Writers' note: This FAQ was written by a group of students in favor of the MRC relocation and knowledgeable about the planned move.These students include Larissa Davis '13, Alexa Hetwerr '13, Roshard Bryant '13, Shayona Cato '13, Adrianna Turner '14, Josh Greer '14 and Kamaria Laing '16, among numerous others.
1) Why does the MRC need to be on the first floor? Specifically, why does the MRC necessitate the game room space?
• The MRC does not require the current game room space to “increase foot traffic” though, this change in location will likely increase the amount of students who are able to see, interact with, and participate in the MRC functions with a campus wide impact.
• The functions of the MRC require it to be located in an open, visible, central location at Amherst College.
• The open, visible, and central location of the MRC affirms the identity and value of historically underrepresented or marginalized persons present at Amherst College.
• Moving the MRC to an open, visible, and adequate central location will ensure the MRC will have the necessary space, and [accountability] resources on campus.
2) The Keefe Campus Center has not always looked the way it does now. This is what the Campus Center used to look like:
• In September 1987, the Keefe Campus Center opened with the game room located on the second floor.
• Schwemm’s had a café are located on the second floor of the Campus Center.
• The game room was relocated to where the Center for Community Engagement is currently located during the late 1990s.
• Before the Center for Community Engagement was located where it is on the first floor, it was inadequately located in the basement of Keefe: where the MRC is currently located.
3) What about the poll?
• The campus community should be aware that there were definite plans to move the game room to the second floor of Keefe Campus Center, and the MRC into the current first floor game room location at the beginning of the semester.
• Only about 30 percent of the student population voted in this poll, which was issued as non-binding. At a December 3rd meeting, AAS senators expressed that the intent of the poll was never to change the intent of the administration to move the MRC to the game room.
• Even the administration was hesitant to issue the poll, for reasons of and including majority voting against minority rights. Therefore, they drafted a poll that included the history of the MRC and context about why MRCs operate on college campus, and specifically why Amherst’s student composition and stated goals require a vibrant, fully functional and central MRC. Nevertheless, the AAS created a new poll, which did not include this information over the objections of students and college administration.
• The referendum did not provide the necessary context or history to make a more informed decision. By offering two reductive questions and eliding context, the AAS referendum biased the referendum against the proposed move to the MRC. Moreover, the second option amounted to a zero–sum game by pitting the current game room against the MRC. Not only does this show the abject disregard and little worth that the AAS shows toward the mission of the MRC and the student body its presence would affirm, it omits the fact that the MRC’s relocation only moves the game room in the campus center, it does not remove it.
• What’s more, the referendum violated a central tenet of the democracy we live in this nation and as constituents to our student government on this campus: majority rules, minority rights.
• The diversity on this campus means that “minorities” (e.g. religious; sexuality and gender; national; ideological, ethic, racial, etc.) exist and the rights of these persons must be taken into account, not simply held at the whim of the majority. This simple fact alone renders the results of the referendum impermissible and challenges its validity.
• The poll was supposed to be non-binding. At a December 3rd meeting, AAS expressed that the intent of the poll was never to change the intent of the administration to move the MRC to the game room. In addition, the poll was non-binding.
4) What other changes to the campus center did the administration intend to implement when they moved the game room to the second floor?
• At an open meeting Tuesday, November 27, the night before the referendum was issued, a representative from the college’s department of architecture and design stated the college wasplanning to re-model the entire campus center.
• This involved knocking down walls and the wooden beams/banisters upstairs and replacing everything with glass to increase the visibility (and aesthetic) of the second floor specifically for the game room.
• They also planned repaint the entire campus center and replace the lighting. It would look nothing like it currently does.
5) Why does the MRC have a less-than stellar record? Addressing the MRC track record and the re-envisioning of the MRC.
• Until Fall 2012, the MRC provided frequent and effective campus-wide programming. This includes: Elephant in the Room Discussions, Jamboree, film screenings and other programs.
• The MRC is currently and has historically been an underfunded resource on this campus. Therefore, the amount and type of programs able to be facilitated have been limited. Nevertheless, the programming provide in the past has been substantive and varied.
• The disparities in experiences with the MRC from one class year to another are a symptom of the lack of a permanent director, rather than the uselessness of the center. The disparities in experiences reflect a need for a permanent full-time, and qualified staff for the MRC.
• That the MRC is “an echo chamber” or a group of students “preaching us vs. them” is a common perception or misrepresentation of what the MRC does. Rather than promoting an “us vs. them” mentality, the MRC would aim to foster coalitions among communities.
• It is true that in many respects that the campus is divided into homogeneous groups. Thus, that is the reason why we need an MRC to address these fragmentations on our campus.
• Even more, this campus somewhat promotes/pushes that self-segregation with the team/sport culture.
6) Why does the move to the current game room location have to happen simultaneously with the MRC receiving increased funding, staffing and institutional support?
• At the beginning of the Fall Semester 2012, a graduate student from UMass-Amherst turned down an offer to be a co-director of the current MRC specifically because the MRC did not have adequate funding and space allocation in the basement of Keefe. This points to the necessity of moving the location simultaneously with the MRC receiving increased funding, staffing and institutional support.
• The development of the CCE exemplifies the necessity of moving the physical location while increasing other resources such as funding and hiring a permanent director.
• The CCE moved to its current location at the same time it received increased funding and a director to head the organization.
• The College hired the director of the CCE, then as the CCE was growing, the director hired other staff members and shaped the vision of the center.
7) How can the entire student body, and not just minorities, benefit from an MRC?
• The MRC is not a counseling/therapy center; it is an administrative office on the order of the Center for Community Engagement.
• The MRC “acts as a communications and activities, [and programming] hub.” (MRC current mission)
• The MRC is a unique campus entity for faculty, staff and students that provides resources including information on inter-group dialogue, documentaries on ethic, gender, and social class studies and serves as a comfortable meeting space for classes, campus organizations and individuals.
Wonderful article, thanks for contributing this. A couple of minor corrections, though:
On the alternate poll: When you say "the administration," I assume you mean the administrators on the committee that drafted the proposal (Hannah Fatemi, Dean Boykin East, et. al.). Actually, they didn't want a poll at all; they wanted mainly to solicit feedback but not offer a single Yes/No question. I, with help from members of the student committee that advises administrators on space allocation, drafted a poll which was a bit more contextual than the one that eventually went out, but it didn't include the info you talked about here concerning the need for an MRC, even though it probably should have.
On the revisions to the campus center: Peter Root of Facilities did say that they would be hiring architects to redesign Keefe in general, but I don't know how drastic the revisions will be. Lighting will definitely be improved and those aweful mauve carpets on the second floor will be replaced, but I don't know about the Campus Center being completely changed. I think it'll look a whole lot better, but I don't want people thinking the changes will be more radical than they are, simply because I don't know if they will or not.
Anyway, this was a great read, and I hope it gets people talking about how we can cultivate the MRC in the coming years.
Why can't it move to the second floor?
Why must it move to the first floor and push out the game room to the second floor?
Does the second floor where the game room is to be moved not provide enough space?
You say: "The functions of the MRC require it to be located in an open, visible, central location at Amherst College." But you fail to follow this up with anything concrete reason. What about the MRC's functions require first floor property? In section 5 you go on to say what a wonderful job the MRC has done (up until this semester), and cite its shortcomings based on space, funds, and lack of a director; not visibility.
Clearly, the MRC has faced challenges in space and funding, and has succeeded in overcoming them to a great extent. Their success has been held back by space, funding, and a lack of a director, which should be rectified as quickly as possible.
But one of the challenges facing them has not been visibility. According to its staff, the MRC has had enough of a presence to reach out to the groups that need them. In fact, one worker said they had more students coming to them than they could provide services for. What the fail to have is enough space, funds, and resources to deal with these students who need them.
Clearly the MRC needs more space, funding, and support from the community. I fully endorse a move for the MRC, as well as a reallocation of funds. The MRC is an important part of our campus and we should give them the support they need.
But what no one can seem to give a concrete answer to is why this necessitates MRC take the game room's space. They can get the space they need on the second floor, as well as the funding & director. This move would solve their problems, as well as reduce any sort of opposition or conflict.
To an outside observer, this whole thing looks like a small-minded land grab by disgruntled workers tired of working in a basement taking advantage of the politically-charged atmosphere. Or perhaps its just a very clever way of elevating their status on campus to by far the most talked-about group, which can no longer be stuck in the basement & denied support.
BIG assumption here, not necessarily justified: that the well-being of the MRC = the well-being of the rights of minorities. But the fact is the MRC has been underfunded and unable to function as it was planned to be for some time, and yet it's not like the rights of minorities have been actively trampled on in the last few semesters (I'm speaking as a minority). Even if there has been some deterioration in minority rights or increase in segregation on campus, it's unclear how giving MRC more money and space is a magic bullet which is able to significantly improve that situation. As usual, I feel insulted that some previously near-invisible organization suddenly pops and self-proclaims itself as the voice and protector of "minorities", claiming to speak for me and "my group". That's rubbish, pretentious and patronizing. The analogy is like as if I'm moving to a white-majority neighborhood, and for the first year or so I get along fine with everyone. Then suddenly some random person comes up, calls up everyone in the neighborhood to not trample on my rights and asks for money to help "protect me". You'd think I'd be impressed?
The fact remains that as a minority, I feel that I have benefited much more from the Game Room than the MRC. And I'd rather spend my time playing games with other people, both minorities and majorities, in the Game Room, rather than participating in these controlled controlled discussions. Another assumption seems to be that those opposing the MRC move are majorities (read: white people). But can we have a poll directed to only minorities then, asking what they think?
Honestly, we're writing articles about moving the MRC or game room? Is this real life? Who gives a flying f#k
Anonymous has it - it looks the same to an inside observer. This outline contains no concrete plans on what to with the increased visibility. This is not meant to denigrate the MRC, but rather to reconsider the routes of the problem, which seems to lie more with lack of funding than lack of visibility.
whoever wrote this needs to learn logic. You beg the question and use ontological argument in number 1. And then a lot of red herrings(2,4) and excuses for the MRC's failure (5,6). You also fail to justify the whole notion of "minority rights"(3). I mean sure we have to respect minority views on issues but surely this doesn't extend to the campus center and the decision on whether to house a "programming hub" (7) that is for everyone. As it is for everyone,everyone should decide. If every minority opinion on the plane as this one had to be accommodated, then democracy would cease to exist.
Regardless of whether or not you believe the MRC should be moved to the game room, how about we all put on our thinking caps for a moment and be rational?
We just had a hate crime/incident occur very close to campus, coupled with the recent sexual assault issues. I know some of you have fathers who are politicians. Would it not be prudent to place the MRC on the first floor of our school's campus center--in plain view where the game room is--- so that Amherst may make a statement? That statement being that we do not tolerate discrimination of any form, whether race based or otherwise.
Amherst isn't looking very good right now as a school. We look like a school that doesn't care about anyone who isn't a wealthy white male whose parents donate annually. By putting the MRC on the first floor & the changes to the women's center, we can start to look like we give a damn.
Think about it.
Really? you're arguing the move based on "maintaining appearances". Are you kidding?
Also, your framing of the question is such a strawman: The MRC isn't a minority issue. It's a campus issue. Voting no isn't voting against support for diverse peoples, it's voting against the effectiveness of the MRC.
Yes, I am indeed arguing that.
I would like to know why there are educated people on this campus who can't understand that moving the MRC is not about the game room. It is absolutely about making a statement, it is not necessarily altruism, but the intent doesn't really matter, only the end result. It concerns me that there are people on this campus who can't see that, or, apparently, don't want our school to look a little more tolerant.
The fact is, we did not vote to destroy the game room. We voted to move it.
To the people who are vehemently against moving the game room to the second floor, and refuse to acknowledge that visibility for a Multicultural RESOURCE Center might actually garner some great press for Amherst: Please stop hiding behind grammar/debate terms, and actually respond to my argument. Give one me ONE valid reason why everything I've stated above wouldn't do more for this campus than the game room.
If you can't, is that because you are uncomfortable with the statement being made?
THANK YOU!!!
A couple of things:
1. Section one still does not provide adequate reasoning as to why the MRC needs to be on the first floor, in particular the space of the game room. It sounds like the MRC wants the space on the first floor for 'symbolic' purposes. That's silly. If the MRC does not need an increase in 'foot traffic', then why not the second floor? For what purposes does it need a more visible space? This article fails to answer those questions.
2. Okay, you want to make the claim that the poll was skewed against you, that's fine. However, saying that only 30% of the student body voted is not an excuse for a loss. At Amherst, we will never get 100% of the vote, that's just the plain truth. Even in the AAS elections people can become our senators with as little as 20 votes, and president of the student body with just a mere simple majority of entire votes, not of the entire student body.
3. If the MRC is supposed to serve as a space for all students (expressed by Varsha Singh '14 in her article, and in this article), why is there a complaint of "majority voting against minority rights"? It's a space for all of us. There's a contradiction there if it really is a space truly meant for everyone. Also, if the MRC did such an awesome job before, why not just increase the funding and let them keep doing their great programming? If you need additional space for that programming, I'm curious for an explanation...which hasn't been provided yet in this entire discussion. All of the demands can be easily met with the MRC moving to the second floor rather than the game room.
I agree with the sentiment that the MRC needs an increase in resources, funding, space and all that good stuff. But no one has provided a valid reason for why it needs to take the space of the game room, rather than being on the second floor.
Still no one talking about what's so wrong with the second floor (accompanied with the needed funds & director).
That is all.
"The fact remains that as a minority, I feel that I have benefited much more from the Game Room than the MRC. And I'd rather spend my time playing games with other people, both minorities and majorities, in the Game Room, rather than participating in these controlled discussions."
Extremely well said!
If the argument against following the poll's results stems from the voters not being able to make an informed decision, why not reissue a poll that provides the proper context and allows more than just an up/down vote on relocation?
I don't see how having the MRC and the CCE at the front of Keefe do anything for the student body. The article states that these are administrative entities, then what's the point of having them be out front instead of in the back with the office space? Better funding for the MRC is a far better solution than relocation against the wishes of the student body. This is hardly the ideal manner to increase visibility for an organization that is supposed to be a unifying force on campus.
The main thing I got from this article: MRC agitators are getting ready to up the ante. The next support letter is going to contain not a single correct sentence, proving once and for all that the MRC must move into the space currently occupied by the game room in order to offer the only programming at this college on English punctuation, in addition to whatever it is that were going to do originally.
But seriously. Who wrote this?
"who wrote this" is literally the first thing in this article.
Clearly many people disagree with the MRC pieces you've posted thus far.
Can the silent, rational majority get a voice before the loud, emotional minority settle this issue for us?
No one has answered this question yet: why can't the game room expand to the second floor where it can still be highly visible and revamped with a dedicated staff and programs?
The reason there won't be another vote enabling "informed decisions" to take place is that the AAS is afraid of the results...
The third bullet of question 3) states, "Therefore, they drafted apoll." Apoll should be two words, a poll.
Every time I read comments on MRC-related articles, a huge part of me sincerely hope that all these anonymouses are actually the same person. I often described Amherst as stratified but now I genuinely feel that there are huge, unbreakable walls between members of this so-called community and it is very disconcerting.
"'minorities' "(e.g. religious; sexuality and gender; national; ideological, ethic, racial, etc.)' You're right. I demand a conservative foundation to be funded, and housed in a visible/central location on campus. This is, after all, an academic institution.
I wrote an open letter to Dean Fatemi outlining why the Game Room should stay on the first floor.
Here is the link to the open letter, please sign if you agree.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1WZSdkVO_y6MrbqGIW7lqwYfuJu-QLyT0YBcy...
If you want me to make changes, please comment in the event page
http://www.facebook.com/events/381238931969114/
re: BIG assumption here:
"it's not like the rights of minorities have been actively trampled on in the last few semesters (I'm speaking as a minority)"
I am astounded that you could ignore the recent hate crime committed against a (minority) member of the AC community. If you have had the privilege of being a minority student at this college who has not faced some kind of prejudice and/or oppression, then you should acknowledge this as a privilege and seek to help others who are not afforded that privilege. Many minorities have expressed how the atmosphere on our campus has made them feel unwelcome and unsafe. Don't use your personal experiences to silence the multitude of students who feel oppressed.
re: whoever wrote this needs to:
"I mean sure we have to respect minority views on issues but surely this doesn't extend to the campus center"
SURELY our "respect for minority views on issues" shouldn't be extended to the only designated space on campus for students to gather in a non-academic setting! What an inconvenience it must be for you, to have this public space invaded by "respect for minorities"! They should find their own spaces to find respect, right? Like in a basement somewhere, where no one else is forced to acknowledge the oppression of minorities by students who would rather play ping-pong in a "post-racial" setting?
I have found that the fundamental misunderstanding held by most students against the MRC/Game Room switch-up surrounds the (de)valuation of SPACE. The first floor of Keefe is a highly visible area, the second floor is only used on occasion (like when the Friedmann Room is used for student performances), and the basement is only known to a handful of students who a] realize there are restrooms down there, or b] actually use the MRC or Women's Center. The MRC's move to the first floor will ensure visibility to the entire student body, both minorities and otherwise. If it were to remain in the basement, or be moved to the second floor, it would only be seen by students who deliberately go out of their way to visit it and use its resources - i.e. minorities. The whole point of the MRC is to educate/inform the ENTIRE student body on the issues that minorities (in terms of race, class, gender, sexuality, etc.) face in our society, and yes, on our campus, and how individuals' actions and words can either perpetuate or challenge structures of oppression. Now, is a move to the first floor going to mean that all students will use the MRC? No. However, will it mean that every student entering Keefe will see the MRC and acknowledge its existence - the occupation of this visible space serves to give voice to minorities on campus. That voice is silent when the organization is only seen by minority students. After all, moving the MRC to the second floor would allow for a larger area, but what would it accomplish in terms of creating a space to give voice to minorities? Nothing, since students who feel unaffected by the oppression of minorities would have no need to climb the stairs to the second floor, and consequently, the second floor space would be just as useless as its current basement location.
Now, a lot of negative talk has risen over the Game Room's relocation to a less visible area. But, working under the horrible architectural conditions that Keefe has provided us, it does not currently seem feasible to have both the MRC and Game Room on the first floor. Let's consider for a moment what disadvantages the Game Room will suffer when relocated. Debatably, one could argue that it would lose visibility, and consequently, its sense of camaraderie amongst students would be broken. However, that argument makes little sense. The function of the Game Room is not reliant on visibility. Students who would like to play some pool in the Game Room will come to do so whether or not they have to climb a few stairs.
I'd like to take a moment to clarify what I meant by my remark about a "post-racial setting" (see my above response to "whoever wrote this needs to"). Some students have attempted to verbally recreate the Game Room as an idyllic place in which all students are welcome to come and play with one another, thus dispelling any tensions between minorities and majorities. First of all, I have rarely (if ever) seen unacquainted students mingle with each other in the Game Room. I have seen already-established friend groups come to the Game Room together, but these separate groups do not interact. But perhaps my personal observations are faulty, and there are, in fact, new friendships burgeoning in the Game Room. Even then, does this mean that the Game Room already fills the role of the MRC? No, absolutely not. When hypothetical "new friends" find themselves in a game of pool, do they discuss the injustices on campus that create a harmful environment for minorities? Do they brainstorm ways in which the campus can be changed to better suit the needs of a diverse student body? The idea that the Game Room is some kind of safe space in which all students can intermingle is laughable, and the notion that it is more productive than an organization specifically created for the needs of minorities is hopeful, at best. What a post-racial world we must live in, if all the oppression felt by minorities can be solved through the dulcet tones of the juke box, and a rousing game of Battleships.
why the fu** are people debating this online? write a letter to the trustees.
Letters have gone out to the administration and others with the ability to make policy and infrastructure changes.
Also, it is quite unfortunate that this debate got reduced to MRC vs. Game Room. I feel that I am forced to frame my own arguments in terms of what the MRC can do that the Game Room can't even though I do not want to discuss it in these terms. Similarly, many people who oppose the MRC's move to the first floor seem to imply, "What can the MRC do that the Game Room can't?" but I think the more important questions are "What can the MRC do for this campus in 1 year, 5 years, 10 years? How can the MRC further enhance campus life and help us contextualize our identities and others' identities so that we do not feel lost, alienated or unsure in the real world? and if I do not support moving the MRC, why is that so, and what input could I give to make the MRC a more constructive entity?"
People keep saying that the MRC does not represent the interests of all minorities, let alone students. Similarly, the Game Room does not represent the interests of all minorities, or students. But since the Game Room is the established structure and the MRC is still budding and trying to assert its legitimacy, we will devote more of our energy on emphasizing how useless the MRC is. No structure anywhere is going to fulfill everyone's needs, but why do tend to push back or question the structures that make us uncomfortable?
Amherst is really a good place in the sense that most of its students live on campus, interact closely with each other and have the opportunity to make meaningful connections. I think that the MRC can enhance that and allow us to interact more closely with each other before we go to larger places where it will be much more difficult to absorb information from others. I see college as a place of identity formation, and I think the MRC can play an instrumental role in that formation and open exchange of ideas that we claim so deeply value.
** when I say we, I am talking about Amherst at large. And I do not see myself as a representative of all minorities or all Amherst students.
I'm not affiliated with the group that wrote this article, but I totally support this move.
The fact that the MRC is in the basement renders it effectively useless. I'm Black, and at the point that I realized that Amherst loves being statistically diverse but has no infrastructure to increase interaction across racial and socioeconomic groups, it would have been nice to know an organization existed that would be attentive to my concerns and affirmed my non-white identity. If the MRC wasn't shoved in a corner in the basement, but instead on the 1st floor of the campus center, let alone had a full-time director and funding, I might have known they existed before halfway through college. In my opinion, the MRC, along with other support groups for underrepresented populations, needs their own building and a full-time staff--if Amherst is going to be serious about diversity, it needs to build a structure to support its students and encourage interaction between different groups, and part of that structure is giving these organizations space to actually do things as well as money and people to do these things. At the very least, Amherst should want to be on par with other institutions in terms of providing a space that affirms and supports the identity of its underrepresented students. But this move in the campus center is certainly a huge step in the right direction.
Also, I honestly don't understand the huge outcry over moving the game room. Is it really that horrendous to have to walk up a flight of stairs to play pool and ping pong? Is it really that critical for games to be immediately accessible the minute you walk into Keefe? A number of comments refer to the fact that the article doesn't point out why the MRC has to be on the first floor, but its clear to me that this increased visibility will not only make the MRC more accessible but it will finally make multiculturalism something Amherst students can't ignore, in addition to acknowledging, as an institution, that non-white identities matter and deserve affirmation. The poll, and the comments on this article, do nothing but reinforce why such a move is necessary.
I am glad you feel as though your rights as a minority haven't been trampled on, "BIG assumption", but unfortunately you are not representative of all of the non-white students at Amherst, and just because you have acclimated to the white-washed environment that is Amherst doesn't mean everyone has or cares to. Even if no student felt individually targeted, there have been a number of racist events on campus in recent history, one of which occurred in the last week, which necessitate an organization like the MRC coming forward as a space of large-scale education/emotional support, which it might be able to do if it had room, people, and money.
The fact that there are students who value easy access to games over a space of education about people different from them shows a lot about our priorities as a student body.