A blogger at Pomona College by the name of Amanda is at it again. You might remember her suggestion that are smokers suicidally depressed and that the Coop ought to prohibit selling them cigarettes.
Now she's in effect declaring that her parking space is worth more than an estimated $1.6 million dollars that a bunch of alumni have already given in anticipation of their one-day event. Here's her email chain with one of the people overseeing the alumni weekend.
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:40 AMWay to be loyal and differential to your school, Amanda!
To: Nancy Treser-Osgood
Subject: Re: [ALL_STUDENTS] Dining Hall Closures & Parking RestrictionsHi, Nancy,
Is there any way to let the alumni know not to park in the Lawry parking lot? There are way too many cars in that lot already, and if alumni decide to park there, it will cause huuuge problems.
Thanks!
Amanda
On Apr 30, 2008, at 10:44 AM, Nancy Treser-Osgood wrote:
I don’t think many alumni will park there, Amanda, since we only have one event in Frary on Friday afternoon. But that lot is listed on the campus map as an area where alumni can park.
I know it’s going to get crowded this weekend, but I appreciate your understanding as we welcome these alumni back to campus. By the way, this group of reunion classes has already pledged or donated $1.6 million to the College.
-Nancy
From: Amanda
Sent: Wednesday, April 30, 2008 10:51 AM
To: Nancy Treser-Osgood
Subject: Re: [ALL_STUDENTS] Dining Hall Closures & Parking RestrictionsOkay, that’s fine. Are there going to be additional lots where students can park (or, since it’s the weekend, faculty/staff lots that will be opened to students)? Unfortunately, it’s not just that it’s crowded, it’s that there are frequently no parking spaces at all.
On Apr 30, 2008, at 10:52 AM, Nancy Treser-Osgood wrote:
I have not made any special arrangements for student parking this weekend. I’m just trying to accommodate our alumni guests. Sorry!
-Nancy
She follows it up.Gosh, that’s really annoying.
I really hate the attitude Pomona has about a lot of this stuff-like “you’d better be grateful for what we’re giving you, peons.” Why? “Because some old rich people are donating money.” News flash: I give approximately one-sixteenth of a shit that these particular alumni have donated $1.6 million.
As Claremont McKenna would (and frequently does) say: “Puck Fomona.”
Maybe she believes that parking, like free medical counseling paid for by the school, is a "right." Free parking isn't just for Monopoly anymore.
Subscribe in a reader
24 comments:
Jesus fucking christ. Arrogant much? People like Amanda make Pomona College worse than it already is.
Jesus fucking christ. Arrogant much? People like Amanda make Pomona College worse than it already is.
First of all, Charles, just like CMC students, Pomona students do pay for parking. In fact, we pay more for it than anyone else at the 5Cs.
Secondly, why are you still reading my blog? I read yours for its totally wacky entertainment value (and for the occasional valid point buried beneath layers of misunderstanding). My blog, however, is not entertaining at all.
Also, I think you mean "deferential." In which case: come on, kettle. I don't think you get to criticize people for not being "loyal and deferential" to their schools. (Nor do I think that there's any requirement to be loyal or "deferential" to your school.)
When I pay for something I expect to receive it, whether or not someone gave a ton of money to the person I bought it from. If I pay for a parking permit, I ought to be able to park.
--Nick
It's not privilege to expect to receive what you pay for.
--Nick
Nick and Amanda,
As I understand it you are paying access to a service. You don't get the specific parking spot you've paid for or want. You just get access to one of Pomona's parking spots.
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
I assume also that there is some clause that says that the college retains the right to the parking spot in the cases of emergency or fundraising.
Charles, everyone has complaints about their school, from the trivial (parking) to the much larger (how we spend our endowment). I find no problem with someone complaining that their parking space has been taken and they've been left with nowhere to park. It's not offensive; it's not hurtful; nor is it stupid. It's a legitimate complaint, and while it may be small, it's certainly not arrogant or overly entitled. The school has chosen the rich alumni over the students, which it has the right to do. But the fact that the rich alumni are the ones who are being favored is symptomatic of a balance of power (necessary though it may be) at the school. If anyone is allowed to complain, whether trivial or not, it should be the people who are at the bottom of that balance.
Amanda's right on this one. The service you pay for doesn't guarantee you a specific spot, but it still guarantee's the service of a parking spot. The admin mishandled the situation and clearly favored alumni over students, i.e. the consumers who paid for the service.
Great job going after them. I would be pissed off as well if someone forced me to make a sacrifice for a greater good, especially when I paid for it(Like going trayless!)
Charles, (going back to our conversation about IPR and patent law). everything is not a tangible good. You sell the service, i.e. a contract. Pomona has violated the contract by not creating an alternative space. If you can't access the service, whatever maybe the reason, you've been deprived of a service you paid for.
Aditya,
Of course I naturally agree with you on principle, but we're not talking principle here. We are talking economics.
The fact of the matter is that the loss of parking spot is smaller than 1.6 million that has already been raised and the money that is soon to come.
Is it odious that the school puts the alumni above the students for a few hours? Yes. But is it justifiable? I would say yes.
A contract is not a suicide pact. In much the same way that a property owner may call in a painter against the protestations of a tenant, so too can Pomona College temporarily invite others to use its facilities if the amount of money being brought in is higher than the alleged inconvenience.
Moreover, I think there's a big difference between a trayless Tuesday that speaks to reduce waste (and really doesn't) and a few hours on a Saturday in which at least 1.6 million is being raised on behalf of the College.
If 1.6 million went into the endowment of CMC instead of eating for that day, I wouldn't be opposed to it. I would weigh the trade offs.
Still, reasonable people can disagree over what that magic number might be. Until we find it, Amanda can park somewhere else on campus for few hours.
Ugh, as usual you're just full of flawed reasoning because you don't bother to read carefully.
//Moreover, I think there's a big difference between a trayless Tuesday that speaks to reduce waste (and really doesn't) and a few hours on a Saturday in which at least 1.6 million is being raised on behalf of the College.//
Note that the original email specified that this group of alumni had already pledged or donated the $1.6 million. So, in fact, the $1.6 mil is not being raised in a few hours on Saturday, because it has already been raised. Furthermore, I sincerely doubt they're planning on rescinding their gifts if they show up on Saturday and the parking is crowded.
Nice try Brendan. You're putting words into my mouth.
They are raising at least 1.6 million. That's the baseline.
A contract is not a suicide pact. In much the same way that a property owner may call in a painter against the protestations of a tenant, so too can Pomona College temporarily invite others to use its facilities if the amount of money being brought in is higher than the alleged inconvenience.
That is not the same thing at all. The scenario you're actually proposing is as follows:
You're renting an apartment and paying a set amount per month in order to stay there. Your landlord gets a call from his grandmother, who gives him money for his birthday and is likely to leave him money in her will. He decides that she's going to sleep in YOUR apartment for a week. He in fact does not have the right to do that, and you wouldn't tolerate it, even if the money Grams gives him might possibly go to improving the building at some point in the future. He can't do it for ANY amount of money from Grams.
Also, you clearly don't understand the problem, which is that 1500 alumni are converging on campus for a weekend. There are already only a handful of open parking spaces anywhere on campus--it's not an issue of parking elsewhere, it's an issue of parking at all.
Charles,
Economics is based on axioms or deductions about human nature, such as rational self interest. So principles are relevant here. I think the word you're looking for is utilitarian. You see the utility of alumni donations to students as higher than the service of parking that they paid for. I personally don't like collective decision making or any notion of a greater good. If there is an enlightened benefit that I ought to sacrifice my personal services for, it should be voluntary.
You're rented apartment analogy is also flawed because in most cases 1. The tenant signs a contract that deals with such clauses. 2. The tenant is being inconvenienced as opposed to being removed from the service all together.
Trayless Tuesday is no different from the Parking case. The perceived benefit of going trayless is seen as beneficial for the overall society.
I also doubt the alumni would reduce their donation based on a shortage of parking space. (Someone might even donate a parking lot!!)
Amanda, I've heard that they're constructing a new dorm on North Campus in place of an existing parking lot. Is this true?
Yep, it's true, but the good news is they're adding an underground parking structure (supposedly with sufficient parking for the first time ever, which would be awesome) underneath Athearn Field. Of course, that won't be done until the spring semester at the earliest...so basically, I'm really happy I'm graduating.
Yep, it's true, but the good news is they're adding an underground parking structure (supposedly with sufficient parking for the first time ever, which would be awesome) underneath Athearn Field. Of course, that won't be done until the spring semester at the earliest...so basically, I'm really happy I'm graduating.
I concede that Aditya has changed my mind on the matter. (As he often always does.)
I should wonder though whether or not it's advisable to use the kind of language against the lost of a service.
By the way, that last post was mine.
Underground parking sounds great. Atleast we can make the next Kerri Dunn walk a bit before vandalizing her own car.
Charles, I basically agreed with Amanda's post. So I'm glad that we were able to convince you, but this was her point, not mine.
I’ve long restrained myself from posting here, but I could not resist in the wake of this insightful commentary.
Posts like this show you are more concerned with self-aggrandizement and a feeling of self-righteousness rather than advancing conservative ideas in any meaningful way. I should know- as one of the very few conservatives/libertarians at Pomona College, I can truthfully say you make my life harder by playing into all the worst stereotypes your hated Pomona liberals have of the right. I’ve seen and heard more discussions on this very subject than I’d care to admit and you know what- this sort of pettiness and mean-spiritedness more often makes even this staunch right winger rally to the defense of his friends on the left rather than nod in agreement with you.
What you have done is taken the mundane and even somewhat inane cathartic ventings of an apolitical personal blog mostly devoted to chronicling the soapy subplots of the American Office, and you have used this to extrapolate grand theories about Pomona’s political culture that you can condemn. Stop and reread that. Now tell me you have not adopted the manufactured outrage more commonly associated with the left, looking for something to complain about where nothing exists in order to keep attention focused on an imagined political crusade (in this case, against Pomona, privilege, and the “nanny state”). Your kneejerk claims of elitism and entitlement are no different than the all too infrequent resort to claims of sexism and racism in instances where they do not exist and which therefore dilute legitimate claims of these various evils when they actually appear.
You’ve done more to strengthen the “nanny state” mentality than any professor or ranting student group I’ve encountered in my four years here. In fact, I’d venture to say you’ve done more on that front than all of them combined. So thank you for your leadership in seizing the banner of the right and trampling it underfoot for the rest of us. Thus, to whatever extent we might be nominally on the same side, I’d instead consider you more of a Fifth Columnist or a “useful idiot” (to use humourous old commie-speak) undermining the morale of your allies. We really do appreciate it. Kudos, sir. Kudos.
Anonymous,
What were you doing then for all those four years?
You're too much of a coward to even use your real name on a conservative/libertarian blog.
I don't believe that all Pomona College students support the decline of their college at all. I think that good people such as yourself never stood up to the invasions in their own personal freedom.
They gave ground over and over again.
Zealousness in the defense of liberty is no vice and cowardice in the face of adversity is no virtue. You might win more friends but that's only because you've come to accept their definition of how you should live instead of your own.
Meanness or extremism are the excuses people use when they cannot answer your points.
Mea culpa, I didn't add my name when I reloaded the page to copy my comments back out of MSWord. So, now you have a name to condemn. Enjoy.
I have no quarrel with extremism; I too subscribe to your paraphrase of Cicero.
I do, however, see little value in the sort of counterproductive pettiness that seems to characterize far too much of this site. I don't see how shrugging at a student venting about incredibly minor bureaucratic gripes constitutes "never [standing] up to the invasions in their own personal freedom" or "[giving] ground over and over again." Instead, I see it as concentrating on substantive issues that matter rather than encouraging the (unfair) perception of conservatives as mean-spirited and self-righteous.
Is that perception unfair? Sure, it is. But it's a reality that such a perception exists, especially for those of us not cloistered in the insulated bastion of conservatism of Stark Tower, CMC. Thus we can't all just be angry ranters- some of us have to the only real ambassadors of conservative ideals most college liberals will ever encounter among their peers. I'm willing to bet I've changed far more minds (or at least encouraged people to reconsider their ideas) than you have. I, however, do so when appropriate and when there's a reasonable chance of success. Does this mean I don't push my viewpoints in classes where I know I'll only alienate people? Sure, I've done that, but I've also zealously defended my own views in others.
Does that make me an accommodator/appeaser? I can't really think so; it makes me a pragmatist who knows that "extremist" or unconventional views need to be carefully presented to an unfriendly audience with the intention of persuasion, rather than simply to pat oneself on the back for expounding them (even if in doing so, one proves counterproductive). In short, I believe in promoting the ideas, not the speaker.
Nor can I think I've "come to accept their definition of how [I] should live instead of [my] own." Anyone who knows me would know I have no problem discussing my personal moral Puritanism, my abstention from alcohol since I got here, or my generally amusing anachronism of my lifestyle. In fact, I jokingly flaunt it- jokingly not because I'm embarrassed about it, but because I do believe in the classic conservative notion of live and let live- persuade by example, not coercion and pressure.
But you wouldn't know that, despite all but claiming to have psychoanalyzed me in the preceding post. This, in a nutshell, captures the basic problem I have with far too many of the comments on this site.
A conservative who disagrees with me? Must be a cowardly appeaser desperately looking to fit in with the dominant campus climate of those eeevil Pomona liberals.
Someone who wonders if Pomona- a private entity- should voluntarily sell a product within said private entity's commercial venues- must be a sign of the creeping nanny state.
Save your powder, your political capital, and your energy for something worthwhile rather than scouring student opinion so you can distort it and rant about in pursuit of relentless self-promotion. Those of us without the benefit of a constantly reinforcing echo chamber will appreciate it.
Cheers, Sean, and thanks, Aditya.
Here's hoping I'll never have to defend Delicious Golden Waffles (the name of my blog, for those who weren't looking) again. I mean, seriously.
Sean,
First of all, I've already conceded that I wasn't entirely fair in my assessment of Amanda's attitude. Aditya (and Amanda) have persuaded me, but I think that the utilitarian argument might still apply, however narrowly.
If I may, let me address the more substantive points you made.
I applaud your efforts to try and change your friends' opinions, but feel that they are insufficient. Insofar as I know, you don't write for The Student Life. You don't run a website. You don't go to public debates and debate the Republican viewpoint. You might have changed the opinions of a few of your friends --and for that I applaud you-- but you haven't convinced a great majority. And moreover, I don't think you've even attempted.
Thanks for the comments. I disagree. I think we always need to be on our guard -- at least online. In the public realm, I'm much more good humored, but that doesn't come across on the blogosphere. One of the limitations of the media perhaps or maybe my limitations as a writer?
I must take issue with your statement that you've at least gotten more people to change their views. Everyday I work on trying to persuade people on print and off. This blog has received almost 40,000 hits since it started which undeniable influences a large sector of the population.
You suggest that I'm seeking to promote my own self instead of my ideas, but therein you make a logical flaw in suggesting that it must be one or the other. I reject that characterization.
I don't think that there's anything wrong with self-promotion in defense of a cause. I debated gun control today and make my points even in very liberal classes. Do I take a hit for the voicing of my opinions? You bet. But I'm unwilling to sacrifice my soul for Wales.
By the way, your characterization of the echo chamber is totally destroyed in Clay Shirky's new book, Here Comes Everybody. This isn't an echo chamber in any stretch of the imagination as is evidenced by my willingness to engage you and others. As for scouring the internet looking to distort things, I simply let Amanda's writings speak for itself.
In any event, I realize the limits of this media and would love to talk to you in person. You have my email address. Have at it!
Post a Comment