Say what you will about the College of William and Mary, but this year’s Charter Day festivities proved that, even at 318, we still know how to get down. Hip-hop group The Roots successfully headlined the undisputed highlight of the celebration, first ever Charter Day concert, held at William and Mary Hall. The show went off without a hitch, drawing one of the larger crowds of any AMP-hosted concert, not to mention one with a great atmosphere. Much of that tone can be credited to the spirited, adrenaline-packed performance by the Roots themselves — band members Sousaphone and ?uestlove each took a mid-song detour through the crowd — but we also have the sneaking suspicion that the larger venue helped a little too.

The performance marked one of the few times in recent years the Hall has seen a musical act; of late, the College’s go-to site for AMP-hosted concerts has been the amphitheater at Lake Matoaka. While that recently renovated site provides a great (if weather-dependent) environment for many campus events, a larger event, centered around a big name band like The Roots was certainly a welcome change of pace, and something we’d like to see more of at the College. If our students are willing to drive to Norfolk or Richmond to see better acts, then higher class acts will surely draw audience members from those areas to Williamsburg.

There are obviously certain restrictions that prevent the College from hosting the sort of sprawling concerts one might find at, say, George Mason University or other large, urban universities — some of which are institutional. AMP remains committed to its goal of keeping student ticket prices below $10. This is an admirable goal, which keeps campus events from being cost-prohibitive, while retaining some ability to recoup losses. That being said, it’s hard to treat this guideline as a strict mandate; if students are willing to pay more to see a larger act, AMP would be mistaken not to support them.

But, in general, it would be against the interest of AMP and the student body as a whole for student money to finance events much larger than that seen this past Saturday, simply due to the chance that the event wouldn’t make enough money back in ticket sales. Not to mention — if we even need to say it — we just don’t have the money to spend in the first place.

Given these limitations, we urge the College to explore the possibility of outsourcing events at the Hall to an outside promoter. The arena is suited to a variety of uses, and a regular stream of events in walking distance would certainly be a boon to campus life on the whole. Now, we harbor no illusions that such a scheme would be immediately, if ever, successful, but College officials would be remiss not to consider it after this weekend’s success. The Roots show was a blast. There’s no reason not to try for an encore.

In your opinion piece “World-weary words” on Feb. 4, you claim that state pressure on the College of William and Mary to give greater preference to in-state applicants is only to point out its preference being “almost to the detriment of any out-of-state students.” I must ask how that pressure is only “almost” to the detriment of the qualified applicants and students who now compose a sizeable fraction of our community. At no point have state representatives shown any compunction about diminishing the educational opportunities of students seeking a quality education at a lower cost than that of a private university, while still paying the premiums needed to subsidize the educations of their in-state peers. The mincing of your indictment of their rhetoric, while politically correct, was an inaccurate reflection of the intentions of many of Virginia’s elected officials.

I am honored that the editors of The Flat Hat deemed my remarks on “Globalizing William & Mary” worthy of an editorial response (“World-weary words,” Feb. 3). The immediate purpose of my comments was to contribute to the College of William and Mary’s ongoing discussion about what it means to be a “leading liberal arts university” of “global relevance.” If I have done that, then the talk was a success.

The editors misinterpreted my statement as a plea for more requirements. That was not my position; instead, I asserted that everyone — including faculty — should have an international experience, in order to be better prepared for life in an interconnected world. I also said that if the College could develop a method or “module” for preparing people who were well-prepared to live and work overseas — and I provided examples of cultural missteps taken by the U.S. government and by American firms in the international space — then it might have something it could roll-out to a broader audience.

My more significant point was that the College must globalize if it is to remain a “leading liberal arts university.” The editors claim that “the College has larger internal issues to face before it tries to codify a curriculum of global citizenship. Any available resources would be better spent trying to attract first-rate professors and paying them competitive salaries.”

But where are the sources of those “resources” likely to be found? The editors are silent on this question, but the answer is that funds will increasingly be cultivated overseas. It is the Chinese who will support Confucius Institutes and Arab elites who will support Islamic Studies. If the College fails to connect the dots between curricular and program design, fund-raising, alumni affairs and the composition of the student body, it will find it challenging to deliver the education that its students demand.

One month ago, I was on a plane destined for Port-au-Prince, Haiti. With fear, anxiety and a smidge of excitement in my heart, I was about to spend one week in a country about which I had only heard terrible things: cholera, riots, attacks, etc. I had signed up to go to Haiti with the College of William and Mary’s Baptist Collegiate Ministries. I have always wanted to experience an international service trip, but I never thought it would be to Haiti. When the earthquake struck last year, I was concerned for Haiti. However, it just never appealed to me as much as other places in need in the world did. However, when this trip presented itself, I signed up for it. And during that flight, from Washington, D.C., to New York City and finally to Port-au-Prince, I had no idea that I was about to fall in love with Haiti.

As students at the College, we seek to serve through organizations and opportunities like Alpha Phi Omega, Branch Out trips, Circle K International, or even at local schools and churches. By studying abroad in a host of countries all over the world, we seek out international adventures. But when we merge the two something amazing happens — not only do we find solace in helping others, but we also get the chance to experience an entirely different culture (which I found mind-blowing). This combination is something I truly think is priceless in a world where there is still so much need. Haiti, for example, survived a huge natural catastrophe a year ago, but millions are still living in tents, thousands are dying of cholera, and the government is filled with corruption. The College already has organizations and student groups that have risen to the occasion, leaving the comfort of home behind in order to help people in need. At the College, organizations have formed specifically with the purpose of helping people in places all over the globe, from Honduras to Bosnia.

But this does not mean that going to another country is the only way to give international aid or to do service in general. We tend to view international service trips as being more important because they seem like exotic vacations. Furthermore, our narrow perspectives about ways of life that differ from ours as Americans can lead to the belief that foreign cultures need more help. We have a strong tendency to forget that the U.S. suffers from severe poverty in some regions. That being said, international service trips are still important because you can learn about a people you may have not even thought of before. As college students we should be out in the world looking at different cultures and different world views in order to understand ourselves better and become better citizens, both of the United States and of this increasingly global world.

Service and community engagement are valuable in any form, domestic or international. Doing service in another country is a great experience. I encourage you to get involved in one of the organizations on campus, including Amnesty International, Oxfam or another of the myriad international development organizations on campus. And if the international lifestyle doesn’t appeal to you, then join an organization that helps domestically, like Campus Kitchens or the Office of Community Engagement and Scholarship’s new Williamsburg Engagement program. Personally, I believe service is just a fun, meaningful way to spend one’s time. And by going to Haiti, I may have found how I would like to spend my future.

I don’t have a meal plan, and I cook for myself. I don’t really like the food offered in the dining halls around campus, but in a Jan. 31 article about meal plan policies (“New meal plan policy in bad taste”), Tessa Raebeck talks about a new policy that was implemented by food services without informing students. She claims that Aramark, the company that runs the dining halls on campus, eliminated students’s ability to swipe in other people using their block meal plans without notifying anyone. This is wrong. The cafeterias never had a policy allowing students to use their block meal plans to swipe in other students; rather, the policy has always been that students are not allowed to swipe in other students. The reason for the perception of this policy undergoing a change is because of the negligence of the cashiers working at the cafeterias. This sudden change is not simply a way to make more money as claimed in the article.

An argument that always comes up with block meal plans is that if the student pays for it then the student should have control over all of his or her meals. This is a valid point and makes logical sense. The reason dining services does not have this mentality is not because of different views on meals but actually because of federal law. The meal plans offered at the College of William and Mary are tax-exempt because this law mandates that the meals be used solely on an individual basis. It seems counter intuitive that if you buy something you do not have carte blanche on what you can do with this purchase, but that is just the way this situation works out.

There have been a lot of questions posed to dining services about this exact situation and the policies regarding swiping in other students with a block meal plan. Dining services has realized this and devised a plan to solve the problem. Beginning next year when you purchase a block meal plan you will have a certain amount of meals in your block designated as guest meals. For example, if you buy a 125 block meal plan, 25 meals in that block meal plan will be designated as possible guest meal passes.

While I have already stated that I am not a fan of the food offered at dining services, it is wrong to accuse dining services of changing policies without informing students before you know the facts of a situation.