Cambridge Common

I think the conclusion of the article summed it up well (although I highly recommend you read the whole thing if you haven't already):

“The President’s Office doesn’t have to be accountable to students because they don’t need to draw people in—they have the Harvard name,” he says. To effect change, he cites his experience with Senior Gift Plus: “Create a petition, educate people, arouse some anger over the situation, get the press involved, and Harvard will realize it can no longer afford to marginalize undergraduates when it comes to events like Springfest.”

Longbrake says that the President’s Office is “very interested in supporting” undergraduate social life, but he did not say whether the office would increase funds to Springfest’s after-party in future years.

But if Mahan is right, the Office won’t address the need until students make it clear that a need exists. After all, Longbrake contends that Harvard’s Springfest is just as fun as Yale’s.

Hard as they may try, the UC alone can’t incite the kind of cultural change necessary to make Harvard’s Springfest look like Penn’s, Yale’s, or Brown’s. That would take more than just another $20,000 or a permanent liquor license. Maybe the President’s Office isn’t so wrong to emphasize community—they just have the wrong community in mind.

Now, I'm not interesting in Harvard being "fun" just so we can all revel in our wealth and opportunities. There's a much more substantive reality: a college community where students don't get together to enjoy themselves, to meet each other and to relax is not a community at all. In the day in and day out of Harvard, it is rare that we have a chance to appreciate our lives and appreciate each other. THAT is why that administration should care, because community is part of what defines our experience at this school, and therefore our persons for the rest of our lives.

In one episode, a disapproving neighbor nosing in on the Griffins' business gets yelled at by her husband: "Gladys, it took me two hours to work up the courage to rent this porno. Now are you gonna watch it with me or not?" In another episode, Peter and Lois bemoan the decline of their community's values, even as they put on their S&M regalia for the evening. ("The safety word is 'banana.'")

So what's the lesson? Whether or not you like the family guy, turn it on this Sunday to make a statement that you're sick of the moralizing censorship of television. Also, it's really funny.

But, as the OpEd points out, I think it's also important to look at the administration. Other schools have multiple concerts per year because their administrations are willing to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to bring them. I think Brown has Ben Folds, Talib Kweli and the Shins ALL THIS YEAR. No matter how much in advance the UC were to plan, without significantly more cash from the administration, we're going to be trailing other schools in this for a long time...

disclaimer: I cannot claim any level of unbiased opinion on this. UC Pres. Glazer is my roommate and best friend. I tell you that so you can assess honestly what I'm saying and either take it or not depending on whether you think I'm being unfair. Other writers on this blog have the same problem: they are on, or are close friends with people who are on, the Undergraduate Council.

In addition to that general vision I offer a structure and 4 guiding principles. We NEED to have the conversation about what we want to do with the building and the coalition NOW, so I'd love to here anyone's thoughts on the column and on the decision in general. Feel free to criticize, offer a completely different vision, whatever, let's just get talking!

As it turns out, it was an absurdly boring speech on a very interesting topic: Hagel's belief that what we need is an all-volunteer armed forces. A very interesting idea with huge public policy and cultural implications. It's too bad that he didn't really address any of those, except to say that our current armed forces are stretched too thin. Also, he did not engage in any real critique of Bush's Iraq policy, or the execution of that policy, as I had expected, except in the most oblique way (saying we were stretched too thin).

What was interesting were two side notes that he made. The first was when he traced the origin of the idea of the all-volunteer army back to Richard Nixon. Ok, fine. But what does it say about the state of our public discourse when we have prominent politicians claiming the mantle of Nixon? And it's not that everything Nixon did was categorically bad (detente, and the EPA, for example, I think were good), but I just don't think that when most people think of Nixon they think of dentente; I think they think "watergate, crook." So maybe this is a non-deal, but for someone interested in rhetoric (me), it seems a perplexing choice for someone to favorably mention Nixon when he doesn't have to. Does anyone have any thoughts on this? Maybe Schwartzenegger started all of this at his convention speech?

The second interesting thing was when he was musing about the '08 presidential election. Hagel said that it is bound to be historic insofar as neither major party has an heir (spoken like a true non-heir), and so both parties will have a great opportnity to have a debate within themselves to determine the priorities and message and etc of the party. I hope so. But I am not optimistic about the Republicans' ability to emerge with anything new as a headlining act. I am optimistic, however, about the consequences of their inability to do that: the disintegration of their current regime, and the marginalization of their attempts to dismantle the Welfare State. (There's my way-too-early prediction. Anybody else have one?)

April 16:

8:14 p.m.-An officer reported to Matthews Hall in response to a complaint from an individual who was nearly struck with a bottle. After checking the area, the responding officer determined that no suspicious person had been found lingering.

Holy Shit! "Nearly struck with a bottle!" Someone call the authorities! (apparently, someone did....) And why does it seem that the two sentences of this report have nothing to do with each other?

April 20:

5:51 p.m.-An officer was flagged down and notified of a person "inappropriately touching" himself or herself while peering up people's clothes on Mass. Ave and Dunster Street. The HUPD officer found the alleged self-fondler and turned him over to CPD.

Ahhh! This is - by far - the greatest report ever! Where to begin, oh, where to begin?!

First of all, this image is hilarious - How, exactly, was this person fondling himself while peering UP people's clothes?? Was he sprawled out on the sidewalk waiting for people to unsuspectingly walk over his head? Maybe he's just very, very small. Or maybe he's just "peering" up at really tall people. The possibilities are endless! (Actually, Police Blog could only think of those three...)

Police Blog also loves the mysterious gender identification of the peeping Tom - or peeping Tina - at the beginning of the post. 'Officer, officer, come quick! I don't know what in the hell that person is, but his (or her) hands are in the no-no zone!'

And finally, there's the title of our androgynous friend. Police Blog has seen many a descriptive title given to identify the perpetrators of HUPD's pages, but never has a title inspired such awe over the explanatory skill of the HUPD Police Log writing staff. "Alleged self-fondler." Need I say more?


(Even though the Police Log provides us with a hilarious insight into the dark underworld of Harvard crime, here at Police Blog we always appreciate the work and dedication of the HUPD officers)

First, we can offer a space in which the very issues that the Crimson and the rest of us talk about can be discussed all across campus. If there were some sort of email list for this, maybe this wouldn't be necessary. But at this point, those email lists are limited to specific communities, so the perspectives are not varied or representative on any one list. Hopefully, Cambridge Common will get a more varied readership and set of perspectives. The reason this is important is that, at this point, the campus conversation is only happening in isolated communities or in the Ed Board office. Eight people deciding what the rest of us will know and think is not democratic, even if they are eight good people (which they are).

Second, I hope to provide a different take on campus politics. The internal politics of so many of our communities, whether it's the UC, the progressive community, the conservative community, whatever, are not known or understood. The forces that shape our school are summed up in a post election article (with the exception of the UC). There is a lot going on that people don't know about, that people deserve to know about. We can't get you that perspective on everything, we can only do what we know. But we hope this will cue others to do the same for things they know about.

Finally, we need a deeper conversation on campus. Part of our problem is the opinion aristocracy that I mentioned. Part of the problem is the disconnected dialogue that happens in each community separately. But part of the problem is a simple unwillingness to engage in some campus issues more intensely. The Curricular Review is going to redefine Harvard College and universities all over the world. Where's student opinion on this? Where's student dialogue other than "I hate the core" and "finals before Christmas"? We're smarter than that. We need to discuss forms of education, whether or not Harvard should have a fundamental philosophy of pedagogy, endorse a set of knowledge that it expects every graduate to have, restructure tenure and teaching requirements. This is important stuff that requires a conversation, not a declaration of truth from the Administration, the Crimson OR the UC.

I understand that a lot of people don't think that campus politics is relevant to them. They'll be leaving in a few years, what do they care how the curriculum is redesigned? They're not activists, what do they care what's going on with HSF and the Dems? Without being too self-important, we can't forget where we are. Harvard matters, the forms of our communities shape important people. The educational experience speaks to fundamental American values of education. That's why things like Larrygate get so much press: because Harvard matters. We can think that's obnoxious and elitist (it kind of is), but it's true.

Anyway, this Common won't always be that earnest. Sometimes things will just be funny or interesting (or unfunny and unintesting, I'm crossing my fingers). Sometimes we'll just fight about national politics. In any event, I hope you'll come back, join the conversation, throw in your comments and think about some of this.

Have a great Monday,

The Editor

Yes, it is mildly funny, but isn't that what comments are for, or that weird bullseye thing? Does the fact that it's a staff ed mean the entire editorial board voted on this?

I mean, don't get me wrong, I think that it's an important issue to bring to the table: are Matherites more or less prone to sexually transmitted diseases and what does this tell us about Mather Lather AND, should this cause us to want to replace the monkeys in William James with people from Mather? All of this is terribly important. Terribly. But can't you just put the author's name on it? He deserves credit for his bizarro, funny in the way a drunk uncle at Christmas is funny, writing.

This of course has huge implications. Women's groups in particular could benefit from this, if it is done right. Final clubs may choose to be recognized, which would put them under the jurisdiction of HUPD instead of the Cambridge Police. The Crimson Ed Board came out behind the proposal. But the group that can have a much bigger impact on whether this happens -- the UC -- doesn't yet have a positon, though its Student Affairs Committee has discussed it and may bring legislation about it. I think that it's hard to get behind something that doesn't have any specific anything. But I think that this is a very fruitful line of discussion, in particular for women's groups, that the campus should continue. Anybody have any thoughts? Good idea? Why two tiers at all? What about funding?