February 16, 2012
Re: Hamilton Marijuana Policy
I was heartened to read Mr. Tuggle’s article on marijuana policy in last week’s Spectator. Recent efforts to create a dialogue between the administration and the student body, and so shift the dynamic of that relationship, have made the cynic in me eager to see the authenticity of this shift put to the test. If the administration is indeed genuine in their efforts to unify the school and address student concerns, then they should be as receptive to concerns like Mr. Tuggle’s as they are to concerns that they themselves have brought up.
As anyone can tell you, alcohol has been the hot-button issue in recent months, but students do have other concerns they’d like to see addressed. I can say from my interactions on campus that most of us--weed smokers and non-tokers alike--share Mr. Tuggle’s perspective, and agree there’s little point in punishing marijuana users so severely.
The issue indicates a larger problem underlying Hamilton’s approach to policy: that our point system operates under the medieval notion that more punitive policy equals fewer violations. The recent streaking and hard alcohol policies evidence this strategy as well as its ineffectiveness. Such policy is divisive, and sets students against administration in a battle no one wins. Students continue behaving as they have because only the penalties for their behavior have changed, then if they do end up facing these penalties, which reflect community problems more than the actual harmfulness of individuals’ conduct, they feel betrayal, not justice. What I wonder is how such a strategy can prevail alongside the unity touted at these open meetings.
The issue of marijuana policy reform offers our administration a ready-made olive branch to extend to its students. If the administration truly has our best interest in mind, they need to show they’re listening. We’ve made our voices heard, and if we really are equals engaged in a dialogue, then a reply is in order. If the administration refuses to respond or adequately address the issue, they’ll have shown this talk of unity and open discourse a disingenuous lie. An email will do, otherwise, the Spec has offered to publish a response in its next issue.
--Evan Kaplan ‘12
Re: Hamilton scholarship fund for Oneida Nation
Shekóli:
How refreshing it was to read the opinion piece, “Scholarship for Oneida Nation would honor Hamilton’s roots” by John Boudreau ’14 (published 1/19/12), which suggests establishing a scholarship for Oneida Indian Nation students that would mirror Hamilton College’s founding father Samuel Kirkland’s vision.
We have enjoyed a long relationship with Hamilton College and, to this date, recall the words of Oneida Chief Shenendoah and other Oneida leaders who wrote to the Regents of New York in 1793:
“Possibly you may have the satisfaction to find… that all the difference between us and them consists only in the color of skin.”
Two years later, on Jan. 31, The Hamilton Oneida Academy was chartered.
Mr. Boudreau pointed to the specific difficulties plaguing Indian Country in terms of poverty let alone the ability to afford higher education. The Oneida Nation had long felt the cold grip of poverty but since our economic rebirth we have felt that grip loosen. When we established our various enterprises, we had a specific goal in mind: to help our Members achieve their highest potential in education. We began a scholarship program in the 1990s, and we are proud to say that today more than half of the Nation’s adult Members have availed themselves of the opportunity to seek advanced learning.
But there is always room for improvement. It is this kind of thinking, positive letters and supportive comments, that make it possible for diverse communities to come together to tackle a problem, and, in the process, make a difference for all involved.
--Ray Halbritter
Nation Representative