“Cocktail Party vs. Aid” or “Reason vs. Sense”

Why I Chose to Vote “Yes” on the Senior Cocks Proposal

A proposal was raised last week to cancel one of the Senior Cocktails events and instead donate the $15,000 – $20,000 earmarked for the event to relief efforts in Haiti. The idea met with strong support among the senior class, as well as some dissent. Some critics have pointed out that the proposal is illogical: if we wanted to pay for the party in September, why wouldn’t we want it now? There’s a crisis in Haiti, but there was no lack of urgent crises to support across the globe in early Autumn. And why can’t we do both? Certainly any of us who could afford to spend $160 on senior event tickets can scratch together another $20 on our own to donate, without dipping into the money we already decided to spend partying.

Part of me laughs because these critics are right; their logic is entirely sound. Another part of me cries because HOW CAN YOU POSSIBLY say that having one more night on the town is MORE IMPORTANT than bringing food and water to thousands of people whose city was just destroyed? Really? I know I was presented with a very similar decision when I chose to buy my tickets. What has changed?

Logic isn’t all we’re made of. The ways that we are sheltered from, desensitized to, or put in intimate contact with certain world realities influences our priorities and actions. When I paid for my senior cocktail ticket, a certain (familiar) configuration of those perceptive filters made it feel like the best way to spend my money. At this moment, the vivid potential of collective action and the startling juxtaposition framed by the proposal ($15,000 for Haiti or a party for our class?) have shifted my direct experience of the situation at hand, and with it my priorities. One could suggest that our usual judgment reflects clear vision, whereas the intense juxtaposition presented in the Senior class survey causes distortions – but it’s just as easy to argue the opposite (everyday judgment is distorted by desensitization whereas moments like this are more lucid). Whether we like it or not, we are ethically and emotionally sensitive to context, and our valuations are conditioned by framing.

I am happy to jump on this opportunity to live in an ever-so-slightly more generous way, and hopefully add momentum to this way of living: So I vote yes on the proposal to convert $15,000 in cocktail funds to aid. I do so not because I am momentarily swayed by sensational news coverage or by peer pressure, but because, knowing that I am among the wealthiest 1% of the world’s population, a deep and sometimes dormant logic has always urged me toward a position of generosity and service. On days like today, when generosity actually presents itself as the obvious choice, I don’t second-guess it with a fine-tooth comb: I let this obvious attitude second-guess the rest of my life. I embrace the opportunity to remember that all I have is a gift, to humbly share the resources I can access, and to critically reevaluate the decisions I make every day. The crisis in Haiti does not present a new or special opportunity for charity, logically speaking. And neither does the chance to donate my ticket to senior cocktails. But if holding your next cocktail party or your latest iPhone up to a picture of thirsty Haitian families amid their toppled lives tugs at your heart in a new way, then maybe this moment presents a crucial contrast, an opportunity to crack open a kinder way of living as our priorities quiver beneath our feet.

Should we clench our pockets and shot glasses for fear that sharing is too slippery a slope, and resist this opportunity even if it feels right and good? I don’t think we need to. The worst we have to fear is interdependence.

I vote yes, hell yes, on this proposal and all of its messy moral and emotional implications. We won’t miss our chance for bonding. I bet we could organize a totally rocking, casual event in Beckham Hall on a shoe-string budget that would bring us just as close. If you were counting on those drink tickets, well, come to my house beforehand and we can get to know each other over a beer, or four.

35 thoughts on ““Cocktail Party vs. Aid” or “Reason vs. Sense”

  1. Noa Post author

    Whatshername,

    I actually didn’t mean to rebut your post. I found it reasonable, non-inflammatory, productive and well-written. Incidentally, I also agree with all of your suggestions as to how we should proceed. My post tried to reflect on why, despite the validity of arguments against the proposal, I (and many others) feel compelled to support it. I didn’t mean to argue that we should privilege feeling over reason, but rather to admit that there are multiple voices inside me (as there are in all of us) and to examine their interplay. Noticing that every logical decision we make is grounded in some normative impulse, I wanted to withhold my dismissal of “gut feelings” or “common sense,” and take time to look at how these work. Whether we like it or not, emotional reasoning and “common sense” factor into large-scale decision-making for the vast majority of people so I think it’s worth studying these parts of ourself and exploring their potentials, instead of just trying to bar them from high-stakes discussions. Knowing that my post was more a study of my process than a campaign platform, do you have any thoughts on all this? Or if you’re interested in chatting in person, I find these issues fascinating, email me [nwotton at wes].

  2. whatshername

    Oh and fundamentalist Christians in general don’t bother me, it’s the ones who try to use political means to silence others that came to mind when I wrote my original comment

  3. whatshername

    Oh and fundamentalist Christians in general don’t bother me, it’s the ones who try to use political means to silence others that came to mind when I wrote my original comment

  4. whatshername

    Oh and fundamentalist Christians in general don’t bother me, it’s the ones who try to use political means to silence others that came to mind when I wrote my original comment

  5. whatshername

    Oh dear, this is getting out of hand. Firstly, my use of the word “crazies” was clearly a mistake since it only detracted from my point. I was referring to the Dominionist types, not just people who have more conservative politics. Agree with me or not but I find them very scary, though of course they are at the extreme end of the spectrum.

    To commenter #8, I’m not sure what “harsh accusations” you read in my post. I respect Noa and his opinions- that was kind of the whole point of what I said. And I was not comparing him or any other “yes” voters to fundamentalist Christians, I was saying that the reasoning behind their positions can end up being very similar and dangerous. I’m talking about issues on two very different scales, but sometimes analogies like this can be helpful in understand where someone else is coming from. I suppose in this instance it wasn’t helpful since you didn’t get what I was trying to say.

    Again, my intentions were not to be hurtful or make anyone feel disrespected. It is worth considering though how talking about “selfishness and hypocrisies” can do just that to people like me who voted differently.

  6. whatshername

    Oh dear, this is getting out of hand. Firstly, my use of the word “crazies” was clearly a mistake since it only detracted from my point. I was referring to the Dominionist types, not just people who have more conservative politics. Agree with me or not but I find them very scary, though of course they are at the extreme end of the spectrum.

    To commenter #8, I’m not sure what “harsh accusations” you read in my post. I respect Noa and his opinions- that was kind of the whole point of what I said. And I was not comparing him or any other “yes” voters to fundamentalist Christians, I was saying that the reasoning behind their positions can end up being very similar and dangerous. I’m talking about issues on two very different scales, but sometimes analogies like this can be helpful in understand where someone else is coming from. I suppose in this instance it wasn’t helpful since you didn’t get what I was trying to say.

    Again, my intentions were not to be hurtful or make anyone feel disrespected. It is worth considering though how talking about “selfishness and hypocrisies” can do just that to people like me who voted differently.

  7. whatshername

    Oh dear, this is getting out of hand. Firstly, my use of the word “crazies” was clearly a mistake since it only detracted from my point. I was referring to the Dominionist types, not just people who have more conservative politics. Agree with me or not but I find them very scary, though of course they are at the extreme end of the spectrum.

    To commenter #8, I’m not sure what “harsh accusations” you read in my post. I respect Noa and his opinions- that was kind of the whole point of what I said. And I was not comparing him or any other “yes” voters to fundamentalist Christians, I was saying that the reasoning behind their positions can end up being very similar and dangerous. I’m talking about issues on two very different scales, but sometimes analogies like this can be helpful in understand where someone else is coming from. I suppose in this instance it wasn’t helpful since you didn’t get what I was trying to say.

    Again, my intentions were not to be hurtful or make anyone feel disrespected. It is worth considering though how talking about “selfishness and hypocrisies” can do just that to people like me who voted differently.

  8. Mytheos Holt

    Wow. We “conservative crazies” just can’t win. When we use logic, we’re heartless monsters, and when we use moral sense, we’re crazy fundamentalists. This is just not fair, whatshername.

    Even so, you are correct to point out that this post is generally deprived of substance. It posits yet one more tired false dichotomy as an attempt to get around the convincing points of the people who voted “no.” That is, it claims that this is a debate between being absolutely amoral calculating machines, and proving our humanity through emotions-based reasoning. Of course, no one is suggesting that we use logic at the total exclusion of emotions. We are, instead, suggesting that logic ought to be a check on the emotions, in contrast with what this post implicitly argues for, which is a Stephen Colbert-esque line of reasoning wherein one goes with one’s gut at the exclusion of facts/reason.

  9. Mytheos Holt

    Wow. We “conservative crazies” just can’t win. When we use logic, we’re heartless monsters, and when we use moral sense, we’re crazy fundamentalists. This is just not fair, whatshername.

    Even so, you are correct to point out that this post is generally deprived of substance. It posits yet one more tired false dichotomy as an attempt to get around the convincing points of the people who voted “no.” That is, it claims that this is a debate between being absolutely amoral calculating machines, and proving our humanity through emotions-based reasoning. Of course, no one is suggesting that we use logic at the total exclusion of emotions. We are, instead, suggesting that logic ought to be a check on the emotions, in contrast with what this post implicitly argues for, which is a Stephen Colbert-esque line of reasoning wherein one goes with one’s gut at the exclusion of facts/reason.

  10. Mytheos Holt

    Wow. We “conservative crazies” just can’t win. When we use logic, we’re heartless monsters, and when we use moral sense, we’re crazy fundamentalists. This is just not fair, whatshername.

    Even so, you are correct to point out that this post is generally deprived of substance. It posits yet one more tired false dichotomy as an attempt to get around the convincing points of the people who voted “no.” That is, it claims that this is a debate between being absolutely amoral calculating machines, and proving our humanity through emotions-based reasoning. Of course, no one is suggesting that we use logic at the total exclusion of emotions. We are, instead, suggesting that logic ought to be a check on the emotions, in contrast with what this post implicitly argues for, which is a Stephen Colbert-esque line of reasoning wherein one goes with one’s gut at the exclusion of facts/reason.

  11. o

    Thank you for that. That was beautifully and thoughtfully put. Thank you for continuing the discussion even when people don’t respond to you with the same care and thought that you put in. Even after the news that senior cocks are back on, your opinion is still so relevant and important to consider.

    First of all, to whatshername, I think comparing this caring, liberal thinker to “conservative crazies” is not only unfair, untrue, and uncalled for, but also feeds off of the animosity and other-ing that keeps us so separate from those “crazies” in the first place. I don’t think that was a helpful response.

    Second, I think that morals are kinda cool. Going with what your heart/instinct/gut is telling you, rather than relying on the ever-exaulted Reason and Logic, can be a really powerful way of opening up to compassion and truth and making a difference in the world. At times like this, there’s a point at which logic ends, when we need to turn inwards and do what seems right. We can analyze the situation all day (and we have been), and find tons of logical arguments to support whatever position seems to benefit us most. Or we can do what we know is the right thing, and be satisfied with that.

    Third, you called for more conversation about the issue, which I totally agreed with, but then you respond to a dissenting opinion with harsh accusations. He was responding to your post and to the issue with a lot of thought and care. You ended up getting your cocktail back, so please (this goes for other hurtful commenters too) open yourself up to a different opinion– or at least respect it.

    And finally, as much as we don’t want to hear it, as much as we close our eyes, ears, and hearts to the hypocrisies and selfishness that ensnare our lifestyles, we all can live more simply, generously, and compassionately. I agree with Noa that moments like this present “an opportunity to crack open a kinder way of living as our priorities quiver beneath our feet”.

    There’s nothing wrong with having fun, with having a drink, with spending time with friends. Nothing. But it’s so important to take a step back every once in a while and ask, how can I live better? What’s a small change I can make in the way I live so that others might be a little less hungry, less afraid, might smile a little more? What’s one thing I can give up right now? We don’t need to sell all our possessions or feel guilty for what we have. We simply need to accept our responsibility as global citizens, whose lives are intimately interconnected with all other beings on this earth, and let go of one little thing at a time. For a lot of us, the senior cocktails debate represented an opportunity to do that. For others, it was a good time to consider the arguments and still want cocks this month. But I hope that everyone, whatever they chose, let their hearts and minds open just a little to our shared humanity and the ability of even one person to make a difference.

    peace.

  12. o

    Thank you for that. That was beautifully and thoughtfully put. Thank you for continuing the discussion even when people don’t respond to you with the same care and thought that you put in. Even after the news that senior cocks are back on, your opinion is still so relevant and important to consider.

    First of all, to whatshername, I think comparing this caring, liberal thinker to “conservative crazies” is not only unfair, untrue, and uncalled for, but also feeds off of the animosity and other-ing that keeps us so separate from those “crazies” in the first place. I don’t think that was a helpful response.

    Second, I think that morals are kinda cool. Going with what your heart/instinct/gut is telling you, rather than relying on the ever-exaulted Reason and Logic, can be a really powerful way of opening up to compassion and truth and making a difference in the world. At times like this, there’s a point at which logic ends, when we need to turn inwards and do what seems right. We can analyze the situation all day (and we have been), and find tons of logical arguments to support whatever position seems to benefit us most. Or we can do what we know is the right thing, and be satisfied with that.

    Third, you called for more conversation about the issue, which I totally agreed with, but then you respond to a dissenting opinion with harsh accusations. He was responding to your post and to the issue with a lot of thought and care. You ended up getting your cocktail back, so please (this goes for other hurtful commenters too) open yourself up to a different opinion– or at least respect it.

    And finally, as much as we don’t want to hear it, as much as we close our eyes, ears, and hearts to the hypocrisies and selfishness that ensnare our lifestyles, we all can live more simply, generously, and compassionately. I agree with Noa that moments like this present “an opportunity to crack open a kinder way of living as our priorities quiver beneath our feet”.

    There’s nothing wrong with having fun, with having a drink, with spending time with friends. Nothing. But it’s so important to take a step back every once in a while and ask, how can I live better? What’s a small change I can make in the way I live so that others might be a little less hungry, less afraid, might smile a little more? What’s one thing I can give up right now? We don’t need to sell all our possessions or feel guilty for what we have. We simply need to accept our responsibility as global citizens, whose lives are intimately interconnected with all other beings on this earth, and let go of one little thing at a time. For a lot of us, the senior cocktails debate represented an opportunity to do that. For others, it was a good time to consider the arguments and still want cocks this month. But I hope that everyone, whatever they chose, let their hearts and minds open just a little to our shared humanity and the ability of even one person to make a difference.

    peace.

  13. o

    Thank you for that. That was beautifully and thoughtfully put. Thank you for continuing the discussion even when people don’t respond to you with the same care and thought that you put in. Even after the news that senior cocks are back on, your opinion is still so relevant and important to consider.

    First of all, to whatshername, I think comparing this caring, liberal thinker to “conservative crazies” is not only unfair, untrue, and uncalled for, but also feeds off of the animosity and other-ing that keeps us so separate from those “crazies” in the first place. I don’t think that was a helpful response.

    Second, I think that morals are kinda cool. Going with what your heart/instinct/gut is telling you, rather than relying on the ever-exaulted Reason and Logic, can be a really powerful way of opening up to compassion and truth and making a difference in the world. At times like this, there’s a point at which logic ends, when we need to turn inwards and do what seems right. We can analyze the situation all day (and we have been), and find tons of logical arguments to support whatever position seems to benefit us most. Or we can do what we know is the right thing, and be satisfied with that.

    Third, you called for more conversation about the issue, which I totally agreed with, but then you respond to a dissenting opinion with harsh accusations. He was responding to your post and to the issue with a lot of thought and care. You ended up getting your cocktail back, so please (this goes for other hurtful commenters too) open yourself up to a different opinion– or at least respect it.

    And finally, as much as we don’t want to hear it, as much as we close our eyes, ears, and hearts to the hypocrisies and selfishness that ensnare our lifestyles, we all can live more simply, generously, and compassionately. I agree with Noa that moments like this present “an opportunity to crack open a kinder way of living as our priorities quiver beneath our feet”.

    There’s nothing wrong with having fun, with having a drink, with spending time with friends. Nothing. But it’s so important to take a step back every once in a while and ask, how can I live better? What’s a small change I can make in the way I live so that others might be a little less hungry, less afraid, might smile a little more? What’s one thing I can give up right now? We don’t need to sell all our possessions or feel guilty for what we have. We simply need to accept our responsibility as global citizens, whose lives are intimately interconnected with all other beings on this earth, and let go of one little thing at a time. For a lot of us, the senior cocktails debate represented an opportunity to do that. For others, it was a good time to consider the arguments and still want cocks this month. But I hope that everyone, whatever they chose, let their hearts and minds open just a little to our shared humanity and the ability of even one person to make a difference.

    peace.

  14. Pingback: Senior Class Officers Respond; Senior Cocks Still On – Wesleying

  15. whatshername

    Well I feel I have to respond since this post seems to be written as a rebuttal to mine.

    It’s fine to talk about feelings and “sense” and clearly that’s the way you like to approach issues. However, appealing to other people’s morality or goodwill is not only ineffective, but also shows a disregard for other people’s “way of living.” You believe, and I agree with you on this, that charity and thinking about justice in the world should be part of everyone’s lives. Where we disagree most is in where we choose to place ourselves morally. My morals aren’t better developed or more worthy of praise than people who don’t give a damn about Haiti, they’re just different. The person who gets their satisfaction from buying expensive gifts for their friends and family is in no way less moral than the person who donates a year’s worth of tuition to relief efforts in a devastated country. Implying that somehow I (and others who voted no)am missing the big picture and simply trying to apply logic where it doesn’t belong is unfair and a misunderstanding of what I’ve written.

    You have to understand- logic is the only way to tackle issues like this on a large scale where lots of money and many people are involved. The fundamentalist Christian movement in this country operates on really narrow ideas of morality and right vs. wrong. They surely believe everything they stand for is just, and as a personal matter there’s nothing wrong with that. But what’s dirty about the way they do things is that they fail to see how others could have valid disagreements and instead choose to demand and enforce a certain way of living on people with plenty of hurtful personal attacks on those who don’t conform.

    This may sound like a completely irrelevant example, but it really exemplifies 2 of the problems with the “vote yes” argument: 1)talking about “reason vs. sense” puts you in the same rhetorical black hole that a lot of conservative crazies fall into and 2) identifying disagreement with your heartfelt pleas as reason to disregard the priorities of the dissidents (which was what was happening with majority voting) effectively silences many people. This is all to say that relying on your own personal convictions when making decisions that affect others has great results for people who don’t care about the other side. I’m not saying you don’t care but the proposal that you voted for really didn’t.

    Also, my post called for discussion because it was unsound money management to not get people’s opinions before making it a “yes” or “no” situation. Your post is a direct result of my call for more discussion and it would be entirely hypocritical for you to reject the “logic” behind that.

  16. whatshername

    Well I feel I have to respond since this post seems to be written as a rebuttal to mine.

    It’s fine to talk about feelings and “sense” and clearly that’s the way you like to approach issues. However, appealing to other people’s morality or goodwill is not only ineffective, but also shows a disregard for other people’s “way of living.” You believe, and I agree with you on this, that charity and thinking about justice in the world should be part of everyone’s lives. Where we disagree most is in where we choose to place ourselves morally. My morals aren’t better developed or more worthy of praise than people who don’t give a damn about Haiti, they’re just different. The person who gets their satisfaction from buying expensive gifts for their friends and family is in no way less moral than the person who donates a year’s worth of tuition to relief efforts in a devastated country. Implying that somehow I (and others who voted no)am missing the big picture and simply trying to apply logic where it doesn’t belong is unfair and a misunderstanding of what I’ve written.

    You have to understand- logic is the only way to tackle issues like this on a large scale where lots of money and many people are involved. The fundamentalist Christian movement in this country operates on really narrow ideas of morality and right vs. wrong. They surely believe everything they stand for is just, and as a personal matter there’s nothing wrong with that. But what’s dirty about the way they do things is that they fail to see how others could have valid disagreements and instead choose to demand and enforce a certain way of living on people with plenty of hurtful personal attacks on those who don’t conform.

    This may sound like a completely irrelevant example, but it really exemplifies 2 of the problems with the “vote yes” argument: 1)talking about “reason vs. sense” puts you in the same rhetorical black hole that a lot of conservative crazies fall into and 2) identifying disagreement with your heartfelt pleas as reason to disregard the priorities of the dissidents (which was what was happening with majority voting) effectively silences many people. This is all to say that relying on your own personal convictions when making decisions that affect others has great results for people who don’t care about the other side. I’m not saying you don’t care but the proposal that you voted for really didn’t.

    Also, my post called for discussion because it was unsound money management to not get people’s opinions before making it a “yes” or “no” situation. Your post is a direct result of my call for more discussion and it would be entirely hypocritical for you to reject the “logic” behind that.

  17. whatshername

    Well I feel I have to respond since this post seems to be written as a rebuttal to mine.

    It’s fine to talk about feelings and “sense” and clearly that’s the way you like to approach issues. However, appealing to other people’s morality or goodwill is not only ineffective, but also shows a disregard for other people’s “way of living.” You believe, and I agree with you on this, that charity and thinking about justice in the world should be part of everyone’s lives. Where we disagree most is in where we choose to place ourselves morally. My morals aren’t better developed or more worthy of praise than people who don’t give a damn about Haiti, they’re just different. The person who gets their satisfaction from buying expensive gifts for their friends and family is in no way less moral than the person who donates a year’s worth of tuition to relief efforts in a devastated country. Implying that somehow I (and others who voted no)am missing the big picture and simply trying to apply logic where it doesn’t belong is unfair and a misunderstanding of what I’ve written.

    You have to understand- logic is the only way to tackle issues like this on a large scale where lots of money and many people are involved. The fundamentalist Christian movement in this country operates on really narrow ideas of morality and right vs. wrong. They surely believe everything they stand for is just, and as a personal matter there’s nothing wrong with that. But what’s dirty about the way they do things is that they fail to see how others could have valid disagreements and instead choose to demand and enforce a certain way of living on people with plenty of hurtful personal attacks on those who don’t conform.

    This may sound like a completely irrelevant example, but it really exemplifies 2 of the problems with the “vote yes” argument: 1)talking about “reason vs. sense” puts you in the same rhetorical black hole that a lot of conservative crazies fall into and 2) identifying disagreement with your heartfelt pleas as reason to disregard the priorities of the dissidents (which was what was happening with majority voting) effectively silences many people. This is all to say that relying on your own personal convictions when making decisions that affect others has great results for people who don’t care about the other side. I’m not saying you don’t care but the proposal that you voted for really didn’t.

    Also, my post called for discussion because it was unsound money management to not get people’s opinions before making it a “yes” or “no” situation. Your post is a direct result of my call for more discussion and it would be entirely hypocritical for you to reject the “logic” behind that.

  18. um

    You write this post as if all the money that was marked for the party would get donated, and it wouldn’t. Only the ticket money of those willing to donate would.

    So, again.

    You’re canceling a party as a self-righteous symbol and just shitting all over opportunity cost. Is it worth more than your separate donation to cancel the party for everyone, when they’re clearly isn’t consensus on the issue? I’m not going to donate money, and I won’t have a party. You will donate money, and won’t have a party. Why can’t we have a party and you donate? That is reasonable. Otherwise you’re just being imposing on people which isn’t assisting to your point.

  19. um

    You write this post as if all the money that was marked for the party would get donated, and it wouldn’t. Only the ticket money of those willing to donate would.

    So, again.

    You’re canceling a party as a self-righteous symbol and just shitting all over opportunity cost. Is it worth more than your separate donation to cancel the party for everyone, when they’re clearly isn’t consensus on the issue? I’m not going to donate money, and I won’t have a party. You will donate money, and won’t have a party. Why can’t we have a party and you donate? That is reasonable. Otherwise you’re just being imposing on people which isn’t assisting to your point.

  20. um

    You write this post as if all the money that was marked for the party would get donated, and it wouldn’t. Only the ticket money of those willing to donate would.

    So, again.

    You’re canceling a party as a self-righteous symbol and just shitting all over opportunity cost. Is it worth more than your separate donation to cancel the party for everyone, when they’re clearly isn’t consensus on the issue? I’m not going to donate money, and I won’t have a party. You will donate money, and won’t have a party. Why can’t we have a party and you donate? That is reasonable. Otherwise you’re just being imposing on people which isn’t assisting to your point.

  21. Check it

    I also find issue with the fact that this presents a novel use of student funds.

    If anything, the money that people spent on cocktails should be donated, and the money that came from the SBC should be incorporated into spring fling. It’s SBC money, not ‘funds for charity’ money. The senior class presidents and co have no authority to reallocate the money. So this shouldn’t have been an issue in the first place.

    Oh wait. Why should we have spring fling? A day of partying on the hill with bands playing when there are people dying all over the world from hunger?

    HOW DARE WE!
    How dare we eat food at restaurants and spend 15-20 dollars for a meal when people don’t even have pennies for food?

    Oh wait…

    I don’t disagree with spending money for charity, instead I disagree with reallocating resources that I had approved to put aside for one purpose for something completely different. If this happens, I think it sets a precedent for senior cocktails money to be cut in the future and reallocated for other things especially in this economic climate.

    As a senior that doesn’t affect me, but I don’t agree with that happening for future seniors. That’s why I voted no.

    Now if you feel guilty about partying, then feel free to do so. I’ll continue donating my extra time to work for charity as I’ve been doing since high school, and donate money when I have some to spare.

  22. Check it

    I also find issue with the fact that this presents a novel use of student funds.

    If anything, the money that people spent on cocktails should be donated, and the money that came from the SBC should be incorporated into spring fling. It’s SBC money, not ‘funds for charity’ money. The senior class presidents and co have no authority to reallocate the money. So this shouldn’t have been an issue in the first place.

    Oh wait. Why should we have spring fling? A day of partying on the hill with bands playing when there are people dying all over the world from hunger?

    HOW DARE WE!
    How dare we eat food at restaurants and spend 15-20 dollars for a meal when people don’t even have pennies for food?

    Oh wait…

    I don’t disagree with spending money for charity, instead I disagree with reallocating resources that I had approved to put aside for one purpose for something completely different. If this happens, I think it sets a precedent for senior cocktails money to be cut in the future and reallocated for other things especially in this economic climate.

    As a senior that doesn’t affect me, but I don’t agree with that happening for future seniors. That’s why I voted no.

    Now if you feel guilty about partying, then feel free to do so. I’ll continue donating my extra time to work for charity as I’ve been doing since high school, and donate money when I have some to spare.

  23. Check it

    I also find issue with the fact that this presents a novel use of student funds.

    If anything, the money that people spent on cocktails should be donated, and the money that came from the SBC should be incorporated into spring fling. It’s SBC money, not ‘funds for charity’ money. The senior class presidents and co have no authority to reallocate the money. So this shouldn’t have been an issue in the first place.

    Oh wait. Why should we have spring fling? A day of partying on the hill with bands playing when there are people dying all over the world from hunger?

    HOW DARE WE!
    How dare we eat food at restaurants and spend 15-20 dollars for a meal when people don’t even have pennies for food?

    Oh wait…

    I don’t disagree with spending money for charity, instead I disagree with reallocating resources that I had approved to put aside for one purpose for something completely different. If this happens, I think it sets a precedent for senior cocktails money to be cut in the future and reallocated for other things especially in this economic climate.

    As a senior that doesn’t affect me, but I don’t agree with that happening for future seniors. That’s why I voted no.

    Now if you feel guilty about partying, then feel free to do so. I’ll continue donating my extra time to work for charity as I’ve been doing since high school, and donate money when I have some to spare.

Comments are closed.