8 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(02/17/16 9:04pm)
Just prior to the start of February Break, SGA President Ilana Gratch sent an email to notify the student body of a SGA Senate Resolution condemning Supreme Court Associate Justice Scalia’s comments during the Oral Arguments in the case of Fisher v. University of Texas. I’m writing to address both the content of the email and the Resolution itself, which I see as emblematic of a broader issue in our community.
SGA President Gratch’s email reiterates what we have been hearing for months: we need to have more conversations at Middlebury, particularly about race. However, despite her earnest endeavor for us to be “engaging in these conversations” and “grappling with the challenges that accompany them,” she only offers support for one side of the debate. There is no inherent issue with a “cultural representative” to the SGA or an offer to help students interact with the administration. However, we cannot concurrently claim to be fostering honest debate about a controversial subject yet only acknowledge one side. The Resolution states that the SGA “deplores the implication of [Justice Scalia’s] statements” in the aforementioned Oral Arguments.
The Resolution does not quote Justice Scalia (nor does it respectfully use his proper title), so I will: “There are [ ] those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to [ ] get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school, a less a slower-track school where they do well …. And - and I [ ] don’t think it [ ] stands to reason that it’s a good thing for the University of Texas to admit as many blacks as possible.” Quite crudely, Justice Scalia was discussing mismatch theory, an idea developed by UCLA Professor Richard Sander. Sander and others have found that if colleges and universities give large preferences to some students that are not based on academic merit, those students are less likely to succeed than their more academically qualified peers. The data show that students perform best at academic institutions where they are not significantly outmatched in terms of academic preparation, as measured by a combination of grades and test scores. It is worth noting that mismatch theory is not inherently about race—it also applies to athletes, legacies and other groups who are admitted on more than academic merit. A number of social scientists have attempted to refute Sander’s work, but none have been able to do so with enough rigor to be published in a peer-reviewed journal. Not only is mismatch theory in line with common sense, but it stands as good social science.
Instead of rejecting mismatch theory out-of-hand, the SGA could have started a real discussion about the merits of affirmative action. Indeed, affirmative action does not depend on mismatch theory being wrong; we could judge it to be right even if some mismatch does occur. In fact, Sander supports affirmative action, but calls for us to be mindful that when taken too far, it can backfire on the very students it is meant to help.
Justice Scalia, who passed away on Saturday morning, was a lover of the law and of the constitution. In his eyes, affirmative action was unconstitutional as well as unwise, but other Justices have argued otherwise. We ought to follow the example of our Supreme Court Justices and have a serious discussion about race and affirmative action, a serious discussion in which our governing body does not throw their support to one side only and end the conversation before it starts.
(04/15/15 5:55pm)
This week, the lauded scholar Harvey C. Mansfield Jr. of Harvard gave a lecture entitled “An Address from the Humanities to Science” at the inaugural Eve Adler Memorial Lecture in celebration of the endowment of the Classics Department.
Prior to the event, a number of students and some faculty members expressed concern that Professor Mansfield had been invited to speak, given his unpopular opinions about our increasingly gender neutral society. They said that they were uncomfortable with his presence and the support that Middlebury was giving him in the form of the invitation. On Thursday, Apr. 9, a meeting was held at Chellis House, The Women’s Resource Center, to give those with concerns a forum to discuss their feelings.
At the meeting, the Director of Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies, Professor Essig, stressed comments that Professor Mansfield had made in the popular press as giving rise to the concern, though she readily admitted that she had read none of his books, including the one to which she objected wholeheartedly. A few students spoke as well, some emotionally, about their feelings related to the impending guest. They objected again to his comments in the popular press as well as to the fact that he did not include much feminist theory in his book on the topic, entitled Manliness. No students claimed to have actually read the book, which I object to, harkening back to the last time I was compelled to write in, when I argued that, as students, we ought to read books with ranging opinions, including opinions with which we do not agree.
Alas, I have not returned to reiterate what I said last year, but to instead raise a different but related point: our education ought to make us uncomfortable at times.
At Chellis House, the word “fear” was thrown around once or twice. While I question how a small-statured, soft-spoken man such as Professor Mansfield could actually invoke feelings of fear, I also question how his lecture—just words, really—could do that. (That his talk was on science and the humanities makes this increasingly doubtable. As does the relative lack of attention Manliness received and the Professor’s marginalization at Harvard, which likely stems from his conservatism as much as his lack of a full-born appreciation for feminism. But that’s another bone to pick.) Pushed further, I might wonder how shaky one must be in their opinions for a visiting lecturer to invoke fear. Again, though, I think a little fear is a good thing.
I readily admit that the thought that our learning process should be one that involves making us uncomfortable was a sentiment expressed to me and to others by Professor Mansfield himself—I certainly make no claim to it. However, it is an idea that I’d like to foster at the College, and choose this platform to do so. Learning is a process of encountering new ideas. We ought not to sit in class and nod our heads at everything we hear; we should ask questions and doubt assumptions. Learning is also a process of finding our beliefs, and sometimes that means encountering other beliefs along the way with which we do not agree. Our minds and our values are evolving constantly—that is not an easy or comfortable situation. If it is, you probably aren’t doing it right.
All that said, I have another aside related to Professor Mansfield’s visit: censorship is never acceptable. That there was even a meeting held in Chellis House means that someone considered revoking the invitation, censoring Professor Mansfield and his views. I am sure some people will not agree with me here, but I would make the case for just about anyone with something scholastically valuable to say to be invited, no matter how many unpopular opinions he held. Freedom of speech is a delicate thing and I worry that once it begins to erode, we will not be able to get it back.
(04/23/14 2:54pm)
I am a student in Professor Dry’s Race, Sex and the Constitution course and for my presentation at the Spring Student Symposium reading a paper I wrote for the class, I’ve been called a racist. First, in beyond the green’s preview of the presentation, Lily Andrews wrote, “To watch out for (MAY be offensive): ‘Race and American Political Regime’ discusses colorblindness. Murray Dry has a BAD reputation around racism….” This provocative piece of advertisement brought a lot of students to our presentation, inevitably including those who would misunderstand our words. Then came an anonymous essay on MiddBeat, called, “A Counter Narrative to ‘Race, Sex, and the U.S. Constitution’ Symposium Presentation.” This piece claimed that the presenters vastly misunderstood race and racism and that it is a great crime to do anything but automatically support programs like affirmative action. In response, I would like to express my overall concern with the potential effects of shutting out opposing voices as well as address a few misunderstandings in Anonymous’ piece.
One of the best pieces of advice I’ve ever heard is: “Read books written by those you disagree with.” With similar sentiment, I would first like to ask potential critics to avoid pre-judging, especially with judgments that are poorly founded and revolve around something so fickle as a reputation.
To address Anonymous’ post, the papers we read presented a wide range of views and were put together by a group of students that have dedicated a whole semester to educating themselves about race and sex in America. We have read the liberal books and the conservative ones. We have read their critics. We have had discussions and written essays and striven to get to the heart of these important issues. We came to the presentation with thoughtful insights gleaned from a lot of reading and hard thinking. Yet, we were told we misunderstood racism. Further, we never had a chance at understanding it because we are not ourselves the minorities of which we spoke. I would posit, to return to my previous point about shutting out discussion, that to truly understand things, you must fully educate yourself. One should not simply read Michelle Alexander, but also read her critics and her challengers. They may not say what you want to hear, but they will expand your thinking and round your opinions.
The particular statement, “All ideas do not need to be entertained,” concerns me. Rather than censor ourselves so quickly, we should instead foster all productive types of student discourse.
I feel morally and intellectually compelled to address the assertion that “Racism is colorblindness.” The sole dissenter in Plessy v. Ferguson (the now-overturned case that upheld segregation in the south), Justice Harlan, wrote, “Our constitution is color-blind, and neither knows nor tolerates classes among citizens.” Harlan was the only Justice to object the blatant and real racism behind Jim Crow — so why does Anonymous reject his view? If racism is colorblindness, can we never defeat racism, defined this way, except by guaranteeing permanent entitlements based on skin color? That’s antithetical to the conventional, sensible understanding of racism. Today, colorblindness seems to be the goal of the Supreme Court, which accepts affirmative action today, but looks to a future in which it will be unnecessary. Justice O’Connor, writing an opinion supporting affirmative action, but with a twenty-five year sunset, said “[A]ll governmental use of race must have a logical end point.” The Court has not accepted colorblindness categorically, as many Justices do view affirmative action as problematic. Given the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, the use of race is what must be defended, not the absence of racial preferences. If one is to reject both the voices that stood up against Jim Crow in 1896 and our honorable justices of today, it must be done with credible proof and well-thought out arguments.
I would also like to ask the Middlebury student body: Why has it become impossible to have a full discourse about race without being labeled a racist? I cannot but think the only remaining recourse to respond to those you disagree with after you forgo the informed, educated response is to call people names. I suppose it is easier to write us off as racists rather than sitting down and thinking together. And, when you fling names on the Internet, you can convince others we are racists, too, all while keeping your identity secret. Sounds like a pretty good set-up. But I ask you to not take the easiest, loudest route. Do not simply paint us as misinformed monsters. Read with us. Talk with us. Do not rush to be offended or prove us wrong. Be open to the possibility that your thoughts may evolve, as will ours.
(11/05/12 9:37pm)
On Saturday, Nov. 3 Wonnacott Commons hosted Global Rhythms, an annual talent show, in the McCullough Social Space. Nick Warren (above left) put a new twist on a Harry Potter scene with his retelling, RIDDIM (above right) performed a hip-hop dance medley , The Casual Ales (bottom left) gave the audience a taste of their upcoming performance at Two Brothers' Tavern , and co-host Teddy Anderson (bottom right) announced the next act with the help of Wonny the Squirrel.
(11/03/12 8:30pm)
On Saturday, Nov. 3 the men's water polo team played against Tufts in the first game of the Division III Club Water Polo Championship; though the game was close, it ended in a 11-12 loss for Middlebury. A live stream of the tournament, as well as additional coverage on each game, can be found on the Collegiate Water Polo Association's website.
(10/31/12 2:55am)
Arnav Adhikari belts out a song that he wrote with his band back home. Arnav was one of four talented Middlebury students who performed in the Gamut Room on Tuesday evening. (Campus/Rachel Frank)
(10/30/12 11:13pm)
IT staff members Rick James and Dave Guertin gave a presentation on Middlebury's facilities, including a look behind the scenes in the basement of Voter Hall. (Campus/Rachel Frank)
(10/22/12 1:58am)
Middlebury Rowing participated in the Head of Charles Regatta in Boston, MA this weekend.