|
NEWS News in Brief Beyond the Burg Police Beat Street Beat Under the Microscope OPINIONS Letters to the Editor Staff Editorial VARIETY That Guy – That Girl Horoscopes Comics Confusion Corner Behind Closed Doors SPORTS From the Sidelines Home Field Advantage REVIEWS Film Music Dining Arts On Campus Critical Condition ABOUT US Subscribe Advertise Archive |
Hopkins, Rosen face off in SA presidential debate Candidates touch on sexual assault Last night, three days before students will vote for a new Student Assembly, presidential challengers Adam Rosen ’09 and Emily Nuñez ’09 faced off against incumbent SA President Zach Pilchen ’09 and Vice President Valerie Hopkins ’09, who have reversed roles and put Hopkins on top of the ticket, in a debate in Lodge 1. The four touched on a variety of issues ranging from uniting the campus, improving town and gown relations and preventing sexual assault. 
Alex Haglund— The Flat Hat. SA presidential candidates Adam Rosen ’09 and Emily Nuñez ’09 [Left] debate Valerie Hopkins ’09 and Zach Pilchen ’09 in Lodge 1 last night. Rosen opened the debate. “The College is in a state of renewal,” he said. “Zach Pilchen and Valerie Hopkins are restraining us from moving forward as a community.” Rosen cited their record, saying that the incumbents followed through on only 30 percent of their original campaign promises. The first question posed to the candidates, asked by moderator and government professor Clay Clemens, regarded how they would unite the student body. Rosen proposed that SA meetings should be televised and uploaded to iTunes. “The student body’s voice is still considerably underrepresented,” he said. p.Nuñez also mentioned that, if elected, she and Rosen would be available every week at the Daily Grind to address student concerns. “[Then-SA President Ryan Scofield] had office hours two years ago and no one ever came to them,” Hopkins responded. Rosen also said that since Pilchen is running for vice president and Hopkins is running for president, they should not mention their past experiences in office because they are not running for positions that they have previously held. The next question addressed how the candidates would improve the students’ relationship with the city. Hopkins stressed her and Pilchen’s efforts to register students to vote. “We’ve worked very hard to make [it] as easy as possible for students to register to vote,” she said. Rosen replied. “Voter registration has gone on well before Zach and Valerie,” he said. Hopkins rebutted. “It was absolutely impossible for students to register to vote in Williamsburg [before this year],” she said. One of the most hotly debated issues of the evening was sexual assault prevention. Rosen criticised Pilchen’s idea of a co-educational discussion of how men and women view consent, saying that such a discussion would be dangerous. Rosen added, “We’re going to increase 1 in 4 and Every Two Minutes. We will strategically target those at risk and those who are the risk.” The candidates also debated their environmental platforms. Pilchen, an environmental studies major, discussed his efforts in placing a compost tumbler behind the Commons dining hall and raising the school’s environmental fund from $9 million to $12 million. He rebutted Rosen’s environmental plan. “Recycling Solo cups is not an environmental platform,” he said. “We can all do our own little part and recycling Solo cups is beneath no one,” he said. SA Elections Commission Chair Jennifer Souers ’10 called the debate to a close. Although the candidates did not give closing statements, they continued to talk informally with students for some time. |
||
The Flat Hat The Student Newspaper of the College of William and Mary since 1911 |
Seed Newsvine
Nice sandals, hippie.
(Vote for Hopkins/Pilchen!)
— Max Fisher Mar 18, 02:00 PM #
If Adam Rosen had been a student at the College before September, he would know the frustration of being unable to vote or have a voice in city politics.
Luckily for him, his entire tenure at this school has been during the Hopkins & Pilchen Administration.
— Dave Johnson Mar 18, 04:48 PM #
I did not and have not endorsed either candidate. I don’t know if this article is accurate; I question whether it is because me “not being available for comment” consisted of one phone message on my office line by a reporter who called at night, said he was from “the paper” and did not leave his name nor his phone number. It is hard for me to be available for comment when I don’t know who called and don’t have a number to call back. I guess he was from the Flat Hat but I am not sure. One thing I can say is that if Zach and Valerie are claiming I support them, this is absolutely untrue — I have not even spoken with either of them all year, they have not sought out my advice this year at all, they have advocated approaches that are contrary to research, and on the issue of sexual assault prevention in my opinion they have done more harm than good for our campus. Like I said though, I don’t know if this article accurately reflects what was said at the debate. If Zach and Valerie said I support them, they had no basis to do so and may be in violation of the honor code. If they did not say this, this is just a bad article.
— Dr. John Foubert Mar 18, 04:51 PM #
wasn’t the compost thing supposed to be in effect as of last spring? didn’t pilchen just leave it (unassembled) outside over the summer, allowing it to be stolen? should it really take a full year in office to get a compost tumbler operating?
— Compost Tumblers Sometimes Get Stolen When You Are Irresponsible Mar 18, 05:13 PM #
Valerie and I have never said that John Foubert has endorsed us or provided us with specific direction, though Adam Rosen has claimed that Dr. Foubert supports his plan for sexual assault prevention. Anyone at the debate will corroborate this fact.
Valerie and I have merely corrected the patently false statement that One-in-Four and Every Two Minutes vociferously opposes our coeducational discussion program, when in fact it is being designed by members of these groups representing the SA side working with the larger groups themselves, as well as with the College’s Office for Sexual Assault Prevention. Adam Rosen has continued these ridiculous false attacks despite being repeatedly corrected by ourselves and members of these groups.
As for the Sex Workers’ Art Show, I am sure most of campus understands Dr. Foubert and the SA’s difference of opinion on the subject. It is worth pointing out however, that both SA Presidential campaigns have committed on their websites to respecting student First Amendment rights by presumably providing viewpoint neutral funding to any student group that requests it. To do otherwise would run contrary to this institution’s history as the place where democracy was born, and would also make us liable for costly lawsuits. We won’t suppress SWAS, and we wouldn’t suppress white racialist Jared Taylor.
— Zach Pilchen Mar 18, 05:24 PM #
Adam Rosen is correct in saying that he met with me to discuss his plan for sexual assault prevention; he is wise to consult with faculty who have done research on the topic to seek out their advice. So far as his plan is in line with research on single sex programming it is something that I think is a good idea.
“As for the Sex Workers Art Show….” give me a break Zach, you’ve got to be kidding. The article mentioned nothing about that. Your bringing that issue up in this context makes about as much sense as the comment earlier about your sandals. My stated objections to the show, if you read them, were not about viewpoints they were about violations of college policy and what was SHOWN not what was DISCUSSED. That was a cheap, weak shot thrown into a discussion that was irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Students should expect more than that from their leadership.
— Dr. John Foubert Mar 18, 06:04 PM #
um… Adam, if you really want to get the Foubert endorsement, be my guest. That will earn you an overwhelming “no thanks” from the student body.
And Dr. Foubert, don’t you think “Students should expect more than that from their leadership” is a bit much? Pilchen and Hopkins have done incredible work for W&M, and their opponents barely understand how school policies work.
— DUH Mar 18, 06:30 PM #
Dr. Foubert,
I’m pretty sure Zach was referring to you saying “...and on the issue of sexual assault prevention in my opinion they have done more harm than good for our campus…” You were either referring to their work on the co-educational program or SWAS. Zach, I’m sure, thought you meant SWAS or both. Otherwise his comment makes no sense.
Just clarifying.
— Matt Beato Mar 18, 06:33 PM #
“Students should expect more than that from their leadership”, indeed. Dr. Foubert, I am appalled at your derogatory attitude toward students at this college (“give me a break..”). Differing opinions aside, I would expect both faculty and students to show each other the same measure of respect. My apologies if you feel your response was provoked; however, I would not expect a distinguished faculty of this college such as yourself to act in such a manner.
— Brittany Fallon Mar 18, 10:48 PM #
Brittany, I think you will find few faculty who care more for students at this College than I do. Unless I am mistaken, you do not know me nor have you ever seen or met me. We have not had a conversation and you know practically nothing about me yet you will leap to the conclusion that I have an appallingly derogatory attitude toward students at this college. Your opinion is your choice.
When a political candidate raises an issue like the SWAS not mentioned in an article, not mentioned by me in my previous comments, and does not ask me what I was speaking about thus either jumping to conclusions or as I suspect trying to change the subject for his own political motives — for me to say “give me a break” does not seem appalling to me and certainly is not something reflecting an attitude toward students at this college. It is a statement made to one student at this institution who has set himself up for criticism.
— Dr. John Foubert Mar 18, 11:20 PM #
A message to all:
The confusion surrounding the issue of the co-educational program has moved far past the program itself – as a measure of respect to those creating the program with the intent of respecting and honoring new ideas, fresh perspective, and educated input, this issue has to be discussed in a different manner than Flat Hat comment blurbs or snarky comments from this election.
Dr.Foubert, I’m sorry you feel offended by your association with this election. You have been contacted not directly by Zach, Valerie, or myself, but by some delegated, past and present, to address you, as they know you far better than myself, or any of the above mentioned.
I’d like to express the importance of honesty in this campaign, and clarity has become an issue. Hopefully, in the future, this program can be accurately defended in more than a 2 minute rebuttal, or through a few sentences in a list of campaign promises.
I can assure you, as a member of ASAP, Every Two Minutes, and the Undersecretary of Sexual Assault Prevention for the Student Assembly, I’m trying to keep lines of communication open. I encourage you all to do the same.
— Katie Dixon Mar 19, 10:36 AM #
I wish people would stop telling me how it is I am feeling or what it is I have said. I am not offended by my association with this election. I wish I were not associated with the election, but I am not offended by that. I am annoyed that the Flat Hat printed an article saying I was unable to be reached for comment when the most I know that they did was possibly to leave a message on my office voice mail at night without leaving a name or number (it could have been someone else, who knows). And, I find it objectionable and careless that Zach would bring up the Sex Workers Art Show when I had not made direct reference to that.
What has been lost in this discussion is a very important point. Rape happens on our campus far too frequently. There are known ways to reduce it. The College is using known ways to reduce it. There are other known ways to work to stop it. Zach and Valerie ran on a platform last year essentially saying that they new better ways to end sexual assault than 30 years worth of research. Student Assembly has thus pushed for ways to work to stop it that are inconsistent with research. They have also funded events like the Sex Workers Art Show (OK, now I AM raising it) that are shown by research to lead to harm sexual assault prevention efforts. When it comes to the sexual assault issue, SA has done more harm than good. Members of One in Four, Every Two Minutes, ASAP and the Sexual Assault Education Office are all trying to work hard to end sexual assault at W&M. SA does the issue no favors by pushing ideas disproven by research, by having its president pose mostly nude in a calendar and encouraging others to similarly be objectified, and by paying the pornography industry to spread its propaganda that research has shown causes worse attitudes toward rape and increased sexual aggression.
— Dr. John Foubert Mar 19, 12:53 PM #
Dr.Foubert,
If you have issues about this program, that’s fine. I don’t know if you necessarily know what the program is, and if and when it is implemented, without espousing that it will do, and has done (without ever having been implemented, discussed with student body, or tested) more harm than good is unfair and unbalanced.
I’m asking this discussion to STOP in this venue. This discussion, in this venue, is now, officially, doing more harm than good. In that, I 100% agree. The research you suggest is 100% true, and we are doing nothing to change it. This program has nothing, essentially, do with any research you have conducted and does not fall neatly into any category.
Also, I might add, every single one of the programs that you mentioned that are working to help end sexual assault are huge and have more than one member each represented in the creation of this program.
And this is ABSOLUTELY no place to discuss a SEAC calendar that Zach posed for to raise money for environmental reform, nor the SWAS. Really.
— Katie Dixon Mar 19, 01:20 PM #
Dave Johnson (above) is right. The former registrar, Dave Andrews, had a penchant for not allowing students to register to vote before elections. Trust me, I saw him change his standards from “off-campus students and students who change their address on their license can vote in Williamsburg” to “even if you change your address on your license you can’t vote” to “Oh, by the way, off-campus students can’t vote either”- which oddly mirrored efforts by the Sievers campaign to register those groups in that order- I’m still annoyed a little bit with Mr. Andrews over that. Point being, students couldn’t vote until last June when Dave Andrews was removed from his post.
With the current registrar, Winifred Sowder, things are much easier. But that has only been in the past year.
Also, to correct a misconception that has turned up- there are two voting precincts in Williamsburg- the Berekely precinct and the Stryker precinct. While students’ voter registration cards show they are members of the Stryker precinct, our polling place is at the Community Building (across the street from the Stryker building)- which is not to be confused with the Municipal Building on Lafayette Street. So, come May 7th, if you are registered to vote in Williamsburg, you should be going to the Community Building.
— Ryan Jackson Mar 19, 02:07 PM #
Please don’t try to vote on May 7th. Vote on May 6th, when the City Council election is.
— Matt Beato Mar 19, 03:29 PM #
I don’t particularly have issues with a program that has not yet been written or fully developed; and I’m glad that it is being done with help from great and committed peer educators and administrators who work on sexual assault issues. My comment about more harm than good refers globally to the SA’s efforts to address sexual assault under Zach and Valerie’s leadership, not to an untested program. Though I would not suggest using a coed program because it does not conform to what research would suggest and if I had been asked I would not have recommended it, it is worth a try and I think highly of those writing it even if it is the result of an ill informed set of ideas pushed by the current President and VP of SA.
University’s have long been places where ideas have been debated, thoughts expressed, and perspectives questioned. The issues raised here are an important part of a campus dialogue, and I find them useful. People can take part in this dialogue or not. Zach raised the SWAS issue. It happens to be relevant to the discussion only insofar as it works directly against sexual assault prevention — the topic under discussion here. Objectification of women — something he encouraged and took part in with the calendar also exemplifies this kind of judgment. All are worth debating in the public sphere in the course of a campaign for those who wish to take part. It was not my choice to have my name brought into this discussion. The candidates did that. And I’m here and will freely share my perspective in the spirit of academic freedom so richly prized by institutions of higher education.
— Dr. John Foubert Mar 19, 04:29 PM #
There are two separate things here. Adam Rosen suggested that a co-ed program is “dangerous” and that Dr. Foubert agreed with him. Dr. Foubert, you are suggesting that it is “worth a try” even though your research shows that it might not be effective. These are two very, very, very, very, very different things. One is harmful and one might just might not be effective. This distinction is HUGE.
Also, Dr. Foubert just said that his view on Zach and Valerie’s sexual assault platform is not related to the coed program, but primarily to SWAS. Therefore, SWAS is quite relevant even if Zach did raise the issue. Regardless, the SA has repeatedly voted to fund SWAS, Adam Rosen supports funding SWAS, SWAS keeps getting funded. I didn’t vote for it last year, for example, but it’s still the will of students. It won’t get funded if the student body doesn’t want it by electing representatives who will do so, and that just doesn’t seem to be happening. I don’t think you can place the blame on Zach and Val alone.
— Matt Beato Mar 19, 05:48 PM #
Agreed – distinctions need to be made between the danger of the SWAS and the co-educational program, because it seems to those who just skim through these comments, the belief is that the co-educational program is dangerous, which, in turn, makes for heated debate and makes it difficult to get through a muddle of confusion.
This is why I ask for this issue to discussed in a different forum, and we can give students, those we are ALL trying to aid, protect, and listen to, something clear to hear.
— Katie Dixon Mar 19, 05:53 PM #
As a victim of sexual assault I think this conversation is dangerous. Some people here have no idea what they are talking about and need to stop playing games with such a touchy subject (not including Dr. Foubert). Also, I would NEVER sit through a coeducational program in which I would have to talk about this issue. I agree with Adam that it would be dangerous. I am tired of hearing about sexual assault from people who only read about it in textbooks.
— ----- Mar 19, 07:03 PM #
It amazes me that in one set of postings I can be misquoted so many times. Matt, where is it that I agreed with Adam Rosen that a coed program is “dangerous?” Unless I am mistaken, I have not called a coed program “dangerous.” Also, yes, I am saying the program now being written is “worth a try” but I did not say that MY research shows it might not be effective. What I said was that coed programs are not what research suggests is effective — this research has been done by others, not by me. I’ve also said that coed programming is inconsistent with research, but I did not say it was “dangerous.” This distinction is indeed huge.
Also, I did not mean to convey the impression that my view on Zach and Valerie’s platform had nothing to do with the coed program. My view on their platform from last year had much to do with their idea of creating a coed program (thought I did not comment on it publicly at the time). My opinion of what is now turning into a coed program being worth a shot is based on where things are now, who is creating it, and the fact that it may really do some good. Sometimes programs are created and defy prior research — that is how breakthroughs are discovered.
As to whether Zach and Val are solely responsible for bringing in the propaganda show for the pornography industry that research shows has elements that would be expected to cause harm on our campus, there are many who share responsibility for bringing it to the College for sure. My understanding, and I may be mistaken, is that Zach was a major proponent of advocating for the show’s funding through the appropriations process and for providing enough funding to make the show happen here. For that he should be held accountable.
— Dr. John Foubert Mar 19, 07:03 PM #
I can’t fight with a survivor, that’s obvious. I will say, however, wait and see. No one, beyond the committee to create this program, knows it content, including Adam Rosen. And neither do you. I would never, in any situation, ask you to discuss your assault with anyone, much less the sex that assaulted you. I’m sorry you’re offended by this program, but I would like to say that I also have my own personal experiences, and I don’t just read from textbooks.
I hope, when the time comes, you’ll give this a shot.
— Katie Dixon Mar 19, 07:20 PM #
First, I never said I or Rosen knew the content of your program. But I have watched Zach and Val’s video on the subject and I do know they have no idea what they are talking about. They can play “club” if they want but when I comes to dealing with real life situations they need to shut-up. So, if they are the ones that started this program than I can only image what it in tales. I do applaud you for getting over your experience and trying to make good out of it. I have worked with support groups for other victims as well. I have also been involved with an organization that tried to start a coeducational program and after a few trails discontinued the program. So, in regards to that I know a thing or two as well. Because of this and my experience with sexual assault I strongly believe that a coeducational program would do more harm than good.
— ----- Mar 19, 07:34 PM #
Then can we all just agree that this program is so important, that new, fresh ideas would be wonderful in aiding the fight for healthy relationships and communication in general? Because that is what this program is. Which de facto would held prevent sexual assaults.
Education is the main goal. I wouldn’t dream of implementing a program until it was properly tested, and if that takes a year, it takes a year. If it takes 2, I know of someone I can leave it to that would make sure it would be implemented only when ready. I promise those who create this program have your interests at hand. I know you don’t know me, but I can assure you, I would never implement a program that was proven to do more harm than good, or even had a mild chance of confusion with regards to sexual assault. And this, I think, we can all agree is the goal of all education.
— Katie Dixon Mar 19, 08:08 PM #
Dr. Foubert,
I believe Adam called the program “dangerous” in his video and said that this was supported by you.
Matt
— Matt Beato Mar 19, 08:37 PM #
Professor Foubert is a not a person I would want on my side.
He’s entitled to his opinions and I’m entitled to judge those opinions as paternalistic and sexist. His implicit understanding that the sexuality of women is something which must be secreted away for their own good and that women require the protection of big, strong, moral men like himself seems at best outdated by a generation and at worst insulting to men and women alike.
Foubert seems to suggest that, by allowing women to freely express themselves in a way that acknowledges their sexuality, they are somehow being victimized. (I’m sure he’ll backtrack on that position, as he has with so many others, but see quotes above for evidence.) He seems to be working from an assumption that women are incapable of making decisions for themselves with regards to their sexuality and that they require men – men like him – to step in and protect them by dictating what they may and may not discuss publicly.
I legitimately believe he has the best of intentions. But good intentions are not always enough. I for one think the College has made tremendous strides in women’s issues in the past twenty years – freedom of speech, gender equality, and the growth of a strong women’s studies programs – and I would not like to see our College regress to the paternalistic oppression of the 19th century.
— Max Fisher Mar 19, 09:22 PM #
When I spoke with Adam Rosen on Monday, he told me specifically that Dr. Foubert called the program dangerous. Shocked, I asked him again, and again he invoked Dr. Foubert’s name, and said that it was Dr. Foubert who called the proposed program dangerous.
While I understand Dr. Foubert may not have said as much, the confusion is due to Mr. Rosen’s efforts to spread the falsehoods.
Mr. Rosen has purposefully injected sexual assault prevention into this debate as an attack wedge issue. His efforts are despicable.
— Tom '04 Mar 19, 09:43 PM #
Matt and Tom, thank you for clarifying. My best recollection of my conversation with Adam is that I was critical of coed programming and of Zach and Valerie’s platform last year suggesting a coed program. I was critical of the idea when Adam and I spoke of the general idea. I really don’t remember if I used the word “dangerous.” I certainly could have used the word “dangerous” to describe the idea in general in the course of our conversation; I did not mean it to be taken as a statement about the particular program being designed by members of Every Two Minutes, One in Four, and the Sexual Assault Education Office. Those three groups are my lifeline to the College and I would never speak of them or a program with which they were associated in such a manner; and I am confident that any program they would do would not be dangerous. Perhaps the conversation Adam and I had about programming in general got confused with a particular program being created and that is the source of confusion being had by all. If my comments have caused confusion on the part of anyone I am very sorry.
I am tempted to ignore the comments of Max as they are so ridiculous. But I have learned that in the age of the internet, what people put in writing can get quoted as factual if not refuted. Max, unless I am mistaken, you have never spoken to me, seen me, had a conversation with me, or even heard me speak. I wonder if you have read anything I have written. I do not consider myself big, strong and moral. Rather I recognize that in this world I am a small, weak sinner. You claim that it is my contention that by allowing women to express themselves they are being victimized. Had you asked the question or done any research at all you would know that my position on the sex workers art show and pornography is based on over 50 research studies on the effects of pornography. These studies include research showing that 2/3 of women in the industry are tormented by post traumatic stress disorder — a rate 4 times as high as veterans from the Vietnam war. Do I operate from an assumption that women can’t make decisions for themselves? The 15 years worth of work I have done to teach men to overcome common masculine stereotypes to make decisions for women and empower them to make decisions for themselves is work that speaks much louder than any words I could come up with to counter your statement in this regard. I have no idea of your intentions. Mine have been and will continue to be to make a difference in the lives of others in whatever way I feel led and however those efforts are blessed.
— Dr. John Foubert Mar 19, 11:01 PM #
I’ve been reading your work for a while now. I’ve always had my contentions but never felt obligated to say anything until now.
While I can’t imagine anyone disagreeing with your goal of reducing sex crimes (myself included), I can’t help but wonder how many female students on campus appreciate your desire to “make decisions for women.” I bet not many.
— Max Fisher Mar 19, 11:47 PM #
Max, there are men who desire to make decisions for women on our campus all the time. They are rapists, and they should be expelled. Re-read my post (#27). You must have mis-read it because it says “The 15 years worth of work I have done to teach men to OVERCOME common masculine stereotypes to make decisions for women and empower them to MAKE DECISIONS FOR THEMSELVES is work that speaks much louder than any words I could come up with to counter your statement in this regard.”
I will let my actions and work in this field speak for itself.
— Dr. John Foubert Mar 20, 12:08 AM #
Dr. Foubert,
Brittany met you when you presented to the Senate Finance Committee.
I am sorry that you do not remember, but it makes your statement about her not having a conversation with you entirely false.
Students seem to remember your words better than you remember theirs.
— Walter McClean Mar 20, 03:40 AM #
Walter,
I did not present to the Senate Finance Committee. I was not in town when the meeting occurred and have actually never been to a Senate Finance Committee meeting in my life. Another faculty member went to the meeting and presented research I supplied to him about pornography; he clearly stated who he was and that he, was not me. Nobody else has ever asked me about “my” comments at this meeting so it doesn’t seem to have confused others. In fact, the Flat Hat reported on this quite clearly in an article.
I am not sure why you would so confidently make an assertion that is entirely false.
— Dr. John Foubert Mar 20, 06:02 AM #
Walter—
It was another professor who was representing Dr. Foubert’s views. I can see why you would be confused but it still wasn’t Dr. Foubert.
— Matt Beato Mar 20, 11:02 AM #
I apologize to Dr. Foubert for the misunderstanding. His views were still very well represented by his associate that did speak on behalf of their view.
— Walter McClean Mar 20, 12:48 PM #