Thu 8 May 2008
The Williams College Quality of Life Defense Council, a First Post
Posted by QLDC under Williams College Quality of Life Defense Council
Posted at 11:49 pmThe QLDC would first like to thank EphBlog for the opportunity to post here and get the word out about some things going on at Williams. Publicity and public debate are essential to anything of this kind.
The QLDC was created to defend the quality of life of Williams students by advocating their rights as consumers of the services provided by the college. Its specific goals are an end to compulsory reductions in the Williams quality of life, and public disclosure and debate of all proposals to reduce this quality of life within the student body. Those interested about the basics of the QLDC should visit the Facebook group.
So far, the QLDC has publicized itself through Facebook and through a major poster campaign across campus on Sunday, May 4th. A second poster campaign is coming very soon. The first caused a minor controversy over the imagery used; check out the original image used here - it’s pretty innocuous, and the eighth entry on a Google image search for “heraldic eagle.” We’ve also been the subject of a scrappy WSO thread.
To briefly summarize the issues that prompted the QLDC to take a hand in the campus sustainability debate:
The college currently plans to make all dining halls trayless next year, as they’ve tried with Driscoll this year. Our sources indicate some very interesting things about this proposal. Driscoll operating costs have gone up since trays left; apparently trayless dining makes such a mess more man-hours have to be spent cleaning. Student use of Driscoll has also gone down. This would indicate the student body would prefer trays, given the choice, and the response to the early QLDC posters certainly reinforces this impression. The dining halls are designed to work with trays; why can’t those who want to go trayless do so on their own?
The low flow showerheads and faucets that Williams Hall was equipped with recently are also planned for the entire campus by next year. This will certainly reduce water usage, but that begs other questions: if there’s no water shortage here, why are we making water conservation a priority? Won’t filling up a Nalgene take the same amount of water, and more time, with low flow plumbing? Won’t students take longer showers as they struggle to wash? Why can’t sustainability-heavy entries request these changes on a case-by-case basis?
There is no question that these are not huge issues. The way they were decided and publicized, however, is a huge issue. Most Williams students didn’t know about these plans until the QLDC made them public. Williams students are clients of the college, which provides them services. Surely they deserve some input in the nature of these services.
This is why the QLDC urges every Williams student to join the Facebook group petition. The petition reads:
The signatories (group members) of this petition are against:
1. Compulsory traylessness at all dining halls.
2. Universal, compulsory low flow showerheads and faucets in dorms.Furthermore they request the following of future campus sustainability measures:
3. Open debate in the student body previous to final decisionmaking.
4. Voluntary compliance to permit those who do not wish to participate to opt out.
Thank you for taking the time to read about the fight in defense of the quality of life of all Williams students. Watch for us, on campus and online.
The Williams College Quality of Life Defense Council
DEFEND WILLIAMS
May 9th, 2008 at 12:05 am
Why are the things you claim to be so self evident? While I absolutely agree with you in your dislike of the secrecy and incomplete disclosure with which these events have happened, do you have a source of information on this that would provide statistics and testimonials from those working in the dining halls? I have spoken with a few of the Greylock staff who are worried about applying the system as the dining hall requires trays for its conveyor belt to work and, already, one work has been cut on a broken glass from the system’s misuse.
also, what part of Williams, what institution made these decisions? it seems that an application to the specific people who made such changes without consulting the student body would be more effective than a general outcry without a specific target.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:13 am
I am not part of the QLDC, but have submitted a letter stating my own views to the director of the Zilkha Center. Let’s see if that leads us anywhere.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:40 am
Unfortunately, the nature of our sources does not permit specific “statistics and testimonials from those working in the dining halls.” The QLDC requests that anyone with this information share it with the student body. With the College staying quiet, it’s everyone’s responsibility to share everything they can find out on these issues. Thank you, Query, for sharing about Greylock.
We also do not know whose decisions resulted in these plans by the College. Dining Services and Buildings and Grounds are applying the tray and faucet changes, respectively, but it would be surprising if this process didn’t start or at least reach higher up the line. Practically, this looks like something coming from on high - Hopkins Hall.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:13 am
QLDC, I love how you complain about the apparent secrecy of these changes to the college, yet you cowardly choose to remain anonymous. Also, you should know better than to make claims without support. Let’s see the specific facts and statistics behind your statements. Please get a life and find something more important to worry about then low flow showerheads and trayless dining.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:35 am
To QLDC:
Trays in the dining hall? More water through the faucets?
Tell me, Is Justin Thyme, perhaps, a member of your group?
May 9th, 2008 at 4:47 am
I can’t believe this could be the end of the dining hall tray and all the carvings I enjoyed for so long.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:49 am
Really? Trays? and lack of quality showers? I’m sure if you put in a bid to Westin, you can fix yourself a Heavenly Bed (TM), with an included Heavenly Bath (TM) dousing experience. Or you could spend your time getting an education.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:49 am
I am of mixed minds about this group (but glad to see that they toned the eagle down). I do believe that educating people about proposed changes and having them “buy in” is often better and more effective in the long run than just imposing the changes (which can generate disgruntlement and attempts to get around or undermine the changes and, in the case of environmentally-motivated changes, is not likely to inspire students to adopt the changes as lifelong habits or values, which is often one of the foremost goals of such changes).
I want Williams to be environmentally responsible and an incubator for programs that will have a positive impact on the environment. Still, I would urge Hopkins to be somewhat cautious. Whatever the facts were, closing Paresky in the wee hours without general discussion, in contradiction of earlier pronouncements about the 24/7 availability of the space, while Goodrich was still down, and while the systems still seemed to be left on in Paresky during the closed hours hit a raw nerve and seems to have made some students suspicious of and resistant to “environmentally-motivated” changes. I hope that the administration will learn from that misstep.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:22 am
To 09er:
Until you post here under your full name, I am surprised the weight of your hypocrisy does not crush you entirely. The reason we are anonymous is that the (dare we say cowardly) students that use vicious attack tactics against those who with contrary opinions instead of considering those opinions for what they are worth can’t attack what they can’t find, but they CAN talk to us here. (Thanks, 09er.) Also, the burden of proof here is no longer on us. Ask any dining hall employee; ask any Buildings & Grounds employee. This is now a matter of publicly known fact, and as such doesn’t have to be proven until actively denied - which, tellingly, it hasn’t been. As to your “get a life” comments, it isn’t the low flow and traylessness that’s the real concern here, as all QLDC documents have been careful to point out.
The problem is the way these decisions were made. If we don’t stop this now, what next? Charges for printing? No bags at Grab & Go? Oh wait, they’re already doing those next year as well.
To FROSH mom:
Until the QLDC drops its anonymity (and given the anger an inability to get at our blood seems to inspire in some people, it may be a while) the QLDC can neither confirm nor deny whether any student is a “member of [the] group.”
To Larry George:
You’re absolutely right. However, the problem doesn’t seem to be Hopkins environmentalists falling foul of student opinion. The college picks sustainability measures that cut costs and quality of life for little return while furiously building massive new structures whose acres of glass are going to drive the heating bills (and carbon emissions) through their unnecessarily high roofs. Clearly actual emissions aren’t the concern there.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:15 am
i was right, the QLDC doesn’t deserve a moments attention. TNG has tried to work with them, they seem to have denied that (see the facebook group). they refuse to cite any statistics, they claim to want to defend the student body yet can’t bother to name themselves and they accuse other student groups of being attacking, yet they’ve produced no evidence of that at all and in fact the TNG has been nothing but kind towards them on facebook. LMAO.
pathetic, really.
david, why are you letting an anonymous group post here without your normal chides re: transparency and openness? i sense a double standard.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:30 am
For some reason, I bet this group that constantly uses the “we” pronoun actually consists of one member. QLDC how many people do you actually speak for? I see that your facebook group has about 20 people in it. That is less than 1% of the student population. That really constitutes a wide section of campus…
May 9th, 2008 at 9:39 am
To Rory:
The contact between the TNG and the QLDC was limited to Morgan Goodwin’s comments on the Facebook group (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=39892620331). The QLDC will work with any group, including the TNG, that respects student opinion as it works for sustainability. It’s just that the plans for next year don’t.
As for statistics, what statistics are there to cite? Ask any dining hall worker about the traylessness; they’ll tell you about how they’re doing it next year and how, at Driscoll and Greylock at least, their tests have shown problems with mess and breakage, respectively. Again, the burden of proof here is on those who would defend these plans, and either way, the student body should have more say - be it in agreement with the QLDC or not.
Anonymity is of course going to be the Jeremiah Wright of the QLDC. (Don’t be Hillary. Anyone.) We’ve addressed our reasons before; check our previous posts. Evidence of other groups “being attacking?” Sorry, ask anyone who Stand With Us intimidated. Ask anyone who breaks from politically correct liberal lockstep. Ask anyone who suggests in public, even for a moment, that any environmental measure is anything but perfect.
As for EpbBlog’s approach to anonymity, I understand they welcome anonymous posters. Until you post your full name, Rory, you too enjoy the protection this policy affords.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:52 am
To 09er:
Still 09er. Too bad.
As to our numbers, the Facebook group proper has 19 members at present. Outside of poster exhortations of the student body to speak together, the QLDC has never claimed to be a massive army. We merely try to represent a facet of student opinion that would otherwise go unrepresented. Sorry, we haven’t done opinion polls, so we can’t give you “statistics” on student opinion.
In any case, only the terminally unobservant could seriously claim that this unrepresented view is not pretty widely held. The reaction to trayless tests in Greylock, the reaction in Williams Hall to low flow plumbing - apparently there’s another petition going around - and the generally positive reaction to the QLDC’s message make this quite clear.
Group numbers aren’t the goal. Publicity for the petition (http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=12340239838) is.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:06 am
http://wso.williams.edu/discuss/comments.php?DiscussionID=1461
Several excellent points are made in the above WSO thread. Constantine Mavroudis’ initial comment speaks to the general feeling on this. Silent majority no longer.
Glenn Yong Zong Zheng also posts an email to various administration figures most of the way down the thread. Check it out, he put things far better than the QLDC has yet managed. It will be interesting to see if there’s a response.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:28 am
QLDC,
you still aren’t getting it. There’s a difference between a handle (btw, i’m easily identifiable to williams people by this handle) and A GROUP. If you want to advocate for a group, have the courage to have a leader with a name. until then, you deserve little consideration.
statistics would be something beyond “ask anyone” re: the harms of the low-flow faucet or the dining halls. conduct a survey (it wouldn’t take much time to knock on every door in a dorm room, especially if your group is more than one person), etc. until then, anecdotes prove nothing.
i also find the idea somewhat appalling that people are unwilling to have less pleasure in their shower. the dining workers might have a legit beef, but the shower thing just seems like the type of minor sacrifice we all should be doing.
as for ephblog’s policy, you’re getting my complaint wrong. every single other group that david has blogged about has received his constant reminder for openness and transparency. you have slipped past that reminder for some reason. i wonder why that is.
as for your defense of anonymity–have some damn courage. if this is actually something you care about more than a lark, then you should be willing to go through the disagreements. I literally laughed out loud when you complained about the oppression of PC on campus. can’t stand the heat of a non-hot kitchen? get out of it. there’s no line of victimization more pathetic and tired than the “oh, you can’t be non-PC at williams”. LMAO.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:30 am
This has got to be a ‘tongue-in-cheek’ effort to make a fairly legitimate point.
Doing away with trays in the cafeteria is just plain silly. The energy gained by ‘no tray washing’ will easily be amortized by the dishes that will end up broken… not to mention the cleaning of the spilled food on furniture, rugs, floors, books, and clothes, as students struggle to carry and balance, ‘trayless’ dishes.
I say, “Bring back trays!”
May 9th, 2008 at 11:29 am
Just so we’ll get the arguments right: I believe that the main reason for abolishing trays at various schools has been that studies were done that showed that eliminating trays significantly reduced the amount of wasted food; water use reductions (and the related reduction in the amount of energy used to heat the wash water) were only a minor factor in the decisions. Be clear: it isn’t that people eat less when they don’t have a tray; it’s that apparently less of the food that they take ends up being thrown away.
My correction underscores a point I tried to make earlier. The administration needs to get the information behind the changes and proposals out to the whole community. I assume they have the studies in question, as well as data from the trayless days experiment and the Driscoll experiment. That information should be widely disseminated; I don’t think it has been since so many students seem to believe that the trayless proposal is primarily about reducing water usage.
It is good to inform and to persuade by education. Williams students need to know that the cost of food is rising with what many view as frightening rapidity, that Williams students waste X% or Y number of pounds of food each day, that wasted food wastes energy, that wasted food drives both the cost of meal plans and the cost of food itself up, etc.
May 9th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
To Rory:
I respectfully disagree. Hard survey data is not necessary to justify this kind of activism. If we were going directly to the administration and making demands, you would be right. However, we’re just trying to start a dialog (which has happened) and get a petition signed. Once the petition is signed by a significant number of students, we’ll have your hard data on student opinion for you.
Minor sacrifices are all well and good, but they shouldn’t be forced on students who didn’t get the chance to comment. Furthermore, the college can make macro changes that will have a far greater effect with less quality of life lost. (Less glass in the new buildings would be a start.) The college seems to think sustainability only happens at the individual-use level.
The distraction from the issues that personal attacks provide is more important than the personal impact of these attacks. Anonymity allows us to represent the message more than representing ourselves.
To FROSH mom:
I congratulate you for getting the satire; it was expected that the tongue in cheek publicity of much of the QLDC would be better understood. That was before we realized how seriously some students and, I am sorry to say, EphBlog commenters take themselves.
To Larry George:
Had the college made these arguments to begin with, and perhaps thrown a bone or two to those who really like their trays, things might have gone differently. However, at this point these plans are simply hitting us from on high. Hopkins Hall would do well to consider your comments when they plan their next sustainability measures.
May 9th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
The posters are rather clear about the tongue in cheek nature - especially the non-discernible Latin (what does it mean)? I haven’t seen any outrageous reaction either, and Stand With Us’s negative pressure was on the student body, so I don’t see that as ground for a small group of student(s) to withhold their identity. Are you scared of being mugged at night by eco-warriors?
As a resident of Williams, I was a little surprised when my showerhead and faucets changed without warning. I think QLDC’s concerns about Nalgenes are mistated - the point of low flow is that when WASHING, one uses less water (versus filling.)
The college does actively encourage conservation, especially in terms of electricity. Does QLDC want little conservation notices on the faucets?
I also think QLDC would be better off going after the faculty - our institution is such that they are technically governing, such that the faculty cannot unionize. As such, they might be a good source for administration pressure.
Also, I will repeat something I said on WSO - I think there is another component hear to reduce food consumption - if you can’t load up a tray, you won’t waste as much food.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
To Will Slack ‘11:
The inscription around the earlier QLDC symbol was a shoddy attempt at modifying the Virginia state motto (Sic Semper Tyrannis, Thus Ever to Tyrants) to reflect on out of control campus environmentalists (Sic Semper Environmentalis, Thus Ever to the Environment). No serious commentary and/or correctness were intended.
We’re not scared of being “mugged at night by eco-warriors,” but we would rather the debate focus on the issues rather than on us. Attacks wouldn’t harm us so much as they would hijack the debate. Also keep in mind (your faculty comments, with which you have a point, hint at this) that not all campus agents capable of retaliatory action in defense of their environmentalism are students.
In response to your comments on the issues, which we appreciate, the measures themselves are less worrying to the QLDC than their compulsory nature and the way they were decided upon. Rather than “litte conservation notices on the faucets” the QLDC would rather entries were given the choice about whether to go low flow, and we would rather dining halls still offer trays while offering students information on the choice whether to use them. Food waste reduction is definitely an issue, and Driscoll has seen a drop in food waste (while seeing an increase in operating costs due to increased spills). Any econ major will tell you that the impact of the former on the food market is insignificant at any scale, while the latter does impact tuition.
May 9th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Re concerns over wasted food -
Smaller plates!
May 9th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
I’m not anything close to an Eco Major, but I understand that food prices are rising rather quickly due to the price of fuel.
I understand that your goal is to impress upon the administration how unsatisfied you are with they ways these steps were taken. I think you hamstring yourself behind your anonymity, because it removes your options of direct contact and your ability to change anything besides the information in the public forum.
In short, how do you hope to have an effect on policy?
May 9th, 2008 at 3:06 pm
Denial of dessert is passe; now it is, “little Johnnie, finish up your carrots and peas, or you don’t get no tray”!
May 9th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
I thank Rory for suggesting we should all be glad to enjoy our showers less.
That’s the nanny state for you.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:44 pm
it wasn’t my clearest sentence, but that has to be one of the worst misinterpretations i’ve read in a while. We shouldn’t all be glad to have less comfortable showers, but it certainly isn’t the type of complaint that garners much sympathy from me.
May 9th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
What is the percentage reduction of water usage achieved by these showerheads?
What is their acquisition and installation cost?
What is their cost in terms of lost time (productivity?)
Finally, what is the percentage of water usage represented by watering the lawns?
May 9th, 2008 at 6:27 pm
I can’t speak for the first 3, but I have yet to see anyone on &G water our lawns. Certainly, there are no automated systems.
May 9th, 2008 at 6:33 pm
And when will they get to exploring warm weather gray water and rain water systems that could water lawns without having to use potable water?
May 9th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
QLDC -
These concerns seem to be about changes made to allegedly help with energy costs. What about when the college chooses which brand of toilet paper to stock your bathroom with? Brand of lightbulbs? Color of the carpeting? How about when dining services changes the kind of cereal they provide? Do you get upset about these changes made without asking for student input (but just to generally save money and not to specifically save energy costs)? How about the pretty awful furniture often provided in common areas?
I firmly believe in student activism and think it’s great that you care enough to do something. I would just think you might look to the overall logical coherence to your argument. Are you upset about any change to the services provided in your rented dorm room, or just those having to do with energy/consumption/environmentalism? If you have a bigger point, I’d suggest you come up with better examples, because the petition, as it is now, opens you up to allegations of just being pissed off whiners who want better showers and are too lazy to carry a plate and a cup.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:27 pm
The College already grants you the option of voluntary compliance. You can opt out of Williams College anytime you like and enroll (or not) at a school with policies that suit your showerhead preferences better.
May 9th, 2008 at 7:32 pm
Larry: What about those of us who like to drink from the garden hose?
May 9th, 2008 at 8:11 pm
Here are some of my suggestions:
*First, cement everywhere…easy to maintain, long-lasting…
*Then, timers on the toilets, showers, and faucets…perhaps even have them require a coin, and limit showers to twice a week. :-0
*No heat or air conditioning.
*Bring back the trays, but put out tiny little plates and tiny little
serving spoons, begin portion reduction as well.
Hope that helps.
May 9th, 2008 at 8:28 pm
FM -
But only if they let the students reverse meter, and get paid for holding it in, not washing, sweltering, etc. A unique form of sub silentio merit-based financial aid.
May 9th, 2008 at 9:36 pm
To Will Slack ’11:
We hope to have an effect on policy by publicizing the Facebook petition, which is public, will have our names on it, and as such should have an impact.
To Ken Thomas ’93:
Fine questions. You touch on two critical points: low flow plumbing has efficency costs outside water use, in terms of time, aggravation, etc.; and more importantly, that the college is making small changes with big visibility to students first. That’s not right.
To JG:
Interesting – one of the more logically coherent counter-arguments here. However, we believe the second part of the petition, which asks that the student body take part in future campus sustainability measures, is what lifts it above such mundane concerns. Whiners would not represent the actual changes as ancillary to the deeper issues: like the fact that the walls of Hopkins Hall get thicker every day.
An good point came up earlier about carrying plates and cups – what about the disabled and injured? We’ve seen them struggling with traylessness, and we’ve seen dining hall employees refuse them trays point-blank. Is that what we want to be doing as a college?
To HWC:
Of course anyone has the right to opt out of the college experience at any time. Is this the philosophical basis upon which the college wishes to operate, however? If it is, they need to stop grossly misrepresenting their services in every admissions publication prospective students see; if it is, it makes us mere complainers while it makes the college a habitual liar.
May 9th, 2008 at 10:27 pm
Ultimately, yes. I think so. Williams College wants to respect you as an adult with the ability to make adult decisions. If Williams isn’t right for you on an issue you consider serious, they expect you to leave.
I think you are fighting an uphill battle. Sustainability is a major institutional push for all colleges these days, including Williams College.
I don’t understand the dining tray issue at all. (Does this new policy mean it’s OK to steal them to go sledding?).
The water conservation issue is self-evident. The College has reduced water and sewage combined consumption from 60 million gallons in 1991 to a low of 47 million gallons in 2005 — virtually all from the installation of low-flow faucets, showers, toilets, etc. When you combine the cost of the water with the energy used to heat it, we are talking real money.
Link to water usage data at Williams
May 9th, 2008 at 10:41 pm
“I think you are fighting an uphill battle.”
Hold the fort here, hwc. I think if QLDC can find a way to make themselves part of the solution then they will be on to something.
The college is trying to “green” up. Unfortunately, so far, there efforts entail treating the students like ‘inhabitants’ rather than participants. I think there are several ways in which QLDC can make themselves valuable.
Perhaps some suggestions from those alumni experienced with student self-governance?
May 9th, 2008 at 10:49 pm
I’ll be honest, I really don’t understand the major “quality of life” difference of a low-flow showerhead. Depending on the building you’re in at Williams, a NEW low-flow showerhead is still a major improvement over the generally old one currently on there. Not to mention, you’re at college not a spa. Seriously. I think there are more important issues to worry about.
QLDC - as I’ve said, even though I disagree with your premise, I fully support your right to say whatever you’d like. Question for you that I’m sure will be asked if this is to go anywhere: since you seem to want input somehow, do you have a proposed model for how such input can be gathered? Who will do it? What will be the mechanism? Are you looking to voice an opinion, have a vote, what? Also, what is your threshold for how such a decision really affects “quality of life”? That is a VERY broad category, and ostensibly could mean just about any decision made relating to they physical plant.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
I don’t know from beans on this newfangled environmental stuff (we had outhouses and bathed in the Hoosatonic River while I was at Williams), but this note from the new Zilkha Center for Environmental Initiatives suggests student involvement.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
To hwc:
It seems you’ve missed the point. Campus sustainability is indeed a happening thing, and we approve of that. We oppose inefficient, unjust or misguided environmentalism, not all environmentalism. See below, and check out the petition on Facebook; it’s pretty clear.
To JG:
Of course low flow showerheads are not a huge issue. Of course there are more important things to worry about. One of them is a college that engages in self-serving cost-saving, activist-satisfying measures without consulting student opinion or even publicly admitting their plans.
The mechanism of student input is of course up for discussion. As an illustrative example, were the college to do traylessness right: First they would work up a proposal. This would then be disseminated to students through official channels. Students would be given an opportunity to comment (on WSO, in a town hall style meeting, whatever) or perhaps a vote could be taken. The college would then take that information and move forward, hopefully having changed their plans if changes were necessary.
It’s not quite clear what “any decision made relating to they physical plant” means, but presumably you’re wondering what the threshold is for a serious impingement of the “Quality of Life” in “Williams College Quality of Life Defense Council.” The simple answer is that there isn’t one, because it’s relative. If the college proposed tomorrow to make us carbon neutral tomorrow through measures x, y and z the threshold would be high. If the college proposed to fiddle with a few percents of its total water use, the threshold would be (is) lower.
May 9th, 2008 at 11:35 pm
The College Board of Trustees has set ambitious goals as a matter of policy:
By the way, I believe the campus policy organization you should be talking to is the Campus Environmental Advisory Committee. Here is a link to their website.
This committee may have been absorbed by the new Zilka Center.
May 10th, 2008 at 12:19 am
If the college has set up goals (regarding ‘greening up’), with the students being the ‘body of humans’ most affected by the measures taken to reach these goals, then I agree with QLDC, that the students should be brought into the decision-making process. Only fair…and a great learning experience as well.
However…that means taking on the responsibility of being part of the solution as well. It also means, QLDC, that you may find yourselves in the position of that which you are rebelling against now.
May 10th, 2008 at 2:22 am
At QLDC: Do you seriously expect the college to consult the students on every single change it undertakes? That would surely be extremely inefficient. Maybe the college is trying to avoid setting a precedent of consulting with the students over every little change on campus. I also think JG touches upon an excellent point. It seems as if your group may just be a bunch of whiners complaining about a few minor inconveniences. Please rememeber, low flow is better than no flow, and trayless is better than foodless dining.
May 10th, 2008 at 1:07 pm
“Unfortunately, so far, there efforts entail treating the students like ‘inhabitants’ rather than participants.”
It’s true that the College makes an unfortunate amount of decisions that effect student life without consulting students, but most of them are made by Campus Life. I don’t know if I’ve ever seen an environmental decision made that wasn’t as a result of prolonged student lobbying at Williams.
QLDC–it just doesn’t make sense for the college to consult the students for every decision they make. You might respond that they should only consult students about “important” decisions (whatever that means), but I think you’ll find that the administration is unlikely to be able to differentiate between replacing bulbs with CFLs and replacing the old low-flow showerheads with new low-flow showerheads. Honestly, I don’t really see the difference–your arguments against showerheads come across as very spoiled to me…
Now the trays, well, that’s a different story–there are very legitimate reasons not to go trayless that you’ve highlighted, and unlike the showerheads, I’m still somewhat puzzled about the benefits of going trayless.