Tue 4 Mar 2008
Will Slack ‘11 kindly sent me a draft of the proposal to be discussed at College Council this week. (Problems with formating are my fault.) Please tell us your thoughts in the comments.
Proposals
to bring to CC
3/1/2008
Color Code:
- If
Covering Faculty Behavior - If NOT Covering
Faculty Behavior
Committee Structures:
- If
covering faculty behavior:
- Students:
-
- 1
chair - 8
others
- 1
- Staff (advisory
– not voting)
-
- VP
diversity - Deans’
office rep - Chaplain
- VP
- Faculty
-
- 6
appointed by steering committee (or if that doesn’t work dean of faculty)
- 6
- If not covering
faculty behavior:
- Students:
-
- 1 chair
- 8 others
- Staff (advisory non-voting)
-
- VP diversity
- Deans’ office
rep - Chaplain
- Faculty (advisory non-voting)
-
- 2 appointed by steering
committee (or if that doesn’t work dean of faculty)
- 2 appointed by steering
The
Committee’s Mandate and Required Actions:
- Establish if there
is a problem with the way people in this community interact with each
other and the way Williams handles social infractions.- Problems to consider
and look for (in no specific order) – A non-exhaustive list- Vandalism
- Theft
- Discrimination
- Rape and sexual
assault - Violence
- Malicious behavior
- Systematic marginalization
inside and outside of the classroom
- Examine:
- Recent incidents
- Campus perceptions
- Behavioral trends
- Review the structures
we have- De jure
- De facto
- Precedent established
in the way past issues have been handled
- Analyze the structures
in place at other institutions (suggested schools):- Haverford
- Wesleyan
- Washington and Lee
- Amherst
- Middlebury
- Dickinson
- Problems to consider
- If there is no problem
– present findings and evidence to CC, administration and general
campus community - If there is a problem:
- Identify and describe
the problem - Formulate a proposal
to address the problem- Obtain the perspectives
of the entire campus community and major constituent groups- Campus community
- Hold open forums
- Create a mechanism
for getting anonymous opinions - Other methods as
deemed appropriate by the committee
- Constituent groups
that must be engaged outside of the campus community solicitations (i.e.
special meetings)- To be determined
by the committee’s assessment of the nature of the problem - Suggestions for
groups the committee should keep in mind- JAs
- Varsity team captains
- Neighborhood Governance
Boards - Baxter Fellows
- Minority Coalition
- Non-Minco religious
groups - Deans Office
- Office of Campus
Life - Campus Security
- MCC
- Faculty
- Chaplains office
- Admissions office
- To be determined
- Campus community
- Consider drafting
explicit community standards that reflect the sentiments of the campus
community - Consider whether
or not an enforcement mechanism is appropriate- If yes – generate
proposals for an enforcement mechanism
- If yes – generate
- Obtain the perspectives
- Draft a comprehensive
report- Including details
of the process- Who the committee
spoke with - A report summarizing
the structures we have and the way they are implemented (including precedents
established by past decisions) - A report summarizing
the structures at the other institutions analyzed by the committee
- Who the committee
- Meeting Minutes
- Analysis and statement
of the problem (or proof that there is no problem) - Details and justification
for any structures or mechanisms proposed by the committee - A open letter to
the campus community summarizing the contents of the report and the
committee’s proposals
- Including details
- Identify and describe
Minimum Requirements throughout
the process
(the committee can and should
do more):
- Be open and transparent
- Publish minutes
after every meeting - Publish the agenda
of the upcoming meeting with sufficient time for the community to give
input through the anonymous opinions structure and other feedback mechanisms
established by the committee - Hold at least two
open forums a semester (including winter study)- The committee must
hold one open forum between the completion of its written work and the
formal submission of the work to CC and the administration - After CC and the
faculty (if appropriate) vet(s) the proposal, the committee (in conjunction
with CC) must hold one open forum at least one week before the all campus
vote
- The committee must
- Create mechanisms
for input- A mechanism for
anonymous input - Smaller public comment
sessions (a time for smaller groups of students—not a large open forum—to
meet with the committee members and ask questions)
- A mechanism for
- Publish minutes
Process for approving and
implementing the work of the committee:
- If
the committee is covering faculty behavior (to be done in the following
order)- During
the process- The
committee chair (or a suitable proxy drawn from the student members
of the committee) must present the work of the committee to CC during
the last CC meeting of each month—with the presentation focusing on
the work done since the chair’s last presentation- During
the monthly presentations CC will:- Discuss
the work done by the committee in the last month - Issue
non-binding recommendations and CC’s opinion on the work presented
(if it has any) - To
keep the faculty informed about the committee’s developments, CC shall
invite the Dean of the Faculty with a personal invitation and all faculty
members via daily messages or a comparable method
- Discuss
- During
- The
- Near
the end of the process- The
Committee shall present the full proposal and report to CC- The
committee must distribute all relevant documents to CC members and their
constituents (i.e. the entire student body) at least one week in advance
of presenting to CC - CC
shall analyze the work of the committee and devote at least one meeting
to discussing aspects of the proposal and proposing its non-binding
recommendations for amendments or further study (if it has any)
- The
- The
committee shall present the full proposal and report to a full meeting
of the faculty- The
committee must distribute all relevant documents to the faculty at least
one week in advance of presenting to the full meeting of the faculty
- The
- After
hearing CC’s and the faculty’s recommendations:- The
committee shall determine an amount of time (if any) appropriate to
address the concerns raised by CC and the faculty - If
the committee deems it appropriate, the committee shall revise its report
and proposal
- The
- The
- Final
Approval Process- The
committee will submit the final version of the report and recommendations
to CC, the Dean of the College and the Dean of the Faculty no later
than the second Wednesday of winter study 2009 - Once
the final version has been submitted:- At
least three days after the report has been distributed to the student
body and one week before the voting opens, CC shall organize and host
an all campus debate on the committee’s recommendations- The
committee must designate one of its student members and one of its faculty
members or a student and faculty member appointed by the committee to
argue in favor of the proposal - The
CC appointments committee shall solicit and appoint a student to argue
against the proposal - The
Dean of the Faculty shall solicit and appoint a faculty member to argue
against the proposal - The
debate shall be moderated and the format shall be set by the CC co-Presidents - The
debate must occur before the final all campus forum - The
entire student body, staff and faculty shall be invited to both the
final open forum and the debate
- The
- CC
shall organize a vote of the student body- The
vote shall not take place less than two weeks after the final version
of the report is distributed to the student body and one week after
the all campus open forum - In
order to pass, the following conditions must be satisfied- A
simple majority of the student body must vote yes - Of
those voting, 2/3 must vote yes
- A
- The
- The
Dean of the Faculty shall organize and implement a method for faculty
approval- To
be determined by the dean of the faculty and the senior staff
- To
- At
- The
- During
- If the Committee
is not covering faculty behavior- During the process
- The committee chair
(or a suitable proxy drawn from the student members of the committee)
must present the work of the committee to CC each month at the final
CC meeting of the month—with the presentation focusing on the work
done since the chair’s last presentation- During the monthly
presentations CC will:- Discuss the work
done by the committee in the last month - Issue non-binding
recommendations and CC’s opinion on the work presented (if it has
any)
- Discuss the work
- During the monthly
- The committee chair
- Near the end of
the process- The Committee shall
present the full proposal and report to CC- The committee must
distribute all relevant documents to CC members and their constituents
(i.e. the entire student body) at least one week in advance of presenting
to CC - CC shall analyze
the work of the committee and devote at least one meeting to discussing
aspects of the proposal and proposing its non-binding recommendations
for amendments or further study (if it has any)
- The committee must
- After hearing CC’s
recommendations- The committee shall
determine an amount of time (if any) appropriate to address the concerns
raised by CC - If the committee
deems it appropriate, the committee shall revise its report and proposal
- The committee shall
- The Committee shall
- Final Approval Process
- The committee will
submit the final version of the report and recommendations to CC and
the Dean of the College no later than the second Wednesday of Winter
Study 2009 - Once the final version
has been submitted- At least three days
after the report has been distributed to the student body and one week
before the voting opens, CC shall organize and host an all campus debate
on the committee’s recommendations- The committee must
designate one of its student members or a student appointed by the committee
to argue in favor of the proposal - The CC appointments
committee shall solicit and appoint a student to argue against the proposal - The debate shall
be moderated and the format shall be set by the CC co-Presidents - The debate must
occur before the final all campus forum - The entire student
body must be invited to both the final open forum and the debate
- The committee must
- CC shall organize
a vote of the student body- The vote shall not
take place less than two weeks after the final version of the report
is distributed to the student body and one week after the all campus
open forum - In order pass, the
following conditions must be satisfied- A simple majority
of the student body must vote yes - Of those voting,
2/3 must vote yes
- A simple majority
- The vote shall not
- At least three days
- The committee will
- During the process
Process for Amending the
Committee’s mandate
- At any time, the
committee may propose changes to its own, goals, process or structure
to college council - Such proposals must
be approved by a majority vote of the committee before being brought
to CC - Once the proposal
is before CC, CC may ratify or reject the committee’s proposal with
a simple majority vote of CC
Rationale for the voting
mechanism:
- We do not want a
system in which there is ambiguity as to whether people opposed to the
proposal should not vote or vote no. - This system will
eliminate that problem - Under this system,
for a person opposed to the proposal, not voting is the dominant strategy.
No matter what any other student on either side of the issue does, a
student opposed to the proposal is most likely to defeat the proposal
by voting and voting no.
March 4th, 2008 at 9:55 pm
1) I love the transparency, published notes, open meetings and so on.
2) I think that 15 is too big and that the proposal includes too many students or, rather ,too few faculty. Look at examples of successful committees, or at least committees that actually produce reports which lead to changes. Good examples are the committee behind the Report on Varsity Athletics and CUL. Both are driven by faculty chairs who ensure that things get done, who can cajole the other members to contribute and compromise. A student chair, no matter how wonderful, is much less likely to succeed. When was the last committee chaired by a student to accomplish anything at Williams? I can’t think of one. Look how many Gargoyle projects fail each year.
3) I think that this outline, while reasonable, is too detailed. Compare the guidance that Williams (read: Morty) usually gives committees. They get a topic to look into and are required to submit a report. And that is it. There is no need to micro-manage and, in fact, too much direction makes it less likely that faculty will want to participate. Faculty do not need to be told what to do. I would recommend just asking Morty to appoint a committee. Let him choose the members (perhaps asking CC) and give the guidance. You need his support if you want anything to happen.
Right now, his plan is probably just the jujitsu of letting you set up some crazy system run by over-committed students and unmotivated faculty. It will implode of its own accord. Problem solved!
4) You want to avoid having to decide now whether faculty are covered or not. Let the committee look into it.
5) I think that you give the committee too much to do and and not enough time to do it. Instead, just charge it with fact-finding: What is happening at Williams? How do Ephs perceive the situation? What do other schools do? What does the committee recommend as next steps? If all that got done by next January, it would be both useful and miraculous.
Then, next January, we could move onto the next step of deciding on an honor code (if needed) figuring out a voting procedure and so on. You don’t want to fight about all that now. It is too divisive and gives too much ammunition to those who want to kill the effort. They are much less likely to be able to stop something that is just fact-finding.
Good luck!
March 5th, 2008 at 11:48 am
Here’s my main question. What about the alcohol abuse that adds fire to the actions we are trying to punish/prevent? I do not think that *all* these actions are fueled by alcohol, but it is a safe guess to say a vast majority of them made worse through alcohol use. No one ever mentions the rampant number of students at NARH for alcohol poisoning every weekend, which is clearly not just having a few beers. The student attitude of ritual toward going to NARH is also ridiculous.
I’m wondering if the administration is bearing in mind the role that binge drinking plays in helping students turn a subliminal thought into racist graffiti.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
“the rampant number of students at NARH for alcohol poisoning every weekend”
“Every weekend”? From the frosh quad or elsewhere? The recent “Spring Street Blues” Wiliams Security reports in The Record have listed more transports for staff and others’ accidents than for overindulging. Do tell …
March 5th, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Alcohol was not included in the mandate deliberately. It passed CC tonight with only 1 voting against (1 abstained as well), if I was told correctly.
March 6th, 2008 at 12:53 am
Just for note: Deep Springs’ “groundrules” forbid alcohol, drugs or … “relationships with women,” shall I say?, in the Valley, during term.
Enterprising members of the SB have, for decades, interpreted this to be a “letter of the law” and asserted that the rule does not apply if one hikes outside the valley.
The purported and largely fictional existence of a “Eureka Valley School for Girls” is undoubtedly the result of such experiments with …legalism.
Except when Charles Manson and some of the Weather Underground were hiding in said valley, of course.