a quick note
As classes for the semester wind down this week and next life gets a little crazy for everyone. On the one hand, there seems to be no better time for online discussions, because all of us are sitting at our computers bored by our essays and looking to procrastinate. On the other hand, those of us who write on the front page are also trying to write those papers and finish off the semester strong.So, in the interest of trying to make this space useful for the next week, I'm going to have to ask for you, the readers, to get involved in leading and contributing to our dialogue. I will post open threads with provocative questions and try to help facilitate those types of conversations, but I hope you will be willing to share your thoughts and wisdom to carry the burden of providing reading material for each other. We'll try to write when we can, but it won't be as regular.
So, for those open threads...
What do you want to talk about in the next week? What aren't we covering that you think we should? What do you think is important?
SHARE SOME WISDOM!
posted by andrew golis @ 5:55 PM
12 Comments:
How can we encourage more candidates to stand in UC elections next September?
This week, there is one candidate standing unopposed in the special UC election in Phofo. In September 2005, all three candidates standing in Winthrop, Lowell, Kirkland and Currier were guarenteed spots on the Undergraduate Council before a vote had even been cast.
I'm sure all these UC representatives are well qualified, but I contend that competitive elections in all Houses - with more candidates standing - would be positive for the Undergraduate Council.
Who is responsible for recruiting candidates to stand in September's UC elections? I assume it is next year's Election Commission - but I'm not sure they best qualified for this task. Could this responsibility should be shared with the UC Vice-President? I'm sure Annie Riley's enthusiasm could drum up some interest from students who the UC traditionally struggles to engage.
And what's the strategy? I'd suggest ads in the Crimson, flyers highlighting the benefits of standing for the UC, and a form on the UC web site so potential candidates can request more information. Why not ask House Masters to nominate people to be invited to stand for election?
If the UC wants to reconnect with the student body, it needs to reach out beyond the traditional candidate pool next September.
Tom.
What aren't we covering that you think we should? ~ Andrew Golis
Well done, Tom. CC hasn't really covered the UC much in the last two weeks or so, therefore now's a good time to talk about it.
Ah. The tactic of having readers post topics. Good idea. Quench's tactic has been to shamelessly post irrelevant things that are the result of much procrastination. You choose a good tactic.
You wanna know what get's people going? Well, you know how they say sex sells? In CC's world, HRC sells. Have you ever gotten 35 comments on a post? I didn't think so. Let's have some more thoughtful attacks that quickly become ad hominen (i have no idea how to spell that) attacks. Those are fun.
Can we talk about racism, sexism, classism and homophobia within the "left" (as you would call it) at Harvard?
And what to do about those things?
Apparently 50% of suicides at Harvard are internationals. Are Americans bad people? Or do those bloody foreigners just refuse to integrate?
Fewer open threads, fewer posts that only contain links to other posts on CC (table-of-contents type posts), and more actual content.
It is frustrating to log on and have to sift through a million posts that just link to each other.....
anonymous above about suicides, could you offer a source for that? I think that's a fascinating and sad number and would love to know where it comes from...
On the note of suicides. . . it might be interesting to hear about stigmas and prejudices towards mental health issues. I think that a lot of people here struggle with or have struggled with depression or other mental illnesses, but nobody ever wants to admit to it. Is that because our supposedly 'accepting/open/liberal' society sees mental illness as a personal problem that people should just deal with ('be strong, take control of your own life, etc. . . ')? I think there is still a lot of shame and discomfort when it comes to dealing with these issues. Maybe part of it is because mental health is sometimes viewed as something within an individual's control (this is not always true). This also makes me wonder about characterizing non-heterosexuality as genetically determined or out of a person's control. Why do some people say it is OK for people to be gay because they are 'born that way'-- does this imply that if somebody actually made the choice to identify him/herself in a way that differs from a heteronormative society it would be illegitimate? Are 'alternative' lifestyles or differences from the wealthy/white mainstream only OK if they can't be helped?
Yea! Discussion about mental health would be great. Mental health, mental illnesss, neurosis, Harvard, psychoanalyis.... it could be really interesting.
Sorry; I don't know; just irresponsibly repeating hearsay. Though 2 out of the 7 suicides since 2002 were internationals (ref your favourite - the Crimson) which is disproportionate; I don't know about more long-term numbers.
Dang it! For mental health see Northern Discomfort under "The Best of The Best". Sorry, Anonymous at 5:34 p.m.
Post a Comment
<< Home