lclark.us

Poster drama seems to be in full-swing still. The past week has been packed with forums and gatherings to discuss and reflect upon the racially-provocative posters a student posted. There was a wonderfully-reported article in the PioLog today that helped illuminate the motivation behind (and reaction to) the whole thing.

I’ve seen a lot of musing in various circles, and I wanted to write down some thoughts I’ve had and heard before they escape from my mind….

Seeing this play out reminded me very much of “Willamette Week” scandal of early 2008, which, to paraphrase an overly complex, emotionally-charged situation, revolved around the publication of a front-page article in the Willamette Week.  Many members of the student body felt the need to take sides in the issue (like ya’ do, apparently) and lo and behold, anonymous “critiques” in the form of angry Facebook groups and seriously offensive flyers plagued the campus (until we found something else to gossip about).  I don’t bring this up to re-hash the past, but I find it really, really intriguing that in my four years on this campus, this week’s poster debacle is (at least) the second time I can recall a high-profile instance of students choosing to passively hurl anonymous, simplistic attacks rather than actually engage in a dialogue with someone who has the power to create a positive change.  Perhaps this sort of thing happens on any campus, and I’m just unaware because I don’t go to any college but this one.  In the off chance that L&C *is* unique in this respect, I have no choice but to wonder why.  I know how much the administration cares about sensitivity, diversity, and understanding, and can’t imagine how it could be held responsible.  I can only assume the student body values these concepts as well, given the myriad student groups and events devoted to addressing and discussing various issues of race, sexuality, religion, politics, and other points of social contention.  I doubt it’s faculty-related… the modus operandi of these posters’ passive-aggressive flailing for attention doesn’t seem to mesh with the extent to which our (or at least my) professors emphasize the critical importance of scholarly discourse, the scientific method, and preserving integrity.

We have so many people (professional or otherwise) and channels within this institution to constructively address grievances, it is confusing–to say the least–why we as a student body so frequently fail to communicate productively.  It seems to me that, on paper, we should be more than equipped to handle disagreements (and, what in this most recent case was a misunderstanding) without defaulting to proliferating MS-Paint-facilitated hodgepodges of the most incendiary phrases and imagery the first page of a Google search will provide.

The PioLog article did cause me to consider one other angle: perhaps we are more inclined to spin around in circles yelling because it’s much easier than actually trying to solve a problem (though I don’t know why this would make LC unique in any way).  This is, I guess, common sense, but I’d hope we could have moved beyond that technique of conflict resolution.  Given an especially illuminating quotation from the article, I’m not so sure that all of us have:

The anonymous student said he created the posters to “highlight the history of blackface,” which he said was parallel to the Maori issue. “I didn’t really want to be involved in the conversation, I just wanted people to think about it.”

Read as much into that as you will (and I’m always willing to extend the benefit of the doubt when it comes to direct quotation), but I think it illustrates exactly the problem.  It’s much easier to catalyze discussion than it is to actually participate, and for some reason we have romanticized the former rather than the latter.  The events of this week should drive home for us conceptually that if even one person loudly expresses him/herself without making an effort to consider others’ ideas and criticisms in return, we end up with a campus-wide furor (rightfully) devoted to discussing issues that were not at the heart of (or even related to) the original point of contention (not to mention coping with the consequential feelings of anger, endangerment, and/or frustration that result).  Nobody wants that.  At least that’s what I’d like to think.

Anyway, I’m going to sleep now.

Hahahahahahahahahahaha.

So, If you have e-mail you’re probably already aware of this, but if not I will enlighten you.  There was a course listserv that got set up improperly, such that when the professor tried to e-mail his students, it actually e-mailed thousands of students, staff, and alumni (presumably his class *did* get the e-mail as well, so mission accomplished).  Then he sent out an apology e-mail for the first e-mail’s unintended collateral damage on unsuspecting inboxes.  Everything up to this point should seem out of the ordinary,  but understandable and relatively unremarkable.

Then, self-important professional-types started sending in demands from Blackberries!  See, Lewis & Clark College currently does not have a course that teaches “if you hit reply-all, it will reply to everyone, you idiot.” So, today has been full of 70+ hilariously passive-aggressive e-mails sent to literally the entire Lewis & Clark community, rather than the intended recipient–one unfortunate professor who didn’t have any control over the situation in the first place.

From: Barbara Luscher <****************@*******>

Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 12:21 PM

To: 10sp-************@lclark.edu

Subject: PLEASE DELETE ME FROM YOUR MAILING LIST IMMEDIATELY

PLEASE DELETE ME FROM YOUR MAILING LIST IMMEDIATELY

OK, Mrs. Important-Pants.

Not only has this event been a wonderful indicator of how stupid grown ups are, it has provided the community an opportunity to tell the alumni that right to their stupid faces (on the internet you can say anything to anyone and it is removed from having any consequences in the “IRL world”).

Guys, we have to keep this alive.  I propose, as some have already begun doing, that we CC the listserv in question any time we want to e-mail anyone anything.  Got it?

Molly Gibson provides proof of concept:

Molly Gibson <***********@lclark.edu> Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 1:32 PM
To: Lindsey <*************@yahoo.com>
CC: “10sp-**********@lclark.edu”
Subject: surprise kitty

The college has received some *huge* donations recently from both the W.M. Keck Foundation and Fred W. Fields (thank you!).  That has the potential to be really, really helpful.

I’m especially excited about the potential of the proposed creation of a nanoscience program, which is made possible by the Keck Foundation’s gracious $250,000 grant.

The College of Arts and Sciences also received a stipulation-free $500,000 grant from Fred W. Fields. One wonders how we will we apply these new assets toward the betterment of the institution.  Financial Aid?  Exciting new academic programs? Wisely invested to bolster our endowment?  Pens, and toner?

According to the Dean of the College, as quoted in the Piolog’s new article on the matter, the answer to that question may well be “yeah, that last one”:

Julio de Paula, Dean of the College of Arts and Sciences, said that this money will be used for the “2010 calendar year.” It will go toward general college operations, “nothing in particular,” said de Paula. “In these times of financial trouble, this donation will be especially helpful.”

When asked by the student body how we would use half a million dollars of unanticipated funding, a high-ranking college representative basically said “eh, the usual.”  Not only  is this a hilariously squandered PR opportunity, it conveyed an attitude that made me a tad bit concerned.  Now, I’m almost certainly being hypercritical of a single quotation and blowing it out of proportion, but I do want to convey, in case there’s any question, that there are myriad areas where this college could benefit from any help it can get (off the top of my head):

• Financial Aid, so students (especially upperclassmen) whose financial situations have worsened won’t be forced to drop out of college.
• “LC Workstudy” so students (especially underclassmen) can work on campus next year without having to qualify for Federal Workstudy.  This is especially important given that the bookstore, which has historically been one of the main sources of non-workstudy on-campus jobs will once again be under the full control of the institution and presumably subject to workstudy limitations.
• An Arabic foreign language program.  Like seriously.
• Varsity Men’s soccer (and/or other sports programs that need creation or improvement)
• improving accessibility in buildings around campus
• any number of technological upgrades for specific academic departments
• give Campus Safety monster trucks

I’m sure I’m not the only one who has an opinion on this (and I’m sure there are plenty more bullet points I missed that are just as worthy of attention).  de Paula quotation aside (I’m sure it was probably a misquote or is missing some context), we *really* need to make sure that this money goes towards the betterment of this institution as a place for students, staff, and faculty.  Some tangible results would be really nice, too.

So, administrator-types, um… just keep that in mind.

Hey guys, remember that time that guy put up a bunch of racist flyers and everyone in the community was like “Oh, this is a really poignant criticism and I totally get it and am with you all the way, dude!?” No, you don’t, because that’s not how it works.  As you’re probably aware, the current drama (aside from the Campus Safety e-mail I wrote about yesterday) is the mysterious appearance of various overtly racist flyers in some of the buildings on campus.  It’s rumored that they’re probably some half-witted response to the (arguably insensitive) Lu’au Haka dance recruitment flyers asking people if they’d like to “learn to be a Maori Warrior.”

If that’s the case, it’s pretty clear that the mature, responsible thing to do would have been to schedule a chat with one of the many mediators on this campus whose job it is to facilitate such conversations (Dean of Students, Ombuds, Office of Multicultural Affairs, ADs, etc. etc. etc.) and talk it out.

To be honest I can’t even believe I’m writing this post right now.  Not only am I bothered by the act itself, but I’m bothered that one or more of the people with whom I am associated via our mutual existence at this institution is actually *that* stupid.  As far as passive-aggressive whining goes, I thought the huge anti-smoking-gazebo sign in Howard was hard to top, but anonymous racist person(s), you have set a new bar.

Maybe admissions needs to add an interview question like “do you think racist imagery is a hilarious tool at your disposal to be employed whenever you are mildly irritated?” And if they say yes we can just send them over to Reed.

For important information about a person Campus Safety has trespassed from campus.

I’m going to refrain from posting the details, since I don’t know the entirety of the situation and don’t think it’s fair to the person to post their name/photo (which are contained in the e-mail) on the public internet without a compelling reason, especially in this context.

Campus Safety trespasses people for various reasons (not a lot of people, but it happens a handful of times each semester) and it hardly ever (read: never) necessitates a community-wide e-mail.  I’m guessing this e-mail’s existence implies (Campus Safety has reason to believe that) this guy probably did something pretty bad (though it’s important to note that the e-mail doesn’t say that he’s dangerous). So, there’s that.  So watch out and call Campus Safety if you see that dude.

I don’t have much to write about yet, (un?)fortunately.  Engaging classes (and–let’s be honest–work and World of Warcraft) will do that to you.

I beat the Oregonian to a story by a little less than two months, so that’s kinda sick I guess.

An LC undergrad recently taped an episode of College Jeopardy! So there’s that.  Apparently, there will be a large viewing party in Council Chambers.  If she didn’t win, that’s gonna be awkkkkwarddddddddddddddddddddd.  Either way, congratulations Lyndsey!

(kids cover your ears) Current word on the street is that this is a record year for condom-dispersal, which is probably good.  I imagine it has something to do with the fact that the school seems to have taken efforts to keep them in *constant* stock and has made the refill bags for halls available to RAs at the 0ften-visited Campus Living office, rather than the old system of keeping the bags behind the counter at the health center (which means now RAs don’t have to go out of their way at all to get a refill for the hall).  This is a good thing.  On paper, it might be easy to infer that the higher numbers imply some sort of waste or stockpiling, but it should also be considered that perhaps the difference may be attributed simply to ease of availability and greater supply. K.

I’m sure the new PioLog will probably catalyze some discussion or another.  Or if you have a cool idea for a post, let me know.  Or just ask me for account permissions and post it yourself!

Cool stuff going on soon: (aka “Cary goes down the list of things he’s been invited to on Facebook”)

Thursday the 28th:
Platteau Spring Open House (art, slam poetry, food, more) 7-9:15, The Platteau
Improv Attacks! (lulz) 8-9:30, Council Chambers

Friday the 29th:
Senior Soiree (Seniors only! haha! Register before hand if you plan to come!) 4-6, Stamm

Saturday the 30th:
Glowdeo Dance Party (hey guys remember the last time we had a glow party in Stamm and the curtains got all stained and Facilities said “NO MORE GLOW PARTIES!” hahaha I don’t either bro we’re kids we don’t listen to your rules and your society.  In seriousness, this will be a very cool event–mechanical bull+donuts!) 10p-3a, Stamm

I decided that the old intended-as-a-placeholder title of the blog was getting old, so now it’s just “lclark.us.”  Woooooooo.

Classes start next week, that’s kind of crazy isn’t it?

I’ve been in Tacoma for most of break, so I haven’t really had anything worthy to report.  Sorry for the boringness.

Once cool stuff starts happening again, I shall let you know.

A 78-page report detailing the outcome of the contentious hearing regarding the college’s proposed Master Plan has been posted to the website of the Portland Bureau of Development Services (thanks to Danni McLaughlin for the link!).  As pretty much everyone knows, the college wanted to expand its boundaries and build a new dorm structure to house law students.  Many neighbors objected for a number of reasons, most stemming from safety and traffic-congestion concerns (if you haven’t, read Angela Webber’s PioLog article from October to gain a better understanding).  Upon review of the college’s traffic studies, which the school hoped would alleviate neighbors’ concerns, the Hearings Officer decided after much consideration (pages 11-20 of the report) that the studies were insufficient:

The Hearings Officer finds that the underlying traffic analysis used by the College’s traffic experts lacks sufficient credibility to allow the Hearings Officer to assess the traffic impacts created in the event the law/graduate school housing is approved. The Hearings Officer found reason to question the basic traffic count estimates, trip generation estimates from the proposed law/graduate school housing, traffic generation estimates by “law school interns”, and the law/graduate school “family traffic” estimates. The Hearings Officer is not saying that the information is “wrong.” However, the Hearings Officer is saying that unexplained methodologies[...], mistakes[...], and lack of consistency of information [...] render the College’s traffic expert’s data and conclusions unreliable.

Or, if that doesn’t make sense, Phoenix Wright can help you out.

The Law School housing was only one portion of the proposed changes, most of which were approved.

Here’s the summary of the hearing (the references to “Conditions,” denoted by letters, only make sense in the context of the document, so refer to the report if you’re really, really curious):

Denial of the request to expand the boundary of the Master Plan to include the following properties:
• 425 SW Maplecrest Drive [1S1E28DA 300]
• 9919 SW Boones Ferry Road [1S1E28DA 4300]
• 10015 N/ SW Boones Ferry Road [1S1E28DA 4400]
• 10015 SW Boones Ferry Road [1S1E28DA 4500] • 10025 SW Boones Ferry Road [1S1E28DA 4600]

Denial of the request to approve law/graduate school housing on the boundary expansion land west of SW Boones Ferry Road (boundary expansion area).

Denial of the request to remove previous conditions so that lighting and public address systems can be installed at Huston Field.

Denial of a request to modify operational conditions related to Griswold Field, excepting the request to modify the noise reporting condition is Approved.

Approval of a Conditional Use Master Plan amendment and update, which incorporates the following proposed improvements:

• The development of new academic buildings, student housing and other alterations/additions/improvements as identified on Exhibit A.14 (not including requested law/graduate student housing project and lights/PA system at Huston Field).
Approval of requested modifications to conditions

•Condition Q (LUR 97-00074 CU MS): clarify TDMP reporting requirements.
•Conditions U, V, and W (LUR 97-00074 CU MS): these conditions deleted.
•Condition A.7 (LUR 97-00074 CU MS): omit students studying overseas and taking distance learning classes from calculation of enrollment.