1996.10/04 A Wall Which Has Been Built At Caltech
REPRINTED FROM THE COLLEGE NEWSPAPER, The California Tech
A Wall Which Has Been Built At Caltech
by Kim E. Lumbard
I: My Background
Greetings!
My name is Kim Lumbard and I am a first year graduate student in AMa nee
Caltech undergraduate in AMa. I originally matriculated at Tech in 1988 and
graduated in 1994 (4 years of classes, 1 year leave of absence, 1 year of
research). After graduation I worked for Oracle Corporation as a programmer
for a year, and last year I did freelance research for Dr. McEliece in the
EE Department (meaning: I did it gratis :-) I've been around the Institute
for quite awhile and have been witness to a number of changes in the
community, particularly with regard to student and administrative relations.
This year I decided to live in Avery House, which is a flagship housing
experiment by Caltech. The idea is to have undergraduates, graduate
students, and faculty all live under the same roof, hopefully promoting a
greater interaction between what have typically been "separate cultures."
Similar sorts of ideas have been kicked around for many years; for example,
as an undergrad I participated in discussions about C-House, where the focus
was to foster a business and entrepreneurial atmosphere. I believe the
concept of greater interaction, and moreover, better lines of communication,
to be sound ones well worth promoting.
The house itself is a large complex around 2-3 times the size of the other
houses. Caltech spared no expense in the construction. Not only was it
built in record time, but also the house is really rather nice. It has
several large lounges scattered about the house, a split level cafe and
dining area, library and conference rooms, you name it. However, this
article concerns quite a bit more than Avery House. It's about walls being
built and being taken down.
Therein lies a long story...
II: One Wall's Genesis
Avery officially opened for habitation a couple weeks before classes started,
and I arrived about that time. I live in a Room 249, a single on the second
floor which has some peculiar distinctions to it. It's built on a corner
and has an alcove in front of it; the alcove has another door leading to a
nice balcony area. In fact, it's the only room in the house with an alcove
in front of it (discounting some rooms which are recessed a few feet).
| |
| Neighbors' |
| Room |
| |
+-------+------+
| |
| My /
| Room / Actual layout, from above
| |
| |-\ -------
| | \ |
| | |
+-------+ |
|
Open |
Balcony |
After I moved in, naturally my friends began visiting. About T-minus 10
days to classes, two fellow alumni dropped by and we spent an evening
shooting the breeze. My room is rather small, and despite my best efforts I
couldn't fit all my stuff in it. Consequently, I had put two laundry
hampers in front of my door. One person joked about it and the other said
that I would probably be forced to expand further out into the hall.
"That's no problem, though. You could just put a wall up right here and
double the floor space of your room," the first said, motioning across the
front of the alcove. "And you'd score access to the balcony as well." We
three glanced at each other, back and forth, and some magic happened as we
realized that it could be done. It should be done. It was crying out to be
done.
| |
| Neighbors' |
| Room |
| |
+-------+------+
| | *
| My / /
| Room / / Proposed layout, from above
| | *
| |-\ -------
| | \ |
+-------+ |
|
My |
Balcony |
While snagging the space for my own personal use would be a coup of the
highest order, I decided that I would use the newly created room as a
reading room. I have about 10,000 comic books and a plethora of paperback
novels. I had long discussed opening my collection to the public with Linda
Chappell et al from the housing office, and the idea was supported but not
acted upon. (After all, the house wasn't even built when I asked about it
at the beginning of the summer, and higher priority items took precedence.)
III: The Execution
Of course, this particular construction job carried several constraints with
it. First, I wanted to achieve 90% imitation of the current walls. That
means that 9 of 10 people walking by shouldn't notice any difference from
the real walls. Second, there must be minimal damage to the Avery House
walls, so the whole unit must be easily de-constructed as well. Third, it
had to be sturdy enough for people to lean on it, and possibly for a mounted
door opening and closing. Lastly, there was an exit sign right where the
wall would go which needed to be preserved.
After a day of cogitation, I decided on a pivot-wedged construction. The
actual dimensions of the wall were 111" X 96", which was made in two pieces:
one 4' X 8' piece, and the L-shape around the rest of the door frame. The
pieces were built off site, brought in separately, and then put up on site.
Joined at the top the two ends naturally tended to sag down, so the bottom
was viced outward and a metal door flash wedged into place. Foam camper
seal weather-stripping lined the outside edges which contacted the real
walls, providing both a compressible layer and also preventing damage. For
appearances sake, the outside face was spackled smooth (this will be the
only damage when the wall comes down, by the way); the interior has a wall
join stuck on with double-faced tape.
Foam lining outside
+------------++---------+
| Exit || |
| +--------+| |
| | Door || |
| | Frame || 4 x 8 |
| | || Sheet | Construction, from the front
| | || |
| | || |
| | || |
| | || |
| | || |
+---+ ++---------+
Hard to find vinyl wallbase on bottom. Aack!
I started collecting the material around Thursday and worked furiously in
the student shop cobbling together the pieces for the next couple days. The
main construction materials were unfinished 2' X 4's and fire core drywall,
and the biggest expense and difficulty was the door frame. Avery has wide
metal door frames around Warnock Hersey 20-minute rated fire doors. Buying
the actual frames would be prohibitively expensive, so instead I bought some
finished fir 2 X 4's and made an imitation frame from scratch.
By early Saturday morning I was ready. The target goal was to be ready by
Monday, which would require a precisely timed marathon construction.
Remember that spackling, wood putty, primer, coats of paint, and coving
adhesive all have drying times. This placed a lower bound on construction
time of 39 hours, if everything were staged properly. I started at 9AM on
Saturday morning and finished at 6AM Monday morning, working continuously
through the weekend.
IV: The (Un)Expected Reaction(s)
At this point I need to back up and tell a "when I was a frosh" tale. When
I was a frosh, if a stunt like this were pulled it would be supported by the
students, if not outright applauded. The reaction almost follows a pattern:
amazement, inquiry, advice, assistance. After the initial wonderment that
someone would actually do this, intimate questions about the project are
asked, upon which some suggestions for improvement are made (if any), and
then aid is invariably offered. In my undergraduate days, this would be a
massive bonding experience, with people coming from all parts of campus to
stopping by to chat and otherwise enjoy the zaniness.
Consequently, I was thoroughly unprepared by some of the reaction which I
received. Here are some snippets of actual conversations I [K] had with
other students [S].
S: "You should stop this, you know. This is a serious violation of the
honor code."
K: "And how is it a violation? Who am I taking unfair
advantage of, and what is the unfair advantage I'm taking?"
S: "I'll get back to you on this. But it is obviously a
violation."
S: "Does housing know about this?"
K: "Why yes they do." [since at that time they did]
S: "Good. Because I was going to tell them what you are doing if no one
else had done so already, so that they could stop you."
S: "This is illegal, and you should stop"
K: "Really?"
S: "Don't you know you have to file building permits for this sort of thing?
You can't just go around building stuff like this on your own."
S: "You should stop. Annexing this space for your own personal usage is
wrong."
K: "Ah, but you have yet to ask what I'll be using the space for."
S: "It doesn't matter. Fundamentally this is wrong."
Wait, wait, wait. The reactions weren't all negative; I'm merely giving you
the flavor of the dissatisfaction. About half of the people who dropped by
acted exactly how I thought they would. Curiously enough, all the alumni
and seniors I met were very supportive and helpful, while the underclassmen
were mixed in their responses. In fact, almost the entire time during the
construction another alumni was there helping me (though different ones came
and went). In stark contrast, only one current undergraduate, a senior,
thought of offering help. Most undergraduates helped when I asked directly,
but some refused.
V: Philosophy & Viewpoints
I am greatly concerned by the disparate reactions. I have talked to several
students and been able to distill several strains of argument.
The primary disagreement seems to be one of collectivism vs. individualism.
Most con-wall people believe that I did not have the right to act
unilaterally, and should have acquired permission from "the group" before
acting. People in this category feel that, on a gut fundamental level, what
I did was wrong, and they fabricated other justifications to rationalize
that feeling.
The same issue could be viewed in terms of individual empowerment. For
example, do I have the right to put up a poster outside my room without
getting permission first? I think most people would say yes, the individual
is empowered to make such a decision. But what about a bookcase in the
hall? That has more shades of gray. Will it block the hall traffic? Be
unsightly? Who can use it? Perhaps an individual has the right to do this,
perhaps he should ask permission first. Everyone draws a different
arbitrary line where they feel that individuals no longer have the right to
act on their own, and it appears that the construction of a new wall falls
on the "ask permission" side of most students' thresholds.
Another very cogent line of opposition employs the uniqueness of Avery
House. In essence, the house is not intended to be another student house,
but rather to stand apart as a central community center which also happens
to house students. Thus, while a prank like this might be tolerated and
even allowed to stand (pun intended) in the other houses, it was
inappropriate for Avery. Considering the as yet undefined state of the
house, one might argue that I am helping to define the house culture. But
at the heart, this is a solid argument against the prank itself and the
manner in which I executed it.
A host of secondary arguments can be posed as well, but in all honesty I
think they are exactly that, secondary. Some people have stressed the
newness of the house, and how much it cost. The newness was a benefit in my
mind, since people still unfamiliar with the layout might not even notice
the new wall and hey, you get a better match to recently painted walls. As
for the $16M, I am decidedly unimpressed with monetary arguments. There are
more important things in life than money, and moreover, I haven't done any
financial damage to the house.
This situation can also be viewed in terms of responsibility, which is the
way I see it. Responsibility has at least two flavors: thinking through
your actions beforehand, and accepting the consequences afterward. For
example, the practical mechanics of the honor system is formed on the
premise that all the students will act responsibly. That means they will be
considerate of others before they act, and will further accept corrections
of their actions if they have acted unfairly. Note that an honor system
would not work with irresponsible people.
[I feel compelled to mention something at this point. After the spectre of
an honor code violation was raised, I have given much hard thought to
whether it was or not. After several discussions with former Board Of
Control members and others, I have come to the conclusion that it was not.
The prank was exotic, extravagant, and perhaps inadvisable, but not a
violation that I can see. If anyone can come up with a reason why it was an
infraction of the honor code, I encourage them to contact to the Graduate
Review Board, which is the graduate student analog of the BOC.]
I would also like to mention a very common misconception about
responsibility. Responsibility does not necessarily imply conformity. Many
people associate responsibility with the "fine upstanding citizen of the
community", which almost always translates to "a paragon of normalcy".
There are very responsible eccentric people, and very irresponsible people
in the mainstream. Responsibility is a product of conscious and deliberate
thought, not the following of rules. A person can be totally responsible
though he consistently acts in a fashion deemed unnatural by the group.
The basic disagreement can be projected along this responsibility spectrum.
To some degree, I feel that Caltech students are responsible individuals.
I feel that, because of this assumption of responsibility, each student has
the right to the self-determination of his actions, moderated by the input
and ideas of others. They are therefore privileged to act unilaterally,
insofar as they consider their actions beforehand and fully accept the
consequences afterwards. However, it appears that many people (students
included!) are starting from the assumption that students are irresponsible,
and further should not act for themselves without explicit consensual
agreement.
VI: The Official Response
Considering my inaccurate prediction of student response, I am greatly
comforted that the administrative officials acted much the way I thought
they would. The point man was the RA, who dropped by on Saturday and asked
me to stop my project. I respectfully declined, and he told me that if I
ignored the warning he'd be forced to contact housing. I encouraged him to
do so.
The next person to visit was Biff Yamazaki from the housing office. He
pointed out that I should be prepared for the worst. Housing might rip the
wall down on Monday and charge me for the expense. I thanked him for the
heads up and mentioned that, if I were consulted about the job, the wall
could be taken down with minimal damage. Then we chatted for awhile about
random stuff.
On Monday came the official visit by Tom Mannion (the Director of Housing /
head-of-who-knows-how-much-else, and all-around cool guy) and Linda Chappell
(Graduate Student Housing Coordinator, all-around cool gal). The wall was
completed by this time, and they were impressed. Linda said she didn't even
know it was a new wall when she walked by, and Tom said it was a great job.
Then Tom asked me why I put the wall up and I explained that I wanted to
make a reading room out of it, but I didn't want the comics and books to be
unsecured. He paused and thought, and said that he might be able to get
some type of secure shelves for the alcove. However, the wall would have to
come down, because the house was still being inspected by outside
contractors. Note that his compelling reason for taking the wall down was
that people outside the Caltech community would see it (and Caltech could
potentially catch hell if an inspector saw a newly installed non-permitted
wall).
He then asked me to take the wall down myself. Further note that he would
have been totally justified in having workmen take it down and charging me,
but he not only was trying to save me money but also trusted me to restore
things to their original state. Since things were then in an uproar, he
asked to have it down as soon as possible. That was impractical for me, and
he generously granted me until next weekend. (By the way, I think I'll have
a wall disassembling get-together Saturday starting around noon. Everyone's
invited!)
VII: Another Wall's Genesis
I'd like to stress just how understanding the administration was in handling
this. While I was building the wall, many of the students thought I would
be kicked out of the school for pulling such a stunt, and I have indeed
heard that several administrators wanted my crucifixion (especially those
intimately involved in the arduous process of making Avery House happen, and
thus having a large emotional stake in their "baby"). But the official
representatives were nice, reasonable, and in all cases as cordial as
they've always been.
To me, this illustrates how atrophied the student-administration
relationship has become, and most importantly, the misconceptions both sides
have about each other. In particular, most students seem to feel that the
administration is "out to get them", or at least "not on their side." When
I was an undergraduate, there was a very good feeling between students and
administrators.
Then there were a sequence of events which seemed to hurt the relationship.
The Dabney incident et. al. seemed to demonstrate that students were
irresponsible and did need some type of policing. An incendiary MOSH set
the students aflame with his attitude and policies. Around the same time,
several well-loved administrators (such as Dean Brennen) moved on, to be
replaced em masse by a whole batch of new and inexperienced officials. And
then Interhouse, which had long been an event when all students,
administrators, faculty, and staff could get together and enjoy themselves,
came to an inglorious end. (Of course, many people today might not even
know what I'm talking about! Suffice it to say these form a sequence of
ill-timed events which effectively sundered student and administrative
harmony.)
It really disturbs me when I hear students today talk about how the
administration "took Interhouse away from the students." Dudes, you weren't
there. Dozens of people outside the Caltech community came in and trashed
the campus. The administration made superhuman efforts to try and preserve
the tradition: their last attempt was to install a fence around the whole
undergraduate housing complex, patrol it, and only admit those people with
invitations. They did everything they could to keep Interhouse going, and
it was when the students themselves seemed to feel that Interhouse was a
liability that they stopped trying. Ask alumni who were there for the last
two Interhouses, and I'll bet that 80% will say that not only was the
administration justified in their decision but also they personally endorsed
it.
From my point of view, I have difficulty understanding the animosity of
students toward the administration. I've found the officials at Caltech to
be friendly and helpful people, with many genuinely concerned about student
welfare. They have (with rare exceptions) been receptive to ideas, helpful
to the students, and otherwise composed considering they are trying to run
an asylum of whacked-out student nut-cases. Just by talking with
administrators I've effected course changes and large- scale alterations in
public policy. They've always listened to me, and in many cases, acted upon
the substance of my suggestions. Virtually all the interactions I've had
with the faculty, staff, and administrators of the school has been positive.
Even now.
Let me reiterate this point. I've just pulled what, in this day and age,
seems to be a heinously insane and socially irredeemable prank. Did an
administrative iron fist come crashing down on me? No. Was I subjected to
harassment by administrators? No. Have I be charged or penalized for my
actions? No. Tom Mannion sums it up nicely: "Some people might feel you
should be punished for this, but things just aren't done that way at
Caltech."
VIII: The Hypothesis
I have therefore formed a hypothesis as to the origins of the backlash I
experienced about this wall. When I was an undergraduate and Dr. Everhart
became president of the school he made a comment in his inaugural address
which seems particularly prophetic. I don't remember the exact words, but
the gist was that he felt the spirit of ingenuity typified by the grandiose
pranks of the past (like the Rose Bowl or Hollywood sign) seemed to be
disappearing from the Caltech culture, and that it was a unique and special
tradition worthy of preservation. [DISCLAIMER: I'm not saying that he
supports this RF. In fact, he probably thinks my wall was a bone- headed
maneuver of the first degree!]
A series of unfortunate circumstances caused a wall to form between the
administration and students. At some point, probably with good reason,
administrators stopped believing the students were responsible individuals
and became interested in setting down explicit rules and regulations for
them to follow. At some point, probably with good reason, the students felt
the administration was curtailing student liberties and no longer was acting
in their best interests. As time went on both sides were inclined to
distrust one another, because a history of discontent had built up.
As a consequence, endeavors like my wall are no longer meet with approval of
either the administration or the students. It falls too far outside the
typical experience of both groups nowadays, except for those people like
myself who have been here for a long time (perhaps too long) and alumni from
previous years. If I really offended anybody with my stunt, I apologize. I
was acting with obsolete information; I honestly thought this would be a
social bonding experience as opposed to the social controversy that it has
apparently become.
Supposing this hypothesis were true, then one could make some modest,
verifiable predictions. RFs have seriously declined in the last 2-3 years,
or maybe even been non-existent. Administrators have developed a
predilection toward rules and regulations, with an eye toward liability and
control. Students have become spiteful hindrances, opposing even the
best-intentioned actions merely because administration puts the idea forth.
Strata have developed, with older people in the community essentially
approving of "grand endeavors" and newer people perhaps approving, perhaps
disapproving. I've personally verified the existence of this latter
phenomenon; I'm willing to bet that the former ones have occurred as well.
IX: Which Wall Should Come Down?
So at the last I pose some questions to the reader. Which wall should come
down? Am I part of a dying breed... which should remain dead? I am faced
with the grim prospect that perhaps the wall between the students and
administration is something that, during my time in the real world, has been
implicitly agreed upon by both students and administration as how they want
to interact. In that case, my efforts are misguided, disruptive, and to
some degree, wrong. Rather than representing the rejuvenation of a
desirable spirit of innovation, I would be a dinosaur from a bygone era.
The climate has changed, I am subject to inevitable extinction, and the
community might be a better place with my passing.
I believe in student / administration harmony with the primary
responsibility being placed on the students. This carries the liberty to
perform grand pranks like this wall with the encouragement and protection of
the administration, but also the stiff constraint not to abuse the freedom
or take advantage of the administrators' good will. It further means that
it is the students' responsibility to correct problems which occur in the
relationship between them; the onus does not lie solely on the
administrators, where it has been placed de facto. (From my standpoint the
administration is living up the their end and seems to be taking several
initiatives to improve communication both with and among the students).
In the previous era from which I hail, this prank would not end with the
wall coming down. This weekend a set of jail bars would go up (making a
number of ambiguous and hopefully amusing statements), which I would be
asked to take down. A series of successively less objectionable dividers
would be installed (glitter beads from the 60's? a fluttering crepe paper
curtain?) until something was mutually agreeable to both students and
housing. In that day, it would be a game, with the housing office having
fun anticipating what the students might come up with next, and the students
employing the utmost of their creativity. Most importantly, there would be
no call for animosity on either side.
But I have the warning feeling that in this place and time, it would be
viewed as a protest which needs to be stomped out swiftly and surely, and
could potentially ignite a war between students and administration. This is
the last thing in the world that I would possibly want, and thus I have
decided to open this issue up for public evaluation (as opposed to the
unilateral continuation described above, which would be my first instinct).
Without an accurate picture of the current atmosphere here, I feel the best
course of action is to quietly take down my wall.
After all, I am responsible for it.
I am greatly interested in hearing input and opinions about these matters.
I encourage any member of the Caltech Community to share their ideas with
me, with the others around them, or in a public forum like the California
Tech. My web page, http://www.ugcs.caltech.edu/~kel/, contains numerous
contact points; the best way to reach me is via email at
[Deleted due to spambots]. Articles to the newspaper can be submitted via
editors@tech.caltech.edu by Tuesday for the Friday edition. If a return to
the social paradigm founded on student responsibility is deemed desirable,
then I will expend whatever effort is necessary to resurrect that climate.
But if responses are mixed or people have good arguments against the return
of such a social dynamic, then I will nostalgically recall the grand old
days... and move on.
X: A Parting Poem
After hearing about this incident, another alumni friend shared this poem
with me. It may or may not have any relevance, but it is inspiring
nonetheless. :-)
The Things That Haven't Been Done Before
(Edgar Guest)
The things that haven't been done before,
Those are the things to try;
Columbus dreamed of an unknown shore
At the rim of the far-flung sky,
And his heart was bold and his faith was strong
As he ventured in dangers new,
And he paid no heed to the jeering throng
Or the fears of the doubting crew.
The many will follow the beaten track
With guideposts along the way.
They live and have lived for ages back
With a chart for every day.
Someone has told them it's safe to go
On the road he has traveled o'er,
And all that they ever strive to know
Are the things that were known before.
A few strike out, without map or chart,
Where never a man has been,
From the beaten path they draw apart
To see what no man has seen.
There are deeds they hunger alone to do;
Though battered and bruised and sore,
They blaze the path for the many, who
Do nothing not done before.
The things that haven't been done before
Are the tasks worthwhile today;
Are you one of the flock that follows, or
Are you one that shall lead the way?
Are you one of the timid souls that quail
At the jeers of a doubting crew,
Or dare you, whether you win or fail,
Strike out for a goal that's new?