3 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(01/17/13 1:05am)
On Tuesday, Jan. 8, Community Council approved the Inter-House Council’s (IHC) proposal for second-semester first-years to be eligible for membership in the social house system with 14 members in favor and three opposed. The Council will now send the proposal as a recommendation to President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz for his final approval to make the official policy change as it is presented in the College Handbook.
Dean of the College and Community Council Co-Chair Shirley Collado was one of the three council members who voted in opposition to the IHC’s recommendation.
“In principal, as Dean of the College, I stand behind the real commitment to the first year experience,” said Collado. “I would like to ideally have first years have the opportunity to really understand what [the College] has to offer to get to know different social groups and to get to know different social networks, and I don’t think that you need to be a member of a social house to go and interact with social house members.”
During Tuesday’s meeting, IHC President Zach Marlette ’13, along with former president of the College’s only nationally recognized fraternity, the Alpha Society of Kappa Delta Rho (KDR), Zach Hitchcock ’13.5, distributed a cheat sheet to council members outlining three principal benefits to social life on campus if Liebowitz decides to approve the Community Council’s recommendation.
The benefits included broader inclusion for students to become more familiar with the social house communities, added options for expanding social life opportunities on campus and compensation for what might be lacking in the commons house system as it currently functions.
In coordination with the College’s attempts to discourage liberal amounts of alcohol consumption on campus, Marlette noted that earlier membership in social houses would increase the number of students taking TIPS training, a two and a half hour classroom program provided free of charge by the College that mentors students on how to handle alcohol-related situations in order to prevent injury, drunk driving and vandalism.
He also said that the same idea applies to hazing prevention, as all social house members are now required to participate in the College’s anti-hazing training, a result of last year’s investigation on behalf of the administration of two of the College’s social houses that were accused and acquitted of hazing potential house members during the pledge process.
When charges of hazing were brought up against the social houses, the opportunity to admit new members during the fall 2012 semester was prohibited by the College pending an investigation by Public Safety to determine the validity of the claims. This compromised the houses’ ability to fill beds, making the need to widen the pool of potential pledges to include second-semester freshmen for membership and first-semester sophomores eligible to live in social houses more imperative.
KDR, for example, is expected to fill over half of its house’s beds in the upcoming semesters due to a loss of nearly 30 members when the class of 2013 graduates.
Despite the benefits enumerated in the meeting, there is still a concern from faculty and staff members that implementing the second part of the IHC’s proposal, a resolution that would allow first-semester sophomores to live in the social houses, would cause a mass exodus from the commons system, compromising its integrity and sense of community.
Associate Dean of Students for Residential Life and Student Life Policy Doug Adams read a statement on behalf of the Atwater Commons underlining their collective concern that this proposal would undermine efforts to build the commons system community.
After reading the statement, Adams assured the Council that the social house system accounts for less than ten percent of the student population on campus and would not have a significant impact on the number of students participating in the commons system. Other non-student council members remained apprehensive about social houses potentially jeopardizing the balance between a student’s academics and social life.
It was the opinion of the Atwater Commons’ deans that the exception of social houses on the list of alternative student housing already made available to first-semester sophomores — such as Palana, Weybridge, all language houses, and intentional living houses — is appropriate because of the niche they fill as socially oriented living spaces, whereas the others serve a more academic or community-focused intention.
Student Council member and President of the Student Government Association (SGA) Charlie Arnowitz ’13 responded to the Commons’ letter saying, “Social considerations are made [when students choose to live in Palana or language houses]” and that “the argument seems artificial.”
A unique twist to the College’s policy on first-year eligibility to social house membership is a clause known as the “Feb Loophole.” An exception to the strict “no first-years allowed” policy, this loophole allows students who begin college in February of their freshman year the opportunity to pledge a social house as second-semester freshmen. Hitchcock pitched this exception before the Council on Tuesday asking, “Why not give that opportunity to other [students] who deserve the same?”
When asked about this exception in a later interview, Collado agreed that, “the Feb loophole is a very interesting point.
“I would just say I think we’ve inherited a very unique way of classifying students who are by definition coming into college at a different place in their lives,” she added. “So I don’t have any strong opinions about it.”
The Council is still awaiting Liebowitz’s decision on the first proposal regarding second-semester first-years.
(12/05/12 4:17pm)
A good friend of mine told me about a conversation she had considering the dialogue present on campus, how people are always speaking about an issue, stringing eloquent sentences together and producing infallible logic that is birthed, lives and dies in the span of 15 minutes in the Proctor booths. She pointed out that all of the conversations seem to have the same meta-narrative, that we’re talking to one another but the information is just reproductions of things that have already been said.
I was reminded of “The Vanek Trilogy,” a play recently produced in the Hepburn Zoo about former Czech President Vaclav Havel. The conversations Havel had with the other characters would spiral redundantly around superfluous dialogue until Havel himself breaks the repetition and engages in the simple intrigues of the characters. Even then, nothing is gained but the appeasement of those around him.
Thinking about some of the recent issues that have been prominent on campus, like the judicial hearing or affirmative action, and how the student body has been addressing them in dialogue, I noticed that same trend of repetition and redundancy. Many of our conversations offer similar opinions. Some phrasing is more politically correct, some arguments are better informed but the cliff-notes are comparable, as though we’re merely playing back the information without adding our own interpretation.
Assistant Professor of Sociology, Linus Owens, sent my sociology class an article earlier this week that underlines this same pattern. The author, Thomas Frank, points to recent publications of prominent intellectuals and claims that the meta-narrative of movements like the Tea Party trend the same grievances against the state as a result of what he terms “groupthink.”
I see the community here at Middlebury College experiencing the same groupthink cycle that leaves us at the same tautological odds with ourselves and with each other.
A successful movement, which in a sense is really a collection of people working to enact systemic or ideological change, is made successful by the efforts and the means of individuals working toward those ends.
For this campus, that means critically considering not only what we’re learning about, but how we’re approaching the ideas.
On paper, Middlebury students are an amalgamation of movers, shakers and game changers — a diverse body of individuals. One would expect to find so many varying opinions and critical concepts being shared, but that’s not always the case, and I have to wonder why.
Consider our agency in this college on the hill. How many resources, monetary and otherwise, did it take to bring us here? The College’s mission statement expresses the need to cultivate the intellectual through independent thought. The expectation is that we take what we learn and lead with that intellect, representing the identity of the College in the global community.
But this mission is an ideal, and it’s easy to idealize our participation here as a reality when we’re not challenging each other beyond the context of what dominant narrative.
However, the intellectual exercise of cultivating independence and leadership that our mission statement acknowledges has become very self-serving. I don’t really think we’re practicing what our mission statement preaches either in this community or in the larger context of the communities from which we’ve come or to which we’re headed if in practice we’re reciting an already established set of ideals.
Identity is in constant metamorphosis, always pushing against invisible barriers and hoping for a better outcome. I invite this community to critically consider how it is defining its identity. Are we satisfying personal needs or are we using the resources with which we’ve been privileged to respond to the ideological or systemic change we’re striving toward as a collective?
Toward the end of the conversation with my friend, I asked her if there was something to gain from these patterns of tautological dialogue; she replied, “They make us aware of something … at the very least they’ve shed light on the things unsaid.”
So I’m asking that we work to consider the value of what isn’t immediately present in our discussions. At the end of the day, our strong affinities of color coordinating blue and white and the eloquent details of the descriptions found in the brochures of the admissions office equate to a stereotypical Midd Kid that can play nicely with the other stereotypical Midd Kids in the collegiate sandbox. We can be more than that by applying our own imaginations to the ideological structure of this institution to create something new rather than reproducing what already exists.
Let’s try not to default to the same undercurrent of accordance that has characterized most of the conversations on this campus, and we might be able to forge a countermelody to these groupthink dialogues on repeat.
(10/25/12 12:47am)
Mock Press Release (Oct.12, 2012)
Many students, staff and faculty receive an email from the “Office of Communications” with the subject line “Middlebury College Divests from War on Eve of Dalai Lama Visit.”
MiddBlog Post (Oct. 12, 2012)
MiddBlog, an alternative news source for students about current events on campus, posts a news brief about the press release of “dubious origin” that quotes Ben Chute ’13.5, leader of Middlebury’s Socially Responsible Investment group (SRI), specifying that while the SRI had no prior knowledge of the press release, they were hopeful that this release held some validity.
Sarah Ray Responds to Press Release Email via MiddBlog Post (Oct. 13, 2012)
Sarah Ray, Director of Public Affairs for Middlebury College, responds to the MiddBlog post, stating that the press release was “fraudulent” and that the college did not issue this information.
Tim Spears’ Responds to Press Release Email (Oct. 14, 2012)
In response to the mock press release, Tim Spears, Vice President for Academic Affairs, issued an email to all staff, students and faculty clarifying that the press release was a “hoax and that neither the e-mail nor the press release it contained came from Middlebury College or its Communications Office.”
Students “Come Clean” in Letter (Oct. 16, 2012)
The five students of the self-titled Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee “come clean” in a letter posted online and across campus. The letter calls for the College to effectively follow their demonstration of transparency and provide the College community with information about the companies in which the College is invested. The group’s letter was posted on large plotter-printed posters in the dining halls and in the library, and was canvased in dorm rooms, classrooms, offices and buildings across campus.
Meeting with Administration (Oct. 17, 2012)
The five students of the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee meet with Dean of the College Shirley Collado and Dean of Students Katy Smith Abbott to discuss the press release email. Students of the group's “growing contingent” joined the five students in Old Chapel, but were not permitted to partake in the meeting.
Vermont Public Radio Report (Oct. 18, 2012)
Steve Zind, a correspondent for VPR, reports on the “Call for Middlebury Divestment” on air with sound clips from interviews with Molly Stuart and Sam Koplinka-Loehr.
VTDigger.org Report (Oct. 18, 2012)
VTDigger, a non-profit news website dedicated to Vermont politics, public policy, business, and consumer affairs, publishes an article on their website reporting on the mock press release. The story quoted Student Co-Chair of Community Council Barrett Smith ’13, and referenced the question that Smith posed to a representative of Investure, a third party entity managing Middlebury’s portfolio, during a public forum last spring. The article explains that the Investure representative stated that the college’s endowment is likely pooled with funds that invest in military contractors, arms manufacturers and fossil fuel companies.
Seven Days Report (Oct.18, 2012)
An article posted by Kathryn Flagg on the Seven Days website quotes Sam Koplinka-Loehr in his assertions of the College’s unethical investment. In the article, Koplinka-Loehr questions the viability of the College’s outsourced investment strategy.
‘My Middlebury’ Action (Oct. 21, 2012)
The Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee and their “growing contingent” post a banner outside of Proctor Dining Hall during brunch on Sunday that reads, “My Middlebury Divests from Violence.” This action coincided with the tri-annual meeting of the Board of Trustees at the College. The group asked students passing by to “lend their hands” in order to show their support for responsible investment. Handprints were marked in College’s trademark blue in celebration of Homecoming Weekend, as well as to demonstrate school pride and the spirit of community. Several students signed their names next to their handprints.
Editorials in the Middlebury Campus (Oct. 25, 2012)
The opinions section of the Middlebury Campus is filled with editorials both showing support for and criticizing the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee. In addition to an op-ed by the group, perspective and current students, faculty, and the Campus' editorial board released pieces on the issue.
General Assembly (Oct. 26, 201
The Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee holds a general assembly in the Warner Hemicycle, in which organizers and participants discuss a wide range of issues, but generally focus on the available tools to move forward in their cause. The General Assembly was captured by the Campus' Maggie Cochrane in the following video.
Public Hearing Before Community Judicial Board (Nov. 1, 2012)
In the College's first public hearing in five years, the five students take part in legal proceedings lasting six hours at Dana Auditorium. After four more hours of deliberation, the Community Judicial Board finds the students guilty and issues a reprimand; however, they will not be subject to any official College discipline. Additional coverage of the hearing, including interviews with attendees, is available at MiddBlog.
GREGORY WOOLSTON contributed to this report.