Talk:Anchors Away

Current Activism Letter Deleted

I've removed the anonymous letter posted to this wiki. I did so for three reasons:

  1. It's not constructive.
  2. It's not affiliated with or necessarily endorse by Anchors Away.
  3. It may decrease the effectiveness of the 'petition' by making potential signatories feel that they are signing on to the anonymous letter as well, which represents a potentially extreme viewpoint. I'd rather the petition have as broad appeal as possible, i.e., not just students who oppose anchor housing in its entirety, but also students who feel that anchor housing as currently proposed is flawed and substantial modifications could fix it.


Anyway, the letter has been cut and pasted below:

Letter Text

Current Activism

The following has been sent to the Anchors Away listserve. It in no way necessarily reflects the opinions of the aforementioned, nor does it reflect the opinions of the poster of the letter:

The following letter was sent on November 29th, 2005. No response has been received to date.

President Schapiro, Dean Roseman, members of the CUL,

I am the person who put up the posters around campus quoting members of the administration and of the CUL. I desire to remain anonymous because I am not sure that it is safe to speak up against anchors anymore. (In the interest of protecting the innocent, I should point out that I am not prominently involved in the anchor housing debate.)

The posters are not really about anchor housing, however, but about the way you "grown-ups in Hopkins Hall" think of the student body. You don't think that we are competent to choose what kind of housing plan Williams will have in the future.

You don't feel that we are socially skilled enough to form into diverse, close-knit social groups without outside help.

You don't worry yourselves much about the possibility of a student dying of alcohol poisoning, even though Williams obviously has a serious problem.

The CUL has, however, worried enough about the name of the new system to change it twice.

It doesn't matter what the plan calls for anymore. Do you remember when student involvement was considered essential for its success? The plan is now so contaminated with disrespect for the student body that nothing can save it from its unpopularity. Hopefully, student discontent will tear it apart from the inside quickly, rather than allow it to die a slow, painful, death of apathy and cynicism.

Professor Dudley says, "We don't plan to revisit the big picture issues." In other words, it's too late in the game to change the plan. We students can help work out the little issues. (Not coincidentally, we're with the CUL on the little issues. Increasing the pick size, renovating the dorms that need it, picking our clusters. Having been allowed to participate, the students support these decisions.)

But there never was a right time for us to discuss the big picture issues. It was too late from the beginning. If student participation is so vital to success, why weren't we given a chance to weigh in on the big picture at all?

I can only speculate, but my guess is that you were afraid that we wouldn't like it. Well, you were right.

You (any of you) are invited to respond to The resulting dialog will be published on the WSO wiki.

   -Anonymous Eph (posted by Toby Hall)

AA's Tabling in Spring 2005

Can any AA member recall an approximate number of comment cards collected during that campaign? It would be good to include this in the bulleted mention.--Jlandsma 16:15, 3 December 2005 (EST)

Done. Also, I believe Brian dumped the box onto Dean Roseman rather than the CUL itself.--06jps 16:47, 4 December 2005 (EST)