1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/11/18 10:00am)
Representative Ruqaiyah ‘Kiah’ Morris (D-Bennington) formally resigned her seat in the Vermont House a little over two weeks ago in light of prolonged racial harassment that pushed her story to national headlines. Elected in 2014 and reelected in 2016, Morris was only the second African-American woman to serve in the State Legislature in Vermont’s history.
On Tuesday, Sept. 25, the day of her official resignation, Morris explained her departure on Facebook. She recounted facing “continued [racial] harassment,” including “racist comments and threats on social media, vandalism at her home and at the local Democratic Party office, and unwanted intrusion on her home and property,” according to an interview she did with Seven Days.
Morris also wrote of her need to support her husband in his “long physical journey of recovery following extensive open-heart surgery.” She plans to focus on helping him recover and caring for her family, according to an interview with The Washington Post.
SGA President Nia Robinson ’19 considers Morris’ resignation significant “because it shows that black women are not immune to racism because of the positions they hold. It also shows that we haven’t progressed — as much as we boast about it.”
“How unfortunate is it that Kiah Morris has to negotiate her role with the safety of herself and her family?” Robinson said. “Instead of offering suggestions and expressing concerns about the content of the work done, the comments attack her directly as a black woman.”
[pullquote speaker="RUTH HARDEY " photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]She is an incredibly effective legislator and she was an incredibly powerful voice for people who were literally at the table in Montpelier, so it is a huge loss to our government and a huge loss to our house.[/pullquote]
Morris’ accomplishments and work are described in full on her website (kiahmorris.com). In a post on Facebook on Aug. 24, Morris outlined an extensive list of the victories and causes to which she was most proud to contribute her support and leadership. The list includes but is not limited to: “no cost contraceptive access for all Vermonters, prescription drug price transparency, support for establishment of gender neutral bathrooms and [establishment of a] medicinal cannabis dispensary in Bennington.”
“I am devastated by the fact that she had to resign,” said Ruth Hardy, Democratic candidate for the state Senate for Addison County, in an interview with The Campus. “She is an incredibly effective legislator and she was an incredibly powerful voice for people who were literally at the table in Montpelier, so it is a huge loss to our government and a huge loss to our house.”
She is on the Board of United Children’s Services, serves as a Sisters on the Planet Ambassador for Oxfam America, Leader with Rights and Democracy Vermont, and is on the advisory councils for Emerge Vermont and Black Lives Matter Vermont. She is passionate about social justice, intersectionality, and amplifying diverse voices.
Morris told The Washington Post that the racial harassment she experienced began in 2016, during her reelection campaign. She noted that it coincided with a visible rise of white supremacy in her area during the presidential campaign. “Neo-Nazi propaganda started showing up at the door of the Bennington Democratic Party office,” Morris said in the same interview. “Neo-Nazi recruitment fliers were left all over town.”
Morris had announced on Aug. 24 that she was dropping her bid for reelection, but that she was determined to finish out her term.
“The last two years have been emotionally difficult for many. Political discourse, and in particular within the sphere of social media has been divisive, inflammatory and at times, even dangerous,” she wrote on Facebook. “It is my hope that as a state, we will continue to demand greater support and protections for one another from those forces which seek to divide and destroy our communities.”
However, the severity and frequency of the harassment she and her family continued to face forced her to change her plans and resign before the end of her term.
“This is a reality, especially for candidates of color — women of color in particular,” Hardy said. She added that gubernatorial candidate Christine Hallquist, who is transgender, has also received death threats and harassment. “I think it is a really sad and horrifying comment on our society,” she said.
In an interview with Vermont Public Radio on Aug. 30, Morris described feeling underwhelmed by the response of the Bennington Police Department when she reported the incidents of harassment. Bennington Police Chief Paul Doucette said in a release issue on Sept. 1 that Morris and her husband initiated conversations with police in September 2016 and filed a complaint the following month. Despite investigations into the complaint, no criminal charges were brought forward and no further complaints were filed until July of this year. In the same statement, Doucette claimed that all of Morris and her husbands’ complaints had been “investigated appropriately and efficiently.”
He described “a series of what seemed to be miscommunications between the couple and [the] police,” according to VTDigger.
Morris was the only African-American woman in the Vermont Legislature, and one of only a handful of non-white legislators.
“We need to be clear and confront the fact that in 2018 a black woman was led to resign in response to racial harassment. Some may react in disbelief, but this is a reality many black officials have to face,” Robinson said.
Robinson addressed the importance of representation in government, and spoke of her own experiences being part of a minority in a state that is 94.5% white, according to the United States Census Bureau.
“When I came to Vermont for school three years ago, the ‘nice’ people and community couldn’t mask the Confederate flags and uncomfortable stares,” Robinson recounted. “Representation is so important because it shows what is available. You get to see people
who have fought against odds and created a space for themselves. Representation is where we find the role models. I hope we get to a point where representation is not something we have to look for. We should get beyond the ‘firsts,’” she declared.
On Aug. 27, a few days after Morris’ resignation, Vermont Attorney General T.J. Donovan announced that he had launched an investigation into the threats Morris allegedly faced. “The Attorney General’s Office will work with the Vermont State Police and appropriate computer forensic experts to ensure a thorough and complete investigation of this matter,” claimed the statement posted by his office.
In late August, after Morris ended her bid for a third term in the house, Democratic Party committee members chose Jim Carroll to replace Morris on the November 6 ballot. As a tribute to Morris, Bennington Democrats voted to keep her seat open until the beginning of the next legislative session, according to VTDigger.
“In Kiah’s case, especially because Vermont is such an overwhelmingly white place, to be an African-American woman who serves her community so effectively, to be the victim of such horrible harassment is devastating,” Hardy said. “We all, especially white people like me, need to step up and say, ‘This is not okay, we need to do something about that.’”
Additional reporting by Bochu Ding.
(10/11/18 9:59am)
The stage is set — or rather, it isn’t. The bare rug and single microphone frame a strikingly empty space. In the coming hours, this space will see death, love, fear, disappointment and a stoned man in the woods named Dave. This is Cocoon.
The show began with Sarah Asch ’19.5 and Elsa Rodriguez ’21 explaining the rules of this particular event, held Friday, Oct. 5 at the Mahaney Center for the Arts: storytellers have ten minutes to tell a story. And it must be true. Asch and Rodriguez, along with their co-organizers Adam Druckman ’19, John Schurer ’21, Zeinab Thiam ’21 and Mahaney Center Director Liza Sacheli, invited seven members of the greater Middlebury community, from students to a local farmer to a celebrity artist-in-residence and more, to speak to the night’s theme of “Origins.”
Asch and Rodriguez left the stage and so started the sometimes painful, sometimes joyous process of metamorphosing seven unknown faces into seven rich, disorienting, frightening, ecstatic narratives. That is to say, into seven very real lives.
Kyle Wright ’19.5 spoke of his starving, backcountry quest to grieve for his deceased younger brother. Jon Turner, of Wild Roots Farm, described his continual struggle with his father, exasperated by a long legacy of military involvement and his own experiences in the Gulf War. Maria Del Sol Nava ’18, now an admissions staff member, searched for her calling amid intense pressure to excel. Megan Job ’21 knew she could excel but struggled to maintain that conviction when her environment did not share it. Recent Middlebury retirees, Linda and Ira Schiffer, had to learn how to be parents while also being immigrants in Israel. François Clemmons, an artist-in-residence, sacrificed his love and sexuality for decades to protect “Mr. Rogers’ Neighborhood,” weathering a family that rejected him and a failed marriage in the process.
Then, in the dark midst of these trials, there was a break in the clouds. Clemmons put on a wedding dress, raised a toast to himself, and shouted, “I’m finally the bride!” The Schiffer family returned from the Middle East, their children graduated (as Febs) and bravely traversed the world in two different circuses. Job burned the racism and discouragement she found as a freshman to fuel her powerful podcast “BLCKGRLMGC” (and she made the naysayers eat their words through her academic excellence). Del Sol Nava embraced the fire that her father and Rabbi Schiffer lit in her to continually pursue her passions. Turner left the army, fell in love, got married, started making peace with his now late father, and grew determined to give his kids the father he wished he’d had. Wright found that braving the elements in the woods could tell him how much he wanted a cheeseburger, but only coming home to his newborn sister would teach him how to boldly love despite a fear of loss.
In the end, we are our own stories. Struggles and victories define a person. Friday night, seven people — faces one might have seen on campus, driving down College Street, at Hannaford, or maybe never before — became real, four-dimensional people, struggling and rejoicing as much as anyone. It is rare to see another human, a stranger to most, in such completeness. The speakers at Cocoon communicated this completeness in only ten minutes. Ultimately, the event posed the question, “What is a life?” In doing so, the audience was led to ponder what events define their story and was reminded that everyone has just as complicated, messy and real a story as themselves. Life has no extras. These are, perhaps, points that ought to be posed more frequently, but at least one can thank Cocoon for making them in such an entertaining and emotional way as last Friday.
(10/11/18 9:59am)
ESME FAHNESTOCK
Before the Class of 2022 arrived on campus this year, they were sent and asked to read “The Origin of Others,” the latest work by Nobel Prize-winning writer Toni Morrison.
Having a common reading for all incoming students has been a facet of the first-year experience on and off since at least since 1961. That year, students were asked to read “Lord of the Flies” and a collection of essays entitled, “The World Crisis and American Responsibility.”
According to a short documentary from 1961 (you can find it on YouTube: “Vintage College Tour: The Story of Middlebury College”), a panel of faculty members would discuss the selection(s) in front of the first-year class and answer questions.
Luckily, that model was abandoned, replaced by intimate small group discussions often led by faculty members.
Not since 2015 has an incoming class been assigned reading.
The last book, “A Chant to Soothe Wild Elephants,” was a memoir by an alumnus detailing his journey from Middlebury College to ordained Buddhist monk.
While surely well-intentioned, the choice felt forced, as if the college were saying, “This is the kind of stuff Middlebury students should do after they graduate.” Many members of the Class of 2019 disliked the choice.
It is essential that the selected reading foster conversations and challenge students to think critically about new ideas in new ways. “A Chant to Soothe Wild Elephants” missed the mark.
“The Origin of Others,” on the other hand, was the perfect selection for the Middlebury of 2018. The book is Morrison’s reflection on her own life and work, and the themes that permeate both, including race, fear and “the desire for belonging.”
In other words, “The Origin of Others” deals with the very issues that we as an institution must continue to grapple with. Morrison’s work exemplified the community’s aspirational values of inclusivity, equity and social justice.
The choice also served as the foundation for the 2018 Clifford Symposium of the same name, which explored Morrison’s body of work and the overarching issue of racism in America.
The decision to connect the first-year reading with the symposium came after discussions between the symposium’s faculty organizers, Residential Commons Faculty Heads and the staff in charge of orientation. According to Larry Yarbrough, a professor of religion and one of the symposium organizers, all agreed that the book would serve as a significant step towards engaging first-years in pertinent issues.
In preparing to write this editorial, The Campus reached out to several first-year students and asked what they thought of the choice.
Many students appreciated receiving early exposure to rigorous discussions on difficult subject matter, the norm in college classrooms. Tying the book to the Clifford Symposium also lowered the barrier of entry into the potentially intimidating intellectual environment that a first-year may seek to avoid when choosing classes. Yarbrough said discussion leaders reported that a majority of incoming students were well-prepared for the conversations and most welcomed the opportunity to engage with the work.
Given the success of this year’s common reading, the administration should consider expanding the project to further incorporate the rest of the Middlebury community. Older students would benefit from having the option to participate, and it may help bridge divides between different class years.
In order to incentivize participation, the college might also consider including more than just books. Creating a shared experience worthy of academic discussion can also stem from listening to a thought-provoking podcast or watching a film.
No matter the form, the choice should center on the values and aspirations of the institution. This is what made “The Origin of Others” the perfect choice.
(10/11/18 9:59am)
The undefeated Tufts team rolled into Middlebury for a conference clash against the Panthers last weekend. The Jumbos were welcomed by a classic Vermont day, grey skies and cold temperatures that made the Panthers feel right at home. A crowd of parents, siblings and alumni made for an exciting atmosphere. From the minute the opening whistle blew, it was clear Middlebury was in for a battle against the team which has won two of the last four national titles.
The Panthers started the match off by putting major pressure on the Tufts defense. No more than 120 seconds had passed when Middlebury struck first. Ben Potter ’20 was taken down in the box, and the Panthers were awarded a penalty. Captain Daniel O’Grady ’19 stepped up cool and collected to the penalty marker, hitting a confident shot past the keeper into the bottom right corner of the goal.
“Getting the first goal so quickly was important because it gave us the belief that our game plan works and that we had every ability to win the game,” O’Grady said.
The Panthers kept up the pressure, but it didn’t take long for the Jumbos to equalize. In the 26th minute they found the back of the net on a set piece. Brett Rojas served a free kick into the penalty box, and Sterling Weatherbie managed to head it into the goal. The next 20 minutes saw possession being controlled by both sides. After 45 minutes the teams headed to the locker room all square at 1–1.
The second half started quickly. Both sides had many chances, but neither team managed to find the net. At the end of regulation, Middlebury earned back-to-back corner kicks. This fired up the people in the crowd, many of whom were running back and forth between the men’s and women’s matches trying to will the Panthers to victory. However, it wasn’t enough, and at the end of 90 minutes the score remained tied at 1–1.
In overtime, Middlebury kept up its physical style of play, disrupting Tufts’ chances to find the winning goal. Overtime matches can be long and grueling, but O’Grady again noted the importance of that first goal.
“Even after conceding, the fact that we had been able to break them down so early helped us sustain our enthusiasm and energy for the full match,” he said.
The match ended with Tufts outshooting the Panthers 16–8 and earning nine corners as opposed to the Panthers’ four. As is typical for its physical style, Middlebury was called for 26 fouls, seven more than Tufts.
Despite tying the number-three team in the country, the Panthers were disappointed.
“As a group we were pretty unsatisfied with the result,” Potter said. “Tufts is a good team, but we were disappointed to concede a set-piece goal after taking the lead so early on. Overall, it was a solid performance that we hope to build on moving forward. We want to be playing our best soccer at the end of the season, and I think we’re on the road to doing that.”
This past Monday, Oct. 8, the Panthers traveled to Utica, New York, for a non-conference matchup with Utica College. Middlebury outshot Utica 27–1 and earned 10 corner kicks to Utica’s zero. Goals from O’Grady, Brendan Barry ’22, Kye Moffatt ’19, Jacob LaBranche ’22 and two from Aidan Robinson ’20 led the Panthers to a whopping 6–0 win.
On the horizon, the Panthers have a home match and an away doubleheader against NESCAC foes Trinity and Wesleyan, on Saturday and Sunday respectively. With the season coming to an end, every match at this point is important to helping the Panthers qualify for the postseason, and Drew Goulart ’19 thinks the guys have what it takes.
“I feel confident going into the our last five games of the regular season,” Goulart said. “Throughout the season we have become a much stronger team and have begun to find our footing. The important part now is maintaining a fighting mentality and imposing our game onto any opponent we face.”
(10/11/18 9:56am)
The crime statistics released in the college’s annual security and fire safety report reveals a sharp increase in incidences of rape, stalking and dating violence and a continued decline in discipline for liquor law violations compared to last year’s numbers.
The latest report, which was released on Oct. 1, covers incidents at the college campus, Bread Loaf and the Middlebury Language Schools. The report cannot tally crimes that go unreported and therefore does not represent the total number of crimes committed on campus.
The report includes statistics from the past three years. Looking specifically at the college campus and its immediate vicinity, the fluctuations in several of these crime categories are as follows.
There has been a steady decline in disciplinary referrals issued for liquor law violations. The number fell from 356 referrals in 2015 to 316 in 2016 and 233 in 2017. Reports of aggravated assault also declined from one in 2015 and 2016 to zero in 2017.
Reported rapes rose to 19 in 2017 from eight in 2016. The eight in 2016 marked a significant drop from from 21 in 2015.
Increases in reported crimes have occurred in several categories. In 2017 two hate crimes were reported, while in 2015 and 2016 there were zero reports. Reports of dating violence have risen from five in 2015 to 11 in 2017. Reports of stalking have increased from four in 2015 to 11 in 2017. Reports of fondling have increased from one in 2015 to six in 2017.
There was one report of arson in 2015, zero in 2016 and one in 2017.
The 129-page document also includes contact information for emergency situations, on-campus resources and health and advocacy services, including the student-led organization MiddSafe, which provides a 24-hour hotline run by student advocates.
Acting as a resource manual for students, the report also details procedures that can guide students through difficult situations. It includes policies, procedures, safety practices and fire systems at the college’s campus.
“I think it’s important to have these resources handy because we have a bigger sense of security,” Mariana Zamorano ’22 said.
“You never know when you’re going to be faced with certain situations,” Max Rye ’20 added. “It definitely doesn’t hurt to have access to these resources.”
Statistics provided in the reports are collected by the Middlebury College Department of Public Safety in accordance with the Jeanne Clery Disclosure of Campus Security Policy and Campus Crime Statistics Act. The Clery Act, passed into law in 1990, requires that all colleges and universities receiving federal funding share information about crime on campus.
(10/11/18 9:54am)
The women’s golf team took to their home tees last weekend in the 2018 NESCAC Women’s Golf Championship/George Phinney Classic. The Panthers were in mid-season form, considering they had competed in four tournaments and invitationals throughout the fall season.
The Panthers ultimately placed third, and rival Williams captured the Women’s Golf Championship title. Chloe Levins ’20 carded the best tournament score with a pair of 76s for a total of 152. She outcompeted her opponents by four strokes, which allowed her to capture medalist honors.
The Panthers shot a total score of 663 (326–337) over the weekend, putting them in third place out of the 11 competing teams. The Panthers were 20 shots behind the winning team, Williams (643), and 13 behind Amherst (650).
Williams, by the end of the first round, led at the par-71 Ralph Myhre Course with a score of 320. Amherst, meanwhile, trailed by one stroke at 321. Middlebury followed in a close third, carding a Saturday score of 326. Cordelia Chan of Williams led competitors with a score of 74; next was Hamilton’s Celia Lau, teeing a 75. Levins was Middlebury’s top scorer with her score of 76.
In the second round, Williams increased its one-point lead to seven points. Middlebury carded a day-two score of 337, which was 11 strokes worse than Saturday. While it wasn’t quite what the Panthers had hoped for, their consistency kept them in third place.
In addition to Levins’ top performance, Blake Yaccino ’20 also had a great showing, shooting a two-day total of 160 (79–81). She tied for third place overall. Helen Dailey ’19 was another solid contributor, hitting an 87 and an 88. Following Dailey was Anna Zumwinkle ’20, who posted up a two-day total of 176 (84–92). Rounding out the scorers was Maddy Cordeiro ’22, with a total score of 192.
While they did not win the NESCAC title, they are optimistic about their spring season and are proud of how they finished strong with a small but mighty team of six.
“Although our team is small, it has great potential,” Levins said. “We’ll do our best to prepare by putting ourselves in the best position mentally and technically each week. If we’re able to do that successfully, the results will come.”
(10/04/18 10:01am)
Whether you are a Middlebury student, professor or just a passerby, chances are you have seen the West Cemetery. You might know it as the shortcut to the gym, or the place with the mummy. Regardless, it is hard to miss.
What many people have not seen is Middlebury’s other cemetery — a well-hidden treasure tucked into the far side of the knoll, with no markers or tombstones; buried in this graveyard lay hundreds of sacred texts. The texts range from entire prayer books to Genizah scraps.
On Friday, Sept. 28, Rabbi Kevin Hale, a visiting Torah scribe, led Middlebury’s second sacred scroll burial. The proceeding closely resembled a traditional funeral. There were shovels, rabbis, prayers and sentiments. The occasion was described by many as both joyous and sad — a celebration and a letting go. Rabbi Hale regarded this as a natural process, a way to “give life to sacred practices by letting them go with respect” and as a “celebration of a creative process that keeps on going.”
This symbolism extends beyond the Jewish faith. Middlebury’s Muslim Chaplain and Advisor Saifa Hussain spoke of an Islamic tradition in which sacred texts must be returned to the earth by means of burial, burning or submerging the text in a body of water — a beautiful metaphor for respecting the earth and its gifts.
“We give [the texts] back to the earth,” Talia Rasiel ’22 said. “The idea is that you came from dust and you return to dust.”
Throughout the burial, it was easy to forget that the object of the ritual was a series of texts. The way the attendees spoke of the scrolls as living, breathing entities meant to be read, kissed, danced and interacted with made it seem as though the writing truly has a life of its own.
When asked about this sentiment, Rabbi Hale said, “It doesn’t so much suggest idolatry as it does honoring and showing respect and love for the text. When you hold a Torah scroll it feels as though you are holding a baby.”
The multiplicity of religions represented at the burial of these Jewish texts begs the questions: how does this practice relate to other practices and beliefs? Is Middlebury doing enough to organize and welcome beautiful and meaningful events such as this?
“I grew up with a huge respect for all religions,” Evan Killion ’21 said. “They all have something special. I love learning about the different conceptions of god. People here are taking various religion classes that don’t correspond to their own faith because they are genuinely curious — they want to learn more and they have a deep respect.”
Ultimately, the event offered an intriguing glimpse into traditions that surround the end of the lives of sacred texts and reminded us of the myriad ways we reflect on our place on earth.
(10/04/18 10:00am)
Their slogans are catchy, jeans are bleached and their health is progressively deteriorating. Robin Campillo’s award-winning 2017 movie “Beats Per Minute” (“120 Battements Par Minute”) follows the Parisian activist group Act Up in their battle against HIV/AIDS in the 1990s. The screening was co-sponsored by the French department as part of the Hirschfield International Series.
The story begins following activist Sean Dalamazo’s (Nahuel Pérez Biscayart) difficult personal struggle with the disease as he falls in love with new member Nathan (Arnaud Valois).
We are introduced to Act Up at their weekly meeting in a lecture hall and are accompanied by Fabien’s (Jean-François Auguste) forceful words of advice: regardless of your true status, as an activist you have to now get used to being seen as HIV-positive. What follows is a series of awkward protest scenes, bass-driven parties with bizarre biological animations and a lot of medical jargon. Though somewhat quirky, Campillo’s portrayal of Act Up is oddly refreshing: it is not a dumbed-down, sanitized and perfumed version of social movements. Instead we are allowed to experience the group and their messiness in first person.
Despite taking place almost three decades ago, the events of the film feel contemporary. Were it not for Thibault’s (Antoine Reinartz) Gameboy in the hospital and the lack of laptops in the meeting room, the film could easily be set in 2018. The group’s passionate discussions about the inclusion of marginalized groups in their work and their constant struggle with corporate representatives bear a striking resemblance to issues which continue to color social activism as we know it today. As the group storms a high school to distribute condoms and flyers, the headmaster exhibits the same conservative attitude towards students’ sexuality which we still see in American sexual education today. Whether that says something about the stagnancy of Western social development can be debated.
Yet “BPM” is not all protest and debate. Judging by the number of people who were shrinking in their seats, the film’s boldest moments are found in its sex scenes. Biscayart and Valois’ captivating chemistry gets to shine as the camera appears to glide over their skin. With every vertebra and skin crease on display, the audience almost feels like an intruder. As Sean reluctantly tells Nathan about an affair with a teacher that led to his infection and the lesions on his skin, the heaviness of the atmosphere in the auditorium was palpable.
The film also proves its relevance to current debates by showing physical intimacy in a rather progressive way: sex in “BPM” is communicative and light-hearted throughout, all while never losing its spark. Plus: points for the consistent emphasis on protection — just please do not rip condoms open with your teeth like Sean does.
Although the stories presented by individual characters are generally insightful and well-developed, supporters of the Bechdel test may find themselves getting frustrated.
In its treatment of gay and lesbian women as accessories, “BPM” reflects the tendency of queer popular culture to pay disproportionate amounts of attention to gay men. Campillo feels entitled to throw around the derogatory word “dyke” for its shock factor yet gives little to no space for the development of female characters with strong presences like Sophie (Adèle Haenel), Eva (Aloïse Sauvage) and Hélène (Catherine Vinatier). While even characters with significantly less screen time, such as Germain (Médhi Touré) and Markus (Simon Guélat), get to vocalize their personal experiences with HIV, we are left to speculate what might have led the women to Act Up.
As the majority of the film is spent closely following Sean and Nathan’s relationship, some may say that this observation is irrelevant. Yet such a view fundamentally misunderstands the film’s function. “BPM” is at its core a political film and thus deserves to be discussed in political terms. Hence, its downfalls in creating an accurate portrayal are important: the HIV/AIDS epidemic may have primarily affected men, yet women certainly were (and are) not immune to it. In its current form, “BPM” remains complicit in reproducing misconceptions about the insignificance of women in the movement against HIV. Even a slight expansion of this angle could have given the film a dimension which few have explored.
As I walked out of the Dana Auditorium amidst viewers who, like me, tried hard to rub the marks of the film’s last half hour off their eyes, I found myself hyper-aware of my surroundings. Arnaud Rebotini’s soundscape and Campillo’s intricate cinematography force your mind to recalibrate.
Sean may have been joking as he described the vividness which his HIV-status added to his life, but to the viewer that illusion is very much present. In its essence, “BPM” is what one would want a film about a personal struggle like AIDS to be. It is tender, it is unapologetic, it is raw and most definitely worth your time.
(10/04/18 10:00am)
As Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testified against Supreme Court Nominee Brett Kavanaugh early Thursday afternoon, dozens of students, professors and Middlebury residents gathered across the street from Shafer’s Market as part of a cross-country display of support for the California professor.
The demonstrators congregated around noon, many of them carrying signs bearing the hashtag #BelieveChristine and the words “I Believe” — slogans of a protest movement organized by and for survivors of sexual assault that took hold across the nation in the days leading up to Ford’s testimony.
“It felt like a really important moment of solidarity,” said Sophie Taylor ’20, who participated in the demonstration. “If just one of the women who shared their experience with sexual assault got something out of being able to share it in a space that they felt safe, then I think it was really successful.”
College professors Tara Affolter, Laurie Essig and Marion Wells organized the demonstration through the Women’s March online forum, which people across the country used to plan similar events.
Affolter and Essig gave opening statements as demonstrators gathered and invited survivors of sexual assault to share their experiences. After two women had told their stories, the demonstrators walked to the roundabout in the downtown where they joined others across the country in a minute of silence at 12:30 p.m.
Thursday’s demonstrations were the culmination of weeks of national anticipation that led up to Thursday’s hearings.
[gallery ids="40213,40215,40216,40217"]
Ford said on Sept. 16 that she would testify publicly to the Senate Judiciary Committee about the sexual assault she alleged Kavanaugh committed against her at a high school house party in Maryland in 1982.
Then on Sept. 23, The New Yorker broke the story of Deborah Ramirez, who accused Kavanaugh of assaulting her when they were students at Yale. Conversations about male privilege, drinking culture on college campuses and systemic challenges faced by accusers in Ford’s position dominated national news cycles approaching Thursday morning.
At the Middlebury demonstration, the emotion that drove people across the country to demonstrate was palpable.
“The pain that so many people are feeling in this moment is two-fold….[we are experiencing this] as survivors of sexual assault but also as [people] living in a state where our bodily integrity is not of the state’s concern,” Essig said. “Hopefully these gatherings around the country reminded survivors and women that we do matter even when that is not recognized by our representatives.”
Others said that raw frustration with a political establishment that seems to be overlooking Kavanaugh’s past drove them to join the demonstration.
“The absurdity of this spectacle that we’re seeing is the first thing that brought me out here today,” Affolter said. “The notion that someone is entitled to one of the highest positions of power in our country, and the idea that what that person has done in the past doesn’t matter, that’s absurd.”
Conversations also turned towards parallels between the party culture described from Kavanaugh’s high school and college years, and student life at Middlebury today. Though close to 30 years have elapsed since the incident Ford described last Thursday, Middlebury’s community can still learn from those parallels, Affolter said.
“In so many cases these accusations are explained away as if ‘that was college and I was drunk and I was young,’” Affolter said. “I think that institutions like Middlebury or any undergraduate institution really have to ask ourselves, how are we preparing and supporting young people to be responsible for their actions?”
Most of the demonstrators who gathered Thursday were college students, but town residents joined the event as well. Community members have joined forces with college protesters in the past, like in March when hundreds of Middlebury Union High School students joined college students and professors in a walkout for increased gun control after the Parkland shooting.
[pullquote speaker="Sophie Taylor ’20" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]I think that the power in numbers and silent support and connection with one another was palpable.[/pullquote]
According to Affolter, it was important to her and the other organizers that Thursday’s demonstration be accessible to the town as well as the college community.
Joanna Colwell, owner of Middlebury’s Otter Creek Yoga Studio, helped the professors spread word of the demonstration around town.
“I just really love it when we get town people and campus people together during moments like these,” Colwell said. “I don’t think it happens enough and I’d like to see it happen more.”
Though Essig posted the event to the Women’s March action forum on Tuesday, just two days before the demonstration, the crowd that gathered Thursday was substantial. Thursday’s event didn’t attract the same level of student attention as past protests like the Parkland walkout did, those who went were struck by the intensity of the connection with fellow protesters that they felt during the demonstration.
“I really liked the minute of silence,” Taylor said. “I think that the power in numbers and silent support and connection with one another was palpable.”
(10/04/18 10:00am)
“these are not men who are scared in the way that we are scared”
By CHARLOTTE FRANKEL
When I came up with the idea for this column, my hope was to create a space for rather banal silliness to exist outside of the relative garbage can fire that is today’s political climate. I still hold true to this intention and will continue to hold fast to this mission in the coming weeks. However, I have also been gifted with a platform, and I would be remiss if I didn’t use it this week to write on the Brett Kavanaugh hearings and the subsequent responses I’ve seen from the media to friends’ deeply personal reflections.
I am a woman. I know, big shocker! Alert the presses (which I am doing right now!) Anything I write here about watching Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee has probably already been said or written by the various women in your lives. The lack of originality in what I’m about to say shouldn’t make you feel anything other than angry and sad. To watch Dr. Ford testify about her experiences of assault and have her testimony essentially summarily dismissed in favor of political gain was more than disheartening. It was heartbreaking.
To be frank, I didn’t expect to have such an emotionally visceral reaction to the hearing. The end result was exactly what I had expected. I had prepared myself for the outcome. But to actually see Dr. Ford sit in front of those men and watch them disregard her account of her assault broke me. Furthermore, it forced me to once again consider the ways in which I, a woman, and others like me, have been taught to accept some behavior from men as normal, or just par for the course of existing in the world as a woman. This was further cemented by the numerous posts on Facebook by my female friends reacting to the decision by the Committee and Dr. Ford’s testimony, recounting their own stories of abuse.
[pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]There was nothing funny about the complete lack of care expressed by some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to her testimony.[/pullquote]
I am a woman, and I have been followed for blocks by a man on a bicycle in New York City. I have been asked lewd questions by multiple male taxi drivers, forcing me to throw whatever cash I had at them and run out of the car at a stop, praying they wouldn’t follow me in anger. I have been followed down Main Street in Middlebury by a man who continually confronted me and a friend for some perceived slight. When I was 16, a drunk boy walked up to me at a party and took his time clawing his hand across my chest. No words were exchanged. He walked away as if nothing had happened.
Each of these stories I have told and retold; I don’t think I have ever once told them seriously. This is to say, I treated them all as a joke. These things happen every day to women just like me, so why should I consider my experiences anything special? It was funny. It was funny that some man with control of the locks on the car thought it was appropriate to ask me whether or not I had a boyfriend and what his penis looked like. It was funny that this strange boy thought it was OK to touch me in a possessive, frightening way without my consent. And it was so funny that every woman I told the story to could relate in some way. We’d all laugh and move on with our lives in the shadows of these ‘everyday assaults.’
I usually think that almost anything can be made funny. After all, as the classic formula states, tragedy + time = comedy. There was nothing funny about Dr. Ford’s testimony. There was nothing funny about the complete lack of care expressed by some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to her testimony. And I can’t help but feel that there was really nothing funny about Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony as well, which was mined for jokes by every late night talk show out there.
[pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]I’m angry that I was in no way surprised by this.[/pullquote]
Humor is often used as a coping mechanism. But as I looked at the men who dominate late night give monologues about Judge Kavanaugh’s overuse of the word “beer,” his almost-crazed demeanor and his detailed calendars, I couldn’t help but think that these are not men who are scared in the way that we are scared. This is not to say that they are not empathetic or understanding of what Dr. Ford and many women have gone through. This is to say that they are limited in what they can joke about, and we are forced to hear the same recycled lines over and over again, because, where are we?
Shows like The Rundown with Robin Thede and The Break with Michelle Wolf, both showcases for female comedians of color, have been cancelled by their respective networks/streaming services. The only female late night talk show host currently on air is Samantha Bee, whose show has a shorter runtime than her compatriots. Seth Meyers often allows his female writers (of whom Wolf was one) tell jokes that he “can’t” tell, which is a step, but there is a complete lack of visibility when it comes to women in late night, where many of my friends actually gather their news from.
I guess I’m just angry. I’m angry that Dr. Ford’s testimony wasn’t enough to convince some senators to cross party lines and delay the nomination process, and I’m angry that I was in no way surprised by this. I’m angry that it feels like women are constantly shut down for telling their stories. This is not a commentary at all on the merits of these late night talk show hosts or their humor. Rather it is a statement of anger against women being systematically denied a platform to tell these kinds of jokes and cope with abuses of power through humor.
Well, that’s all for now. Tune in next week when I genuinely will get smushed between the stacks in the bowels of the Davis “FAMILY” Library (I still have yet to see a ‘family’ studying together).
“they waited until she was gone to open their mouths”
By LUCY GRINDON
In 1982, Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. I believe it, and if you watched her testify last Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it’s difficult for me to imagine you don’t believe it too.
Her voice sometimes shook, often she held back tears, but the truth of her words was as clear as water. So many women have opened up and written about their long-hidden traumas over the course of the #MeToo movement; watching Dr. Ford recount her assault in her own voice, in real time, she seemed to be the ultimate embodiment of this era.
I wonder if any Republican senators could have been moved had they actually spoken with her. Instead, they waited until she was gone to open their mouths. They claimed to have hired outside prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to question Dr. Ford because they wanted the hearing to be coherent and methodical. Of course, we know the real reason — they wanted to avoid looking aggressive and disrespectful towards women before the upcoming midterm elections. The most depressing and grave reality, however, is not their implied inability to treat a woman with respect, but their collective refusal to engage with anyone who might disrupt their view of Brett Kavanaugh as a victim.
Many men in our society, including some of the affluent, white, educated men who occupy government positions, can’t seem to imagine any greater suffering than to be denied something they see as rightfully theirs, whether it’s sex, a gun, or a seat on the Supreme Court. Our culture of entitlement can turn male-female friendships into the “friend zone,” young men into violent “incels,” and freedom of speech into a prerogative to spread racism, sexism, or incitements to violence without facing opposition or criticism.
The stories of those who have suffered at the hands of entitled men are the strongest challenge to the dangerous idea that men who don’t get what they want are victims. Dr. Ford told powerful men how one of their own had hurt her, and the only way they could reassert Kavanaugh’s victimhood was by undermining her legitimacy as a witness.
During the latter half of the hearings, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham did not question Dr. Ford’s honesty or the strength of her memory. Instead, he tried to delegitimize her by casting her as nothing more than a political tool. In a furious tirade accusing senate Democrats of power-hungry political maneuverings, he said to Kavanaugh, “She’s as much of a victim [of the Democrats] as you are.”
Dr. Ford has certainly suffered. She has sacrificed her anonymity, her privacy and even her family’s safety. But she was no one’s victim in that hearing room. Everything she has said and done over the past several weeks has been her choice. “I am a fiercely independent person. I am no one’s pawn,” she declared in her opening testimony.
Brett Kavanaugh already made Dr. Ford into a victim once, when she was 15. Graham’s effort to re-victimize her in the eyes of the country was a despicable attack on her personal agency and a denial of her heroism.
Despite intense fear, she stood up for the sake of truth, justice and duty, inspiring more people to come forward and hold sexual abusers accountable. Perhaps equally heroic was the way her testimony exposed the fraudulence of privileged men’s victimization masks — the ones they accessorize with dramatic pauses and tears and indignant shouting.
On Friday, Ana Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher, two survivors of sexual abuse, confronted Arizona Senator Jeff Flake with their pain in an elevator. “Don’t look away from me,” Gallagher demanded as she spoke. Injustice, abuse, and exploitation are too common, and one person’s emotional trauma is not more significant than anyone else’s, but U.S. senators and men who are nominated to the Supreme Court are not typically the world’s great sufferers. When people in positions of power and privilege are faced with that truth, they must not be allowed to turn away.
“Dr. Ford made those watching her want to be better people,
to emulate her bravery”
By MATT SMITH
Last Thursday, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford sat in front of some of the most powerful people in our country — the Senate Judiciary Committee — and she spoke her truth plainly.
She was honest when she could not remember something; she was “terrified” to be there and yet she felt it was her “civic duty” to testify. She spoke with such honesty and eloquence that it was hard to watch at times. Quite simply, Dr. Ford made those watching her want to be better people, to emulate her bravery.
This, contrasted with Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s visceral anger and belligerence in his opening statement and in his answers to the Democratic members of the committee, displays the ridiculous double-standards that were evident in Thursday’s hearing.
Speaking first, Dr. Ford was questioned by the Republican majority’s prosecutor (hired so they wouldn’t accidentally say something misogynistic) and by Democrats about the specifics of her story and the strongest memories of the night.
She did her best to answer every question directly and honestly, admitting when there were lapses in her memory. Conversely, Judge Kavanaugh spent his time denouncing the hearing as “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” and avoided answering nearly every question posed to him.
The Republican majority, after a tirade by Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, spent their time attacking both the Democrats on the committee and the hearing itself as being unjust.
Indeed, what they thought was unjust was the “good man” being made to go through the “most unethical sham in politics.”
[pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]Our Senate now lives by an "eye for an eye" doctrine.[/pullquote]
Imagine for a moment that Dr. Ford yelled at the committee members (which her emotions must have compelled her to do) and Judge Kavanaugh had stayed quiet, calm, and tried to be as helpful and honest as possible, in keeping with the behavior of a Supreme Court justice. There would be no question of his confirmation.
And so, I watched a hearing that started as a profound moment for the #MeToo movement disintegrate into a bitter partisan fight, led by an all-male group of senators. While criticizing the Democrats for not joining their investigations, they refused to call further witnesses, subpoena documents, or ask for further FBI investigation.
And yet while Republicans repeatedly avoided doing their job Thursday, it’s hard not to acknowledge that both parties have larger motives: Democrats want to delay until the midterms, Republicans want to push this nominee through as quickly as possible.
Our Senate now lives by an “eye for an eye” doctrine. Republicans filibuster President Barack Obama’s Federal Court nominees, so now-retired Senator Harry Reid reduces the vote requirement to confirm those nominees.
Then Republicans refuse to speak to former Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, so Democrats withhold Dr. Ford’s letter until the last moment to try and derail a nominee.
And now Republicans refuse Dr. Ford and the other accusers a proper investigation, and so the cycle continues. At what point do we say, “Enough. What’s right is right”? [pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]We have a responsibility to do more than hope.[/pullquote]
Even the successful and admirable attempts of Senator Jeff Flake, a Republican from Arizona, to have the FBI investigate have been constrained by an arbitrary one-week time limit and a narrow scope. Doesn’t Dr. Ford deserve more than that? Don’t we deserve more than that?
In just the past few days, three women whom I am close to have spoken for the first time about assaults in their pasts. They volunteered their stories when asked about their opinion on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
One said this: “the person who assaulted me would not remember my name or what happened – it meant nothing to him and forever changed me.”
Judge Kavanaugh has issued a categorical denial of all accusations directed at him of ever being blackout drunk, all the while admitting that there were times when he “drank too much.”
I ask then, is it not possible that Judge Kavanaugh did not remember this event because it meant nothing to him, because he was drunk at the time? Is it not possible that “it meant nothing to him and forever changed” her? In light of Dr. Ford’s extremely compelling testimony, that seems the most likely outcome.
We can hope that this week’s FBI investigation will shed more light on the allegations, we can hope that a man who has caused lifelong suffering will never sit in judgement of others.
Yet, we have a responsibility to do more than hope; we have a responsibility to vote for candidates who will believe and respect survivors. We deserve senators who won’t congratulate themselves on giving Dr. Ford a fair hearing and call her testimony “the most unethical sham in politics” not an hour later.
It is very, very easy to fall into a partisan vortex. It’s easy to fight with each other until we forget how much we have in common. Yet we all deserve a Supreme Court, conservative or liberal, that has members of sound moral integrity, who have led lives of virtue.
Can we not, at this moment in history, say to each other simply “What’s right is right, and we all deserve better than this?”
“why am I even here?”
By SOPHIE CLARK
On Friday I had a fully-fledged, borderline comical, breakdown. Swollen red face, giant tears, the whole deal.
All over a Supreme Court nominee.
Because it was not just a nomination process. It was a blatant, full bodied, laugh in the face to any woman who is trying to accomplish anything in her life. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is everything Trump’s America could possibly want in a woman. From the outside, she is white, upper-middle class, non-threateningly middle-aged. From the inside, she has worked her entire life to receive an education, to earn a PhD and to become a professor.
And she wasn’t believed.
She wasn’t taken seriously. What does that mean for the rest of us? I went through the rest of that day feeling like a zombie. Passing from class to class questioning at every moment, “Why am I even here?”
Twenty-seven years ago, Anita Hill was hauled up in front of the same panel and treated with the utmost disrespect for all of the world to see. Treated so disturbingly in fact that it inspired a new generation of female candidates to run for office — to change things. It’s been 27 years, however, and what has changed? Why should we even bother?
To me, this hearing screamed: what is the point of getting a Middlebury education when in the eyes of this country, no matter what I do, I will never be enough?
I’m lucky my attacker is not a particularly ambitious guy, but many attackers are. And in twenty years when those men are up for promotions that they are seen as “entitled” to, will their victims be taken seriously? Will anything change?
Other generations are quick to criticize millennials for being overly emotional, too attached to issues — but this is not just an emotional response to the pain of survivors (although I am perfectly entitled to that). This is an objective understanding that those in power shunt half of its population to the side with ease. So why should we bother? Why should we contribute? Why should we get educated, or speak up?
What pushed me out of this rut was the enormous strength I witnessed in other people. I saw the two women who confronted Arizona Senator Jeff Flake bare everything I was feeling and too scared to show to the world. I saw my own peers grapple with their pasts and chose to fight back against what I chose to bury. It gave me hope that there is still a force for change, that women are told “No” time and time again and that we are not giving in until we are given a chance to speak up and be listened to.
Emotional responses matter. Feeling utterly despondent and alone matters. Because I will never forget feeling that way and will forever look for ways to stop it from ever happening again.
(10/04/18 9:59am)
There is no better location for a game of Quidditch than Battell Beach, where the sport was introduced back in 2005 by a group of Middlebury College students who had no idea of the impact they would make. On Sunday Sept. 30, Quidditch came home in the form of the Middlebury Quidditch Classic Festival. The tournament was a fitting tribute to the origins of the sport that swept the nation. Two tournaments comprised of thirteen teams representing seven colleges and the five commons played, along with eight organizations and six food vendors to keep spectators more than occupied between matches. It was a perfect day for Quidditch, warm and sunny. The butterbeer was flowing, the taco and crepe stands had roaring business and the Quaffles were flying. Plenty of kids (and more than a few adults, too) were seen walking around decked in their finest Hogwarts robes.
Forty-six-year-old Phil Johnston and his 11-year-old daughter Sophia drove down from Vergennes, VT to watch the tournament. When asked to explain why she decided to come, Sophia replied, “Because I love Harry Potter.”
Kate, Harper and Freja, ages 39, 13 and 12, came from Shelburne, VT to watch. The three were in agreement that what they liked the most about the Classic was the atmosphere.
“[I loved] the fun of it,” Kate said. “No one worries about anything but Quidditch [at the tournament].”
In the round-robin Quidditch pools of the morning, the play was loose and fun, as nobody would be eliminated until later. The announcers were members of Middlebury’s various improv groups, providing commentary that, while not always relevant, was plenty entertaining. One highlight from the announcing booth: “Oh, he got the pants, but not the Snitch!”
In the competition to win the Commons Cup, it came down to Ross and Cook in the final after Ross defeated Wonnacott 120-50 and Cook beat Brainerd 130-120. It was a close match, and at one point Ross appeared to get the Snitch for an upset victory. However, the play was recalled and Cook’s strong offense was the deciding factor in their 170-90 acquisition of the Commons Cup.
In the college bracket play of the afternoon, the playful atmosphere of the morning was mostly forgotten. In the opening round, Middlebury beat Vassar 150-60, led by spectacular goaltending by Ian Scura ’19.5 which allowed the Panthers to increase their consistent lead. Meanwhile, Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute (RPI) knocked off the Dumbledore’s Army wing of the UVM team in a lopsided 130-10 match. While Tufts cruised to a 170-60 victory over Providence, Skidmore put up 170 points in a victory over UVM’s Fellowship team.
In the quarterfinals, Middlebury took on Skidmore. Within five seconds of the match starting, Skidmore had scored a goal. Not to be outdone, Middlebury came back with one of their own just moments later, kicking off a fast-paced duel that saw the Panthers and the Thoroughbreds exchange 5 goals in the first minute and a half. In the end, though Skidmore had some good breakaway goals, they struggled to field a cohesive offense, and excellent play by the Middlebury beaters and a relentless offense that gave them a 150-70 victory. Meanwhile, RPI proved to be too much for Tufts in a hard-fought game where they came away with a 130-50 victory.
So it was onto the finals, with the hosts facing the powerhouse from Rensselaer, who had yet to lose a game during the day. The game took off at a blistering pace, with RPI’s thunderous offense led by chaser Chris Lamonica keeping the heat on the Middlebury defense. Middlebury’s offense matched their opponents goal-for-goal in the early going, but as the match progressed, RPI pulled in front and slowly lengthened their lead. After a slight delay of game due to an injury to the Snitch, RPI caught the golden prize and it was over, 160-60.
At the closing ceremonies, as trophies were awarded and the teams gathered on the pitch for a group photo, there were no hard feelings anywhere. Rather, each player was only too happy to celebrate the thing that had brought them together one last time before heading home: good, old-fashioned Quidditch.
Click here to see more photos from the day.
[gallery size="large" ids="40428,40429,40430"]
(10/04/18 9:58am)
After Dr. Christine Blasey Ford made public her allegation that Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted her at a high school party in 1982, more than 1,200 alumnae of the all-girls Holton-Arms School signed an online letter of support.
One of the catalysts behind the letter is Nahid Markosian, PhD., who graduated from the school two years after Ford in 1986 and is the parent of current Middlebury College student Leila Markosian ’21. Kavanaugh attended the all-boys Georgetown Preparatory School. Both are located in Bethesda, MD.
The letter, which garnered national attention as Ford prepared to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee, can be found at www.standwithblaseyford.com.
In a phone interview with The Campus, Markosian discussed the letter, Dr. Ford and prep school culture.
Middlebury Campus (MC): What made you decide to try and organize support for Ford?
Nahid Markosian (NM): I graduated from Holton-Arms in 1986, so I didn’t know Christine Blasey Ford but I had heard on the news that she had wanted to remain anonymous.
One thing led to another and then she came out publicly. I was just thinking about how brave she is to do something like that and how much courage it takes. I felt for her and her family and really wanted her not to feel alone going through all of this. I wanted her to feel support from people who knew her way back then or were familiar with the culture of the school.
It all kind of started with me putting a post on our alumni page after asking, “how can we support our peer who has been so brave and courageous in sharing her story of the sexual assault?”
It really was the alumni group that picked it up and ran with it. They’re the ones who drafted the letter and it really sort of activated this solidarity among women.
When I was at Holton-Arms I don’t remember any conversations about date rape or sexual assault or anything. So I decided I didn’t want to keep the silence going. The petition started off with 15 people and it grew to 200 and I think now we’re at 1,100. It’s so important to remove the shame – to help people remove the shame from the experience. One woman said so eloquently, when she saw that we were all trying to help Dr. Blasey Ford not feel alone in this — she said “it gave me courage to know that I could say something and not be alone either.” This is about showing support for Dr. Blasey Ford, but also changing the norms around this [culture] in doing so.
MC: Could you speak to the atmosphere and the culture at Holton-Arms and how, in your opinion, it has changed (or not) since your time there?
NM: I had super protective parents and wasn’t allowed to do a lot of things so I feel like I can’t really speak too much about that particular social scene because I wasn’t part of it. I do know that there’s a lot of affluence and entitlement so in retrospect I think my parents were probably smart; what they were doing made sense. One thing I will say is that I don’t think it was just Georgetown Prep — I think that was the dynamic among a lot of those schools.
MC: In light of all the retroactive support the alumnae of Holton-Arms have given Ford, what advice would you give to current high school and college students to better have these sorts of conversations now? What can young people do now to help?
NM: I think that trying to have a community where it’s safe to share stories about what happened to you and share experiences and raise questions is crucial. Letting people know that they’re not going to be alone and that there’s support and help for them. Be vocal, be verbal. If you are getting close to somebody and things are moving along, it’s always a good idea to ask are you okay with this, are you comfortable with this?
MC: How might you respond to somebody who defends Kavanaugh by saying that his actions are excusable given how much time has passed and because he was a drunk high school student/college student? Essentially, how would you respond to the “boys will be boys” argument?
NM: I think actions matter. I think that kind of behavior was not normal then and it’s not normal now. It dismays me when people can’t look at what they’ve done and realize that maybe it wasn’t a big deal for them, but it really affected somebody else’s life. It’s troubling that adults now looking back at what they did during their teenage years are so quick to just brush it aside.
MC: Are there things that you think we, as college students, and more broadly, that the world should be paying particular attention to in all of this national drama? Are there things that we should be remembering?
NM: For centuries, women have not been believed. Women have very, very little to gain from disclosing these experiences in a public forum. And I think that when they do it’s really important to listen and take it seriously and understand what happened. I want to say that and I want to tell people who are going through this: talk to your friends, talk to your counselors, talk to police, and we need to listen and we need to hear. It’s not easy — it takes a lot of courage, and we need to respect people who speak up.
MC: Do you know at all what Ford’s response to the petition has been or if she’s made any sort of a response?
NM: I don’t know, I don’t believe she’s responded.
MC: I definitely imagine it would make her feel less alone.
NM: I really, really hope so. We want her to feel that we have her back. And I know that some people are trying to make this into a political issue, but I don’t think it is. I think she is speaking out about an atrocity that was done to her, and she wants people to know about this person’s character.
(10/04/18 9:57am)
In September 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency disclosed that the German automaker Volkswagen had installed devices in 11 million cars that cheated emissions testing, permitting their cars to emit hazardous nitrogen oxide. The reporting of Jack Ewing, Germany correspondent for the New York Times, led to Volkswagen paying a more than $20 billion settlement. Ewing’s 2017 book, “Faster, Higher, Farther: The Volkswagen Scandal,” digs deeper into the corporate scandal, tracing it back to the company’s history since the Nazi era and its top-down management culture.
In a lecture on Sept. 25 organized by the college’s Environmental Studies program, Ewing discussed how Volkswagen, a corporation that prides itself in being environmentally conscious, committed massive crime and fraud.
Ewing spoke with The Campus by phone prior to the lecture about his book, lessons to be learned from the scandal and the role of journalists covering the corporate world today. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
Yvette Shi (YS): When and how did you start to realize the role played by the company’s corporate culture?
Jack Ewing (JE): I had dealings with Volkswagen off and on for years, and I was already aware that it was a very kind of rigid, authoritarian type of company culture, and I knew who some of the leaders of the company were and sort of how they operated. So I think that was from the very beginning — not obvious — but I immediately had a feeling that the corporate culture certainly played a role.
And then we looked at the way the company responded to the scandal, and how close they were and how long it took them to confront it, to start investigating. And then when I started to develop sources inside the company or people that have worked at Volkswagen. At last, it just became clear pretty quickly that it was the kind of company where you couldn’t admit failure, you couldn’t say no to somebody above you and where there was not a strong moral underpinning or strong moral standard that people believe they are supposed to adhere to.
YS: Do you think that this sort of top-down culture is typical for large corporations?
JE: I think it’s certainly not uncommon. I think it exists to some degree almost in every big corporation. I think Volkswagen was the particularly extreme example, but at the same time I think it’s definitely the case that it’s something that can happen at any company. If you look at other scandals, like Enron, going back that’s been more than a decade, or Wells Fargo Bank in California, you know they were defrauding their clients on a massive scale, you always have this ingredient. The main ingredients are that you have a culture where people don’t feel they have any recourse when they are asked to do something unethical, and where you have top management setting extremely ambitious goals, and making it clear that if you fail, you are going to be fired.
So to that extent, and there’s lots of companies that operate that way, where they are constantly asking more and more employees and if you don’t deliver, your job is in danger. And that’s just an invitation for people to start to commit wrongdoing, because most people, even if they know that they can get caught in two years or five years, they’ll still try to hang on to their jobs for as long as they can.
YS: You talked about having sources inside the company. What was that process like? What were the challenges that you faced?
JE: That’s always difficult with a corporation. It’s particularly difficult with a company like Volkswagen. Volkswagen has over 300,000 employees. The first thing was to figure out the people we should concentrate on. What we did is that we found academic papers, where they have talked about their mission and technology, the engineers who have published papers in journals, and we found some papers that have names of engineers on them. Also we looked at patent registries that list the names of the people who get credit as inventors, and also helpfully their home addresses.
Then we just set about contacting those people. We did the usual thing, trying to call them a couple times, knocking on their doors — that wasn’t successful. I had the most success actually writing letters. So I would write people letters, tell them why I thought it would be in their interest to talk to me. I probably sent at least 50 [letters], and a much smaller number got back to me, but a number of people did get back to me who wanted to talk, and that was sort of the beginning where I was able to then figure out how the whole thing happened, the process with the whole illegal software being developed and then deployed over many years.
YS: What can students interested in entering the corporate world after school learn from the scandal?
JE: I think that you are going to learn a lot from the scandal. If you work in a corporation, there’s tremendous pressure to conform, people will possibly be asked to make moral compromises, and companies do not always help you to know when you are being asked to step over a line. I think that the clear message is that you have to maintain your own sense of what is right and wrong, independent of what your employer might be telling you. And if you feel that that’s being violated, you have to take action, you can’t just go along, you have to have moral courage.
I think that the people that were involved in this, a lot of them, their careers are ruined and in some cases they might go to jail. Also, a lot of them were fairly idealistic. They originally went into emissions technology because they wanted to make cleaner air, and then wound up being part of this fraud. So I think that the message is that you have to have the courage and the strength to stand up when you are being asked to do something like this.
One thing that I still find amazing is that at the very end there were a couple Volkswagen employees who went to the California regulators and said this is what’s really going on that’s wrong. But this is after they hid [the device] in cars for ten years. And the whole time, nobody went to authorities and said that there’s something really big illegal going on. Volkswagen would have been better off if they had. Everybody would have been better off. But nobody did that.
YS: Is there anything else that you would like to add?
JE: I guess the one thing that I always like to try to get across about this book is that some people think it’s a car book, and it’s not. I really tried to write it for people who don’t care about cars, don’t know about cars. My editor John Glusman, before we started working, he said: “Jack, you know, I really don’t care about cars at all.” And he doesn’t even know the difference between an automatic and a manual transmission. So he says: “You’re going to write a book that I’m gonna want to read.” So that’s really what I tried to do.
(10/04/18 9:54am)
The men’s golf team travelled south to Middlefield, CT to compete in the NESCAC Fall Qualifier hosted by Wesleyan University. The tournament took place at the Lyman Orchards Golf Club, a top-rated course in Connecticut and a popular family attraction known for its cultivation of apples and peaches.
This past weekend, however, Lyman Orchards also became a battleground on which 10 men’s golf squads, bearing the insignia of their respective New England liberal arts colleges, would duke it out for an opportunity to compete in, and possibly host, the four-team NESCAC Championship occurring this April.
The Panthers (587) emerged victorious from this scrap. They were followed by Trinity College (588) and Hamilton College (592), who finished second and third respectively. The red-hot Ephs of Williams College (596), who finished first in both the Ralph Myhre Invitational and the Williams Invitational, were nine shots behind Middlebury, landing in fifth place. The tournament host, Wesleyan University (641), placed ninth.
The Panther’s victory looked imminent after they were ranked third after the first round, having shot 293. The team, on their second day, maintained a consistent overall performance. They shot 294, which was low enough to push them into a first place finish. Evident by their one point lead over Trinity, their win was clearly a close contest.
Captain Reid Buzby ’19 (71-73) led the Panthers with an individual total score of 144, which was third overall. Just two shots behind him was Jordan Bessalel ’21 (72-74), who finished in a tie for fourth, and then Phin Choukas ’22 (75-73), who placed eighth. For 11th place, Kenneth Deiker ’22 (75-74) hit a total of 149, while David Packer ’20 (78-76) managed to land in a tie for 23rd.
Hopefully they can replicate this strong performance on April 27 and 28, when the NESCAC Championship comes to the Ralph Myhre Golf Course. But presently, golf will need to keep its focus for the upcoming Ekwanok Tournament, happening on Oct. 9 at Manchester, Vermont.
(10/04/18 9:53am)
The Panthers added two wins to their record this week, putting them at 9-0 for the season.
On Wednesday, Sept. 26, Middlebury travelled to Saratoga Springs, N.Y. to face the Skidmore Thoroughbreds on their home turf. Skidmore was the first to strike, capitalizing on a penalty corner to score the only goal of the first half at 22:25. But the Panthers came back strong in the second half, marking five consecutive goals to finish with a decisive 5-1 victory. Molly Freeman ’19, Emma Johns ’20, Danielle Brown ’21, Grace Jennings ’20, and Erin Hogan ’21 (her career first) all contributed to the goal-scoring. Overall, Middlebury controlled the game in shots on goal (25-1) and led penalty corners (16-1).
The game on Saturday, Sept. 29 took place all the way in Waterville, Maine against the Colby Mules. Once again, the Panthers overcame a 0-1 deficit at halftime to come out with a 4-1 win. This time, goals were scored by Marissa Baker ’20, Julia Richards ’20, Erin Nicholas ’21, and Danielle Brown ’21. Behind all the goal-scoring, the team worked together to dig deep and execute their game plan. “Last week’s games definitely tested our team and I believe that we grew a lot as a result of that,” said senior captain Amanda Bozorgi.
“Each game, we learn how to use our depth as a team more effectively,” said fellow senior captain and goalkeeper Meg Collins. “In terms of our lineup, we’re bringing players into different positions that better match their individual skillsets.”
As for that impressive 9-0 winning streak, the team is using it as motivation to stay focused on what’s ahead. “It feels great to have such a strong first half of the regular season, but combined with coming off such a successful season last year it definitely has teams motivated to beat us,” said Collins. “So we just have to work harder every day in practice to continue to improve our game.”
Next up, the Panthers take on Tufts, also undefeated and ranked second in the NESCAC, at home on Saturday at 1:00 p.m. “We’re coming into this week with some things that we need to work on,” said Bozorgi. “But this team is so deep and so adaptable, I have nothing but high aspirations for the rest of our season.”
(10/04/18 9:51am)
A strong finish in the fourth quarter lifted the Panther football team over the Colby Mules this past Saturday in Maine. Out-scoring its opponent by 14 points in the 4th quarter, the Middlebury team took home its second win of the season, 31-14.
Last week, Coach Bob Ritter wanted the team to “concentrate on the things [they] can control,” such as being in the right place to capitalize on opportunities. This past weekend, the Panther defense took this to heart, as they forced five Mule turnovers in an effort to improve their record.
Defensive execution on part of the Panthers kept Colby at arm’s length. Three of four Mule fumbles resulted in Middlebury possession, which allowed the Panthers to have not only more opportunities to score, but also prevented Colby control of the ball.
Charles Roselle ’21 and Matthew Daniel ’19 accounted for two interceptions of the game. Daniel returned the interception for 32 yards and a pick-six in the fourth quarter, further increasing the Panther lead and ultimately assisting the Panther win.
The intensity of the Middlebury defense, mixed with a great effort on part of the Panther offense, characterized the second half of the game. It all started, however, in the first quarter.
After Middlebury’s first drive of the game in the first few minutes, a Mule punt returner dropped a Maxwell Rye ’20 kick, which was recovered by Will Jernigan ’21. A subsequent connection between senior quarterback Jack Meservy ’19 and junior tight-end Frank Cosolito led to the first score of the day, with the Panthers leading 7-0.
Following a scoreless second quarter, the second half came with successive turnovers. Colby scored an equalizer touchdown in the 3rd quarter, but Middlebury’s Carter Massengill ’20 hit a 25-yard field goal to regain the lead, 10-7, before the end of the third.
The Panther offense then took control of the game, scoring two offensive touchdowns and Daniel’s pick-six, cementing their win against the Mules, 31-14.
Jonathan Hobart ’21 led Middlebury in tackles, with six solo and four assists. Conrado Banky ’19 accounted for 38 receiving yards on the day (1 for 38) as Jernigan ran for 79 yards (11 for 79) and passed for 95 (7 for 95).
The Panthers will take on the Amherst Mammoths at Middlebury this upcoming weekend, at 1:00 p.m. on Saturday.
(09/27/18 10:01am)
The Middlebury football team tacked on its first win of the season for the Panthers’ 2018 home opener, taking down the Bowdoin Polar Bears, 37-24.
Increasing the rush game by 317 yards and total yardage by 247 yards from the previous week, the Panthers defeated the Polar Bears in the last quarter of the game. For the first three quarters, both teams kept one another on high alert. Momentum flipped back and forth as the game approached halftime.
Head Coach Bob Ritter was pleased with how the team kept their composure throughout the bout and finished the game strong.
“I told the team I was pleased at our resilience during the game,” Coach Ritter said. “Despite going behind and having some big plays go against us we kept our composure and continued to play with the intensity I like to see.”
Middlebury capitalized on a few key plays in the first half that provided a cushion for the team throughout the game. Led by quarterback Jack Meservy ’19 in the first and second quarters, the Panthers put 23 points on the scoreboard, along with a safety caused by a blocked punt on part of the defense, which gave the squad some leeway.
Two Bowdoin touchdowns and a field goal, however, kept the competition in play during the first half. By the end of the second quarter, the Panthers had only a five-point lead over the Polar Bears.
However, a combination of key plays in the fourth quarter and an upheaval of Middlebury intensity brought the Panthers to victory over their NESCAC opponent.
The third quarter only saw one touchdown. With about one minute left before the fourth, Bowdoin tossed a 20-yard touchdown and completed the two-point conversion to take the lead by one point, 24-23.
Backup quarterback Will Jernigan ’21 took control of the game in the opening seconds of the fourth quarter. The team traveled 48 yards in nine plays to set itself up for a Jernigan touchdown. His 16-yard touchdown run regained the lead for the Panthers, but a failed PAT attempt kept a mere five-point lead. Though the Panthers were winning, they were far from safe.
Around the seven-minute mark, Conrado Banky ’19 drove through the end zone for the final score of the game. The completion of a two-point conversion set the Panthers up for victory, 37-24.
The Middlebury defense put on a show, intercepting three Bowdoin passes, causing a fumble and blocking a punt, all of which set up the offense for scoring opportunities. Jonathan Hobart ’21 was chosen as NESCAC defensive player of the week, in response to his interception, fumble recovery and nine tackles against the Polar Bears. Coltrane Marcus ’20 also posted an impressive performance with 12 solo tackles and 13 total.
Offensively, the O-Line, comprised of Kevin Woodring ’20, Chris Taylor ’19, Connor Roche ’19, Andrew Rogan ’19, Ian Arthur ’19 and Jack Purcell ’20 opened the way for Peter Scibila ’21, who rushed 184 yards on 22 carries, one of which included a touchdown.
According to Ritter, the team will do everything in its power to keep improving.
“[We will be] making sure we are concentrating on the things we can control so we are putting ourselves in position to make plays,” Ritter said.
The Panthers will travel to Waterville, Maine, next Saturday to face the Colby Mules for their third game of the season.
(09/27/18 10:00am)
Filmmakers Rian Brown and Geoff Pingree recalled a screening in Miami, after which a man in his seventies came up to tell them that he wished he had seen the film when he was 22 years old, and that it would have changed his life. “He went on and on,” Pingree said. “And that was really gratifying when someone says that.”
The potentially life-changing film is “The Foreigner’s Home,” directed by Brown and Pingree, a documentary that delves deep into Toni Morrison’s ideas and works through the eponymous 2006 exhibition she guest-curated at the Louvre. The two filmmakers’ gratification from making the film and bringing it to different places was clearly visible and transmittable during its screening last Thursday at the annual Clifford Symposium.
“The film is a call to action — to all of us, but with a special nod to the role of the artist, as a defender of our civilization and of our humanity,” Brown said.
In that sense, the film shares not only the title but also the aspirations and critical reflections of the exhibition in Paris. According to Brown, in 2006, Morrison brought in writers, artists, musicians and filmmakers from around the world “to speak to and interact with the dead artists housed in the Louvre,” centering on the conceptual construction of the foreigner and otherness.
Morrison’s son, Ford Morrison, filmed the exhibition. Years later, through mutual friend and colleague Jonathan Demme, Brown and Pingree, both faculty members at Oberlin College, were asked to look at Ford Morrison’s footage. It was firmly agreed from the start that Toni Morrison would not be in the film and that the film should be about her visions instead of her life.
The two spent three years navigating the extensive materials and bringing them to life. Pingree said that while Morrison is “riveting” in the way she talks and remains so in film, the short version consisting of only the exhibit’s footage was not satisfactory for him and Brown. Realizing that Morrison’s reappearance in the film would be indispensable, they wrote a letter to her, explaining the importance of having her on camera almost 10 years after her exhibit in Paris.
“It was at the time when Syria had exploded into war, and suddenly this massive movement of displaced people moved to the front,” Pingree said. “We saw this happening all around and thought, well, what the film really needs is for her to address now these questions 10 years later.”
Morrison agreed, and that led to the heartfelt conversations between Morrison and writer Edwidge Danticat that make up a central element of the film. We see Danticat greeting Morrison at her home and interviewing her about the 2006 exhibit, which they were both part of, as well as the pressing issues today. Throughout their dialogue, the film introduces viewers to pieces of the exhibition, including slam poets’ and rappers’ performances in front of large paintings and multiple screens installed in the gallery showing a modern dance piece.
One painting that features in the film many times is “The Raft of the Medusa” (1819), an oil painting by French painter Théodore Géricault. Its large scale highlights the strong emotional effect of the moment depicted — people struggling to survive after a shipwreck — and the film shows the details of the devastated people by occasionally zooming in and out on it.
Juxtaposed with the painting is Morrison’s voice. Be it her past interview with a French radio station or her Nobel Prize in Literature acceptance speech, her indeed captivating way of talking brings together different archival footages, ranging from groundbreaking artists’ performances from different times to more recent scenes of racial violence and inequality.
“The idea was to create the sense that Toni Morrison’s voice speaking and the import of her message is transcending time, space and media, so we are kind of soaring through the history and the world now,” Pingree said.
Brown’s animation, which both the filmmakers and audiences agreed is beautiful and moving, is another crucial element in combining Morrison’s ideas with imagery. From the very beginning, a boat packed with people in the distance moves closer to the audience against the deep navy backdrop of night sky and sea. The boat as a motif resonates with the “Medusa” painting as well as the migration crisis that has led millions of people to cross an ocean in search of a new home.
Throughout the film, the animation sequence reappears, at times in a montage with actual footages of migrants arriving by boat and getting rescued.
“That is the embodiment of the foreigner [and] ‘what is the foreigner,’” Brown said. “The foreigner is not home. The foreigner is in a vulnerable place.”
The film premiered this January at the International Film Festival in Rotterdam, where the two directors began the process of planning for its distribution. Brown described some of the “hard conversations” they had to have with distributors, as not all of them were able to help fulfill the mission of the film, which is to be educational. Eventually, they signed The Video Project, which will first distribute the film to libraries, community centers and universities.
“Our primary purpose [that] was very clear and unequivocal is for it to go to schools, not just colleges like Oberlin or Middlebury, which is a pretty privileged set of people,” Pingree said. “Anyone who asks for it, we will take it to them and let them use it. … This is just the obviously correct thing to do with this film, for it to be something that people talk about.”
(09/27/18 9:50am)
The college received an $800,000 grant this summer from the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation to fund a faculty training program with a focus on techniques to better engage students with controversial topics. The grant will also help fund a collaboration with the Vermont Humanities Council, including a monthly statewide speaker series.
The program will consist of a six-person faculty workshop each semester over three years, culminating in 36 trained faculty members. Outside consultants will lead these workshops beginning in the spring of 2019. Faculty will be invited to apply to participate in the workshops in mid-October.
The idea of respectful engagement with controversial ideas has been at the forefront of the college’s collective consciousness since the protests of Charles Murray’s visit to campus in 2017.
Political Science Professor Sarah Stroup, the faculty head of the training program and one of the professors who prepared the grant application, said the college has two fundamental questions to answer: what are we going to talk about and how will we engage in those discussions?
“The passionate divisions around these questions were most obviously evident in the spring of 2017, but this challenge goes well beyond any one speaker,” Stroup said.
Stroup believes that the faculty training workshops will contribute to such a sphere by giving faculty the training necessary to facilitate open, respectful and equitable conversations. In moments of controversy in the classroom, for example, these trainings will help professors to better manage the discussions.
“The ability to facilitate those conversations is an acquired skill, but most of us, faculty and students, have avoided the costs associated with developing those tools. The Mellon money alters that equation,” Stroup said.
Stroup emphasized, however, that the program will go beyond faculty.
“The faculty fellows program is faculty-led but student focused. The content of the workshops will be determined based on input from staff, students, and faculty, and I hope to engage resident experts as well as students in the January and August workshops,” she said.
President Laurie L. Patton supports this use of funds to support a focus on participation in difficult discourse.
“Building a robust and inclusive public sphere is one of the defining issues of our time, and is the first part of our new vision statement,” she said.
Stroup also noted that the Vermont Humanities Council series is a great way for the community to get involved. The “First Wednesdays” series hosts monthly talks in nine different cities in Vermont, including Middlebury.
“Anyone can volunteer to help with facilitating the new format or to have their visiting speaker try out a new approach to audience engagement,” she said.
The Mellon Foundation was established in 1969 and is dedicated to supporting institutions of higher education in their pursuit to do forward-thinking work in the humanities and arts.
More information on the grant can be found at go/deliberation. The site also includes a section where people may offer input on the project.
(09/24/18 3:16am)
In September 2015, the Environmental Protection Agency disclosed that the German automaker Volkswagen (VW) had installed devices in 11 million cars that cheated emissions testing, permitting their cars to emit hazardous nitrogen oxide. The reporting of Jack Ewing, Germany correspondent for the New York Times, led to Volkswagen paying a more than $20 billion settlement. Ewing’s 2017 book “Faster, Higher, Farther: The Volkswagen Scandal” digs deeper into the corporate scandal, tracing it back to the company’s history since the Nazi era and its top-down management culture.
Ewing will discuss the topic this week in a lecture organized by the college's Environmental Studies program. His talk will take place on Tuesday, Sept. 25, at 4:30 p.m. in The Orchard, Franklin Environmental Center 103.
Last Friday, Ewing spoke with The Campus by phone about his book, lessons to be learned from the scandal and role of journalists covering the corporate world today. The interview has been lightly edited for clarity.
Yvette Shi (YS): When and how did you start to realize the role played by the company’s corporate culture?
Jack Ewing (JE): I had dealings with Volkswagen off and on for years, and I was already aware that it was a very kind of rigid, authoritarian type of company culture, and I knew who some of the leaders of the company were and sort of how they operated. So I think that was from the very beginning — not obvious — but I immediately had a feeling that the corporate culture certainly played a role.
And then we looked at the way the company responded to the scandal, and how close they were and how long it took them to confront it, to start investigating. And then when I started to develop sources inside the company or people that have worked at Volkswagen. At last, it just became clear pretty quickly that it was the kind of company where you couldn’t admit failure, you couldn’t say no to somebody above you and where there was not a strong moral underpinning or strong moral standard that people believe they are supposed to adhere to.
YS: Do you think that this sort of top-down culture is typical for large corporations?
JE: I think it’s certainly not uncommon. I think it exists to some degree almost in every big corporation. I think Volkswagen was the particularly extreme example, but at the same time I think it’s definitely the case that it’s something that can happen at any company. If you look at other scandals, like Enron, going back that’s been more than a decade, or Wells Fargo Bank in California, you know they were defrauding their clients on a massive scale, you always have this ingredient. The main ingredients are that you have a culture where people don’t feel they have any recourse when they are asked to do something unethical, and where you have top management setting extremely ambitious goals, and making it clear that if you fail, you are going to be fired.
So to that extent, and there’s lots of companies that operate that way, where they are constantly asking more and more employees and if you don’t deliver, your job is in danger. And that’s just an invitation for people to start to commit wrongdoing, because most people, even if they know that they can get caught in two years or five years, they’ll still try to hang on to their jobs for as long as they can.
YS: How do you think this kind of culture was formed in the first place?
JE: That’s a good question. I’m not sure I can totally answer that, but it definitely came from one person. The original Beetle was designed by Ferdinand Porsche for Adolf Hitler. Many years later, his grandson, who was named Ferdinand Piëch, in the early nineties became the chief executive of Volkswagen, which at that time was at its crisis. He turned around the company, but he himself was a very authoritarian figure. Brilliant engineer, but very, very hard on people and was very out-front about the fact when people don’t deliver, he’ll fire them.
So he was the one that really created that culture beginning in the nineties, and he was the chief executive for about a decade, and then he became chairman of the supervisory board, which is technically an oversight position, where you are overseeing the operational management. But he was still very involved and still the dominant person in the company up until just a couple months before the scandal became public. So it definitely came from him. To what extent it was already there, I’m not sure I’ve totally figured that out. That’s a hard thing to pin down.
YS: You talked about having sources inside the company. What was that process like? What were the challenges that you faced?
JE: That’s always difficult with a corporation. It’s particularly difficult with a company like Volkswagen. Volkswagen has over 300,000 employees. The first thing was to figure out the people we should concentrate on. What we did is that we found academic papers, where they have talked about their mission and technology, the engineers who have published papers in journals, and we found some papers that have names of engineers on them. Also we looked at patent registries that list the names of the people who get credit as inventors, and also helpfully their home addresses.
Then we just set about contacting those people. We did the usual thing, trying to call them a couple times, knocking on their doors — that wasn’t successful. I had the most success actually writing letters. So I would write people letters, tell them why I thought it would be in their interest to talk to me. I probably sent at least 50 [letters], and a much smaller number got back to me, but a number of people did get back to me who wanted to talk, and that was sort of the beginning where I was able to then figure out how the whole thing happened, the process with the whole illegal software being developed and then deployed over many years.
I guess the other thing was the lawsuits also had a fair amount of useful information. When the lawyers started filing lawsuits, they had some access to documents that I didn’t, which they then described in the lawsuits.
YS: What do you think motivated you when you were writing the book?
JE: The short answer is just that when the story broke, it’d been only about two weeks, and then the editor of Norton Books sent me an email saying “would you be interested in doing a book.” For a journalist, the chance to write a book is always a good thing. So I said yes, and we pretty quickly worked out a deal with the help of an agent. So the short answer is: I wrote the book because they asked me to write it.
But also, it was the topic that I just found very fascinating — it has so many aspects to it and it touches so many things, environment, corporate culture, technology. It’s an interesting cast of characters, interesting legal story. So I never got bored with the subject matter, I’m not sure “enjoy” is the word because writing is always hard, but it was a satisfying story to do. I never got bored with it.
YS: What can students interested in entering the corporate world after school can learn from the scandal?
JE: I think that you are going to learn a lot from the scandal. If you work in a corporation, there’s tremendous pressure to conform, people will possibly be asked to make moral compromises, and companies do not always help you to know when you are being asked to step over a line. I think that the clear message is that you have to maintain your own sense of what is right and wrong, independent of what your employer might be telling you. And if you feel that that’s being violated, you have to take action, you can’t just go along, you have to have moral courage.
I think that the people that were involved in this, a lot of them, their careers are ruined and in some cases they might go to jail. Also, a lot of them were fairly idealistic. They originally went into emissions technology because they wanted to make cleaner air, and then wound up being part of this fraud. So I think that the message is that you have to have the courage and the strength to stand up when you are being asked to do something like this.
One thing that I still find amazing is that at the very end there were a couple Volkswagen employees who went to the California regulators and said this is what’s really going on that’s wrong. But this is after they hid [the device] in cars for ten years. And the whole time, nobody went to authorities and said that there’s something really big illegal going on. Volkswagen would have been better off if they had. Everybody would have been better off. But nobody did that.
YS: And they are also now trying to have a whistleblower program in the company.
JE: Yeah, they have to — that’s part of the settlement with the United States. The question is whether it will be effective, because they had it on but it’s been a program where you’re supposed to be able to go for complaints, but nobody trusted it. People have to believe that if they blow the whistle that they will be listened to, that there will be action taken, that they and their career will not suffer. You have to be very careful the way you set these things up, so that they really do some good. There was just this case involving Goldman Sachs where somebody went to the whistleblower, but then instead of taking action, they went to somebody on the board and the person lost their job. That’s not the kind of whistleblower program you want to have if you are really sincere about preventing wrongdoing.
YS: What challenges do you think journalists today who are trying to cover the corporate world face?
JE: Corporations are rich, so they can hire a lot of people whose job is basically to keep you from finding things out. So that’s a constant challenge, and we are pretty much at permanent war with corporate PR industry. And people are afraid to talk to reporters. It’s hard to get beyond the PR department when you are trying to find out what’s going on, and that’s always one of the biggest challenges. At Volkswagen, you can do it but it takes a lot of work.
YS: What would you say is the role that a journalist should have there?
Traditionally I think that journalists were very focused on government and what government was doing right or wrong, but these days corporations have such influence on our lives, maybe even more influence than government — if you look at Facebook, Google — just how much they know about us and how much we depend on them. It’s really, really important to hold those companies accountable that takes a lot of resources, so I think that’s just an incredibly important thing for journalists at the moment.
YS: Is there anything else that you would like to add?
I guess the one thing that I always like to try to get across about this book is that some people think it’s a car book, and it’s not. I really tried to write it for people who don’t care about cars, don’t know about cars. My editor John Glusman, before we started working, he said: “Jack, you know, I really don’t care about cars at all.” And he doesn’t even know the difference between an automatic and a manual transmission. So he says: “You’re going to write a book that I’m gonna want to read.” So that’s really what I tried to do.
I sometimes hear from people, “I don’t really want to read a car book,” and what I always try to get across to people is that it’s not a car book, it’s about people and people’s weaknesses, ethics and bigger issues than just emissions.
