~ the final chapter of the mad cow controversy (hopefully?) ~

college council minutes, 11-7-01

~ opening ~

joe (co-pres) began this weekend by announcing that our most recent press coverage in the record was NOT negative! what an achievement! he also reminded the campus of the details of the schedule for the constitutional convention and the amendment supervisory committee (ASC). the ASC has received several proposals and even a couple of suggested full overhauls. there will be an open forum this sunday at 4 pm in the goodrich living room where authors will discuss with the campus at-large the merits of their proposals. then, on the 17^th-18^th of this month, the actual convention will take place, where the authors will all meet together to hash out one proposal to make to CC.

in other news, joe also announced that the college shuttle will now be going to colonial plaza as well, so that students can patronize places like colonial pizza, angelina’s subs, and wild oats. also, the motorcoach service will be selling tickets exclusively online now in an attempt to reduce costs and will be advertised electronically as well, through a message to all williams students.

joe finally gave someone else a chance to talk and allowed sarah to introduce ryan mayhew ‘01, CC treasurer emeritus, who was visiting CC because he had nothing better to do.

she also urged williams students to PLEASE watch out for your and your friends’ safety this weekend. date rape drugs and over-consumption of alcohol both present an even more imminent danger around this time of year (sketchy alums…).

garry (all-campus) reminded CC of the minco reassessment forums that will be going on and encouraged all students interested in debating the role of minco and minority advocacy on this campus to join in.

while no one from outside of CC brought forth anything for open floor, CC did receive several opinions, of which there was one "non-mad cow" opinion. the faculty chair of the winter study committee voiced his disagreement with the letter CC sent requesting committee chairs to move their meeting times. noting that his committee was one that does not regularly meet, he argued that if someone wants to be on the committee, they should be willing to miss a practice or two.

caroline (2002) summed up the various "mad cow" opinions. one opinion stated that uncomfortable speech is necessary, another pleaded that the mad cow has been punished enough. a third opinion stated that it’s not CC’s role to enforce college policy, a fourth implored that the mad cow simply put forth misunderstood humor, not racism, and the last commented that the mad cow has taken steps to improve (and are thus, in a way, already responding to an "unofficial rebuke" or overall campus sentiment.

nate (pratt) wondered why it is mandatory for students to swipe their card when using the gym. other CC members contributed several logical reasons, including the need to know where students are in case of an emergency and the need for an electronic record of when the gym was used.

darlene (prospect) commented that one of her constituents was disturbed by the bells, which seem to be out of tune. tom mcevoy (director of housing), who happened to be in attendance, said to simply call B & G at x2486.

but tom mcevoy didn’t come to CC to talk about off-pitch bells or leaky water faucets. instead, he, joined by medha kirtane (assistant director of the MCC) and dean norma lopez visited CC to bring us up to speed on the inner workings of the committee on undergraduate life (CUL). mind you, this was no 5-minute report; CC invested a lot of time in this discussion, and it helped to clarify a lot about where CUL is right now and where they might be headed. if i do a crappy job here relaying what went on, just attend a CUL meeting every thursday (but not 11/8) at 4 pm in goodrich living room.

mcevoy (garry calls him "tommy mac") started off, briefing CC on CUL’s recent history. last year, the majority of CUL’s resources and time were devoted to research. open campus forums, research with other similar campuses, etc. he urged that there are many good and unique things about williams, and that the change that CUL is considering is not change for the sake of change. he also emphasized that CUL is committed to the concept of self-governance, and that the goal is not to impose police-like supervision over students.

he challenged CC to consider whether a) we wanted students to just pick up their key, check into their rooms, and live with the group of people they feel comfortable with or b) if there is a certain degree of discomfort that should be part of the residential learning experience? CUL this year is trying to distill the good things that williams had before in a way that the college has not really been attentive to in the past 7 or 8 years. as it stands, we have houses that don’t represent williams. it is hoped that by reforming the housing system, the college can give students a better sense of where others have come from by the time they graduate.

dean lopez (or "dean norma", or just "norma"…she only graduated in ‘95…) added that diversity in housing does not merely imply race. it includes all kinds of backgrounds. she also pleaded for the student body to realize that above all, CUL DOES NOT HAVE A PLAN YET; this is something that even CC members were misinformed about. in addition, she responded to the FAQ of "why housing?" by saying that it’s the largest space where the college can affect students’ experiences at williams.

charlie (dennett) added his two cents, calling the cluster system a "terrible idea." he admitted that the entry system is great, but that students shouldn’t be limited after that. he proceeded to claim that no, discomfort is not something that should be part of the housing system.

mcevoy responded by reiterating lopez’s earlier sentiment that the CUL is not set on any one plan yet. in fact, he said that the idea of a cluster system is out there way ahead of CUL and that many people on the committee aren’t convinced it is a good idea. another alternative that is being researched is a hybrid cluster, which would link people to some kind of anchor house while maintaining free picking. this idea would employ the use of a "rabbit," as mike simerman calls it. what would get people from fitch and armstrong over to wood house? perhaps having a lunch at the anchor house would work to lure hybrid-cluster-mates to interact with each other.

lopez offered that CUL has in fact NEVER discussed the possibility of not allowing students to pick in with groups, so that is not an issue. you will still be allowed to pick in with a group of your friends. kirtane ("meds") added that there would also have to be some opportunity for relief if a student felt uncomfortable.

hall (tyler/annex) asked how the housing department would ensure diversity in any of these new schemes. surely they must be looking at some objective classification. mcevoy replied no, this is not some huge social engineering scam. there is no way housing could profile an individual and pass judgments upon where they should live. instead, they are looking for a way to minimize the chances of, for example, one particular team or gender taking over an entire house.

hall and a few others on CC insisted that perhaps the housing system is not the best place to be looking to improve these interactions. he suggested searching for ways to improve the common spaces and the public spaces.

scott (armstrong) expressed that he thinks the idea of re-evaluating the way people live together could be really valuable. in his opinion, unless you’re on a sports team, it can be hard to find a smaller community within the college.

in closing, garry reminded the representatives of the CUL that williams is a very unique school, and that in order to fit something to williams, CUL must think outside the box. he implied that perhaps instead of an overhaul of the residential life system, the college should try to make it easier for students to organize and sponsor social events.

~ council business ~

grassroots music requested CC recognition to "provide opportunities for students and faculty to perform solo and in small ensembles, to encourage composition and aid students in that process, and to further the prescence of non-a capella music on campus". CC members applauded the non-a capella music part, then voted to recognize, 25-0-1 (1).

free university, whose purpose is to "promote the exchange of skills and the exploration of common interests within the williamstown community during the winter study period," was likewise quickly recognized 29-0-0 (2).

austin duncan ‘02 and jennifer sawaya ‘02 sought recognition for a group to "increase the level of regular student discussion on topics related to the middle east, at an organized level." currently the group is being called the williams middle east forum. the group assured CC that they want to include a wide variety of topics and show the campus that there is so much more to the middle east than terrorists. CC voted to recognize, 26-2-0 (3).

students organized against racism (SOAR) sought recognition from CC. they have existed on campus as a group before, but have since lapsed. SOAR would be "committed to eradicating racialized bias in the academe; and developing supportive, nondiscriminatory and productive educational environments." CC recognized SOAR, 28-1-0 (4).

student global AIDS campaign (SGAC) asked for recognition to help "mobilize a multi-racial student movement, in partnership with students internationally, to make claims upon governments, corporations, and civil society through education, leadership training, informed advocacy, and direct action". the SGAC would also try to increase AIDS awareness on the williams campus. CC voted to recognize SGAC, 28-1-0(5).

wcfm didn’t show up to request their money. oh well…more for us!

~ unfinished business ~

joe began by reminding CC where we are in this debate. at the start of this meeting, CC was entertaining the "motion to censure the mad cow and that this vote of censure not be applied to the bylaw passed on 10/17/01."

joe then read an article provided by jason lucas ’02. the article spoke about fraternity parties at auburn university where party-goers dressed up in blackface or as members of the KKK. in response, black students at auburn were quoted as saying, "does anyone care that we not only felt humiliated but intimidated?" and "There is a guy standing there with a shotgun, pointing it at the head of the blackfaced character. How can we not take that as a threat?" these sentiments echoed loudly for rory kramer (minco co-chair), who said that it doesn’t matter whether or not you [CC members] personally felt physically or emotionally threatened by the mad cow, but that other students did. he was also shocked at how long it took for the mad cow to truly apologize.

charlie, however, admitted to having difficulty equating the auburn party incident with the mad cow articles. he urged CC members to look at the severity of each action. in response, rory urged CC members to equate not the actions taken, but the pain suffered. the pain in each instance was pervasive.

april king ‘04 said that she felt as though she needed to come before CC today because every time she saw the mad cow decision postponed, she hurt a little more. she thought that perhaps CC needed a new face to remind people that the mad cow has really hurt some people. at times, she feels as though no one is listening, and that somewhere along the way, CC has forgotten the hurt that she felt. she assured CC in no uncertain terms that she for one, has not forgotten how it felt. hall validated this, agreeing that is has been a long time. as far as he was concerned, though, each time CC postponed the decision, it was because we wanted to make sure that we made the right decision. he admitted, though, that in this protracted debate, he sometimes forgets that people were hurt.

medha kirtane pointed out that she is disappointed in general with the ways the administration has responded to these and similar situations. she reminded CC that the college goes out of its way to recruit minority students. once the college gets a lot of underrepresented groups here, however, unfortunate incidents can occur. in her opinion, the college administration (and she includes CC in that classification) must respond more effectively to these situations.

caroline, in response to some of the opinions CC received this week, stated that the only way the mad cow has been punished is through our constant discussion of their embarrassing action. that is not punishment. in her mind, we need to issue something. she insists that the mad cow, as of yet, has not been punished.

shayru (dodd complex) emphasized that for him, this is not a question of freedom of speech. how does one judge that someone’s freedom to speech is more important than another’s freedom to security? one freedom intrinsically threatens the other.

marcos sahm (currier/fitch) stated that free speech means that occasionally speech we don’t like must be tolerated.

scott enunciated that while he thinks that there are important underlying issues in this debate, that it is his job to represent his constituents, and that by and large, he does not think the campus wants to censure the mad cow.

at this point, caroline moved to amend the motion on the table to attach the following letter of explanation:

JP (treasurer) attempted to revise the third and final paragraph of this letter to say instead:

his motion, however, did not receive a second, and therefore we returned to discussion of the original amendment proposed by caroline. the amendment to include this letter passed by a 25-3-1(6) vote.

jim irving (frosh council) posed that perhaps one does not have the right to security over their feelings or mental state.

craig (secretary) commented on the letter that CC voted to append to the original motion. he had originally come with the full intent of voting against censure. the CC constitution, however, charges CC with "protecting the interests of the community" and "the right to initiate disciplinary action against any residential house or campus organization." craig believes that according to this, CC has the right and duty to censure the mad cow.

mark (2003) spoke in favor of the censure vote. he further said that someone who doesn’t agree with the motion to censure should learn to put themselves in another person’s shoes.

when all was said and done, CC voted to censure the mad cow with the attached letter, 20-10-0 (7).

~ new business ~

caroline (in what one would call an "advanced maneuver" of parliamentary procedure) moved to adjourn so that interested CC members could attend the forum on minco reassessment in goodrich. the motion passed…we didn’t count because half the people were already out the door.

respectfully submitted,

craig tamamoto

CC secretary, 02cat@williams.edu