VIO | Blog Row

In the March 28 edition of The Flat Hat, a staff editorial entitled “Total traylessness?” advocated, essentially, for a (near) complete removal of trays from campus dining facilities in an effort to reduce food and water waste by William & Mary Dining Services:

…[Because] objective results show that going trayless will indeed reduce waste, Dining Services may have cause to mix things up a bit at the Caf. While we don’t advocate doing away with trays altogether, changing the current tray system might prove more efficient both in food saved and water used.Every hot dog, eaten or not, costs something. Whether food goes into bellies or bins won’t much matter when it comes to meal plan prices. And in that respect, waste isn’t so different from theft — everyone pays more in the end because of it.

If Dining Services made trays available by request, we expect excess food consumption would fall as well. Inconvenient though this scheme might seem, a total tray ban would undoubtedly involve greater hardship. This middle way involves some compromise, but in our view, saving more food from the dumpster is a worthier goal than shielding diners from any difficulty.

I understand that the authors of this piece explicitly state that they are not advocating for a complete removal of trays from our current dining “scheme.” The problem, however, lies in the fact that they are equating those who waste food — apparently, easily identifiable by the use of a common dining tray — with those who commit theft. That seems like a pretty strong indication towards a preference of “total traylessness,” as their headline so states. This disparity in logic calls into question either their judgment in headline choice or the sincerity of their sentiments.

The editorial claims that

[a] trash bin at the end of the line already brims with the meals no one wanted — meals many hungrier mouths might gladly have accepted. A trayless initiative, inspired by similar programs around the country, should help diners at the College reflect on that waste.

While I agree that waste is not generally a good thing, the fact remains that students are paying upwards of over $1,000 — the cheapest plan, Block 60, is $946 — for all-you-can-eat meals at the Caf and UC. As The Flat Hat editorial board said, the food’s final destination is irrelevant in terms of dollars — it’s been paid for already. Of course, I would prefer to see it go into “hungrier mouths,” but that is a difficult reality to deal with. A paying customer deserves to have access to a tray on which to place his food when he goes through the line to pick up his selections. Period.

A test-run of a trayless system will be tried at the Caf in the upcoming weeks, according to The Flat Hat. Members of the Student Environmental Action Coalition (SEAC)

plan to examine how the trash from the trayless times measure up against the rest. Even if nothing definitive comes of this trash tabulating, with fewer trays to wash, the College will have (temporarily at least) reduced its water waste.

If reduction of water waste is a goal, I’m sure someone could concoct a “dining scheme” by which we could simply eschew our use of plates, forks, knives, and spoons — too much to wash, and think about all that water! It would be better to just stick our hands in a vat of mashed potatoes, grab a handful, and go nuts.

Let’s see what the members of The Flat Hat’s editorial board do when they are forced to attempt to balance two plates, a bowl, a plastic cup, a few napkins, a knife, a fork, and possibly a spoon to the wash area on their way out of the Caf or UC, should this program become permanent. The reality is that the institution of this program will do nothing more than anger, frustrate, and inconvenience paying customers of dining services who will demand use of a tray.

[NCF]

As most people know by now, Matt Beato (’09), a student at the College, is running for Williamsburg City Council. The election is May 6.

Mr. Beato has been campaigning furiously over the past few weeks, and will continue his push of dorm storming, Swem tabling, speech making, gladhanding, and other general campaign activities until the election arrives. Now that students are no longer being oppressed by a corrupt registrar, Mr. Beato has an excellent shot at a seat on the WCC.

In the meantime, the campus media — namely, The Virginia Informer and The Flat Hat – have provided excellent coverage of his campaign, as well as some relevant opinions on the matter. It appears, generally, that Mr. Beato has done an excellent job in wooing the two major news publications at the College, and rightly so.

(In the interest of full disclosure, allow me to add here that I am not only a senior editor for The Informer, I am also Mr. Beato’s content editor. Just wanted to clear the air on that one.)

In the March 26 edition of The Informer, for example, Mr. Beato was featured in a below-the-fold front page news story, in the humor column, in the cartoon, and in the major staff editorial for that issue.

The staff editorial, entitled “Students reassert voice through student candidate,” rightly claims that Mr. Beato’s candidacy is important because

[f]irst and foremost, students at the College will have the opportunity to elect a candidate who will actually represent them on a body so out of touch with the concerns of the largest demographic of Williamsburg’s population. Secondly, as students of the College — and, by default, as Williamsburg residents — we are governed by laws over which we have no democratic control. The notorious “brothel law,” strict noise ordinance enforcement as well as a glaring lack of student friendly businesses in Williamsburg all indicate the actions, or inactions, of a city council wholly disinterested in dealing with student-relevant issues. Thirdly, the successful ascension of a student to the Williamsburg City Council will set a precedent — one that the current city council incumbents are scared of, and rightly so — of the concept of a more permanent student seat on the council. If Mr. Beato runs and wins, he will serve out his three year term; if he decides to run for reelection, his chances of winning are high providing he does an adequate job. If he decides not to run, he will undoubtedly seek out, coach and assist another qualified, ambitious student to take his place. This will create a historically unprecedented and politically unheard-of reality of a student seat on the Williamsburg City Council — one member in five who will be able to, ideally, adequately represent the concerns of students at the College of William and Mary.

The Flat Hat has also offered up its share of praiseworthy journalistic real estate over the past few weeks. On March 14, a column — again, in the interests of full disclosure, written by Mr. Beato’s volunteer coordinator who is also a regular Flat Hat columnist — entitled “Stakes are high for students in City Council election”asserted that

Beato is uniquely qualified to run for City Council. Upon entering the College as a freshman, he immediately dove into the Student Assembly, looking to affect change and help successfully govern the student body. Since then, Beato has attended City Council, Neighborhood Council and Planning Commission meetings, worked tirelessly to register students to vote (back when it was nearly impossible) and has continued to improve students’ lives through his efforts in the SA.Beato has dedicated his college career to promoting students’ rights and making Williamsburg an even better community. It is this amazing passion, combined with Beato’s exhaustive knowledge of city issues (unrivaled by anyone else that I’ve met) that make him an impressive candidate for City Council.

However, in order to win this campaign and serve as a positive voice in Williamsburg government, Beato needs student support. As students of the College, we comprise half of Williamsburg’s population, and yet none of the five members of City Council have shown an interest in supporting students’ rights. We deserve better.

A little over a week later, another column appeared in The Flat Hat, whose author wrote that Mr. Beato

has already begun to receive a warm reception from the rest of the Williamsburg community. On March 12, a Virginia Gazette reader wrote, “I’m happy that William and Mary students are using their newfound voting power responsibly. Putting up one fairly moderate student in Beato is much better than anything I or my neighbors feared.”There is no question tensions may rise as we students elbow our way into the decision-making of a community that has typically only acknowledged the needs of tourists and retirees. While it may be tempting to leverage our franchise to force our will, righteous though our demands for equal rights may be, we are still only one part of a many-faceted Williamsburg. It is only by working alongside these differing peoples and politics of our city that we may truly progress.

While both The Informer and The Flat Hat have stopped short of officially endorsing Mr. Beato as of yet, the two publications are clearly supporting the idea(ls) of what his candidacy means for students and student rights. It is my hope that, through a judicious use of the power of the pulpit, these papers can help Mr. Beato to mobilize and educate the student body on the efficacy of voting in Williamsburg.

[NCF]

I checked my CSU today and, inside, I found a particularly exciting piece of correspondence from the City of Williamsburg — my official Williamsburg voter card had arrived. With this card I will be able to vote in all Williamsburg city elections and, also, now I won’t have to go home or vote absentee for national elections — eg, president of the United States this coming November.

There are many who think that the idea of student voting in Williamsburg is a ludicrous idea — I used to be of this mindset myself. My thinking was thus: students, who are transient residents of this city, have no real vested interest in the concerns of Williamsburg operations, and should not be entrusted to make decisions on taxes, public works, economics, etc., that will affect the greater, more permanent population of which we are not really a part. Rather, the homeowners, employees, full time residents, and community members should be making those decisions. Due to the fact that students comprise a disproportionately large percentage of the Williamsburg population, were we to vote, we would be making decisions on legislation that are either of little true concern to us or that will not really affect us — after all, many if not most of us don’t even work in the city and will be gone within, at most, four years.

But, this thinking — with plenty of holes in it itself — fails to consider some more obvious ideas about student disenfranchisement. Students — Williamsburg’s largest demographic — bring in millions of dollars worth of social and economic capital to the City of Williamsburg, we pay sales tax every time we patronize Williamsburg’s numerous shops and restaurants, and — most importantly — as students who cannot vote, we are subject to laws and city policies over which we have no input. A right to vote — previously denied to us — takes care of this problem quite handily.

I encourage my fellow students to register to vote in Williamsburg, particularly before the May 6 Williamsburg City Council elections.

[NCF]

The final weeks of the semester are finally upon us. With less than a month left of class, William & Mary students are doing what we often do — studying, stressing, and lamenting about how quickly our time is passing.

For myself and the rest of the class of 2009, the fact that we are nearly seniors is absolutely mindboggling. As cliche as this sounds, it does seem like only yesterday that we were being carted around campus by upperclassmen in yellow t-shirts during the first weeks of the 2005 fall semester, who frequently reminded us that we would not believe just how quickly our time at the College would pass.

While today was in the low 80s and absolutely gorgeous, we appear to be in for another stretch of chilly weather. Once spring finally decides to stick around, though, we’ll all start to get that truly end-of-the-year feel — a warm, fuzzy sensation often accompanied or catalyzed by everything from women in sundresses — my favorite — to the never ending games of ultimate frisbee on the Sunken.

Big upcoming events for the remainder of the semester include the upcoming May 6 Williamsburg City Council elections, in which William & Mary student Matt Beato (’09) is running. I personally encourage all students of the College to REGISTER TO VOTE IN WILLIAMSBURG — a good idea generally, but particularly so that you can vote for Mr. Beato in this election.

And if that weren’t enough, let’s not forget that the Ying Yang Twins are coming to the College on April 9. If only Mr. Beato could perform with them…

[NCF]

The listserv of the Student Assembly Senate, known as “senate-l,” is a public e-mail list that anyone with a William & Mary user ID and password can join. The purpose of the listserv is to keep members of the SA Senate, along with any other subscribers, apprised of public Senate business — this includes minutes, proposed bills, and committee meeting schedules. As executive editor of The Virginia Informer — and now as editor in chief of The Virginia Informer Online — I am subscribed to senate-l as a member of the campus media.

As a subscriber, I was privy to an incident which occurred last week over senate-l. A particular SA senator not only abused the listserv generally, but — as a member of the Elections Commission — expressly violated one of its primary rules governing displays of public interest in a candidate. Senator Matt Skibiak (’08) had this to say over the Senate listserv at 3:17 am:

Hey y’all! Party on and I endorse Val and Zach! Probably shouldn’t say that, but whatever. I’m a senior so eff you!

Student Life Meeting Sunday at 3pm in the SA house. We’re passing (or rejecting) a referendum - just kidding Mullis. See you all there.

Peace,
Matt

Mr. Skibiak was removed from the Elections Commission as a result of his behavior, and a replacement was selected by then-SA President Zach Pilchen (’09). Apparently, Mr. Skibiak was slightly miffed that his presumably drunken parlance over a public listerv was “leaked” — read: provided to — The Flat Hat, which printed his words in an article on March 21:

SA Sen. Matt Skibiak ’08 was recently fired from the elections commission for sending out a self-described “joke” endorsement in an e-mail to SA senators last Sunday morning at 3:17 a.m. … Skibiak said that he forgot that he meant the e-mail as a joke and that he often tries to lighten the mood, which he said had a tendency to take itself too seriously.

“Frankly I think the fallout from a little joke has been absolute bullshit and is indicative of the childish nature of the Senate and how seriously they take themselves,” Skibiak said in an e-mail to The Flat Hat. “My endorsement of Valerie and Zach didn’t mean a thing and didn’t change a single mind. Senators and people in the Student Assembly, for the most part, live in a little bubble which they think is a microcosm of the real political world.”

Whether or not Mr. Skibiak’s “endorsement of Valerie and Zach didn’t mean a thing and didn’t change a single mind” is not precisely the point. The bottom line is summed up quite nicely by Alex Kyrios (’09), stated plainly in a comment on this article on The Flat Hat’s Web site:

…Skibiak was completely wrong and irresponsible in his justification. It is essential that the Elections Commission treat all candidates fairly; this is so obvious it shouldn’t have to be stated. Commissioners are certainly entitled to their private preferences, but public endorsements are inappropriate, even when they’re “jokes.”

This prompted Mr. Skibiak to send out yet another e-mail over senate-l which ended with a peculiar post script:

And Cheers to all the rats in the senate who love to leak information to the Flat Hat. I sense a great future for some of you.

What Mr. Skibiak apparently forgets was made very clear in a response e-mail written by Deputy Director of SA Internal Affairs Will Angley (’08):

The Flat Hat recently printed exact text of an e-mail that Matt Skibiak sent over the Senate listserv, senate-l@wm.edu, and referenced other specific e-mails over the listserv.

It didn’t take a leak for them to get these e-mails. …

The Flat Hat subscribes to the Senate listserv. They get copies of every e-mail sent over the listserv!

Anyone can subscribe to the Senate listserv, and all e-mails sent over the Senate listserv can be read by any member of the public at any time. …

Please don’t send an e-mail to senate-l…unless you’re OK with it being printed in the Flat Hat.

Ah, there it is. This message is relevant for all of us, everyone from former New York Governor Eliot Spitzer to an SA senator. Don’t put ANYTHING on the Internet in writing unless you are comfortable with it being printed on the front page of your community newspaper. It is a valuable lesson to understand, and I wish that our democratically elected members of the SA were more readily cognizant of this reality.

[NCF]

This post will be dedicated to the newest addition to the William & Mary blogosphere: Not David Husband (NDH), “the first blog dedicated to SA punditry.” The blog, of course, is a parody of Not Larry Sabato, a Web site featuring a collection of blog posts, videos, and other minutiae regarding national politics.

David Husband (’09), after whom the blog is named, was chief of staff for the Pilchen / Hopkins administration. It is my understanding that he will be staying on board in the same capacity for the new Hopkins / Pilchen administration as well. Mr. Husband is a personal friend of mind, and, given the fact that he is the go-to guy for all things SA, I can think of no better a person after whom to name a blog dedicated to the Student Assembly.

The blog’s creator, Alex Kyrios (’09), is a self-described “outgoing Senator” who “would like to think [he] can give an outsider’s perspective.” He also self-describes in the blog’s introductory post as a “former member and chairman of the Elections Commission,” which, in my mind, immediately contradicts any claim to Mr. Kyrios’ legitimacy as an SA outsider. His roles as senator, elections commissioner, and Elections Commission chair all seem to point rather obviously to the idea that he is not, in fact, providing a fresh perspective. This is not to say that he can provide no perspective at all, which is surely not the case — I just take umbrage with the fact that he claims to be an outsider when he is very clearly not.

NDH’s first post deals, perhaps prematurely, with next year’s SA presidential election — despite the fact that we just finished this year’s election last week:

It’s never too early to think about next year’s general election, even this year’s was just yesterday. All the more appropriate since this year’s contest offered little to satisfy the taste of true political junkies. Popular incumbents just trounced two relatively unknown transfer students. Yawn. (Some of the lower races were more interesting, but more on that later.) So why not tune your ears to the muted hummings of ambition and start to ponder whose smiling faces you may see staring at you from the top of the ballot when you log onto SIN next year.

Now, those in the SA and others have been clamoring for an SA-related blog for a while — I just don’t know if NDH is quite what they were envisioning, though. Of course, Mr. Kyrios has only posted once, and it would be very premature of me to judge his blog’s worth based on a single entry. I do like the name, though — that should stay. Also, it might be a good idea for Mr. Kyrios to add other admins to the blog, or at least accept guest posts. The SA is a rare, untamed beast, and deserves the coverage of more than a single former senator. If NDH is truly to become the all-encompassing SA blog, more contributors will be key to its success — all in all, following the development of NDH should certainly be interesting.

[NCF]

It was announced on March 14 that Pittsburgh Steelers Head Coach Mike Tomlin (’95) would be delivering the commencement speech for the class of 2008. Wow.

A rather disgruntled Alec Newman (’07) wrote an excellent letter to the editor in the March 21 edition of The Flat Hat, which really sums up what most seniors are probably thinking: I‘d rather have Eliot Spitzer’s prostitute as a keynote than Mike Tomlin. Mr. Newman articulately explained that

[t]he College has been through a hellish time this year. Our leadership is gone and we attempt to move forward. One of the few bright spots for seniors was the upcoming commencement speaker. Tony Blair, Stephen Colbert and J.K. Rowling were dangled before us, and if ever there was a time for someone of their stature to come and inspire us, the time was now.Unfortunately for us, the decision was less than earthshaking. Our speaker is none other than Mike Tomlin, a rookie head coach in the NFL out of Pittsburgh. After Robert Gates last year, it seemed that we could go no lower in the obscure graduation speaker hierarchy. This year, we were supposed to have a household name that we actually give a damn about; instead, we get Tomlin. …

Was Carrot Top taken?

Thankfully, I’m in the class of 2009. I can easily say, though, that if Mr. Tomlin — who I’m sure is a really nice guy — was my commencement speaker, I would be outraged. I mean, come ON. You couldn’t have gotten a senator, or even a congressman? What about Ron Paul, for God’s sake? John Edwards would even have been a good choice — he’s got a lot of free time on his hands right about now.

The point is, the administration — in a quote from the best of the three Indiana Jones movies — “chose poorly.” The administration owes it to the students to pick someone, as Mr. Newman explained, of “stature” and whom students “actually give a damn about.” They failed on both of these fronts. I can only hope that my commencement speaker will be a step up, because I can’t see how the administration could do any worse.

[NCF]

The Virginia Informer is in the process of undergoing some very exciting changes. No, Joe Luppino-Esposito (’08) didn’t die, and we didn’t invite the members of SDS to manage our editorial board — sorry, Pilchen.

The Informer is now embarking on the very first staff lineup that does not have a founding member — ie, Amanda Yasenchak (’07) or Mr. L-E — at its helm. Equally exciting is The Informer’s move to a dichotomous setup, with two staffs managing its print edition and its upcoming new Web site, The Virginia Informer Online (VIO). I could not be happier with the results:

- Andrew Blasi (’10), Editor in Chief
- Nick Fitzgerald (’09), Editor in Chief, The Virginia Informer Online
- Alex Mayer (’09), Managing Editor
- Jon San (’09), Executive Editor
- Steven Nelson (’10), News Editor
- Michelle Ju (’09), Features Editor
- Megan Locke (’10), Arts & Culture Editor
- Kristin Coyner (’09), Opinion Editor
- RC Rasmus (’09), Copy Chief
- Jennifer Souers (’10), Business Manager
- Sam McVane (’11), Design Editor
- Alec McKinley (’10), Photography & Graphics Editor

This is a top-notch team. I am very much looking forward to managing the editorial direction and content of VIO, which will include opportunities for blogging, podcasting, and reader commentary. We are looking to transform our current Web site into more than simply The Informer on the Internet — ie, a Web site only updated every two weeks that exactly mirrors our print edition. Like The National Review — which has a staff managing its print edition, and a different staff managing its Web site, The National Review Online — The Informer wishes to make VIO into a primary go-to for the latest in campus news, features, and opinion. Because The Informer is at an inherent disadvantage when compared to The Flat Hat because we only print once every two weeks, VIO will be there to fill in the gaps.

Look for VIO by the end of the semester. I will be sure to blog about it once it’s fully up and running.

[NCF]

Last Thursday’s Student Assembly elections resulted in the voting in of a new SA executive — or did it?

Former SA President Zach Pilchen (’09) has now become the newly elected SA vice president. Former Vice President Valerie Hopkins (’09) has now become the newly elected SA president. While Mr. Pilchen had promised to be president for only one term, I don’t know if this was exactly what people understood it to mean. Now, I’m not in the SA and am not always privy to its intellectual back-and-forth or general intrigue — including, but not limited to, Matt Skibiak’s drunken abuse of the Senate’s listserv (”Hey y’all! Party on and I endorse Val and Zach! Probably shouldn’t say that, but whatever. I’m a senior so eff you!”) — but I question Mr. Pilchen’s trading places with his former vice president.

While this trade arguably affords Madame President Hopkins the opportunity to truly prove herself as a student executive, I’m wondering about any possible differences between a Pilchen / Hopkins v. a Hopkins / Pilchen administration. The problem is, I can’t really think of any — at least in substance.

I think it would have been better for Ms. Hopkins to do more during the campaign to differentiate herself from her running mate, who naturally overshadows her simply because he has already held the position for which she was running. The obvious response to that, however, is that this differentiation was simply unnecessary given the fact that: 1) everyone knows Zach and Valerie, and the key to winning any SA election is name recognition; and 2) their opponents — who, it appears, decided to run their campaign on a wave of idiocy and inexperience — had absolutely no chance of actually winning. The final vote totals favored Hopkins / Pilchen 70% to 25%, the remaining 5% going to write-in candidates.

I voted for the two of them both in this election and in the last, and I don’t regret it. In any case, the fact that Mr. Pilchen and Ms. Hopkins decided to run the SA equivalent of a Chinese fire drill seems more for show than for substance. We’ll have to wait until the next year to see if I’m right.

[NCF]

Seeing as I’m on a roll here with SA referenda, I thought I’d finish up with probably the most surprising of the bunch. There was a question on last Thursday’s SA ballot that read:

Do you perceive the William and Mary Police Department as behaving in a manner which is overly harsh and unresponsive to daily student needs?

As far as I’m concerned, the obvious answer to this question is a resounding YES. The William & Mary Police Department, in my opinion, comprises individuals who are overzealous, power hungry, and have way too much time on their hands. I’ve never personally had any bad experiences with them — thank God — but I’ve heard some horror stories. The Virginia Informer actually reported on a few of these travesties, including one situation in which a WMPD officer refused to escort a girl late at night just hours after her roommate had been mugged.

My general impression of the student sentiment regarding the police has been overwhelmingly negative. The referendum passed with a “yes” to the above question, but 56%-42%. It is truly unbelievable to me how many students — apparently, 42% of those who voted — think that the police are not in some way abusing their power. Maybe I just have rowdy friends who have told me all of their horrible stories — but seriously, truly trying to be objective, as a student of the College I feel like our police force does an adequate job in keeping the campus safe. I think they spend too much time, however, looking for drunk kids to write up and arrest. Shooting fish in a barrel should not be their top priority — protect and serve, not harass and disturb.

[NCF]