At its Wednesday meeting, Bowdoin Student Government (BSG) tackled a hazing proposal that would "provide guidelines for clubs and a process for concerns to be dealt with," according to the bill.
Although the meeting directly followed Dr. Susan Lipkins's discussion of campus hazing, the two discussions were unrelated.
"Our goal last night was to talk about hazing in the context of Bowdoin and establish a distinction between positive team-building activities and negative hazing activities," Sam Dinning '09 wrote in an e-mail. "I think the standards discussed last night create realistic expectations of clubs without being over prescriptive to prohibit reasonable traditions."
Early in the meeting, BSG President Dustin Brooks '08 underscored the significance of BSG's involvement in the campus discourse on hazing.
"I think this would be the first time that an organization, specifically a group of students, has put forward a way of thinking about this issue," he said. "We're kind of on the forefront of things."
The discussion ended with a division of the bill, approved by a 15 to 7 vote, splitting it into one bill outlining affirmative group practices, rules of conduct, and unacceptable activities, and a second bill specifically regarding how group members should respond to concerns of hazing.
Some members felt that the "Response to Concerns" section of the original bill warranted further attention.
"I find the 'Response to Concerns' a little troubling," Sam Kamin '08 said during the meeting. Echoing this, Class of 2008 Representative Alison Spencer told the Orient that the section "seemed a bit more controversial" than the rest of the original bill.
Referring to the bill's second section, Spencer said during the meeting that it would be "unfair to penalize an entire club when it's only a few people making it an issue."
Nicole Willey '08 replied that BSG should be "not looking to punish individuals, but looking at it as a team activity" involving "organized, structured club activities."
Both pieces of the original bill will undergo further discussion. BSG tabled the second bill and referred it to a presidential committee for future discussion.
Members had mixed reactions over the bill's division.
"I was pretty frustrated that we could not move forward with the bill as a whole," Willey wrote in an e-mail. "I think it is important not only to take a stance, but utilize the discretion we do have over clubs to make our words more effective with actions."
During the meeting, Willey noted that the two parts of the bill seemed too interconnected to split. Will Donahoe '08 expressed similar frustration.
"We're never going to hash this out to everyone's satisfaction," he said. "I'd rather have the framework done, I'd rather test it out... than not have anything. I'd rather just have something complete that we can use now."
Donahoe added that "we need to have a general policy" in order to maintain BSG's authority.
"We are taking on more responsibility. I don't think we should be afraid to take things more seriously," he said during the meeting. "I think we're trying to solidify something here so we can have more responsibility... we have to respond within the mechanisms that we're provided."
Spencer was more optimistic about the split.
"Splitting the bill allows the BSG to ensure that at the very least the foundations are laid," she wrote in an e-mail, "so that we, as a body, can take proactive measures to define hazing at Bowdoin."
The bill as a whole emphasizes both the negative and the positive activities in which many campus groups engage.
"We recognize that teams do team bonding activities outside of the normal practices... that can help the team become closer," Dinning said. He added that a goal of officer team meetings was distinguishing such beneficial activity from negative, demeaning hazing activities.
The two separate bills resulting from the division of the original will be up for a vote next Wednesday. According to Brooks, the first bill will experience "limited changes" while the second, the "Response to Concerns" bill, will face "more significant revision."
"If it takes effect it will shape the way we deal with concerns that are brought to us about club conduct," Brooks wrote in an e-mail. "It is our hope that it will also shape the broader campus dialogue about what is and isn't acceptable in our community."
Despite the meeting's debate, members felt that the discussion was productive.
"I was totally impressed with the body's ability to have meaningful and thoughtful discussion on the issue," Willey said.