Here are a few responses to specific parts of his argument. I disagree with most of what Wald writes, but it was interesting to read his particular reasons for voting against both swine flu resolutions.
Nonetheless, I fear that [Schor's death] may mark the manipulation of proceedings by members of the IFC, which is nothing short of disgraceful to Warren’s memory.By trying to prevent future deaths, the IFC is disgracing Schor's death?
I did not believe that a moratorium on all social events would be as effective as we hoped it would be because of the busy social scene in Collegetown that would only become more crowded with a lack of on campus events.Most freshmen don't have connections to Collegetown parties (or don't feel like going that far) and can't get into bars. No doubt that the moratorium has prevented many of them from attending crowded parties.
When asked for the numbers of reported swine flu in the past week at the meeting, the Executive Board offered the statement that the number of reported cases decreased over the weekend, but increased to normal rates on Monday and Tuesday. Such a statistic, paired with the information that we learned suggesting a two day incubation period of swine flu, leads me to believe that my instinct in saying the moratorium was not effective was correct.I believe that Gannett is closed on Sundays, which would explain that fewer cases were reported over the weekend. I don't think the number of reported cases can ever "decrease." The IFC is going by the recommendations of the Cornell administration, which has shown pretty strong leadership throughout the swine flu scare. We haven't hit the peak of cases yet.
However, the resolution passed was a clear example of the agenda set by the Executive Board, and in particular, its president. Before the original moratorium was passed, Sigma Alpha Epsilon had planned a date night for the little sisters of the fraternity...I don't know what was going on behind the scenes, but I don't think there's much to go by here. I think the timing of the original resolution was reasonable, and I think the modification to exclude only non-catered invites (allowing mixers and formals) was a reasonable change in order to make sure the resolution passed. And if Rooker was looking out for the interests of his own chapter, why not? When you're the IFC president, you'd be foolish not to consider the interests of your own chapter when you make decisions. From what I've seen, SAE has a very full social calendar every fall and I doubt there are any weekends without a party (White, Green, Pink, etc.), mixer, or formal.
I disagree with the characterization of the IFC Executive Board as a bunch of schemers who sit around trying to ram self-serving resolutions down the throats of unsuspecting chapter delegates. They can't even vote for the resolutions; only the chapter delegates can. Last year for example, the IFC officers and OFSA pushed hard to make part of rush week "dry." After a long period of debate and some contentious votes, the resolution was voted down. I see no reason why something similar couldn't have happened with the moratorium on parties if the chapters were so opposed to it.
To speak frankly, the IFC chapters which never followed the rules before (hosted unregistered parties, served hard alcohol, etc.) are the same ones who won't follow the moratorium on parties. The IFC Executive Board shouldn't have to waste its time appealing to the houses which never wanted to participate in the self-governing process in the first place.
Wald's own chapter hosted a party in violation of the ban. His chapter was also one of four IFC houses to "fail to meet the minimum standards" (large .pdf) in their 2008 end-of-year report (the 2009 evaluations are not yet available).
If IFC delegates are unhappy with the moratorium, they should try to convince other houses' representatives to vote to repeal the moratorium at Wednesday's meeting. And they can try again each week until the ban is lifted.
No comments:
Post a Comment