Include more old members in House selection

Kicking the can: Much needed internet tax bill will protect mom-and-pop stores

At long last, the Senate has begun to show a sliver of sense on certain taxation issues. A comprehensive online sales tax scheme, known as the Marketplace Fairness Act, has passed a series of test votes in the Senate with as many as 75 in favor—including many Republicans who signed Grover Norquist’s anti-tax pledge. The legislation, which gives states a mechanism for collecting sales taxes on online purchases, is expected to pass the Senate with overwhelming approval on May 6. Perhaps the only negative aspect of this news is that it took so long to arrive.Critics of the bill come from two ends. There are the rabid anti-taxers such as Norquist, who believe that any tax increase is a bad tax increase. To be clear, the claim that this is an expansion of the sales tax is debatable at best and a lie at worst.
Taxpayers are already required to report their online purchases and pay the corresponding sales tax. Clearly, no one does it; currently there’s no enforcement mechanism, and not even the most faithful taxpayer saves receipts from a year of online purchases in order to pay a little bit more when tax day rolls around. All the bill does is give states the authority to collect a sales tax from online purchases made by its citizens. It also requires states to provide free software to businesses that automatically calculates and collects sales tax.
It is also seen as a cash grab by poor state governments—which it is. Many of those lobbying for the bill represent state and local governments. They need revenue, and tax-free online sales cut down on revenue that they should lawfully receive. By giving states the power to enforce sales taxes on online purchases, revenues will increase without putting much more burden on the consumer and without any de jure increase in taxes.

Kicking the can

Include more old members in House selection

This piece represents the opinion of the author:

April 19, 2013

The annual cycle of College House selection is nearing completion. New House members have received their acceptances, and most Houses have invited over and gotten to know those who will replace them. House elections will take place soon, and the leadership structure of next year’s Houses will begin to take shape. When housing closes on May 20, old House members will be unceremoniously swept aside, leaving no legacy other than a picture on a wall.

Like any group of people, students in College Houses want to build and propagate a culture. Those who live in each House create a culture every year, drawing affiliates and others who are similarly inclined. During the application process, first years (and occasional upperclassmen) apply to the house(s) to whose culture they are most attracted. Of course affiliation has something to do with it, but the different cultures that Houses have seems to be a big indicator of where people apply.

Last year, Quinby House had a wonderful group of people with a lackluster reputation. As a result, it saw a low application rate. This year, Quinby’s reputation was far more positive—and it enjoyed more than a 100 percent increase in applications. The correlation seems fairly obvious.
But the perpetuation of a valued culture does not necessarily occur. In fact, the Office of Residential Life seems to want to minimize the creation of a culture within the Houses in the name of the Houses being open and accessible to all. The overall feel of a House is often a result of ResLife’s good intentions. Both times I have observed the process, I have heard stories of people placed in houses where they do not belong. People apply to a House based on the culture it is perceived to have, and each House identity is distinct. In some cases, students do not feel they fit in in the House thanks to the tinkering ResLife has done, or they are put in an altogether different House, where they find they don’t mesh perfectly with the House’s dynamic.

As the end of my tenure in a College House approaches, I feel my relationship with it ending. There are no real ties that bind old House members to those who take its place, and if there are, they are artificial at best. A House’s role in choosing its successors is sadly minimal. One representative from the House sits on the selection committee along with others who do not understand the culture of the House or know the people who are applying to live in it. This is, frankly, a joke. Houses should be more continuous and self-selecting, with a distinct culture that is not torn down and rebuilt each year by.

Each House, in consultation with ResLife and especially the proctors of those applying to live in Houses, should choose its new members each year. To avoid the obvious problems with self-selectivity, ResLife should not be cut out—quite the contrary. Selection committees should be formed out of current house members (at least five of them), and an administrator—with veto powers—should be involved in their proceedings. Prospective members should still have to apply and be interviewed in the current manner, but the Houses should decide their ultimate acceptance or rejection in large part. This would foster a continuous culture and a greater sense of community within the Houses, and Houses would be less fractious. It would also encourage greater outreach by Houses to first years, and would encourage first years to spend more time with current House members. The current, very artificial affiliation system does not adequately encourage personal connection between first years and House members. Of course, students would have to be free to apply to any house of their choice, with affiliation constraints lifted. After a group leaves the House, it would continue to be part of the community rather than being tossed aside—after all, the House identity, and the people in it, would be its legacy.

The current system also divides the College down the middle—in general, first years and sophomores participate in the College House system, while juniors and seniors typically do not. This is largely thanks to the lack of direct involvement students have past their sophomore years. If old House members had a reason to stay involved, it would bring the campus together and help eliminate the class year divide on campus.

It seems almost as though the work that my housemates and I put in this year is underappreciated by the administration. We host valuable academic and cultural events and are the center of first year and sophomore social lives. Above all we have created a real community. To have that unrecognized and ultimately swept away by ResLife is a bitter pill to swallow.

For the good of those in the College House system and to create a better, happier and more inclusive campus culture, ResLife should move away from its artificial way of constructing Houses and allow the process to take place organically.

Comments are permanently closed.