Those Present: Brian Andrews, Ellen Lin, Nick Grudin, Liz Rodriguez, Julie Kern, Lauren Shawn, Harry Ou, Tanya LaGuerre, Richard Sun, Mike Rush, Pam Grewal, Leslie Mallman, Grayson Schaffer.

ASPC President Brian Andrews ’01 reported that the trustees had their annual retreat last week. At the retreat they discussed changing the way housing is distributed. A consulting group has recommended that a "freshman row" be established wherein all sponsor groups would be placed, making it easier for sophomores to live with their friends and giving them greater access to singles and North Campus. The freshman row would consist of Wig, Lyon, Harwood, and part of Mudd-Blaisdell. Under this arrangement Smiley would be a largely sophomore dorm. The rationale is that while freshman have their sponsor groups no matter where they are placed on campus, sophomores are often isolated from their classmates, which is unfair. Andrews said that the major argument against this proposal is that it will segregate the campus and freshmen will not have as much opportunity to interact with upperclassmen. Andrews disagreed with this argument, and cited things such as student organizations and snack wherein students mingle across all years. This issue will be discussed fully at the next Senate meeting after break.

Andrews said that the trustees also looked at the judicial policy and procedures and were happy with what they found. Andrews and Dean of Students Ann Quinley both reported giving the trustees a glowing report on the judiciary. Andrews cited the new diversity among J-Board members as a factor in its strong performance.

Junior Class Representative Jake Oken-Berg ’02 raised the issue of improving Pomona’s reputation and name recognition, an issue raised earlier in the year by trustees. Andrews explained that recommendations had been made but that none had been implemented. A task force comprised of trustees is exploring the issue.

Andrews also announced that the third and final student position on the ad-hoc Committee on Social Responsibility has been filled by Tyler Dillavou ’01.

Tyler Dillavou ’01 proposed the formation of a subcommittee to be called the Task Force on Energy Strategy. He discussed the current energy problems, saying that there has been discourse but no initiative taken to deal with energy issues. Dillavou said that there is a lot of interest in the problem and a great deal of expertise on campus; people have been studying possible strategies, but efforts have been decentralized. Andrews asked how much work had gone into this thus far. Dillavou responded that students have performed energy audits and, along with some faculty members, have been examining solutions involving the implementation of some technological and architectural changes. He added that he brought the proposal before the Senate because he sees hesitancy in the administration to take action on this issue. The administration worries that if they make or condone conservation efforts they will be construed as cheap. Dillavou said that, to the contrary, the proposals that will come out of this task force will involve the implementation of some progressive technologys.

Oken-Berg asked what Dillavou would like for Senate to do with the proposal. Dillavou responded that he hoped they would approve it so that when he takes it to President Peter Stanley and asks him to appoint a task force, he will be able to say that the students are behind it. He added that he would like to see the task force include people from all levels of the college, from students to trustees.

Andrews suggested that Senate approve the idea of the proposal immediately on principle and give it final approval after some adjustments have been made to the language. A motion was made, seconded, and passed.

Commissioner of Community Affairs Leslie Mallman ’01 thanked senators for their help with and contributions to the Professor Service Auction. She announced that it made $2300 for Teamworks LA, about $500 more than was raised last year.

She reminded senators that POW! will take place on April 7; she said that they have been planning early this year because they are working with alumni. Volunteer activities planned include a beach clean-up, guerrilla farming, and work with Foothill AIDS Project. Andrews asked what role she would like senators to play in POW!. She responded that they need only volunteer that day.

North Campus Senator Grayson Schaffer ’01 reported that the Scripps representative to the 5-C Senate is unhappy that there has been no progress made towards the creation of a five-college judiciary board. Schaffer has told her that he would look over the student survey that they had submitted for distribution, edit it, and give feedback and comments. The issue, Schaffer said, is whether or not we want a 5-C j-board. He explained that Scripps is the driving force behind this proposal; they see a need for more fairness in cross-campus hearings, particularly in cases of sexual harassment and assault. He made a distinction between a jury of "peers" comprised of students from all five colleges and peers at one’s home college, indicating that he believes the latter definition to be the correct one. Schaffer suggested that Scripps should make its own cross-campus testifying policy since the concern is largely theirs.

Commissioner of Communications Harry Ou ’01 asked how the system works now. Schaffer responded that students are always tried at their home school, regardless of which school the complainant attends. The complainant testifies at the other college’s hearing.

Andrews expanded on the arguments in favor of a five-college judiciary, citing concerns about bias and the element of intimidation that may accompany testifying in a system with which one is not familiar. Schaffer added that, for example, CMC may not view sexual assault as seriously as Scripps would.

Schaffer said that there would also be some complex legal issues involved in setting up a new judiciary body. The approval of the trustees of all five colleges would be required. He maintained, however, that the proponents of the proposal make some good points and that some sort of change should be made. He is working in SAC to allow for the judiciary chairs of the respective schools to act as liaisons by advising and explaining the policies to complainants testifying on campuses other than their own.

Andrews noted that many of the other colleges are also hesitant to approve the survey (which is five pages long and comprised mostly of questions dealing with people’s opinions on sexual harassment). Harvey Mudd has grudgingly approved two of the nine sections of the survey. Schaffer said that objections have been raised about the wording of the survey.

Andrews asked senators what they wanted to do on this issue. He said that he agreed with Schaffer that if they think the creation of a 5-C j-board is unlikely or infeasible, then there is no point in approving the survey. Commissioner of Campus Events Julie Kern ’01 said that such a body would never work; students are ultimately only responsible to their home schools. She also pointed out that testifying against someone who has harassed you is intimidating regardless of where the testimony takes place.

Sports Commissioner Nick Grudin ’01 agreed, saying that the survey is impertinent.

Schaffer said that the survey is very loaded, makes many assumptions, and asks leading questions about values. Andrews noted that the purpose of the proposed 5-C judiciary is not just to deal with sexual harassment cases. ASPC Vice President Ellen Lin ’01 said that they should not approve anything as written.

Oken-Berg suggested that they communicate to Scripps representatives that they will comply with any measure to punish sexual harassers; he said that he likes the liaison idea but does not approve of a 5-C judiciary.

Schaffer suggested that someone make a motion to proofread the survey and then distribute it. Kern raised the issue of the legal feasibility of the 5-C judiciary, but Andrews and Schaffer agreed that if students say that they want this, it will happen. Schaffer continued that while he thinks this is a bad idea, he’d rather see it fail in a vote than be glossed over. A motion was made, seconded, and passed to table the issue indefinitely.

Harry Ou announced that the Print Media Committee had met and approved the latest version of the TSL constitution, which was distributed to senators at the meeting for their final approval. The floor was open to questions and concerns.

After several minor phrasing questions were discussed, Andrews raised the issue of the joke issue and asked if there had been any definite ruling on whether or not it could be the final issue of the semester. TSL Editor-in-Chief Nora Lawrence ‘01 responded that such a stipulation should not be written in stone, i.e. in the constitution, and that any arrangement as to when the joke issue would be published should be informal; she pointed out that the Senate must now approve the Editor-in-Chief, anyway. Commissioner of Environmental Affairs Pam Grewal ’03 agreed.

Lin asked Lawrence to explain to her the purpose of the joke issue; Lawrence answered that it is to provide a forum in which issues that might not otherwise be brought to light could be presented in a satirical manner. She added that it is also supposed to be funny. Lin asked if it is necessary to have one every semester, to which Lawrence responded that it clearly states in the constitution that it is at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief each semester. Grudin asked whether student fees would be used to produce the joke issue, and TSL Managing Editor Dan Check ’01 explained that ad revenues would be used to fund joke issues, not student fees. Lin said that she thought TSL should at least publish some real news in addition to the joke issue in the week that it is produced. Lawrence said that in the past they have published a regular half-issue in addition to the joke issue but have found it to be a strain, and not publishing a regular issue allows for more thought to go into the joke issue; she added that this should be at the discretion of the Editor-in-Chief (EIC) each semester. Lin moved on to question the EIC selection process as outlined in the constitution, which states that prospective EICs should possess experience "directly tied to extensive prior experience at The Student Life, as its inner workings are unique and cannot be learned simply through experience at other publications." Lin asked what exactly those "unique inner workings" entailed; Lawrence answered that they consist mostly of "little stupid things" such as formatting procedures; several senators made joking remarks about secret operations. Other elements of the constitution were subsequently examined.

Lin then asked about the constitution’s mission statement, contending that there should be some clause about "professionalism" and citing the use of profanity as a TSL practice that is out of line with any notion of journalistic integrity. Lawrence countered that she has researched the issue, and there is no standard of journalistic integrity, that ‘professionalism’ is just a word. Lin persisted, saying that the use of swear words is not common in newspapers; Lawrence responded that perhaps not in the New York Times, but they are used in publications such as the Village Voice. Lin maintained that some past use of profane language in TSL, such as the "cheap whore" incident, was inappropriate and asked how they could safeguard against such a thing happening again. Lawrence said that the constitution is not the appropriate place to address such issues. Grewal concurred, saying that if senate must approve the Editor-in-Chief then they have to trust her or his judgement.

More discussion ensued regarding freedom of speech and advocating sensitivity. Lin asked again why there is a need for a joke issue. Check said that the larger issue at hand is whether or not the Senate wants to control what TSL may or may not say. Mallman suggested that perhaps the purpose of the joke issue should be somehow outlined as being to create relevant satire; Check pointed out the highly subjective nature of such a description. More discussion followed and the issue was brought to a vote. Senate approved the TSL constitution.

Commissioner of Academic Affairs Richard Sun ’01 said that it was reported at the last faculty meeting that the dean search is drawing to a close; finalists have been selected and will be brought to campus to participate in open forums.

Andrews characterized the dean search as "very exclusive"; he said that there has been no student input in the process thus far. He encouraged senators to urge their classmates to attend the forums so that there will be student feedback in this final stage of the search.