Bachelorhood

Joey Samuels ’12

Volleyballin’

Luc Robinson ’12

A fridge and two chairs – send me an email if you want them.

Madeleine Watson ’12

WOOLF love.

Dave Marsh ’12

It’s not “strictly academic” when a major College donor writes a cautionary letter to The Williams Record. The actions to which Herbert Allen refers (“Minding our reputation,” May 2) – those surrounding Jiz Lee’s lecture – threaten to take on a life surpassing those of Act Up gestures or springtime pranks which fast fade away, as College grown-ups would hope. The brouhaha triggered by the Dively Committee’s activities risks unintended consequences. The College has long since become an inter-generational alliance between (1) some of the world’s brightest kids, (2) many of the country’s best teachers and scholars and (3) alumni. Group three, where attitudes evolve with demography, is a vital component in assuring that the Williams experience provided by group two remains accessible to group one, regardless of economic means.

To keep this great enterprise going, each group must do its part, exercising judgment and tolerance. For students and their mentors, this does not mean censorship. It means balance, perspective and restraint (aka courtesy and tact). This applies to alumni as well. Alumni needn’t understand it all, for instance, why some words we abjured, such as “queer,” are now politically correct, while others, such as “fag,” are not or how pornography muscled it’s way into the curriculum ahead of peace, poverty and geography.

But today’s students should recognize that the culture and gender wars have been fought and won – unless we’re so foolish as to start another.

Declare victory and move on. And remember that before long, younger students – and the Development Office – will be looking to you to pick up the torch, financially, for the College.

With poverty and inequality at home and wars abroad, there are issues about which students should raise their voices. Better a clamor than a “silent generation,” which was the criticism of my generation’s response to the Korean War and the Cold War. But College leadership, including students, faculty and the president, took on the big issues of that day, courageously rising to defend academic liberty and professors targeted by anti-Red demagoguery.

Williams, with its pioneer alumni association, built its strength on the unity of students, faculty, administration and alumni. Neither the elimination of fraternities nor the admission of women caused the boat to flounder. Unlike the case of Dartmouth, also alumni-proud, which suffered feuds with and among them.

Allen, who knows theater and its trappings, is correct that it is “the sponsorship which wraps [Lee’s pornography] in the Williams banner” that matters. Financial support for the College is at stake. So too is that bright world reputation which attracts a diversity of talented students and parents from various communities and cultures.

Tolerance and a sense of humor are essential, but simply “lightening up” is not the answer. All stakeholders in the College need to show judgment, restraint and mutual sensitivity to maintain the unity and reputation of the College. While I am not a member of Mike Dively’s Class of 1961 nor Allen’s Class of 1962, I’m still certain none of us want to see a proud history replayed as farce.

- Harry Montgomery ’54

Outraged that Ephs with different opinions weighed in on a campus-wide controversy of their own deliberate making, the organizers’ insulting op-ed proclaims that any who feel uneasy about the College funding a graphic pornography screening are homophobic hypocrites. I am amused to learn that my mixed feelings on the issue stem from my “incredible ignorance” and “stubborn unwillingness to comprehend” why it is really a no-brainer that a summit on the social and political implications of vaginal fisting should make it through the financial gauntlet that two dining halls and the College’s linguistics faculty failed to survive.

If anyone at Williams had attempted to publicly marginalize, smear and slander the College’s queer community with the same toxic rhetoric that Gilbert and Alyxander used to attack everyone who was troubled by their event, I have little doubt the campus would already have been engulfed in an indignant uproar. Yet this time it was representatives of our self-styled activist community who found it easier to sling around insults than make a coherent argument – and so, there have been no rallies, no condemnations and not even a word of protest from those who are normally so quick to pounce on any attempt, real or imagined, to shut people up because of what they believe.

It was not so long ago that progressives strove for an open-minded society, a mutually respectful exchange in which different perspectives would be welcome. At Williams today, that laudable quest for pluralism too often mutates into a cruel threat: Everyone must either fall in line behind whatever social and sexual mores the hyper-activist class happens to favor today or prepare to be branded as a bigoted reactionary. So far from being suppressed themselves, it is these activists who are guilty of bullying others into silence: Wannabe radicals on this campus work to shut down dialogue, not promote it, by immunizing their opinions from criticism by burying anyone who defends any measure of traditionalism under a smoldering pile of ad hominem slurs.

These hyper-activists admit of no principled grounds on which one might object to shameless vulgarity and deny any rational basis on which intelligent, unbigoted, well-meaning Ephs might still like to speak up in support of the common sense principle that, in a decent and dignified society, some facets of the human experience are better explored in private. No – only prejudice, malice or “latent fear” can explain why anyone might object to their extreme worldviews.

While the hyper-activists chop away at centuries of moral and spiritual thought to make room for crass hedonism and empty relativism, we are told that we must either grab an axe and pitch in or simply keep quiet. But if anyone dares roll their eyes when discussing College-sponsored erotica, or – Heaven forbid – challenges the event’s merit in public, voicing those honest opinions is “poisonous discourse.” Even swallowing one’s objections may not be enough to prevent personal attacks, for staying politely silent has itself been deemed a sin: Any activist initiative that meets with insufficient applause is virtually guaranteed to elicit an op-ed or all-campus e-mail blasting our community as inadequate allies who propagate discrimination through cowardly quietude. These and other tired putdowns, designed to portray everyone who would rather not eradicate every last trace of traditional values as either evil or uneducated, have sadly become an enduring feature of campus discussions.

The vast majority of students mean well and are eager to avoid offending or upsetting any members of our community. Yet pursuing even this modest goal can be a dizzying undertaking: Sometimes students are permitted to operate on the commonsense notion that we ought to treat everyone equally and not accord differences in gender, race or orientation undue emphasis; other times, without warning, we are suddenly told that nothing is more offensive than minimizing these differences and that regarding everyone as the same is a disgraceful outgrowth of heteronormative “microaggression” or ethnic “privilege.” The only consistent demand, it seems, is that nobody hold beliefs that differ from those of our most vocal classmates.

The right to speak freely does not include a right to universal approval. Every student and organization at the College is entitled to advocate for his or her values in an open and respectful marketplace of ideas. But surely this does not entail an entitlement to become breathlessly offended whenever some people disagree with you and are unafraid to say so. And none, least of all those who claim to crusade for tolerance, have the right to chase others out of a discussion through the disgusting allegation that honest disagreement implies hatred or fear.

Homophobia is real and shamefully pervasive. Those seeking to end it would do better to focus their energies on real prejudice rather than using its specter to score cheap points by slandering all of us who dared question whether exalting smut ought to be a College priority. Any activists who cannot stomach public scrutiny without lashing out and embodying the hurtful intolerance against which they claim to struggle ought to heed Nietzsche: “Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster.”

Andrew Quinn ’13 is a political science major from Lake Forest, Ill. He is participating in the Williams-Exeter Programme at Oxford.

Unfortunately, much of the student response seemed to follow this line: “It’s just an overreaction by an out-of-touch alum. Screw that.”

An out-of-touch alum? “Geez,” I thought. “I wonder if that’s what students would say about me if I’d written in.” Probably I’d be safer, given that my own time on campus was less than one full year ago. But what about in 30 years? Would I, and my opinion, suddenly be deemed irrelevant, even inappropriate and pushy?

Williams is lucky to have alumni who are so dedicated to the College and take a great deal of interest. The strength of this multi-generational community is increasingly one of my favorite things about this place. Alumni dedication to our college and their desire to see it thrive is what allows for most of what we love about this place. And after we leave Williams, this network can make the world feel a whole lot less lonely. I didn’t understand that 11 months ago.

The weekend after commencement is reunion weekend – this year the Class of 2007 will return, along with the Class of 2002, Class of 1997 and so on. At what point would we start to label a class year as officially too old to matter? The roads around Williamstown are cluttered with alumni who traveled the world and then came home to the Purple Valley. For instance, some of them are Williams professors with gravestones already waiting in the college cemetery; Bruce Grinnell ’62, who submitted the petition ending fraternities, still has his office on Spring Street.

The student population turns over so quickly that our collective undergraduate memory sometimes resembles that of small children, but petulantly rejecting the ideas of alums as “out of touch” gives a stronger impression of headstrong teenagers absorbed in their own needs. Students at the College who feel lost or out of place can always find graduates who felt the same and who have had years to think of what they wished they had known as students. We don’t have to blaze a new trail every four years.

I sincerely hope that when the current students who have pushed for new policies or heightened attention to campus issues graduate, they will stay interested and informed. Whether the issue is sexual assault or the hook-up culture or housing improvements or funding transparency, progress is made because students care about this place and fight for their and their peers’ interests.

It is easy to be confident that you will continue to fight for these issues. During my own years on campus I saw many a student stand up and voice his opinion about campus policies. These were not selfish pleas. They were about making the entire college a better, safer, more enjoyable place – a place we were proud to be members of. Students advocated constantly for future students, for programs that wouldn’t take effect until we were long gone ourselves.

We should be able to expect that same sincere selflessness from them as alumni. To think less of them is to think less of ourselves.

I am certain that many of you will keep a close eye on the College, call your on-campus contacts for details and discuss the actions of your college with fellow alums. This is a wonderful thing.

And maybe you’ll feel so strongly that you’ll write in to the college, which you hold so dear and that is such a huge part of your own identity, with concerns. Or maybe with congratulations or with encouragement to go further and bigger! And I hope no student dismisses you as “an out-of-touch alum” who doesn’t deserve a voice, who isn’t a true member of the family.

Disagreements may be fierce, but there is no good reason that alums shouldn’t be encouraged to voice their opinions and get involved with campus issues about which they care deeply. To claim otherwise strikes me as extremely superior, hurtful and downright callous behavior by Williams students who, in just a few years, will join the ranks of alumni themselves.

In about a month another class will trade being students of the College for being  alumni of the College, and that will be a truly awesome day. But there will be an odd feeling of breakage as new students prepare to take your place on campus and all the physical signs point to you not having ownership of this place anymore: no room, no kitchen, no swipe access. Your Williams Students Online (WSO) login will mysteriously stop working one day and you will know this stage is over.

But don’t fret too much – a new family is seeking to find you and welcome you in. They don’t have a campus and can’t offer you a room, but they are a kind of family, bound together by their interest in a very special place. Notice I didn’t say “love” for a special place (talk about cliché, right?), because many of them find their passion in wanting to change and improve the College. Mike Dively ’61 himself is a great example of that. Many of you will be similarly inspired, to protect, improve and support this place.

So an early welcome to 2012. And the rest of you: Be warned, it doesn’t last forever.

Cameron Nutting ’11 lives in Strasburg, V.A.

Were these students simply ignorant of the fact that Allen lives in Williamstown and is active on many important committees at the College? Did they know that Allen not only donated the ’62 Center for Theatre and Dance but also spent decades of his life backing multiple queer rights causes in times when they weren’t popular?

Sometimes the world is a great big Rorschach test; even though Allen’s remarks had nothing to do with the sexual orientation of the performer – only with the morality of pornography, the reputation of the College and the bias of the administration – some members of the Queer Student Union (QSU) took his article as a homophobic rant. Allen implied that sexual acts should garner emotional and moral significance of some kind, which is apparently an alien idea to some members of our community. “When LGBTQ people have sex, they are inherently transgressing society’s rules of appropriate conduct because their sex is entirely about pleasure,” argued Emily Nuckols ’15 in the Record (“Porn is not the problem,” April 18). If this were the QSU’s official position, it would not be surprising to find some LGBTQ students who are offended at being included in this entirely epicurean stereotype.

Do the radical queer advocates on our campus see no contradiction in claiming offense at “hetero-normative” Junior Advisor pictures (one of which involves a male student getting a piggyback ride from a female student), only to then drape posters of a naked porn star across campus and disdain those with more traditional sensibilities? If the Dively Committee and the QSU simply wanted to eradicate social bias against LGBTQ individuals, they would be wise to hang posters of properly clothed queer couples in loving relationships. But they are seeking more than equal treatment, demanding a monopoly on the privilege to break all standards of sexual decency.

Perhaps we should take the principle frequently expressed by the Williams administration that at Williams College, our only value is the mutability of values. Yes, Williams should allow for the free expression of ideas. If a quasi-independent funding body wants to play porn in Paresky, that is fine. But when the deans’ office – among other official departments of the College – provides money for a porn showing and stamps its endorsement on the event, it has implicitly included everyone in the Williams community in that statement.

I am not so naïve to think that homophobic remarks have never been uttered at the College, nor am I dismissing the hurtfulness of such words. I have heard the f-word spoken here – once. During summer practices before my first year, one of my teammates used it in the football locker room. The next day, with no administrative prompting, the senior captains took it upon themselves to huddle up the entire team to remind us that at a place like Williams, we are above such language.

Something is wrong when the College promotes “sex positivity” in its students and then denounces the prevalence of sexual assault on campus. Kudos to the administration for discontinuing the First Days speaker who encouraged the Class of 2014 to have as much sex in college as possible.  But the QSU was intent on playing porn during Queer Bash again in 2012, claiming that the sexually explicit atmosphere that porn creates has nothing to do with the campus-record number of assaults that occur at the party. Do we really believe that promoting a form of media built on reducing human beings to the status of sexual objects has no connection to the ubiquity of that attitude in our weekend culture?

Last week, a few students intent on ridiculing Allen took it upon themselves to place a colorful tongue-in-cheek poster above the fireplace in Paresky that mocked, “Sorry, Herb!” Would any of the students who made that poster like to debate, for example, whether Lee’s videos have more intellectual value than the copy of The Federalist Papers in Chapin Library that Allen gave us, which was signed by George Washington? Sorry Herb, indeed: I hope that one day the College can live up to its mission statement and treat every reasoned perspective with equal respect.

Jack Noelke ’13 is a history major from Chatham, NJ. He lives in Thompson.

But there is a tension between the availability of funding for club sports and the sports’ particular needs that make club sports difficult to contend with under the category of student organizations. The fact remains that rugby is still a sports team. To be a member of the New England Rugby Football Union (NERFU) all teams must have a coach, emergency medical technicians, a student trainer, a minimum of 15 players (without substitutes) and, equally important, transportation to and from matches. The funding allocations available to student organizations under College Council (CC) bylaws is limited and understandably so. But due to the weekly nature of match scheduling, transportation is a consistent priority for a sports team. To miss a game would jeopardize our standing as a Div. II team under NERFU. Club teams are encouraged to use personal cars or College vans as reliable sources of transportation. However, this exists within a hierarchical distribution of privileges, one which prioritizes the needs of varsity sports, admissions and a subsequent list of other departments. Even with a prior reservation for a College van in place, if any of the aforementioned groups request a vehicle the day of, the reservation becomes obsolete. The use of personal cars is out of the question as well. Aside from the fact that only one member of our team currently has a car on campus, our hesitations are centered on safety. Rugby is a contact sport – physical exhaustion, injuries and concussions are all part of the game. With many matches over three hours away, it is unreasonable to ask a player to drive to a match, play 80 minutes of rugby and then drive back, especially when some of our wake-up calls are as early as 5 a.m.

When we read the phrase, “Through the Student Body, we hope to create a community to which every student belongs and in which every student participates,” stated in the preamble of CC’s constitution, we can’t help but think of the ways in which this statement falls short. It is catered to mainstream college culture, which revolves around the success of varsity sports. Advertisements encouraging students to attend varsity away games are posted around campus, an opportunity available through CC’s generous funding of buses. While I am not saying this is an unfair use of funds considering the percentage of varsity athletes on this campus, it is not unreasonable to harp on the unique needs of a club sport and CC’s failure to meet them. This lack of commitment is best exemplified through the blatant absence of communication. The fact that no member of the women’s rugby team was given the opportunity to be present during the CC meeting which ultimately ruled to censure the team is unacceptable.

Women’s rugby prides itself on its tagline, “no experience necessary.” With a diverse membership and serving as the main athletic and social scene for many students of color, international and LGBTQ-identified students, women’s rugby serves a unique function in providing a truly inclusive space for all.

While we must acknowledge an unfortunate lack of communication that unraveled into the need for CC to censure the team, this isn’t really about us. It’s about ensuring that club teams, including rugby, aren’t slowly phased out due to the rigid protocol of CC. Sports teams have slightly different, yet critical, needs that must be adequately addressed. At the very least, they should be able to contest their allocations based on what they know they need, as opposed to what CC thinks they should have. As graduation nears, we just want to ensure that the team that has molded such an integral part of our Williams experience continues to be here.

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, like a contact sport for women; the feeling of sheer power as you take down another person or break free from a tackle. It can’t die out for lack of a bus. With the emphasis that the College puts on student athletes, it cannot then turn and ignore a team with such an unbelievable history of traditions and accomplishments. For so many of us, this team has constituted the element in our Williams careers that has kept us here. And as we leave, we will do everything in our power to ensure that there always remains a little maroon and gold in the purple bubble.

Dilia Ortega ’13 is a comparative literature and history major from Los Angeles, Calif. She lives in Currier. Soraya Membreno ’12 is an English and astronomy major  from Miami, Fl. She lives in Wood. 

The members of the Investment Committee are themselves experienced and successful in the world of finance, and many own or manage successful investment firms. We understand the College’s eagerness to invest with such profitable firms. However, we view investment in these trustee-affiliated firms as bearing an added risk to the College’s reputation that should be considered by the Board. While we fully recognize that related-party investment transactions are not illegal, they nonetheless risk the appearance of cronyism. No matter how unfounded this perception may be, we feel that it remains a widely-held concern that risks damaging the College’s reputation. Moreover, while we applaud the trustees for their conscientious process of recusal whenever a trustee-affiliated firm is discussed, we fear that a risk remains that trustees will be impacted by their relationships with their conflicted peers and that these relationships will, in turn, impact the trustees’ ability to perform their fiduciary duties. With a vast sea of investment funds open to the College’s investment, we view the decision to invest in trustee-affiliated firms as an unnecessary risk, the loss of which can only serve to benefit the College without unduly compromising the endowment’s growth.

If the College and trustees continue to invest in trustee-affiliated firms, we hope that they will pursue their recently announced intentions to evaluate their policy of disclosing conflicts of interest. The College’s decision to keep its specific investments confidential is consistent with industry-wide practice; however, the decision to safeguard investment strategies should always come second to forthright disclosure procedures. The risk associated with disclosing the amount of related-party investment transactions is minimal, and would go a long way in assuring community members and alumni donors that the College’s conduct is beyond reproach.

There is nothing illicit underlying investments with trustee-affiliated firms, but we nonetheless encourage both the College and the trustees to evaluate the necessity of those investments and any risks they may pose to our confidence in the trustees’ stewardship of the endowment. With that confidence in mind, it is time for the College to make it clear that we are committed to the same high standards and transparency in our investments that we are in all other aspects of institutional governance.

CC’s decision to re-envision the role of neighborhoods on Council is necessary and worthwhile. Students identify more fundamentally with their class year than they do with their geographic location on campus, particularly because students often shift neighborhood affiliation. We view allocating positions on CC to represent the student body in terms of class year rather than neighborhood affiliation as a step in the right direction.

This shift may also help refocus the roles of neighborhoods in campus life, given that they will no longer occupy an awkward middle ground between social programming and student governance. This has the potential to forge a stronger neighborhood system focused on social planning and residential support. By drawing the line between CC as a governing body and neighborhoods as social planning entities, the neighborhoods would be given a chance to more concretely establish their own niche in student life.

In replacing neighborhood representatives, CC’s proposal to elect four class representatives for each year would allow each class’s voice to be heard more clearly and enable representation to be determined based on a much more meaningful distinction between students. However, after an election in which so many candidates ran unopposed, CC must find ways to entice an diverse group of candidates to run for election to make the new positions relevant.

The option of electing vice presidents to manage responsibilities associated specifically with community and diversity, student life, student organization and academic affairs individually also has potential, as this structure may alleviate some of the burden placed on the CC co-presidents. However, we caution against overloading these new positions in an attempt to lighten the loads of others. The current proposals indicate the vice presidents would need to be in communication with a large number of student, staff and faculty groups, and it does not seem feasible that vice presidents would be able to attend all of these committee meetings. While it could be simpler to have unofficial liaisons from each committee report to the vice presidents, concerns regarding efficient and clear communication should remain at the forefront of the discussion.

CC has the opportunity to restructure student government at the College in an unprecedented way. In determining the future of CC, Council must focus on creating a straightforward and efficient structure that accurately serves the specific needs of the College community.