lclark.us

Do you know Remy Neymarc?  I have had two classes with him.  He’s awesome.  I stumbled across his YouTube page the other day, and I was very pleasantly surprised by the videos he’s made for LC Athletics.  They’re like… really cool.  Even if you don’t have any interest in LC sports at all, you should check these out, because they are very, very well-made by any standard, not just for a college undergrad.  Now go find him on Facebook or something and tell him how cool this is.

[grey text is Cary]

EDIT 5/1/10: I removed the e-mail addresses and full names from the forwarded e-mails, in case the people who were cc’d don’t want to have that much information posted publicly online.  If, for some reason, you need to see that information, let me know and I can forward you Adrian’s e-mail.

ORIGINAL POST: Adrian forwarded me an e-mail he sent to our student body president (who has kindly forwarded it to the student listserv).  Adrian asked me to post it to this website as well, so here it is in its entirety.  Everything below this first paragraph came from Adrian.  I want to apologize that I didn’t see his e-mail until after the forum today (I was out and about this afternoon).  None the less, here it is:

If you’re done with the Raz, and want to engage with the greater Portland community outside the weekday hours of 3pm-10:30pm, you should make like I did this semester and buy yourself a scooter. In Oregon, any vehicle with an engine 50cc or smaller is technically a moped, so you don’t need any special motorcycle license to ride it. Scooters also get amazing gas mileage (some upwards of 100mpg), and are fast enough to handle any of the hills in LC’s vicinity. Plus, when you buy one used, it tends to maintain value well, so you can sell it for the same amount you bought it for (or even more!)

Basically, scooters are the most awesomest things ever, and if you don’t have a car, you need one. The main place to find them is Craigslist, where they run $400-1000 depending on year and model. A few things to watch out for:

• Never buy a scooter where the seller doesn’t have the original title in hand. It may be stolen, and even if it’s not, it won’t be road-legal until you find the original title holder and obtain their release. Expect hundreds of dollars in time and paperwork.
• Never buy a scooter that doesn’t run. The seller will tell you it’s a cheap fix, but you don’t know whether it just needs a carb cleaning or whether the entire engine is shot to hell.
• Buy Japanese. They’re more reliable, and in the event they do have issues, repairs are cheap and easy.

I confess, this isn’t a purely altruistic post. I’m graduating, and I happen to be selling my 1999 Yamaha Riva scooter. For $650, you get a modern bike that runs great and is 100% street-legal. I’ll even throw in a helmet! Gas won’t run you more than a buck or two a week, and it’ll be easy to sell once you’re done with it. To make things even better, I have garage storage available for it, right across from campus, for THE ENTIRE SUMMER. That’s right, $650 and there will be a pair of baller-ass wheels waiting for you when you get back from break, all ready to go.

Call me: 415-412-0315

pic related: it’s my sweet ride

From the weekly O&A:

“If you haven’t heard, Reed College is under careful watch by the government with a firm expectation for zero-tolerance regarding illegal drugs (yes, this includes marijuana) after two drug-related student deaths in the last two years. Last week Reed’s President Colin Diver and Vice President/Dean of Students Mike Brody were summoned to a special meeting and told that there will be *undercover police and uniformed police presence at Renn Fayre this weekend*. Given that many LC students do attend the annual event, we want you to be aware of this information so that you can make informed decisions, if you are in attendance.”

The end of an era? I suppose we’ll see this weekend. I suspect, though, that cops will simply find students smart enough to ingest drugs in their private spaces, and then enjoy their effects out at the Fayre.

Hey friends, just in case you don’t know how to type “finals” into the searchbar of the school’s website, here’s the finals schedule!

SPRING Schedule

Exams are from Monday (M), May 3rd – Thursday (TH), May 6, 2010

CLASS TIMES	CLASS DAYS	TIME PERIOD	EXAM DAY		EXAM TIME
08:00A-09:00A	MWF	1	M		06:00P-09:00P
08:00A-09:00A	MTWTHF	1/7	M		06:00P-09:00P
09:10A-10:10A	MWF	2	TH		08:30A-11:30A
10:20A-11:20A	MWF	3	T		01:00P-04:00P
11:30A-12:30P	MTWTHF	4	W		01:00P-04:00P
11:30A-01:00P	MW	4/5	W		01:00P-04:00P
11:30A-01:00P	WF	4/5	W		01:00P-04:00P
11:30A-01:00P	TTH	4/5	T		06:00P-09:00P
12:40P-01:40P	MWF	5	W		08:30A-11:30A
01:50P-02:50P	MWF	6	M		01:00P-04:00P
08:00A-09:30A	TTH	7	T		06:00P-09:00P
09:40A-11:10A	TTH	8	M		08:30A-11:30A
1:50P-03:20P	TTH	9	T		08:30A-11:30A
03:00P-4:30P/03:30-5:00P	M/TH	10	TH		01:00P-04:00P
03:30P-5:00P/03:00-4:30P	T/F	11	W		06:00P-09:00P
07:00P	M,W or MW	12	T		06:00P-09:00P
07:00P	T,TH or TTH	13	TH		06:00P-09:00P

Mini-rant inspired by the Electronic Music Concert:

If you’re going to have an event on a college campus, and you plan not to allow people to bring bags into the event, YOU NEED TO TELL PEOPLE THAT BEFORE THEY ARE AT THE DOOR.  College students carry things in bags.  We have our books, our computers, our weed, etc.  If you plan not to allow us to bring our bags, we need to make alternate plans so we can arrive without them.  Telling us “no bags” at the door is not sufficient notice, homies.

complainy complainy whine whine complain

peace.

So, “the poster incident.”  Remember that?  Of course you do.  Personally, I thought it was insensitive, harmful to community, and overall a stupid thing for someone to do.  I am on record, if you don’t believe me.

In the talks that followed, information trickled out, including PioLog articles and conversations with Adrian (he’s the kid who did it), and it became clear that the incident was an attempt to catalyze discussion about Hawaii club’s ‘Be A Maori Warrior’ posters.  It failed, it was a stupid way to attempt such a conversation, and it was certainly disheartening and disruptive.  Personally, I think Adrian should be found guilty of *something*.  And he was… of Harassment, Disorderly Conduct, and a “Hate or Bias Related Incident.”  I’m not going to dispute the disorderly conduct.  I’m not even going to dispute the harassment charge (even though I think it can be argued that his actions don’t fit our harassment policy).  What I am really miffed about is the third violation.  You know, the violation of the policy that doesn’t exist: “Hate or Bias Related Incident.”  It was a policy created in light of this incident (and is still nowhere in writing, at least that is accessible to students).

It’s kind of like when Se7en came out and the MPAA basically had to invent a new description to explain just how many ways of “Rated R” that movie was.

Except this time it resulted in a significant blemish on someone’s conduct record (and not an MTV Movie Award).  Sure, at the end of the day, our school’s stated policies are basically irrelevant, and the administration doesn’t even *need* to justify its actions if it doesn’t want to.  But in the interest of fairness, transparency, satisfaction, and all those other buzzwords that are constantly tossed around by everyone, I think it might be a good idea to stick to the policies we state, and not make up violations because we get a ‘there ought to have been a policy against that’ feeling.

Administrators Latricia Brand (Associate Dean of Students & Director of Multicultural Affairs) and Jeff Feld-Gore (Associate Dean of Students) were quoted in this Friday’s Pio-Log that they felt that the ‘Hate and Bias-motivated Incident’ policy could be applied:

“I think that the appearance of bias, without having clear understanding of the intent, is something that the code at least can be interpreted to include,” said Brand.

“It’s a living document,” said Feld-Gore, who said that the policy was explained to him by Brand.

HATE AND BIAS MOTIVATED INCIDENTS

The College appreciates the complexity of defining language and actions that are not acceptable in a community which values freedom of expression. All members of the Lewis & Clark community must be free to hold views that others may find distressing or offensive. However, freedom of expression does not include the right to intentionally and maliciously aggravate, intimidate, ridicule, or humiliate another person.

The College has a comprehensive discrimination and harassment policy (see p. 224) which articulates our commitment to combat racism, sexism, homophobia, and other forms of bias. To further clarify the types of language and behavior that are unacceptable, the U.S. Department of Justice’s definitions and examples are offered:

“A hate crime can be generally defined as a crime which in whole or part is motivated by the offender’s bias toward the victim’s status. A hate incident is an action in which a person is made aware that her/his status is offensive to another, but does not rise to the level of a crime.

“Hate crimes are intended to hurt and intimidate individuals because they are perceived to be different with respect to their race, color, religion, national origin, sexual orientation, gender, or disability. The purveyors of hate use physical violence, verbal threats of violence, vandalism, and in some cases weapons to instill fear in their victims, leaving them vulnerable to subsequent attacks and feeling alienated, helpless, suspicious, and fearful. These acts of hatred can leave lasting emotional impressions upon their victims as well as entire communities.

“Federal and state reporting requirements vary in the definitions and victim categories for hate crimes. The FBI Uniform Crime Reporting Program (28 USC §534), Campus Security Act (20 USC §1092), state, and local hate crimes legislation list specific crimes which are identifiable as a hate crime, including murder, manslaughter, robbery, aggravated assault, burglary, motor vehicle theft, arson, forcible and non-forcible sex offenses, intimidation, destruction, damage or vandalism of property in which the victim is intentionally selected because of the actual or perceived race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or disability of the victim.

“When they do not fall into one of the listed criminal categories, hate offenses are referred to as bias-motivated incidents. These incidents may include cases of minor harassment, verbal slurs, etc.”

Hate- and bias-related incidents are demeaning to all members of the campus community and subvert the mission of the College. Any hate- or bias-motivated act is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.

First, it’s important to note that “p. 224″ doesn’t exist.  From what I can find, this PDF is only 39 pages long and the entire Pathfinder is 89.

Regardless of my personal opinion about the following factors, I want to clarify that I do not intend to argue here that Adrian is not guilty of any wrongdoing, nor do I intend to insinuate that a policy to cover the grey-area Adrian uncovered is necessarily a bad idea moving forward.

It is, however, very unjust to apply any such policy to his actions retroactively.

Our policy is worded in terms of motivation.  Based on the discussions and articles about this incident, it is 100% clear that this was not an act motivated by malice towards an individual or a group of people.  It was an act of parody that used extreme racist imagery to highlight what was perceived to be racist imagery in another flyer.  It was a bad, failed piece of satire, because no one was talking about the original posters, just the extreme amount of poor-taste that went into these flyers, but it was still motivated by satire.  Even if you found this to be the most offensive thing you’ve ever seen (even I think they were probably the most offensive thing I’ve seen at L&C), that cannot change the fact that the motivation was not malicious.  The motivation was not racist.  Our reaction certainly implied it, and without a backstory, it would be logical to assume that this incident was motivated by malice….  but we have a backstory, and our reaction to an act does not change the reasoning that went into producing that act.

To shoehorn this incident into the clear-cut boundaries of a policy that doesn’t cover it is arrogantly irresponsible of the powers that be.  To create a new set of guidelines, change some wording (“motivated” -> “related”), and essentially morph the policy into something it never was, without getting student input, and then immediately apply it to events that happened before this new policy was even considered necessary (and without allowing the student body to even see this new policy in writing), is wrong.

I’ve noticed that Feld-Gore seems to especially favor two words (evidence: same Pio-Log article).  First, “no,” which is what he said when Adrian appealed his decision by making an argument not unlike the one I’ve just presented.  His second favorite word, at least lately, seems to be “comment” (of course, this is preceded by the first favorite word), which is a convenient, irrefutable cure-all to any questioning his actions may inspire.  FERPA is one thing, but, for example, “Why didn’t you send out the letter?” is a valid question, I think.

In my opinion, no one, regardless of what they’ve done, deserves to be found guilty of violating an imaginary policy.  It’s probably too late for that.  Furthermore, I think that arbitrary decisions justified by acts of non-information are not a stable foundation for a college’s conduct system.

Also, this entire incident, its followup, and fallout totally remind me of this.  Like a lot.

Now I invite you to tell me in the comments section why I’m wrong.

The Seniors of the Theatre department are presenting their thesis projects this week.  I went to the performances last night and tonight, and I just wanted to say publicly that they were all amazing. GOOD JOB EVERYONE!  I’m pretty sure the lists are all over-full, but even so–get yourself on the waitlist and go see these shows if at all possible.  Not to single one out (which I will now do)… but if you’re uptight and have no sense of humor, I especially recommend you watch “Artaud in Hell” (those who have seen it will know what I mean).

Program A: Wednesday, April 21 & Friday, April 23

6:30p - BAD HOUR by Kimberly Fanshier ‘09
Directed by Ana Erikson
(Note: this will be presented in the Fir Acres Theatre Courtyard)
“Follows two childhood friends as they leave the place they are from for the first time and discover the cost of reinventing yourself.”

7:45p (approx) - THE SECRET IN THE WINGS by Mary Zimmerman
Directed by Erin Dees
“A cluttered attic and the imaginations of children spark an exploration into unplumbed depths of fairy tales.”

8:45p (approx) - AMERICAN SLIGO by Adam Rapp
Directed by Matt Lundberg
“The dysfunctions of the American Family are at the center of this dark comedy as the audience joins the Sligo Family for what could be considered their last supper.”

—————————————-

Program B: Thursday, April 22 & Saturday, April 24

7:00p - THE SHAPE OF THINGS by Neil Labute
Directed by Alex Ramirez
“An invitation to question the motives behind our relationships to one another; ask yourselves: how far is too far?”

8:30p (approx) - DEAD MAN’S CELL PHONE by Sarah Ruhl
Directed by Emily Gregory
“One insistently ringing cell phone is all it takes to pull one hapless woman into the depths of a strange, fantastical world and the lives (and deaths) of the people who inhabit it.”

9:30p (approx) - ARTAUD IN HELL
Written and directed by Sander Gusinow
“A dark sojourn into theatre theoretician Antonin Artaud’s ‘theatre of cruelty.’  This bloody, chaotic, dreamlike madness is not quite fun for the whole family (above the age of 15 recommended).

So this is pretty sweet, I think.  Long has been lamented the lack of reliable and convenient transportation from campus to the greater Portland area.  The RAZ is great, but its limited hours and neglect for the East side of the city doesn’t meet everyone’s needs.  The 39, which can get you pretty much everywhere, also suffers from limited hours, not to mention that it takes a really, really long time to get anywhere.

Enter U-Car Share.  It’s a car-sharing company a la Zipcar, and the school has come to an agreement with them such that next year we will be able to utilize their services.   That means that anyone can rent a car for $5/hr, plus mileage.  While it is a bit expensive (not for this service, just in the scheme of a college student’s budget), it is an awesome addition to the transportation options of L&C students.  It’s way, way better than a taxi, that’s for sure.

Even though I won’t be at L&C to see whether this takes off or not (woo graduation!), I’m really glad that the option’s finally there.  I’m not sure who all pushed for it (I know the ball got rolling on the subject last year in ASLC meetings), but if you had a hand in making it happen, thanks!

Check your e-mails from Brad and Celestino for information about how to sign up for free.

First, a Public Service Announcement: If you go to the flag pole on April 20th this year to celebrate a national holiday, man smoke pot in public like an idiot, it might be worth reconsideration.  As was published in the PioLog and discussed at yesterday’s ASLC Senate meeting, Associate Dean of Students Jeff Feld-Gore has made the decision (presumably with input from other administrators) to invite the Portland Police Bureau to the festivities.  What this means for you is the possibility of a $500-$1000 fine, plus the headache dealing with the process of that whole “the law” thing.

So… DON’T SMOKE POT AT THE FLAG POLE THIS YEAR UNLESS YOU’RE REALLY RICH.  Rolled cigarettes and pot-flavored incense are hilarious alternatives that might get you in trouble but I still want to watch what happens to you so do it.

Now, I know what you’re saying… it’s what I said: “police at my college?!?!”  But then I thought about it for awhile and talked to some people.  Yes.  While that may not be an ideal situation, I don’t think the college has much choice.  See, the whole flagpole ritual, while liberating and unifying and all that stuff, is also a non-ignorable, predictable, annual instance of mass law-violation.  For all sorts of reasons (legal, philosophical, financial, and otherwise), it is not in the college’s best interest to knowingly allow the congregation to occur.  Couple this with the publicity the event has garnered in recent years (word-of-mouth and otherwise), and it’s simply not something that any administration that’s doing its job can turn a blind eye towards.

So, what can you do? It’s simple, really… BE LESS CONSPICUOUS!

Now, some may say, “But Cary, 4/20 is about sticking it to the man and lighting up in public so we can show the man that we don’t care about his rules! Hiding defeats the purpose!”

Maybe… but if you do it my way you can get high.

P.S. I imagine Campus Safety will probably be down at the flagpole, so you could probably hotbox their shack and no one would know….