Wed 14 May 2008
In response to my request to “Show us the data” with regard to student activities, Drew Newman ‘04, former president of ACE (All Campus Entertainment) from 2003-2004 delivers. See below for Drew’s extensive write-up and links to supporting documents. Comments:
1) Drew is probably too modest to mention his outstanding Record op-ed from three years ago. Read that first to get a sense of the issues involved in improving social life at Williams.
2) Now that the College is overrun with student-social-life bureaucrats, there is much less freedom for a student like Drew to grasp the reins of campus leadership. The cost of having an Office of Campus Life is not just, or even primarily, the money spent on salaries and expenses. The most important cost is the damper such an office inevitably places on student leadership. If we did not have an OCL, then some student in the class of 2008 would have had a similar experience to Drew’s, would have saw a need and tried to fill it, would have fought and struggled and (sometimes) failed and (often) succeeded. What is that student’s name? We will never know. Remember the tablecloth colors.
3) Note that these are my criticisms, not Drew’s. I would be curious to read what he and other campus leaders think about creation and performance of the Office of Campus Life.
Drew writes:
Your cluster housing post ends with “Show us the data.” I am writing to send you some.
First, I must stress that I have no idea what social life is like now at Williams or how the Williams Housing system is working. My last good contact graduated from Williams a year ago. Therefore, I have no basis to be critical of what is going on on campus now. Instead, I am writing you to share historical data on social events at Williams. If you post or paraphrase my words, please mention that I am not explicitly or implicitly criticizing the current system; I definitely recognize that it’s clearly a
different time now.I. Background:
All Campus Entertainment (”ACE”) was founded on April 10, 2002 by all of the campus social planning leaders. ACE combined the social-planning functions and budgets of the six student groups that previously planned campus-wide social and entertainment events: Student Activities Council, Social Chairs (formerly known as the Housing Committee), Goodrich Committee, Log Committee, Frosh Council, and Swing Club. ACE was founded at the suggestion and prodding of the administration to overcome the numerous, perennial problems of a de-centralized social planning system.Some day in the future, I can explain more about ACE’s creation and share the documents and records that were generated at that time. But, it is unrelated to the data that I want to share with you now.
II. Student Satisfaction:
In November 2003, ACE ran a campus-wide survey on social and entertainment events and received 570 responses. The attached results showed that 74% of students rated the social and entertainment events produced by ACE as “good” or “excellent.” We were thrilled with this number for two reasons: (a) because it was much higher than the satisfaction rate shown in a College Council survey conducted during the 2001-2002 academic year and (b) because ACE was still in a transition/new phase when our survey was run.III. Records of Social and Entertainment Events at Williams:
After its creation and during the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 academic years, ACE produced about 95% of all campus-wide social and entertainment events at Williams. Because of this, the list of events that ACE produced is reflective of campus social life during those years.To help preserve the records of social events at Williams and perhaps serve as a comparison for future years, I am attaching:
(a) List of the 317 events ACE produced in 2002-2003 *
(b) List of the 337 events ACE produced in 2003-2004
(c) Analysis of the 2002-2003 and 2003-2004 events
(d) ACE’s 2002-2003 Annual Report (released in Sept. 2003)* The 2002-2003 event list does not include the estimated attendance and event length information for each event because the complete file was lost was when my computer crashed in August 2004.
There are lots more data around, including volumes of financial reports, which I can share one day in the future once I translate the cryptic financial statements.
ACE was created at the urging of the administration for the student life system that existed in 2002. It served its purpose and we had two very successful years, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004. With the arrival of new administrators and their desire to shift to a de-centralized system, ACE has tried to adapt and I think that ACE President Ali Barrett ‘09 has done an excellent job trying to serve the needs of the current social life system.
Thanks to Drew for taking the time and trouble to gather all this information together. Future historians (and future students) will thank him.


May 14th, 2008 at 10:24 am
This is fantastic. I really hope current students take this spreadsheet to heart and try to use The Log in similar fashion next year. Having Goodrich back on-line should also be a HUGE bonus, that is a great space … (I don’t get, by the way, why noise complaints from anyone near the Log should be taken at all seriously. After all, that is the ONE commercial area of town, and there are two other bars essentially adjacent to the Log, so if you live on or directly adjacent to Spring Street as opposed to anywhere else in Williamstown, you have basically come to the nuisance …).
May 14th, 2008 at 11:18 am
ACE was around back in my day too - I think Steve Case was in charge. Did it disappear at some point?
May 14th, 2008 at 11:35 am
It was called SAC (student activities council) in my day (mid 90’s) but served more or less the same function …
May 14th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
The major function of ACE, party-planning, was largely killed off by cluster housing, which redistributed funds to neighborhood-level boards and committees. In theory, given the homogenous nature of ACE events, this was a good idea. However, in my anecdotal experience, neighborhood leaders have found it frustrating and difficult to deal with OCL, and I’m not sure that there has been any net improvement over the old ACE system.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:53 pm
How does it work, now?
Let’s say, for example, that the Latino/a student group at Williams wants to host an all-campus party around a South American holiday or whatever…
How does the group go about getting funding for the party?
May 14th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
hwc–
Generally, the group already has funding (through their own organization). If they want additional funding, they approach MinCo, or more commonly, CC’s co-sponsorship fund (which hears their proposal and awards funding based on how well imagined the proposal is seen to be. Proposals are rarely denied by co-sponsorship). Then, that organization books a space on-campus and registers the party with the OCL (who registers it with security). If the program/party involves alcohol, the groups either use their own discretionary budget (some have these) to buy the booze, or in more cases, contact a neighborhood about the neighborhood co-sponsoring the party. Generally when neighborhoods co-sponsor parties with groups like the one you described above, typically the group does most of the advertising, planning, and execution, in return for booze funds and a social space in the neigbhorhood.
I know that sounds complicated…however, the really difficult part of parties at Williams isn’t funding–that’s abundant at Williams.
Over the years, for allegedly liability purposes, the college has gotten stricter and stricter with how party registration works, to the point where it’s become quite restrictive…parties must have a certain amount of college-certified hosts and servers, and the hosts and servers have fairly strict responsibilities they have to fulfill at parties (it’s a thankless job and the pay is mediocre). Furthermore, a certain number of these hosts/servers must be over 21. Unfortunately, because of the fairly infrequent host/server training opportunities (and the fact that you have to go through training), the pool of 21 year old host/servers on campus is small, and the pool of those willing to frequently host/serve parties is smaller.
I would agree with Ronit, that it’s disputable whether the net social scene benefits of the Neighborhoods outweigh the net social scene negatives of the increased red tape of the OCL.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Let’s complicate the hypo in order to make it more interesting - around the birthday of Adolf Eichmann, an one time resident of Argentina.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
frank: too easy.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:40 pm
Thanks, current eph.
So College Council took back the co-sponsorship function when ACE was disbanded?
It seems to me that, if you want decentralized “grassroots” event planning, that co-sponsorship (or outright funding) mechanism for any group throwing a party is key.
May 14th, 2008 at 5:05 pm
current eph:
On this hosts and servers deal…
They don’t actually try to enforce a 21 year old drinking age at campus parties do they?
May 14th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
depends on what you mean by “try to enforce”, and it’s been 5 years since i was at a party at williams but they did check people’s ids and give out wristbands.
now, that’s an easy enough system to break and i don’t know whether or not williams did any more past that, but yes they did.
and now, my shot at swarthmore:) when i visited my brother there while in high school they had two untapped kegs at the party we went to. apparently, they went untapped all night because no one over 21 signed for them. Such a travesty of partying would NEVER be allowed at Williams!
May 14th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
@hwc: it is relatively difficult for an under-21 to get served alcohol at an official, registered party staffed by trained servers, though I have seen it happen.
Fake IDs are commonplace, and most under-21s can drink all they want in private or in unregistered parties. So really, the only purpose of having the ID-checking is to increase the waiting lines to interminable lengths for those who are legal to drink (it takes longer to get a drink at the annual class-year formals than it took to get fresh vegetables in the old Soviet Union).
May 14th, 2008 at 6:02 pm
Oh. I had no idea. Thanks.
That explains a lot. Driving students to pre-game in the dorms is really not an ideal situation.
21 year old seniors are the least likely to even care about going to campus parties.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
More likely, they didn’t have the three engineering majors it would take to figure out the tap.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
I asked my brother about it–they didn’t get a 21 year old to sign for them, so no tap.
Plus, none of the swarthmore kids seemed to care–only us high schoolers.
(Oh, and williams students can tap a keg without ANY engineers! We’re number one! We’re number one!)
:)
May 14th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
It’s was an engineering major version of the old Polish jokes.
Your brother’s keg problem ran afoul of the party permit system, the equivalent of “hosts and servers”.
May 15th, 2008 at 1:32 am
(The original comment #8 was censored / deleted. My comment — now #8 — originally appeared as #9.)
May 15th, 2008 at 9:31 am
aparent;
Yes. And your line was funny (and perfectly timed) until the censorship.
It was two lines, both by hwc, mentioning specific names pertaining to the Mary Jane Hitler thread.
Not sure why they were removed, but it is a little ironic considering the “Star Chamber” post. My guess is that some people haven’t been happy with the extent of the “reporting and documenting” on EB, with the result that specific names are ‘off limits’ only once they have threatened lawsuit…
May 15th, 2008 at 9:44 am
We had a discussion about this. Julia requested that her last name be removed from EphBlog and, consistent with our FAQ, we removed it. We did the same with, for example, the Cole Field Bombers. Would FM prefer that we publish their names even though they asked us not to?
I am happy to re-open the discussion. Please suggest a different FAQ entry, if you like. But you must provide a specific alternative, a rule-based procedure that you want applied in all cases, not just in those cases where you don’t like the Eph in question.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:45 am
And HWC is welcome to repost exactly what he wrote before as long as he just removes Julia’s last name. I am also about to edit the FAQ to add this case as an example.
May 15th, 2008 at 9:54 am
dkane is a decent man. He doesn’t want us using Mary Jane Hitler Julia’s last name. That’s Julia of Julia and her Idiot Boyfriendâ„¢ fame.
Speaking of which, can any current Ephs tell us if she has been enrolled at Williams College this year? You can find her full name with a Google search on the following string:
Julia Mary Jane Hitler nazi sympathizer bigot
May 15th, 2008 at 9:58 am
BTW, what I originally wrote in response to frank’s suggestion of an Adolph Eichmah party was going to Mary Jane Hitler’s parents for funding. It’s the least can do for their little precious.
May 15th, 2008 at 10:36 am
I have no particular problem with your removal of her name.
I just find it a bit ironic that she is protected, while derogatory comments about perfectly innocent people, are allowed.