Fri 12 Sep 2008
Claiming Williams Day, “dedicated to campus-wide consideration of invisible and visible practices that can create or disrupt community,” will be a complete failure, although its proponents are unlikely to admit as much this year. See the Record for background. This program is one of the most concrete results of the Willy E. N-word controversy last spring.
Start with the calendar.
2009
Jan. 5 Monday First day of Winter Study Period
Jan. 28 Wednesday Last day of Winter Study Period
Feb. 3 Tuesday Organizational Meetings for classes that don’t meet the first two days of classes 7-9 p.m.
Feb. 4 Wednesday First day of classes Spring Semester (classes to follow a Thursday schedule)
Feb. 5 Thursday Claiming Williams Day, no classes
Feb. 6 Friday Classes resume a normal schedule
Pretty confusing, eh? The faculty were smart enough to realize that, if Claiming Williams were on a Friday, everyone would just enjoy the three day week-end. And if Claiming Williams were on the first day of the semester, no one would show up. So, by forcing students to show up for Wednesday classes (although be sure to use that Thursday schedule!) and then having them stay for Friday classes, the College can ensure that almost everyone will be in town on Thursday.
But nothing (reasonable) that the College can do could force students to attend the events associated with Claiming Williams. Since none of those events will be anywhere near as fun as Mountain Day, few students will go to them. And those students who do go will be precisely the 10% (2%?) that see Williams as a infected with a “culture of hate and indifference.” There will be much preaching to a small choir.
The central problem is that the people in charge of planning Claiming Williams Day are “hyperbolic and accusatory” in their view of Williams, to quote Professor Robert Bell. “Hate and indifference?” That’s absurd. And, more importantly, 90%+ of Williams students think it is absurd. Why would they bother to attend programming put on by a committee that they think is run by extremists? They won’t. You can cancel classes but you can’t make students pay attention to your cause.
I predict a big day on the ski slopes!
13 Responses to “ Claiming Williams Day ”
Comments:
Leave a Reply
Trackbacks & Pingbacks:
-
Pingback from All of Us » EphBlog
November 9th, 2008 at 4:10 pm[...] I stand by my prediction that Claiming Williams will be a complete failure. But nothing (reasonable) that the College can [...]
September 12th, 2008 at 7:30 am
And in the fleshpots!
September 12th, 2008 at 8:55 am
David, stop being all high and mighty. For a supporter of “all things eph”, you certainly do like to cast a lot of negativity on a program planned and implemented by students.
And Professor Bell said that about students on campus? That’s what the quote sounds like.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
1) Check the Record article I linked to above. Here is the full context.
So, to your point, Bell described the language that the students used as “hyperbolic and accusatory” and not the students themselves. Is that a distinction worth a difference?
2) It is my job to “cast a lot of negativity” on things that will never work.
Imagine that some students came to you and described their plan to build a space ship out of dining trays. Now, you don’t want to be mean to them or crush their dreams. But a little “negativity” would be helpful.
3) Does anyone know who is on the Committee and what they are planning? Rory is correct that I should add some constructive suggestions but I don’t even know who to make them to? This group does not seem to be nearly as open and transparent as the CCI (Emily’s group). The less transparent/open the planning, the greater the odds of disaster.
September 12th, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Personally, I think a spaceship made from dining trays would be pretty phat.
September 12th, 2008 at 11:40 pm
I love your bullshit use of statistics again. I think I’ll join the fun. 95% of Ephblog readers think David Kane is full of it and needs a new hobby. 143% of Ephs are smart enough to realize that made up statistics with no basis in reality undercut any attempt at a real critique of anything. And finally, 1296% of people whose names rhyme with “avid ane” should try to say something positive about an Eph that doesn’t come from a news article in which someone else actually said the positive thing, relate to the military, or sound condescending.
Now, as to Williams students, faculty, and others actually caring/getting involved, I’d like to suggest that you, David, are not an accurate cross-sample of the Williams population, nor do you have any basis to believe that 90%+ of anyone agrees with you on anything. At all. Also, since when do you have to agree with everything about an event to show up? My senior year, I planned a big event on campus race relations. Several hundred people came with little to no support from the administration in planning, funding, or promoting. A couple of us ran the whole thing, dozens of students moderated discussions, and I begged all over town to get enough money to buy crappy Subway subs for lunch. But people came, and they talked, some disagreeing, but they had a dialogue. Faculty, students, alums, etc. were involved because they cared enough to show up. A couple hundred people were involved at some point during the day. There were no major events inspiring it, just three years of noticing the regular low-grade tension and several months of concerted effort to get the conversation going. I think that might be more than 2%? Organizing my community was kind of like being the mayor of a really small town, except with actual responsibility.
I’ll point out that not one single person showed the kind of snide disrespect about a group of people trying to make a positive difference that I see from you here. There were many people who thought it was unnecessary or not the best way to go about it, but they had the decency to show respect for the motivation and the effort anyway.
So you, Mr. Kane, are welcome to kiss my ass. And I hate that you have pushed me to the point of making such a comment. If you have such a low opinion of the Williams community, I’m not sure I want to be associated with a blog you host. Lest you or anyone else take that as a free speech comment, you have every right to post what you’d like but I just don’t know if it is worth my effort. And in case it isn’t totally clear, no way in hell would I be on the Board of EB. I’m fed up with it. I thank the many loyal commenters on here (even those I don’t agree with) who raise the level of debate and make intelligent comments. I am not going to abandon EB all together, but this is why I keep taking mini-vacations from posting. It just makes me sad.
And a spaceship made out of dining trays would be fabulous Jeff Z. - I totally agree.
September 13th, 2008 at 2:55 am
Very helpful post dave.
September 13th, 2008 at 10:38 am
JG,
I was trying to provide my honest estimate of the percentage of students at Williams who see the College as infected by a “culture of hate and indifference.” There are clearly some students who believe this. What percentage? I doubt that it is as much as 10% and it could easily be as low as 2%. Was the phrase “culture of hate and indifference” a fair description of Williams during your time? What percentage of students then would agree?
This is, obviously, a different question from the percentage of students who think that Williams is not perfect, who believe that there are isolated incidents of indifference and hate, who are interested in “caring/getting involved.” You tell an interesting story of your time (and we need more stories like this). Carter Zinn ‘88 tells a similar story of my era.
So, we are talking about two different estimates. First, what percentage of students agree that Williams has a “culture of hate and indifference.” Second, what percentage of students would show up to an event or events organized by someone like you (or Carter Zinn). It is clear that the answer to the second question is a high percentage. Would it be 10% or 20% or 30%? I don’t know. But it would be an event worth having.
Perhaps the heart of our dispute concerns whether or not I have a “low opinion of the Williams community.” I think of myself as having a high, but realistic, opinion of the Williams community. Or, at least as high and realistic an opinion as professors like Robert Bell, Kevin Jones and Peter Murphy. (See the Record articles I linked to.) All expressed doubts and concerns about this event, some in line with mine, others different.
My point is that there a world of difference in likely participation and ultimate success between a day organized by someone like, say, Rachel Ko ‘09, and someone who thinks that Williams has a “culture of hate and indifference.”
We all agree that Williams can be improved. We all agree that we (students, alumni, faculty) should try to do so. We often differ on the best means to that end. My point is that a large scale event is much more likely to be successful if the people organizing it come from the Williams mainstream in terms of their opinions about Williams. (I am not even claiming that that mainstream is correct. Even if they are right that Williams has a “culture of hate and indifference,” the best way to change that culture is probably not to get in the face of the 90%+ who disagree. Cultures are moved from the inside.)
Anyway, I am sorry if the post made you upset. Perhaps the above comments help to clarify things. I can easily imagine that 200 students might actively participate and appreciate these events. I am still hopeful that the committee doing the planning will tell us what they are doing, will solicit input, will include a cross-section of the Williams community.
But, at the end of the day, my claim is empirical. We will see how many students are skiing come Feb 5th.
September 13th, 2008 at 11:52 am
the above comments just pissed me off further.
the professors who you claim agree with you were indeed careful to not comment about specific students, but rather about their language. they questioned methods, not the students. you continue to question and bring up the names of current students negatively and they have no idea you’re doing so. It’s really kinda disgusting.
I see zero reason for a committee for a day you are clearly 100% against to bother giving you any sort of insight into what they are planning because the only reasonable expectation they might have is that you’ll belittle and condescend to them publicly yet again.
You are an alumni from the 1980s. At some level, you have to realize that you’re of a different generation from the current students. JG and I are both from a much more recent era and both have seen hundreds of students at an event similar to this one. You act like you know anything about current student culture, but the closest you can get to it is via your interns (self-selecting) and via giving talks on campus (see above parenthetical comment).
get over yourself. stop naming names of random students trying to improve their campus culture whether you like the effort or not. damn.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:08 pm
Design an event that piques the interest of others! Telling them that they are indifferent gets one nowhere with them - or worse.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
The Record claims that 600 people showed up for a Stand With Us march last spring. I think that my impression at the time (from talking to people who were there) was that 600 was an overestimate and the real number was closer to 300-400, but either way, there’s clearly some interest from more than 10% of the student body.
That said, even if 600 kids show up to discussions on Claiming Williams Day, that’s only 30% of the student body. I think it’s a safe bet that the majority of students won’t be interested. Thus I think David’s point about preaching to the choir has some validity, even if his numbers are a bit pessimistic and his tone a bit … nonconciliatory.
September 13th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Oh, God!
Here’s another back-and-forth started by a post from dkane.
Just from a successful blog pov:
1. Dave as ‘content provider’ does a great job of inspiring the continuing round of comments that have kept ephblog going for a number of years. A very good example in which he has had to play very little role is the on-going conversation cum fist-fight on current politics.
2. This happens on other subjects, many concerning Williams, because of his generally pugnacious-to-distressing views which are at variance with many of the constant readers.
3. Some of this Williams view variance may arise because of generational perceptions of the Williams experience either real or posited for sake of furthering argument. Either way, from the pov of ‘comments’ - a measuring stick of blog success-, it works!
4. I have seen that many subjects put forth with the hope of wringing out a few ‘comments’ on subjects like art, architecture, music, theatre, philately, DIY, and cooking, produce no results as measured by ‘comments’.
Now, for me personnally, as a member of the fast-fading generation of the ‘50’s, I cannot understand the fascination with projecting myself into a current-campus situation as though I was actually there and having the temerity to make very specific suggestions either critical or positive to those students actually living the experience. Is this some inner longing for a sophmoric life to continue into senescence?
I had hoped to find on ephblog a place where some kind of collegial exchanges between readers sufficiently beyond campus years, on subjects upon which they actually had a number of years of expertise, could take place.
Most of all I had hoped to find some sort of humour, sense of self-knowledge both good and bad, and the ability to recognize one’s limitations that might be the hallmark of adult conversation.
I find that in trying to inject some sense of humour and lightness by adding illustrations to the blogginess, by asking my old roommate Rechtal Turgidley, Jr for his occasional gererationally-loaded comments, and by contributing an off-theme comment or irrational post, I haven’t been successful compared with the remarkable, measurable achievements of Dave Kane.
Dave, you may be an asshole, but you are our asshole!
September 13th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
Rory claims that I “continue to question and bring up the names of current students negatively.” Does Rory even bother to read what I write? Tough to tell! I have mentioned on student by name, and her positively. If Rachel Ko ‘09, president of Gargoyle and recipient of the Grosevnor (sp?) cup were involved in the planning of such an event, then the chances of success are higher. The same applies to many other Ephs, Ephs in the mainstream of student opinion. One of the reasons that Stand With Us was so successful in terms of participation was that it was led by people like Morgan Goodwin and Kim Dacres, students within the Williams mainstream, students who (I am fairly certain) did not describe Williams as being infected with a “culture of hate and indifference.”
I continue to think that 90% of current students would disagree with that description. I note that neither Rory or JG provides an estimate.
Even better, we have some testimony from a student currently on campus. Ah, the wonders of our cross-generational community of learning! ‘10 claims that:
Perhaps ‘10 is as clueless as you assert me to be! It is an empirical question.
Rory continues with:
The issue, obviously, is not whether the committee consults with me. The issue is whether or not they consult with the wider Williams community, or at least the community on campus. Have you seen any posts on WSO? Any op-eds in the Record? Have they sought input/advice from a good cross-section of the community, especially those who might have alternate viewpoints? Note that I have seen. Pointers welcome!
And, fortunately, we have a good example of the right way to do this in the behavior of the CCI. Forget about EphBlog for a moment. CCI posts their minutes on WSO. Why don’t the folks behind Claiming Williams do the same? With luck, they will.