New rules may strip Mug of character

Evan Casper-Futterman Guest Writer

There are some big changes happening at Matthew’s Mug, and it may not be the den of iniquity within the palace of hedonism that is Vassar for much longer. Alcohol withdrawn. On-site Aramark presence. Talk of profitability, and lack thereof. Rumors of renovation and revitalization. Rumors of an administrative agenda to strangle it into non-existence. Although I personally don’t venture down there too often (I think my grand total still stands at under 10 times as a senior), I think that all of these potentialities are important for us to think about and discuss. They are more complex than they appear.

Let’s begin with complicating our anti-corporate biases—my own are among the most severe. Perhaps no issue about the Mug is more deceptively clear-cut than Aramark’s recent intrusion (as I once viewed it). Unless you subscribe to the credo “You are what you eat” very literally, you would probably agree that Aramark is not Vassar, and, therefore it does not deserve the rights to manage or “consult” with other campus facilities such as the Mug.

On the other hand, we have contracted it to perform some very difficult tasks, and given my visits to other college campuses in the last few years, at Vassar they do a good job (according to mainstream standards). The point is, in essence, to make sure that a quest for “efficiency” does not lead to a further loss of Vassar’s independent identity from the behemoth that is Aramark. We need to assure that in our occasional need for their services, we do not become needlessly dependent on them. Like any corporate monopoly, this would be to the detriment of efficiency and thriftiness.

The issue is thus made more complex by a presence that is ideologically and abstractly negative (corporate outsourcing) to the fact that the Aramark representative, as an individual, will probably make the Mug a better place over time. He helps them out principally by infusing a rule of law and transparency that did not previously exist.

This is supplemented by the fact that he’s also apparently a really great guy—from what I’ve heard from Mug employees and regulars, I would advocate that he be promoted, and I’ve never even been introduced to him. But is the slogan, “Kevin, yes! Aramark, no!” sustainable? It is, if we’re willing to deal with ambiguity, context, and complexity. Our minds are far more nimble than those of our adversaries—if we put our minds to it, it is a fine line we can draw on terms that are in our interests.

If the Mug is to become subjected to the merciless profit motive, let us also consider the implications of a supply and demand approach. The Mug provides important social functions for a significant portion of the student body. My lack of attendance, like most non-Mugging Vassar students, does not mean that I don’t appreciate what it is there to do. There is a demand for the service that it provides, and I appreciate that the College accommodates that demand on campus.

On the topic of interests and motives, the hypothetical situation of a Vassar campus without the Mug is certainly not a pretty picture, but seems at this juncture necessary to consider. In the crudest terms, we should have the Mug for the same reasons that we have condoms in the dorms. For the same reason that the library closes at 10 p.m. on Friday and Saturday—indeed, for the same reason that the library closes at all: because it is our job as liberally minded individuals and as a community to understand and make safe and secure certain very probable behaviors among college students.

As liberal arts students, we are encouraged and aspire to be well-rounded individuals. The Mug is commonly perceived as a prominent component of Vassar’s larger ethos that the best student is a scholar but is also a social being, and therefore a happy student. As the status and rules of the Mug are in flux, students and administrators should heed this very basic idea. Rule of law and other changes can be positive for the Mug, but it is an attempt to control the space—and as such, there is the possibility that this assertion of administrative authority will strip the Mug of some of its essential qualities. If we want a lawless and disorderly Mug to be a part of our past, we should consider that a future with no Mug at all only displaces its negative qualities to other spaces and does nothing to remedy them.