The more things change, the more they stay the same.
From the Final Report of the Bonfire Commission:
quote:
The physical failure and causal factors were driven by an organizational failure.
This failure, which had its roots in decisions and actions by both students and
University officials over many years, created an environment in which a complex
and dangerous structure was allowed to be built without adequate physical or
engineering controls.
This organizational failure is complex but includes such things as the absence of
an appropriate written design or design process, a cultural bias impeding risk
identification, and the lack of a proactive risk management approach.
quote:
Team 2/4 did find a potential barrier failure in the area of compliance culture.
Students involved in Bonfire are both very compliant and very non-compliant.
When group pressure to conform is strong, such as Bonfire traditions or student
leader instructions, non-compliance rates are very low. When group pressure
not to conform is strong, such as to consume alcohol and participate in
28
horseplay, non-compliance rates are high.
quote:
However, the investigation did uncover two significant management barrier
failures that were relevant to the collapse. The first had to do with the
University’s reactive risk management model and a cultural bias that resulted in
missed opportunities to identify structural problems.
quote:
In summary, the Commission identified four barrier failures that were relevant
to the collapse:
¶ Lack of student leadership knowledge and skills pertaining to
structural integrity
¶ Lack of formal, written Bonfire design plans or construction
methodology
¶ Cultural bias impeding the identification and resolution of potential
structural integrity risks
¶ Lack of a proactive risk management approach
quote:
¶ The University has a culture that instills bias and tunnel vision in
decision making.
Note the continued negative reference to the culture that existed around the bonfire and University. This culture is still present and is evident in the way that some react (read attack) when information not fitting the cultural norm is introduced. The shouting down of outside information leads to the "farmers, farmers, we're alright" drowning out information needed to make positive changes. The group think is not objective and labels anything perceived by the group as non-Aggie, 2%, etc.. The close-mindedness is the exact opposite of the idea of what a university should be.
It happens every time a criticism is leveled...read the thread...
"DMN trolling again"
"How Obama!"
"Screw that newspaper"
"I seem to remember that name as one of the typical leftist Batt agitators..."
"Couldn't finish - it was too stupid."
"Really, you're an Aggie? Really?"
"Wow, that guy is an idiot."
"The guy has absolutely no talent as a writer..."
"A lot is lost on this idiot."
The problem is that those who are the problem will not admit it and thus begin the change. The culture at Texas A&M hasn't changed anywhere near to the degree that the "farmers, farmers, we're alright" ers would have anyone believe.
The University spent $2 million dollars for a group of scientists and behavioralist to determine what anyone "on the outside" would have told you for free.
Sorry Rab, the culture of Texas A&M isn't inclusive and, while it may be changing, it ain't materially different than it was in 1999 and there's no evidence existing that shows it would have changed had bonfire still been on campus.
If it is "brought back" most of what old Ags remember about bonfire (the vast majority of which had nothing to do with the night it was lit off) won't be the same. They cannot entrust it to student leadership due to the failure of this leadership in the past...any future accidents under student leadership would not be defensible nor excusable. If it comes back, the students will be excluded from dangerous activities in the cut and the construction because they simply cannot be trained sufficiently and their leadership cannot be trusted.
From the report:
quote:
In the Commission’s view, skills and knowledge inadequacy of student leaders
cannot be easily corrected. There is no evidence that students at other institutions
demonstrate meaningfully greater skill and knowledge levels when engaging in
similarly risky projects. Also, it would likely be cost prohibitive to train
students, and given class turnover, it would have to be repeated regularly.
Take the students out and it isn't "bonfire".
The behavior involved in bonfire as it had evolved (or devolved) to by 1999 isn't anything to be proud of nor is it anything the University wants to (or can allow) to happen again.
Check this out from the Bonfire Report:
quote:
Team 2/4 found considerable evidence of irresponsible behavior in Bonfire.
Alcohol use was substantial, although student leaders reportedly prohibited
alcohol. Also, evidence of hazing and harassment by student workers and
student leaders as well as unnecessary horseplay and fighting was significant,
despite University efforts to control it. Team 2/4 documented dozens of
examples of these behaviors, some of which have led directly to accidents in
which students have been hurt or hospitalized. In the experience of the
investigation team, Texas A&M is unique in allowing this level of irresponsible
personal behavior in and around a construction project of this magnitude.
That "irresponsible behavior" is what many remember as "bonfire". Injury rates were growing...from 32 in 1996 to 59 in 1998 (84% increase)...the injury rate was as much as 7 times "greater than found in similarly
dangerous activities." Things were changing...not for the good...and the culture simply wouldn't allow anyone to see it...or those who did were shouted down, marginalized, and ridiculed just like in this thread.
I listened to a radio program in Houston where the talk show host mentioned alcohol use on the bonfire site and he got so many threatening calls that the station forced him to make an on-air retraction. I heard caller after caller berate him and tell him he was lying...that the rule prohibited alcohol on the site.
The US Fire Administrations Investigative Report of November 1999, titled, Bonfire Collapse Texas A&M University College Station, Texas has a table showing "alcohol related statistics complied by the local law enforcement agencies" and it lists for 1998:
Arrests: 18
Citations: 73
There were kegs, cans, and other signs of alchol use on the stack site clearly visible to the emergency and law enforcement personell who responded to the accident.
The US Fire Administration also had this information:
"The President also recommended a number of other changes in response to the Commission’s finding. Among the recommendations were:
(note, there 7 other recomendations listed here that I have omitted)
-There will be adult supervision and a crackdown on drinking"
The radio guy wasn't lying...but the culture reacted in an expected way...just as it has on this thread and will continue to do.
There's a real reason that the bonfire is not a university sponsored event and, IMO, never will be to the extent that it was...they simply cannot take the risk.
