that we should not fire the BF’s or CLC’s today. Cancel the BF program for next year and don’t hire new CLCs. Let those already at Williams finish their two year gigs.
2) I agree that some/many individual BFs, CLCs and so on do great stuff. But I am glad to hear that we all agree that the program is a failure.
3) I agree that there is not much to be done about Neighborhoods today. The powers-that-be will insist on another couple of years experience before they admit to failure. Much of my ranting is designed to force that admission and to prepare the ground work for what follows.
4) What should follow? Easy. I have already outlined how housing/social life at Williams should be organized. There are some details to work out, but there really is only one plausible solution.
5) What small steps should we make in the near future? I would like to reorganize the co-op draw to make it groups of students applying for specific houses rather than an overall lottery. This would have all sorts of good effects in general, but would also lay the groundwork for a similar procedure for all of senior housing.
6) Big picture, if all the seniors could live with their very best friends and if those seniors most likely to throw many parties got preference in selecting great party buildings, the campus would be more fun and vibrant. And no salaries would be required!
March 3rd, 2008 at 11:46 am
While the fraternity question seems to be moot, as one who remembers the ‘goat room’ and the weekly meetings of a group of 60 composed of freshmen through seniors, the act of living together, eating in this group (coat and tie at dinner), and arranging our own social events (replete with milk punch) seems to have produced a sense of cohesion and shared favorable memories.
While I am sure all memories have been transformed to gold over the years by Rumplestiltskin (remember him … barfed in the biology lab?), of our 14 out of 15 brothers (1 transfer jr year), 10 came back for the 50th. And one returned with 12 cases of great cabernet made from the produce of his own vineyard.
I hope today’s students are able to develop some sense of camaraderie.
Or is this too much of a throw-back to the boys club?
In the bonds (as we used to say).
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:30 pm
“All I can say is, thank goodness for sports.”
Kudos for a great line, FM.
I agree with comments made here and elsewhere about the structural instability created by setting up systems of interlocking spheres and responsibilities where some people get paid, get a boost (or at least establish a mid-level floor) in housing selection, and get to put that they were selected as Baxter Fellows on their resumes and applications (sounds pretty impressive to me) while the rest get none of the benefits but have as much work to do. Notice too that these are all “upfront” benefits that may provide a large incentive to apply but provide no incentive to perform (at the very least, the college should be publicly posting the names of the BFs electronically and should also post their names, along with numbers for Security and whatever other emergency and “go to” information they post, in each house).
I also agree that poor supervision (even if it would be, if exercised, by a group of whom I am suspicious) and a lack of clear goals, tasks, and responsibilities are contributing to the failures here — and what loosey goosey claptrap it is to refrain from supervision or goal setting in the name of not inhibiting creativity/doing a house’s own thing! Either snack gets delivered or it doesn’t. Either social activities are planned, publicized, and carried out, or they aren’t.
I can see other problems with the BF job as well. Some of functions sound like those of a party director on a cruise ship, which is an “everybody’s buddy” role (but may require a level of organization, planning, and follow-through not necessarily found in the average partying type who may be attracted to the job, particularly when the $750, housing protect preference, and resume goody are thrown in). Other functions involve being an arm of the administration on the disciplinary side, particularly dealing with damages and interpersonal problems. The skills for one set of functions and the type of person who is good at that sort of function will often be different from what’s needed for another. If these are to be paid jobs, someone needs to give consideration to breaking them down differently (or maybe eliminating parts that clash with the rest of the job — who, on the student level, should be responsible for dealing with damages when there no longer is a house government system? (To me, that very question argues for re-establishing a viable house governance system.)
Regardless of who is going to do the jobs, someone should look carefully at what’s needed, what’s expected, how to communicate what’s expected to those in the jobs, and how to give guidelines or timelines or have a council or provide other help with doing the jobs and making sure they are being done well. I would think it would be good to take the functions back into the houses (or, in the case of the tiny houses, into a group of similar nearby tiny houses) on an elected, unpaid basis and to have some offices each house or group was expected to have (e.g., treasurer, social chair, neighborhood liaison) and whatever other offices each house or group found worked best for it (and I would hope that many of them would experiment with having two people share a job, building in training mechanisms or term overlaps, and other ways of creating a strong self-government).
Beyond taking away student incentives to initiate and shoulder, while confusing the roles between being students and being members of the administration (the RA vs. JA type of distinction), making a $750 job of this undoubtedly deters meaningful involvement by some very capable but busy students who won’t go for the job because they are honest and know they can’t put $750’s worth of time (about 80-100 hours) into it, but who would otherwise almost naturally take on a smaller but significant role in the governance and running of a self-governing house. At the worst, if such students decide to get involved anyway on a volunteer level, having the BF may just create red tape and another layer they need to negotiate with or at least consult and get to buy in to their plans (thus, another way in which it deters initiating and shouldering).
Maybe, even with an elected, self-governing house system, it would make sense to have a paid party planner/social director in each house/small group of little houses, a person who would get snacks going and would plan, publicize, execute, and arrange clean-up for social events. The BFs might work well as a position if they were under the direction of those running the house; I know many students who could make a great contribution in such a role (including several who fulfill this role for fraternities, sororities, or social clubs). Right now, the BFs seem to be expected to be one part house governance, one part social director, one part arm of the administration, etc. and yet are also not expected to be doing anything in particular. A mess.
Apologies for the length of this. Am on the train going to a meting and don’t have time to edit.
March 3rd, 2008 at 12:36 pm
Have just had a chance to skim currenteph’s very thoughtful and helpful posting, which I had not seen when I was writing my post (no Internet connection). Thanks for posting it, as it really is helpful.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:59 am
I was an HLC about two years ago, and all the HLCs from the Spencer neighborhood recognized the sheer inability we had in trying to make “community”. The Campus Life Co-ords wanted us to talk about diversity, community, etc to our houses. The more we tried to, the more our houses just didn’t care. HLCs cannot try and instill diversity in resident’s minds. Being at a palce that has almost daily lectures on amazing topics randing from politics to religion to ethics, it is up to the student to make the choice. The position needs to be simplified. Baxter Fellows or whatnot need to simply be the ones in charge of making door tags, speaking to custodians, and having mixers so that residents can get to know one another. That’s all they can do. Trust me. With a fund of almost $7/student per year, you try setting up diversity activities that make residents want to stop playing a video game/doing homework/being with friends. It won’t happen.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Concerned Jr (and others who may remember),
How about being bussed to Smith and Holyoke for ‘freshman mixers’?
That was on the agenda for us freshmen in Fall ‘52.
Hmmm. Given the previous discussion of the ethics of JAs dating newbies in Sage and Williams, this type of social mixing is probably no longer necessary!