- Hmmm on Winter Season Wrap-up: "Lol. Don't you mean "broke" a 25 year old record? GO STAGS...."
- Actually on Rethinking the Hub: "I don't know who the author used as a source, but I have talked direct..."
- Not interested in RDS on Rethinking the Hub: "The article says RDS requested space for its "scholars;" nothing about..."
- What about the food? on Rethinking the Hub: "I think that a good part of the problem with the Hub, is the quality o..."
- Actually on Should We Fund 5C Parties?: "@ a theory: don't count your chickens before they hatch with cable. DO..."
What Sustainability Means for CMC
In a recent email to the entire college, President Pamela Gann listed eight items that the Board of Trustees had agreed to review in May. Number eight was the seemingly all-encompassing: sustainability.Of course, her actual charge — the endowment — has been anything but sustainable after it fell an estimated 35 percent. My friends, I venture that this sustainability plank of the platform is not only ill-defined, but worse has certainly had a defining influence on our time at Claremont McKenna.
At first, the inconvenience was limited to water faucets that barely dispense water at the Athenaeum, Collins, or Claremont Hall. Equipped with motion sensors or touchpads, these faucets do not dispense enough water to wash their hands for the medically approved 15-20 seconds. This was an annoyance during the school year, but with the much publicized H1N1 virus, it is a public health threat. (I doubt the lost productivity of sickness of students and faculty was factored into the cost-savings.) Unfortunately, this is just one of the many ways in which “sustainability” ruins life on campus.
Contrary to what many of its supporters — among whom I include some members of the Board of Trustees — claim, I find little evidence that its version of sustainability actually saves costs. The most egregious instance of this occurred last year. In the name of sustainability, the school spent between $3100-$3900 each on four solar-powered trash cans. Was this a sustainable purchase? Now that the trashcans have been put in the shade, as if to add insult to injury, they can’t even power their own operation. (Humorously, a representative of Big Belly Solar informs me that the photovoltaic cells used to compact cans will be be a “revenue” stream – which means that it would take 70,000 cans to pay for just one machine, at $3500. I hope we don’t drink that much.)
Along those lines, do the many empty parking spots that remain unused in our parking lots serve our community as well as allowing some freshmen, somewhere to have access to their own vehicles? But Dean Huang, in an email to me, admitted that part of the reason freshmen were banned from having cars on campus was “environmental” and to wait until the college’s master plan was released. Now that it has been, we see that the stated mission of “sustainability” may even harm the environment. In a school with limited funds, why build parking lots that you aren’t going to operate at capacity?
Last Friday night at around 3 AM, I counted twenty empty spots in the South quad lot. Why didn’t the college try to strike some kind of deal with Scripps College, which has a mostly vacant parking lot just a block from our campus? Surely Scrippsies benefit from the parties we throw and would benefit from the money that freshman CMCers would-be drivers would provide. Scripps endowment fell between a quarter and a third last year. Are we really to believe that they wouldn’t sell parking spots? Even worse, these allegedly “sustainable” policies have unintended and harmful consequences. By curtailing freshmen driving, the colleges make drinking that much more attractive. You don’t need to be an econ. major to understand that the college has changed the price of a night on the town. Instead of driving into LA with fellow freshmen for a night on the town, it’s much easier to buy some booze from a willing upperclassmen and wind up making some poor decisions.
Decisions — there’s that word again. Part of being out on your own and away from your parents is newfound freedom and responsibility. For the most part, you can choose what classes to take, when to eat, whom to sleep with, what clubs to join, and who you want to be. In fact, the college seems to promote more libertine policies — multiple days for free sexual disease testings, free condoms, and a “don’t ask, don’t tell” policy on alcohol. But part of those choices is whether or not you want to live a supposedly sustainable lifestyle. You’re supposed to be able to choose. From compelling students to install poorly illuminating light bulbs that make it difficult to read and do homework to now monitoring what its students eat, however, the college is overstepping its bounds.
Because a few students have wasted food, the Claremont colleges have decided that we are not responsible enough to decide what to eat. But if the colleges were really insistent that Claremont students waste food, why not allow them to self-police, as other colleges have done? The school could even set targets for the students to reduce their waste, if it were so inclined. Instead, they have undemocratically decided that Claremont students — among whom are some of the smartest students in America — must be treated as animals, incapable of choosing the portions and amount of their own food. As children we learn what to put into our bodies, but as college students, we apparently have lost that most elementary of lessons. While the college used to sell itself on the conversations students had over dinner and on the lessons they learned from each other in the dining room, one wonders how wise a policy it is that makes community that much less enjoyable. Never you mind the fact that eating disorders are apparently a real problem from young women — or so, at least, we are told at freshman orientation.
Worse yet, now that the college has done away with trays, it has simply makes life harder for the already overworked dining hall staff, whose pay has been frozen and whose hours have been artificially elongated by the extra cleaning they must do. The food that once fell onto trays now falls on the floor, on the table, and on chairs and must be washed. According to some of the dining hall women I interviewed at three of the dining halls, they spend an average additional 30 minutes each day cleaning the floors.
Pitzer and Claremont McKenna College have now offered a “reusable” container. The Claremont Portside and the Forum reported that the containers will be purchased by our Dean of Students, Dean Huang, for an untold sum of money. Now it appears as if Collins will be providing these containers gratis to each student on a meal plan. But this raises more questions than it answers: If the school — or Collins– is going to go to the effort of buying a whole bunch of takeout containers, why can’t they spare $1.75 for each student to have their own tray, weigh the remaining food refuse, and then charge the students who waste the food more? Remember, the supposedly environmentally friendly containers at the other colleges cost between $3 and $6. This cast doubts on the supposed savings that trayless dining is supposed to bring. Anyone who has worked as a dishwasher knows that it is a lot easier to wash a flat tray than a weirdly shaped takeout container. So not only will the college have to pay the initial costs of purchasing these containers, the perpetual costs of their cleaning will have to be sustained as well. How sustainable.
But “sustainability” was never really about the environment, after all. It’s about signaling. Gann signals to the Board of Trustees that she’s reducing costs and to the campus what values she thinks we ought to be promoting.
And the rest of the campus signals its apathy by going on its merry way.
66 Comments
2009-10-05
17:33:12
1. I bet the kid hugging the tree in that picture is Mark Munro.
2. "Never you mind the fact that eating disorders are apparently a real problem from young women — or so, at least, we are told at freshman orientation." -- Charles Johnson, only you would imply that trays prevent eating disorders. I really hope you weren't serious. That's ridiculous.
3. I agree with some of your points, as we've discussed before. But I still think a lot of your contempt for Pam Gann's sustainability initiatives concerns the college's message framing. For these changes to be accepted by all sides of the issue, they need to be expressed in terms of dollars saved. Environmentalists always yield the moral high ground to make their proposals more appealing, but doing so is more effective than making seemingly arbitrary conclusions as to what is more sustainable.
4. Takeout containers and trays are two completely different things. I think by continually correlating them, you lose ground on your argument. In my opinion, the card swipers should keep between five and ten trays behind the counter for people who really are pissed about going trayless. If that's not enough for them, they'll just have to deal with it; not everyone can have a gluten allergy, Charles...
2009-10-05
18:36:47
I'm disappointed at the lack of the term "nazis" in this article.
2009-10-05
19:52:52
Sorry, but I don't make a habit of trivializing the Holocaust and the National Socialists who brought them about, friend.
Although if you're looking for someone who is, here's a good person who will do that. He's a member of the progressive Democrat caucus. His name is Alan Grayson. Enjoy! http://blogs.creativeloafing.com/dailyloaf/2009/10/01/alan-grayson-im-a-democrat-with-a-spine/
2009-10-05
17:47:32
1. Faucets: Push it twice. You are absurd.
2. If possible, I'd rather not park in South Quad.
3. Scripps parking: your first good idea ever.
4. Driving to LA is what the administration tries to avoid by having a wet campus that lets students party here- Not booze in LA and then drive back to campus drunk.
5. Poorly light bulbs? If you have trouble reading, buy a fucking lamp. Ten dollars at Goodwill or online if you are a car-less freshman.
6. Monitoring what we eat: Complaining about our six cafeteria, fresh food, eat-as-much-as-your-body-has-fucking-room-for type options is like whining about having to put premium gas in you Mercedes. Please stop bitching, you are over-privileged.
7. Eating problems are a real problem - you're a dick.
8. Cafeteria staff are overworked, agreed.
9. The college is getting take out containers for free. Please read the publication you are writing for. http://cmcforum.com/news/10012009-free-takeout-is-coming
10. Weighing food per person seems super economical. Not really. That was a facetious statement.
Charles, I don't know you, but as I continue to read your writing, I am finding that you are not a real person. Sometimes the absurdities of your work make me wonder what sort of alien planet you have come from.
So, in an attempt to find out a little more about you - to find out what drives this ridiculous character everyone, including myself, loves to rag on - I propose an interview, with me, recorded, CBS style.
The people want to know what the fuck is wrong with you. Can you help us?
2009-10-05
19:44:23
1. Not everyone washes their hands, friend, and anything we can do to incentivize them to do it, is, in my opinion, a good thing. Given some of the debauchery one sees in N. Quad, one can't be too careful.
2. OK, but are you willing to pay for it? Who is "over privileged" now?
3. Thanks.
4. Call me skeptical, but I don't think people are going to take those kind of risks. John Lawman is a lot less forgiving of drinking underage and then driving... These things take care of themselves.
5. In case you forgot this in the articles about oral sex and the like, the purpose of college is an education. Why should someone have to go out of their way to buy a lamp? (Speaking of which, I did just that. I also unscrewed the bulbs in my room.)
6. I'm not on the meal plan, but given the amount of money that others spend on it -- those supposedly overprivileged students who have to work to stay here -- the least they could do is give us trays.
7. Duly noted. Having never met a girl on campus with an eating disorder, I'll take your word for it.
8. Glad you noticed the obvious. So when one of them falls down and gets a back injury from sweeping the floor from food that would have fallen on the floor, what'll be your position then on trays?
9. I do read it. There's conflicting reports between the Port Side and the Forum. I reported the difference in my copy, but this was changed by my editors who flubbed it.
10. It's been done at other schools.
Time and a place for the interview and I retain the right to look over the final copy or have it videotaped. Otherwise, go for it, but I will be a stickler for swearing. I do not like being around it (in print.)
Thanks,
2009-10-05
20:30:35
1. More water doesn't incentivize washing. If washing is anathema to our dirty, contagion-spreading brethen, wouldn't more water just be a deterrent? Instead, we should institute mandatory hand-washing lines... soviet style.
5. "In case you forgot this in the articles about oral sex and the like, the purpose of college is an education. Why should someone have to go out of their way to buy a lamp?"
Waittttttt... I fucking hate these god-awful fluorescent lights above me, but I think that expectations of having a lamp provided for your might fit into that ill-defined over-privileged thing we've been talking about. Besides, isn't a trip to Ikea both fun, informative, and delicious (swedish meatballs, y'hear?) (Bonus points for the non sequitur of the day. Education = don't have buy a lamp.)
7. How do you know you've never met someone (girl or guy) with an eating disorder? There's more than ostensible anorexia. This is completely off-topic, though.)
10. I think the sensible thing to do would be to do away with the cafeteria entirely, and just install a giant yogurt land. There could be yogurts with flavors replacing the nightly specials at collins. Pineapple chicken and Vanilla, anyone?
2009-10-05
20:44:47
Charles, I don't have the time to prove you wrong again, it's midterm season. I will say that your reasoning, to me, seems silly. But it's not just you.
I guess my issue with this kind of article is the unnecessary jousting - your attempt to rouse the troops over such unimportant matters. I know you aren't standing alone, sometimes people care about these things.
The real question is why. We are talking a few bucks here and there for things. Yeah, we are paying too much for dining hall food, if you don't like it go to a different college. We make the decision to come to a school that offers a ton of perks and only a few "cons". Cons that people in the real world would love to have as priority concerns.
And don't kid yourself, this isn't community college. No one is working so they can go to school here. Students work for extra cash so they can drink and have fun off campus.
Students are either:
a. Wealthy enough to pay tuition
b. Poor enough to get excellent financial aid.
c. Upper Middle classers who have to pay around half, taking loans that laugh at the addition of a few hundred, or even a few thousand dollars.
Not one of these three is working to pay tuition.
Now I will study. Interview the weekend after fall break.
2009-10-05
21:01:32
@Alex Mitchell,
I'd love to be proven wrong for the first time.
Your level of apathy is rather pathetic. And your attempt to try and turn me into some kind person complaining about the lunch meat, is entirely unfair. It reminds me of some kind of 10 Things I Hate About You thing where the black teacher tries to chew out Julia Stiles for being white and privileged. I may be white, but I have yet to encounter any privilege.
Anyways, I am one of those students who is actually working to stay here and every bit helps. You may laugh at those students here whose families work exceedingly hard to keep them here and whose lives are affected by things as seemingly trivial as the lunch meat, but I'd encourage you not to be dismissive and to take their criticisms seriously. We all want the best school our tuition dollars can bring about.
2009-10-05
21:14:17
am i the only one who feels bad for this incendiary asshole- attending one of the most expensive colleges in the country, receiving thousands in scholarships, every job opportunity available to him? he's received no privileges!
someone give him a tissue to cry into
2009-10-05
21:25:54
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTwpBLzxe4U
"I've been on foodstamps and welfare, did anyone help me out? No."
2009-10-05
21:52:04
When we wrote the blogpost about the reusable take-out boxes on The Compass it was not clear whether Bon Appetit would be covering most or all of the costs associated with purchasing reusable take-out containers. The CMC Administration has since clarified that the boxes are being provided by BA at no cost to CMC.
2009-10-05
22:48:11
Charles,
While I have much more to say, I dislike falling into your never-ending circular arguments. We will never agree because you are too narrow minded to take a step back and truly evaluate a situation.
Cheers
2009-10-06
00:19:30
I could say the same for you, old sport. It's much easier to dismiss someone than to take their arguments seriously.
2009-10-05
23:18:18
I think the focus of what Charles is arguing isn't nitpicking details about what he thinks should be better, but rather criticizing the administration for boasting their sustainability efforts that amount to very little actual cost savings while making the life of students noticeably more uncomfortable. While he does use some examples that are over the top, his overall emphasis rings true. Ironically, while criticizing his nitpicking, his critics are nitpicking even more by taking pretty selective quotes from his article. He's not arguing (in the article at least) that he's under privileged or can't bother to buy a lamp or touch the water twice.... he's questioning the practicality of decisions the school touts as sustainable.
You can always expect CJ to say a few inflammatory or somewhat ridiculous things...but the overall point of this article is pretty defensible, not at all "absurdities"
2009-10-06
01:23:17
AMitch,
I love you. Especially # 6- 10.
2009-10-05
18:14:14
“must be treated as animals, incapable of choosing the portions and amount of their own food.”
I think removing trays is silly, and the overworked cleaning staff is a good reason to bring them back; but you suggest that we’re being treated like animals? A tad excessive, methinks.
“Anyone who has worked as a dishwasher knows that it is a lot easier to wash a flat tray than a weirdly shaped takeout container.”
One-time dishboy right hurr, and you’re right. That said, I do think that the take-out containers are a separate issue than the trays.
2009-10-05
19:46:57
@lollercoaster,
Not entirely so. The idea that you're incapable of choosing your own portions and eating a balanced meal and not wasting is worth maintaining. Isn't the first thing we're taught as a child what to put in our mouths and what not to? Why does the college think it has the right to go in and dictate what that might be?
I wasn't a one time dishboy, but thanks.
2009-10-05
20:13:42
You should try out the dishes sometime. It's a humbling job.
I mean, to be fair, the college admin can do what it wants. Bearing this in mind, perhaps there should be a way of opting out of the meal plan, simply because of a legitimate grievance (or even none), and not purely for health reasons.
Trays or not, I'mma keep loving my meal plan (though perhaps not the prices and the mandatory bit.)
2009-10-05
18:41:00
A Scrippsie told me that their reusable containers were also free. The $6 charge is only for a replacement if you lose the original.
2009-10-05
19:45:01
@small point,
I'm told that their dean of students is paying for it, which comes from their student fees. It's not "free."
2009-10-05
22:07:27
Can I just point out that the reason trays save the school money is due to the food not wasted. The school doesn't care about the $1.75 saved by not buying trays. Its the 1 oz or so per meal of less food wasted.
And to put things in terms everyone can comprehend, food waste is currently a market failure as it leads to obesity and wasted food. The administration has proposed a sin tax , by way of trays, to address this failure. CJ, are you supporting strict laissez faire economics? Do you not believe in market failures? Is America's obesity and waste epidemics not a valid market failure?
2009-10-05
22:19:33
How is people getting fat a market failure? And what's too fat? Do you want the school making that decision?
If they were serious about waste, they would allow us to exit the meal plan for any reason and buy our food that we consume through cash or what have you. They haven't.
2009-10-05
22:23:26
@Ouch,
What a foolish statement. Never do you consider the reasons -- federal involvement in education, an academic arms race over non-education things like TNCs, etc. When you're willing to be an adult and actually attack my arguments, I'll respond, you anonymous coward.
Thanks,
2009-10-05
22:35:49
next time i see someone in the south quad parking lot on Friday night at 3 AM counting parking spots, I'm calling cam sec
2009-10-06
00:28:48
In my defense, I was escorting my girlfriend to her vehicle -- she has work in the morning -- and it was closer to 5 AM then 3 AM. But yes, you should call camp sec. I'm sure that they'll be able to use a whole roll of quarters to call the real police...
2009-10-05
23:37:59
My darling friend. Sometimes when I read your posts, I feel like I'm at the zoo. It's like you're a different species, and you're fascinating, really -- putting your absurdity on display. Kind of like the monkeys that fling poop at each other. It amazes me.
This isn't an issue on sustainability, but tough cookies. You mentioned in passing certain opportunities, namely HEO's free condoms and STD testing, that you seem to find distasteful. I know from having read your blog that these seem to be nagging issues in your mind. So be real with me here, babycakes. I know that might be an aversion for you, but let's suspend your little bubble for a minute. If condoms aren't as easy to come by, people will be less likely to use them. Don't think ladies and gents will play less; they just won't be as safe about it. Sucks, but things that suck are part of reality. Like wedgies, or 8:10 class. Ignoring them doesn't make them disappear.
Same goes for free STD testing. The spread of STDs won't stop if testing isn't offered; folks will just be less likely to find out about the ones they contract. It seems like you suggest that free testing somehow encourages people to be promiscuous? I'm pretty sure the girl being diddled in the Marks bathroom last Thursday wasn't exclaiming passionately at the prospect of getting a free pap smear.
You would think that someone so health conscious -- after all, it is imperative that you count to the medically-approved "twenty Mississippi" every time you wash your hands -- would be a little more sensitive to the subject of sexual health.
One last note. I'm not going to ask what brand of divine inspiration sent you sashaying to count empty parking spaces at 3 am, but facetiousness aside. I'm especially not going to let you know what I think of your comment on eating disorders, because a lady doesn't sift through trash.
XO
2009-10-06
00:27:19
@A Lady,
You have a rather animalistic view of human nature, for someone professing to be a "lady". I suppose I should expect as much from someone calling me a "different species" and "babycakes." Surely, this is how a lady refers to a debating partner.
In any event, I don't suppose it had dawned on you that smart men and women of the Claremont Colleges will not, as has been alleged, engage in sex without a condom. People will not engage in an act which could lead to irreparable harm for them. Give your fellows a bit more credit, despite the lack of self-preservation among some of them. (Read: TNC)
I haven't a problem with people spending their own money to get sexual tested, but it is immoral to take the funds from the many, many students on this campus who practice abstinence (by choice or by luck).
The comparison with flu is really a non-starter -- unless, of course, AIDS/HIV is spread through the air (which it is not) and then we are all doomed, anyways, so why bother with the condom?
--Cheers,
2009-10-06
01:33:24
Oh dear, Charles. Laugh a little, would you?
I would hardly call animalistic the fact that a great number of students here -- ladies and gentlemen, I dare say -- enjoy a good romp from time to time, seeing as it's perfectly natural.
Really? Prove it. That's lovely in theory, and I'm sure most students here will answer that they would always use a condom. But sometimes, in the heat of the moment or in a drunken stupor, people do things they might have done differently should they have taken a moment to think about it. You can project all you want from your pedestal, love, but people make mistakes all the time.
If you have a problem with the administration spending money on STD testing, then why don't you take issue with the fact that we have a crew routinely clean up after the same people and their disgusting messes (think Phillips lounge on a Sunday morning) instead? If you want to go the non-participation route, I think many students could even object to the entire athletic program. I don't particularly enjoy the fact that funds are taken from me in an effort to maintain the tennis courts, but I appreciate that it contributes to the community as a whole. And regardless, immorality? I would imagine that such a morally upstanding gentleman like yourself wouldn't dare make a filthy remark trivializing a serious issue like eating disorders.
XO
2009-10-06
11:14:11
"I haven't a problem with people spending their own money to get sexual tested, but it is immoral to take the funds from the many, many students on this campus who practice abstinence (by choice or by luck). "
I can see one disagreeing on principal with the use funds for initiatives they oppose, and for even considering the initiatives themselves immoral, but to suggest that a private institution's decision to spend the funds is immoral? That's rich.
The market has many alternatives, of course; I bet Bob Jones university is condom/STD testing free.
2009-10-07
22:12:31
The school does not fund STD testing. If you go to the student health center it costs money.
The only free STD testing is provided by a local clinic. They have a van that travels the inland empire, they just happen to have agreed to set up shop at the Claremont Colleges every other week for an evening.
2009-10-06
01:00:17
@Charles C. Johnson
"In any event, I don't suppose it had dawned on you that smart men and women of the Claremont Colleges will not, as has been alleged, engage in sex without a condom."
As someone with two job offers, publications in journals, who pays no tuition, and who has sex at least once a week, I can tell you I've only had sex with a condom two or three times on campus. Learn to pull out, use the rhythm method, and be with people who get tested regularly. The rhythm method (typical use), when used correctly, is more effective than condoms anyways Mr. sexual health expert. Or just stop judging people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calendar-based_methods
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condom
2009-10-06
10:16:17
Which goes to show that book smart does not equal social smarts.
Good luck with your incredible genius with all those job offers and publications....or syphillis. Whichever comes first.
*Sigh*
2009-10-06
01:23:29
Wow.
I really trust someone citing Wikipedia!
2009-10-06
01:25:02
I really wish all parties could discuss this in a less animosity-filled, malicious way...
Maybe Charles is making some very charged statements, but I am making the humble postulation that we could all be more civil, polite, and thoughtful. Including Charles.
2009-10-06
01:39:17
Mr. C. Johnson, your comments on eating disorders today have now made YOU the number one douchebag on campus. Had I been next to you when you said this I would have socked you so hard it'd give you a temporary eating disorder.
I'm not a generally violent person, but it's hard not to be when an ignorant person spits out idiotic statements simply because you've been "privileged" enough to never be close to anyone who goes through the horror that is an eating disorder.
I realize that this would make me the now biggest douche. But ya know what? It'd be worth it. I advise you to just think, take 30 seconds before you spew your word vomit next time on this forum. Once it's out there, you can't take it back.
Just don't respond to this, you've said enough today.
2009-10-06
09:48:07
@Offended,
Witness, ladies and gentlemen, how certain students would incite violence against their fellow students. I assure you, good sir or madam, that I would defend myself and if harmed I would press charges. Violence has no place on our campus. I would encourage you to grow up. The role of college is not to comfort you. That's the role of nurseries.
2009-10-06
10:14:00
Lol, what offended just said proved how alot of people on this campus can't stand being offended. Get off your fricken high horse, A-hole.
To offended, and over half the students at CMC, just because you're at some major university, (me included), does not give you ANY right to some holier-than-you attitude. Pot and the kettle, friend. How tolerant do you sound right now?
And @ A Lady...
To be blunt, your arguments are JUST as one sided as Charles. So, don't start acting like you have some superior argument. Eating disorder comments=low, but your arguments arguing for more protection, etc, etc, free STD testing, could easily be argued against.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for it. But--you don't have very strong arguments that haven't been argued in circles already.
Charles does have a fair point--why should the people who are abstinent pay for us who aren't? Doesn't seem very fair to me...it doesn't seem that hard for us to take on the responsibilities/payment for such testing, etc that come with those "romps" as you call them.
2009-10-06
10:22:28
In addition, Charles didn't make THAT many charged statements on eating disorders. Jesus, people. Grow the hell up. Sure, there are some un-PC things, but looking at the rest of the article, it's pretty legitimate.
But sure, go ahead and just flame something that was mentioned offhandedly in one sentence. It is definitely the easy way out.
2009-10-06
13:05:21
Brian,
Charles wants his dick back. Please get off of it.
2009-10-06
13:15:04
@Alex Mitchell,
Your classiness strikes again! Do you kiss your mother with those lips?
2009-10-06
14:30:48
Dear A Mitch,
I love you because you are my hero. You are easily the greatest writer ever to hit this website. You make me want to be a better me. If I was a judge I would vote you successful so therefore you win this argument and annihilate the opposition. I only want to make one point: I love the idea that "the purpose of college is an education. Why should someone have to go out of their way to buy a lamp?" I definitely didn't sign up to leave campus ever. The only time I anticipated leaving is to go to downtown LA to get f'd up on a night on the town.
I love you.
2009-10-06
21:34:00
Nice retort, A-hole. The post below you that's sucking your dick basically shows you that the wrong sort of people follow you.
Best writer? could have fooled me.
And 9/10 times, I hate what Charles has to say. Every bit of it.
But you're an effing idiot, to be blunt.
2009-10-06
22:51:34
Thanks Blue!
Brian,
You take yourself too seriously. Smile, it was funny.
Take your pants off and dance. Go crazy. Climb the crane and steal the American flag. Do something other than care so much about what people say to you.
2009-10-07
08:42:28
A mitch, I was literally about to write the same thing until I scrolled down further.
@ Brian
Saying you disagree with charles 9/10 times doesn't make it true, nor does it take his evacuate his meatstick from your throat.
@charles
You don't answer various retorts then you call on people to respond to your arguments. I hate repeating myself so don't ask these people to.
2009-10-07
11:44:53
Goddamn. Looks like when people defend someone on the internetz it turns into a "dick sucking" argument.
Note to all of you--Brian, A-Mitch, "Sorry", everyone. Grow the F*** up.
2009-10-06
15:55:34
I challenge my esteemed commenters to actually address the substantive arguments I make -- if they can.
If they cannot and insist on either ad hominem attacks on me and/or genuflections to their church of political correctness/environmentalism, I shall consider them to be the intellectual midgets I suspect a great many of them actually are and that the arguments herein presented have been accepted.
2009-10-06
16:41:32
Fine, you want to go line by line...
1. faucets: I have never encountered an automatic faucet which dispenses water for 20 seconds. And there is always the ability to wash your hands multiple times. In fact, I assume it is better to wash in 4 five second bursts, than for 20 consecutive seconds. Regardless, CMC's faucet policy does not restrict students from washing their hands for 20 seconds if they so desire. No harm means no valid point.
2. Garbage cans: this is one instance where the sustainability plan may have lost money. Citing one anecdote does not prove that the sustainability program has lost money overall you pseudoscientific pontificater.
3.Parking / drinking. It is safer to drink on campus than to drink and drive the 35+ miles one way to LA, drink, and drive back. It is better to encourage on campus drinking. As for parking, I'm not sure if you are saying CMC has too many open spots, or not enough, but regardless, I think Scripps administration should auction off spots. But that is Scripps' issue and not CMC's and I believe CMC admin has contacted Scripps admin on this issue. I know they have contacted the other colleges about parking in general across the 5Cs.
4. Decisions/Paternalism. People are stupid. Maybe they aren't always stupid, but many people make very predictable stupid decisions. One of these predictable stupid decisions is that many people eat like pigs and waste tons of food. Another is that many people practice poor sexual health. The college tries to ameliorate the effects of these poor decisions by offering subsidized STD testing and by instituting proven policies which reduce food waste without significantly restricting liberty. You can still eat and waste what you want, but you need to actually walk over to your food instead of balancing six plates on one tray. I don't see this as a significant restriction on our liberty.
5. Dining hall employees: once again, one anecdote doesn't prove the employees spend more time cleaning up in the post tray world you pseudoscientific pontificater. I've heard the opposite conclusion: that less wasted food leads to less food prep and that less plates and trays to clean leads to less cleaning time overall. Am I going to assume this proves less time is spent on cleaning now than was spent last year? No because anecdotes are not evidence.
6. Eating disorders. They are real and on campus. Please don't joke about them. I don't mind the jokes but other people do mind them and it makes you come off as a jerk.
7. Weighing food policy: This is impractical or impossible to implement and you know it. And while the college can spare the $1.75 per tray, they save a lot more money on the food that isn't wasted than $1.75 per student. I know you know this as well since you've extensively covered the tray subject on your blog. So please spare us these inane arguments.
8. Cleaning the containers: Another anecdote. Quit using one anecdote as evidence of a fact you pseudoscientific pontificater. I don't know how they clean the containers here but I assume they put it in a steamer and spray the container with water then let it dry. I also assume the trays were given the same treatment. Also you must consider that every student used a tray last year while only those who dine out use the container so the volume of containers which must be washed is drastically lower than the trays that needed to be washed last year.
2009-10-07
21:47:34
Pontifacter[sic],
1. It's pontificator, not -er.
2. I've already the point about creating incentives to get students to wash more. I wasn't suggesting that the water be running for all 20 seconds, but I was suggesting that you let it run. If the college were really sincere about restricting water use, it would water its lawns a lot less.
3. Granted that it is one instance, but it is one instance that few would have even noticed had I not brought it to attention. It was used to construct an argument, which it did successfully.
4. I'd love to hear evidence that CMC administration has pushed this issue of parking lots. I'd also love to see ASCMC get involved, as it would be, well, a student service. How about no Scrippsies at our parties until something changes?
5. You're assuming that CMCers would drive drunk, which, given that the law is very stiff on drunk driving (i.e. jail time), I'm inclined to think that they would avoid.
6. I've looked into it and heard the same story now at three dining halls. Three is a trend, not an anecdote. How would we collect data on it, anyways?
7. Who joked about them? I don't think you can eat a balanced meal without at least several plates.
8. See other comments on weighing food.
9. Noted about the containers, but it is still a solid argument because it gets to the difficulties of actually washing the containers which probably requires more energy.
2009-10-07
22:07:49
"5. You're assuming that CMCers would drive drunk, which, given that the law is very stiff on drunk driving (i.e. jail time), I'm inclined to think that they would avoid."
A former CMCer got pulled over driving drunk TO ANOTHER CLAREMONT PARTY.
So, not only do I assume that CMCers drive drunk, but I know it for a fact.
2009-10-06
16:24:04
Alright, I'll give it a shot, Charles - just to be sporting and because I think that everyone is overreacting, AND because I think you deserve a decent response sans animosity.
Generally, I actually agree with you that Pam Gann's goal of "sustainability" is quite vague to the critical eye. While you view her main charge as managing the endowment, I think that her broad plans will offer opportunities to improve the school.
There are a few points I would like to make regarding the article:
1. I think many readers are confused at your target of sustainability. When most people think "sustainability", it is in environmental terms, but you are you using the term in many general ways.
2. Some of your points, I think, relate less to your issue with Pam Gann's campaign for "sustainability" than to general campus inefficiencies/silliness. For example, even though I disagree with the ban on freshman having cars, I understand that while so many changes are happening there might be a space issue. Your count in S. Lot may not have been a statistically significant figure, but yes- I agree that there could be a better way to allow freshmen to park and still keep the lots running smoothly.
3. I don't say this to offend you, but I think you may be overreacting in your written responses. That said, almost everyone who has replied to your post has overreacted, and have done so in arguably inappropriate ways. However, as the journalist, Charles, it is your duty to properly communicate issues to your audience. In this publication your article could have provoked some good dialogue and forced students to question and, possibly, address President Gann's sustainability in a public forum where changes could be made. Unfortunately, your overuse of sarcasm and flippant remarks regarding examples only loosely related to your topic (eating disorders, the faucets being dangerous, school treating us like animals) lost your audience. Worse still, it's my opinion that your use of sarcasm exacerbated the problems I identified in points 1 and 2. In this case I think people are overreacting less because of your reputation as a loud voice on campus than to your sarcastic remarks.
To conclude, I agree with almost all your main points (NOT, however, any of your commentary, let me make that clear) about the vague mission for sustainability and that more efficient ways could be found - or at least these ways could be better communicated to students... But I don't agree that CMC students are apathetically letting it slide. Besides the students who approve the measures, there are students that have simply reconciled the changes because they don't make that much of an impact on their lives. Even if all the students were apathetic, wouldn't it be your mission to shake them out?
Charles, this is where you come in: as someone who pays great attention to campus activity and as someone who is vocal about changes they oppose/directly impact student life, you need to take more leadership on this issue. Pay more attention to your writing and what you are saying to students. Use the commentary, rather than to inflame, to inform and inspire. If you really want to make an impact on this campus you will, in reality, have to work a little past the reputation you have made, but your reputation can easily (or relatively) be made into one of a thoughtful leader if you go about it the right way.
2009-10-07
21:32:33
1. You're exactly right about me using the term in different ways. That's the point of the article to show how vague and wishy washy a concept it actually is and how its priorities are all out of whack.
2. We are agreed about how there could have been a better process than outright banning freshmen from having cars. Many freshmen are becoming "parking ninjas" -- just as I predicted and this makes traffic worse and leads to less revenue for the school. No effort was made to actually look into the matter more fully than just a blanket ban. It is consistent with president Gann's mission for sustainability. Does anyone want to take bets with me? I predict that CMC will never allow freshmen to have cars again -- even after the construction that supposedly drastically reduced our parking lots.
3. Asking me to write without humor and my own voice is like asking a chef not to use certain ingredients because his customers -- my audience -- may lack the palate. I have hard words to say for those who want to control CMC students and who I suspect have rather disturbing and curious views of our nature as people.
2009-10-08
09:14:14
Charles,
I think you are both missing my point and alienating anyone who would have supported you.
First of all, I'm not asking you to write completely without your humor or voice, but saying that the core points that I had initially agreed with are buried under your commentary. You can retain your voice and still be a more effective writer.
Secondly, I resent your tone when rebutting someone with legitimate comments.
2009-10-08
09:15:46
I also notice that you don't suggest any solutions. What would you do in President Gann's place?
2009-10-08
13:08:02
Thats what you get when trying to reason with someone who only knows how to yell. What you're doing is tantamount to calling into a Rush Limbaugh show and trying to have a rational conversation over healthcare. Charles is simple a (little) less pudgy version of a Limbaugh, at least as far as argumentative styles are concerned.
2009-10-08
16:35:25
@Jillian,
I would have present Gann be serious about cost cutting and do that cost cutting that does not affect student well being on campus. I would have her completely drop the whole sustainability initiative as it is both a misallocation of resources and deleterious on our student body.
2009-10-08
16:36:53
@@Jillian,
Fact check: Neither Rush Limbaugh, nor I are pudgy. And you're inability to address the arguments and instead go after me personally shows how silly some members of the Left are on this campus.
2009-10-06
16:54:33
Charles,
Have you tried finding a parking spot on campus during the day? While this was much more of a problem last year, with teachers, staff, and off campus students all coming to school at the same time it can often be impossible to find a spot at say 4pm. With the addition of our grad students along with the reduction in total spaces available parking is still an issue, even this year. Additionally, South lot and Bisantz lot also serve as parking lots for athletic events (have you ever tried to park during a football game? it took me 20 minutes to find a spot just last week). While I agree that we should have looked at other options for parking (ie scripps), we do have a genuine parking problem on campus that needed to be addressed.
2009-10-07
21:35:08
I agree with you 100% parking lots, but is the answer really to ban
The college thinks nothing of charging us for a great many things based upon our use. The same students who complain about raising the parking fee are curiously silent on raising the container fee. Why is that? Aren't poor students more likely to be affected by the second much more than the first?
2009-10-06
17:49:56
Thanks to all, I shall reply to all of these serious objections by tomorrow after my micro exam. Stay tuned and thanks for the reasoned discussion.
2009-10-06
17:52:16
And yes, that means that I'll even be replying to the anonymous coward who called me a pseudoscientific pontificator -- although truthfully, I think I was a lot less dogmatic than the definition of the later word would suggest.
2009-10-06
18:13:42
you weren't. But I gave my examples up above.
2009-10-06
17:55:43
But, seeing as I cannot resist, really a quick point about faucets.
Lots of people do not wash their hands.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/27/health/27wash.html
Automatic washers do not incentivize people to wash well as they constantly keep turning off and require pushing the button, which means that there isn't enough water to wash well and that the water most often does not get hot enough to be effective in carrying away germs.
Anything we can do to make it easier for people to wash their hands for a longer time would be helpful at stemming diseases. I certainly wash a lot more...
2009-10-08
13:52:29
Dear Charles,
I am a CMC student - we have met multiple times and have always been cordial to one another. I bear no ill will towards you, and I don't think you do towards me.
That said, little do you know that I spent six months in the hospital trying to nurse myself back to health from my eating disorder, which very near claimed my life, and that I continue to struggle with daily.
I realize the point of your article was about Sustainability at CMC, as your title implies. I respect you and your opinions, even if I may not agree with them. I don't mean to distract from the subject at hand, but after reading your article, and particularly the "eating disorder" argument, it seems like you threw in everything but the kitchen sink to stake your claim, and I found it very upsetting.
I'm not looking to get an apology, but I'd just like to make it known to you that there indeed ARE people who struggle with this mental disorder (which claims 20% of its untreated victims) on CMCs campus - I am not the only one, and I don't mean to speak for the entire population, but the comment made in the article makes it seem like you take eating disorders very lightly, wether or not that was your intention.
Perhaps, should you decide to reply to this comment, you can clarify your argument about "wasted food," without using the E.D. argument, as, again, that seems to be very distracting to your purpose.
Thanks
2009-10-12
20:06:17
Charles, like yourself, I am wildly frustrated at the removal of trays from our dining halls. It is highly inconvenient but what irks me is that it certainly has not worked for me in terms of cutting down on food waste. Despite my petite build, I am by no means a small eater (I have, on occasion, out-eaten men over twice my size). However, I find that I never finish my plate at Collins, and neither do a lot of kids. A few have defended Collins when I complain about my very many disappointing meals, which makes me laugh.
Collins is by far the worst dining hall out of all at the 5Cs, even when compared to other dining halls run by Bon Appetit. I feel sorry for the workers at Collins who work so hard and I think they should be praised, but they hardly ever get any because most people, when they talk about Collins, only remember how bad the food was. If the college truly wanted to cut down on food waste, yes, the tray could be a good idea, but maybe they should make the standard of Collins comparable to the likes of Frary and McConnell. I get that the other dining halls have bad days too, but none of them have a reputation as being consistently bad. I know I am going to get shot down for being over-privileged or whatever (and yes, I KNOW there are starving children and I give money to charity and do what I can to help) but i work hard at college (and fully appreciate my position, more so than many) and at the end of the day, all I want is to be able to have a nice meal at MY college, not someone else's. Why should I have to go to Pitzer or Pomona or Mudd or Scripps to eat good food when I paid good money to go to CMC?
Bottom line: if CMC wants to cut down on food waste, first they have to make people want to finish the food on their plates, trays or no trays.
2009-10-13
09:50:08
Well said, Bev,
But from the college's end, what's their incentive to serve you? You pay the same amount whether you like it or not (if you live in the dorms, at least). They know that if the food is bad at all the dining halls you'll just waste more of your meals on your meal card.
2009-10-13
11:14:26
Charles, their incentive is that they get to do what they say they want to do- cut down on waste. It is the only solution I can think of where everyone benefits, especially the administration's obsession with the Princeton Review rankings (they rank food, don't they?)