The College of William and Mary has finally announced its 2011 commencement speaker — a new name to some, but familiar to others, especially fans of College baseball. Joseph Plumeri ’66, renowned businessman and the namesake of the College’s own Plumeri Park, will deliver the commencement’s keynote address. A preeminent financial expert and noted philanthropist, Plumeri is known primarily as the CEO of the Willis Group Holdings, a London-based insurance brokerage, but he has also made generous gifts to many organizations including the Make-A-Wish Foundation and the College itself.

It has certainly been an eye-opening experience for us to learn of Plumeri’s accomplishments, and students are always well served to remember the achievements of previous alumni. But, clearly Plumeri isn’t the attention-grabbing, big name many had hoped would be invited to speak. We are therefore left wondering: Is this the speaker students really want?

Sadly, there is no way to answer that question, since the student body currently has little to no input in the selection process. While the Commencement Committee selects the student speakers and award recipients, the keynote speaker is selected solely by the College’s Board of Visitors. An attempt was made last March by Class of 2011 President Mike Tsidulko to solicit student opinion, but with a three-day response window student input could certainly be improved.

We cannot allow the Board of Visitors to virtually monopolize the selection process. Yes, choosing a well-known commencement speaker is in the interest of students and BOV members alike. Notable speakers are source of prestige and an easy talking point for recruiting prospective students, if an admittedly superficial one. But to assume that the BOV and the student body share the same preferences for a commencement speaker is absurd. That students have practically no say whatsoever in selecting their own speaker is obviously unacceptable.

We have two recommendations to improve this process. First, allow for more student input. This would be best accomplished through a student-selected committee, given that a direct campus-wide vote would not allow for the scheduling difficulties that inevitably occur behind the scenes. Second, abandon the current policy preventing the payment of commencement speakers. We understand that the BOV wants the prestige of speaking and an honorary degree to speak for itself, but to categorically rule out the possibility of additional compensation seems counterproductive. Payment would not be the only determining input — prestige still matters — but it might allow us to attract speakers outside our own alumni. Four of the last eight commencement speakers have been alumni. Even at an institution as old as ours, we are bound to run out of interesting alumni at some point. With any luck, by shaking up the selection process we can avoid ever reaching that point.

Editor’s note: The year was incorrectly written in the editorial as 2010. This has been corrected.

The incoming freshman class will be slightly larger than its predecessors, primarily due to political pressure from Richmond. The Virginia General Assembly and Gov. Bob McDonnell would like to see a higher ratio of in-state students to out-of-state students. While the goal of ensuring that Virginia residents are able to attend state colleges may make a good sound bite, the implementation of such a goal proves highly problematic. Simply shifting the numbers is not a viable option for the College of William and Mary during these stressful economic times.

The College relies heavily on out-of-state students’s high tuition. Currently, 35 percent of the student body qualify as out-of-state students; however, that minority supports the majority of the College’s tuition based budget. Because of the need to maintain the financial resources that out-of-state students bring to the College, decreasing the number of out-of-state students is not an economically sound plan. This leaves only one solution: The College must increase the size of the student body in order to accept more in-state students.

However, even this plan comes with significant economic drawbacks. The problem with increasing student body size is that the facilities at the College are not currently capable of supporting a larger student body. Already, students are frustrated over lack of spots in courses, limited parking and insufficient housing. Recently, Residence Life announced that Jefferson Hall will be a freshman dorm starting in the 2011-2012 school year. To help soften this blow to upperclassmen, Brown Hall and a section of Taliaferro Hall will become upperclassman housing. This and the addition of Tribe Square will mean that the housing situation will not be any worse next year than it already is. But what happens the year after that? Once the Class of 2015 become sophomores, there will be an even greater need for increased upperclassman housing. While the College does have future plans to address this need, question remains: Will the College have enough funding to address this problem? Given the current economic situation of the state, I would argue that it is unlikely that the College will receive a large amount of funding to build new housing complexes and parking garages.

The risk is that more students will be bumped from the housing lottery and will need to seek off campus housing. Whether or not this issue will prove to be a significant problem is completely dependent on cooperation from the City of Williamsburg, and while relations between the school and city have improved greatly since the election of Scott Foster ’10, they are still far from good enough to allow the College to expand across the city. Furthermore, the College lacks current funding from the state to make these state demanded changes.

If the GA and McDonnell want to make selective Virginia state schools more open to in-state students, they should at least provide the College with the means to do so, rather than forcing such policies on the school without providing plausible solutions to problems said policies might create.

I have a friend from home who was an Advanced Placement student. She had good grades and was active in extracurricular activities ranging from school plays to the National Honor Society. She dreamed of going to college to study music, but she couldn’t. I’m from a small city in South Carolina, where we have large number of Mexican immigrants. Some of these immigrants came to the United States illegally. My friend is an “illegal.” She can’t go to college to pursue her dream because of a decision her parents made when she was only eleven: They decided to seek a better life and come to the U.S. It is because of her that I am a proponent of immigration reform and especially of the Developmeant, Relief, and Education Act.

The DREAM Act was introduced in Congress to help illegal aliens who came to the U.S. as minors become citizens. This chance is not a given, to qualify for the benefits of The DREAM Act, one must have met certain requirements — having been in the U.S. for a certain number of years or not having a criminal record, for example, the law would allow qualified individuals to become citizens — and as a result, would allow them to attend college.

Some of these students may be illegal because their parents illegally immigrated (like my friend). I cannot understand the idea that those minors should still be blamed. I’m not claiming they legally came here. When you were nine years old would your parents allow you to stay in a country they were attempting to leave? Most importantly, would you want them to? It always seems strange to me to think that as minors these individuals should be punished for something their parents did. No, their parents or guardians did not go through the immigration process properly, but their children had no choice in the matter. To say that they did so is ignorant, and honestly, quite foolish.

At the College of William and Mary, we care deeply about how students can help this country and contribute to our society. High school students who could be great assets to this college are never given the chance because of something over which they had no control. That policy is unfair. The College loves students dedicated to learning, and colleges all over the country are missing out on individuals who could possibly contribute a great deal to academia, business and other fields. Approving this bill would have provided many students the opportunity to succeed in life. Instead, factors beyond their control are now controlling what they are able to do in their lives. I view the DREAM Act as a way of bettering the country by ameliorating more qualified individuals a chance to succeed — like going to a four-year college or just becoming part of the labor force.

The requirements listed in the Dream Act are not easy. It is not a free ride; it is not amnesty. A person has to prove they want to be here. Why not give them the chance? This legislation would carve a way for children and teenagers to be able to obtain the American dream, and maybe even to come to the College. But the bill did not pass having had only 52 votes, not enough to stop a Republican filibuster. The DREAM Act has been introduced before, and it will probably come up again. Next time, stand with my friend and with me: Support the DREAM Act. Support the American dream.

Despite the placement of a “Williamsburg Welcomes Students” sign at the city’s entrance each fall, it is hard to argue that our town-gown relations are anything but bad. Whether you ask first-year students or longtime residents, few feel good about their relationship with the other side. Williamsburg is a popular spot for retirees and has a median population age of 23; this dichotomy ensures some community imbalance. On the streets directly off campus, the number of houses inhabited by year-round residents and the number inhabited by students are fairly even. College students invariably have different schedules than senior citizens — bad relations are the fault of neither students at the College of William and Mary nor Williamsburg residents, but of the mutual misunderstanding brought by a generation gap. Just as students are not to blame for staying up past 10 p.m., older residents are not to blame for wanting to sleep. The dismal town-gown relations of Williamsburg are not due to the inconsideration of either side, but stem from a general lack of mutual understanding and respect.

If students at the College and Williamsburg residents are committed to improving our relationship as a community, we must talk to each other. Not in City Council debates or public forums, but as neighbors. Failing to introduce yourself or address your neighbors on the street is not only rude, it’s ridiculous. Most students are familiar with their student neighbors, so why should we treat other residents differently? We need to form a connection that extends beyond noise complaints.

Town-gown relations are not bad because of the overwhelming fault of any side, but due to the absurdity of living in such close proximity without getting to know one another. It takes only one student making small talk to change a Williamsburg resident’s view of the College and only one friendly older neighbor to change a student’s view of the residents. The older residents of Williamsburg are not evil or out to get us, they just like to sleep at night. Students are not out of control drunks, we’re just in college. Such differences are more easily understood when actually discussed.

In our effort to end such draconian laws as Williamsburg’s three-person rule and noise ordinance, the student body has largely positioned Williamsburg’s older population as our enemy. A wiser move would be to invite them to be our ally. Nobody enjoys living side-by-side as strangers or as opposing factions; if a dialogue were opened with Williamsburg residents on a neighbor-to-neighbor basis, we could demonstrate our reasoning rather than our anger. In my experience, Williamsburg residents want to befriend us just as we want to get along with them. Neighborhoods sponsor ice cream socials and other events, and students hardly come. We cannot insult their position while we ignore their efforts toward reconciliation.

Please, talk to your neighbors. Otherwise their only impression of you will be when you block their driveway or scream outside their bedroom window at night, and then it won’t be surprising when they call the police rather than asking you to turn the volume down. Students and residents are both at fault for the terrible town-gown relations of Williamsburg because rather than befriending one another, we have ostracized each other. We are right in our attempts to open the dialogue between students and year-round residents, but our communication needs to extend beyond city council meetings.