On Tuesday, December 3, there was a senior class reception held by SWAG (Seniors of Wesleyan Annual Gift) in Beckham Hall. At the reception, a number of administrators gave speeches about why students should give to Wesleyan.
And then, Josh Krugman ’14 got up and gave a speech about need-blind, how the University handles donations, and why you maybe shouldn’t give to Wes.
The video is above and a rough transcript is past the jump, courtesy of Josh. When you watch the video, notice the how the administrators and those planning the event try and pressure Josh off the stage and how the student band begins playing to try and drown out his speech. Also, unseen in this video is Michael Roth bolting out of the room when Josh got up there.
BZOD EDIT 12/9/13, 1:50 PM: For some much-needed clarification on that 68% figure, check out this article.
Hello Class of 2014! So good to see everyone here!
All of us know that last year Wesleyan changed its admissions policy from “Need-Blind” to “Need-Aware”. This means that before, admissions decisions were made without knowledge of applicants’ financial situation, but now, under the new policy admissions are made partly on the basis of the financial status of the applicants.
Many of you may know that this year’s freshman class, the first admitted under the new discriminatory policy, looks pretty different from other recent classes. The class of 2017 contains 6% fewer students receiving grant-based aid than the previous year, 4% fewer first generation college students than the previous year, 3% fewer black students than the previous year, and fewer students from every region of the US outside New England than the previous year.
President Roth, SWAG, Alumni relations and the rest tell us that if we love Wes, if we want Wes to be the best it can be, and if we want to increase access for poor students, what we need to do is all donate more.
On the contrary, the University needs to change its priorities to be more ethical and inclusive.
And we will not change the University’s priorities by donating. When alumni and students have come to President Roth and to members of the Board of Trustees, expressing their concern about the effects that the decision to end Need-Blind admissions may have for the demographics of the student body, President Roth and members of the Board have responded: “Alumni can’t be THAT concerned: they’re giving in record numbers.”
What Roth and the Board are telling alums to do in order to improve access, Roth and the Board then turn against concerned alumni as evidence that their worries are not widely held, and therefore that the University doesn’t need to re-evaluate its priorities.
Did you know that 68% of any donation earmarked for financial aid gets swept into the general operating budget, and that only 32% of such donations goes to improving the financial aid budget?
Given these things, it is clear that donating to the University at this time constitutes no more than a vote of confidence in the University’s misguided priorities.
It is clear that the University will only change its priorities when we demand this change by refusing to donate.
I want to propose that we can best express our love for Wes and do the most to make Wes the best it can be by VOCALLY refusing to donate, and by calling on the administration to ask us again for our money when they are ready to commit to a set of priorities that inspires us.
This STARTS with ceasing to openly discriminate against poor students in the admissions process!
Let’s support Wesleyan by demanding the best from it!
Bring Back Need-Blind!
Apparently (http://wesleying.org/2013/12/09/the-68-percent-figure-where-did-it-come-from/) the reality is far worse than Krugman knew.
According to him, 32% of donations to financial aid actually increase the finaid budget in a given year, but apparently 32% is the percentage of the budget that goes to financial aid every year (with an eventual target of 29%), and alumni donations can do nothing to increase this cap.
Additionally, Wesleyan has budgeted money (40M) it doesn’t even have for financial aid, relying on donors to make up the deficit.
Krugman’s point seems to stand out even stronger, given this new information: Wesleyan desperately needs to change its priorities and increase transparency if it wants to regain the trust of its alumni donors.
*Wesleyan has budgeted money (40M) it doesn’t even have for financial aid, relying on donors to make up the deficit.*
That means that if we don’t donate, there will be immediate ramifications for the students who need financial aid. The answer is not to strangle financial aid completely because you have ideological qualms with some methods of implementation.
This much-needed clarification will show you how baseless Krugman’s arguments were. He may have had good intentions, but he clearly didn’t understand the facts. Ironically for Krugman (yet intuitive to most), a decline in donations to the university would be the single most harmful way to inhibit Wesleyan’s efforts to remain as need-blind as possible.
Nah actually, if you read the entire post, you’ll see that Pyrotechnics concludes that there is no truly meaningful basis for Josh’s claims that, due to accounting adjustments, it is currently impossible to use donations to increase the amount of money the university spends on aid.The article concludes with a (tennative) call to action, and is a direct result of the concerns Josh was bringing to light.
Apologies That should have read “a truly meaningful basis” rather than “no truly meaningful basis”. Somewhat alters the meaning. My brain is fried from finals.
The article explicitly states the University is $40 million short on financial aid donations this year. So explain to me how a fin aid donation won’t go to fin aid?
Where you say “short” I see it more as historically subsidized out of general funds. It’s entirely appropriate that the university direct the money of people who have given to the budget generally to support what we claim is one of our central purposes as an institution: accessibility and affordability. This isn’t a budget shortfall, it’s an (completely inadequate) allocation to a (supposedly) core institutional priority. We should demand a way to give to the financial aid such that we actually increase existing funding targets, not simply to free up general funds and/or projections. In my opinion that’s the major policy takeaway from the above post/ this whole conversation.
I know there was a lot of jargon there (http://wesleying.org/2013/12/09/the-68-percent-figure-where-did-it-come-from/), but read more carefully.
What pyrotechnics is claiming seems to be even more damaging than what Krugman was.
According to pyrotechnics there is a CAP on the percentage of the total annual budget that can be spent on financial aid, and that our donations will not increase this percentage.
I might be misreading Krugman and the Needblind activists as well, but it seems like the reality pyrotechnics presents is in fact more disturbing than what Krugman and the Needblind people describe. Krugman and the Needblind people make it sound like 32% of any donation will actually go to INCREASING spending on financial aid for that year, whereas according to pyrotechnics the cap is absolute.
It seems that this new information should be bolstering the position of Krugman and the Needblind activists, rather than being used against them.
As pyrotechnics makes clear if you make it to the end of his post: “there is currently no way for donors to increase the amount of money the University plans to spend on financial aid.”
I think you’re misunderstanding Josh (Krugman), possibly willfully. The point of withholding donations is not to immediately increase the amount of money the University has. Of course. That’s not what’s being put forward. What people are talking about is showing commitment and money behind demands for a slightly, slightly, slightly fairer institution. It’s a long term thing. It took hundreds of students getting arrested before the Board of Trustees divested from South Africa, and that was after over a decade of student organizing on the matter, and that’s probably an easier end goal than some semblance of fairness in financial aid, because the issue of apartheid in South Africa doesn’t directly affect the campus as much as financial aid does.
That’s an example to illustrate my point that I think Josh is talking in terms of how do we move forward in the push for fairer admissions and financial aid (among other things, hopefully), rather than how can the University have as much money as possible. Those are two distinct questions. I can see how these two can easily be confused, but it’s essential to see the difference, or things get very confusing.
I think that although it is important to clarify the 68% figure, it is
not the most important thing that Josh said–his larger point remains, and it remains unaddressed by a University that is comfortable putting its students tens of thousands of dollars in debt and then giving them an open bar at an event calling for donations.
Hell Yeah Brother!!
i was there, it was an awkward venue for this speech i think. but in writing it’s quite good. my only critique is that we can protest policy in a more constructive/creative way. i’m fine with giving wesleyan $5 for some sunglasses, it won’t make a difference in the grand scheme of money allocation.
but, the argument about skewed priorities is a valid one. it goes beyond financial aid, and that’s why this brave (drunk?) person’s rallying didn’t quite hit its mark for me. it also happens when alumni try to donate to something they cared about that was specific to their wesleyan experience, like a society or a major/department. i’ve heard about at least 2 historical instances when major “earmarked” donations were skimmed off of before given to the place they was supposedly donated to, in reduced form.
Shit, I mean, I don’t even know what earmarked means, maybe that’s the problem, that it’s written in checks addressed to the University. the University probably has the power to redirect the funds when this type of money is not given to the right people. It’s the University’s job to handle the big money, sure, but that doesn’t mean corruption isn’t an institutional mainstay in most universities-as-businesses…. Wesleyan is strapped, it seems like they have to be a business right now in order to survive, and that means principles have to descend from their soft, lofty perch and sit on the firey backburner.
I don’t think it’s Roth’s fault either, although he does say some dumb stuff about our school sometimes. remember that need blind interview with a wesleyan alum working for democracy now?
also i liked the party, it was weird and fun. thanks swag u got swag
Ms. Higgins, the problem with paying $5 for some sunglasses is that by paying those $5 you become a statistic that says X% of the Class of 2014 donated this year.
This statistic Wesleyan then uses against activists who claim that their peers are concerned about the discriminatory admissions policy and the larger issues of corrupt institutional priorities it represents.
Wesleyan says, if effect, “These young soon-to-be-alums can’t be all that dissatisfied with what we’re doing if X% of them decided contribute to the annual fund!”
yea i mean they can throw that shit at us in terms of % participation, but it won’t mean much. point is, as seniors, we can’t possibly persuade all the rich old alumni to withhold their spending. pimping out wesleyan is maybe all those old geezers have got left-the legacy of their past. i’m critiquing the whole shebang in terms of someone announcing this call to action to a bunch of seniors who have no money of their own to give-it seems to ask too much. that’s why i didn’t take it seriously. what can the senior and the students actually do to change the policy?
hmmm especially cause i won’t be able to give back unless future me means i’m a rich old person, which given the state of the economy and the earth itself might be never, i might just be dead from the apocalypse you know. im sinful but i guess im not greedy though, more of an economical or self-subsistent person myself. hey, if i have more than it takes to get by with, i might give them my sad old money, as long as welseyan stops oppressing all of the things i love about this place.
non sequitur. like can they fire all those evil administrators already??? reslife i mean woah they’re just perpetuating the fucked up shit being a soulless capitalistic demonseed that shows wesleyan doesnt necessarily care about student life/wellbeing. clearly the need blind activists have their heart in the right place. but can you really ask an institution this small and strapped that barely gets by to give back after its gotten away with changing that great old need blind policy? like all these justifications like we have no choice ahh it’s because times are hard! if so, please tell me how. things need to change. not like the students are saints, but i just think it’s bullshit
What has Wesleyan been recruiting?
I was brought up that it is actually rude for the wealthy to
dip from donations intended for the poor. Apparently at Wes you buy the privilege to be rude. If Roth had grabbed the mic would any dare call the Robin Hood of the rich a little rude? Let me tell you something… you steal my money I don’t care how white your collar, then I do think you are rude to me. Now somebody else come along and cries ‘thief’ the socially correct response to that person
however humble-looking is simply that I say ‘thank you sir’.
what about the fact that wes gave out free tickets to see the Blue Man Group yet freshmen still get put into forced triples in Clark. idk. priorities…
A lot of people are focusing on how appropriate what Josh or Jimmy did in that room. Both will be inappropriate or appropriate according to some people’s idea of what is appropriate.
Let’s reorient this discussion to talk about the actual issues! Krugman and the NeedBlind activist group are proposing that Wesleyan alums have a strong source of leverage to make the University more just, by using their choice to donate or withhold donation, and to explain this choice to upper-level administrators (Roth/Meerts/Boger etc.). Krugman claims that donating to the University won’t change its priorities. I’d like to hear someone respond to this.
Jimmy shouldn’t be the target of people’s anger, nor should Josh.
People who are angry should direct their anger at Roth and the administration for their ethically bankrupt priorities, or at Roth for slipping out the back instead of letting the poor organizers of the event bear the brunt of Krugman’s intervention, leaving them to deal alone with questions from the majority of the audience who thought Krugman’s message was worth hearing out and discussing.
YES. Thank you. Nobody deserves anonymous hate on the internet. Why is this comments section enabled? I love and respect Wesleying but I don’t see a lot of “moderation” when there are multiple posts calling a fellow student “an asshole” via internet comment.
While I obviously can’t say for sure, I can’t imagine that Josh’s intent was to demonize a fellow student. If you agree with him, do justice to the cause by leveling useful critique at the administration and not flaming someone who made a bad call that he probably already regrets and feels bad about.
Maybe Jimmy should not have let him speak but once he is going to let him the manner he stood over him is unacceptable
How would you have accomplished that without taking the actions that Mr. Hill did?
You guys are arguing over trivial things. Krugman and Hill could both be heroes or assholes as far as I’m concerned.
This is not a etiquette column! Who cares whether Hill or Krugman was more polite!
Krugman was trying, I think, to raise an issue that he thought should be discussed. Are you two interested in discussing it in this hallowed comment-space, or are you just interested in insulting one another?
Perhaps what we are arguing over is not the core issue, but excuse me for finding accusations of bullying to be salient enough to warrant a response. Perhaps where you come from accusations of bullying are in fact “trivial,” but that is not a trend I would like to see spread to this campus.
I believe the way Jimmy handled the situation was approprate.
Initially, Jimmy had no intention of letting Krugman speak. Krugman wrongfully took the mic continually refused to give the mic back and accused Jimmy of “strong-arming” him when Jimmy was lightly tapping him on the shoulder. This was clearly not an act of force or violence. After a comment from the crowd for Krugman to “keep it short”, Jimmy allowed him to speak. Krugman however, disagreed AGAIN with Jimmy’s terms by not agreeing to speak for 20 seconds (keeping it short). Jimmy, clearly embarrassed and frustrated by Krugman’s lack of cooperation decided to accelerate Krugman’s speech by standing beside him. Krugman argues that he should be afforded the same space as previous speakers, but Krugman was not even supposed to be there. You can’t break the rules and expect other people to follow them. It’s hypocritical.
Krugman then gives a concerning statistic of how the demographic breakdown of the Class of 2017 has changed since the change in policy, which Jimmy agrees to by snapping. Krugman then makes a ridiculous and unsubstantiated claim that only 32% of donations are contributed to financial aid, to which Jimmy tries to cut him off. Jimmy allowed Krugman to state his opinion and merely tried to cut him off as he was failing to “keep it short”, as previously agreed upon. Krugman may have never stopped speaking if Jimmy hadn’t forced his hand.
Jimmy was not “bullying” Krugman, just trying to do his job by having the event run smoothly. Krugman’s efforts were ruining all of the hard work done by Jimmy and the committee to help raise money for the University. I am sure, as a part of the Wesleyan community, Jimmy was upset in the removal of need-blind admissions and hopes that once the economic climate improves, we can return to the same policy.
Although need-blind is an very important issue, and Krugman raises solid arguments, it was rude to create a spectacle at a great event for the future of Wesleyan and for the Class of 2014. I commend Krugman for his bravery and passion to bring back need-blind, but I (and many others) believe a decline in donations will only augment financial aid issues and further move Wesleyan away from the awesome school we applied to 4 years ago.
The belief that not donating money in order to reverse the need-aware policy is clearly flawed because a decline in donations will only exacerbate the financial issues and the problems of a small endowment. It is not fair to judge the need-blind policy off of just one year. This is way too small of a sample size to analyze the affect the new policy will have. The fact that representation of some groups decreased slightly in one year proves nothing as it can easily be do to random year-to-year fluctuations.
People do have the right to their own opinion as well as the right to express it; however this was probably not the most appropriate situation to do so. From watching the video it seems like Jimmy handled the situation very well. To say that Jimmy physically intimidated the other student is incorrect. He was just trying to get the microphone back to regain control of the great event that Jimmy and the other SWAG directors organized. He remained calm and even made a joke about it after.
The worse thing about this whole situation is how people are attacking Jimmy on this blog. Disagreement over the school’s policy is no reason to publicly bash a fellow student. Show some respect for someone who is trying to make Wesleyan University a better place.
I believe unbiased viewers of that video will see Jimmy patronizing and bullying a fellow student. I agree that while this might not have been the right forum for Josh, Jimmy’s patronizing and demeaning behavior was a form of bullying. I think when there is a public video of a Wesleyan student bullying another, something must be said.
RE: random year-to-year fluctuations:
Let’s broaden the frame!
Last year the percentage of black matriculants was the lowest in 5 years.
Last year the percentage of first generation college matriculants was the lowest in 5 years.
Last year the percentage of students receiving grant aid was four percentage points lower than the second lowest year in the last five years.
Last year, domestically, the number of students from (comparatively affluent) New England was one percentage point off from a five-year high, while the percentages of students from the mid-west and south were at five year lows.
RE: clearly flawed:
Give us a good argument for a better way to pressure the University to stand up for its principles, even in hard times, than to vocally refuse to donate in a year in which the University seems very far from showing this sort of ethical courage.
Aren’t those statistics still part of bigger things?
“In particular, from 2001 to 2011, the percentage of students coming from
families with at least $150,000 in annual income has gone from 30% to
47%. This is worth repeating: despite the University’s commitment to
“need-blind” admissions and financial aid, and despite the fact that
financial aid has almost doubled as a percentage of the university’s
operating budget over the past 15 years, the percentage of students in
the senior class coming from the highest income levels has gone from
less than a third to almost half in roughly the same period. Most of
this increase can be accounted for by a corresponding decrease over the
same period in the proportion of students coming from families in the
$50,000 to $150,000 range–from 51% of seniors in 2001 to 37% of seniors
in 2011. (Over the same period, the percentage of students coming from
families with income less than $50,000 fell slightly, from 19% to 16%.)”
Tuition is absurdly high. Tons of us are in debt. All of this is happening in the context of extreme income inequality in the US, and so the University is chasing the money. And in a place where elite=rich and white and educated, you’ve got the University trying to appeal to people with money who went to school for so many years it hurt (they are overwhelmingly white, these people). None of this is a flaw in Josh’s argument. They are difficult realities we’ve got to grapple with, or we’ll just keep talking in circles while Wesleyan gets to be a place, once again, ONLY for the super-elite and most of what’s good about it will be gone, and the rest of the country will be following the same trend.
This wouldn’t even be an issue if Obama wasn’t re-elected
“Hey everyone! Let’s fight the recent need-blind policy change (a result of the university’s lack of cash) by giving even less money to our struggling university!” -Krugman
“That guy’s a dumbass.” -everybody that isn’t a butt-hurt leftist techie
Just the fact that there is already so much bellyaching about Josh being “disruptive” reveals a huge insecurity about this issue. Why the immediate urge to silence him, coming first from Jimmy and now from these spiteful commentators? What does anyone have to lose by listening to him? Are you afraid he might change your mind? Afraid you’ll turn into a “hippie?” (please please, anything but that!) …In my book, unwillingness to listen to others shows a deep lack of confidence in your views, if you have them.
Do you think after 2 years of hearing the same protest, people have not made up their minds and are really wavering with their loyalties to said issue. What people have to lose is the direct disrespect shown to them by a kid who is deliberately trying to make a scene. I like that he had numbers to back himself up, but I think people have a right to call the kid disruptive. That’s in essence part of why we’re talking about it, right.
Is there anything tangible behind this nebulous ‘deep lack of confidence’ or are you just taking the role of The Contrarion
Food for thought
Heaven forbid a five-minute act of planned and deliberate public protest be called “disruptive”!!!
Food for thought
It is irrational to believe that a decrease in donations will bring back need blind. Even if only an imaginary 32% figure is going to financial aid, 32% is better than 0%. Financial aid is possible due to the generosity of donors. More donations leads to more financial aid. Eventually someone has to pay the bill…
And financial aid cannot be the ONLY priority for Wesleyan, especially with its subpar endowment. What good is increasing the financial aid budget at the expense of maintaining our campus’s valuable resources – its facilities, its faculty and staff? Krugman’s commendable and well-articulated stance must be backed up by mathematics. I do not defend the lack of transparency on the administration’s part, but I cannot possibly defend unsustainable practices. How do Krugman et al. suggest we shift resources? What should the University cut?
administrative salaries, landscaping, and athletics
I didn’t go to the event because I think it’s a bit herby and douchey myself. I also have issue with that kid Josh’s means of communication because clearly by going to a Fundraiser and not an Open Forum on the subject you know you’re going to be disrespectful and cause a relative scene. He’s also being disrespectful to a lot of people who spent time in support of a cause they care about equally and just putting a middle finger in their face. So in the man hours department Josh is looking like a real tool here in my eyes also.
With that said, Wesleying you should feel proud of yourself. You’ve accomplished what very few student gossip sites posing as pseudo-journalistic blog sites can accomplish. You kept the facade of news up long enough to deflect the increasingly noticeable odious smell of your shitty writing. And you guys are now a site that takes on bullying INDIVIDUALS at a University and having them represent ‘The Man’ in your contained-student-but-still-realistic-hahaha-lives. You guys should decide whether or not you are a news site or a gossip column and pick one, it’s getting annoying.
its clear to me that both of you are friends of Jimmy’s.
its also clear that Jimmy is physically accosting Josh.
you guys are so full of shit your eyes are brown.
I know Jimmy and dislike him. I take greater issue with the tactics this shitty website has taken upon the feelings of an individual. Calling a shitty gossip site like I see it, I guess
Honestly, I can’t think of anything more gossipy than getting on a website and publicly proclaiming you don’t like someone under the shade of anonymity.
Never was denying my own propensity for the Gab–hence my presence on the comments section of Wesleying.
However, it doesn’t take away from the spectacle/point and stare whilst taking the least provocative stance tactics of the site that irked me in the first place.
I am glad to see the mods have admitted to not being an objective source of Wesleyan University matters, and even happier to see their belief that linking me to other articles of theirs will somehow change an opinion.
Staff writers capable of dishing out thought provoking pieces, DON’T VALORIZE A KID–NOT A CAUSE–BY NAME AND THEN EXPECT OTHER INDIVIDUALS NOT TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE SAME LIGHT.
Having access to so many readers, deserved or not, is a unique role. Handling it so haphazardly and without foresight makes me think the role is a potentially problematic one.
Whenever a post like this generates a lot of dialogue, we always do a follow-up post (see any of last year’s coverage on tour de franzia, holi flier incident, etc) with more thorough coverage, often getting input from the ‘other side(s)’ as well.
You can look forward to that and maybe complain on that comments section too.
We posted the video because a) it’s relevant to need-blind, which is a campus issue, and b) Josh’s speech was discussed extensively both at the moment and after the fact. We try to cover as much that occurs on campus as possible. Also, we do not claim to be objective.
The last thing Wesleying will try to do is bully Wesleyan students. We’re completely on the side of students, always. That said, Wesleying isn’t responsible for any reader comments that disagree with the actions of any Wesleyan student. We will, however, moderate any comments that are personal attacks, hateful, or libelous.
Don’t really know how to respond to your gossip-site bit, except to say that Wesleying has always had a range of articles, from the interesting-mundane (http://wesleying.org/2012/12/05/spotted-deer-head-on-a-stop-sign/) to more pressing campus issues, (http://wesleying.org/2013/05/07/does-the-administration-really-care-more-about-tour-de-franzia-than-sexual-assault/) and it will continue to be that way.
bla i dont like ur ideas/diction. i don’t think wesleying was bullying the dude, just tryna raise awareness or something? also, it’s not like this is the acb, you have to at least be a student to comment. let wesleying delete the trolly comments man dont engage them i bet the trolls didn’t even go like you didn’t even go! i went it was rad
This was Jimmy’s event, designed to get senior students to donate to the class gift. He’s paid for doing this job by the University and he’s passionate about it. He does nothing wrong by trying to take the mic away from a random student trying to convince students not to donate. Josh is out of line, Jimmy isn’t. Stop berating Jimmy online for doing his job.
was it his job to man handle josh and physically intimidate him? also love that the excuse for this is that he was “just following orders.” that by no means excuses his behavior. i think we all expect more from our fellow students, whether or not they are working for the man.
forget about working for the man…its Jimmy’s event, not Josh’s place to say whatever he wants. U don’t attend a concert, run up and grab the microphone and then start preaching to the audience.
if it needs to be said, it should be said. when would have been a more appropriate time? if i’m not mistaken, josh was responding to speeches that had just happened asking people to donate. he has just as much a right to speak as they do. fuck decorum, it needed to be said.
Ok, so how does refusing to donate help Wes get off need blind? Why does it need to be said I actually don’t get it? Deciding vocally not to donate won’t fix the problem. School needs money to be need-blind. There’s currently not enough money. Not donating definitely won’t encourage the admin to go back to need-blind…
How are you so sure it won’t encourage the U to give NB another chance? Do you have a better idea for how to put pressure on the administration, to convince the administration that alums are disturbed by the effects of the new admissions policy?
Josh said in his speech that the administration uses the percentage of alums who donate as ammo against activists who claim that alumni are concerned about the new discriminatory policy.
In light of this it seems like the only reasonable thing to do is to refuse to provide the U with this ammo against its progressive students, parents, and alums, by refusing to donate as long as these destructive policies are in effect.
I just want to clarify that this is not me. I’m not sure I agree that not donating is the most effective way at making wes a better place, but I definitely support Josh in advocating for another way of thinking about donations at what sounds like a pretty propagandaish event. It’s not this kid Jimmy’s event it’s the senior class’s event, and as a concerned member of the senior class with something to say, Josh should be given space.
And also who is this other Wesleyan-related Mickey pushing conformism on the internets??? making me all uncomfortable.
-Mickey Capper ’13
mickey WE love you
source for the 68% figure sorely needed. and bravo, Josh! i’m far prouder in the direct action of students like you than in the milquetoast neoliberal bs of this institution
This is bizarre. The guy with suit clearly was intimidating Josh. (I can’t believe he’s a student – what a jerk.)
Josh made some good points. As an alum, a former recipient of serious financial aid, and the son of an alum, I have a deep loyalty to Wes. I’ve donated to the Annual Fund until recently. Maybe I’ve changed, but it seems that the University under Roth has slicker, more image-conscious, and less honest. The bottom line, use you Wesleyan education and (hopefully) expanded mind to support whatever groups or causes you wish, but don’t allow yourselves to be taken for granted or elbowed into a donation.
(BTW, I still can’t grasp the Fight Song biz.)
Also fuck that band for following jimmys orders…
Anyone read Vonnegut’s Sirens of Titan? On the planet Mars, whenever anyone starts thinking independent or political thoughts, the computer chips in their brains play this song about tent rentals:
Rented a tent a tent a tent
Rented a tent a tent a tent
Rented a tent!
Rented a tent!
Rented a rented a tent!
and everyone immediately is distracted from or forgets their independent or political thoughts. RESIST THE WESLEYAN FIGHT SONG!
Whether or not Jimmy Hill had the right to be an asshole during this event, he is an asshole anyway. As a transfer student, my only negative experiences at Wesleyan have been on the basketball court and Jimmy Hill has been a part of most of them. His strong-manning and bullying are not unique to this event. There is a distinct lack of decency in his behavior and this arrogance is not acceptable.
fuck macho/bro bullshit
I once observed from afar as Jimmy found an injured bird which had prematurely fallen from its nest. Jimmy proceeded to nurse this bird back to health and constructed an intricate pulley system to direct the bird back to its home. Jimmy then beat “Onedude” in basketball and “Onedude” was butthurt. Keep working on that 15 footer, bro.
Jimmy Hill is not an “asshole” for trying to force him off the stage — he was running the event and responsible for getting as many students as possible to donate to the senior gift. Josh Krugman forced his way onto the stage, grabbed the mic without permission, refused to give it back, and then went on a 5 minute rant explicitly telling everyone NOT to do what Hill was asking everyone to do: donate to Wes. Krugman has the freedom to say whatever he wants, but he does NOT have the freedom to ruin someone’s else event and silence others’ voices in the process.
Jimmy Hill is not an “asshole” for trying to force him off the stage — he was running the event and responsible for getting as many students as possible to donate to the senior gift. Josh Krugman forced his way onto the stage, grabbed the mic without permission, refused to give it back, and then went on a 5 minute rant explicitly telling everyone NOT to do what Jimmy was asking everyone to do: donate to Wes. Krugman has the freedom to say whatever he wants, but he does NOT have the freedom to ruin someone’s else event and silence others’ voices in the process.
What do you mean by “forced” his way on the stage? Did he exert PHYSICAL force against Jimmy? It seemed more than obvious that Jimmy was physically manhandling Josh and was being completely intolerant of Josh’s freedom to inquiry and expression (as expressed in the Joint Statement on the Rights and Freedoms of Students). The entire audience was literally yelling “Let him Speak!” repeatedly when Jimmy was attempting to pry the mic from Josh’s hands.
Josh was not “silencing” anyone’s voice, he was only having his OWN voice be silenced
The Code of Non-Academic Conduct clearly states that Krugman has no right to do what he did: Regulation 1, disturbance of the peace, does not allow “Disorderly and disruptive conduct”. I would certainly say that Krugman was disrupting Hill’s event. Regulation 12, disruptions, also states: “Protests, sit-ins, demonstrations, student strikes, and other forms of expressions also violate the Code of Non- Academic Conduct when they: Disrupt or obstruct curricular, co-curricular, or administrative/operational activities of the University”.
Seriously, do you think this type of behavior is acceptable? Should you be allowed to disrupt class by yelling over the professor? Steal the mic from President Roth at graduation and go on a rant about the hot-button issue du jour? Krugman can say whatever he wants, but not when he disturbs others or doesn’t let them talk.
“Should you be allowed to disrupt class by yelling over the professor?”
He wasn’t yelling over anyone though, all the others had finished their speeches. He was simply adding a much needed dissenting voice to what had already been said. Michael Roth has many many platforms from which to encourage people to give to Wesleyan. People like Josh, with a message less friendly to the power dynamics of this institution, are not so fortunate. So sometimes they may have to offend your’s and Hill’s evidently very finely tuned sense of decorum.
It seems that you, like many here, are missing the point of what Josh was trying to accomplish: YES he was trying to make a disruption, because his speech was a form of peaceful, non-violent direct action protest ! He was trying to disrupt the peace (and by ‘peace’ I mean blind conformity to this institution’s controversial, discriminatory policies). That’s the whole point!
I think YOU are missing the point: I’m not trying to say Josh should never break the rules. I’m not trying to say anyone should never break the rules. But you can’t vilify the organizer of the event for trying to prevent Krugman from hijacking it! He was breaking the rules, so the organizer had every right to try and prevent him from doing that. People here are anonymously demonizing HIll for trying to prevent someone from ruining something that he worked very hard for.
What about the incredibly patronizing demeanor with which he treated him?
Let’s all follow the rules! That’s the only way to make the world a better place!
Care to clarify whose voices Krugman was “silencing” during the course of his “rant”?
he def didn’t ‘ruin’ the event – pretty sure he improved it
This is awesome! Thanks to Josh and Leo do this! You guys rock!
Eh, I’m not buying this.
who is that asshole who was trying to force him off the stage?!
What’s the name of the punk in the suit?
I don’t agree with the philosophy of withholding donations, I dislike how rude whoever that person was in regards to letting Josh speak. The admin needs to be clearer at all donation events about why we have left need blind. Also, the 68% of fin aid donation money going into the operating budget is a figure I haven’t seen confirmed anywhere. I just see it in petitions without any citations of where that number came from.
let’s see some real empirical data bitches thats all our generation wants!
On the 68% figure: http://wesleying.org/2013/12/09/the-68-percent-figure-where-did-it-come-from/
Fuck yeah!! this is awesome, way to go Josh!
Who’s the dick that swiped at the mic and then told the band to play louder?
Seems like a real asshole.
and then snapped at one of Krugman’s points …
Probably to try not to seem like an asshole.
Regardless of the validity of Krugman’s points, this was NOT the place or time to freely speak his mind. It is unfair to call Hill an “asshole” as he was merely trying to do his job to run the event smoothly. The event was not intended to be a debate on financial aid, it was trying to create unity within the senior class. Although the interaction probably could have been handled better, I don’t disagree with Hill’s motives.
EVERYWHERE is the place to talk about financial aid. You can’t just sweep issues under the rug and try to have a carefree fundraising cocktail party whilst silencing students who have IMPORTANT dissenting opinions. Fuck your fancy event.
Keeping things “civil” has always been the defense of people who know they are wrong and want to keep the status quo the same.
I thought Krugman was very brave, and was very polite in his delivery of the message. Hill laid his hands on him and if that is not against some kind of Code of Conduct, I don’t know what is. A disgusting display of behavior from a Wesleyan student. That man should be absolutely ashamed of himself.