42 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(05/12/16 8:02pm)
In many ways, this year at Middlebury felt like occupying a community divided. Three different events this weekend com- posed an especially ironic display of Middlebury’s climate: Derby Day, a symposium entitled “Activists, Allies and Accomplices: Responses to Racism Today” and the Distinguished Men of Color (DMC) Block Party. At Derby Day, mainly white students boarded buses to an off-campus party, wearing summer dresses and big hats — paying tribute to a horse race and, de facto, to southern culture. I was one of those students. The symposium, which most students in this community could benefit from attending, addressed the issues of class and race that were exemplified all too well at Saturday’s Derby-themed affair. The Block Party, a spring tradition, included a basket- ball tournament, BBQ and music performances. The racial split between each event was stark. On this day, I reflected on this interesting and ironic way to end my time at Middlebury as we continue to be divided as a community, with our social life more stratified than ever.
This isn’t the only irony that I have con- fronted this year. Another irony that I have grappled with is my own identity as a black woman and my position as the head of an institution deemed racist and classist by many. As Editor-in-Chief, I have spent all year defending The Campus newspaper, our policies and the importance of our role. That was my job. It isn’t my job anymore. Now, I am going to give you my perspective as an individual and not as a representative of this institution, because components of my identity have informed how I have approached the role.
Being a person of color has complicated my role as Editor-in-Chief. Submissions that contained inflammatory, at times offensive content affected me on a deeply personal level, as they did for many other students within this community. As a woman of color, I have been outraged by the suggestions of certain submissions. I think that at times my silence has been perceived as an implicit endorsement of these ideas when that could not be further from the truth. What differentiates me from other students on the campus, including other students of color, is that my role as Editor- in-Chief required that I choose content objectively, without letting my emotions cloud my judgement. This means that I have ap- proved the publication of content that I vehemently disagree with and have had to live with those decisions. These choices were not made indiscriminately. I agonized over them; however, I felt compelled to prioritize my responsibilities as an elected leader over the indignation I felt.
Those decisions defined the perceptions of my editorship. As our community discussed race, identity and privilege, it be- came clear that my role in these conversations would have to be as a representative of the newspaper, not as an independent person. The unique perspective I offer as a POC was not acknowledged, and it never was. Instead, my decisions and policies were attacked. As one student wrote to me, “I continuously expect more from you and am continuously disappointed ... I don’t expect change, but I do expect that a sentiment like this will stick with you and hope- fully make you think twice in the future.” I was painted as someone unsympathetic to
the minority experience on campus, even though I am a minority. My experience and my perspective was invalidated, I believe, for a number of reasons — including my role in the newspaper. I am not telling you this so you will feel sorry for me. I don’t need sympathy. What I do need, however, is the acknowledgement that my experience, while not all that unique, is indicative of a broader issue — a community that has developed very strict standards for what it means to be “black” and what it means to be “white.” And, for another subset, what it means to be a “white ally.” These standards have undoubtedly been imposed by both sides. I have been called “so white” by other students — including friends — numerous times. The problematic implication of this is that whiteness is associated with certain traits and that we have developed a narrow definition of what it means to be “white” or “black.”
The unfortunate and inevitable outcome of these narrow definitions has been the radicalization of conversations surround- ing race. Those who do not fully embrace the stances and objectives of one side have been excluded from the conversation. I, too, have felt this exclusion at times. Responses toward my decisions ranged from pedantic and hard-to-grasp to aggressive and emotional. If we want to be a truly inclusive community, then we need to reassess our constructions of “whiteness” and “blackness” and leave room for more fluid interpretations of identity.
Despite my plea for a community-wide shift, I am also complicit in the construction of the culture we have developed. Even though I stand by the editorial decisions we made, I still struggle to reconcile the expectations of my role with the fact that a student told me that I had personally made them feel unsafe and that my deci- sions have made them not want to leave their room. How do you come to terms with that? The guilt I feel, however, stands alongside the duty to lead this paper, which serves our entire student body and reflects the climate of our campus — as disappointingly narrow-minded as it can sometimes be.
Though I am leaving Middlebury, my hope for this community is that it will continue to embody the progressive spirit so fundamental to its ethos — to push bound- aries and set new standards, but while do- ing so, to recognize the humanity of those around us. Somewhere along the way, our anger and indignation drove us further apart. We imposed one-size-fits-all definitions of identity on one another and forgot that, in the words of Ta-Nehisi Coates, “We should seek not a world where the black race and white race live in harmony, but a world in which the terms black and white have no real political meaning.”
Middlebury will continue to grapple with these issues — the insidious nature of privilege at this school, class and racial divides — but my hope is that while we approach these issues, we remember that a great deal of nuance guides our thinking. I hope we continue to have these difficult, but important conversations. With that, I wish the best of luck to Ellie Reinhardt and Christian Jambora as they take the helm of The Campus. To my editors, you know the respect and admiration I have for each of you.
Abbadi, out.
(03/24/16 3:32am)
Undoubtedly, the last few weeks have been shaped by campus wide discourse surrounding race, power, language and freedom of speech. We at The Campus have engaged in personal reflection both about our role as a microphone for student voices and on how Middlebury can become more inclusive. We take this conversation, and our role in it, seriously and have welcomed the feedback and concerns that we have received.
This conversation is far from over. We as a community need to reflect and converse about acceptable standards of speech. This conversation is important, but it requires a level of respect and engagement that recently has not been met. We have resorted to insults on YikYak and other forms of social media that accuse and alienate members of this college without opening space for discussion or attempting to understand the other side.
In a recent New York Times op-ed, David Brooks writes about “shame culture” developing on college campuses and among the millennial generation. In it he writes, “In a guilt culture you know you are good or bad by what your conscience feels. In a shame culture you know you are good or bad by what your community says about you, by whether it honors or excludes you. In a guilt culture people sometimes feel they do bad things; in a shame culture social exclusion makes people feel they are bad.” He goes on to claim that the “ultimate sin” today is to criticize a group’s morality and this is magnified by the prevalence of social media, in which “moral crusade spreads across campus, many students feel compelled to post in support of it on Facebook within minutes.”
While this shame culture is not unique to Middlebury, it is certainly present here. Controversial op-eds are shared at exceedingly high rates and student responses are often personal, attacking the individual instead of the argument. However, we don’t think we are going to push this conversation forward within the newsfeeds of Facebook and YikYak. This isn’t to imply that that the offended shouldn’t be able to respond, but that we can do so in a constructive manner. We can learn from one another, if we choose to hear each other.
Recently, Middbeat, Beyond the Green and The Campus met about the potential of having a town hall meeting about student journalism and speech standards. We are continuing to work to make this a reality and to proactively continue this conversation. Our guess is that when we start talking to each other, we may find that even the people whose ideas or decisions we had dismissed are hoping to achieve the same goals—a more inclusive, braver Middlebury.
Recently a friend described our tendency to “call someone out” when they have offended or overstepped. She suggested that we change that phrase to “calling someone in,” which instead of generating alienation, encourages an invitation to engage in challenging dialogue. While recognizing our individual privileges and our power to offend, this effort could be the first of many steps towards changing how we interact with one another.
(02/24/16 4:48pm)
The Middlebury Campus sat down with Laurie L. Patton to discuss her first few months at Middlebury as the College’s 17th president. In this profile, Patton discusses what has surprised her about Middlebury, what her first days were like after her appointment and what she hopes to focus on in the coming months.
Middlebury Campus (MC): What have you accomplished during your first few months as President that you are proud of and what do you hope to accomplish or focus on during the coming months?
Laurie Patton (LP): So I’m not sure whether “accomplishment” is quite the right word, since I’m still just getting to know the community and presidencies usually make their mark over the long haul, after a period much longer than seven months. And I prefer to think of what we have accomplished together, since presidents don’t actually have much unilateral power! Those two caveats aside, I am proud of so many things we have already done as a community: the first year of our new faculty governance system at Middlebury College; the great work faculty at Monterey have done on their new governance system; the second year of our new Board of Trustees governance system; the faculty vote this fall on a new AAL requirement which was started by students; the creation of Alliance for an Inclusive Middlebury; the Disability Advisory Group; the Task force on Stress; all the great work that has come from faculty and students and staff on mindfulness practices and developing resilience. These are all about community practices that change culture over time, where we communicate better with each other and enhance quality of Middlebury life.
MC: Is there one thing that hasn’t lived up to your expectations or that has surprised you?
LP: The pleasant surprise has been how collaborative and constructive people are. I knew this about the Middlebury community, but the depth and extent of it has been truly a joy to encounter. On the down side, I also worry that we have too many bureaucratic layers. Even though we are a newly complex organization, I think we need to ask whether we are already too complex sometimes. I am greatly looking forward to the strategic planning process to think about this issue across the Middlebury landscape.
MC: The national conversation surrounding racial issues has touched upon the role of institutions in protecting students from being offended. To what extent do you think Colleges should protect their students from potentially offensive situations? Is this possible? Beneficial? What is the distinction between protecting and censoring? At what point is freedom of speech in danger?
LP: As you know this question of inclusivity is a major priority for me. We can and should discuss in constructive ways how we handle situations of offense. We are just now putting in place the bias incident protocol, which means that there are procedures for when these incidents occur. And we need to uphold our community standards of conduct and speech that are already in place, which specifically emphasize that we should work to report and change unwelcome behavior before the environment becomes difficult or hostile for those affected. I also think that the opposition between free speech and inclusivity is a false one. We become a more inclusive community through the exercise of free speech. That also means that we try to create resilient spaces, where all members of our community have the skills to deal with an offense when it occurs. Because offenses occur in both small and large scales, and we are also dealing with structural bias that involves the slower process of systemic change, multiple solutions are needed: protocols for bias incident reporting; resilience training; constant review of bias in our systems and constant encouragement toward constructive engagement.
MC: In light of recent events involving racial injustice issues across college campuses, what does a more inclusive Middlebury look like to you?
LP: I would love to see students and faculty and staff become less afraid of engaging constructively with each other on difficult topics. That alone is going to take a lot of time. I would also love to see better interaction in classrooms and on athletic fields, so that we can talk more comfortably across differences. I don’t think any campus has it right yet, but I think we need to be more invitational and develop a spirit of hospitality in spaces where we have been less welcoming and less mindful of historically underrepresented points of view.
MC: A recent New York Times op-ed titled “Rethinking College Admissions” raised concerns about the admissions processes at the most selective colleges. In your opinion, are current admissions standards flawed and, if so, what can Middlebury and its peer institutions do to mitigate the issue?
LP: Middlebury is a proud member of the Coalition for Affordability and Access that was referred to in the report. I think turning the tide on the ways in which we engage applicants is essential, and we will be working closely with other members to see how we can work collectively on this issue. That includes serious consideration of many of the recommendations that have now been put forward, and focusing less on the resume and the “credentializing culture” and more on the transformative experiences of the individual and that individual’s capacity to transform the college community they enter. We also need to do better work with families, particularly those from low-income households, who may not think more actively about the possibilities of a Middlebury education. The situation all colleges find themselves in is this: we both embrace and revile by the rankings system and the system of building credentials. I think we need to focus as much on the life-script as we do on the transcript, and that’s going to mean both outreach to different communities as well as a more holistic evaluation system of our applicants. I think our admissions office does a great job with that, but I have been impressed by how they are always looking to do better.
MC: You carry a wealth of experiences, illustrated through your extensive curriculum vitae and long list of honors, awards and accomplishments. Is there a particular feat that has stood out to you and marked a defining moment in your career?
LP: Yes. I think it was the moment I decided not to go into the corporate world to become a conflict mediator, but instead stayed in the academy and use my conflict mediation skills there. I realized then that higher education is one of the oldest and most fascinating forms of collective activity we have in civilization, beginning with the systems I study in ancient India. And that committing my life to that, and using conflict mediation skills in that context, was the most important work I could do as a scholar, teacher and leader.
MC: Considering the presidential search process had been long and private, the announcement of your appointment came very suddenly. What were the moments like before, during and after the huge announcement?
LP: The last 10 days before the announcement were harrowing. I was trying to keep a lid on the gossip, so that both wonderful institutions of Duke and Middlebury could be protected. My most powerful memory was on the day of the announcement. My question was: can I come back home to New England having become the person I’ve become? As I walked up the hill with Marna Whittington, our head of the Board of Trustees, and Dave Donahue, my assistant, I watched everyone stream into the building to hear the announcement. And all of them were surrounded by the unique beauty of the campus. That moment was deeply moving. I felt like I was being greeted and welcomed home by family I hadn’t met yet. Someone said, as I left the building, “The strength of the hills is hers also!” and tears came to my eyes. After the announcement we very quickly began the hard work of getting to know the community.
MC: What advice did our former president, Ron Liebowitz, share with you that has stood out to you?
LP: Ron and I have very similar energy levels and perspectives on how forward-looking higher education needs to be. We talked about many topics and had a really smooth transition, and I think his perspective on keeping this creative energy alive at Middlebury was most helpful. The continuity of vision was a great blessing.
MC: What are lessons you have learned from the students of the College so far?
LP: Middlebury students are extraordinary and I have been spending a lot of time with them. They want to be creative and they want the College to get out of the way and help them do that. I have learned about next steps on sustainability; I have learned how they want to push us on more inclusive practices and I frequently feel that if I ask students to help I am going to get extraordinary responses. I am always cheered up when I spend time with students.
MC: Favorite memory or activity from your first J-term?
LP: One scavenger hunt team crafted a wonderful response to the presidential challenge, where they found a new community or artistic use for several of the scientific instruments in our special collections. It was fabulous! And then the next day I got all the sweaters that different teams had knit for Padma and Suka, my great Pyrenees dogs. Science, arts, community and sweaters – as they say in Yiddish: what’s not to like?
(11/13/15 3:58am)
At the monthly plenary faculty meeting on Friday, Nov. 6, the faculty discussed proposed changes to the Cultures and Civilizations requirement and student participation in the Pass/D/Fail system, but when the conversation shifted to student stress, the faculty voted 45-33 to move into an executive session.
Faculty Moderator and Professor of Mathematics David Dorman did not have an exact figure on the number of times the faculty has moved into an executive session historically, but indicated it has happened a few times in the past two decades.
The decision to move to an executive session was prompted when Assistant Professor of Psychology Robert Moeller expressed his concerns about having students in the room as the faculty discussed sensitive, sometimes privileged information. As mandated by the College’s handbook, the SGA, the Campus and Community Council have a standing invitation to plenary faculty meetings.
Once Moeller’s concern was articulated, a motion was made and seconded to shift to executive session. The vote forced all non- voting members of the audience, including several student leaders, to leave.
“While it was of course disappointing that students were not able to be present for the faculty discussion surrounding stress,” said SGA President Ilana Gratch ’16, “I believe this event has the ability to spark a greater conversation about the dynamics between students, faculty and the administration.”
“I was disappointed by the manner in which we were dismissed from the Faculty Council session, but I feel that this incident can be constructive instead of contentious,” said Community Council member Emma Bliska ‘18. “I think it’s im- portant for students and faculty to interact more in official spaces on campus, and to engage in dialogue about our roles in college decision-making.”
Despite the narrow margin between those in favor of an executive session and those not, there was no discussion against the motion in the open meeting. However, the session sparked conversation, both for and against the motion, amongst the faculty afterwards.
“When the faculty is discussing matters with a direct impact on students’ lives, these conversations should be open and transparent whenever possible,” said Associate Professor of Economics Caitlin Myers. “While there will sometimes exist a compelling need for privacy, we should thoughtfully choose when and how to in- voke executive session. I thought that the way the students were asked to leave conveyed distrust and paternalism, and I was troubled by how it went down.”
Moeller, who first shared his concerns about having students in his room, ex- plained his stance, bringing up two separate issues: how having students – especially the press – in the room changes the conversation and how to respect students privacy, specifically in deference to the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA).
First, the College is made up of a shared governance system: the Board of Trustees, the administration and faculty, all with different responsibilities. He points out that the Campus does not have a standing in- vitation to senior administrative meetings nor Board of Trustee meetings, so why is the faculty exposed to what he calls “great- er levels of scrutiny” than the other parts of the system?
“What does that do to the power dynamic in a shared governance system?” asks Moeller. “Of the three parts of the system, all parts effect students lives and there shouldn’t be more reporting on the faculty than the trustees and the administration.”
Moeller also expressed his concern about upholding the privacies protected in FERPA. Within a small community, when faculty members are sharing stories about students, especially around grades and issues of mental health, it is easy to figure out who they are talking about. This brings up confidentially concerns that could become FERPA violations.
Lastly, he shared concerns from faculty, especially junior faculty, many of whom are already are hesitant to participate in conversation, that students in the room will have a silencing effect. Moeller shared that several faculty members have expressed unease about the fact that their words could be quoted without consent.
“After last spring we needed to have an important conversation about student stress, and a candid one,” Moeller said. “While students should most definitely be included in those conversations, faculty also need a venue to speak amongst themselves.”
“There needs to be some system to convey the issues we are discussing to students, but a system that takes into account issues of confidentiality, FERPA and the silencing effect that students in the room could have on the faculty,” he added.
Many students in the room have expressed that they want to play a more active role in these discussions and that their presence is not intended to scrutinize, but to engage.
“I believe any discussions about issues facing students should be as transparent as possible, not so students can supervise or criticize faculty members, but so these groups can collaborate more effectively and meaningfully on issues facing the college community,” added Bliska.
President of the College Laurie L. Pat- ton echoed the sentiment for the need for openness and student presence, as well as executive sessions.
“Faculty need to come to their own decisions about governance, and I have every confidence that they will,” said Patton. “I recommended at the meeting that we need to do two things as a matter of course: 1) we need to have regular open faculty meetings, where students and staff can attend, and 2) we need to reserve a space for executive session at the end of those meetings. Many institutions of higher learning use this system of faculty governance, and I can easily see us moving in that direction. When executive sessions are simply part of every agenda, faculty can use them if they want to, but they don’t have to if there’s no business that requires “faculty-only” conversation. The key to this system is that meetings are then always open to the community and executive sessions no longer become a big deal.”
(10/21/15 8:20pm)
On Thursday, Oct. 15, guest speaker Dr. Julie Hotchkiss presented a talk in Twilight Auditorium titled “Can We Really Believe Everything We Read About the U.S. Labor Market?” Her presentation came as a part of the D.K. Smith ’42 Economics Lecture series.
The David K. Smith ’42 lecture series was established in the early 1990s after beloved alumnus and Economics professor D.K. Smith. A gift from the Schaffer family, the lecture series brings a distinguished guest lecturer to the College to give an Economics talk each semester. Past lectures have addressed income inequality, the wage gap between men and women and other economic and social issues.
Hotchkiss comes to the College as a research economist and senior policy adviser at the Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta. As a labor economist, her work focuses on earning differentials between different groups, employment and earnings trend over long periods of time and policy changes and their effect on the labor supply.
David K. Smith’42 Chair in Applied Economics Phanindra Wunnava was responsible for bringing Hotchkiss to campus.
“[Hotchkiss] is one of the finest labor economists of my generation. I have known her for over twenty years,” said Wunnava.
In her lecture, Hotchkiss argued that current labor market growth is “on track,” despite assertion from the media and press that the U.S. labor market is in peril. She offered insight to address several “misleading” headlines often found in news outlets.
For example, Hotchkiss stated that labor participation being at 62.6% — marking a 32-year low in U.S. history — should be associated with changes not in population but in willingness to work among different age groups. In particular, she noted that labor force participation is decreasing for young people and increasing for old people, countering arguments that lowering participation levels are due to massive drop-offs from older workers.
Hotchkiss also challenged headlines stating that “recovery has created more low-wage jobs than better-paid ones.” She stated that, between 2010 and 2014, more full-time jobs were created than part-time ones.
Likewise, there have been many headlines and studies asserting that the American labor force is shrinking to the point that there will not be enough college graduates to fill available jobs. She countered this with data that demonstrated that the U.S. is actually producing more college graduates than available jobs.
Student reception to Hotchkiss’s presentation has been both positive and engaging.
“Hotchkiss gave a compelling case as to why labor force participation has been so low and helped dispel some of the common misconceptions with labor participation,” said Olena Ostasheva ’16.
“It inspired me to look beyond the headlines when it comes to economic policy issues,” added Marcos Barrozo Filho ’17. ”
(09/24/15 3:04am)
On Wednesday, Sept. 16 — the same day classes began at the College — U.S. District Court Judge J. Garvan Murtha ordered the College to temporarily re-enroll a student who had been expelled for an alleged sexual assault charge that took place while the student was studying abroad through the School for International Training (SIT).
The College released an official statement on Sept. 18 in reaction to Murtha’s decision, part of which states the following:
The Middlebury College Handbook holds students accountable for policy violations that take place between the time they first arrive on campus and their graduation. Under its policies, a Middlebury student’s off-campus conduct may be subject to Middlebury’s disciplinary processes when, among other things, such conduct may represent a threat to the safety of the Middlebury community or any of its members. Middlebury initiated an investigation and adjudication of the student’s conduct on that basis and we believe we properly applied our policies in this case.
Middlebury College is deeply disappointed by the court’s decision to grant the plaintiff, who currently is identified as John Doe, a preliminary injunction requiring Middlebury to allow him to re-enroll for the fall semester. We believe the court erred in its interpretation of the facts and the law in reaching this decision.
We are considering our legal options, but at this time we are obliged to comply with the court’s order.
Doe is being represented by Lisa B. Shelkrot of Langrock of Sperry & Wool, LLP in Burlington, VT, and Monica R. Shah and Naomi R. Shatz of Salkind Duncan & Bernstein LLP in Boston, MA. His counsel filed the lawsuit against the College for an “unjust and unlawful expulsion” on Aug. 28, after his appeals to reverse his expulsion were denied.
Following the court’s decision, Doe is now permitted to enroll in classes at the College through the fall 2015 semester while legal proceedings for the federal suit continue.
John Doe’s counsel asserts that their client “was falsely accused of sexual misconduct by Jane Doe.” Additionally, they state the College conducted its investigation after having already accepted SIT’s findings that Doe was not responsible for the charge and permitting him to return to campus for the following semester. As such, they state the College’s findings should not be upheld.
John Doe’s counsel argued that his expulsion throughout the proceedings will cause him irreparable damage in the form of reputational harm and lost educational and career opportunities. According to the initial complaint, the expulsion would cost him a position with a company he was to join after graduating that offered a starting salary of $85,000, a $10,000 signing bonus, and $5,000 in relocation fees.
The investigation led by the College was initiated after administrators were contacted by Jane Doe, who believed SIT had improperly conducted its initial investigation of the incident.
The College — represented by Karen McAndrew and Ritchie E. Berger of Dinse, Knapp & McAndrew P.C. in Burlington, VT — conducted its internal investigation through Ellen Coogan, an independent contractor who has investigated sexual misconduct cases on behalf of the College. Coogan concluded that John Doe’s “conduct towards Jane Doe constituted sexual misconduct” based on Jane Doe’s “assessments of credibility” and a “preponderance of evidence.”
The evidence submitted to the College by Jane Doe included: her statement to SIT in which she described John Doe’s assault that woke her from her sleep; a medical evaluation from a hospital in the country where John and Jane Doe were studying abroad; a medical report from Jane Doe’s physician in the U.S.; four pictures of blood-stained shorts that Jane Doe claims are a result of the attack; and four images of text messages allegedly sent by John Doe referencing the incident as a “cruel joke.” Reflecting on her finding, Coogan references the differences in credibility of both Jane and John Doe’s story. The defendant’s opposition states:
Ms. Coogan indicated that she was particularly struck by the consistency of Jane Doe’s account, and the way in which John Doe’s account changed over time. Id. She cited evidence that John Doe’s first statement to several friends, including Jane Doe, was something to the effect that he did not remember anything and had no idea what happened; that he next told another SIT student that he did not have sex with Jane Doe; he then admitted to an SIT administrator that he did have sex with her, but that it was consensual. John Doe also gave different versions of what sexual activity he was engaged in with Jane Doe. By the time of Ms. Coogan’s investigation, John Doe asserted that not only was the sex consensual, but that Jane Doe had initiated it.
John Doe described a very different story of the evening’s events. According to his account, a group of students that included himself and Jane Doe went out to a show, dinner and club on Nov. 7, 2014. Both John and Jane Doe consumed alcohol, but neither were visibly intoxicated. Later that night, John Doe, Jane Doe and Witness 1 — the latter of whom with John Doe had previously been engaged in a sexual relationship — decided to sleep in John Doe’s room. According to John Doe, he and Jane Doe then engaged in consensual, sexual intercourse.
John Doe’s complaint claims that Jane Doe “told a false account of what happened between her and the plaintiff on November 7-8, 2014, one in which she drank a number of drinks and has no memory of leaving the club and only remembers waking up in the plaintiff’s room, with a sheet over her face, engaged in sexual intercourse.” She allegedly then yelled, “Get off me. I don’t want this.”
According to Murtha’s ruling, John Doe, under his real identity, is currently listed as an “active student” enrolled in courses and was recently billed for the fall 2015 semester. However, if the College finds that John Doe’s expulsion is warranted, it will dismiss him as a student or, if applicable, later revoke his degree.
(09/24/15 1:19am)
The news article and corresponding editorial discussion of the alleged sexual assault case involving John Doe has been one of the most difficult topics I have had to write about during my time with the Campus, and not one I expected to cover just two weeks into my role as Editor-in-Chief. I am writing this Notes from the Desk to shed some light on the difficult decisions the board made as we grappled with legal documents and the two very different stories presented by the accused and the accuser.
First, I say “had to write,” because I think there are some stories that deserve to be told. I believe the editorial board feels an incredible responsibility to its readers, and because of that we all decided to take on the role of trying to comment, meaningfully and objectively, on the sexual assault and federal lawsuit that the College is currently facing. These pieces are not intended to be insensitive to the parties involved, but simply to inform the community of the complex case and some of the questions it raises.
As we read the legal documents, we tried, though difficult at times, not to presume guilt or innocence. We tried to present the facts. We tried to be clear and precise in our arguments. In the editorial, we both criticize the administration for accepting SIT’s findings without review and commend it for re-opening the investigation when it learned that SIT’s investigation may have been flawed and there was in fact compelling evidence against the Middlebury student, John Doe.
This situation has lasting ramifications for everyone involved: Jane Doe, who has relived the emotional reiterations of her story for months, John Doe, who has been forced to endure an invasive investigation twice, the campus community, who must now co-exist with an individual that the College’s internal investigation deemed unfit for re-entry, and the College, which must defend its reputation and publicly support its decision to investigate. Often the tone of news articles and editorials suggests a lack of empathy. This is not reflective of the emotional reaction we experienced, nor of the compassion the board feels for the involved parties. Likewise, it does not convey the understanding we all have of the implications of our words and their lasting impact in a small community.
I believe the writing above reflects the gray and vague areas of this case and the profound difficulty the editorial board faced coming to a consensus that did not presume guilt while respecting every party involved. If nothing else, this speaks to the sensitive situations editors face. We are often privy to information and have the responsibility of telling a story as objectively as possible, while still being conscious of the size and tight-knit nature of our community, where anonymity is rare. My hope is that this prompts thoughtful discussion among our community and reveals the human side behind our editorials.
(09/17/15 5:48pm)
On Jul. 24, 2015, a student was expelled from the College for an alleged sexual assault charge against a non-Middlebury student. The incident allegedly took place in the fall 2014 semester while the student was studying abroad through the School for International Training (SIT). The College is now being sued by the student — who is filing suit anonymously as John Doe — to reverse the expulsion.
Doe claims the expulsion was unjust and unlawful, as SIT conducted the initial investigation and found him not responsible for the charge. The decision was communicated to College administrators, who, according to Doe’s complaint, relied “on SIT’s determination to permit [Doe] to return to Middlebury for the spring semester.”
However, after the alleged victim notified the College that she believed SIT had not properly investigated the case, the College conducted its own separate investigation and found Doe guilty of the charge. The process took over five months, and Doe was formally expelled this past summer.
The student submitted two appeals to reverse the decision to Vice President for Academic Affairs Andrea Lloyd and Presi- dent of the College Laurie Pat- ton. Both requests were denied.
Doe was expected to graduate in the summer of 2016. His complaint states the expulsion will cost him a position with a company he was to join upon graduation that offered him a $10,000 signing bonus, $5,000 in relocation fees, and a starting salary of $85,000.
Middlebury College’s response to the lawsuit stated the following:
A Middlebury College undergraduate student who was recently expelled from the College following a finding that he committed a sexual assault has filed suit against the College in the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont. As the complaint states, the student was expelled in August following a finding that he sexually assaulted a non-Middlebury student in November 2014 while both were attending a non-Middlebury study abroad program.
As stated in the complaint, the finding and the sanction of expulsion were upheld on appeal through the Middlebury process.
We regret that the student and his family have chosen to file suit against Middlebury College. We are confident in the policies and practices we have in place when dealing with allegations of sexual misconduct, and believe that they were properly followed in this case.
We will respond to the lawsuit and associated motions in due course, but we have no further comment at this time.
A motion hearing was held on Tuesday, Sep. 15, 2015. Details of the outcome, if any, are currently unavailable.
(05/06/15 8:32pm)
A faculty meeting was held on Tuesday, April 28 to address heightened student stress as the semester comes to a close. Out of what some have called an “emergency meeting” emerged a community-wide conversation on short-term methods to mitigate anxiety and the acknowledgement that long-term goals and sustained conversation should be had on better supporting student mental health.
Though academic stress is acute this time of year, the meeting came as a reaction to what has been an extremely difficult semester as the College community mourns the loss of student Nathan Alexander ’17, staff member Kelly Boe and faculty members Robert Prasch and Young Hie Kim.
“Members of the faculty, administration and staff were recognizing that this has become a very stressful semester on campus...but also reflecting that state of the world right now. There are events happening in the United States that are stressful; there are earthquakes in Nepal that are stressful and tragic...And then we had Nathan’s death which I think really focused energy on that fact that people are feeling overwhelmed, which only heightened that anxiety and stress,” said Executive Director of Health and Counseling Services Gus Jordan.
“Every spring semester has an energy to it, a crescendo of stress towards finals, but this year is distinct. It feels different and it feels urgent. We have talked about it a lot in smaller groups. I spend a lot of time talking to Commons deans, counseling staff, Scott center staff, others student life members about the fact that the number of students who are seeking support from Commons deans or counseling staff is at an all time high,” said Dean of the College Katy Smith Abbott.
A Strain on Resources: Vermont’s Psychiatric Care Crisis
Students have been seeking support from Parton counseling services and the Counseling Services of Addison County (CSAC) at higher levels than ever before. Jordan estimates that five more students each week, all year, have come in for counseling support compared to last year. Higher demand has put a tangible strain on resources.
“There is currently a psychiatric care crisis in Vermont,” said Jordan, referring to the limited number of trained psychiatrists in the state.
College students are currently given priority for CSAC appointments and psychiatric evaluations, thanks to a contract between the College and CSAC that goes back many years. Students are typically offered appointments within a week to ten days, though wait times can be longer depending on student class times and schedules.
Hannah Quinn ’16, co-founder of the Resilience Project, a project aimed at bringing conversation and awareness to mental health issues on campus, shared her own story on struggling with depression earlier this year.
“I posted a story on Facebook when I felt like there was a complete lack of conversation about mental health issues on campus and it’s something I have always felt the need to hide,” said Quinn.
“I wanted to open up the dialogue and see if there was a better way to address these issues,” she added.
“What’s the hardest thing you’ve ever done?” reads the Resilience Project homepage and encourages students to share their own stories of triumph and trauma and to engage in a much-needed conversation on how we process mental health and stress as a community.
As Quinn reflects on institutional changes she would like to see in order to better support students, she points to a lack of resources and to culture.
“It’s frustrating. Parton is always strapped and so is CSAC in town. There is a much higher demand than there are resources right now,” says Quinn.
However, though the faculty meeting last Tuesday only looked at short-term solutions for getting through April and May, the importance of having an ongoing conversation on the community culture was emphasized.
“The meeting was an opportunity for those of us who had been considering this question to propose some changes faculty could make during the rest of the semester. It wasn’t meant to be prescriptive and it wasn’t meant to be all or nothing. It was like, ‘Here’s a menu of things you could consider,’” said Smith Abbott.
Some options the faculty considered are dropping a final assignment, making an assignment optional or opening up their classrooms for conversations about student stress.
“We sometimes forget how impactful a single conversation between a student and a faculty member can be. I think faculty know that, but we are awash in the busyness of teaching, of publishing, of committee work and to just stop collectively and say, ‘Don’t forget the power of a conversation,’” added Smith Abbott.
Busyness: The Trademark of this Generation
However, President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz pointed out at the meeting that this isn’t a new issue. In 2007 he convened a forum between students and faculty members about student stress to reflect on the busyness of student lives, a trademark on this generation.
“Students come to us masterful in being busy all the time. Some of that is amazing dedication to academics, which was true in high school and remains true here, but I think almost every student I know was incredibly busy in high school and probably before that...So students are experts at filling every hour and I think some students, certainly not all, feel at sea when they are not busy all the time,” said Smith Abbott.
What differentiates this semester from any other spring, when finals can lure even the calmest of students into disarray, is the sentiment of loss and grief.
“The thing I have felt most acutely this spring is that when you are really good at being busy, it can be true that you are not good at making space to take in the magnitude of an event like a suicide or a tragic death or an earthquake in Nepal or astonishingly discouraging outbreak of rioting and racial tension sweeping the country. That you just don’t have the space to step back and say, ‘This is really affecting me.’ I think the inability to make that space is a stressor as well,” concluded Smith Abbott.
As the semester wraps up and the sentiment of sadness sits heavy on us all, the faculty, staff and students seem more engaged, willing and energized than ever to make this issue a priority.
“I think there is enough energy and conversation among all of Middlebury’s constituencies, including, students, staff and faculty, that this will be an ongoing conversation about what we are seeing on campus and what we can do about it,” said Jordan.
Looking to the Future
Any conversations about student mental health will likely extend into the next academic year, given that the conversation has only begun toward the end of this semester.
Because of the steps that some faculty have taken in their courses in recent weeks to mitigate stress around finals, many are contemplating what long-term pedagogical adjustments might aid in creating a healthier environment.
To some, it means reevaluating what ‘rigor’ means when assigning coursework.
“A fruitful conversation [to have] is our definition of rigor and our definition of academic excellence,” said Tara Affolter, assistant professor of Education Studies.
“I think it’s lazy thinking to say that rigor means, ‘I’m going to pile on as much work as I can.’ Rigor is in the craft of, ‘What are you looking at? How deeply are you looking at this? How are you making connections across texts, across classes?’” she said.
Charles A. Dana Professor of Political Science Murray Dry thought that what is required of students is fair.
“I don’t think the expectations are unreasonably excessive here, and my sense is that most students know how to balance a set of courses,” Dry said. “I know I’m on one extreme in terms of expectations but I don’t think I’m unreasonable and I think that the students who take the courses are able to do it. Students don’t flunk out, and they’re doing good work, and fortunately, I guess, no one’s required to take my course.”
Professor of Psychology Barbara Hofer stated that she did not believe courses have become more demanding. She suggested constant social connectivity as a recent development that not only takes up a student’s time but also contributes to their stress, as they are “always on,” with little time for reflection.
“To a person, I haven’t met a faculty member who says they’re assigning more work than they did ten years ago. Most people have had a fairly steady sense of what is appropriate here and what their syllabi look like, but students are reacting much more strongly [to the workload],” Hofer said.
Multiple professors in interviews with the Campus spoke about junior faculty sometimes feeling their syllabi are scrutinized for rigor during the tenure process.
“If senior faculty feel as if you’re not serious enough, not hard enough, not difficult enough, there is a tendency to dismiss you as not a good teacher,” said Laurie Essig, associate professor of Sociology and Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies. She sees the pressures on junior faculty from senior faculty as systematic in higher education and not unique to the College.
“I definitely know from my conversations with junior faculty that they’ve felt pressured to cover a great deal of material,” said Senior Lecturer in Environmental Studies Rebecca Gould. Gould also emphasized that students can get more intellectual rewards out of a seemingly less voluminous workload even though the perception might be that a professor is reducing a course’s rigor.
Stress is not only a product of class work — extracurricular activities, home life, financial burdens and the search for employment after graduation are common sources of anxiety for many students at the College.
“It’s clear to me that this is a tough time to think about jobs after college. You’ve got pressures now, you’re anticipating pressures of the future, and for a number of students anticipating significant amounts of college debt,” said Larry Yarbrough, Pardon Tillinghast professor of Religion and director of the Scott Center for Spiritual and Religious Life.
Improving mental health will be the responsibility of many constituencies across the College community. Pedagogical adjustments are in focus now because of the faculty meeting, but a student culture of overwork and the spectra of the indomitable “MiddKid” is perceived by many as areas where social and academic pressures overlap.
“I think the ideal MiddKid is someone who doesn’t struggle academically, doesn’t struggle socially…and the only sort of weakness they’ll show is saying, ‘Oh I have a ton of work’,” Drew Jenkins ’15 said.
Julia Shumlin ’17.5 expressed a similar sentiment, and believed that change would have to come from within the student body.
“I think a lot of it falls on the students and the atmosphere that we have here and the fact that we put a lot of pressure on ourselves,” Shumlin said. “I do think a lot of it is on the students to create a less competitive atmosphere and to value ourselves for more than just our academic selves.”
It is not only academic pressure that weighs on students. Many are heavily involved in one or more extracurricular activities that demand their time and energy. Nevertheless, Katy Svec ’15 sees her involvement as valuable.
“For me [stage managing] is more rewarding because I know that’s exactly what I want to do when I graduate. I really enjoy the change of pace that I get from [doing] theatre. It is simultaneously more rewarding and more stressful than any of my classes. I spend more hours in one week stage managing a show than I will for any other class for the rest of the semester,” she said.
Some faculty called into question how the demands of student’s extracurricular activities compete with time for class work. Dry suggested that non-academic over-involvement was a habit learned in high school.
“We have encouraged it by the weight that we as an institution give to extracurriculars in high school,” Dry said. Others, like Gould, called into question their perceived importance.
“What pressures are [students] putting on themselves that they could change? I see it mostly in extracurriculars where students feel like they have to take a ton of extracurriculars because somehow that matters for their future. It often does not matter at all to employers,” Gould said.
Nevertheless, Gould said that neither students nor faculty can solve the problem on their own, emphasizing that it is a community concern.
Gould is currently engaged in a new book project entitled Spacious. She is insistent on the need to find mental relief from the demands of modern life, while being critical of an American culture of busyness.
Many would contend that a culture of overwork is observable at the College. It is difficult to discern how much of that culture is driven by student exceptionalism and how much of it is a product of pedagogy. That culture is built on a network of expectations — those of parents, professors, coaches, peers and potential employers.
Vice President for Academic Affairs and Dean of the Faculty Andi Lloyd emphasized improving student mental health an as opportunity to pose sweeping questions to our community.
“What does it means to live life at the pace at which we’re all living life? What does it mean to not have time to reflect?” she said.
Additional reporting by Henry Burnett
(04/22/15 4:36am)
On Saturday, April 11, two students from the College were fishing approximately 15 minutes away from Middlebury along the New Haven River and discovered a clearing with 15 to 20 mutilated, dismembered dogs. The students, Matt and Michael, who requested their full names not be disclosed, immediately reported the incident to the Middlebury Police Department (MPD), who directed them to speak with the Vermont State Police (VSP). The case is currently under investigation and the VSP are working with the owner of the property to uncover what occurred.
“There were paws—cut-up paws with fur on them—scattered around, skulls of different animals. Most of them, I thought, looked like dog skulls,” Michael said.
The students had been participating in the Otter Creek Classic, an annual fishing tournament organized by local shop Middlebury Mountaineer. Both confirmed they had been fishing alone for approximately three and a half hours, before getting off the river to walk back to their cars.
“We got out in someone’s yard, which is usually fine to do if you’re fishing,” Matt said.
The two came across a clearing, where they found the decaying carcass of an animal.
“At first, it looked like [another] animal may have brought [the carcass] to this spot to eat it or kill it. We walked about ten more steps and saw another, and we realized this whole yard is littered with what looks like dog skeletons. We both thought these had to be dogs, just looking at the skulls and teeth,” Matt said.
“We became skeptical of who did this and whether it was an animal or a person,” he continued.
The two stated the bodies appeared to be in different stages of decay.
“Some looked like they had been there for months, and some were still furry, fleshy, bloody—maybe a couple weeks [old],” Michael said.
“It wasn’t always a full body,” Matt added, “A lot of times it was bones and bits and pieces of bodies scattered everywhere.”
The way in which the dogs had been dismembered indicated to Michael that another animal could not be responsible.
“They were not eaten by another animal. I knew humans did that,” he said.
Next to the clearing was a house that both Michael and Matt described as being disheveled. The smell from the decaying animals was incredibly potent and both students remain convinced that the owner of the property had to know about the clearing.
“If you were living there, you would have to know [about the carcasses],” Matt said. “The smell was horrible.”
He added, “The thought entered my mind that someone depraved and sick might live there.”
Michael also described an abandoned school bus that was near the house and the clearing.
“It was the last thing I wanted to see at that momemt,” he said.
At that point, the two students immediately returned to their car. Upon their return to the College, Michael went to the MPD and the case was quickly handed to the VSP.
“I expressed my concern that it might be a young sociopath who is struggling to get a hold of himself. Violence against animals is a telltale sign,” said Michael.
Current research supports the link between violence towards animals and violence and/or killing of humans. In a study of tendencies of serial killers, Wright and Hensley (2003) discovered that more that 21 percent of their sample of 354 had reported cases of animal cruelty. Ressler et. al (1998) also indicated that a concerning number of the 36 convinced murderers they studied admitted to committing cruelty towards animals. Likewise, the Federal Bureau of Investigation (Band & Harpold, 1999), the American Psychological Association (1999), the International Association of Chiefs of Police (1999) have all published checklists for warning signs of school shooters. All of the lists include violence towards animals.
The police have asked that people use discretion when discussing the case as it is currently under investigation.
Howver, Michael indicated to the Campus that the police seemed concerned and were taking the investigation seriously. Michael also indicated that the police would keep him posted on any developments in the case.
Now that the case has been passed on to the police, both students are grappling with what they saw.
“It was by far the most disturbing thing I have ever seen,” said Michael.
He described the moment after they had discovered the dogs as “panic” as he made sure no one was watching them. Both students made it back to their car without incident.
Students are urged to report any leads they may have or concerns they have to the Middlebury Police Department or the Vermont State Police.
(02/26/15 1:57am)
If you’ve read the editorial this week or the news article from last week, you know that the a group of Stanford students discovered that that they have access to reader’ comments on their admissions files through the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act. We as an editorial board are grappling with the question of whether we support Middlebury students going to Emma Willard to view their admissions files. The issue split our editorial board, but here is why we suggest that students think twice before taking advantage of this loophole.
1. Ask yourselves why you want to know. Is it for an ego boost? Are you just curious? Do you think seeing your file will provide helpful feedback for future applications? Students viewing their files need to be prepared for the possibility that it will be an unpleasant experience; that they will see things they didn’t want to know, such as low ratings, harsh comments, and language that could be considered tokenizing. We feel that there is relatively little to be gained from the experience and that viewing one’s file is potentially opening a Pandora’s box, with far-reaching consequences for students and admissions officers alike. Now if you don’t buy into the individual repercussions that you could face, see reasons 2 & 3 for concerns and potential consequences that could affect us all.
2. This is the busiest time of year for admissions offices across the country and we don’t think that Dean of Admissions Greg Buckles or anyone else in the committee should be taking time away from reviewing applications to explain to students in individual fifteen-minute meetings why they were admitted to Middlebury. It’s a misallocation of resources and it’s frankly not their job, even though it may now be their obligation under law.
3. We worry that admissions readers will be less candid in their commentary of applicants if students continue to opt to see their files. Our editorial encourages admissions to continue to be incisive and write as if no one were reading, but we feel that is an unrealistic suggestion. It’s human nature to edit and contort your evaluation of someone when you know that they will be reading what is said. However, we believe the censoring of these comments could be extremely detrimental to the admissions process. This is why the Common Application prompts students to waive their right to see recommendations: so that teachers and counselors can write honestly and openly about students. If we take away that venue, how will admissions continue to have incisive conversations that lead to well-informed decisions?
4. Finally, we find it a bit ridiculous that the same students who didn’t even know this loophole existed until roughly a month ago are now filled with righteous indignation over perceived threats to this “right.”
Ultimately, we write for a newspaper. It goes without saying that we advocate for transparency and freedom of press when it serves a greater good. But we remain unconvinced that this is one of those instances and we are skeptical that the potential benefits outweigh the costs. We aren’t telling you what to do; we are merely suggesting that each of you take a minute to understand the potential consequences of the choice you are making.
(02/12/15 3:20am)
A discovery by a group of Stanford University students could bring an unprecedented level of transparency to the college admissions process, after an anonymous Stanford campus publication released the finding that the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) stipulates that students have the right to see their educational records, including admissions files and comments on students’ applications.
Upon a Campus inquiry, Dean of Admissions Greg Buckles confirmed that FERPA does ensure this right for all students and that this discovery could change the admission process.
“I’m talking to the deans at our peer schools and we are all asking each other, ‘What are you going to do? What are you going to do?’” Buckles said.
Though FERPA has always protected this right, requests for access to educational records have snowballed in the past six weeks after the group of students printed their discovery in a campus newsletter, The Fountain Hopper.
Though each campus has witnessed different reactions, Buckles confirmed that the Middlebury College Admissions Office has received five requests to view educational records, three from current students and two from alumni.
“What we are trying to do is fully abide by and cooperate with those laws, but also make sure we are protecting privacy and understanding exactly what privacy means,” said Buckles.
The College policy is to keep admissions files for matriculating students during all four years and shred them after graduation. Files of students who are rejected or who do not matriculate are only kept for two years.
Therefore, the two alumni requests could not be catered to, but the three current students received an email from Buckles confirming that they could come in and view their file.
Sarah Sicular ’16 was one of those students. After reading the BuzzFeed article on the Stanford students, she decided to contact Admissions and see if this assertion was in fact true.
“I feel like admissions is such a non-transparent process, and I am curious about how their decision making happens. I feel like by seeing my own information, I could gain insight into how it works,” Sicular said.
The Stanford students suggest language to use when asking for your files and admissions should comply within 45 days.
On Jan. 20, Sicular wrote to Admissions: “Hello! This is a FERPA access request. I am requesting access to all documents held by the Middlebury Office of Undergraduate Admission, including without limitation a complete copy of any admissions records kept in my name in any and all university offices, including the Undergraduate Admission Workcard and all associated content (including without limitation the qualitative and quantitative assessments of any ‘readers,’ demographics data, interview records); any e-mails, notes, memoranda, video, audio, or other documentary material maintained by the Office of Undergraduate Admissions. I look forward to receiving access to these documents within 45 calendar days. Thank you!”
By Feb. 9, she had an answer, where Admissions stated that she could make an appointment to come in and view the files online.
It seems perfectly simple, but there have been a number of concerns and legal complications. One of several concerns has been the ability to honor all of these requests. Buckles has indicated that if the number stays small, it is easy to comply with requests; however, if hundreds of students suddenly want to see files, then this could become a fulltime job.
Likewise, the files often are coded and abbreviated in a way that would be hard for a non-admissions counselor to differentiate. FERPA protects students who wish to see their files, but it doesn’t explicitly state that the files have to be read or explained to students. And taking the time to translate the files to each student who requests could be resource intensive.
However, that may not stop the requests.
As it stands now, students will be able to see their two reader comments, which is often a paragraph detailing the overall impression the candidate has left. Students would also see the 1-7 rating they received for academic strength, extracurricular contribution and personal quality and the recommended decision: accept, deny, defer or wait list.
Technically, high school teacher recommendations are in the file as well, but most students waived their right to view said recommendations in the Common Application.
However, Buckles has indicated that he is much more worried about the communication of sensitive information than he is about the numeric ratings students are given.
“What I’m more concerned about is us trying to take into account much more personal and sensitive information like someone’s ability to flourish here or other very sensitive issues that could be of concern, like of one’s ability to have a roommate or function in a demanding environment. We have all kinds of considerations legally about that.”
In the coming weeks, Admissions will meet with the Presidential cabinet and the Board of Trustees’ Committee on Risk to manage the risk associated with making these files public. The coming weeks will demonstrate where this law is going and how it can influence college admissions.
“The issue comes down to how much is too much knowledge,” said Thilan Tudor ’16, a student employee in the Admissions Office.
“While obtaining information on our strengths and weaknesses seems appealing, having this information presented in the context of an admissions decision can be tough. College applications are comprehensive snapshots of one’s high school years and having a holistic admission process means that every aspect of an application is rigorously evaluated in a candid straightforward manner,” he concluded.
Leaving the choice to view these records in the hands of individuals could have long-term ramifications, especially surrounding the future legitimacy of the admission process.
“The potential downside is this could neutralize one’s ability to write candidly and sensitively about an applicant,” said Buckles.
“It could it have a chilling effect, even more so than there is already, on a teachers willingness to write frank and honest and helpful evaluations,” Buckles said.
(10/29/14 10:02pm)
On Wednesday, Oct. 22 an impromptu meeting was held between a group of Middlebury town residents and the administration after off-campus parties on Weybridge Street over Homecoming Weekend and throughout the semester left many neighbors frustrated.
“We feel a commitment to responding to the concerns of neighbors. We of course want to believe that our students have a genuine respect for what it means to live in a close-knit community in a small town neighborhood. During the first meeting with neighbors (Wednesday, October 22), many of the concerns raised by participants were with respect … people said things such as ‘I just want to have someone look me in the eye’ and ‘I want to know that I’m being seen by my neighbors.’ I think that’s very much a small town expectation. People don’t live anonymously here and I think it’s bewildering to them to think that students don’t want to step into a friendly, neighborhood relationship,” said Dean of Students Katy Smith Abbott.
The meeting involved 17 people, including Associate Dean of Students Doug Adams, Abbott, Special Assistant to the President Dave Donahue, Director of Public Safety Lisa Burchard, Middlebury Chief of Police Tom Haley, and nine local residents — one a landlord and the rest neighbors who were concerned about student off-campus living.
The main concerns brought up by the neighbors were a lack of respect and communication between students living off-campus and town residents. However, concerns about respect went beyond just being disruptive during parties, but also day-to-day interactions from not saying hello to not making eye contact.
Though a very small percentage of College students live off campus, they are widespread enough to have contact with many residents (see graphic for details). The College currently has a lottery system that allows a finite number of students to live off campus each year. The number fluctuates between 90-120 and this year it is the full 120 students. However, off-campus partying is not new, but some neighbors perceive it to be worse in the recent years.
“I can tell you now that we have owned the house on Weybridge Street for around 20 years. It used to be a fairly quiet neighborhood. Our children grew up there since the youngest was in fourth grade,” town resident Stephanie Smith said.
“But in the last four years the problems have gotten increasingly worse. Noise, rude and inconsiderate people, drinking parties lasting all night long — even when police come to help,” she continued.
Another neighbor who wished to remain anonymous told the Campus Voice her experience during Homecoming weekend:
“Thursday we were woken up multiple times throughout the night by people just howling on the streets, slamming closed doors, and just being generally loud and rude so we didn’t get much sleep. So when Friday came and the party was growing more and more out of control, I decided to sleep at my mother in-laws’ house because I had to work in the morning. When I went to leave I couldn’t pull out of my driveway because it was so full of people. I had to inch my car along to get people to move and then what really made me mad was that there was one guy who just kind of turned and saw me and moved just an inch to the left and gave someone the finger across the street. Its just infuriating to have to sleep somewhere else so that I can be well rested for work and then to get this attitude when I’m trying to leave my own driveway and not be able to,” she said.
However, though the meeting called for by town residents and announced by Head of College Communications Bill Burger on a local town forum, The Front Porch Forum, did not include students, many students living off campus have expressed their concern for how the neighbors feel and want to work towards a solution.
“The relationship between students and the town is damaged right now and I think the town’s complaints are legitimate,” said Emily Alper ’15. “As much as they don’t want parties with a hundred students, we don’t want 100 students coming to our house, but because of the school’s short-sighted, tyrannical policies there aren’t on-campus party options. My freshman year, I would have so many different parties away from the town to choose from, and now when I talk to underclassmen, they think off-campus houses are central party space and that has never been the case.”
One major component of this dialogue has been the need for on-campus party spaces, specifically since of the closing of Prescott House and that DKE House was not opened during Homecoming weekend, as it was in past years.
“I understand that our neighbors have the right to go about their days peacefully,” said Nic Strain ’15. “And it is not our intention to disrupt them, but at the same time we are just trying to enjoy our college experience. I don’t think the administration is being transparent enough with the Middlebury community; there is a direct correlation between the actions of the administration [banning tailgates/not opening DKE] and the events that transpired over Homecoming Weekend. We didn’t want to have people over, especially not at that volume, but there was nowhere else for students to go, and that is an issue that is falling on the shoulders of those who live off campus, which needs to be addressed,” he continued.
However, though the meeting did focus on the particularly tense relationship that has transpired between students and neighbors, the exchanges were not all negative. Peter Jette, town resident and landlord to over 20 students expressed his genuine appreciation for college students during an interview with the Campus Voice.
“I have enough experience with the students as tenants to make a judgment and they’ve been terrific. I can count on one hand the number of problems I’ve had. I didn’t even know what that Front Porch Forum was until someone sent me a clip from it so I joined it because it kind of annoyed me that the only comments pertaining to Middlebury off-campus housing were negative,” Jette said.
“I can just tell you that the tenants have been great; they pay rent on time, they take care of places for the most part, and I chat with them when they pay rent because my office is near by and they’re terrific tenants and most of them are terrific people,” he concluded.
These conversations coincide with other conversations that have been happening on Community Council and throughout the College about the implementation of a social honor code that would hold students accountable, with written documentation, for their actions. Although only a discussion as of now, the College is beginning to look at what a social honor code could mean.
“I would like students to hold each other accountable, to be willing to accept responsibility when things go off the rails (and to ask for help when they see this happening). Whether a social honor code (which has been the subject of many conversations in the past several years) is required to make this possible is an open question,” Abbott said.
(10/01/14 10:41pm)
Twilight Auditorium was packed on Wednesday, Sept. 24 to hear William M. Rodgers III give the fall 2014 David K. Smith Economics lecture entitled “Will the Economic Boom of the 1990s, known as the ‘Roaring 1990’s’ ever return.”
The David K. Smith Lecture series was established in the early 1990s after beloved alumnus and Economics professor D.K. Smith. A gift from the Schaffer family, the lecture series brings a distinguished guest lecturer to the College to give an Economics talk each semester. Past lecturers have addressed issues such as income inequality, the wage gap between men and women and other economic and social issues.
Rodgers, a professor of Public Policy and the Chief Economist at the Heldrich Center for Workforce Development at Rutgers University, has focused his research on social inequality, skill gaps, macroeconomic policy and the labor market, and most recently the federal minimum wage.
In his introductory statement, Rodgers dedicated the talk to recently deceased Squash Coach John Illig. The two attended high school together.
“[Illig] demonstrated throughout his career the steadfast commitment to understanding, motivating, and educating young people,” said Rodgers.
Because of his expertise on the federal minimum wage, he has appeared in multiple media outlets including Meet the Press and the Financial Times, but he also has testified for the Economic Committee within the United States’ Congress.
“In essence, he is highly visible outside of academia,” said David K. Smith Professor of Applied Economics Phani Wunnava.
“In my view, he is one of the leading African-American labor economists in the country researching on different aspects of labor related policies,” said Wunnava in his opening remarks.
The talk focused on why the recovery post the 2008 recession has been so anemic. Rodgers went on to suggest, based off of his research, what policies the US needs to revitalize job growth.
He noted that since the 1990s the labor forced has changed dramatically due to technology, globalization, and diversity.
“Cultural competence is now more important than ever,” said Williams. “The way American looks today is very different from 15 years from now.”
He also noted that since the 1990s there has also been a steady decline in the labor share, or the share of compensation going to workers.
He broke down the recovery into different parts. The first , from June 2009 to February 2010, is referred to the jobless recovery. Then in February of 2010, the US economy began to add jobs. He refers to the period from February 2010 to the present as the pothole recovery.
He indicated that on average 150,000 jobs are being added per month, which is just enough to “keep us above water,” according to Rodgers, given the number of college graduates and others joining the labor force.
Rodgers went on to discuss the biggest challenges of this recession including long term unemployment, unhealthy levels of income inequality, and the absence of private sector job creation.
He then suggested that several factors such as the fall of consumption and government expenditures, and the fall of the budget deficit as not more significant in this recession than in other comparable recessions, begging the question of what is different in this recession. Why has this recovery been so drawn out?
Rodgers then introduced Alice, “asset limited, Income constrained, employed.” He defined “Alice” as households who do not earn enough to afford housing, childcare, food, transportation, and health care, pointing out that since 1958 there has been a steady decline in the government’s investment of its own people, after 1.2 trillion dollars worth of spending cuts were made, which mostly focused on investment in human capital. This decrease investment has created what he calls a group of “very vulnerable” Americans, like Alice.
He suggested that when Alice cannot meet her family’s needs then there is a negative impact on everyone and that we have an obligation to help Alice, to invest in her with education and training, Medicare, social security, for a greater good.
He claimed that the key to recovery is the reinvestment in people.
(09/24/14 8:26pm)
On Tuesday Sept. 16, just days before the first football game of the season, an all-school e-mail was sent detailing a new tailgate policy, in which alcohol is prohibited at all venues, including in the tailgate area, as is amplified music. The email, signed by Dean of Students Katy Smith Abbott, Director of Public Safety Elizabeth Burchard and Athletic Director Erin Quinn and which cites ensuring a safe, healthy environment and consistency with the NESCAC sportsmanship clause as the main reasons, came as a shock to multiple constituencies within the College community.
Though Quinn and President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz assert that the conversation of changing this policy formally began last year, and years before informally, the all-school email was the first time that students were looped into the conversation, including elected student officials like SGA President Taylor Custer ’15.
“I was shocked that the student body wasn’t consulted in any way. If I hadn’t heard anything about it, then it’s unlikely that any student had,” Custer said.
“Students--particularly those legally old enough to drink— do not understand why that liberty is being taken away without reason,” added Francesca Haass ’16.5 in a letter to Liebowitz.
“They are frankly insulted that the school chose to justify this policy change with an email that was, for lack of a better word, bulls--t. If you are going to take away freedoms from students, have the courtesy and courage to do so in an honest manner rather than couching it in a vague NESCAC statement. Maybe you do have very legitimate reasons, and I think the students would be very interested in hearing your arguments so that a real debate about student life on Middlebury’s campus can take place,” Haass’ letter read.
A petition entitled “Reverse Changes in the New Tailgating Policy” was drafted through WeTheMiddKids and received 2,507 votes, by far the largest number of votes an SGA petition has received since its formation.
However, college officials stand by the argument that there is clear reasoning for their decision, including one incident which Quinn refers to as the “tipping point”: the homecoming game versus Trinity College.
“An unmanageable number of students and alumni, I couldn’t tell you the exact number, but well over 100, were very intoxicated,” Quinn explained.
“I was getting phone calls from Public Safety saying, ‘Erin, we are trying to clear the parking lot and get people back into the stadium so that they will stop drinking. They are really drunk; they are belligerent; they are swearing at us, but they don’t want to go into the game.’”
Quinn explained that prior to this point, the College had made some incremental changes to the tailgating policy in response to what he calls “an increasing number of belligerent students and alumni at games.”
One incremental change was the decision to open the tailgate area only an hour and a half before kickoff to limit on-site drinking. Likewise, College policy mandated that the tailgate area be cleared after kickoff and then again once after halftime, in attempts to limit alcohol consumption.
At the Trinity game, however, Quinn instructed Public Safety to keep the students and alumni within the tailgate area, despite the policy.
“If they can’t handle them out there, contained and isolated, then it will be far worse inside the stadium. So I thought how can we minimize liability, because we don’t have the people in the stadium to control them. That in and of itself is a scene that is not acceptable,” Quinn said.
According to Quinn, some tailgaters went on to steal food and beverages from Trinity families and run across the road to use the bathroom publically.
However, what many constituencies have taken objection to the most is not the justification for the policy, but the lack of transparency around the decision making process itself.
At an SGA meeting with Quinn and Smith Abbott, SGA Senator Michael Brady ’17.5 asked about demonstrated this concern.
“I think what a lot of students are struggling with is that we weren’t given any real, hard facts about the bad behavior. The Trinity game was mentioned, but do you have any hard facts? Was there a big increase in property damage, hospital visits, or complaints from community members?” Brady said.
Quinn stressed Public Safety’s inability to contain students, and its efforts to keep the local police from intervening.
“I know this might not be satisfactory, but we don’t have any hard data,” Quinn answered.
One alum and current parent also voiced his concerns about what the policy would lead to.
“Banning alcohol and witch-hunting underage drinking on campus doesn’t work well anyway, it just creates smaller groups, drives students off-campus, and encourages pre gaming type behavior,” he explained.
“I understand that the administration wants to get the drinking under control at events,” alumna and current parent Heidi Lehner ’72 said. “But drinking amongst even underclassmen is inevitable and I am concerned with the binge drinking culture increasing on campus.”
Liebowitz sent an all school e-mail on Tuesday, Sept. 23 offering context for the tailgating policy, in which he apologized for not being more transparent, “It is clear that preparatory communications would have served everyone, including us, well and so we apologize for what was a surprise to many,” he stated.
That said, Old Chapel was not immediately apologetic. In one meeting with the Campus, it was explained that the College does not usually consult students on policy changes that affect all of the College’s constituencies.
While Burchard felt that the administration’s communication to students on this issue has been overlooked.
“We have communicated to students about the tailgate policy,” Burchard explained. “Last year we sent a campus wide notice explaining all of the tailgate rules. We posted signs at the tailgate area, and officers and security staff members warned people when the rules were being violated or if conduct was unacceptable. “
Likewise, Liebowitz referenced a Community Council meeting in March, where a conversation about the policy change took place. Although it was mentioned, there is no reference to the policy in the minutes of that meeting.
Despite different perceptions of what was communicated, there have been over-whelming amounts of both positive and negative feedback, however, the threat from alumni to withdraw donations is concerning.
“Many of the younger class agents are resigning which is worrisome,” said President of the Alumni Association Bob Sideli.
Although he does not think the affect on contributions to the college will be “dramatic,” he expresses “anything that causes the [alumni] to disconnect is unfortunate.”
But the feedback has by no means been consistently bad.
“We received emails from some NESCAC schools, I won’t say which ones, but who more or less hinted that this may have broken the ice and other schools might follow; no one seemed to want to step out front and address an issue that was really coming into focus at other schools as well,” Liebowitz concluded.
(09/17/14 10:38pm)
This past April, Middlebury College entered into a one-year contract with TurboVote, online software that seeks to streamline the voter registration process.
“It takes three minutes to sign up, and you can register in any state,” said Hannah Bristol ’14.5, who worked at TurboVote this past summer after leading the initiative to bring the software to campus.
Once registered, TurboVote will send text reminders of local and national elections to registered voters. The company also sends absentee ballot requests directly to the College, which as a part of its contract has agreed to pay for the postage for up to 4,000 users within the Middlebury community, including faculty and staff.
Before TurboVote, MiddVote, the student group that brought this software to the community, carried paper registration forms for students, but state regulations only allowed the forms to be held for a certain amount of time.
“It was messy legally,” explained Kate Hamilton ’15.5, who is running MiddVote this year with Bristol.
The process to vote from Middlebury can be tricky for students voting at home. They have to register to vote, request absentee forms, fill out those forms and send them back to the home state, only for the ballot to be sent back and filled out for the election.
“It can be logistically challenging and time consuming,” added Bristol.
TurboVote seeks to make the process of registering and voting in local and national elections as easy as possible.
“The software really does help multiple groups of people,” explained TurboVote Director of Partnerships Sam Novey. “It helps non-registered citizens become registered, but also helps people who were previously registered in local elections that they may not know were occurring. It also simplifies the process for people who would vote anyways, in local or national elections, but may have a more difficult experience doing so.”
TurboVote, which began as a pilot program at Boston University in 2010, has now entered into contract with 208 different universities and registered over 200,000 voters.
The majority of the registered colleges and universties are in Florida, where all of the state’s public universities signed up for the software. Virginia schools, State University of New York (SUNY) schools, and Texas schools have also signed on.
“Educational institutions are easy clients to target for this product,” said Bristol. “Many students vote for the first time while they are in college, and especially at a school like Middlebury, many are voting absentee.”
Colleges also have a vested interest in investing in the software, as educational institutions are required by the federal Higher Education Amendments of 1998 to make a good faith effort to distribute voter registration materials.
Associate Director for Community Engagement Ashley Laux, who approved College funding for this product through the Community Engagement Office, confirmed that this year would be a trial.
“If it proves to be an effective way for students to register to vote and request absentee ballots, then we will look into renewing it,” she said.
People who vote when they are young are more likely to form a habit and vote regularly later in life, according to the Center for Information & Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE). Yet in the last midterm elections in 2010, only 45 percent of citizens 18-24 were registered and only 21 percent voted.
Since Sept. 16, 119 Middlebury students have registered to vote using TurboVote, with a big registration push coming this week in conjunction with National Voter Registration Day on Sept. 23. 109 of these students requested materials to vote absentee.
“I think it’s a really innovative software,” said President of College Democrats Chris Kennedy ’15. “It will have a substantial effect on the number of people MiddVote will be able to register this year. This in turn will greatly enhance our capacity as a school to engage in political dialogue.”
The Middlebury College Republicans did not respond to a request for comment.
Both TurboVote and MiddVote are nonpartisan and do not promote either political party.
Students face particular challenges when voting because of increasingly complicated voting requirements in some states. Because young people tend to vote left, voting has become a partisan issue, inspiring fierce national debates all the way to the Supreme Court, who overturned provisions of the Voting Rights Act of 1965 last summer. Students who live out of state for several years often face barriers to voter registration that permanent residents do not.
State regulations such as appearing in person to register or time restrictions that only allow for registration a month before elections make the process even more challenging for those completing the process out of state. But Bristol and Hamilton agree that Middlebury students must do everything they can to vote in the Nov. 6 elections.
“As college students we can’t run for office, we don’t have a lot of money, and we are underrepresented in most parts of our lives, but voting is where we are equal to our parents and grandparents,” said Bristol.
“The Boston Globe had this spread on the effort to register voters in the south after the Voting Rights act passed. I think so often people think of voting as something boring, and reading that article reminded me of what a hard-fought right it is for so many and how important it is to vote and honor the fight,” concluded Hamilton.
(05/08/14 12:32am)
On Tuesday, May 13 the faculty will vote on a motion to sever the College’s ties with K12, Inc., the corporation that the College has partnered with to create Middlebury Interactive Languages (MIL), a foreign language education program for K-12 students. While the motion carries no weight — only the Board of Trustees has the power to sever ties with K12 — it is the most salient push back to one of President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz’s efforts.
“The business practices of K12, Inc. are at odds with the integrity, reputation, and educational mission of the College,” said the motion, which was obtained by the Campus. French Professor Paula Schwartz submitted the motion.
In an email to the entire faculty on May 2 — also obtained by the Campus — Schwartz summarized the accusations into three categories, urging her colleagues to vote in favor of the motion.
The first was that K12, Inc. had been sued by a number of states for false claims and dubious practices. Secondly, that MIL’s product had been censored by K12, removing reference to same-sex relationships and unmarried couples in order to conform to Texas Board of Education standards. Thirdly, the email noted that K12, Inc. had come under fire for factual errors that were recently discovered in MIL’s Latin program.
Vice President for Communications Bill Burger and Vice President for Pedagogical Development for MIL Aline Germain-Rutherford both denied any allegations that MIL censored content.
“We have never been asked to censor, change edit or delete any material from any of our courses by a state or locality as part of some political agenda,” Germain-Rutherford said. “K12 Inc. has never tried to influence our course content. MIL has always been in charge of the content.”
Burger echoed Germain-Rutherford, calling Schwartz’s censorship claims a “total falsehood.”
“I want to emphasize what I believe is the central narrative of this story: a group of faculty are seeking to end our relationship with MIL. They have made some very serious accusations. We categorically deny those assertions and to my knowledge they have no evidence to support them.”
However, Burger did acknowledge that the Latin department did experience issues with MIL.
“It was brought to the attention of a faculty member at Middlebury College earlier this year that there were a number of errors in one of the Latin language course marketed and sold by MIL,” he said. “This course was created prior to the joint venture with Middlebury and MIL. An investigation into these course materials confirmed that there were, indeed, a number of errors.”
But Burger said that the errors were “quickly corrected,” and that the Latin courses will no longer be marketed as MIL courses.
The College first went into partnership with K12 in 2010 and has since created videos for the K-12 market in five languages: Spanish, French, Chinese, German and Arabic. Liebowitz has championed MIL since its creation as an important investment for the College’s brand.
“We pursued the initiative for three reasons,” Liebowitz told the faculty at its meeting on April 28. “First, we wanted to retain out leadership in the languages. Our reputation as leaders in teaching languages began 100 years ago with the intensive, immersion Language schools, which introduced a totally new way to teach languages ... The second reason was and is to expand access to language courses for pre-college students. And third, we recognized, especially during the recession, that in order for the College to protect what it valued so much about its residential liberal arts offerings here on campus … we need, eventually, to find ways to increase overall revenue,” concluded Liebowitz.
But many faculty members do not buy the College’s explanations. Associate Professor of Education Studies Jonathan Miller-Lane said that he was originally supportive of the College leveraging its language expertise to open new revenue streams.
“Why should we not try and leverage our strengths?” he said. “However, given what we now know is happening it turns out to be a poorly executed plan. By far, this is the most appalling thing that I have heard regarding MIL and K-12 Inc. and it leads me to now support the effort to sever all connections with K-12, Inc.”
According to Burger, one of the root issues is the reluctance of some faculty to accept that MIL should have a role in Middlebury’s future.
But Associate Professor of Sociology and Women’s and Gender Studies Laurie Essig said that she was indeed worried about MIL’s relationship with K-12, Inc.
“It is not in Middlebury’s interest as an institution of higher learning to be so closely allied with a business that is far less interested in education than it is the replacement of face to face learning with online ‘learning,’” she said. “Their unproved record as educators, their for profit motive and their highly politicized agenda ought to give us pause — but because it hurts learning. And Middlebury is dedicated to just that.”
Miller-Lane called the idea that we need to “face the facts” of K-12 market “specious.”
“We are doing this to make a buck, period. We are choosing to enter this market and we can choose to leave. We must now make clear what our standards are.”
(04/30/14 11:44pm)
A group of students who have identified themselves as Midd Included, an organization centered on creating a more inclusive environment at the College, has drafted a bill to reform the Cultures and Civilizations distribution requirement, specifically the African, Asia, and Latin American (AAL) cultures requirement.
As it stands now, College distribution requirements mandate that every student take a North American culture class, a European culture class, a comparative cultures class, and then choose one class within the AAL category. Midd Included has drafted a bill to reform this requirement so that students are still required take a North American and a comparative class, but can then choose two classes within the Latin America and Caribbean, Africa, Asia, Middle East and Oceania categories. They argue that the current system places undue emphasis and importance on European cultures.
“I think this gets swept under the rug by the dominant hegemony here, that ‘Europe is great’ and you don’t hear from the people that are like ‘actually this is really offensive and my heritage is lumped into this category,” said SGA President Rachel Liddell ’15.
Daniela Barajas ’14.5, co-founder of Midd Included spoke about the goals of the group and emphasized that AAL reform is the first of many steps the group hopes to take.
“Last semester there were so many talks on race, ethnicity and gender and then we all go our separate ways and nothing ever really changes,” Barajas said. “We felt the need to do something that would allow us as a community to make concrete changes and think about ways that we can improve our institution and to begin transitioning our discussions into proposals and paper.”
“Middlebury prides itself on being a global institution,” Barajas continued. “We promote global education and studying abroad. We say that we want students to be exposed to different cultures and institutions, and yet our current system does not reflect those values.”
The group has made tangible progress in bringing the bill to administrative attention, including meeting with Dean of Faculty Andi Lloyd and Dean of Curriculum Bob Cluss. Discussion surrounding the bill, however, will be pushed to the next academic year.
Lloyd said the Educational Affairs Committee (EAC) was only in the early stages of considering the idea.
"Members of EAC began re-examining the distribution requirements, including the cultures and civilizations requirements, earlier this spring, following the passage of learning goals and the vote on the summer study proposal," she wrote in an email. "The EAC is in the early stages of this discussion and has not yet formulated any concrete policy proposals — they are very much in thinking and listening mode. This discussion of distribution requirements will therefore continue in the fall, as one of the committee’s primary agenda items.”
In the fall, the EAC will meet on this issue, likely working with the student EAC to draft a bill, taking into consideration what Midd Included has proposed. The legislation will then be introduced by the EAC at a faculty meeting, followed by a few meetings of discussion where faculty members can propose any amendments, and then a final meeting where they will vote.
“Curriculum changes should be taken very seriously and there should be friction involved,” Liddell said. “So while I understand the call for reform and the push to have something changed as soon as possible and I agree with it, I also respect the fact that the faculty want to take their time and make a considerate decision.”
Though many agree that some version of AAL reform needs to occur, the direction this form should take is still being debated. The decision to strike the European requirement, but keep the North American requirement has been met with several reactions.
“One argument [Midd Included] made was that we don’t need [to study] Europe, because everything is already done from a Eurocentric perspective at Middlebury College,” Max Kagan ’14 said. “If you take a science class, it’s implicitly Eurocentric, which is probably true, but I think that’s an argument towards why you do need to study Europe.”
“If you read the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you can’t understand those pieces in isolation,” Kagan continued. “You have to go back and look at people like John Locke and Rousseau and their coming from Europe. The idea that you could have graduated without having studied anything related to Europe is a little problematic.”
While on the other side of the spectrum, some students think that all geographic regions should be weighted equally.
“Midd Included received a lot of feedback from professors that North America needs to be required,” Liddell added. “Personally, I would be more liberal and say who says you have to study North America, but I understand both perspectives and if that helps it get through the faculty then its worth it.”
Midd Included and Liddell have both been forthcoming about some of the challenges they face in order to get the faculty to pass the bill, because of some of the changes the bill may require. The most relevant of those concerns is the idea that creation of more geographic regions, specifically Oceania, would require the creation of classes and hiring of professors, an investment the College may not be ready to make.
“I imagine there might be some concern or resistance in terms of the human capital that some faculty members might think is required to make this change,” said Dean of the College Shirley Collado. “But it’s the right thing to do for the college so I am hoping we can be creative and thoughtful and we’ve done that in a variety of ways so why not do it for this”
Despite these potential setbacks, members of Midd Included remain steadfast in their determination to push the bill through.
“We are at a crucial phase right now where we are reaching out to faculty because they are ultimately the ones who vote on it,” said Adriana. “We are trying to get their support and see where they stand.”
Dean of Curriculum Bob Cluss emphasized that requirements are merely used to guide students through the curriculum and to encourage them to take classes they normally wouldn’t.
“A transcript is a personal work of art of your journey through the liberal arts education. Whether it has certain tags on it or not, it’s your story. Sell it when you take your next step. It’s part of who you are. So, create a masterpiece. It’s possible to do here.”
But like most issues on campus, this may mean a lot to a certain group of students and mean very little to others.
“This is why students are apathetic here,” Lauren Berestecky ’17 said. “Every minute issue is looked at and talked about to the point that we don’t care about the important things.”
While, Midd Included continues to emphasize how important this, beyond personal reasons.
“This is not a group of kids who feel left out,” Adriana Oritz-Burnham ’17 said. “I’ve heard whispers about that sentiment. It’s more than that. It’s crucial for people to see their own cultures and traditions represented in the place where they are learning and it also will produce more well-rounded students.”
The group will meet with President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz on the issue.
(12/05/13 3:04am)
Hillcrest 103 was packed beyond standing room, with over 100 in attendance, on Thursday, Nov. 21 when University of Pennsylvania Law Professor Amy Wax gave a lecture, titled “Diverging Family Structure by Class and Race: Economic Hardship, Moral Deregulation or Something Else?" Amid signs proclaiming “racist,” Wax gave a 40-minute presentation followed by a heated question and answer session.
Wax presented aggregate data on diverging family values focusing on differences in birth rates of children born out of wedlock and overall marriage rates between whites and non-whites that she argues is caused by “differences in decision making style by class and race” and post 1960s “moral deregulation.”
Wax argued that low socio-economic groups are more likely to make decisions based in the short term and to “think locally” while high-economic groups tend to think in the long term or “think globally.” She referenced what she calls a moral deregulation in the post-1960 U.S. as the point of divergence, arguing that pre-1960s Americans abided by a uniform code of behavior that acted as an “equalizer” and once Americans began to self-regulate, different family patterns and patterns of behavior began to emerge.
“We got this fragmentation and distinct race and class based cultures and lifestyle diversity, widening social and economic inequality,” Wax said.
Many students prepared for the lecture’s sensitive material and Wax’s interpretation by carrying signs labeled “Racist.” After seeing the signs, Wax proclaimed that, “It is easy to call people names, and it’s lazy, but what’s hard is to show why they are wrong. I don’t think at an institution of this caliber that’s how people ought to be responding, just with name-calling. Shutting down discussion is not the answer.”
A. Barton Hepburn Professor of Sociology Margaret Nelson noted that though she herself would not bring in signs labeled “racist,” the student sentiment at the moment was significant.
“I think students of color were being attacked and felt attacked,” Nelson said. “I think she was making statements about people’s morality — saying most African Americans act in immoral ways in this society.”
Wax opened her lecture with background data, stating that over the past 60 years a “dramatic dispersion” in the U.S. population by socioeconomic status and race in family structure surrounding rates of marriage, divorce, single parent families and multiple partners.
“What I mean by this dispersion is that upper middle class people, despite the anecdotes that you may have heard, are living fairly traditional, nuclear family lives,” Wax said. “Upper middle class families may talk the sixties, but they live the fifties. Lower middle class, defined educationally as people with a high-school degree or less, and now some college or less, their lives and families are increasingly disorganized.”
Wax went on to present a series of aggregate data that outlined declining marriage rates among minorities, which indicated that family construction among blacks is on average characterized by higher divorce rates, higher rates of extra-marital fatherhood and multiple partner fertility.
“They co-habit, but they co-habit in a kind of merry-go-round fashion,” Wax concluded. “[Having children out of wedlock] is a dominant norm in some communities.”
According to Wax, in 1962, out-of-wedlock birth rates and single parent family rates were much closer together by education level and class. In the 1980s divorce rates among whites started to decline and is now 15 percent among white college graduates. Wax argues that marriages are becoming more stable among the white demographic group. While the rate of out of wedlock births among blacks is now over 72 percent.
Wax noted that most demographers agree that economic factors alone do not explain the decline in marriage with blacks, becase while their economic status of blacks has improved in the last period, yet marriage rates have continued to decline.
“Black men marry less than white men, Hispanic men and Asian men today controlling for employment, income, for everything economic,”
Wax said.
Throughout the lecture, Wax begged the question of what contributes to that discrepancy, asserting that the economically insecure were not having children with multiple partners in the past like they are today, a fact through which Wax argued that economic factors cannot be the cause of this change in behavior.
“There is growing evidence of a kind of behavioral, cultural problem among working class men that is leading to educational failure, job failure and also the inability to maintain a family.”
“We are so committed to tolerance and non-judgementalism that we tolerate things that maybe we shouldn’t tolerate,” Wax continued. “Not by making them illegal or throwing people in jail, but by just even saying ‘you shouldn’t do that’ or ‘that isn’t good.’”
When asked by a student in the audience what some of these things were, Wax offered having a child out of wedlock.
In addition to the signs, her hypothesis was met with much opposition from both students and faculty members.
“Wax’s data displayed information that we already knew in terms of the construction of marriage in America and disparities between different racial groups,” Amari Simpson ’16 said. “But, I found it problematic that she attempted to demonize certain racial groups without factoring into her research the social and structural determinants to those peoples’ life decisions.”
“There is not evidence [for her theory],” Nelson added. “There is data that shows there are different family forms by race/ethnicity and class and there are a multitude of interpretations for those differences. But those alternate explanations were not given serious attention.”
Charles A. Dana Professor of Political Science Murray Dry, who sponsored Wax’s visit to the College, said this lecture was a learning opportunity for this community.
“I’m not trying to convert anybody. I want to bring people up here that have something thoughtful to say on a relevant subject,” Dry said. “The lesson for us at Middlebury to take is that it is okay to disagree. Don’t assume that because someone disagrees with you on a subject on which you have strong views that there must be something morally bad about that person. That gets in the way of one’s education.”
Dry went on to mention that despite the different hypotheses on why we see the racial trends in family structure, what is important is not what causes these trends but what we can do about them.
“So maybe we don’t know exactly what the cause is but can’t we agree that it would be good if we could do something about it,” Dry said. “These results are alarming.”
Most seemed to agree that the problem wasn’t with Wax’s aggregate data, but with the assumptions she made from that data.
“The nature of the offense was not the data,” Nelson said. “It was the interpretation imposed on the data without any evidence that was the appropriate interpretation.”
Simpson went a step further.
“I felt that the implication of her research will do nothing to help these people besides negatively distort academia’s perspective on this subject,” Simpson said.
(11/14/13 12:20am)
Last week, on Thursday, Nov. 7 the College admissions office began formally reviewing early decision applications, which Dean of Admission Greg Buckles projected would be around 691 applications. This year, however, admissions is hoping to reduce the class size from 600-610 to 575 students for September admits and from 90-100 to 80-90 students for February admits, making an already competitive process even more competitive.
“The goal is to reduce the stress on crowded first-year housing overall,” Buckles said.
Each year, like those 691 applicants, high school seniors all over the country apply to college and admission counselors seek an efficient, fair way to sift through the extremely high number of applications. The College receives around 9,000 applications each year — last year that number peaked at 9,109 — and employs 13 full time readers, four seasonal readers and four operational staff members to review those applications.
Therefore, each admission cycle counselors grapple with making difficult decisions and making those decisions in an efficient, fair manner. Although this challenge is not unique to the College, the system it uses may be unique. Every admission office has a different method of choosing the incoming class and sifting through what will ultimately be acceptances and rejections. This system is a necessary evil, a formula, to make informed choices and predictions on how a student would perform on this campus.
“It’s a sifting a method,” Buckles said. “We are constantly sifting through a pool of applicants so that students begin to rise through the process, so to speak.”
At the College, the first part of this sifting process is the first read. Every application that comes through the office is read twice. The first read is usually completed by the regional representative; each counselor covers a few states or countries based on the location of the applicant’s high school. The second reader is usually chosen at random.
The two readers rank students in four categories: academic strength, extracurricular contribution and personal qualities on a 1-7 point scale. An overall score, the forth category, is then attributed to each applicant, which is not an average of the three categories, but is a recommendation.
“[The overall category] is a recommendation or a general sense of what the reader is recommending for a decision,” Buckles said.
According to the admissions office, the first, most important category is the academic rating of an applicant. This category looks at a student’s transcript, while taking into consideration the high school’s rating system and curriculum. Supporting materials such as the school report, letters of recommendation, testing scores, grades and personal essays are considered within this category as well. All those combined assigns an academic rating.
The rubric for the academic category, which reads, “To what extent does the applicant demonstrate intellectual achievement, engagement, and potential for academic success at Middlebury?” is the overarching question by which each reader attempts to apply a rating.
For this first-year class, the average academic rating, out of 7, for all students who applied was between 5.06 and 5.76 for admitted students. The average academic rating of students who enrolled was 5.45.
The next category, the extracurricular rating, which is also on a 1-7 scale, asks the reader, “What level of contribution will this student make outside the classroom taking into account skill level, initiative, and leadership capabilities?”
A seven in this category would suggest “an unusual and rare ability to contribute here at a national level talent,” while a one rating suggests “no foreseen involvement on campus.” Athletics, art and music would all be considered here.
The personal category which Buckles calls “the most illusive, and the most subjective” seeks to answer the question, “How will the Middlebury community be impacted by this student’s personal qualities?” with a 7 suggesting “exceptional potential to positively impact the lives of others.”
“[The personal category] is one we talk a lot about because it’s a hard one to know,” Associate Dean of Admissions and Head of Diversity Recruitment Manuel Carballo said. “We aren’t interviewing students or having conversations with them. But personal qualities are, to us, is this person going to be a good roommate or a good person to talk to?”
The last category, the overall category, asks, “considering the applicant’s overall contribution to campus including academic talent, extracurricular talent, personal qualities, and special considerations, what recommendation would you give to the committee?”
The overall category is where any special considerations are taken into account, including legacy status, first generation college student status or a set of extenuating circumstances.
Then, based off of the readers’ numerical evaluation of applications in the listed categories, applicants move into committee session where formal decisions are made. On average, only 50 percent of applicants make it to the committee session.
“The first reader may determine that a student is unlikely to be admitted,” Buckles said. “Then a senior, more experienced counselor will go back and verify that [not going to committee] is in fact the right decision and that all things being equal that person will not make it to committee.”
If it has been determined by the first two readers that a student should go to committee, then students are assigned to a committee group. During the regular decision cycle, the office has four different committee groups working at once, comprised of four to five people who get through about 100 decisions a day.
As committees begin reviewing applicants, one of the two readers usually presents the applicant to the committee, and each counselor gets one vote to either admit, deny or waitlist the student.
“I call this precision guesswork. We are trying to apply consistent, fair, ethical, human, educational standards and applications to what is a very subjective, dynamic process. We are trying to make good decisions about 17-year-olds.”
Any decision that cannot be made easily or that the smaller committee is not positive about are passed off to a full committee session which is usually held for a week at the end of the decision process. Both Buckles and Carballo noted that they almost always have to trim the class during this portion, noting how difficult that process can be.
“To me, the hardest part of the process is students come in from such different backgrounds — educational backgrounds, family backgrounds — that there is no way to equate things,” Carballo said. “So how do you compare them? How do you compare students from schools who have a library just like ours to school that don’t have one. It’s not a choice. We have to put them in the same pool and make some decision.”
Read a response by the Alumni Admissions Programs.