Open Letter from the Eclectic Society
Eclectic has posted an open letter to the Wesleyan community on their website.
Monday, March 23rd, 2009Open Letter from Eclectic:
First, we want to thank you for your support so far. There are almost 700 signatures on the petition to overturn the House Hosting Ban. Musicians, event organizers, WSA members, faculty, enthusiastic students, and alums have expressed unease with the SJB and the administration's actions in this case.
Unfortunately, President Michael Roth rejected our formal appeal. Before break, we were hesitant to release a factual public statement before we had gone through the provided channels of appeal, out of consideration for the pending status of our appeal, and the individual students implicated therein. Now that we've exhausted formal channels, President Roth is back from Asia, and we are all back from break, we turn to you.
Here are the facts as we see them: on December 8, the last day of classes, there was a party at our house. A neighbor called in three noise complaints in a row, with the intent of getting the event shut down. Some Eclectic alums had come to visit, and, disappointed that the event was stopped, moved upstairs to the Gote room with a smaller group of people. That gathering too was broken up, and the vast majority of guests left. An individual Eclectic resident started to play music in his room later, with no more than 10 friends. Public Safety stopped him. The SJB charged the Society as a whole for these infractions, despite alums and hosts' willingness to take individual responsibility for their actions.
Our objection to this punishment is manifold: We were given an abbreviated hearing rather than a full hearing, but given a punishment that can only be dispensed by the full SJB. We believe that Assistant Director of Student Affairs Scott Backer, rather than the SJB as a whole, decided upon this ban. In the flurry of meetings that ensued with Backer, Dean Mike Whaley, and President Roth, Backer was inconsistent. The SJB sanction dated 2/26 specifically banned "performances, gatherings, parties, or any events". After students expressed shock on Wesleying and other forums, Backer hastily sent us a new letter, back-dated to 2/26, with revised wording restricting "social events, parties, concerts, or other events that fit the requirements of the Social Event Policy". Furthermore, Backer first told us that he was punishing irresponsible event hosts rather than Eclectic; however, in his formal "Rationale" for the punishment, he cited untried individual infractions of both members and non-members all the way back to September. He particularly alluded to guests who showed up intoxicated to our ticketed, non-alcoholic events, and required medical assistance. We are surprised to be punished for assisting students, none of whom were Society members, in what we thought was compliance with University expectations.
The student body and our Society are being antagonized for unrelated incidents that took place over a long period of time, rather than any specific, punishable incident. We believe that this punishment undermines the legitimacy of Wesleyan's judicial system. Most importantly, we strongly believe that the punishment is overly broad, punishing not only Eclectic, but the Wesleyan student body: the dedicated hosts, musicians, organizers, and attendees that make Eclectic, and the Wesleyan campus, what they are. 70% of student-run events are scheduled to take place at Eclectic this semester. We hold Scott Backer accountable for his misled intent to squash student social life, just as he was misled when he suggested prohibition of alcohol on campus last year. We hold Michael Roth accountable for overlooking our appeal in favor of blind trust, despite the established appeals system.
We will continue to look to you for support in the coming week, and will keep you posted on our plans. Already, the Sound Co-op has expressed their solidarity with Eclectic and the student body, and disappointment with the administration's complacency. We welcome any suggestions you might have for additional ways of communicating to the administration that student social life is not dispensable.
Sincerely,
The Eclectic Society
70 comments:
hey dudes, i posted the eclectic letter because no one had followed up after adam's call for more information even though it was being provided. sorry for using the mama account. feel free to edit the post.
i guess this pretty clearly shows that the punishment doesn't fit the crime.
I would like to see scott backer fired, this is the last straw as far as I'm concerned. He's got to be behind this ridiculous situation.
right...because none of your previous violations played any part in the severity of your punishment. You expect me to believe that they are going to dole out this sort of response for one night's violations. I don't think so.
Despite what the conspiracy theorists think, the SJB are not out to get the student body, nor is the admin. I find it hard to believe that this boils down to Scott Backer's personal vendetta against eclectic. So he switched his story, but at least you can have other types of events now.
And you being "hesitant to release a factual public statement" is bull. All that has been done is obscuring the facts to drum up public support. Yes it sucks. Yes it is a bad situation. Yes there are ways to work around it. Perhaps it was a bit of an overboard punishment. Perhaps Eclectic need to rethink how they run parties.
The SJB can't release the facts because they are bound by confidentiality, so we are only hearing one side.
Also where are you getting your 70% statistic? There are tons of other events going on, but maybe they are too small or something for you to count them.
I'm getting really fed up with this whole situation. Just own up to what happened. Work out ways to get around it and start planning for the future.
^ sounds like an administrator
Xue I was JUST about to do that.
1:06
You are obviously not a student at Wesleyan, and if you are, I fear for your unthinking trust of the administration. Do you have any idea of Eclectic's history with the administration? They get shit on every year for willingly hosting other people's events and up until now, I was under the impression that students understood this. Eclectic just posted what they were charged with, what else do you want? You obviously live in a world where only your observations can be correct, so why don't you write a history of what really happened and submit that to ease your cognitive dissonance regarding the idea that the school can and is wrong about many things they do.
I am most definitely a Wesleyan student, not an administrator, and one with experience with the admin and the way events are run.
I think the punishment was harsh and really sucks and my gut instinct when I heard about the situation was to feel horrible for eclectic and to ask what I could do to help. However as time has gone on and I've heard more and more complications, I trust less and less of what eclectic has been saying. The administration have been known to overreact, but they normally have good reasoning. (Also, you accuse me of blind trust in the administration, which is silly, I'm just a person fed up with only hearing angry students)
What I would like is for this whole thing to be over with. But that isn't going to happen. There have been other violations in the past, do you think this could just have been the straw that broke the camel's back?
- 1:06
@ 1:06
Kudos for saying exactly what I've been thinking in an articulate manner
1:06, We said that Backer's "rationale" for the punishment mentions "untried individual infractions of both members and non-members all the way back to September" and gave some examples (paragraph 4). The SJB tried us for a noise complaint, but is punishing the student body for random infractions committed (mostly by non-Eclectic members) under one roof over four months. We're not saying someone is "out to get" us. Still, we believe that Backer has been, at best, misguided in his actions, and we hope to correct that. Please rethink where you are directing your ire on this.
Unless I'm mistaken, the SJB recommends a punishment to the Dean of Students (the EVIL Scott Backer), which he then approves and informs the student. So Scott Backer wasn't the person that made this sanction, the STUDENT MEMBERS of the SJB made the sanction.
1. Don't unthinkingly blame the administration every time a problem occurs.
2. Hopefully our fellow students aren't abusing their power.
3. Interesting articles:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455219391652725.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/18/education/18college.html?em
Oh, and I am in fact a student and not an administrator for those of you that will start crying wolf.
If they had an abbreviated hearing no students were involved with the punishment.
@3:18 that's just blatantly wrong.
What is true is that Scott Backer "suggests" to the SJB which charges and sanctions to consider, and the SJB rarely assert themselves to go against his suggestions.
3:34
correct. It seems that some people asked for the truth but when they got it they realized that's not really what they wanted. They just wanted to be right and they wanted Eclectic to be wrong.
I'm quite tired of the anonymous wesleying/ACB poster becoming an adjudicator of truth. Eclectic has given you our side of the story as objectively as possible. I find it hard to believe that any student who cares about student culture on campus would sympathize with Scott Backer and the SJB. Please stop pretending to be evaluating this situation based on who is telling the truth.
I'm evaluating the situation based on the fact that most of the ecclectics I have interacted are total douchebags and that their response to a debateably out of line punishment is to throw a tantrum that makes them seem like 2 year olds and has a significantly more powerful negative effect both on the campus at large and on individuals than the initial punishment
@Ben:
Seconded. Whoever is writing the posts decrying eclectic needs to stop posting anonymously and stand behind hir statements.
700 signatures = less than 25% of the undergraduate student body. That speaks volumes right there, especially at a place like Wesleyan where you can get 300 signatures on virtually any petition put up in Usdan.
at 3:16, re:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122455219391652725.html
i don't think students are being "entitled" or have "high expectations" for making a stink about the hosting ban. eclectic has been hosting shows for decades, and i highly doubt that the current infractions are much worse than what has come before.
as a senior, I've seen this school continuously disregard potential for a dynamic student life over cost cutting and liability issues. charge us a fortune to use Beckham hall? build a new student center with a tiny, unusable MPR? shut down the westco cafe for innocuous drinking violations?
these actions follow a markedly conservative trend the school seems to be taking.. rumors about letting more science and less art-oriented students.. building an expensive yet utterly dysfunctional student center to try to update the campus' image.. i've heard from an alum '65 that many higher-ups want westco to be a normal GRS dorm..
i'm pissed that the school seems so casually willing to hold dynamic use of student space above our heads for leverage. take away their fun and maybe they'll behave better. "you can have back eclectic when you've thought about what you've done." that is childish. student events are more than a privilege; when you are paying 50 grand to be here, you are, like any client, entitled to a certain amount of services as advertised. if wesleyan is not willing to foster an engaging arts scene, they should stop advertising that they do. if so much of our 50 grand goes towards student activities, the administration had better treat diversity of events with more respect than what comes from a 3 person SJB hearing.
that is what sound co-op is doing by withholding its services. pointing out the fact that campus events, orchestrated by 'hipsters' or not, are too important to be swept under the rug as a disciplinary means of control. if the students truly care about what happens here, they will do something, say something, say anything, instead of griping about how much eclectic are "douchebags." if students are not willing to actively question the appropriateness of the SJB's decision, then school has truly succeeded in creating a docile, predictable, and truly fucking lame campus climate.
4:55:
In the interest of keeping people from being disingenuous or willfully misrepresenting the facts, 700 (the number of students who have signed the petition) divided by 2700 (the current undergraduate student body, as reported here: http://www.wesleyan.edu/about/profile.html) = .259, or approximately 26%.
I don't know what volume of speech that equals, exactly (decibels being logarithmic and therefore confusing to a humanities major like me), but feel free to enlighten me at your leisure.
@ 5.31 pm:
well said.
The fact that Eclectic has only recently revealed the details that led to their sentence, and said details are hardly volatile and should have been said from the get-go, are the reasons I am suspicious and have not yet signed the petition. I need FULL DISCLOSURE for this, and for ANYTHING, to warrant my signature.
oh mah gawd, what is full disclosure??? this is it guys, fer serious, this is it, this is what the society was charged with and you are going to have to get over the fact that it doesn't seem possible because it IS. This is it, this is it, this is it. Who is allowed to provide full disclosure? what is full disclosure? If the statement was made by some random administrator would you believe it? Do you need full disclosure to believe everything you're not sure about? I really don't think the society itself has anything left to put out there. The facts are, either the SJB was really lazy and had no idea how many shows happen at Eclectic sponsored by other kids or Scott Backer was really lazy and had no idea how many shows happen at Eclectic sponsored by other kids. Who is it? the kids that go here that actually live here every day? Or the guy who was hired last year and tried to ban alcohol and has a notoriously bad report with many student administrators?
To anyone who thinks 25% of the student body signing something is a small number: clearly you've never tried to get anything signed in large numbers.
An example: missing from those 700 signatures is my own signature. I support eclectic, but I never noticed an easy link to the petition, or if I did, didn't feel like it at that moment. So sure, I'm not passionately committed to the eclectic cause, but I certainly think the punishment was disproportionate.
The sound co-op is misguided in their solidarity with Eclectic. Their refusal to help put on concerts in other venues has limited campus events even further. I don't know what the fuck their hoping to achieve, but their not going about it in a constructive manner.
7:21 pm, there is a link to the petition right at the top of this page. Wesleying's had it there for about three weeks now. You are incredibly passive and lazy.
yeah, fuck those science students!
"The SJB tried us for a noise complaint, but is punishing the student body..."
The SJB isn't punishing the student body, they're punishing Eclectic. If anything, this situation should encourage members to realize the significance of their society on campus and to handle themselves a bit more maturely.
The SJB may have considered the cases of individual Eclectic members, but if the SJB saw a trend of infractions by Eclectic members in the Eclectic house, I think they had the right to punish the house as a whole.
It feels like Eclectic is trying to spread their pain onto the student body. Of course we feel it, but this whole thing is yours to own up to, not ours. It's your responsibility to "be on your best behavior" by turning away people and events that could get you in trouble, or telling your hallmate to turn down their music, or by freakin' patting people down for boos at the front door if you have to! because Eclectic is important. Eclectic is the events it hosts, but it's also its members.
The members need to realize that their individual actions, especially the type that lead to SJB infractions, can have horrible consequences for everyone.
Student '09
@7:47
hear hear
7:47, they have horrible consequences for everyone if those doling out punishment want them to. also, the statement says that a lot of the previous infractions were non-members. It seems like if anything, Backer doesn't really know how Eclectic works, and the fact that people in the house for parties aren't necessarily in the society.
7:47
The SJB is absolutely punishing the student body. Punishing Eclectic would involve either punishing the group collectively or not allowing Eclectic sponsored events to happen in their own house. Given the number of events that happen at Eclectic that are completely not under the guise of the society and the fact that the SJB considered those infractions as part of a punishment for the society, your logic is exactly the opposite of what really happened. The society, as usual, got punished for events that they were generous enough to sponsor, and then, because of ONE night with noise complaints that was their fault, mind you no alcohol or drugs, no hospital, no destruction of property nothing but noise complaints, the entire house gets shut down because all the prior infractions of other people outside the society got rolled into one punishment.
Additionally, tell me exactly what 'trend of infractions' you are aware of that everyone else isn't. This was never about individual member infractions because there aren't any and Eclectic was not tried for a combination of individual infractions.
I'm sure Eclectic will be much more cautious about letting any events happen now, much to the chagrin of the campus and to the detriment of social life for a good many people.
*host, not sponsor
Eclectic has owned up. They said that the individuals responsible were willing to shoulder the burden for their actions that night and were denied that opportunity. the bottom line is, the SJB is designed to try ONE infraction at a time. The "rationale" is a 'character witness' - i.e. a way to establish that the character of a person/institution is flawed. Eclectic is not being punished for the events in the rationale, nor is the SJB designed to punish a "trend" of behavior. There were no three strikes in this case. The punishment and the charge are for one specific event. How could a justice system function otherwise?
8:07
"...in his formal "Rationale" for the punishment, he cited untried individual infractions of both members and non-members all the way back to September."
I'll acknowledge that I unintentionally latched on to member infractions instead of both member and nonmember infractions.
Imagine you have a friend who runs a dance hall that hosts and throws parties, but since September, has had the cops show up on several occasions for various reasons. Now imagine that this dance hall was on a street with several other dance halls, none of them were as good, but none of them have received nearly the same amount of police attention as your friend's dance hall. If your friend went to court and was told to shut down all activity at the dance hall for three months (ouch, harsh), would you say that the court had no right to do so because people like your dance hall better? Would you say that the judge and jury had some anti-hipster vendetta against your friend's dance hall, or would you think that maybe your friend lost control of their space and needed some time to get themselves back on track?
This comparison is lame and probably full of holes, but here are my points. Eclectic: You've been beating your chests like you're the shit and that the student-body is indebted to you for your graciousness, but you're not invincible. At the end of the day, you were in charge of the gatherings, concerts, etc. that went on in your house, and you failed to manage them properly, so they were taken away from you. That kind of thing happens all the time outside of Wesleyan. Music-Loving-Students: Eclectic was a great place, but it isn't the only one. Until it reopens, get creative. Sound Co-Op: If this whole ordeal is truly about on-campus music, your strike isn't helping the students who would like to make the best of this situation by rescheduling their performances elsewhere. If some other venue had been banned, would you take this stance? Prefrosh: Eclectic will be open in the fall. I have nothing to say to the SJB, because confidentiality would keep it from saying anything back.
8:26
I don't know much about the justice system, but doesn't the mob get busted this way?
Call me annoying, ask me how I could dare think these things, whatever, whatever.
The SJB explicitly follows a progressive sanctioning model. That means that the more times a person fucks up the harsher punishments are for future fuck ups. Also wasn't Eclectic on probation at the time?
I beg of you all who say things should be moved to other venues. What venues? Have you seen the schedule for beckham? Booked forever. Westco Cafe? taken over by reslife which is so sad. MPR? What MPR? Davison? Shut down two years ago. CFA? All school run events and administrators hate student run events there and you can only sit. Student houses? Is there a single house on campus you can fit more than 50 people in comfortably? No. and it's not even allowed. AND the hosts would probably get a noise complaint and get shut down for a month.
What venues exactly does everyone have in mind that will hold enough people for shows larger than 25?
9:01 pm
Now let's say for instance, that there are 5 dance halls on a street. Four of those dance halls are privately owned, meaning that the "cops" need permission before busting in and searching the floors. One of them is owned by the city, therefore the "cops" can come in at any time, search anything they want, and blame everything on that certain dance hall. Where do you think the "cops" will get people in trouble?
Things ain't as great as they seem for them eclectics.
Also, if anyone is really going to blame the past offenses that eclectic has been tried for on only the society, they should reconsider. Should Eclectic be held responsible when another organization hosts a party in Eclectic, hires Event Staff, no alcohol is served, and some drunk-ass freshman gets trucked off in an ambulance because they drank too much in Fauver?
I get it, it's my fault you drink too much. Don't come to Eclectic ever again if you're going to fuck shit up.
@9:28
Technically, it is the organization's responsibility to make sure that they do as much as possible to make sure tanked up freshman don't enter their nonalcoholic parties, and it's the space owner (Eclectic, and ultimately the university) who is responsible for making sure the organization does the most they can to meet this objective. Just from a legal perspective.
Also, just because the other societies aren't owned by the university doesn't mean they can ignore psafe's rules. Letting psafe in and helping them do their job is a lot better than forcing their hand and having someone call Middletown police.
wait a sec, yes, yes they can completely ignore p-safe's rules if the problem is minor and won't warrant a call to the police like most things p-safe busts people for. And if kids are so wasted they need to go to the hospital they can be told to walk across the street, onto 'school' property and then who cares what happens. The law is very clear, people, not so much.
9:20 and 9:28
I see your points. What if Eclectic looked into negotiating, or renegotiating, an arrangement with the school? Perhaps stipulating that member infractions can't be used against the society. But would that be too much special consideration?
Emphasizing Eclectic's role as strictly a "space" might get somewhere with the higher-ups. Could there be some sort of contract between Eclectic and the organizations it hosts stating that the organization is responsible for any event-related infractions?
10:15
yup, there is a brand new event contract making the host organization liable for cleanup an any infractions caused during it's event. It was just finalized with SALD, about a week before the ban was announced, so it's never had a chance to be used yet but its definitely a step in the right direction in terms of making liability very clear
I'm kind of getting sick of hearing about this, not to be a douche. The link to the petition has been pushed in peoples' faces enough already. Everyone who has wanted to sign has signed. The end.
Also, somewhere hidden in Eclectic's letter here, they mention that the SJB quickly changed its "ruling" to allow for events other than raucous parties, basically. One of the reasons I (and many others) signed was because we felt that canceling lectures and other events was unreasonable. That was apparently no longer the case, though, and Eclectic hadn't bothered to tell us until now. They're just fighting for their right to party, but trying to make it sound more noble. Partying is great, and it's fine if you want to make a petition for it, but don't try to pretend its for something else. Dishonestly campaigning for signatures is pretty shady business.
Awaiting angry responses now...
11:10
Here you go:
the ruling was changed after eclectic made it's initial announcement that all events were canceled. Scott Backer post-dated this new message to us with the same date as the original even though it came at least a day later. That's called lying but as a consequence it made us look bad because it looked like we were sensationalizing the situation when in reality the wording of the punishment was changed to allow for 'daytime' events after students became angry. The change was definitely posted somewhere before break but I understand if everyone isn't keeping track of this whole situation to the T because it's just so exciting. Nevertheless, we as a society are equally as tired of this, you cannot imagine the hours wasted trying to get this all changed. Honestly, the hosting ban won't stop Eclectic parties, because there are no more big parties to be had this year, just concerts and art shows and the like. Just ignore any postings with 'eclectic' in the title if you're tired, it's not hard and it's not like there's a public stink every day that you have to make your way through to get to class.
@11:10
Concerts are not just about parties. Music is a major at this school, to discount its importance on this campus is really a shame. Sure the events are during "party time" but so are cultural nights, dance performances, and plays. Are these things less important than history lectures? Is one major at this school more important than others?
You're gonna know if you keep on asking questions, I said you're gonna know real soon...
Wait...70% of all events this semester happening at Wesleyan were scheduled for Eclectic? Is that correct?
%70 of student-run events that are registered with SALD.
The school forced eclectic to hire security officers to make sure people didn't step into the house inebriated . Eclectic agreed to this rule, and now they are in trouble anyways? You have to be kidding me. C'mon guys wake up, how can you hold a group of individuals responsible for that? And also to all of you people who characterize a group of individuals as douchebags, think before you speak. All Eclectic members aren't one in the same, this is completely unfair. I am sure you have interacted with a small minority of the society if you honestly believe this. Honestly I think you should be ashamed of yourself.
Wow, 12:30
- 12:24
@12:24, that can't be right. I don't know how anyone would calculate that anyway.
@11:29, fair enough. Obviously it's impossible for me to know who to believe about the Scott Backer thing, but thanks for the response.
@11:40, the Eclectic concerts aren't for learning about music the way lectures are for learning about history (etc.), they're for having fun, and comparing the music major to going to an Eclectic concert is kind of insulting to the music majors, who work very seriously. And your comment about all majors being equal is needless kneejerkiness -- depending on how you measure "importance", no, not all majors are equally important, obviously. They're all good in different ways, but turning this into an argument about how every major is equal is totally needless and empty. That doesn't mean we can't have concerts or anything, obviously, but for god's sake stop trying to turn this into some noble cause about the importance of "music study" on campus and just admit that the petition as about the right to party. It's really okay.
-11:10
westco café is still student run... but is in danger too, part of the administrations larger attack on student run spaces. they keep trying to remove our café manager, and otherwise absorb management.
11:10; 12:41 whoever you are:
To quote you: "That doesn't mean we can't have concerts or anything, obviously, but for god's sake stop trying to turn this into some noble cause about the importance of "music study" on campus and just admit that the petition as about the right to party. It's really okay."
The preservation of a free venue for music on this campus is a noble cause, I don't even feign to know where to begin with your statement about "all majors being equal" and since when is fun or live music antithetical to education? I am honestly mortified that I go to school with a person like you. It's bone-chilling how little you understand anything about anything. It is even more truly terrifying that you, who so clearly know absolutely nothing about Eclectic, how it functions and its purpose, think yourself fit to comment in this thread and indoctrinate others with your "take" on the situation. You don't deserve to have a take on the situation because you haven't convinced me that you have a full grasp on what music is or why it is important to this campus.
Take notes, because this will be on the test:
The wrong way to disclose facts:
Summarize events in an email signed by your entire society. True authorship unclear. Very little new information, but lots of opining.
The right way to disclose facts:
Make available the following:
All emails to and from anyone in the administration regarding this decision. Remove names if you want to.
Student judicial records. From the Wesleyan Student Handbook: "Student judicial records are confidential and are available only to persons who have permission from the student". So grant everyone permission. Remove names if you want to.
"You don't deserve to have a take on the situation because you haven't convinced me that you have a full grasp on what music is or why it is important to this campus"
Talk about elitism.
DEAR ECLECTITES (and Wesleying, for that matter):
Some of us care about things that have absolutely nothing to do with this "issue".
...Sure seems indicative of Eclectic's over-inflated sense of self that got them into this trouble when they bombard the rest of the student body with this repetitive spam.
wow thanks for the public relations lesson. we are a group of students, as busy as everyone, who were nailed with a really crazy out-of-the-blue punishment during midterms, the week before spring break. i think all these commenters feigning being "offended" by eclectic's method of publicity need to get over themselves. we did what seemed right using the forums we had available in what felt like an incredible crisis situation. chill the fuck out everyone.
@1:43 You correctly observe that tons of people think you handled this wrong. But rather than whining about it, you could try to do it right. There's still time.
"an incredible crisis situation"
...
Someone, a very long time ago (when this all got started before the break), said something like:
If someone pissed in a park fountain, you don't just close the park and punish the community.
Well... Actually - if on every night (or on many night) people stumble into the park and piss in the fountain (mostly missing it I'm sure) - then it is absolutely ok for the city to shut down the park. Of course the park managers (gardners if you will) are going to be pissed and of course the community is going to suffer from the loss of such a place. But, there was enough of a problem (in the eyes of some authority) for the park to closed - and to be reopened later, when the gardners, in communication with the authorities and with the help of the community, manage to find solutions - to make sure the park does not remain the designated drunk asshole pisspond.
Now - maybe this novel and aggressive attack ok fountain pissing is a sign of the city's wish to clean up it's image. Maybe this is part of a city-wide revival of sorts. And maybe the direction chosen isn't what some people in the community want but: simply protesting and asking for things to to back to the regular old ways isn't going to work. All those involved should work together - come up with better defined responsibility guidelines - look for ways to keep the serial pissed away...
The fact the the sjb did not charge individual students and the Roth denied the appeal makes me think they see eclectic - the way it functions now - as a liability, toxic asset - that park on the edge of town where the troublemaking youth gather to collectively piss in the fountain. Eclectic member and the community at large should try to find ways to make the venue less trashy basically..
Who says we shouldn't have a fountain to piss in? Seems to me the fountain could be an essential member of a well rounded group of pissing options. If the gates to the park are closed we might be forced to do our pissing in an even more exposed location. I can't see why the city would want that.
What's with all this science student hate? NSM majors are less cool than other majors? Screw you.
@Mad Joy:
"all this science student hate?"
what the hell are you talking about? there was exactly one post where someone mentioned the administration recruiting science students over arts-oriented students as part of a general shift in the student body. and no one commented in agreement to that, except for one tongue-in-cheek response.
sensitive, much?
9:24 - Your analogy is tenuous. Eclectic, while owned by the university, is run by students. The 'pissing teens' have no control over the park.
Idiot.
Uh... the pissing teens in that analogy are the people who show up to eclectic shows and fuck things up for the house but who aren't actually eclectic members. So the analogy actually works really well.
Idiot.
"A neighbor called in three noise complaints in a row, with the intent of getting the event shut down."
YOU CAN'T PROVE THIS!!!!
Anyone else notice that from the first 3 or 4 pages of the petition, it looks like roughly 1/5th of the signatures on the petition are listed as "anonymous"?
Is it just me or should we be using the number of actual signatures rather than the number of lines on the petition?
Also many of the names on the petition are alums or friends of Eclectic members from other schools. It's not even a quarter of the current population.
1:26 - Actually a P-Safe report supports this. Eclectic is also engaged in ongoing talks with the neighbor who has accepted Eclectic's apology from what I gather. So, indeed, one can prove this.
3:00 PM- The P-Safe report that we can't see?
Post a Comment