For the first time in nearly fifty years, the presidents of the five Claremont Colleges and the CEO of the Consortium came together for a public discussion of Claremont’s present and future. The discussion covered academic differences, social interaction, and future plans for the Claremont experiment.

If you were unable to attend, you can catch history in the making right here.

Video by Michael Chiu CMC ’11.


  1. The event was well run, and I truly enjoyed it. Wilner did a good job moderating, but I felt that, at times, his energy seemed a little bit low. He also seemed to be bickering with the Scripps President for a little while over the school’s alcohol policy. I understand that he wanted her to address the issue more directly, but she clearly wasn’t prepared to answer the question and he should have just let it go rather than asking dogging her for a straight answer.

  2. I thought the moderating was very disappointing. It was extremely unprofessional to continue to belabor the Scripps president with questions about the alcohol policy after she answered the question the first time. “How do you think Scripps policy effects other colleges” is not a clear question. You can see how ridiculous the other presidents thought this question was in their reactions. Wilner then goes on to call Scripps a “financial burden among other things” to the other school’s parties. What are those “other things” ? Wilner has no facts to back up the implication that Scripps is somehow a burden. If he did, it would have been nice to hear, but instead I’m assuming he is going off rumor. Scripps has helped throw and host some of the biggest parties (glitch mob in the parking garage) so as far as financial resources, I think they are covered. The moderator’s passive aggressive way of criticizing the Scripps student body is ridiculous.

    • I think Wilner’s question was in two parts, and she didn’t answer the first part originally. Part of the point of the panel was to get them to discuss their policies in light of their college’s place within a consortium, and Scripps should answer to that, right? Like asking Mudd why it’s students interact less, was that out of line too?

      • I agree with Fair Game’s overall point that part of the purpose of the panel was to get at issues concerning relations between the colleges. To facilitate this, it is the moderator’s job to ask tough questions.
        That being said, the moderator cannot have it both ways. Wilner should not have continued to badger LBV after his first attempt at the question failed because he tried to water it down and make it all PC.
        If he had the guts to ask “How do you defend the fact that your school’s strict alcohol policy causes many of your students to drink on other campuses, where they become a liability to the host?” Then he should have done that the first time. Saying “your school’s policy causes vague problems in vague ways” is nothing more than an unconstructive F-You to Scripps, and was both childish and unprofessional.
        Good interviewing is a lot harder than many people make it out to be (see “Frost/Nixon”), it takes finesse and resolve to get real information out of intellectual elite who make their money telling people what they want to hear (e.g. politicians, college presidents, etc. Not to disrespect either of those professions, but I think even they would agree that’s a large part of their job). I, personally, think Wilner should have used his post at the Forum to select the BEST moderator for the job, which, believe it or not, probably was not himself.

        • QFT- “Saying ‘your school’s policy causes vague problems in vague ways’ is nothing more than an unconstructive F-You to Scripps, and was both childish and unprofessional.”

  3. As the current Scripps Social Activities Chair & the former 5C Events Chair, I literally laughed at the insinuation that Scripps’ strict substance policies somehow place a financial burden on the other colleges. It’s just bullshit.

    >Scripps gives out WAY MORE THAN IT’S SHARE of funding to the other colleges. In fact, I have *never* (in my 3 years serving on SAS as the primary event planner) requested funding from other schools for our events. Ever. Conversely, Scripps grants thousands of dollars to the other institutions for their programming, both via SAS & FAC.

    >>For many years, ASCMC has been very accommodating in reimbursing our alcohol expenses, however we always re-pay them in equal or greater amounts via contributions to their events.
    **Scripps actually abides by the national prohibition on spending federal funds (some student fees come from federal aid) on alchy so we have to rely on the generosity of other institutions.

    >>> In my honest opinion, the enduring whine from some schools about their alcohol is being unfairly lapped up by visiting partiers is largely without merit. Even ignoring the fact that most campuses don’t seem to have an issue with sharing, do we not recognize that people don’t get drunk off a few red cups worth of Natty Light? Everyone is pre-gaming–kegs tend merely serve as inebriation maintenance. (Or maybe I’m wrong & pre-gaming is just Scripps thing *shrugs*)

    I’d also like to call out the long-standing myth that, because Scripps students cannot easily procure alcohol on their home campus, they instead drink at the other 4Cs & disproportionately get shitfaced to the point of needing an ambulance.

    >This myth only serves to mask the fact that ALL Claremont students (all *college* students, really)–not just weak Scrippsies who can’t hold their liquor–are at risk for alcohol poisoning.

    >>The numbers just don’t support this. Last time I saw the 5C stats (admittedly it was at least 2 years ago), the institution with the craziest party culture….the campus where alcohol flows like water…yeah, *that’s* the school that had the most instances of alcohol poisoning. Wear it, Chief.

    >>>I’d also like to add a little personal anecdote: In all my years of organizing Scripps parties, I’ve probably sent at least 5 times more non-Scripps students to the hospital (& jail) than Scripps students.

    Believe it or not, amending the Scripps alcohol policy isn’t really a novel idea. Last semester SAS voted to overturn the provision in our bylaws which prohibits spending our student fees on alcohol. Only after the motion passed were we informed of the federal regulations against it (as I mentioned earlier). Many Scripps students (the vast majority according to surveys) despise these antiquated restrictions—but not because its a downer for the other schools. SAS and the student body have been lobbying/petitioning for its alteration for nearly a decade because it…
    a) encourages binge drinking &… b) cripples our social atmosphere.
    [From an event planning perspective, I want it changed just so Scripps won’t dependent on other schools for alch reimbursement. In other words, so they don’t have us by the balls.] Bummers all around.

    We all agree that the Scripps alcohol policy sucks, but don’t hold your breath waiting for it to be changed. This is the one issue where our Board of Trustees are notoriously crotchety. Lastly, even if there comes a day when our rules are loosened up, the fact will still remain that Scripps students will party primarily off-campus because we simply cannot host a large number of events. Our SAS budget is in no way comparable to that of the other student associations (& we don’t plan on hiking up student fees any time soon).

Comments are closed.