2008 Woodie Awards
letters to the editor
Issue date: 11/8/07 Section: Opinions
- Page 1 of 2 next >
To the Editor:
Ten years ago, the commons system in its current incarnation was shoved down the student body's throat against its strong opposition. Argument for the current system included the need for a better support structure for students and the idea that Middlebury, though a small college, needed even smaller communities on campus because certain students were not as outgoing as others, and, therefore, it was difficult for them to find leadership opportunities in College-wide groups. Furthermore, when objections were raised about the varying quality of housing and dining options amongst commons, which would create inequality among the student body, we were told that Middlebury had the financial resources to create equitable quality of housing and dining across all commons and that this equalization would take place rapidly.
In the last several years, under President Liebowitz, the College seems to have finally accepted the real facts on the ground. How else could one explain the new plan for a 4/2 housing system for the Commons? Students did not buy into the arguments on behalf of the commons in the late 1990s, and it appears that they have not bought into those arguments since, even though current students have never experienced Middlebury without the commons. The truth of the matter is that Middlebury already gives it students the small and intimate experience which the commons system is allegedly supposed to foster.
I have many colleagues and friends who've attended Harvard and Yale, on whose House and College systems the commons system is modeled. There, House and College systems provide students with the sort of special and intimate educational experience that Middlebury affords to its students simply through the fact that it is a small liberal arts college rather than a large university with both undergraduate and graduate students, in which the latter almost always take precedent. Middlebury would be wasting valuable funds if it spent them simply on building new and better dorms and dining halls for each of the commons, rather than investing greater resources into financial aid and teacher salaries. For this reason, one can do nothing but commend the main goals of Middlebury's most recent fundraising campaign. The current commons system was more of an attempt to remake the College for the sake of legacy rather than a masterful solution for some grand problem that was facing the College. (Legacy which, incidentally, had already been secured through other wonderful achievements and which the commons system only damaged.) Its initial construction goals were far too ambitious and unnecessary. Its attempt to divide the student body simply flew in the face of everything that made Middlebury special and exceptional. Rhetorically, it may be convenient to argue that "with the 4/2 Plan, we will build on the strength of the commons as they are currently constituted," and I know, based on the many arguments we've had over this issue when I was at Middlebury, that permitting students to live anywhere they want is a bitter pill for Tim Spears to swallow.
Ten years ago, the commons system in its current incarnation was shoved down the student body's throat against its strong opposition. Argument for the current system included the need for a better support structure for students and the idea that Middlebury, though a small college, needed even smaller communities on campus because certain students were not as outgoing as others, and, therefore, it was difficult for them to find leadership opportunities in College-wide groups. Furthermore, when objections were raised about the varying quality of housing and dining options amongst commons, which would create inequality among the student body, we were told that Middlebury had the financial resources to create equitable quality of housing and dining across all commons and that this equalization would take place rapidly.
In the last several years, under President Liebowitz, the College seems to have finally accepted the real facts on the ground. How else could one explain the new plan for a 4/2 housing system for the Commons? Students did not buy into the arguments on behalf of the commons in the late 1990s, and it appears that they have not bought into those arguments since, even though current students have never experienced Middlebury without the commons. The truth of the matter is that Middlebury already gives it students the small and intimate experience which the commons system is allegedly supposed to foster.
I have many colleagues and friends who've attended Harvard and Yale, on whose House and College systems the commons system is modeled. There, House and College systems provide students with the sort of special and intimate educational experience that Middlebury affords to its students simply through the fact that it is a small liberal arts college rather than a large university with both undergraduate and graduate students, in which the latter almost always take precedent. Middlebury would be wasting valuable funds if it spent them simply on building new and better dorms and dining halls for each of the commons, rather than investing greater resources into financial aid and teacher salaries. For this reason, one can do nothing but commend the main goals of Middlebury's most recent fundraising campaign. The current commons system was more of an attempt to remake the College for the sake of legacy rather than a masterful solution for some grand problem that was facing the College. (Legacy which, incidentally, had already been secured through other wonderful achievements and which the commons system only damaged.) Its initial construction goals were far too ambitious and unnecessary. Its attempt to divide the student body simply flew in the face of everything that made Middlebury special and exceptional. Rhetorically, it may be convenient to argue that "with the 4/2 Plan, we will build on the strength of the commons as they are currently constituted," and I know, based on the many arguments we've had over this issue when I was at Middlebury, that permitting students to live anywhere they want is a bitter pill for Tim Spears to swallow.
Be the first to comment on this story