1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(05/11/17 1:42am)
The baseball team is sitting pretty at 20-14 after winning against Bowdoin on Saturday, May 6, and splitting a doubleheader against Tufts on Sunday, May 7. Against Bowdoin, the Panthers managed to get five innings in before it began to pour. Bowdoin took an early one-run lead in the bottom of the first, but Middlebury was quick to respond with two runs. Kevin Woodring ’20 knocked Justin Han ’20, who had reached on a single. Phil Bernstein ’19 increased the lead 2-1 after he scorched a line-drive double into right field scoring Woodring. The Polar Bears clawed back knotting the score at 2-2 and tacked on another two runs in the bottom of the third giving the hosts a 4-2 advantage.
But Middlebury exploded for six runs in the fourth inning. Woodring plated the first run on with an RBI double to left field, while Grant Elgarten ’20 hit a two-run single to take a 5-4 lead. Brooks Carroll ’20 bunted down the first base line, beating the pitcher to the base and scoring Elgarten. Sam Graf ’19 capped off the inning with a 360 foot shot that hit the top of the fence, scoring two more.
The hosts were unable to muster a response as Middlebury scored three more at the top of the fifth. Bernstein, who finished the game going a perfect 3-3 with two doubles and three RBI’s, hit the second of his two doubles scoring two runs giving the visitors a 10-4 lead. Ryan Rizzo ’17 scored the final run of the game on a sac-fly.
Dylan Takamori ’17 took over after Spencer Shores ’20 struggled, allowing four runs on five hits. Takamori earned the win with 2.1 innings of scoreless relief.
The Panthers improved to 19-13 and headed down to Boston, Mass. for a two-game series against Tufts University.
“If we can just get one guy on, we can make the opposing pitcher feel some pressure which allows us to then capitalize on his mistakes,” Bernstein said about the team’s batting rhythm.
“Once we get a rally started, it’s pretty hard for opposing teams to get us out, and has led to some pretty big innings this season.”
On Sunday, May 7, Middlebury split with the no. 11 nationally ranked Tufts Jumbos. The game remained scoreless until the top of the fifth inning when Han came up to the plate and blasted a 340–foot opposite field home run to give the visitors a 1-0 lead. Although Tufts loaded the bases in the bottom of the sixth, starter Colby Morris '19 got out of the jam without allowing any runs. Middlebury tacked on three insurance runs in the top of the seventh when Woodring hit a bases clearing double into the right-field gap. Conor Himstead ’19, who leads the NESCAC with six saves, retired the Jumbos batters to secure the win.
In the nightcap, although the Panthers lost 6-1, they out hit the Jumbos 6-4. Colin Waters ’19 suffered the loss, but he will undoubtedly be back for redemption in the NESCAC playoffs.
“The feeling was awesome,” Woodring said of the win earlier that day. “As a team, we’ve been trying to compete in every game we’ve played in and it was great to get a win like that today. We couldn’t have been happier with a win today, especially against a high caliber team like Tufts.”
The team feels optimistic as they head into postseason play.
“We’re focused, having fun, and playing relaxed,” said Bernstein. “As a result, we’re playing our best brand of baseball right now and that’s exactly what we need as we head into the NESCAC tournament this weekend.”
“We are playing like a team ready to win a NESCAC championship,” Sebastian Sanchez ’18 added. “Our energy, our focus and our determination is truly out of this world. We have trusted the process and it has paid off. Midd Baseball is hot, watch out.”
(05/11/17 1:10am)
As the 2016–17 academic year slowly draws to a close, McCardell Bicentennial Hall remains abuzz with activity, as senior thesis presentations are in full swing. Many soon-to-be graduates of the biology, neuroscience, chemistry & biochemistry, molecular biology & biochemistry and conservation biology departments have spent the greater part of the past year in the lab or the field, working diligently to produce independent research with various professors at the College.
While the chemistry & biochemistry department indulges its devoted students in three to four hour-long sessions on Friday afternoons (an extravaganza more fulfilling than binge-watching The Office), the biology-focused departments prefer to sprinkle their presentations across the lunch hour throughout the past week. For this issue, three particular student presentations are featured: Eric Stanton, Julie Merchant and Laura Bashor.
Eric Stanton ’17, a biochemistry major working in Professor Jeff Byers’s lab, presented his work entitled “Synthesis of a Chromium Complexed Poly-(p-phenylene ethynylene) Polymer as a Potential Molecular Wire” on Friday, May 5. Using the organic synthesis techniques characteristic of the Byers lab, he described the steps taken that enabled him to construct a complexed p-phenylene ethnylene (PPE) polymer starting from dichlorobenzene.
Stanton then moved into the results of his work. When he assayed the stability of his synthetic polymer with NMR, a common chemical laboratory technique, he was surprised to see that his complex was not as stable as expected. Stanton then performed fluorescent quenching, which involves exposing polymers to UV light and measuring the excited state charge transfer. While Stanton’s polymer did not display the stability that he had hoped, he found that fluorescent quenching provided a better model to understand this complex.
On Monday, May 8, Julie Merchant ’17 and Laura Bashor ’17 both presented during the lunch hour, representing the biology department. After a jovial and entertaining introduction from her advisor Professor Glen Ernstrom, Merchant kicked off the session with her dynamic presentation of “Optogenetic acidification of synaptic vesicles in C. elegans.” She explored how neurons communicate, which led naturally into a brief but thorough review of neurotransmission and a helpful analogy connecting neuronal communication to a water balloon fight.
Merchant’s research focuses on understanding the importance of vesicle pH in regulating the transport of neurotransmitters into synaptic vesicles. When these synaptic vesicles are only partially filled, they are less likely to fuse with target cells into which the neurotransmitters are meant to be delivered. This results in pronounced behavioral defects such as deficits in motor coordinates and balance.
Her hypothesis was that the acidification provides a molecular checkpoint that instructs vesicles to fuse properly. Through a variety of experiments, she was able to demonstrate that a proton pump-deficient C. elegans mutant has diminished vesicle fusion. Merchant was also able to restore an acidification-related defect in said C. elegans mutant by expressing a protein on the vesicle surface that acidifies the vesicle in response to light stimulus.
In a brief introduction, Allen mentioned that Bashor would soon be presenting her work to the Ecological Society of America. Bashor’s thesis project, “Lyme disease and elevation: a dynamic ecological relationship,” focused on work she had been pursuing in Professor David Allen’s laboratory since the summer. She opened with an array of statistics depicting the stark increase of Lyme disease cases in the United States, and particularly Vermont. In an effort to untangle the ecology of Lyme disease, Bashor addressed the fact that although the black legged tick is the most infamous of Lyme disease carriers, other small mammals could actually be implicated as the biggest contributors to human infection.
At the heart of Bashor’s work was the connection between elevation and Lyme disease risk, as the life cycles of the black legged tick and various small mammals are in turn determined by such environmental factors. Along an elevational gradient, Bashor collected ticks, the white footed mouse and deer mouse and tried to identify elevation’s effect on the distribution of Lyme disease infection rates. She found in her samples that, although the white-footed mouse is thought of as a more common vector for Lyme disease, the deer mouse actually was infected with Lyme disease at a much higher rate. In addition, she observed differences in the activity and densities of the black legged tick along an elevational gradient, implicating that the ecology of Lyme disease is tied inherently to elevation.
While these three presentations represent only a small subset of the talks that have been given over the past few weeks, they provide a brief glance at the diligent work that happens behind closed lab doors.
(05/11/17 1:09am)
Samuel Beckett’s absurdist tragicomedy “Waiting for Godot” is a notoriously difficult piece, and a group of students took on the challenge.
(05/10/17 5:38am)
The fellows of the eighth annual Middlebury Fellowship in Narrative Journalism will present their year-long radio documentary projects to the Middlebury community on Friday, May 12 in the Axinn Winter Garden from 4 to 6 p.m. The fellows — Matthew Blake ’17, Will DiGravio ’19, Izzy Fleming ’17 and Tabitha Mueller ’18 — have crafted digital portraits of 13 students after asking them the event’s titular question, “How Did You Get Here?”
Middlebury Scholar-in-residence Sue Halpern and Middlebury Magazine Editorial Director Matt Jennings founded the The Middlebury Fellowship in Narrative Journalism in 2008 and have been co-directing it since. The fellowship teaches students how to conduct narrative journalism projects using interviews and digitally-based media. The fellows work with Halpern throughout the year to learn the basics of radio production and narrative journalism.
For their projects, the fellows drew on interviewees’ personal stories to create vibrant portraits of the paths that led them to the College. When presented, these profiles will give the greater Middlebury community a look into the diversity of experiences among students at the College and will honor the myriad of backgrounds and stories that students have to share.
“The Narrative Journalism Fellowship offers a solution for the divide that exists between ourselves and others, a divide which prevents the story of us to take place,” Blake said. “It creates a space for students to engage with their peer’s stories and develop an awareness of, as well as appreciation for, the multiplicity of stories and experiences on Middlebury’s campus.”
The audio-based medium the fellows used in their documentation allowed for narration that was completely story-focused.
“Learning the unique power of audio storytelling is my biggest take-away,” Fleming said. “Unlike other forms of expression, there is no room for prejudice when listening to someone talk. You can’t evaluate their level of education, identify their race, or notice how expensive their watch is. Instead, the human voice puts everyone on an (relatively) even playing field. It is an incredibly intimate medium, and the relationship you can nurture with a human voice is far deeper than I would have ever anticipated at the beginning of the year before this fellowship began.”
The student profiles will be between five and six minutes each. This may not be enough time to tell the entirety of a person’s story, Blake said, but it is enough time to spark meaningful discussions.
“After listening to one of this year’s pieces about a Football player,” he remarked, “a student commented, ‘I had no idea that someone on the Football team would write poetry or be so open about his emotions. . . . Do you think that he’d be willing to talk with me if I asked him some questions?’”
(05/04/17 3:55am)
Starting in the fall of 2017, a swipe system in Proctor, Ross, and Atwater will track when and where Middlebury students eat. This system will provide accurate counts for dining services in terms of preparing food as well as reducing waste. The system will also prevent guests not on the meal plan from eating without paying in the dining halls, which will save the College money. A portion of the money saved will go back to the students, and each student will receive $50 on their Middcard to spend at Middlebury dining retail locations each semester.
The College will continue to offer one, unlimited meal plan in the fall of 2017, though that might change in the spring or fall of 2018, depending on the verdict of the SGA appointed student Dining Committee. Multiple meal plans would give students the option of using their official dining plans to frequent other dining, retail locations like The Grille, 51 Main, or Rehearsals Café. Regardless of any new meal plans offered, though, Middlebury will continue to have one comprehensive fee for every student on a plan, according to Dan Detora, Executive Director of Food Services Operations at Middlebury.
Whether students choose the unlimited plan in the dining halls or another plan that includes retail options, they would pay the same fee. This would ensure students never feel forced to choose a dining plan for financial reasons. Students have expressed their desire not to limit access to Middlebury dining based on cost. “I value the fact that the current dining meal plan system puts everyone on an equal playing field,” Deborah Leedy ’18 said.
In terms of swipe systems, Middlebury is the only school in the NESCAC currently without one. Also, out of the many dining operations in The National Association of College & University Food Services, Middlebury stands apart. “We’re the only ones that don’t have someone there to swipe cards or don’t require students to swipe cards that I know of,” Detora said.
As a result, Middlebury has less access to data for the purpose of running dining services than any other school in the NESCAC – and far less than the majority of those in the country. This data could inform food purchasing, preparation, and waste management, attached to the $3.2 million that Middlebury spends on food annually.
“From a food waste standpoint, it’s difficult to determine how many people we’re going to feed at a particular time,” Detora said. “[Adding a swipe system] will allow us to get accurate counts, accurate production records, really minimize our ordering and our waste to the fullest.”
Chris Laframboise, commons chef in Ross Dining Hall, noted how accurate data would help dining hall staff with food preparation. “With that count we will be able to forecast with a great degree of accuracy for future meals,” he said. “This will help us control what and how much we prep and how much we cook, and that will help to control waste at the end of the day. We will also be able to look at certain timeframes to see how many students are coming in and when and how much we should be cooking at that time.”
Currently, Ross Dining Hall has a laser beam counter on the door to track student dining. “Right now our counter system is very basic,” said Brent Simons, Ross Commons’ dining room manager. “Whenever a customer goes through it breaks the beam, and we get a number....The system adds a count if a student walks in or out of the entrance to Ross – regardless if it’s their first or second or fifth time eating for any given meal. In addition, the system cannot determine at what time a student dined in Ross. Proctor and Atwater dining also have such laser systems.”
There’s also the problem of non-students eating for free in the dining halls, without a system to determine who’s entering at the door. At the moment, dining services offers full access to the dining halls for guests with a $5 price tag attached to breakfast, $7 to lunch, and $9 to dinner for the academic year. “We have a duty to the student body to make sure that people who are eating here are somehow related to the college,” Simons said. “We have sports teams that pop in on the weekend and eat for free. All that does is take money away and food away from the students that are here.”
During homecoming weekend this past fall, for example, alumni ate an estimated 400 free meals. Under this system, students end up paying for guests to eat without charge, a cost that amounts to thousands of dollars per year in expenses that could otherwise go back into the system and benefit students. With the implementation of the swipe, guests would pay at the door via the new electronic system, according to Keith Piper from Ross Dining. The open invitation to faculty for dining with a student (without personal charge) would remain open.
Both the swipe system and the advent of meal plans are designed to resolve ongoing challenges for dining services, including traffic in the dining halls. Ross dining hall can seat 340 at a time, and Proctor has room for 520 not including Redfield, according to Detora. Usually, for this sort of dining operation, the dining hall should turn over just one time per meal (so Ross would seat 680 students at a given meal and Proctor 1,040 students). However, “Every night we do well over 1,200” in Ross, Detora said. “This is our biggest challenge,” Simons said. “With Atwater being closed, I think they did 1,400 people in there last night.”
Detora explained, “[The Dining halls] were designed when the commons houses were just getting going. There were supposed to be five dining halls.” However, given the expense of three dining halls, the building stopped. “With that, storage is an issue in all three dining halls,” Detora continued regarding the location of storage rooms and freezers. “They’re downstairs and around the corner” in Atwater Dining and downstairs below the dining hall in both Ross and Proctor. “We have a lot of strains, accidents because of the way we’re storing and bringing food from one location to the other.” The dishwashing room in Ross is also small relative to the amount of dishes it must clean daily.
In every dining hall, preparation and cooking space is limited. The prep room in Ross, just off the dining hall, is smaller than many classrooms – hence, the cooking stations out in the servery area at Ross. In Proctor, a challenge is the location of cooking facilities under the dining hall. Staff must transport prepared food up to the servery via an elevator.
In the end, the dining hall’s long lines, lack of seating and pressure on dining staff, have led up to the consideration of future meal plans. The gist of the idea is to provide alternative spaces for students to dine around campus without spending their own money out of pocket, Detora said. If students could dine at Rehearsals Café, The Grille or 51 Main via their meal plan, these spaces may seem more appealing.
“We’re hopefully going to renovate Rehearsals and Wilsons this summer,” Detora said. Considerations include a wrap shop with high quality deli meats for Rehearsals Café. Detora also described the possibility of “really fresh bagels from a local bake shop, and an assortment of kinds of cream cheeses” as an alternative breakfast option for students.
During the upcoming school year, the student Dining Committee will vote on the decision of introducing new meal plans as well as the specifics of what those plans would include.
Committee Chair Elisa Gan ’20 said, “We define the kind of meal plans that the swiping system could offer. The committee has decided to offer an unlimited-only meal plan with fifty dollars credit for a transition period in the fall of 2017. We are hoping to gauge students’ responses and review the meal plan options for the spring.” The SGA will also vote on the implementation of new meal plans before any are put in place.
Examples of plans for Middlebury include the unlimited plan, a 14-meal plan, or a 10-meal plan. Each plan, except the unlimited one, would include an amount of money to spend at other Middlebury retail locations, like the Grille and 51 Main. Every meal plan would also include a specific number of guest passes per semester for students to invite family, friends, or alumni into Middlebury dining.
With alterations to the system approaching, dining operations looks to provide the ideal experience for students and staff. “Hopefully we can calm people’s fears about the change,” Simon said.
(05/04/17 1:59am)
After clinching the sixth seed in the NESCAC tournament last week when they were on the brink of elimination, the men’s lacrosse team kept the momentum rolling with an upset victory over NESCAC no. 3 seed and no. 11 nationally ranked Amherst last Saturday, April 22, in Amherst, Mass. The 12-11 win secured Middlebury a spot in the NESCAC semifinal round. The Panthers are set to start off the championship weekend on Saturday, May 6, when they square off with the country’s no. 1-ranked, undefeated Bates Bobcats.
While their upcoming matchup looks daunting, the Panthers played Bates closely in their meeting last month, as they played to a final score of 15-12 in Lewiston, ME. If goalie Chase Midgley ’19 has another performance two days from now like he did last Saturday, anything is possible for the Panthers, who are trying to add some late season magic to make it to the NCAA tournament despite being heavy underdogs. Midgley had a season and career best 24 saves against Amherst, securing the win with three saves in the final 36 seconds in just his seventh career start in the net.
For the Panthers, Danny Jacobs ’20 led the way against Amherst with a team high four goals. Two of his goals came within the game’s first 21 seconds. After the Mammoths scored three unanswered goals, Jacobs’ teammate, Matt O’Neal ‘19, added one of his own to tie the game at three all as the seconds ticked off on the first quarter.
Chase Goree ’20 added another goal for the Panthers before halftime to cut into Amherst’s lead, making it 5-4 Mammoths at the midway point of the contest.
After going down 7-4 early in the third quarter, the Panthers found that the offseason was biting at their heels. On the brink, the Panthers filled on the switch as they went on a hot streak to bring the score back to even after goals from Jacobs, Parker Lawlor ’18 and A.J. Kucinski ’20.
The 7-7 tie lasted into the fourth quarter before each team started trading goals to make it a thrilling down-to-the-wire finish.
Henry Riehl ’18 scored two straight goals for Middlebury before Amherst struck back to take a 10-9 lead. With just 8:24 left in the game and possibly the Panthers’ season, Riehl scored his third goal of the quarter to tie the score up at 10.
A few moments later, Jacobs continued his great day, coming through once again with another shot into the back of the net to give the Panthers their first lead of the day at 11-10.
Amherst didn’t go away easily though as the home team shot back, getting one by Midgley with 3:42 remaining in the game to tie the game back up at 11-11. Not to be deterred Jacobs finished off his incredible day with an accurate strike from 12 yards out to put the underdogs on top 12-11. Midgley’s effort in the net over the final minutes secured the win for the Panthers, as they celebrated with a jubilant spring towards the Middlebury sideline as time ran out.
The Panthers avenged a tough loss to Amherst earlier in the year where they fell by a score of 20-11, evidence they have come a long way and demonstrated resolve in the face of being bitten by a ferocious injury bug throughout the season. The season’s pivotal game in Lewiston will get underway Saturday at noon.
“As a group we are looking forward to the challenge ahead of playing Bates,” said Midgley. “We are confident and excited for the match up ahead of us.”
(05/04/17 1:59am)
About a month ago, on April 1, the Middlebury women’s lacrosse team trounced Amherst 13-3. This ten-goal margin, however, would not be repeated in the first round of the NESCAC tournament. The top-seeded Panthers hosted the Mammoths at Kohn Field, looking to start their postseason title defense.
Amherst got on the board first with a goal less than five minutes into the game. Amherst goalie Kyra Gardner blocked a shot by Jenna McNicholas ’19, but ten seconds later Sara DiCenso ’19 evened the score with an assist by classmate Emma McDonagh ’19. The Mammoths responded with a tally of their own, giving Amherst a short-lived lead. After an Amherst save off of a Casey O’Neill ’19 shot, Bea Eppler ’17 finished with a goal.
At the start of the next possession, Mary O’Connell ’17 (NESCAC player of the week for May 1) controlled the draw. This led to two quick shots by O’Connell and McDonagh within two seconds of each other, both of which were saved by Gardner. At 18:50, however, O’Neill beat Gardner, giving Middlebury a 3-2 lead. About two minutes later, O’Connell was once again involved, scoring a transition goal on an assist by Hollis Perticone ’18. Two Amherst goals tied the game at four apiece, and for just over 13 minutes no team scored. With 1:33 remaining in the opening period, however, Eppler gave the panthers a 5-4 lead. With no more goals, that score held until the second half.
In the second period, Perticone controlled the draw. After a wide shot by DiCenso, Perticone notched her second assist of the day, passing to Eppler who gave the Panthers a two-goal lead. Four minutes later, O’Connell converted a free position opportunity into another point; Middlebury now led 7-4. Amherst, however, would not give up; they closed the gap to two before five consecutive Mammoth shots either missed wide or were saved by Kate Furber ’19. DiCenso, assisted by Perticone, gave Middlebury a three-goal lead once again, 8-5.
The Mammoths then scored twice within two minutes, threatening to ensue a comeback and give the Panthers an undesired early exit. With 22 seconds left and Middlebury only up by one, Furber made a clutch save, basically sealing the victory for the Panthers. Furber finished with a dozen saves, while Eppler finished with three goals and Perticone an equal number of assists.
Middlebury will move on to face Colby College this upcoming Saturday at noon, looking to push their home winning streak to 15 and avenge a regular season loss to the Mules.
Alex White ’19, who picked up two ground balls and caused two turnovers on defense, said, “over the past week, we’ve had really productive practices and have made some big strides in developing our team, so it’s anyone’s game! Colby is definitely a good team, but I think that we have the skill and desire to win, and continue on to the NESCAC championship game.”
White added that, “Any and all fans would be greatly appreciated, because a hyped up crowd can really make a difference.”
For O’Connell the game on Saturday will have extra meaning, as she understands that her career as a Panther is winding down.
“It’s definitely bittersweet as a senior because I want to cherish every moment with these girls and my fellow seniors, and for now we’ll take it day to day and enjoy every moment until the last,” O’Connell said, adding that “the team remains extremely confident [in Middlebury’s] ability to go far into post season.”
Talent, strong leadership and a will to win is a dangerous combination.
The start time for the semifinal matchup with Colby is set for 12 p.m. at Kohn Field this Saturday.
(05/04/17 1:58am)
The Middlebury Track and Field teams kicked off their postseason at the 2017 NESCAC Outdoor Championship hosted by Bowdoin this past weekend. The women, paced by two event titles and a school record, finished third (97.66 points) out of the 11 teams in the conference behind Williams (239.83) and Bates (107); the men, who took home three event victories, wound up fourth (102.50), trailing Williams (175), Tufts (167) and Bowdoin (110).
The top performances for the women came from three different sections of the team: Catie Skinner ’17 represented the long-distance runners by smoking the field in the 3,000-meter steeplechase, beating the field by over eight seconds (11:09.11); Devon Player ’18 did the throwers proud with an event-winning javelin toss of 137’6”; lastly, the 4x100 quartet of Marisa Edmondson ’20, Maddie Pronovost ’17, Natalie Cheung ’18 and Elizabeth Walkes ’20 led the charge for the sprinters, crossing the line in school-record time (48.90) to finish fourth in the event.
For the men, Alex Nichols ’17 put together an impressive day in his last NESCAC meet as a Panther. He took home the crown in the 400-meter dash (48.43), his third win in four years at the conference championships; in addition, with the help of Cameron Mackintosh ’20, Arden Coleman ’20 and Jimmy Martinez ’19, he anchored the winning 4x400 relay team that set a new meet record (3:17.45). In the field events, John Natalone ’19 won the pole vault with a jump of 14’5.25” (teammate Nathaniel Albers ’20 would finish fifth in the same event with a height of 13’11.25”).
Although he was a little hard on himself, Natalone had good things to say about the team’s showing at the meet. “In terms of my performance at the meet, I’m generally happy with how I did,” he said. “I didn’t vault as high as I wanted to, but I was just happy to be able to contribute points to the team. As a squad, we performed really well, and I am exceptionally proud of everyone who went to the meet.”
“NESCACs is a really special competition; the entire team is full of energy and hype. My performance would not have been possible if it weren’t for the vibe set up by my teammates. Everyone contributes to the meet in some fashion, even if it isn’t scoring points.”
The rest of the team followed the leaders with a number of strong performances across all the event types. Pronovost, a multitalented athlete who’s a threat to score in a number of competitions, continued her strong season with a second-place finish in the 100-meter hurdles (14.83) and a fifth-place finish in the long jump (17’0.5”); she also ran the second leg for the fifth-place 4x400 relay team, which was rounded out by Lucy Lang ’19, Kate McCluskey ’18 and Paige Fernandez ’17 (3:59.07).
Other individual highlights for the women included Meg Wilson ’20 in the 800-meter (2:14.49, fourth), Abigail Nadler ’19 in the 1,500-meter (4:36.96, third) and Talia Ruxin ’20 in the 10,000-meter (38:11.38, fourth). Off the track, Kreager Taber ’19 pole-vaulted to a second-place finish (10’8”) and Jane Freda ’17 landed fourth in the triple jump (35’7.75”). In the relays, the 4x800-meter relay team of Anna Willig ’20, Erica Dean ’20, Skinner and Wilson crossed the line second overall (9:22.91).
For the men, additional strong efforts were recorded by a number of Panthers in the 800-meter run: James Mulliken ’18 came in second (1:52.88), Nathan Hill ’20 finished fourth (1:53.88) and Kevin Serrao ’18 crossed the line fifth (1:54.10). Serrao also finished third in the 1,500-meter run (3:52.89). In the sprints, Adam Markun ’17 dashed to third place in the 200-meter race (22.06) and Michael Pallozzi ’18 wound up fifth in the 110-meter hurdles (15.28). On the field side, Alfred Hurley ’19 recorded the second-longest javelin toss of the day (189’6”) and Minhaj Rahman ’19 landed third in the hammer throw (166’9”).
With the Panthers now firmly in the postseason portion of their schedule, every meet and every event means that much more. Natalone felt confident about his team’s chances. “The outlook for the rest of the postseason is great,” he said. “We have many team members who are right on the cusp of qualifying for late postseason meets such as Open New Englands and DIII Nationals, which should make for an exciting upcoming meet this weekend at DIII New Englands.”
“In terms of positives, we have a lot of athletes qualified through this weekend, which should keep the good vibe of NESCACs going strong. Also, a lot of people are hungry for a season PR — myself included.”
He warned that the team wouldn’t just be able to coast through the end of their season, though. “We have some health related things to improve upon,” he said. “I’ve been battling back issues, and many team members are nursing shin and hip issues. Staying healthy through these next couple of weeks will be important.”
Middlebury will head down to Williams this weekend to compete in the Division III New England Championships, the last chance for athletes to qualify for the Open New Englands the following week and Division III Nationals the week after.
(05/04/17 1:35am)
The remarkable series of events that followed the announcement of Charles Murray’s visit to campus contains more than a few lessons for both the community and the individuals. The debate of free speech and Murray’s legitimacy in Middlebury’s liberal academic setting will, and should, continue. At the same time, it is important to acknowledge the rare protest that resulted from it. Middlebury seldom sees the kind of mass opposition that we saw against Murray, and there is a point to be made on the literal ‘turning-of-the-back’ protest on a campus that routinely churns students out year after year without much commotion. Defiance of this sort keeps alive the democracy in the bubble we inhabit.
Mostly, protest is a manifestation of a dissatisfaction with a dominating entity. It is and always will be the weapon of those with less political and social power. Thus it was last Thursday when the AEI club invited Charles Murray. We learned that the political science department co-sponsored the talk which they stood by even after further deliberation. Furthermore, Laurie Patton agreed to introduce the controversial speaker giving him inherent legitimacy in an academic setting. These three parties occupied the judicial role by giving Charles Murray a stage at Middlebury College despite students’ call for devaluation of the event. This pushed the students to a lower political level. Protest, therefore, was not only an appropriate response, it was the only option left.
Naturally, institutions like Middlebury are wary of protests, as the two are often in opposition to each other. They write ‘regulations’ in the student handbook about ‘designated protest areas’ and other rules that attempt to diminish the energy of a protest. Which is why the expectation that those rules and regulations will be honored during a manifestation of disapproval against that same institution that wrote those rules is hopeless. I argue that the task of writing rules of a protest, if they need to be written at all, belongs instead to the protestors — to those who feel marginalized or discriminated against. I have a feeling that is non-negotiable for now.
Our current handbook regulations, ironically, make the protest even more powerful as they provide additional rules to break, resulting in additional defiance. If these minor protest rules are broken, and they were, then where is the line where more significant rules, like the ones against violence, start to get breached. This might be the kind of slippery slope that led to the physical violence.
So here is my advice to Middlebury: current rules on protest are unhelpful; understand that protest regulations are inherently problematic and some, if not most, cannot be honored. If rules must be written, Middlebury should make it easier for protesters to get their message across without disempowering them. Instead, teach students about effective and powerful protesting.
The protest we saw last Thursday was one of the few and impressive student-led displays of activism Middlebury has seen in years. Certainly, the protest could have gone better. Protests are rare here and students didn’t have much experience. But, this is precisely why there needs to be more protests. This art needs to be honed and perfected so that when Middlebury students go out into the ‘real world’ and face more extreme setbacks, they have the tools to counter it.
So here is my advice to the young aspiring protesters: Protest!
(05/04/17 1:32am)
In China, a country with the world’s second largest economy, women create 41 percent of the GDP. In 1990, Chinese women’s annual salary was about 80 percent of their male counterparts. Six years ago, the number became 60 percent. Simple statistics like this, regardless of the complex reasons behind them, blatantly show the unfair treatment received by women in China.
“So we are in an age of conflicts and resistance,” said Lu Pin, a leading Chinese feminist activist who gave a talk titled “Feminism in China: Women’s Bodies on the Frontline” on Thursday, April 27.
The talk was delivered by Lu in mandarin Chinese and simultaneously interpreted by Jingyi Wu ’17, one of the organizers of the event. Wu started the audience off by recalling how she “stumbled upon, by some fate, the very first of young Chinese feminist conferences” as “a young and naïve high school student,” and met Lu.
Having worked for the women’s rights movement in China for more than 20 years, Lu is the founder of “Feminist Voices,” which is “the most influential feminist media in China.” Last year, she co-founded a new organization based in the U.S. to support feminist movement back home.
Social media platforms have been Lu and her colleagues’ main battlefield for years. In 2012, their project themed “Nude Photos against Domestic Violence” came out on the internet, and featured photos of women with different levels of nudity and symbols of violence or suppression on them. Through these provocative photos, they wanted to gather support for their ongoing plan to advocate for “the legislation of the very first anti-domestic violence law” in China.
In reality, although their efforts resulted in successful legislation, Lu said that the nude photos had a very limited effect. The few photos that caught attention were taken down by the original website, and most photos simply did not attract many. “So we were quite disappointed. Why aren’t people interested in nude photos?” Lu said.
“The deeper reason is that although these photos are nude, they are not sexy. The women in them are not sexy. The type of bodies that they depict are not subject to male gaze. They are not to be fantasized [about], and they are not feminine enough.” She argued that because these depictions of “stubborn, calm and angry” women “cannot really be consumed by men,” they failed to be disseminated.
From the incident, Lu learned that when women in China’s patriarchal society try to give their own definitions of their bodies, and to challenge “the sexiness as the only rule,” the society refuses to listen to them. She emphasized the necessity of body resistance, given that women in China are suffering from oppression in the form of “bodily hardships.” “The bodies are these suppressed women’s last and sometimes only resort to resistance,” she said.
China does not seem to lack grassroots feminist initiatives, and many are creative in their ways. In 2013, Lu supported a group of Chinese female university students and their play titled “Our Vaginas, Ourselves” to advocate for women’s sexual independence. Unfortunately, in mainstream online media platforms, photos of them holding signs about “What My Vagina Says” received mostly criticism.
Linking the two similar events, Lu concluded: “For the women who cannot be used, the public wants to ignore them. And for the women who refuse to be used and directly challenge men’s sexual power, the public gives them harsh criticism.”
These incidents also shed light on the social stigmatization Chinese women are facing today, which simply expects them to carry out familial duties. In fact, Lü pointed out that China’s current chairman Xi Jinping explicitly expressed that at a news conference in 2012.
Feminists in China were astounded. For Lu, this shows something more than the state’s warning of its own feminists. “It has a deeper connotation, which is that the state, through requiring women to stabilize the family, can stabilize the whole nation,” she said.
Apparently, the Chinese government’s efforts to push back feminism have only increased in recent years. In 2015, five of Lu’s colleagues were arrested and detained for a month for organizing a protest on public transportations to call attention to sexual harassment on these very areas. According to Lu, for the state they became “troublemakers,” and their actions were “threats to stabilization and the manager of this stabilization, the state.”
Actions have become harder for Lu and her fellow activists. Nevertheless, the large number of “ordinary Chinese feminists” did not give up. “We are in an unprecedented age,” Lu said. “From 2012, I’ve witnessed how fast the Chinese feminist community is growing.”
Today, many among them are women who are highly educated and live in bigger cities. Their anger has even led to the creation of the term “straight men cancer (*=(k❊ڈ),” which has its own Wikipedia page now, as a criticism of male chauvinists and sexists in China.
Still, there are existing obstacles for the many feminist activists in China. For Lu, they tend to lack knowledge about the living conditions of the lower class people, the pervasive role played by the state in gender inequality and the ability to “turn their anger into action.”
Importantly, the pressure does not only come from within. Lu argued that most people here in the U.S. are probably unaware of the impact of Trump’s election on women rights’ movements in China.
“Trump’s election is seen by a lot of chauvinist men to be signifying the defeat of women and feminism,” she said. “On the Chinese internet, the attack against feminism has upgraded to a new level after November of 2016.”
After her media platform “Feminist Voices” was censored and silenced for 30 days last year, and seeing the support from around the world she received during that time, Lu co-founded and registered a new organization called “Chinese Feminist Collectives” in New York City.
“For us, the contact with our friends back in China is essential,” she said at the post-event dinner at Chellis House. “If you are an overseas organization and lack the contact with domestic communities, the things you say lose their value.”
Women’s protests throughout China have led Lu to realize that “the rise of China is happening at the cost of extreme hardships of women.” In response to what the next step for feminists in China is, Lu said that the most important thing is to survive and “to live longer than our opponents.” She also believes that it is the time for “guerrilla wars,” and to “keep ‘sabotaging’” whenever they get the chance to intervene.
Her organization is currently planning to host feminist training sessions for high school students in Beijing. “In the face of the very harsh political environment, what we are doing is to continuously expand our community temporally and spatially,” she said.
(04/27/17 3:35am)
This past weekend, the Middlebury men’s lacrosse team played host to visiting Colby College. In a crucial NESCAC game for the Panthers, the Mules bested the home squad to a final score of 13-10.
Colby started the game off with an early lead, going up 2-0 within the first two minutes. Henry Riehl ’18 scored to push the score to 2-1 and was assisted by A.J. Kucinski ’20 in man-up offense to bring Midd within one just three minutes into the game. The two teams then traded off goals as Kucinski scored to make the score 3-2. After a five minute scoreless drought nearing the end of the first quarter, Colby tallied two late goals to bring their lead to 5-2.
In the second quarter, Colby continued its hot shooting with two straight goals, holding a 7-2 lead with 7:11 left in the half. Matt O’Neal ’19 put the Panthers back on the scoreboard, followed eight seconds later by another clean shot by John Jackson ’18, bringing the score to 7-4. Colby closed out the half with another goal of their own, putting the score at 8-4 in favor of the Mules.
Colby came out firing again in the third quarter, scoring three in the frame while Midd managed just one goal: Riehl, assisted by Wes Quinzani ’18, put his second shot of the day in the back of the net. Middlebury, with their postseason hopes hanging in the balance, came out firing in the fourth quarter. Riehl scored two more consecutive goals, followed by two more from teammates Frankie Cosolito ’20 and Danny Jacobs ’20. Jacobs added one more goal at the end of the game, but two goals by Colby put the score out of reach, ending the contest at 13-10.
In the game, Riehl led the way for the Panthers with four goals, while Kucinski had a team high two assists. Chase Midgley ’19 played most of the game in goal, totaling 45 minutes in the net, while captain Will Ernst ’17 finished the game off in the final 15 minutes. Jackson and Jake Madnick ’20 won 17/27 total faceoffs on the day and Jackson also added a team high seven ground ball recoveries to lead the Middlebury team.
Riehl now sits at fourth place among the NESCAC scoring leaders at 43 and Kucinski is also in fourth place in assists with 30 in his first campaign for Midd. With just one game left to play, Midd sits in eighth place in the conference and needs either a win against Williams or for Colby to have lost last night to Bates on Wednesday. If either result happens, the Panthers will make the NESCAC tournament beginning on Saturday, April 29 and will likely play either Amherst, Wesleyan or Bates, depending on the results of this week’s contests.
Chris Bradbury ’19 said, “Coming off a tough loss and going into a must-win game against a historically and currently competitive team in Williams ... we are looking to build on what we did at the end of the game against Colby by addressing certain areas of weakness during this week of practice … and to come out with a competitive mentality that will drive us into making a run at the NESCAC championship.”
(04/27/17 3:30am)
Last weekend, April 22-23, the golf teams headed straight south for a two-hour car ride down US Route 7 to the familiar confines of the Taconic Golf Club in Williamstown, Mass., for the Williams Spring Invitational. Both teams finished third, with the women’s squad wrapping up the 2016-17 campaign with a two-day total of 641 and the men’s squad getting one last match under their belts before NESCACs, shooting a collective 593.
On the women’s side, the always reliable Katharine Fortin ’18 was the Panthers’ low scorer. Fortin shot 154 for the weekend and tied for fifth in individual play. She shot below 80 in both of her rounds with a 76 on Saturday and a 78 on Sunday.
First-years Blake Yaccino ’20 and Chloe Levins ’20 ended their rookie seasons on high notes, as Yaccino finished just outside of the individual top 10 shooting a 161 for the weekend. She was one-under 80 on Sunday. Levins had a solid outing on Saturday as she went into the clubhouse with a 78, but fell off of her pace on Sunday as she shot an 85 to tally a 163 for the weekend.
Helen Daley ’19 shot a 168 for the weekend and Hope Matthews ’18 shaved four strokes off of her Saturday score with a strong second round on Sunday, bringing her two-day total to 170 to round things out for the Panthers.
Theo Yoch ’17, the team’s lone senior, competed in her last collegiate match and put together one of the best weekends of her time in the program, as she walked off of the course Sunday with a weekend total of 162 on her scorecard.
Meanwhile, the men’s squad got one last chance to play in a competitive setting before they head back down US Route 7 to play at Taconic again this weekend, April 29-30, in search of their fourth-straight NESCAC Championship crown. If they accomplish the feat, it would mark the eighth time in 11 years that the NESCAC Championship trophy will come back to Middlebury.
The top three team finishes on the men’s side of the tournament were Williams, Trinity and Middlebury, with the Panthers 15 strokes off the pace set by the Ephs. Trinity finished with a weekend total of 589, four strokes better than the Panthers. Nonetheless, the team is confident that it can make up those deficits this weekend.
“Winning NESCACs my four years at Middlebury would mean the world,” Rodrigo Andrade ’17 said with an eye toward the playoffs, “especially since I was a walk-on. Middlebury has never won four in a row, and I feel that if we play well, we can win.”
Phil Morin ’19 was more direct in his assessment of the situation. “We’ve got a chance to make history. Let’s do it.”
Reid Buzby ’19 led the way for the Panthers this past weekend, as he was one-under par with a 141 for the weekend to tie for third on the individual board. Next in line for the Panthers was Joe Ko ’18 who shot a 150 for the weekend to tie for eighth.
After shooting a 73 on Saturday, Andrade entered play Sunday sitting just outside of the top five but dropped out of the top 10 as he shot an uncharacteristic 79, his worst round of the season.
Jeffrey Giguere ’20 finished the weekend with a 151 for the Panthers, while David McDaniel ’19 and Morin rounded things out with respective weekend totals of 154 and 159.
This weekend, things get teed off on Saturday midday at Taconic and should wind down by mid-afternoon on Sunday. For those who will be following the team’s progress over the weekend, Buzby enters NESCACs with the hot hand and Andrade is always sure to have a strong showing at the big tournaments. Keep an eye on Giguere as well, as Panther first-years have a knack for recording strong weekends at the conference championships.
(04/27/17 1:44am)
A ceremony for Holocaust Remembrance Day, or Yom HaShoah, took place on Sunday, April 23, in Mead Memorial Chapel. The College’s Charles P. Scott Center for Spiritual and Religious Life sponsored the event, and students Sarah Asch ’19.5, Cece Alter ’19.5 and Hannah Krutiansky ’19 — all board members of Hillel — worked with Rabbi Ira J. Schiffer to plan it. Middlebury College has been hosting Holocaust Remembrance ceremonies since the late 1970s. This event brought together students involved in Hillel as well as members of Havurah, the Addison County Jewish Congregation, in remembrance of the genocide that claimed the lives of over six million Jews.
The service began with a background address delivered by Chaplain of the College Laurie Jordan ’79 and ended with a Benediction by Schiffer. The event also featured a candle lighting ceremony, memorial prayers and musical interludes sung by the Middlebury College Choir. Both students and community members recited texts and led the congregation in song.
After the candle lighting ceremony, Alter and Krutiansky both spoke about their grandparents’ experiences during the Holocaust and the importance of remembering their stories in order to prevent future tragedies. “I think as we get farther and farther away from the Holocaust it’s easier to not think about, but especially as a Jew it’s such a part of our history and something that’s really important to remember, especially for me since my family was involved,” Alter said.
Both Alter and Krutiansky emphasized the Holocaust’s relevance to the current political climate. “When I went to Auschwitz with my grandfather, there was a teacher there who asked my grandfather if there was one thing I could teach my students, what would you want it to be, and he said ‘To love everyone,’” Krutiansky said. “When you love everyone, it’s much harder to get into such dangerous situations.”
Local physician Dr. Jack Mayer, author of “Before the Court of Heaven,” spoke next, focusing on Germany’s descent into Nazism. Mayer drew a comparison between Germany’s pre-1933 Weimar Republic and the United States’ current political climate, noting, “The Nazis wanted to make Germany great again.”
Asch, Krutiansky and Alter all serve as board members on Hillel, Middlebury’s Jewish student organization. Hillel holds services in the Freeman International Center every Friday night followed by a dinner, and also hosts other events for Middlebury’s Jewish student community. “It’s nice to have a Jewish space away from home,” Asch said. “Hillel offers a really great place to kind of reconnect with Judaism, because for a lot of kids college is the first time they’ve had to seek out a religious community.”
(04/21/17 5:32pm)
The baseball team swept divisional opponent Hamilton to close last week’s action on April 14 and 15. The Panthers now stand at 9-10 overall and a game over .500 in conference play.
The Panthers won a decisive 3-0 victory over the Continentals Friday afternoon on the right arm of first-year Spencer Shores ’20. Shores went eight innings and tossed 12 strikeouts, giving up only six hits, a walk and a healthy HBP.
The game was scoreless heading into the sixth until Sam Graf ’19 got the Panthers’ Ryan Rizzo ’17 across the plate with an infield single deep into the hole to the shortstop. The scoring continued in the bottom of the seventh where designated hitter Alan Guild ’20 hit a solo shot over the wall in right center to put the Panthers up 2-0. A couple of batters later, Jason Lock ’17 drove in Brooks Carroll ’20 with a single up the middle. That pushed the score to 3-0, which Conor Himstead ’19 preserved in the ninth as he struck out the side.
Shores got his second win of the season and of his career thus far. Himstead racked up his third save of the season, while Rizzo, Graf, Lock and Guild led the way for the Panthers at the dish.
The Panthers were able to carry their momentum from Friday afternoon’s victory when the teams met again for a doubleheader on Saturday.
In the first game, the Panthers pulled out a come-frombehind 6-5 victory.
Hamilton was up 4-0 going into the first when Carroll came to the plate with Justin Han ’20 in scoring position. Carroll was able to hit a sharp single to push Han across and begin a threerun inning for the Panthers. Carroll would score on a Lock single to center before the Panthers had a stroke of luck when Raj Palekar ’18 hit a popup that the Hamilton shortstop lost in the sun and bobbled that allowed Lock to score.
Middlebury scored again in the bottom of the sixth to tie the game at four. However, this was quickly taken away when Hamilton went up one after scoring in the top of the seventh.
On their last legs, the Panthers came up in the bottom of the seventh needing some timely production. Phil Bernstein ’19 answered the call.
Palekar reached the base on a fielder’s choice when an error allowed Graf to score to tie things up at five. Palekar eventually got into scoring position and Bernstein came up with a chance to notch one in the win column for Middlebury. Bernstein continued what has been a fantastic sophomore season with a shot up the middle to give the Panthers a well-deserved win in what was an all-around team effort.
In the final matchup of the three game set on Saturday afternoon, the Panthers once again came from behind and won another thriller by one run, this time 7-6.
Already holding a 3-2 in the top of the sixth, Hamilton scored three more runs and it appeared the Camels had blown the game open and would take a game off the Panthers. However, the Panthers never quit and rose to the occasion.
In the bottom of the sixth, Guild tripled to left center to score both Bernstein and Han. After a ground out by Rizzo, Guild scored on a wild pitch to bring the Panthers within one.
The Panthers kept the pedal to the metal and before the pivotal sixth ended Carroll singled through the left side to bring home Andrew Corcoran ’18 to tie the game at six apiece.
The 6-6 tie held until the bottom of the eighth, by which point the Panthers clearly held all of the momentum. Middlebury got the edge when Graf doubled down the leftfield line to bring home Lock and put the Panthers ahead for good 7-6.
The top of the ninth was not without some measure of fanfare however, but a putout at home and two successive quick outs were enough to seal the deal.
The Panthers will be back in action tomorrow and Saturday, April 21-22, for an important three game set with Wesleyan.
(04/21/17 5:29pm)
Following a tough weekend against Amherst, Middlebury’s softball team headed up to Clinton, N.Y., to compete against the Hamilton Continentals for their second NESCAC series of the season.
On Friday, April 14, Allison Quigley ’18 started on the mound against Hamilton’s Zoe Singer. Quigley, who boasts a solid 5-4 record, is one of three starting pitchers; she consistently throws strikes, gets outs and can throw complete games as well as contribute to her team’s offense. On Friday, she went 2-4 at the plate, including a double and an RBI.
In game one of the series, Middlebury got on the board first as Ali Della Volpe ’18 singled through the infield and later scored on a fielder’s choice — Della Volpe has had an impressive junior year so far with a .348 batting average and seven RBI’s. The Continentals, however, responded in the bottom of the inning with three runs, two of which were unearned. With a 3-1 lead, Hamilton held the lead through the second.
“In the first game on Friday we played very clean defense as a team and also stayed focused on offense, which led to our success,” Della Volpe said.
The Panthers came right back in the third inning. Della Volpe started the rally, reaching on an error, while Kati Dackzowski ’18 and Sarah Freye ’17 walked to load the bases for Melanie Mandell ’20. Mandell, who has had an amazing first year campaign, — batting .459 with a .820 slugging percentage, 21 RBI’s and three home runs — continued to live up to her offensive potential. She smashed a triple in the gap to give Middlebury a 4-3 lead. Quigley helped herself out by crushing a double to deep center to add another tally and she scored when captain Siobhan O’Sullivan ’17 hit a deep sac-fly to the outfield.
The Panthers led 6-3 until the bottom of the fourth when Hamilton tacked on its final two runs making it a one-run 6-5 game. But Quigley held the Continentals to zero runs for the rest of the game as Middlebury tacked on two insurance runs at the top of the seventh and went on to win 8-5.
“After our loss in game two, we learned that we could not leave nearly as many runners on base as we did and still come out on top. We knew we had to refocus,” Della Volpe ’18 said.
On the second day, Saturday April 15, Middlebury geared up to try to sweep Hamilton for the Double Header. In game one, the Panthers got on the board first as Della Volpe drew a leadoff walk, coming all the way around to score on a passed ball. With a 1-0 lead in the first, Mandell also drew a walk and scored on a single by Erin Giles ’17.
Middlebury continued its offensive power as they scored another two runs in the second.
Hye-Jin Kim ’17 started things off with a basic hit and scored on double down the left-field line by Taylor Gardner ’18, who later advanced on a pass ball and scored on a fielders choice. The Panthers held a 4-0 lead until the bottom of the fifth when Hamilton’s Kendall Searcy drew a basesloaded walked for the first run and Emily Fraser brought the second and third runs home with a two-run double. The score remained that way until the seventh.
The Panthers had not scored since the fourth and they could not generate anything in the second half of the game. In the bottom of the seventh, down by one, the Continentals hit back-to-back singles with two outs. Hamilton’s Sophie Cerreta sealed the deal with a three-run walk-off home run to end the game 6-4. Irene Margiotta tossed the first 4.1 innings while Quigley took the loss giving up three runs on five hits.
Though they had lost on a walk-off, Middlebury was ready for redemption. In the nightcap, the Panthers scored in each of the five innings. Quigley brought home the first run with an RBI double in the gap; Liza Tarr ’19 smacked a run-scoring double in the second and Della Volpe made it 3-0 with an RBI groundout.
It was in the third, however, that the offensive floodgates opened up scoring six runs including a two-run homer to left center off the bat of Quigley and a double by Gardner that plated two more runs for a 9-0 advantage.
In the fourth, Gardner plated another RBI for a 10-0 lead, followed by a runscoring base hit in the fifth to extend the lead to 11-0. Hamilton pushed a single run in the bottom of the fifth for the final score 11-1.
Quigley picked up the win in the circle, allowing just one run on four hits with three strikeouts in her eighth complete game of the spring. She went 4-4 at the plate with four RBI’s, while Della Volpe and Gardner both had doubles and scored twice.
“We came out with high energy and cheered very loudly,” said Della Volpe ’18. “Also on the way to Hamilton we watched Remember the Titans, which really pumped us up for the weekend, especially the second game. We started quoting lines from the movie, which helped everyone to loosen up.”
The Panthers return to action this weekend with their third NESCAC series of the season against the Wesleyan Cardinals.
(04/21/17 2:12am)
Class is a tricky subject in the US, particularly since it is considered impolite to acknowledge it exists. Surveys show that most Americans, excepting only the bottom 20 percent and the top two percent of income earners, believe themselves to be middle class. Now, in the Trump era, class is often used to silence disc u s s i o n s a b o u t race. It is not unc o m m o n to hear people point to the white working-class as a way to erase and ignore accounts of racial oppression. The truth about the interaction between class and race is, like most things, more complicated.
Class — like gender, sexual orientation or race — is an experience and identity that informs and is informed by one’s other experiences and identities, and that indicates a relation to power. Racial oppression and economic oppression are intimately linked. So it is unfortunate when mainstream media pits them against each other, arguing over which of them is “the real issue.” Many forms of racial oppression are economic — white flight in many places depressed housing prices which in turn has led to lower property taxes being collected in these areas which led to lower-quality education in many poor Black neighborhoods which, in turn keeps income levels down and dropout rates up — more on that next week! Likewise, rural working-class people experience similar depressed property prices that coincide with underfunded educations and that make it nearly impossible to move to economically prosperous areas. The median home price in Nebraska is $147,000, and the median home price in San Francisco is $1,147,000 — literally $1 million more than half the houses in Nebraska. This makes it almost financially impossible to move from a place of economic stagnation to a place of economic prosperity, which in turn makes it harder for people from these areas to gain access to high quality education and higher incomes. In this case, however, there is economic oppression, but not racial oppression. Property prices are depressed but not because of white flight. It is important to look at the real mechanisms of oppression, both economic and racial, and how they inform each other, not how they contradict each other.
Class, while often invisible to those who fit Middlebury’s wealthy mold, is also very much at play on Middlebury’s campus. Middlebury is a unique place in terms of class; it is a generally liberal campus, but it is also a campus where 23 percent of the student body come from families that make over $650k a year, where 70 percent of the student body come from families in the top 20 percent of earners, where the median family salary is $244k, where more than half the student body pays $65k+ in tuition out of pocket, and where only 14 percent of the student body comes from the bottom 60 percent of American earners. By contrast, we live in a county with a median income of $55,000 — not at all below the national average but significantly less wealthy than this campus.
That was a lot of numbers, but the idea is that we are living on a campus where extreme wealth is normal. What feels “middle-class” at Middlebury is probably upper-class to the rest of the world. This is not a crime, but it is an opportunity. By remaining silent about class we normalize Middlebury’s wealth and marginalize the experiences of less affluent students. By talking about it and organizing around it, we can effect change.
Since Trump was elected, people have been asking how to use their privilege to organize effectively. Mobilizing money is one of the most concrete forms of leveraging one’s privilege for social justice — whether that be donating to HOPE VT (Helping Overcome Poverty’s Effects) or divesting from fossil fuels or actively racist companies. Making money move can make a difference. It is also a way to make our campus more economically friendly, particularly if we can institute wealth redistribution among students and put more college events on a graduated pay scale.
In the coming weeks, I will write about the mechanisms of racialized economic oppression, the classed nature of white normativity, and critiques of philanthropy. If anyone is interested in mobilizing wealth, learning more about class in a way that is coherent with anti-racist ideologies, having open and honest inter-class discussions, wealth redistribution, impact investing, fundraising, personal divestment and/or any other way we can organize around class for social justice go to go/ middmovingmoney to learn more or email middmovingmoney@gmail.com
(04/20/17 5:23pm)
After a tough stretch a few weeks ago and some encouraging steps towards success two weekends ago, the Middlebury Men’s lacrosse team finally put it all together this past week. Last week featured two marquee matchups for the team as they took on an athletic Springfield team at home to kick off a three-game homestand.
Springfield was 6-2 entering the game, receiving votes in the NCAA D3 top-25 poll similar to Middlebury, and posed a great matchup and test before a crucial conference game against Trinity on Saturday. The Panthers met and triumphed in both contests, winning 13-12 over Springfield and 11-7 over Trinity.
In the Springfield game, sophomore Chase Midgley ’19 started and played all 60 minutes in goal, making 11 saves on 23 shots. Jake Madnick ’20 and John Jackson ’18 completed a great duo in face offs as Madnick won 13/17 and Jackson won 8/12. On offense, Luke Peterson ’19 and Henry Riehl ’18 led the way with three goals each, followed closely by A.J. Kucinski ’20 who added two shots to the back of the net and two assists. Madnick and Jake DeFrino ’17 tied in picking up a team high eight ground balls, four more than the next best result for either team.
After a close loss against Bates the preceding Saturday, this was a great game to win for the Panthers, showing that they could still compete at an elite level even without several key starters who are lost to the year because of injury, including Clay Hunt ’19, Jack Gould ’19, and Michael McCormick ’19.
“Even though we have had injuries other players are stepping up to fill their roles,” said Chris Bradbury ’19. “Having a win going into a Saturday game is always a big confidence boost which helped us to a win.”
Saturday’s game featured a matchup between two teams vying to make the NESCAC playoffs as Trinity entered 0-7 in conference games while Middlebury was 2-5 and currently occupies the eighth and last playoff spot. Middlebury started off strongly on Saturday, taking a quick 4-2 lead on goals from Chase Goree ’20, Jackson, Peterson and Riehl, but let their lead slip in the second quarter, falling behind 6-5 at the half. The second half was all Panthers though as they were surely inspired by the warm weather and big crowd who came out to Alumni Stadium to support them. The Panthers went on a 6-2 scoring run to close out the game, with goals from Kucinski (2), Danny Jacobs ’20, and Riehl (3). Kucinski added four assists to lead Middlebury who earned their third NESCAC victory, putting them in a good position heading into next Saturday’s game against Colby College. Midgley had a breakout game in the net too, saving 16/23 shots, cementing himself as a key piece to the Middlebury lineup.
With just two regular season games left, Midd needs to win at least one of more game to clinch a playoff berth. Riehl is having an outstanding season for the Panthers and is just three goals off of the league leading number of 42, and eight off of the league leading assists mark of 36, looking to find himself on an All-NESCAC team at the end of the season.
(04/12/17 8:08pm)
A group of faculty members presented a motion to add a “Freedom of Expression Policy” to the “General Information” section of the College handbook at the April 9 Faculty Plenary meeting.
The following professors submitted the motion: Assistant Professor of Religion Ata Anzali, Assistant Professor of Political Science Keegan Callanan, Fulton Professor of Humanities Stephen Donadio, Frederick C. Dirks Professor of Political Science Michael Kraus, Associate Professor of Economics Caitlin Myers, D. E. Axinn Professor of English and Creative Writing Jay Parini, Curt C. and Else Silberman Professor of Jewish Studies Robert Schine, Associate Professor of Mathematics John Schmitt, Russell J. Leng ‘60 Professor of International Politics and Economics Allison Stanger and John M. McCardell Jr. Distinguished Professor Don Wyatt.
Their motion comes in the midst of on-campus debates over free speech and inclusivity in the wake of student-led protests that prevented Dr. Charles Murray from delivering a scheduled lecture on March 2. The faculty group emerged out of an informal conversation about the future of free expression at Middlebury.
“There are several places in the handbook that address academic freedom in one way or another,” Myers said. “But they all have local purposes and don’t provide a complete, coherent, clear statement of policy that protects the whole community — faculty, staff, and students as well as any guest they invite.”
“Because the College is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the College community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn,” reads their motion. “It is not the proper role of the College to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”
The motion emphasised that one of the purposes of higher education is to serve as a place where contrasting ideas can be presented and discussed.
“In a community striving toward this end, free speech protects the right of all individuals and groups to be heard. We recognize the uneven burden that freedom of speech can impose on under-represented minorities. By the same token, minorities often stand to lose the most under regimes of restricted speech,” the motion reads.
It also acknowledges that freedom of speech does not protect all kinds of speech.
“The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish,” said the motion. “The College may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the College.”
Although part of the motion was drafted by Middlebury faculty, it also proposes the adoption of the University of Chicago’s “Freedom of Inquiry and Expression” policy and the AAUP’s statement, “On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes.”
After Myers, Anzali, Callanan and Donadio presented the motion to the faculty, Professor of Film & Media Studies and American Studies Jason Mittell, speaking on behalf of more than 30 faculty members, introduced a substitution motion to delay considering the proposal. Faculty spoke against the proposal not necessarily due to the content of the motion, but because of the timing, process and way in which it was introduced.
The faculty who drafted the substitute motion met on April 5, and decided to reject debating the “Freedom of Expression Policy” because they believe that it is necessary to discuss the College’s shared values before discussing future policy implementations. They also believe that policy changes should not occur in the midst of investigations into the protests on March 2.
“There are disciplinary actions currently underway concerning a number of our students, and potentially even our faculty and staff colleagues,” Mittell said. “Changing our handbook language in ways that pertain to those investigations and accusations in the midst of the proceedings is potentially damaging to the integrity (perceived or in practice) of our judicial process.”
He also argued that the passage of such a motion would only strengthen current political divides on campus.
“Presenting this policy now will be treated as a referendum on the March 2nd event, and our current factionalization will become even more polarized and destructive,” he said. “Regardless of its intent, this motion will be regarded by many as a direct rebuke against colleagues and students, rather than a sincere statement of principles. Even some who agree with the spirit of the policy will always regard it as tainted by politics.”
Mittell ended his remarks by saying that the passage of such a motion should not be done without consulting students and staff. The motion that he introduced recommended that changes to the handbook regarding free speech should be discussed and drafted by the ad hoc committee of students, faculty and staff that will soon be established by the Office of the Provost.
“We ask that one goal of this joint committee will be to consider and offer recommendations for actions, policies and statements that can help us move forward and assert shared community values which all constituencies can commit to collaboratively,” reads the motion. “We also ask that relevant policy recommendations should be considered by this joint committee before being addressed by other policy-making bodies, to ensure an inclusive and deliberative process."
After Mittell made this motion, Associate Professor of Political Science Bertram Johnson offered a friendly amendment to change the language of the last line from "addressed by" to "voted on." This friendly amendment, while accepted by Mittell, has not yet been approved by the faculty. It will require a vote at the May plenary meeting.
Per Robert’s Rules of Order, the discussion then turned into a debate between the two motions. Several faculty members supported the substitute motion and the delay of the first motion, citing that the introduction of the first motion was done too soon. Other faculty members spoke in favor of the first motion, and argued that, by delaying discussion of the “Freedom of Expression Policy,” the substitute motion limited the ability of the faculty to debate issues of free speech.
“From the outset we made it clear that we had no intention of trying to ram [the first proposal] through without time for consideration and debate. We have brought it forward as one discussion point in a broader conversation about our values as an academic community,” Myers said. “The original version of the substitute motion was quite shocking to me in that it gags and binds the faculty in addressing any concrete proposals related to the Murray incident until next winter. The ‘friendly amendment’ removes the gag, but I’m still quite troubled that some colleagues want to constrain faculty governance.”
“If passed, the substitute motion would have been a novelty in the annals of faculty governance: a faculty voting to forbid itself from discussing something,” Callanan said.
However, those who supported the substitute motion argued that delaying discussion and a vote on the “Freedom of Expression Policy” did not limit the faculty’s ability to talk about the issue, rather, it allowed for the faculty to engage in a conversation about these values with the broader community.
“The initial motion frames the entire conversation around the free speech policy proposal on the faculty floor, which drastically limits what issues might be addressed and who can participate. Our substitute motion embraces multiple issues beyond just free speech, such as inclusivity, diversity and community, and brings students and staff to the table as well,” Mittell said. “Our colleagues on Faculty Council and the Provost’s office are sponsoring many opportunities for community discussions on these issues, so I see no lack of open conversations in a wide range of
venues. In short, our substitute motion actually aims to broaden the terms, scope and inclusivity of speech about the March 2nd events and their aftermath.”
After a lengthy debate at the April 9 meeting, the faculty did not vote on the two proposals. Debate will continue at the May 16 meeting which will be held at 3 p.m. at Wilson Hall in the McCullough Student Center.
(03/10/17 3:34am)
On Feb. 22, the Middlebury College American Enterprise Institute Club published a group op-ed in The Campus that extended an “invitation” to the Middlebury College community “to encourage robust discussion and expose the Middlebury Community to diverse thoughts, opinions and understandings on the important topics of today,” according to the authors. The event was a lecture by political scientist and American Enterprise Institute (AEI) WH Brady Scholar, Charles Murray.
Soon after the announcement of Murray’s talk, both students and faculty began organizing in opposition. The reasons why Charles Murray sparked such passionate resistance and controversy are complicated and diverse, and motivations among those opposed to him were varied. Murray is considered one of the leading libertarian academics in the United States and has had significant influence on both political science and policymaking; for example, his work influenced the welfare debate during the 1990s.
Although he was invited to the College to speak on his most recent book, Coming Apart, which attempts to track and explain a growing divide between white “intellectual elite” and white working class people, Murray is best known for his work, “The Bell Curve.” This book has been fiercely debated since its publication in 1994, as it posits links between intelligence and race based on differences in average IQ scores between races.
Parts of his methodology have been challenged, especially his use of certain data to arrive at more general conclusions on the nature versus nurture debate. “The Bell Curve” and some of Murray’s later comments have resulted in his classification as a “white nationalist” by many, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization “dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry,” as stated on their website.
An Invitation to Speak
Murray has spoken at Middlebury before, once in April 2007, on “The Bell Curve.” The event sparked controversy but not to the same extent of last Thursday; it was not covered in The Campus. Last semester, the College chapter of AEI gathered to discuss an invitation for an expert from the organization to deliver a guest lecture. They made a list of academics associated with AEI and submitted it to the national organization.
AEI told the College chapter that Murray had accepted the invitation partly because of his close relationship with the College: he is the parent of a Middlebury graduate. The College chapter was provided funding by the national organization to host Murray and facilitate the talk. “Our goal … was to create a discussion on campus. We thought that his work on “Coming Apart” was really prescient,” AEI Vice President Alexander Khan ’17 said.
In the AEI chapter on campus, the executive board — which made the final decision to bring Murray to campus — disagreed on the best format for his planned lecture. Violet Low-Beinart ’19, a member of the board and a democrat, floated the possibility of treating this event differently than other academic lectures and offered the idea of a moderated panel format.
“We are a diverse group who hold a range of opinions and political ideologies,” she said of the board’s final decision not to pursue a panel format.
Addressing the internal debate, Phil Hoxie ’17.5, president and chair of the AEI executive council, determined that disagreement among board members was due to expectations of social ramifications. “I think the concerns were more of how this would be perceived [by] other people and not wanting to deal with what we’re dealing with right now,” he said.
Organizing Resistance
By evening on Feb. 24, several months after the AEI had scheduled Murray’s talk, the decision to bring Murray to the College had escalated into a campus-wide controversy. Over the weekend of Feb. 25-26, Middlebury Resistance, College Democrats, Wonderbread, other clubs and ad-hoc organizations were already beginning substantive organization efforts. Some of the first goals that emerged were to get the Department of Political Science to rescind its co-sponsorship in the event, to urge President of Middlebury Laurie L. Patton to not appear at the event and to pressure either the College or AEI to retract the invitation altogether.
On Monday, Feb. 27. Professors and students together led organizing efforts, which soon divided into two different groups: those who wished to carry out non-disruptive protests, and those who wished to shut down the event and prevent Murray from speaking.
Arianna Reyes ’18 and Sami Lamont ’17 helped solidify and structure the protests. Both students saw the event as an opportunity to take action and support values they care deeply about. “I was thinking a lot about what’s been going on in the world and how I’ve been really passive before right now in terms of actually organizing,” Reyes said.
Lamont explained that she took a de facto leadership role in the opposition when she realized the opposition energy could use additional direction and structure.
“It was seeing all the ideas floating around just on Facebook and then realizing that we needed a place to consolidate that if anything was going to happen,” she said, commenting on her decision to get involved.
However, both Reyes and Lamont quickly recognized that the protest efforts could never be completely uniform. Reyes focused on the group of students who wished to disrupt the speech, while Lamont instead helped run meetings that brainstormed non-disruptive methods of resistance.
“I was always definitely supportive of a diversity of tactics,” Reyes said. “I wasn’t trying to go against anyone and what they were doing.”
On Wednesday, March 1, the political science department held a community meeting for the purpose of providing a forum to ask questions about the department’s cosponsorship and to discuss the event more generally. In the course of the meeting, political science faculty also revealed internal divisions. Department Chair and Associate Professor of Political Science Bertram Johnson had previously sent an email around that provided insight into the department’s own debate over the sponsorship.
Associate Professor of Political Science Sarah Stroup offered an opening statement that presented her own mixed feelings about the lecture, as well as her thoughts on what made this event so unusual for the department.
“I think that it’s a trope in higher education that we are supposed to make [students] uncomfortable, and I will be honest that most of the time, we do not join you as faculty in that endeavor,” she said. “This is different because we are uncomfortable. Because I am uncomfortable. Because we are asked to be with you and think about what our responsibilities are when we navigate between the free exchange of ideas and our commitment to the community.”
Over an hour, the political science department offered different viewpoints of the controversy, from steadfast defenses of the decision to invite him to campus, to expressions of revulsion at Murray’s views and to encouragements of protest.
A Contentious Afternoon
On March 2, the day of the event, organizers made final efforts to assemble their response with signs, emails and brochures. The Middlebury AEI and the College Republicans clubs, which have partly shared leadership, called for members to arrive at the event as early as possible.
“This has become, for Alexander [Khan] and I, a battle for free speech and liberalism. We do not believe that Dr. Murray is what others claim him to be,” Hoxie wrote in an email.
More than an hour before the talk was penned to begin at 4:30 p.m., students, faculty and community members began lining up outside of McCullough Student Center.
The earliest arrivals were predominantly protesters. Many held signs with declarations like “Respect Resistance,” “F*ck White Supremacy,” “F*ck Eugenics,” and “Charles Murray Is Fake News.” On the lawn nearby, non-student activists gathered, and the flag of the Anti-Fascist movement flapped in the breeze. These activists, and anyone else not part of the college community, were not allowed inside the event.
Finally, the doors to the lecture opened and students went inside — but, due to capacity issues, only a fraction of those outside got seats.
Vice President for Communications and Chief Marketing Officer Bill Burger took the stage and stated the Middlebury guidelines on guest speakers, protests and demonstrations. His short speech incited several responses from the protesters.
“Middlebury College does not allow disruptive behavior at a community event or on campus. Disruptions may include purposefully blocking the view of others,” Burger said. To this, an unidentified student in the crowd said, “And inviting white supremacists.”
Burger continued, “Banners or items that block the audience’s view,” and the crowd immediately raised their signs high in response.
“You’re going to love this next part,” he said. “Noise or action that disrupts the ability of the audience to hear.” At that, the audience burst into cheers, drowning out the rest of Burger’s sentence.
Crowd outbursts and jeers continued through the opening speeches of Khan and Middlebury AEI Executive Council Member Ivan Valladares ’17. When President Patton took stage, she was met with a combination of boos and applause. However, after delivering her remarks, the crowd responded only with applause.
“We are an intellectual community, and part of a job of an intellectual community is to argue. If there ever was a time for Americans to take on arguments that affect us, it is now,” she said.
Murray finally walked on stage, and the crowd erupted into boos and chants. “This is going to be a real anti-climax,” he said. At that point, protesters stood up, turned around and together began reciting a pre-written speech.
“This is not respectful discourse or a debate about free speech,” they said. “These are not ideas that can be fairly debated. It is not ‘representative’ of the other side to give a platform to such dangerous ideologies. There is not a potential for an equal exchange of ideas.”
The speech then transformed into chants. These included: “Who is the enemy? White supremacy!” “Your message is hatred; we cannot tolerate it!” “Charles Murray, go away; Middlebury says ‘no way!’”
After ten minutes, Burger walked on stage again to announce that the format of the talk would transform into an interactive, livestreamed discussion between Murray and moderator Allison Stanger, the Russell J. Leng ’60 professor of international politics and economics. The two moved to an undisclosed location to film their conversation, a backup prepared in advance.
Over the course of Murray and Stanger’s discussion that lasted more than an hour (now available on the Middlebury News Room) some members in the crowd dispersed. But many protesters remained in the auditorium and continued chanting. The protests continued outside, as well, where some spoke into megaphones and sounded off sirens and drums. They had discovered the location of the live stream and made noise outside its window — in the video, their efforts can be heard clearly.
Back inside the auditorium, as administrators attempted to get the livestream projected onto the screen, tensions between protesters and attendees escalated. Students yelled at each other across Wilson Hall. “Respect free speech!” was shouted to some protesters. One protester yelled, “F*ck white supremacy!” to a group of students attempting to view the livestream. In response, one of those viewers shouted, “F*ck censorship!” The altercation ended when the protester yelled back, “F*ck free speech!”
Protesters and attendees alike dispersed as time went on, but a sizeable group of around 20 students continued to chant over Murray’s talk. Many students left to view the speech elsewhere. Outside the McCullough Student Center, a majority of protesters had left by 6 p.m.
About 15 protesters remained standing one entrance to McCullough, still yelling at the window of the room in which Murray was speaking. Among this group were non-student activists. Some protesters wore face masks to conceal their identities. Two masked protesters unfurled a banner that read, “Choke on your silver spoon, you f*cking Nazi.”
As Murray’s talk neared its end, the protesters dispersed around McCullough to cover all the entrances, waiting for his exit.
The events that followed caused the protests to draw attention from national news outlets, but the details and nuances of that day remain uncertain. What is agreed upon by Burger’s statements to the media, Stanger’s public Facebook post, Murray’s statement on AEI’s website and President Patton’s statements to the community is the following claim: When Murray exited the building, escorted by Burger and Stanger, the group was approached by protesters, several with their faces covered and some of whom were non-students. As Stanger and Murray attempted to get inside a car, protesters allegedly placed themselves in their path.
Murray was not physically harmed in the ensuing confrontation, but Stanger suffered from a neck injury following a physical altercation that transpired after she attempted to shield Murray and usher him to their vehicle. Stanger experienced whiplash that evening. On the following Sunday, she was diagnosed with a concussion. She was taken to Porter Hospital on both days.
Beyond this series of events, the nature of the confrontation and its many facets remain disputed. An article on the student-run blog Middbeat, unaffiliated with the administration, shared the perspective of anonymous students who claimed to be present at the conflict. Other recollections have provided contradictory details and viewpoints, and the questions of what happened, who initiated what and who exactly is at fault have ignited widespread and contentious debate, both on and off campus.
Following the day’s events, two seperate investigations are being launched; one an independent investigation by the College, the other an investigation into the confrontation that took place outside of McCullough to be done by the Middlebury Police Department, said President Patton in an email to the community last Monday.
“There is hard work ahead for all of us,” Patton wrote in her email. “Learning to be accountable to one another, and learning to stand in community with one another.”
Community Response
By Friday, March 3, Murray had departed, and students, faculty and staff awoke to a world suddenly focused on their college. The first reports of Stanger’s injury appeared in VTDigger and the Addison Independent, but national news outlets soon began running the story.
Within the College community, many have been asking, “What do these events mean?” In an email sent on Friday, Patton spoke of the event as a disappointing display of a deep divide in College culture.
“Last night we failed to live up to our core values,” she said in the message. “But I remain hopeful.”
“This was the saddest day of my life,” Stanger posted publicly to Facebook on Saturday, March 4. “We have got to do better by those who feel and are marginalized ... We must all realize the precious inheritance we have as fellow Americans and defend the Constitution against all its enemies, both foreign and domestic.”
For Khan and Hoxie, the disruptions and confrontation took them by surprise and seemed to confirm their fears about the state of freedom of speech on campus.
“If we’re not willing to listen to each other and we’re not willing to listen to what we have to say because we feel that that person might say something that we find offensive, or even hateful, we’re going to be in real trouble,” Hoxie said. “I firmly believe that freedom is one generation away from being extinct. We’re going to vote it away.”
Many students who participated in the protests expressed disappointment at the violent conclusion to events, but they also felt some satisfaction with the effectiveness of the protests within Wilson Hall and a determination to continue pushing these issues in the future.
“[The initial protest] was incredibly successful because we coordinated all of these people to turn around and that was a really powerful statement,” Reyes said. “It was successful because we did get [Murray and Professor Stanger] to leave Wilson Hall.”
Lamont and Reyes do not view the division as one that pits proponents of free speech against those who are willing to restrict free speech in pursuit of some other goal.
“That’s one thing [President Patton] mentions a lot in [her statements on] rhetorical resilience — confidence in debate — and I think one big reason why we were not into talking to Murray is that he’s shown that he’s pretty confident in his ideas and he’s not really about talking to them and engaging and reconsidering,” Lamont said.
For other students, however, the disruption of Murray’s talk and subsequent violence brought to the forefront a significant problem engrained in the community.
“The manner in which he was shut down lacked civility and, in my opinion, did not respect the rights of those students (many who disagree with him ideologically) but who, nevertheless, wanted to hear him speak and/or engage with him at an intellectual level,” said Abdi Mohamed ’18.5.
As of this writing, it is unclear exactly how the community will respond to these events. As Johnson said, “I think one of the more powerful things we can say in this moment is ‘I don’t know’. I don’t really know what’s next.”
Many see the events as having unleashed a deep and possibly irreconcilable gulf between students, while others see them as a way to come together, hash out differences and determine a path to progress. According to Lamont, preperations are already being made for meetings and discussions in the coming weeks.
Khan viewed the events as an opportunity for the community to reassess its values and culture, and to push back against attempts to stifle opposing views. “I don’t want the moral of this story to be that Middlebury couldn’t handle a viewpoint that wasn’t consistent with their own. I think that it’s so necessary and important that we try to change the culture on campus and create one of intellectual diversity.”
In an email sent out on Monday, March 6, President Patton reinforced this call for community building and discussion.
“This week, we will mark the beginning of opportunities for reflection and engagement,” she said. “We have much to discuss — our differences on the question of free speech and on the role of protest being two of the most pressing examples. In addition, I am extending an invitation to everyone to submit community-building ideas for consideration.”
“I’m committed to working on whatever’s next, and I’m grateful for those people on various sides of this who have reached out to have conversations,” Johnson said. “That’s how we’re going to proceed — through having conversations.”
Additional reporting by Christian Jambora and Will DiGravio.
(03/10/17 2:56am)
Like many who have written already, I want to provide my perspective on the events during Charles Murray’s recent visit. I write as a professor of political science, a scholar of free speech and hate speech, a teacher of courses on race, ethnicity, and diversity and a straight, white man, whose childhood included several years of poverty that included periods on food stamps. I have participated in discussions with a left-leaning group on campus since before the event, and was in sporadic contact with an AEI club member following the event. I have friends, colleagues and students on all sides.
There has been a strong and unfortunate tendency to conflate three forms of protest that took place on the day:
loud and raucous protests outside prior to the event,
louder and more raucous protests inside the venue that eventually succeeded in forcing the event off the stage, and
violent events that took place as participants left the building.
I think conflating these is a mistake. Everyone I know has supported the pre-event protests and roundly condemned the post-event violence. So I focus here exclusively on the “middle protest” — what happened in the room with Murray at the lectern. This has generated the most contentious debate on campus.
The best arguments I’ve heard for shutting down Murray’s speech center on a complete rejection of his stance on biological racial differences, a stance that has formed the basis of truly harmful policies and attitudes. From this perspective, it did not matter that he was not going to speak about The Bell Curve; he is on record as someone who at a minimum gives intellectual support to racists, and the College should not have given him a platform to convey any of his views. Who is next, people have asked, David Duke? Louis Farrakhan? If individuals’ core identities are challenged in ways that have led to hate crimes and genocide, why should we tolerate them on campus?
I sympathize with the pain caused by Murray’s visit. I have listened carefully to the heart-wrenching fears that some of my students have of life in the contemporary United States. But I am not convinced by arguments for shutting down this event. It is all the less persuasive amid assertions that students were just exercising their free speech rights of “simultaneous dialogue” when they impeded Murray from delivering his lecture. This is a fundamental and deeply troubling misconception of free speech. Would the protesters approve of 50 white male students standing up to shout down Shaun King or Ta-Nehisi Coates, or drowning out a lecture that decried masculinity as a threat to our society?
The best arguments I’ve heard for condemning the shut-down are both philosophical and strategic. We cannot operate as a community of learners if guest speakers cannot present their ideas for us to debate as vehemently as required. As a specific tactic, the shut-down has split the very broad coalition of people on campus who are deeply sympathetic to students of marginalized backgrounds, forcing them to choose between free speech and being an ally to the activist protesters. It also drew national media attention to Middlebury in a way that reinforces the public’s visions of college students as “snowflakes,” all while making Murray look like a sympathetic victim and handing him a bullhorn for his ideas.
The protesters forced me to choose, and so I choose free speech. I do that recognizing that I now have to find other ways to reaffirm my commitment to diversity on campus and to supporting students with marginalized backgrounds. I am ready to do that as best I can. It is also important to note that the protesters forced everyone to choose, and several of my students of color were strongly opposed to the shut-down of Murray and firmly in favor of free speech. Two stated that they were being ostracized by friends for their positions. The fissures on campus run deep and in complicated directions.
There is a second level of complexity and nuance that I hope can be recognized in our discussions. It is one that is sorely lacking in much of the media coverage. Not everyone protesting in the room that day was the same. They did not all protest for the same motives. They did not all anticipate the results.
The student leaders certainly knew exactly what they were doing. They were alerted from several quarters that their actions would have truly detrimental effects of a wide variety of sorts, including on a personal level a risk of suspension or expulsion. Like many students in all periods of history, they did not listen. That is their prerogative, and I believe they earnestly felt that it was their moral duty to carry out this form of protest no matter what.
But I have heard from some of the students and faculty who participated by standing up that they did not know the intent was to shut down his speech. Some thought the plan was to stand, shout, then have the core protesters walk out so Murray’s talk could go forward. They were looking forward to Allison Stanger’s pointed questions, and wanted to hear or pose other ones. Some just found themselves caught up in the moment and surrounded by friends who all rose together and stayed standing. To remain seated or to sit down later seemed like it would be an insult to their friends and a tacit endorsement of Murray’s views. We should not assume that 150 students did this with the same knowledge or motives. That may be true of 50 or so leaders and core activists. But it was not true of everyone in the room.
One final thought related to intent. I believe there have to be consequences for the in-room protesters. But because not all protesters were the same, those consequences should be varied. We have a process on campus for determining penalties for breaking College rules, and that should be followed scrupulously, because it allows for context to play a role in a final judgment that is guided by principles of “fundamental fairness.” Given this system, the students (and other community members) in the room should accept responsibility for their actions. As one colleague wrote to me privately, Gandhi and King are remembered because they went to jail, not because they avoided punishment. If you participated in the event because you were morally compelled to do so, I admire your having the courage of your convictions. But you lose any moral high ground if you do not take responsibility for your decisions.
I have tried to focus on several nuances that are missing from many discussions. Not all forms of protest were the same, and we shouldn’t lump their participants together in our minds. Not all protesters in the room had the same intent, and we shouldn’t conflate them. But I also think a clear judgment is required on other fronts. It was unequivocally wrong to shut down Charles Murray’s speech. And anyone involved in doing so should come forward and talk openly about the role they played on the day.
Erik Bleich, professor of political science, writes about free speech and the consequences of protest.
