Tubestock. The mention of the word inspires memories of floating on the Connecticut River with 1,000 of your closest friends on a warm summer Saturday. It also, for many, raises a potentially humorous question: How could this event be allowed?
Indeed, in an age where the world is much "safer" due to permits, safety restrictions and a generation of adults whose motto might as well be "do as we say, not as we did," an unregulated mid-summer afternoon in the water stands out as a true rarity. For one day, a student populace reared in an age of strict rules and regulations is allowed to experience the unruly, the unregulated and, much to the chagrin of our elders, the unsafe.
It appears that litigious society at large has finally caught up with this tradition. In order to save some vestige of Tubestock -- or whatever name might be contrived to replace a title that evokes the unruliness of "Woodstock" -- students are being asked to jump through hoops of fire that may be out of reach. Caught up in the now-standard catch-22, new proposals cannot even begin to move forward until insurance is purchased for the event. And based on its past history, insurance will be hard to come by.
At this juncture, the only way Tubestock can be saved is for the College to step up and play an active part in aiding the Greek Leadership Council with permit acquisitions and insurance coverage. Unfortunately, this prospect looks dim as current students watch the College fell more harmless traditions such as rushing the field during Homecoming and throwing tennis balls at the Princeton hockey game. The College additionally cannot be counted on because it has a vested interest in a positive reputation toward the whole Upper Valley and future applicants. Even if the man who drowned in the Connecticut River last year was not involved with Tubestock, in the minds of a few Norwich residents the two events are inseparable.
The College should rise above its image and save Tubestock if the will of the students is strong enough. Too many traditions have already gone by the wayside in our short tenure and such a treasured one should not go without a fight -- even if it means fundamentally altering Tubestock to make it safer.
Though one cannot argue in support of the dangerous nature of Tubestock, we are deeply frustrated by the underhanded litigious means by which this event has been jeopardized. Students have already risen to the challenge by forming committees to "Save Tubestock" -- will College officials also help prevent a beloved tradition from failing?
