Two or Three Cents from the New Guy

Hello all,

I have read over much of the e-mail and blog discussion and look forward to contributing in person to the reorganization come the end of August. As for now, I thought I'd comment on a few things, with particular emphasis on the extent to which we'd like the Society to look like the Oxford Union, of which Neil, myself (and soon Aaron) are members.

-On a pure practical note, I'd like to contribute to the constitution-drafting process with Siddons. I sat on the Rules Committee of the SA and later as an enforcer of obscure charter-regulations on the JEC, so I'd like to put my knowledge of bureaucratic and legalistic minutae to good use.

-A note on dues: If it counts for anything, I'd say we make the initial membership dues somewhat substantial, something in the $35-55 region, and supplement that with small annual dues for non-matriculated alumni (5 or 10 bucks). We might also think about two different rates for first-time members and nth-year members (who are still matriculated).

-A note on sponsorship: A good deal of our event expenses can be offset by seeking co-sponsorship. The most obvious source, of course, is the SA, but I think we should minimize our links with them--it seems to me a kind of organizational incest. That is, we'd like to run our society both parallel to but in some sense ABOVE the existing political organizations on campus. So my thinking extends to the CRs and CDs (unless of course we can secure the co-sponsorship of both for a single event). But there are a number of less political and apolitical organizations on campus which are potential sources of cosponsorship. The IA Society is a good start, so too is the Philosophy Club, which has good ties with the faculty and already holds a series of fora and an annual conference on matters of philosophical interest (better to join them than to cannibalize each other). We should come up with a list of potential cosponsors. Of course, the hope is that once the Society establishes itself, outside sponsorship of events becomes an option.

-A note on goods and services for members: I think that if we want to foster a kind of spirit of community and brother/sisterhood in the Society, we ought to provide some goods and services to our members—some perhaps included with dues and others at a modest charge. I can’t say that I have any particularly good ideas on this front, because we can’t open a bar and don’t have a permanent base of operations to do much selling of anything else, but it nevertheless seems an important thing to think about. Anyone have any creative ideas? Periodic dinner/meetings at the University Club, perhaps? Poker tournaments seem to work well for the Marvin Center, as well they did for the Oxford Union last year.

-A final note: The 3rd meeting summary mentions potential support for some form of “inner circle” as well as a manner of “rank” among debaters, with frequently contributing members enjoying a sort of favoritism. Let me say that I think this is probably not the best way to do things. It seems to me that the idea ought to be to encourage participation from outsiders and newcomers as much or more than we award ourselves as “members of rank”. First, an alternative, and then, a philosophical explanation: Alternatively we might ask members in good standing to give scheduled remarks to introduce a given topic on either side of the issue, and then open the floor to extemporaneous debate, with no particular favor given to rank or “innerness”. Optionally, we might also schedule members to give closing remarks at the end of floor debate (this is how the Union does it). This allows for widespread participation while still vesting those close to the Society with the power to frame the issues and contextualize the debate. As for the philosophical explanation, I should say that it pleases me to hear among the chatter of the group concerns about arrogance, elitism, snobbery and the like. These are VERY REAL CONCERNS, as we here at GW are by nature a political bunch and prone to posturing and grandstanding. Allowing even a bit of that spirit to creep into the Society will surely sound its death knell before it’s even off the ground, and relegate it to a life like 95% of GW student orgs: self-congratulatory, ineffectual and lame. I have no problem with elitism, in fact I think it’s a very good thing indeed. But we shouldn’t delude ourselves into thinking that privilege is ours because we wrote it into the bylaws. In other words, let the elite form as a matter of substance, not a matter of procedure. Let quality of intellect and rightness of action do the talking--legislating our way into status and favor will just ring hollow and turn us into a slightly less relevant and slightly better-dressed SA, that much is certain.

Well, now that I've run through my ideas like a bull in a china shop, I'll be off.

In Earnest,

Dan Foster