MEMO To: Jeff Huang and Mary Spellman CC: President Gann and CMC Student Body From:

Aditya Pai Re: CMCs Social Scene: Recommendations on Behalf of the Student Body Dear Dean Huang and Dean Spellman: I am writing on behalf of the student body to express our concern about the future of CMCs historically inclusive and vibrant social scene. Our social scene includes Thursday night events, Saturday daytime and nighttime events, and alternative dry events thrown by the College Programming Board (CPB) and the Social Life Council (SLC). The Fall 2012 semester marked a significant decline in the quality of our social scene, and was part of a larger decline since 2009. Several factors have caused it. ASCMC has not always executed wet and dry events with the quality and frequency CMC students deserve. Students themselves have too often failed to treat our campus with respect. But most importantly, Dean of Students has gradually but dramatically transformed the social scene in the past few years. While the social scene is a top student priority, it is not an institutional priority. The administration believes that the social scene is a supplementary aspect of the student experience. Students view the social scene as central to our identity as a college. CMCs open, inclusive, and safe social culture is one of its greatest assets. Social life distinguishes our college from other toptier liberal arts colleges; social ability distinguishes our students from other top-tier students. It is a large reason why we are the happiest students in America. And it is critical to our preparation for highly social careers in business, government, and the professions. A vibrant student social scene is central to the mission of Claremont McKenna. That is why we are so passionate about our social culture, and why we are so worried about its future. Unfortunately, the CMC administration has not taken student concerns seriously. When ASCMC has underscored the negative impacts of more stringent security, fencing, and event management policies, DOS has made minor concessions while ignoring the fundamental concerns of students. When seniors and juniors have highlighted the decline since their freshman year, DOS has dismissed their claim as mere nostalgia for the good old days. Even concerns voiced by underclassmen in Student Senate have not been acknowledged. Many students believe that the administration does not understand the sentiments of CMCers, does not appreciate the unique value of our social scene, and is pursuing a plan for CMC that is fundamentally inconsistent with the culture of our community. We believe it is time for DOS to engage us in a meaningful dialogue about our social culture. Student perspectives have not been taken seriously by the administration thus far. Conversely, students themselves do not understand faculty or administrative perspectives on the issues. What is necessary, then, is a community-wide dialogue between students, faculty, and administrators privately when necessary, publicly when appropriate about the balances and tensions inherent in CMCs social policy.

We thus urge you to reconvene the 2009 Alcohol Task Force by April 1, 2013, reframe it as the Social Scene Task Force, and begin taking immediate action to address CMCs social scene.

The Social Scene Task Force (SSTF) The original Alcohol Task Force, formed by Dean Huang in the summer of 2009, reviewed student alcohol consumption and college alcohol policy. CMC needs to revisit alcohol culture, but reposition the task force in light of recent events to address our social culture. This includes, but is not limited to, the role of alcohol within it. Preserving and enhancing CMCs social scene ought to be designated an institutional priority at the highest levels of College administration. Reforming and reframing the ATF is the ideal first step to do so and it should be taken immediately. Resident Assistants, ASCMC leaders, students-at-large, faculty members, and administrators should be called upon to serve on this committee. Topics for fact-finding and discussion would include: Student habits and cultural norms on party-going, drinking, and binge-drinking; The Monday-Thursday workweek and Thursday night culture Issues of legal liability as they relate to College policies on security, fencing, and risk management at ASCMC events; The impact of these policies on high-risk drinking, inclusivity, and social interaction The effectiveness of alternative dry programming by the Dean of Students Office and ASCMC.

It is important that the task force be constituted by April 1st so that the perspectives of current seniors are incorporated in the final report. Although the administration committed to reconstituting the Alcohol Task Force in December, there has been no visible progress on it since. DOS should accelerate that process immediately. Current seniors have most vividly experienced the major shifts in College policy and enforcement and their resulting impact on student life. Postponing the launch of the task force until Fall 2013 would make it difficult or impossible to incorporate these perspectives. It would thus skew student perspectives to support the administrations view that the social scene has not changed. It is critical that the task force focus on the social scene rather than simply on alcohol and alcohol policy. Alcohol plays a significant, complex role in student life. But CMCs social culture should be distinguished from its alcohol culture. The former is broader and more central to the identity of the College. It involves traditions such as Pirate Party, TNC, and Ski-Beach day. It reflects principles such as inclusiveness, openness, and an emphasis on social interaction. And it is universally valued by CMC students regardless of drinking habits, residential preferences, or cultural views. The task force should therefore focus not on alcohol policy but on the Colleges social policy: alcohol, event and risk management, alternative programming, etc. Specifically, the task force should take the following action-steps as soon as possible: 1. Initiate a community-wide dialogue about CMCs Monday-Thursday workweek and Thursday night culture that includes student, faculty, and administrative perspectives. 2. Conduct a comprehensive review of the performance of Campus Safety and the Colleges security and fencing guidelines for school-wide events. 3. Enhance the quality of student input into the financial decisions of the Assistant Dean for Student Activities and the College Programming Board.

(1) Initiate a community-wide dialogue about CMCs Monday-Thursday workweek and Thursday night culture that includes student, faculty, and administrative perspectives. The Dean of Students Office seems to believe, and claims that faculty agree, that Thursday night should not be a major party night on campus and that CMC should move away from a Monday-Thursday workweek. DOS has argued that Thursday parties cause loud disturbances in the community, make the campus less attractive to Friday visitors, and leave students less prepared for Friday classes. Meanwhile, the College has substantially increased the amount of Friday classes since 2009. The administrations view became apparent in a meeting about why ASCMC could not host more 5C TNCs. After we addressed all of DOSs concerns securing a larger location, more security, and less alcohol DOS still hesitated to grant us 2 5C TNCs a month instead of 1. When asked why, administrators said that more 5C TNCs would make Thursday night partying among CMC students more widespread. The College views this as a negative outcome since it does not believe Thursday night should be a major party night. Students disagree. We believe CMCs Thursday night culture and Monday-Thursday workweek is a unique and significant part of our identity as a college and we want to protect it. TNC is a meaningful tradition that aims to promote two of the greatest values of CMC: genuine inclusiveness and social interaction. TNC has historically been the most inclusive social event at CMC and the Claremont Colleges. Until recently, all 5C students were allowed to attend. The administrations decision to exclude non-CMC students is inconsistent with the inclusive culture of CMC. Scripps, Mudd, Pomona, and Pitzer students no longer feel welcome here on a Thursday night; that has hurt not only CMCs social scene but also 5C social interaction. The administrations policies have also changed TNC from a casual social event into a much less appealing dance party. The keg at TNC is important: it encourages students to drink beer casually, rather than taking shots of hard liquor in their rooms. But the focus used to be not on the alcohol but on the people. I still remember overhearing an argument between students over Federalist Paper No. 10 at a TNC my freshman year. These casual, even intellectual, interactions used to be the hallmark of TNC. No longer. Through excessive security and fencing, the administration has transformed TNC from a casual, inclusive event to a less appealing, more exclusive party. Many students now feel they have to be drunk to enjoy themselves. Yet Thursday night is not even the primary reason students are passionate about preserving the Monday-Thursday school-week. The lack of Friday classes enables students to engage in characteristically CMC activities: running organizations, attending career workshops, giving job interviews, practicing sports, working on entrepreneurial ventures, going to office hours, and experiencing the LA area. It also creates a weekend that fulfills CMCers desire to lead balanced lives: working and playing on Thursdays, working and relaxing on Fridays, working and playing on Saturdays, and working on Sundays. Finally, Fridays off give faculty more time for scholarship, service, and student interaction. Students cherish the Monday-Thursday school week and the Thursday night culture. Dean of Students, and perhaps the broader administration, opposes it. Students and administrators will sometimes disagree about what is best for students and for CMC. But the administration should address these disagreements openly and transparently, rather than incrementally implementing changes to academic and social policies that students oppose. If administrators engage students on this issue, we will respond with thoughtful and productive discussion consistent with the Colleges expectations and ideals. 3

(2) Conduct a comprehensive review of the performance of Campus Safety and the Colleges security and fencing guidelines for school-wide events. DOSs view is that employing 6-10 campus safety officers at Thursday and Saturday night parties makes students safer. Students disagree. Campus safety plays an essential role in monitoring the perimeter of events and checking 5C IDs. But when altercations occur, they are slow to respond; it is typically student security not campus safety that resolves them. Anecdotal evidence reveals troubling facts about Campus Safetys behavior. Campus safety officers frequently fail to escort unregistered guests out of events, fail to enforce the no-glasscontainer policy, and fail to appropriately respond to medical emergencies. Campus Safety thus does little at college-wide events to keep students safe. In light of these low benefits, the harm that greater security inflicts on student life is difficult to justify. At times, the enthusiasm of CMCs alcohol culture diminishes the inclusivity of our social culture. But the administrations decision to enforce more restrictive event policies exacerbates the problem: it makes parties more alcohol-centric not less. Bad parties encourage high alcohol consumption. Caging events with unattractive fencing and clogging the entrance with 6-8 campus safety officers makes parties less fun. This encourages students to pregame more heavily and drink more hard alcohol in their rooms. By intensifying security and fencing with little regard to their impact on the quality of parties, the College has thus unwittingly increased the incidence of high-risk drinking at CMC. This is exactly the opposite of the goal outlined by the Alcohol Task Force report (pp. 7). As excessive security has reduced the safety of individual students, excessive fencing has undermined the inclusivity of our community. We do not have a frat scene or a bar scene at CMC, but we do host great parties to which everyone is invited. This inclusivity is the hallmark of CMCs social culture. By creating an ugly and artificial distinction between who is inside and outside of the party, fencing hurts the inclusive feel and natural flow of our social life. At heavily fenced events, a few students enter the event while most congregate outside the fences. Often students do not attend these events at all, and congregate in disparate dorm rooms or lounges. This creates a fragmented social scene that undermines the cohesiveness of our community. As alternatives to current policy, ASCMC and the administration should explore less disruptive mechanisms for enclosure or create additional enclosed facilities for student events. Students appreciate the benefits Campus Safety and fencing provide: they secure our events and protect us from unwanted guests. We just do not believe the benefits are as compelling as DOS suggests. The administration, however, seems oblivious to the costs it imposes on our safety and culture. The Social Scene Task Force should therefore engage students in a candid discussion about the costs and benefits of the recent increase in security and fencing. The goal of these discussions should be to strike a more reasonable balance between legal liability, student safety, and the inclusivity upon which our social scene depends. (3) Enhance the quality of student input into the financial decisions of the Assistant Dean for Student Activities and the College Programming Board (CPB) Upon the recommendation of the Alcohol Task Force, the College rightly increased funding for Student Activities and later created a College Programming Board (CPB) of students to support the Assistant Dean for Student Activities. Alternative dry programming executed by CPB and SLC now plays a critical role in CMCs social scene: it provides social alternatives to students who do not participate in the Thursday/Saturday scene and to those who do. It thus adds to the diversity and inclusivity of social interaction at the college. 4

However, the current structure and content of alternative programming at CMC do not serve students well. While CPB and SLC pursue the same goal creating alternative avenues for social interaction they do so through fundamentally different means. CPBs budget is over $90,000; SLCs budget was $11,500 (2011-2012) and is now $7,500 (2012-2013). CPB thus has a disproportionately larger ability to impact social life. And yet, the composition of CPB is much less representative of the student body and its events are much less well attended. It is less representative because students do not elect any members of the CPB; the Assistant Dean appoints them. This may also be why they are less well attended: students do not have any direct representation in the financial decisions of CPB. The Assistant Dean/CPBs events frequently reflect this lack of meaningful student input. For example, students cite the December 2012 Air Brush Tattoo event as a characteristically unpopular event. It was scheduled on Thursday night from 8-10pm, in direct competition with Thursday night parties; held in McKenna auditorium, one of the least popular student venues; and involved a relatively unappealing activity. Similarly, the DOSs recent decision to host an Elvis Monroe concert in McKenna displayed a lack of understanding of student musical preferences. More generally, the scheduling of CPB events reflects the administrations mistaken judgment that the dry scene should be distinct from the wet scene. Students disagree with this judgment. Those of us who prefer the party scene also want access to alternative events; those of us who prefer the alternative scene also want access to parties. ASCMC parties should make drinkers, non-drinkers, and everyone in between excited to attend. ASCMC and DOS alternative events should do the same. But by unintentionally making parties more alcohol-centric and making alternative events inaccessible to students who party, DOS has separated the dry scene from the wet scene. That, in turn, has unnecessarily divided the student body into drinkers and non-drinkers rather than united us as one social community. The College should seriously examine the structural relationship between SLC and CPB and reflect on its understanding of the relationship between dry and wet events. Upon reflection, progress may require dramatic changes, such as electing the chair and several members of CPB in a school-wide vote or even combining CPB and SLC into a single organization, cofunded by ASCMC and DOS, and elected by the student body. Together, SLC and CPB control over $100,000 in funds devoted exclusively to student activities. Students are dissatisfied with the events on which this money is spent. These decisions should be opened up to greater student input so that they result in events students are universally excited to attend. Conclusion The administration stays at CMC indefinitely; students stay for four short years. Administrators can thus gradually transform the social scene without consulting students first. But that is deeply inconsistent with the values CMC espouses. CMC aims to prepare students for responsible leadership. But by consistently ignoring student views on an issue we understand best, the College has failed to give us the respect and responsibility that leadership requires. It is time to form a Social Scene Task Force to finally engage CMC students on this issue in a respectful, meaningful dialogue. I urge you to do so by the end of the month. My best, Aditya Pai 13 ASCMC President 5