Dear Students,
I am writing to you as President of the Student Body. I hope this message finds you well.
Last Wednesday (11/28) the AAS sent out a non-binding poll soliciting student opinion on the Keefe Campus Center proposal. The poll asked if students were in favor of the proposed plan, and whether students supported the re-location of the game room (to the second floor) to make space for the MRC on the 1st floor.
Although around only 30 percent of students voted on the poll, around two-thirds of respondents disagreed both on the current proposal and specifically, that the MRC re-locate the Game room to the second floor. As President, I have tried my best to advocate for student representation on all the issues that have come up this semester. However, regardless of how flawed, comprehensive or indicative the poll was of student sentiment, I cannot, in my good conscience, advocate for its results to have absolute weight on how the administration proceeds.
The MRC was founded five years ago in response to the overwhelming demand of the Amherst student body at the time. The AAS, in a gesture of good faith, gave up its own student space in Keefe, so that the MRC would have a temporary home. It was agreed that that the MRC would soon move to an adequate place on campus. Over the years, despite Amherst’s commitment to diversity (as evidenced by our impressively inclusive admissions process), the MRC remained in the basement, chronically underfunded and insufficiently supported by the school.
Most of our peer institutions have freestanding, fully-funded buildings whose objectives are to study, educate and support equal opportunity in their respective college communities. If Amherst values diversity of backgrounds, experiences and thought, then it must actively guide dialogue and understanding of the difficulties that arise from such environments. Moving the MRC to the first floor would be a powerful step forward in ensuring and truly committing to making everyone on our campus feel welcome and safe.
Having a highly successful and effective MRC is of vital service to all of us. The MRC would not only support students from marginalized, minority backgrounds, but it would educate and promote discussion on topics such as socioeconomic and racial issues, gender bias, religious affinities and social stereotypes. This semester has shown us that if we are to create a sustainable and inclusive community, we need to be proactively addressing these questions. The visibility of an MRC will only increase the likelihood of making those goals a reality. Its events will occupy a physical and psychological prominence in our student consciousness and life.
As President, I have the deepest respect for student voice and input. It is my obligation to support and advance what students want. However, it is also my job to stand up for what I think is ultimately in the tangible best interest of students. Given Keefe’s current spatial limitations, I think the 1st floor MRC would be our best temporary solution. Putting the MRC on the second floor, although an improvement from the basement, is the second best solution. As students, we have far more to gain from a highly visible and accessible MRC than we have to gain from a highly visible game room. The MRC can only benefit from the visibility, while the game room does not need it.
I will be making several recommendations to President Martin. These recommendations are my own and do not represent the AAS senate. I also know that some of you are working on parallel demands concerning the MRC and the Women’s Center. My aim is not to overshadow or replace these, but to provide a mediating framework to the current situation.
I will recommend that:
-The MRC be relocated to the first floor. Although the decision should be made soon, any actual moves regarding the MRC and game room should not happen before the summer.
-The school should commit to using this coming semester to understand what our community needs and wants from an MRC and Women’s Center. Although students should work closely with the administration on these plans, ultimate direction and push must come from the institution.
-If the game room is relocated to the second floor, the school should try its best look into ways of expanding and increasing the number of game amenities throughout Keefe.
-These moves should be understood as short-term solutions and compromises. The school should make it a priority to have a freestanding Center of Equal Opportunity (or something along this line) and a new Student Center in the next three-five years time.
-Keefe should get a redecorative revamping during Interterm, as to temporarily address its current inadequacies. This should include opening up the second floor and the basement, to maximize the utility of Keefe and working closely with the student body to see what specific changes we wish to see.
I understand that many students may disagree with my position on this issue. However, as President, I must ultimately advocate for what I think is in the best interest of all students. I firmly believe that the gains we will see from having a prominent, visible and effective MRC incomparably outweigh the relocation of the game room to the second floor.
Please feel free to contact me with questions, concerns and comments. Thank you and best of luck with your upcoming exams.
Yours,
Tania de Sousa Dias ‘13
AAS President
What is the MRC?
It seems to be an unpopular acronym that has been unilaterally decided to be taking the place of the Game Room next year.
The MRC was founded around the time I got to campus, yet it was and still remains very unclear to the student body what direct services the MRC provides to the student body. Of course, those services are abundantly clear to those advocating in favor of increasing the MRC's prominence or those who have been actively involved in the discussion--but this is Amherst we're talking about. Until such information is actually defined and widely disseminated, it is unlikely you will see strong support from the student body.
Since you're advocating for change to happen no earlier than the summer, perhaps you should consider testing less unpopular moves to improve the MRC in the meantime.
You state that the MRC is "chronically underfunded and unsupported": these are two issues that can be addressed without a move into the game room's space. In fact, a move into that space alone will NOT address those issues.
Field testing a larger budget for the MRC next semester would allow the community to see if a disruptive change in the Campus Center is actually necessary to achieve our goals.
So far, the argument seems to be that, since a lot of people hang out in the first floor, a lot of people would use the MRC were it on the first floor. You're forgetting that a lot of people go to the first floor because that's where the game room, Schwemm's, and Post office are. Foot traffic is determined by the functions available. Case in point would be the CCE, though the office does have an open lounge, students choose not to go there. This is not because the CCE is inaccessible, but because this is an area with a specific purpose.
I find it bewildering that you would advocate moving the game room in favor of the MRC, firstly against student opinion, and secondly, without even bothering to articulate what the MRC will do for students. At the open meeting, I was told that the MRC would serve as an event space and lounge with various resources. In short, it would be like the Friedmann Room but with a library attached. I see no reason such room would be any less successful than the Friedmann Room as a place for students to gather for a specific purpose upstairs.
But you're forgetting that the Game Room is intertwined with the Campus Manager. There is no way for students to access games without the manager. I was told at the meeting that the Campus Manager would stay downstairs. What are you suggesting? That every time we want to play pool or board games, we should lug them up and down the stairs? I won't deny that this is a minor hindrance. But this is a minor hindrance imposed on the students against our opinion for no apparent reason.
I would love to see a functioning, well-used MRC on campus. I don't want an MRC that would empty out the front half of the campus center. I also don't want the student majority to be turned against the MRC before it even opens its new doors. Please, be our president, not an advocate.
the game room's awesome, no need to stick it up in the dark 2nd floor. is there even room for a ping-pong, a foosball, and a pool table up there? it's a poorly thought out plan to say the least, CCE has good office space, switch that with the MRC. Varsha Singh's article in the Student today made it seem like the MRC is more of a counseling and therapy center than something celebrating different cultures at Amherst, if that's true then maybe the people who go there won't want to be open and exposed? totally a hasty 'solution' to the MRC's bigger problems. pretty sure kids who really need the MRC dont give a crap what floor it's on if it can provide them the resources they need (which it can't apparently?). also making the majority of the student body resent the MRC every time they walk into Keefe sure ain't gonna make them want to join in some meaningful dialogue. seems like Tian Buzbee and whoever else is running the MRC need a quick reality check. also $10 Tania wouldn't be behind this if she was running for office again next year haha
Prove yourself worthy of the space, then you'll get it. Do financial institutions lend money to people without credit or with bad credit? No. They either have no track record or a poor one so they are ineligible to take out loans. The MRC has done nothing to give itself a worthy track record of taking the space of the game room (which is used every day). It's been around for YEARS and no one knows its function. I really don't think that's a result of their geographic location within the campus center, that speaks to a much deeper problem. Give the MRC the additional funding they've been requesting for so long without a change in space and see how much truly changes. In the event this supposed increased programming will legitimately require more space, then that makes their case for the game room more serious. That is the perfect litmus test.
Can someone explain to me what exactly the MRC does? I've been here for a little while and I haven't quite figured it out yet and many people I've talked to seem to not know either...
If people need the MRC, they will undoubtedly find the MRC. People will naturally gravitate/find things they need even if a search is required. For example, on the first floor of Keefe Campus Center there does not exist a restroom. However, there are restrooms on both the basement floor and the second floor. Somehow, people still manage to go to the restroom in Keefe without the existence of a restroom on the first floor. This phenomenon bares true to the existence of the MRC. Those who want the MRC will find it regardless of its location. Whether or not they need to travel up or down a flight of stairs is irrelevant. I'm an advocate of the MRC, but this move to the game room is ridiculous when there is plenty of space on the second floor.
I have heard the MRC described as an echo chamber. Rather than promoting diversity, integration and community-building, it is divisive more than anything else. Rather than a dialogue of a variety of views in the MRC, it is just one homogeneous voice preaching "Us vs Them". That hardly helps towards integrating the campus.
I don't believe the Amherst campus is saying that there shouldn't be an MRC or that the MRC shouldn't get more funding and support. I absolutely think that more resources of that sort should go towards the MRC. However, devoting prime real estate to an organization that has a blurry vision, fostered divisive attitudes, and little track record of promoting an "inclusive community" seems ill-advised.
As it stands, the MRC seems to be geared towards minority students. As a first generation American and first generation college student who is heavily dependent on financial aid, I seem to match their target demographic. However, I still struggle to see what the MRC offers. I have found those around me to be extremely accepting and understanding of who I am. I have been fortunate enough to befriend students from all walks of life. Additionally, I've never been compelled to seek the services of the MRC, and I think - if we were to be truly diverse, inclusive and accepting - that is how it should be.
I understand there is a population that feels marginalized on this campus and I find that extremely unfortunate. However, I don't believe a more prominent, visible location for the MRC will fix this. I don't believe that accusing 40% of campus who define themselves as white, of exercising white privilege and the rest as being 'ignorant' to be a solution either. The answer is not in devoting our efforts to "train" students to be a community, but in individually going out and truly getting to know each other. I believe that in a diverse campus such as ours, we need comfortably shared open spaces, which are limited. We don't need a labelled space that points to us and tells us we're different.
The comments above are disappointing because of their critical and divisive tone. It seems that the main lesson some students have learned about critical thinking and analysis is merely how to construct points in support of a single stance, rather than to imagine a process of additional learning and dialogue that might lead to a innovative solution that addresses the multiple needs of students. You are all part of the same community.
This is appalling. I am going to address the quotes that pissed me off most to the best of my ability. The anonymity of these comments perturbs me because it makes me realize the deep-seated resentment and racism that still exists on our campus. I have chosen to remain anonymous because I do not feel safe revealing to my identity to people who seem to be so vehemently opposed to my existence and my interests.
1) "Field testing a larger budget for the MRC next semester would allow the community to see if a disruptive change in the Campus Center is actually necessary to achieve our goals."
Our goals? Or do you mean YOUR goals? Because I do not see this as a disruptive change. You cannot shut us up by giving us money. We need systemic change. Clearly, the MRC's opinions are not valued at this campus, and I do not think giving them money will make you, or others value their words, ideas or interests. If you see the MRC as disruptive, then you have a lot of homework to do regarding race relations on this campus. We need to provide a safe and inclusive environment for minorities and the framework as is does not provide for that.
2) "...without even bothering to articulate what the MRC will do for students..."
Have you bothered to ask Briana, Fayise, or the others who have been fighting their asses off for this cause for quite a long time? You cannot live in your sheltered little bubble and assume that information will be transmitted to you. Sometimes you need to seek it. As minorities, we are not responsible for teaching you about our lives.
3) "Varsha Singh's article in the Student today made it seem like the MRC is more of a counseling and therapy center than something celebrating different cultures at Amherst, if that's true then maybe the people who go there won't want to be open and exposed?"
What... We are not ashamed of who we are. It seems like YOU don't want minorities to be open and exposed. the MRC cannot be likened to a therapy and counseling center because 1) it only has one staff member for the time being, 2) you are implying that we are in need of psychological help when the problem is rooted much more deeply than that, 3) the MRC is meant to be a multifaceted building where people of color can share their experiences, hold events, contextualize their experiences and show solidarity to each other. it is designed, in part, to be a community for minorities. I am not fully aware of the mission and I should also do my homework, but this is what I understand it to be. *this isn't meant to diss the Counseling Center, but I think the analogy is a bit flawed and misguided.
4) "also making the majority of the student body resent the MRC every time they walk into Keefe sure ain't gonna make them want to join in some meaningful dialogue"
Did you know that I resent a good majority of the student body, too? But this is not how it should be. I should not have to use the word "jocks" in a derogatory manner. but when they pretend I do not exist, I feel that I have no other choice but to resent them. This social structure is very stratified and you do not have to look too far past Val to see that. Have you thought about why you might resent minorities and the MRC?
Also you have made up your mind. THAT is why you are unwilling to engage in any meaningful dialogue.
5) "Prove yourself worthy of the space, then you'll get it."
So you do not think we are of equal status to you, do you?
6) Do financial institutions lend money to people without credit or with bad credit?
But think about the people who are most likely to have bad credit. They are probably not white, upper class individuals. You should read up about the racial inequities inherent in our economic structures.
7) "Can someone explain to me what exactly the MRC does?"
See 2).
8) "Those who want the MRC will find it regardless of its location."
Sorry, but the same can be said about the Game Room. Why do we have to make adjustments all the damn time?
9) "I'm an advocate of the MRC."
No you are not. Because if you were, then you would understand why the MRC needs a large space and why it needs to be out in the open.
1) "Shut us up by giving us money"? Isn't this what the underfunded and understaffed MRC needs? The money is so that the MRC can use it to become more vocal and prominent on campus, not to shut it up. You don't want money, you just want a new space?
Saying that the new change is disruptive is different from saying that the MRC is disruptive. No one is saying that, or questioning the existence of an MRC. Some people just think that moving the MRC and game room wouldn't be the best idea.
2) Like many others, you deflect the question by telling others to educate themselves about the MRC, instead of actually giving concrete examples.
3) I agree about the weak analogy between the MRC and counseling center, but about "the MRC is meant to be a multifaceted building where people of color can share their experiences" - why not all students in general? I thought the MRC is supposed to be beneficial for all students?
4) "Have you thought about why you might resent minorities and the MRC?" The MRC is NOT minorities themselves. I am a minority and I am skeptical of the proposed change.
5) "So you do not think we are of equal status to you, do you?" Again, minorities are not the MRC itself. By wanting the MRC to prove itself is not saying that minorities need to prove themselves. By demanding that BSU, for example, needs to prove itself before it is given a space, is not the same as saying black students need to prove their worthiness.
6) Yes people with bad credit are probably not upper class, but there are indeed a lot of whites with bad credit. Not all whites are rich priviledge people. Anyway, this is kind of irrelevant.
7) see 2)
8) True
9) People can and do advocate for the same thing but have different plans about what needs to be done. Please don't stifle intellectual discussion with "you don't have the exact same ideas as us, so your against us."
By most definitions I am a minority in this campus (international student from the Eastern half of the world, almost no other students from my country). I am appalled at this person's presumptuousness that he/she speaks for all of "us". The students at Amherst are very diverse and cannot be represented by any single speaker. This definitely includes the minorities. Hence, I found this person's reply to be extremely offensive. I feel the need to speak up and reveal my name, but I'm really scared because it seems that persons like this one seem to control the public exchange of ideas here at this campus, and anyone who dissents is immediately ostracized. This is not what I imagined when I applied to Amherst as an international student. I thought America was "the land of the free", or something like that, you know, not a place where self-appointed representatives of "all minority groups" attempt to manipulate the student government and structural power in order to advance their private interests (in this, the MRC).
What I want to say is this: I am a minority, and to me so far the MRC only seems to exist as a formality. Many other cultural houses and ethnic student unions are WAY more visible in terms of organizing events which showcase their cultures, etc. The MRC does not seem to have done anything much - for international students, for example, the ISA has seemed way more useful. Hence it's very troubling when an organization tries to use its self-proclaimed standing as a "representative of the minorities" to get favor from the administration and get space they don't yet deserve. This is scheming, deceitful passive-aggressive manipulation at the highest
Personally speaking, I think the Game Room itself has ironically been far more useful in promoting inclusiveness among students than the MRC. I don't use the room every day, but in the several times which I have, I've always found it to be an excellent place to mingle with students from all over America and the world. We can play ping-pong together, have a good time, and learn about each other along the way. It's a FAR BETTER way to understand how human we all are: by playing games together, because in games, no matter board games, ping pong, or X-box, all the players are equal. That's how you learn to accept other people from different cultures: by observing that they're just as human as you are - that we can talk, joke, laugh, and play games together with anyone from all around the world. Before coming to America I was a foreign student in a high school in Asia where we had a multitude students from many different countries. I remember forging the strongest friendships by doing things together - working on projects together, playing computer games together, playing soccer together, asking homework help from each other. And at Amherst, the Game Room seems excellent to do things like this because it doesn't have the pressure or atmosphere of some parties around the campus - it's just an open space, literally.
No, I honestly haven't learned much about other cultures by participating in controlled, moderated discussions where the everyone sits in a circle and the "minorities" talk about how different and special and unique they are, while the white people keep trying to prove to everyone how culturally aware and not-racist and not-ignorant they are. It's all just talk, no action, no real integration, no real understanding. All talk talk talk, promises promises promises, awareness awareness awareness, privilege privilege privilege - but what? Nothing. Nothing comes out of nothing. Everybody goes home to their dorm, and by the next day it's all forgotten. It's all just a big show, an elaborate facade to prove to the world how "diverse" and "integrated" we are. At the end of the day they're all still strangers, because they come together as if they are separate parties negotiating for some kind of truce in an invisible cultural war. And indeed that's what they are - in such discussions, each person tends to be thought of first and foremost as being a representative of his or her ethnicity, instead of individuals. I'm expected to "represent" the people of X-land. Or worse, I'm supposed to represent the people of X-land AND conform to the opinions and goals of people such as the one I'm replying to, people who claim to "represent minorities". In reality, we are first and foremost individuals.
And while nobody on this thread has actually spelled out CONCRETE STUFF on what the MRC does (instead dodging the question by saying "go educate yourselves!" - yeah maybe we should be able to take "MRC 111: Introduction to the Functions of the MRC" as a half-credit class LOL), I have a hunch that they will be focused on discussions such as above - contrived, artificial discussions, or worse echo chambers where people who claim to "represent minorities" use the space provided as a springboard for their personal goals which might very well NOT represent what actual, individual minorities want. That's why I'm very concerned with the way this MRC affair is being handled.
Are not the best and the brightest at Amherst?
Where is the Amherst student outrage for Ms Dias? Frankly, why is the administration also not outraged? Was she not elected by the students to represent the students?
A vote was requested and when the vote did not go as she wished, she unilaterally disregarded the vote. Why ask the students to vote then?
Truly disturbing......
Very troubling
Because I couldn't even begin to address the ridiculousness that are these comments. I simply have to say look at any other school like our's in fact take a look at our "rival's" they have free standing buildings devoted to their MRC's or highly visible spaces for them, and the sad part is some of these schools don't even come close to having as much diversity as this school does. If anything, I don't understand why there seems to be no acknowledgement of the fact that the MRC could help us learn from each other and the many backgrounds we come from and represent. Honestly just look at what other schools are doing in terms of programming and events, and they are all lead by accredited pHD directors and a staff. The sad part is based off these comments it's clear that this school we champion as supposedly the best seems to be lagging far behind in simple open-minded awareness to the community that they are apart of.
The survey was shorted sighted, asking students to choose sides -- now it seems a number have done exactly that, on both sides, and are falling prey to exactly the kind of rush to judgement that internet so-called dialogue tends to promote. One can only hope that a majority of students do not feel this has to be an either/or situation.
The ultimate disposition of the MRC aside, those who speak here against a change in space use in the campus center are speaking to a low purpose: defending your own turf, and raising arguments against the group proposed to encroach on your territory. And you are inciting defensiveness on the "other side." Instead, why not join a conversation about how to solve the problem of space allocation that would satisfy everyone? This is an area of campus life into which more resources should be committed, clearly. But the level of discourse here is not especially elevated, to say the least, given the level of privilege you have simply by being students at a school with the otherwise abundant resources at your disposal.
Dear President Tania Dias,
I recently received your message to the student body regarding the proposal to move the Multicultural Resource Center to take the current place of the Game Room in the Keefe Campus Center. Specifically, you said:
"As President, I have tried my best to advocate for student representation on all the issues that have come up this semester. However, regardless of how flawed, comprehensive or indicative the poll was of student sentiment, I cannot, in my good conscience, advocate for its results to have absolute weight on how the administration proceeds."
First and foremost, my issue is not with your personal support of the proposal to relocate the Game Room and MRC. Many students may have differing opinions on the topic, and I highly approve of such diversity of opinion. However, my issue is with your position as president of the Association of Amherst Students, an association which purports to represent the student body as a whole. What you did was the following: you are the head of a student government which organized a poll in order to know the opinion of the student body with regards to the proposal. The results turned out to indicate that more people in the student body disagreed with the proposal. Instead of honestly and truthfully transmitting those results, as you should as the elected President of the student government, you chose to unilaterally disregard the poll results and instead transmit your own recommendations which are based on your personal opinion of what the "best interests" of the student body are. I am especially troubled by the following statement:
"As President, I have the deepest respect for student voice and input. It is my obligation to support and advance what students want. However, it is also my job to stand up for what I think is ultimately in the tangible best interest of students."
One does not need much scholarly prowess to observe the seemingly contradictory nature of these two sentences. It is a fact that elected President of an organization which purports to be the voice and representation of the student body cannot always "support and advance what the students want" and at the same time "stand up for what I think is ultimately in the tangible best interest of students." In situations where they conflict, upholding the latter at the expense of the former is a disturbing sign of the breakdown of democracy and the beginnings of an authoritarian dictatorship.
Article 6.1.2.1 of the Constitution of the Association of Amherst Students plainly states that the President of the AAS shall “Serve as the official representative and spokesperson of the AAS and the Student Body.” The Constitution says nothing about the role of the personal opinions of the President with regards to the interests of this Student Body. Thus, while as an Amherst student, you have a right to your personal opinions; however, you have no right to transmit those personal opinions as recommendations in your position as President. In this situation, you should have truthfully transmitted the results from the polls, perhaps with the caveat that you do not personally agree with the majority opinion and that the polls did not have a good turnout, but nevertheless that is the information that can been gleaned from them. Any action other than that significantly diminishes the credibility and standing of any polls organized by the AAS. While it is true that the polls are non-binding, this does not mean that they are a blank check for the President to use or discard according to his or her own personal opinions.
On other hand, one could just imagine what would be the case if the polls had in fact turned out to support the proposal. I suspect that you would have proclaimed the poll to have far more weight and binding power than you do at this moment. This in itself is not troubling, as you have an absolute right to your personal opinions and the expression of them. What is troubling, however, is the reasonable suspicion that the President of the Association of Amherst Students is not neutral with regards to interests of the student body - instead, she seems to be only willing to function in her capacity as President if and only if those actual interests happen to coincide with her personal opinions on what should be the interests of the student body. To put it bluntly, I did not vote to elect a President which advances the interests and agenda of her own self or her own faction. I voted to elect a President which advances the interests of the student body, and in this case there is more evidence that said interest is disagreeing with the proposal to move the MRC.
Hence with this letter I wish express my immense dissatisfaction with the Association of Amherst Students. On top of this, as an international student I also wish to articulate my severe disappointment with the President's conception of how a democratic student government should function in an elite college in the United States of America, a nation which has traditionally been the model of democracy for many other nations around the world. I call upon President Tania Dias to reflect on her actions and withdraw her recommendations which were stated in her letter to the student body. I call upon the student body to take good notice of her subversion of the democratic process by organizing a poll which was then openly disregarded as it did not concur with her personal position. The central issue here is not of the proposal itself – it is one concerning the limits and responsibilities of an elected representative of the student body, and it is our duty to uphold the principles of democracy and representation which is supposed to be the foundation of the AAS.
Regards,
A Concerned Amherst Student
Tania is failing in her duties as president of the AAS.
The first duty of the president listed in the AAS constitution is: "Serve as the official representative and spokesperson of the AAS and the Student Body"
Sending out this e-mail she picked a side and failed to perform her duty. She fu**ed up big time.