Unless you’ve been living under a rock (or unless you don’t attend Wesleyan and you don’t read Fox News), then you’ve probably noticed that the university’s revised housing policy—developed in response to a long-standing kerfuffle between the administration and the Beta Theta Pi fraternity—has sparked a revival of righteous (and self-righteous) activism on campus.
From what I can tell, few students support the new measure. Some people, myself included, have a difficult time caring either way. But it does seems that the administration may have gone too far this time, at least in terms of how it chose to word the policy revision.
According to Cameron Couch ’13, a WSA Representative: “Under this policy, if you go to eat at church, that’s grounds for suspension. You also can’t go and help out at the soup kitchen and eat meals there after volunteering.”
The university won’t enforce the countless inevitable violations that will emerge from its broadly worded, out-of-touch, and obtuse response to the Beta problem. But the whole thing does seem a bit silly.
Anyway: some rebel/prankster put a “private residence” tent in the snow outside of the Admissions Office. Now Michael Roth and a bunch of prospective students all know what’s what.
Pingback: Rally at Trustees’ Meeting – Wesleying
Way to downplay the significance of the policy. It isn’t “a bit silly.” It’s fucking wrong. It doesn’t matter if they will enforce every minute violation of the policy, the problem is THEY CAN. And that is FUCKING INSANE.
Fuck Mike Whaley, Scott Backer, Rick Culliton, and especially, FUCK ROTH. I hope he goes down in flames for this shit; it’d be long overdue.
Way to downplay the significance of the policy. It isn’t “a bit silly.” It’s fucking wrong. It doesn’t matter if they will enforce every minute violation of the policy, the problem is THEY CAN. And that is FUCKING INSANE.
Fuck Mike Whaley, Scott Backer, Rick Culliton, and especially, FUCK ROTH. I hope he goes down in flames for this shit; it’d be long overdue.
Roth’s the key to the entire matter. Somehow, most of the student party hasn’t put the pieces of the puzzle together yet. He stays out of the fray, but uses his attack dogs (mainly Whaley and Culliton) to enforce his ideas. This latest policy wasn’t from the bureaucracy; it was passed by fiat from Roth.
Read his plan for Wesleyan 2020 and see what I’m talking about. He’s trying to remove Wesleyan unique edge and turn it into Amherst, Williams, Bates, Vassar, or one of a hundred other SLACs:
http://2020.blogs.wesleyan.edu/
This uproar is NOT about Beta. This uproar is NOT just about the new residency policy. This uproar is about the university’s continual refusal to listen to students. Remember the open container policy? Remember the Tour de Franzia fiasco? This is simply the latest in a SERIES of infringements upon student rights and the collective student voice.
Put an end to the university administration’s dismissal of the student voice. Show that we care. Show that we will not be trampled upon. Show that we WILL have a voice and they MUST listen, whether or not they like it.
COME PROTEST AT THE “RALLY FOR YOUR RIGHTS” AT 7PM ON FRIDAY IN THE COURTYARD IN FRONT OF BECKHAM HALL.
I wouldn’t put the open container policy in the same category as this. Restrictions on drinking alcohol outside are more of a luxury issue. The housing policy is something that has much broader ethical implications, as it prohibits us from associating in completely legal ways on a wide variety off-campus properties, whether or not any of those prohibitions are actually enforced. Lumping issues like the open container policy in with it will only hurt your case.
the reason that the issues are put together, is that the problem is a larger one of the administration not responding to the wishes of the students, and making unpopular dicisions with no transparancy and no review. we are a _private_ university, open containers are allowed, by law, on private property, if you are of legal age. luxury my ass.
The second you bring anything alcohol related into this, you lose all credibility. Separate the two. Underage drinking is illegal and anything the Administration does to curb flagrant public (and for 50% of the student body, underage) drinking is almost completely legally defensible. This, on the other hand, has the admin overstepping its authority.
The second you bring anything alcohol related into this, you lose all credibility. Separate the two. Underage drinking is illegal and anything the Administration does to curb flagrant public (and for 50% of the student body, underage) drinking is almost completely legally defensible. This, on the other hand, has the admin overstepping its authority.
The point isn’t that the University won’t enforce every theoretical possibility, the point is that they are obtusely overreaching their bounds to infringe upon our choices to go to off campus events. That isn’t their choice to make; it’s ours. Perhaps consider covering the rally for friday?
http://www.facebook.com/#!/event.php?eid=128247087247258¬if_t=event_update
Perhaps people should be more wary of citing the ridiculous unintended implications of the measure (e.g. can’t eat at church) as evidence of its faultiness. It would be a shame if the university got the impression that such unintended consequences are at the heart of the uproar and failed to realize that the intended consequences are just as bad.
It is an intended consequence. If there’s students critical of the administration who also goes to a Church or volunteers at an off campus charity, the policy gives the administration an excuse to suspend them. However, this policy is most likely illegal and would not survive a lawsuit, so any discussion about this is moot.
What law does the policy violate?
I’m not quite sure of the exact law, but the courts have ruled that colleges and universities do not have the right to tell students what they can and can’t do off campus.
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=1025386898658057919&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr
Interesting theory, Ayn Rand, but New York and Connecticut hold different standards of obligation on the part of landowners with respect to guests and/or illegal activities which occur on property. Accordingly, while the decision you cite (Guest vs. Paul Smith’s College) is interesting, it may not be applicable. Further, what this debate misses is the distinction that the administration might be making between legal and financial culpability – this could just be an insurance game.
Eating dinner is not an illegal activity, particularly if you paid for it. So why can’t I attend a private society dinner in Massachusetts? Oh yeah, because I’ll be liable for suspension.