quote:
Kramer makes good points. Bonfire used to be AN event during the fall semester, not THE event. Back in ancient times you had to be at least a sophomore to even go thru the 'try out' process to get on the stack. When I heard about some freshmen dying because they were up on the stack in the middle of the night on weekday a week and a half before Bonfire night I knew finally that the morphing process that Bonfire had undergone for about 20 years had reached its nadir. Virtual complete loss of institutional memory and, combined with the relocation to an old creek bed site with poor soil conditions - the '94 collapse during the day was a clear signal that this site was dangerous, a catastrophe in waiting. Bonfire used to be built under strict discipline with hard work in about a week. Not a month long frat/grab(_,_) party. THAT type of Bonfire will never return nor should it. Adults who pay bills will not subsidize that type of risk again.
Start over with a trash pile like it was up until 1948. Do that correctly and move up over time. Having a private company design/build it is a joke and completely misses the point of what Bonfire USED to be. It got far away from its roots and killed kids. No one can condone that. Never again. No design engineer and/or construction company with any sense would touch this project with all the litigation STILL underway 10 years after the fact and with no end in sight.
Racism and Sexism did not kill thost 12 Aggies and seriously hurt dozens of others. Stupidity did.
Good post. First it became over engineered, then it became underengineered because later groups presumed that engineering, quality, and safety were not concerns. The professional analyses are correct: there are aspects of the institutional culture around the bonfire that had developed over time that inhibited the questioning of or analysis of the accepted way of constructing it. We should learn from those defects and conflicts, for our own sakes.
This is not to say that the A&M culture is broadly bad, as may have been implied to a degree in the article. The article seems to be motivated by political issues, and some desire to recriminate Bonfire and associated individuals.
What I believe we must take out of this is that self-reflection and self-evaluation within an organization are good things because they keep the culture healthy, and prevent the decay of reasonable restraint and limits. We should be our own harshest critics, so that we self-improve. Our culture as Aggies isn't inherently bad at all, and in fact it often serves us well, but we must also understand that there are potential weaknesses when the drive to conform overwhelms reasonable caution.
We can learn from our mistakes, improve our defects, build on our success, and drive on, or become recalcitrant, dwell on criticisms, and become embittered. I think we can have a student involved bonfire again, once we correct the elements of the undertaking that contributed to the collapse. Once we better understand ourselves, strength and potential weakness, we can move onward.
[This message has been edited by MouthBQ98 (edited 9/15/2009 1:48p).]
