lclark.us

Since I’ve been here, the student body as a whole seems to hold the opinion that ASLC is ineffective.  This disenchantment manifests itself in a number of ways: low poll turnout, low/no attendance at ASLC meetings, and whatever flavor-of-the-month inappropriate expression of passive-aggressive outrage we’re talking about at the moment.  Even as an active member of Activities Congress (“CAB” under this constitution), and later as a member of Executive Council, I kind of felt the same way.  Or at least I understood how someone could lose faith in the process.

Somewhere around the time of drafting the new Constitution last Spring, my opinion started to change.  I remember working hard with the rest of the Executive Council (especially Brad Elkins) to reorganize the student government from the ground-up.  When we were done, we had almost completely scrapped our old, ineffective, whined-about framework and turned ASLC into a potentially transformative representative democracy.  The fervor and competition of this 2010 Spring election is an affirmation that we did it (mostly) right.

It may be true that ASLC has a reputation for irrelevance, but that reputation is no longer deserved.  With the addition of Jason Feiner and Celestino who take it very seriously, ASLC Senate is a legitimate decision-making body, and its decisions do hold weight with the administration. “But resolutions don’t even mean anything!” you whine.  You’re wrong, actually.  While they are by no means legally binding, and can be ignored, you underestimate the power of the statement “The student body voted, and it officially endorses plan of action x.”  In the decision-making process of a college, those words can’t be ignored without serious consideration of PR fallout and other undesirable consequences.  We’re never going to be able to wrestle full control of all aspects of our L&C Experience from the realities of finance, PR, admissions, contractual obligations, and long-term administrative goals, but ASLC Senate has demonstrated that it is exponentially more legitimate than its past incarnations, and the people with power have taken notice.

ASLC is no longer broken.  ASLC is exceedingly transparent. All decisions are made in public meetings, with public debates and parliamentary procedure.  ASLC has venues for any student to propose a constitutional amendment directly to the student body.  Anyone can come to an ASLC meeting and put anything on the official agenda for discussion.  ASLC’s problem no longer lies with being truly unrepresentative.  Now, it’s your (our) problem.  ASLC only works if we take some initiative to be informed, to draft resolutions, to talk to our senators, and to attend meetings.

“ASLC doesn’t do anything,” “It’s time for a change in student government,” “I will give the students a voice,” “we need transparency,” these should no longer be our chief concerns–these problems have already been remedied (if not completely, to a very large degree).  The only problem with ASLC is that you still don’t actually care about it.

by Lillie Mae Stone

How many times In the past few weeks have you heard “would you like to take my survey?” or at least some variation of it? I know I have not only hear it innumerable times, but, as a member of the Psychology Methodology class, have now uttered it many more times than I have heard it. So what is it about our majors that leads us all to having to do surveys at the exact same time? I get it. Its the whole end-of-the-semester-final-project-didn’t-have-the-skills-until-now thing. But the problem? Our already over-surveyed student body is surveyed out.

Our professors expect us to have high numbers of participants for statistical significance purposes, and we have a student body that tells us “I took that last week.” What do I say in response to that? “No, that was a different survey, you should take mine too.” Because honestly, how can I say that in the context of our social values without seeming rude. So I just smile and thank them for their time, thinking about my shrinking n. I understand. I used to walk away, saying no thanks, too.

Is there a solution to the problem that is an over-surveyed, already apathetic student body? Not that I can think of. Perhaps we need to start being more creative when we come up with our research for these classes, and find something that won’t over burden us. Yes, a survey seems to be the easiest route to go. Except for the fact that everyone else is doing the same thing.

My opinion? Either make it short and be prepared for rejection and possible failure, or don’t do the survey.

Lewis & Clark students are often a dissatisfied lot. “The Administration doesn’t listen to us,” we whine. Well buddies, guess what? ASLC’s job is to bridge the ravine (you see what I did there) between the Administration and the students, and elections for ASLC positions are this weekend! You want the Administration to listen to you? Then vote for the student candidates who will best represent your voice.

This is my official endorsement of Dith Pamp for ASLC president. (The unofficial endorsement took the form of a sticky note on my dorm room door.) Here’s the lowdown on why I believe Dith is the strongest candidate for the ASLC presidency.

• Dith has served on the ASLC Cabinet for the past year, helping to create the Senate as our student government went through major restructuring
• Dith has worked for better student group budgeting for three years, and has served as Treasurer for the past year, advocating for financial transparency from the College
• Dith has worked as an RA for three years, serving as a community builder, resource, and liaison between students and Campus Living since she was hired as a freshman
• Dith has been present and involved in campus life for the past three years, giving her a definite edge over her opponents who have been abroad
• Dith has functioned as the student voice on controversial issues such as the new smoking policy, transferable print balances, and the LC work study program
• Dith is the only candidate who has attended a Senate meeting… and she has attended all 25 of them!

Also, you should vote for Dith because I drew a cute picture of her.

ASLC election ballots go out via email on Friday at noon and are due by Monday at noon. Please vote! For your voice to be heard, you gotta speak up.

just a reminder that the IA Symposium runs from today through the 7th.

Paul Wolfowitz is speaking tonight! And it’s about spreading democracy!  I wonder what the hippies will yell at him.

For a full schedule of events, and other pertinent information, check the symposium website.

I’ll try to keep this post somewhere approximating “objective.”  Also, it’s the first piece of anything resembling journalism I’ve ever written, so I’m sorry if I make a bunch of Middle School reporter mistakes (no I’m not actually sorry, I’m playing video games and have probably forgotten by now).

Friday, an article was posted to The Source detailing the upcoming changes to smoking policy and enforcement, with the news that the Executive Council of the College had approved these changes.  E-mails were also sent to students, staff, and faculty of all three colleges.  By  now, most of you are familiar with what’s going to happen, as we’ve gotten plenty of notice about the process (and invitations to all sorts of forums on the matter).  This is also the third time that lclark.us has posted an article on this topic, so if you read this blog regularly, you definitely have some idea of what’s going down.

Since I know you’re on the internet and you don’t have time to click hyperlinks, here’s my summary of the information contained in the Source article (if you think I misrepresented something, let me know in the comments):

• smoking will only be allowed on campus in designated smoking areas (“DSAs”), out of the way of heavy traffic.
• as a result of community input, the number of DSAs has been increased to 13 (from an original 8)
• “Each DSA will provide cover, a place to sit, an ashtray, and a trash receptacle.”
• “Campus Safety will not be mandated to police smokers. Instead, the college would like the community to take responsibility for enforcement. Faculty, staff, and students should remind smokers who are not complying with the new policy to use the DSAs.”
• Failure to comply with repeated requests to relocate may lead to an interaction with Campus Safety, and at Campus Safety’s discretion, a $25 fine.
• here are maps of the proposed locations for DSAs, along with a draft of the new policy.

Friday afternoon I spoke with Health Promotion & Wellness Associate Director Melissa Osmond and man-with-so-many-job-titles-they-don’t-entirely-fit-in-the-directory John Hancock, to learn more about the changes.

First and foremost, I know a lot of people are wary of the introduction of fines.  I asked about that.  I was assured that fines were to be used truly as a deterrent “[we envision] fines as being a very infrequent event,” explained Hancock.  Osmond added that the fines would be separate from the conduct system, similar to how parking fines are separate from the conduct system [Ed note: I don't mean to insinuate that she compared parking fines to smoking fines in any context other than this].  They also brought up an angle that I hadn’t considered, and is worth admitting, which is that fining is as effective on students as it is on staff, faculty, and visitors.  It is indeed difficult to subject a visitor or staff member of the conduct system in any meaningful or productive way.

The staff members in charge of drafting L&C’s policy examined the smoking policies of many institutions with either smoke-free campuses or with designated smoking locations, and also looked at how these schools chose to transition to more restrictive smoking policies. Regarding this research, Osmond noted that “one of the most successful ways [to transition smoothly] is for the community to embrace it.”  By emphasizing self-enforcement within the community, rather than relying on designated officers or Campus Safety, the drafters of our new policy hope to facilitate such a transition.

Osmond and Hancock also expressed that one of their chief concerns is the well-being of people with allergies and other severe conditions that are exacerbated by second-hand smoke.  Hancock noted that one of the intentions of the new policy is to “empower students when there’s a health issue involved.”

Finally, I get the definite impression that both Osmond and Hancock are sincere in their calls for community input.  Not only have there been forums held on this topic since last Spring, but there continue to be forums, and meetings for the purpose of understanding and catering to the needs of the community.  One example, which is noted in The Source article, but which is, I think, definitely evidence of this, is their willingness to meet with concerned hookah-ers in order to understand and respond to the impact of the new policy on the hookah subculture at L&C.  Of crafting the new policy, Hancock explains, “it has been a challenging process, and we’ve tried to involve lots of people. [...] [We want to] create a healthier community, but also feel good about the process.”

So, homies, that’s what I’ve got.

The upcoming forums, which are listed in the e-mail and article, are:

Monday, April 12, from noon-1 p.m. in LRC Classroom 6 at the Law School
Monday, April 12, from 4:30-5:30 in Rogers 220 at the Graduate School
Tuesday, April 13th from 12:00pm-1:00pm in Council Chamber, Templeton Student Center

Edit: After I posted this article, I notified John Hancock and Melissa Osmond and asked if there was anything they felt needed clarification or was unfair.  I received this comment from John, which I’ll repost for you all in the interest of accuracy:

I read the comment about fines.  I hope it’s clear to everyone (and we will make it clear in the fora and in our other educational activities)that under the new policy, we want to create an environment where smokers will be attracted to using DSA’s (for example, because they’re covered), and where community members will feel reasonably comfortable asking smokers to use DSA’s.  Fines will be a last resort, and could only be used by Campus Safety “when an individual has made it readily apparent, through repeated violations and/or repeated  failure to heed requests, that s/he is not open to complying with this policy.”  In other words, no smoker should ever be surprised to experience a fine, because, prior to that time, s/he will be given numerous cues to use the DSA’s. Basically, fines will be reserved for individuals who thumb their nose at the
policy.

If our community members have alternative ideas for how to more effectively intervene with such individuals, we would welcome suggestions.  The workgroup itself did consider alternatives, but rejected them.

Hey students!

just a friendly reminder to check your e-mail today, and especially check the one called “DO THIS ONE! 2010 Student Activities Survey and a chance to win $25 gift card from Powell’s!“

There was a technical difficulty with the first one they sent out, but it’s fixed and it’s important that you fill out this one. It works and you’ll maybe win a prize!  Also, the only way to make Templeton become less lame is to tell Student Activities what they could do to make it cool (Student Activities has money and Student Center-delameifying-powers).

If only they would send you an e-mail asking you for your input, with a Powell’s gift card bribe.  Well, I guess one can dream….

Seriously, this survey only took me like 7 minutes, and I went slowly.  See if you can beat my record!

Look at the Source today!

WARNING: INCOMING OPINION-RANT! LOOK AWAY NOW!

Hey did you read the PioLog this week?  I did.  You know what I don’t get?  This.  Campus Living has sanctioned a repeat-violator of college policy by requiring that he live on campus an extra semester.  Between the article and what I could glean from the ASLC Senate minutes from yesterday‘s meeting, where they passed without opposition a resolution condemning the sanction, it seems that an unnamed sophomore went for his fourth time into the conduct process, and was handed this rather unusual (I wish I could say “unprecedented” with certainty, but from what I hear it’s not) punishment.  I realize that administrators at LC often take issue with the idea of “punishment” in the strict retributive sense (and they should), but I can’t really think of any other way to describe what this was.

As many of you know, our school, as a guideline, does not believe in fines (at least that’s what we are told every year at community programs about the conduct process and college policy).  Sure, we can be fined for property-related violations (theft, vandalism, etc.), but we don’t get fined for breaking the alcohol policy, for example.  The reasoning is that fines may be unreasonably harsh for people without money and/or unreasonably gentle for those who have money.  The school likes to stick to sanctions that impact all students the same, regardless of the amount of money a student has.

Assuming the previous paragraph is still true, (if it isn’t, that’s new to me) I see no way to justify sanctioning a student by extending his on-campus residence requirement.  The most pressing issue, I feel, which was briefly mentioned in the PioLog article and discussed during the ASLC meeting, is that such a sanction constitutes a financial imposition by the college upon an individual student (we don’t do that, remember?).

Let’s assume the student chooses the *cheapest* on-campus options for his compulsory fifth semester.  Since he would presumably be a Junior, we’ll grant that he is allowed to live in the apartments.

The apartments cost $3,250/semester (which is considerably more than the dorms), however the cheapest meal plan, which only costs $600/semester, is only available to apartment residents.  A student could live and eat in the apartments for $3,850, plus the cost of additional groceries.  If the student resides in the traditional dorms, the least he could pay is $2,529 for a double, plus $2,132 for a 14 meal plan ($4,661 total).

Alternatively, one could find accommodations off campus with some peeps.  Let’s be liberal and say that this student is willing to pay $400/month for rent (near campus, the reality is often much closer to $300, or even $250). On top of that, our student friend will pay $5 per meal.  That’s also a vast overestimate, but we’ll go with it because he only shops at Market of Choice.  Furthermore, our homie will need to pay bills in his new house, so let’s say he pays about $100 a month (I looked through my past bill payments from this school year and I have never paid more than $100 in a month total).

Even with these inflated numbers, my completely unscientific estimation process has our student paying less to live off-campus:

400*4 + 5*3*7*16 + 100*4 = $3680/semester off campus in comfy house with friends

3,250 + 600 + groceries = ($3,850 + groceries)/semester on campus in apartments

2,529 + 2,132 = $4,661/semester on campus in dorms

Okay, so that’s not convincing you because I invented all those numbers.  Well, that’s okay, you’re good to be skeptical.  Don’t trust someone who invents numbers to prove a point.  One other less-pressing concern I have (aside from the general “so living on campus is a punishment, huh?”) is that sanctions like this may unintentionally impact the rest of the community.  Some of you are familiar with the brief hubbub that arose two years ago when the Associate Dean of Students proposed sanctioning drug policy violators by forcing them to reside in the substance-free housing dorm.  At the time, the argument was made that by forcing the substance-free people to live with drug abusers, Campus Living was actually punishing the substance-free kids, and undermining the entire idea of a substance free dorm.  I don’t think it’s too unrealistic to make this observation in a more general sense.  If someone has repeatedly shown that they cannot uphold the standards of the community, how are we doing the community any service by forcing that person into a position where he can continue to upset the people around him?  To be fair, in this recent specific instance, I don’t know who the person in question is, nor do I have any reason to believe that he’s not generally swell.  All I’m trying to say is that forcing a residential community to be subjected to the antics of an individual who has repeatedly shown that he doesn’t want to play by that community’s rules seems to me to be counter-productive for all parties.

In summary:

If you agree with me, Karen, and the ASLC Senate, please contact Campus Living and the Dean of Students and (cordially, articulately) let them know that sanctioning students by extending their residence requirement is unacceptable.

Much thanks to Amy Pombo (’09) who designed the new banner that you see across the top of the website.  She is literally, quantifiably, peer-reviewedly the best artist in the world.

STALK HER ON THE FACEBOOK AND TELL HER HOW MUCH YOU LIKE IT/HER.

Just a reminder that this is the last weekend to see the main stage theatre production of Vilna’s Got A Golem:

The play draws on the Yiddish theatre tradition and the legend of the Golem to explore modern ideas about cultural collision, sectarian violence, and revenge. The play is set in Vilna in 1899, as a troupe of actors is performing a story placed in Vilna in 1540. Written by a company member, the “play within the play” tells of the creation of a Golem by two poor Jewish cobblers to avenge a family death perpetrated by a mob.  At first the play appears to be a comedy but as the story progresses, a darker undertone grows stronger as the Golem becomes an out of control force of random violence.

March 11, 12, 13th @ Fir Acres Theatre

$5 LC students, $7 alums/non-LC students/staff/faculty/seniors, $10  general.

Click here for the details.