<body><script type="text/javascript"> function setAttributeOnload(object, attribute, val) { if(window.addEventListener) { window.addEventListener('load', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }, false); } else { window.attachEvent('onload', function(){ object[attribute] = val; }); } } </script> <div id="navbar-iframe-container"></div> <script type="text/javascript" src="https://apis.google.com/js/plusone.js"></script> <script type="text/javascript"> gapi.load("gapi.iframes:gapi.iframes.style.bubble", function() { if (gapi.iframes && gapi.iframes.getContext) { gapi.iframes.getContext().openChild({ url: 'https://www.blogger.com/navbar.g?targetBlogID\x3d11969108\x26blogName\x3dCambridge+Common\x26publishMode\x3dPUBLISH_MODE_BLOGSPOT\x26navbarType\x3dBLUE\x26layoutType\x3dCLASSIC\x26searchRoot\x3dhttps://cambridgecommon.blogspot.com/search\x26blogLocale\x3den_US\x26v\x3d2\x26homepageUrl\x3dhttp://cambridgecommon.blogspot.com/\x26vt\x3d-508380183434548642', where: document.getElementById("navbar-iframe-container"), id: "navbar-iframe" }); } }); </script>

Friday, December 02, 2005

figuring out the social programming debate

Trying to figure out what the hell people are talking about in the social programming debate?

Mr. Schmidt over at Team Zebra breaks it all down.


At 6:54 PM, Anonymous Josh Patashnik said...

I just wanted to take a second to respond to some of the things that have been said about the Haddock/Riley position on social programming.

First, as Greg Schmidt rightly recognizes, John and Annie do not want to eliminate all campus-wide events, or cede all planning authority for them to the administration. Rather, they simply believe that the UC's past record clearly shows that neither the UC nor bodies loosely affiliated with it (e.g. HCC) have much success when they plan social events. Of course students should be central to all social programming--just not students affiliated with the UC.

John Voith and Tara Gadgil, on the other hand, do believe the UC (or bodies affiliated with it) should be involved with social programming. John and Annie respect their position, but the history is pretty conclusive here. It's not as though the UC has had an occasional failed event in an otherwise good track record--it's one event after another that has fizzled. Saying that this time, we really really promise the UC is going to get it right strikes me as a little bit like Lucy telling Charlie Brown that this time she really really promises she's going to let him kick the football.

The other comment that's generally made about the Haddock/Riley social programming position is that the administration won't let it happen--that it will somehow force the UC to spend a third of its budget on social events. Certainly this is within the realm of possibility, though John has a strong relationship with Dean McLaughlin, Zac Corker, and the rest of the University Hall social team, and will be a forceful advocate for the student point of view. But this argument in the first place seems fairly defeatist. Essentially it's saying that the UC should keep spending its money on failed social events because the administration is going to force it to spend its money that way anyway. And, with all due respect to my friends on the Voith/Gadgil campaign, this from people who pledge to "give students a voice". If students believe more of their money should be spent on student groups and HoCos, and less on the Afterparty, why not at least try changing it?


Post a Comment

<< Home