---

In print | Published October 29, 2009

When the word got out that the annual Halloween party was to be held in a tent on Mertz field, a mild uproar surfaced among students who found the idea untenable, most notably from the residents of Mertz dorm. Subsequently, the Student Affairs Committee, or SAC, which is in charge of the party, informed the student body via e-mail last Saturday that the venue had been changed to Upper Tarble and Paces.

The entire episode displayed an apparent disconnect between a decision made that would affect the entire student body and the student body itself. Some were quick to blame SAC for the seemingly shortsighted decision to hold the Halloween party on Mertz field.

To be sure, there was a problem of a lack of transparency in the process. While SAC certainly sought out the approval of Mertz’s Resident Assistants — since the first-floor bathrooms would have to be open to the partying masses — the Mertz residents themselves were not consulted. And it is easy to imagine that at least one person in the student body at large would have raised further concerns about holding the biggest party of the semester on Mertz field.

At the same time, there is plenty to commend in SAC’s responsiveness to the student body’s concerns. Furthermore, the explanation provided via e-mail on Saturday clearly showed a well-reasoned process conducted by an astute committee. SAC co-directors Rebecca Commito ’10 and Shumpei Tse ’10 systematically broke down the viability of the possible venues, effectively silencing any opposing murmurs that this place or that place would have been a better place for the party.

In fact, further reflection on the whole process casts doubt on the legitimacy of any condemnation of SAC at all.

As Commito and Tse pointed out (though not in so many words) in the e-mail, the Halloween party is a privilege and not a right. SAC voluntarily put forth the immense effort to throw a party of this magnitude for the benefit of the student body, because no other organization would. Too often, there is a tendency on campus to pass judgment without considering the alternatives. Certainly, each individual has the capacity to raise objections against anything — be it a party venue or a contrasting observation — but uninformed opposition should never be in order.

Any decision made will invariably attract its detractors, and this is especially true for this particular campus. We are pushed to and have a propensity for making our voice heard, which is definitely not a mindset without its merits. Nevertheless, not even the most ideal democracy will be able to guarantee every individual’s input. The fact of the matter is that SAC is doing us a favor in organizing the Halloween party, and by all rights they have total and sole control over decisions related to it.

If you are a Mertz resident, you are clearly justified in raising concerns against having the Mertz field idea. Your lounge, hall and bathrooms, after all, were at risk of being adversely affected by the process known as “partying.” If you are not, you are out of luck. This was not your decision to make.

Obviously, there is nothing wrong with voicing an objection — it is only the expectation of having it be considered every single time that often leads us astray. Transparency, especially in a decision-making process that directly affects students, is definitely imperative. But in a situation where a committee chooses to extend a favor that could easily be taken up by any other student group, there is no call for vitriol against the organizing body.

As Tse says, “Our main goal is for everyone to be happy. We don’t want to alienate anyone.” And though some mistakes were arguably committed, it does not seem like there is much to complain about regarding SAC’s decisions. It is Halloween, after all. Be safe and enjoy the party.

---

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »