Search Results

Thirteen Proposals for Community Healing

Editor's Note: The below letter was sent to all college administrators this morning with all students cc'd. It has been reprinted here with permission.  To the administrators of Middlebury College, The Student Government Association (SGA) exists to be the democratic vehicle of the will of the student body. We believe that students and administrators are a partnership, a two-way street working toward a collectively better future for Middlebury College. Through conversations with alumni, students, staff, faculty, and various community groups, it has become evident that the connection between the administration and students has been reduced to a one-way street. The administration has failed time and again to listen to the desires of its students. Administrators’ neglect of students’ wishes has been the consistent trend of the past few years. On November 20, 2016, four hundred students met outside Old Chapel to rally in support of making Middlebury College a sanctuary campus. In response, the SGA passed a bill echoing the call for sanctuary campus status. The Community Council followed suit. Middlebury ultimately refused to meet the demands of protesters, the SGA, and leaders in Community Council. On March 2, 2017, President Laurie Patton introduced Charles Murray despite a recommendation from Community Council and separate petitions from alumni, faculty, and students requesting that she not give him the service of introduction. On April 12, 2017, the SGA passed a bill asking for specific changes to protest policies in the aftermath of the Charles Murray incident. The bill’s request languished in committee for a full academic year. In the end, the requested changes were not adopted in the protest policy draft announced in late 2018. Rather than a prohibition on violence by Public Safety officers, the final draft included a prohibition on civil disobedience itself. On October 8, 2017, the SGA passed a bill to protect the right of students to request an open disciplinary hearing. The bill was panned by the administration. On April 8, 2018, the SGA passed a bill requesting a second student representative, in addition to the SGA President, be added to the Board of Trustees. Despite sponsorship by the SGA President and endorsement by the Middlebury Campus Editorial Board, no second student representative was added to the body that is ultimately responsible for all decisions at Middlebury College. Even innocuous requests, like that for more accessible exercise equipment, have not been fulfilled. While we have cited a series of slights against student wishes, these represent only a fraction of many. The SGA and Community Council are only two avenues by which students appeal to the administration. Individual students, organizers, and organizations have all implored the administration for a variety of requests. Many requests have been ignored, most notably last week, when student desires to both listen to Legutko and protest what he stands for were overridden in administrative decision-making. The cancellation of Legutko’s talk and the protest led to yet another crisis on campus in the national media. We are extremely disappointed that only after hearing threat of SGA’s dissolution did an administrator publicly clear organizers of blame as the unnamed security threat that led to cancellation of the Ryszard Legutko event. Repeatedly, we have been asked to abide by a “Conversations First” approach, which has been used to berate student leaders for taking swift action. Yet in crucial decisions, the administration has not used its own “Conversations First” model in engaging the student body. We find this intolerable and unsustainable. Our tuition funds the College, and the College’s purpose is our education. Middlebury College is first and foremost a school, not a corporation. Why is it that decisions are often made with little to no consent or involvement from us in our own school? The SGA refuses to be a mouthpiece for the administration; we represent the students and students alone. We are reminded of our predecessors in the Student Association, who disbanded their organization in 1967 because it served as a “sounding board [...] with little power.” Their disbanding resulted in the creation of our SGA. When circumstances mirror those faced by student leaders half a century ago, we must consider options similar to the ones they faced. In the words of Brian Maier, the equivalent of an SGA senator at the time,  “we must take power rather than ask for it.” We desire transparency and accountability. We desire real democratic participation by students in decision-making. We desire the enactment of the following proposals for community healing:   Structural Changes: The SGA President and the Co-Chair of Community Council will be admitted to all Senior Leadership Group meetings. One student, staff member, and faculty member will be elected as representatives by the student body, Staff Council, and Faculty Council to the College Board of Overseers.  Each of these representatives will be responsible for compiling a report for their constituencies on relevant information from each meeting. Any organization or academic department that invites a speaker to campus will be required to fill out a due diligence form created by the Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion in coordination with the SGA Institutional Diversity Committee. These questions should be created to determine whether a speaker’s beliefs align with Middlebury’s community standards, removing the burden of researching speakers from the student body. Additionally, administrators will ask Faculty Council to require all academic departments to have Student Advisory Boards which will have access to a list of speakers invited by the department at least a month in advance. The Student Advisory Boards’ purpose will be to ask the student body for potential community input when necessary. The administration will communicate explicitly to students about ongoing projects, progress on these proposals, and the development of programming. This must be communicated on a monthly basis to the entire student body. Students who work on these initiatives alongside faculty must receive credit for their work, and will not be excluded from these initiatives once faculty begin working on them (i.e. Divest Middlebury, It Happens Here, JusTalks, etc.). Improvements to Existing Programs: Recurrent bias training will be provided to all hired staff, faculty, administrators, as well as all students, with implementation beginning in the 2019-2020 school year. The names of any faculty, staff, or administration members who do not participate in bias training should be publicly available to students so that they can make informed decisions on courses and interactions. In this bias training, participants must learn about the importance of preferred gender pronouns. All faculty must ask students’ names and pronouns on the first day of each new semester, and preferred names and pronouns must be respected. The administration will reconsider the current protest policy, in line with SGA’s previously passed bill. The improved proposal must accurately reflect the will of the student body, especially in ensuring protections for all staff members to protest as they see fit. The Green Dot Training Program on campus will be improved. We ask that the video currently used during orientation be replaced with a serious informational session that discusses/defines the following terms/policies/procedures on campus: The definition of consent, sexual harassment, sexual assault and rape. The process of reporting sexual misconduct both at Middlebury and outside of Middlebury (to local officials). The disciplinary process and repercussions of committing sexual misconduct on and off campus. Progress in bringing all buildings up to the standards outlined in the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) will be accelerated. These buildings must prioritize the implementation of gender-inclusive bathrooms in all future construction and also make restrooms in existing buildings gender-inclusive. Student representation on the Community Bias Response Team (CBRT) will increase, as will direct communication with the student body regarding the causal reasoning for the cancellation of campus events. New Initiatives: A clearly outlined plan for the implementation of an LGBTQ+ Center, with faculty support and modeled on the Anderson Freeman Resource Center, will be implemented within the next two years on campus. While we recognize that the entire campus should be made inclusive of queer identities, we believe the positive example of the AFRC illustrates the power of a center through which programming can be centralized. We call for current faculty/staff or new faculty/staff to serve as advisors and programmers for this space, similar to those who work at the AFRC. This space can be taken from the new office spaces which will be created from the elimination of the Commons Heads houses, or another space. All organizational expenditures at Middlebury will be available on the College website, including the names of both organizations and specific individual donors. We recognize that certain donors will be anonymous; we request anonymous donors be included as “Anonymous” on the publicly available information. A strategic plan to hire more counselors who are femme, of color, and/or queer and provide a more robust health service for transitioning people will be created. New counselors will work closely with students at the new LGBTQ+ Center and the Anderson Freeman Resource Center. The strategic plan must include a better incentive package than the one currently offered. These counselors must be hired within the next two years before the creation of the LGBTQ+ Center. The administration will support the development of a Black Studies department. We also request a specific faculty-student group dedicated to developing the Black Studies department, working alongside the Faculty Educational Affairs Committee during the academic year (2019-2020) in order to ensure its successful implementation for the following academic year (2020-2021). There must be appropriate funding allocated to the department, and sufficient tenure track positions must be made available for the immediate development of the department. These proposals were created in consultation with the student body and we expect each to be fulfilled as stated. We would like to give the administration time to consider adequate ways to address our proposals. As such, we ask the President to address students at a town hall on Tuesday, April 30. If tangible plans to implement these proposals are not released, a majority of SGA Senators will resign such that the SGA Senate will no longer be able to make quorum, effectively dissolving the body. More importantly, students will witness again the continued inaction of the current administration. We await the administration’s response. SGA Senate

A Tale of Two Worldviews

For the second time in just over two years, a controversial visitor has divided our campus. As chair of the political science department, I have heard strong arguments both to retain and to rescind co-sponsorship of these types of talks. I believe that these arguments are so passionate because they pit core values against one another. Even more importantly, I believe the frustrations of both sides are rooted in a deeper divide. Advocates hold fundamentally different worldviews, which makes it virtually impossible for them to resolve their differences through reasoned discussion. On the one hand, some people have a liberal individualist perspective. These folks often lean on the writings of John Stuart Mill to advocate a wide open terrain of debate. They believe that every person’s viewpoint has equal value in the marketplace of ideas. Short of direct incitement to violence, your speech, my speech, his speech and her speech are straightforward inputs into the public sphere that deserve to be considered. Statements should be evaluated on their merits. The best ideas should win the day. This may not transpire in every instance, but the firm protections for free speech, freedom of inquiry and academic freedom are the bedrock for a system of pluralistic individual freedom that has sustained liberal democracies for decades if not centuries. On the other hand, the starting point for others is a critical theory perspective. From this viewpoint, all is not equal in the world. Some people and some ideas have more power than others. Marginalized groups have structural disadvantages within liberal democracies and within established institutions like Middlebury College. Given these facts, some voices should be elevated in order to create a more equitable playing field that fosters liberation and limits domination. Policies should be developed to reduce the engrained tilt in the playing field that perpetuates the power of the powerful. Black and brown people, LGBTQ and trans people, women, Muslims and those from all status minority groups should be listened to especially closely when they identify practices that inflict harm and demand respect. Not to do so simply entrenches the power differentials that have marked liberal democracies for decades if not centuries. I have deliberately tried to cast each worldview in terms recognizable from within, but viewed as fatally flawed from without. For me, this reveals the essence of the challenge we face. At its sharpest edge, this juxtaposition leads to questions like, “How can you devalue my point of view in important discussions just because I am white/straight/cis/male?” Or, “How can you uphold status quo principles of freedom that cause actual harm to vulnerable people?” This list of intense and emotion-laden questions could go on. Identifying this problem can be a first step in reflecting on how to deal with it. There is some good news here. In most discussions when passions are not running high, people tend to recognize elements of truth in both worldviews. This past fall, I taught a political science seminar called “Free Speech versus Racist Speech in the United States and Europe.” Among the fifteen students in that class, over two-thirds were on campus during the Charles Murray affair. I was concerned that camps would quickly crystallize and that these worldviews would prove fatal to our discussions. That was not the case at all. Every single student came in with an open mind, and recognized that each perspective may contain, in the words of John Stuart Mill, a “portion of the truth.” I nearly jumped for joy at the end of each class. There is also less good news here. Some absolutists are unwilling to give an inch of ground. For them, the liberal individualist or critical theory perspectives are completely correct, and to acknowledge the claims of the other side is the first step down a slippery slope to tyranny or perpetual oppression. I am not that concerned with this. There will always be true believers. They often amplify the strongest versions of each worldview in ways that can clarify the debate and the stakes for the rest of us. For the vast majority, the biggest challenge is to figure out how to handle the inevitable tensions in moments of acute incompatibility between our values, such as when invitations are issued to speakers whose writings have been inimical to the well-being of marginalized groups. There is no avoiding this confrontation between wanting to protect academic freedom, freedom of inquiry and freedom of speech, versus wanting to make sure that our institutional structures do not perpetuate the harms inherent in providing a platform to people associated with racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia and other forms of bigotry. In these circumstances, it seems to me that we have two choices. We can either identify our personal cardinal value and press for it to win the day. When push comes to shove, you may decide that it is worth standing up for freedom of speech even if marginalized communities tell you to your face that it harms them. Or you may stick up for the vulnerable, even if involves undermining a critical principle of freedom in a way that risks being used against minority communities in the future. This is largely what we experienced during the Charles Murray and Ryszard Legutko visits, at least among those willing to speak publicly. Yet, there is another option, and I think a far better one. As individuals, or, ideally, as a community, we can reaffirm our strong attachment to both values. We have to uphold the freedom of our faculty colleagues to invite or co-sponsor speakers they feel will contribute to important intellectual discussions. Without that academic freedom, we cannot function as an institution of higher learning. We must also acknowledge that some speakers inflict pain on members of marginalized communities through the symbolic power of the platform that we provide them. We need to develop better strategies and policies for this reality, recognizing that the solutions for this challenge are nowhere near as straightforward as simply letting the speaker speak. This week, in my role as chair of the political science department, I defended the right of my colleague to invite speakers he deems valuable to our intellectual life. That is a key component of academic freedom at any institution of higher education. I also organized—with the help of colleagues and staff, and in response to activism by students representing marginalized groups—a panel discussion designed to identify some of the weaknesses of the argumentation and the problematic nature of our visitor’s statements and party affiliation. I have connected with students and listened to their concerns. And I am thinking hard about what other steps we can take as a department to promote the value of inclusivity that is so critical to our department and to our college community. I know that this solution is not a complete solution. It may mitigate it, but it does not fully resolve the tension between our values. In particular, it won’t satisfy those committed to a critical theory perspective. But reaffirming my commitment to these twin values is a first step, and finding ways to demonstrate and intensify our commitment to inclusivity is a next step. It is only through recognizing the tensions between the two worldviews that we can understand why these situations are so complicated. And it is only through a firm commitment to both values that we can find our way forward. Erik Bleich is Charles A. Dana Professor of Political Science and Chair of the Department of Political Science.

Expert Panel Talks ‘Climate Grief’ and Environmental Action

Last fall, days after Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies Dan Suarez gave a talk branding climate change the impending end of the world, Kyle Freiler ’19 walked into Suarez’s office in a panic. He was experiencing what the American Psychological Association now recognizes as climate grief: the shock, hopelessness and despair that result from worsening effects of climate change. Freiler called it an awakening. “I think what Kyle is going through is akin to a microcosm of what a lot of people are going through,” Suarezsaid. “How do you find your way in this world? What do you do? How do you live in it?” While Freiler’s climate awakening was beginning, he and Charlotte Massey ’19 were in the process of arranging speakers for a panel sponsored by the Symposium Philosophy Club and the Debate Society. Inspired by his awakening, Freiler wanted to host a panel discussion with leading environmental thinkers. Suarez suggested Rupert Read, an activist, environmental think tank leader and member of England’s Green Party, as one panelist. Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org and Middlebury’s Schumann Distinguished Scholar, was an obvious choice. Suarez and Keiler reached out to several contributors to the 2018 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) report before selecting Kim Cobb, professor of earth and atmospheric sciences at Georgia Tech and the lead coauthor of the 2018 IPCC report. Freiler told The Campus that he asked Suarez to moderate because of his role in bringing in panelists and because “he’s young, he’s in the same boat as us, and he has a really clear-eyed look at the problem.” Suarez moderated the resulting panel, “Climate Change: What Should I Do About It? How Can I Live With It?” in Wilson Hall last Monday. Read and McKibben appeared in person. Cobb spoke via videoconference, because she adheres to a strict personal carbon budget that limits her ability to fly. Middlebury President Laurie L. Patton introduced the panel, drawing on the words of former French president François Hollande: “The time is past when humankind thought it could selfishly draw on exhaustible resources. We know now the world is not a commodity.” In his own opening remarks, Suarez said, “It wouldn’t be quite right to say that it is my pleasure, exactly, to be with you here today, although it is, given the circumstances that have brought us together. And specifically the bewildering and preposterously grave seriousness that defines our subject matter.” The panel aimed to confront the discomfort, anger, heartbreak and fear felt by many in the face of climate change, and to investigate the perennial question: what is to be done? By forcing reevaluations through exploration of justice and injustice, the panelists urged attendees to reject complacency — as Suarez said, “finally facing what needs to be faced.” Read was the first of the panelists to give his opening statement. Stepping to the podium as Suarez returned to his seat, he said, “Your so-called leaders have failed you. Your parents, I’m sure, mean well, but they and their generation have failed you. Your teachers, despite their best intentions, have failed you. And we, despite our best endeavors, even we have failed you. We’ve all failed you because we are sending you, naked and unprepared, into a deteriorating future.” He went on to say that the Paris Agreement was “a voluntary agreement to do far too little to stop catastrophic climate change from occurring,” that climate-related agricultural breakdown will end the lives of some audience members long before rising sea levels inundate Boston and New York, and that the older generation has failed younger ones through complacency. Love, Read said, caring enough about life, wilderness, future generations and encouraging one another to really show up to the climate fight, are the only things that can propel humanity through this. Cobb opened by talking about her own wake-up call. For most of her career as a climate scientist, she thought climate change was someone else’s problem to fix, while her own role was to publish papers and raise her four children. That changed in 2017, when, over just five months, she witnessed the death of 90 percent of the corals at her Pacific research site, Christmas Island, which she described as an “absolute tropical paradise.” Soon after, she started biking to work and created her carbon budget. “I know that the young people today will fix this,” Cobb said. “I have absolutely all the confidence in you guys. And it’s my job to try to give you the best head start that I possibly can.” McKibben tied it all back to the iron law of climate change: “The less you did to cause it, the more and more quickly you suffer its effects.” “How do we do this better?” Suarez asked, referring to the work of educators in guiding students in the face of climate change. Read said that climate grief can be liberating. It eliminates the expectation of a predictable future, freeing people from the assumption that comfort is to be expected. It offers people the chance to be part of the generation that tries to save the future. “In my experience,” McKibben said, “the great antidote to angst about all this is to be engaged in thefight.” The discussion moved to the need for a massive change in consciousness related to climate change. Cobb said there has already been a rapid shift in public opinion in recent years. Read urged everyone to keep warning people, to take them into threatened nature, and to spread the messages of the panel. Read said that the degree of transformation necessary to combat climate change is roughly equivalent to the human revolution — when humans first evolved. And it needs to happen fast: unless people make a serious start at turning things around in the next eighteen months, it will be impossible to complete that task within the eleven years before the consequences of climate change become even more disastrous. “The polling in this country took its most decisive shift in the week or two after the fires in California,” McKibben said, describing the shift in people’s understanding of what is natural and normal and obvious. “Watching a town literally called Paradise literally turn into hell in half an hour had a sobering effect on a lot of people.” “This is the world we now live in, whether folks choose to accept it or not,” Suarez told The Campus. He emphasized that in this exceptional moment of urgency, as climate change finally catches up with those who have been most responsible and most insulated from its effects, the issue of privilege, and the influences of responsibility and complicity, should not be overlooked.

Foreign Correspondents: Returning to Childhood in Paris

There were countless things I looked forward to when preparing to study abroad in Paris, but the idea of having a semester in which I felt more like a child than I have for over a decade, was not something that had crossed my mind. At Middlebury, the sea of 18-22-year-olds is rarely punctured by anyone under the legal marital age. Moreover, we—the budding innovators, intellectuals and entrepreneurs who will soon spill into the alumni pool of possible donors—are often in a position in which acting like a child is looked down upon. The Center for Careers & Internships is constantly reminding us of the need to have our résumés reviewed in the hope of landing a pearly banking internship, and great-aunts and uncles pester us with questions about our future at our first autumnal family weekend. These acupuncture-like pressures can induce symptoms of anxiety, dizziness or nausea. My first days in Paris seemed like more of the same. The city was fast-paced and the busy Parisians often curt, not wanting to deal with another American. Similar to Middlebury, everyone was rushing from point A to point B, without really thinking, feeling or slowing down to eat a baguette or sip on some vin chaud. Attending one of the grandes écoles here, SciencesPo, a university that a slew of French Prime Ministers and Presidents have attended, only heightened this sentiment of accelerated professionalism and unwavering ambition. But in fact, this at-first hardened exterior has lent itself to innards that prove to be much softer (yes, maybe even softer than maple-candy-sweet Vermont). Part of this shift has been my own drastically altered way of thinking. After far too many years of taking French, I arrived in the country with what quickly began to feel like a child’s capability of communication in comparison to native French speakers. In beginning to really familiarize myself with living through a different language, I have found that my mind’s capacity for incisive thinking and debate had shrunk considerably. As someone who plays with and mulls over words much too long, this has actually improved my ability to communicate concisely. Instead of getting bogged down in the jargon and BS of political science, I am forced to focus on what is concretely occurring (because I honestly can’t communicate much more than that). There is no faking it when my vocabulary is approximately 1/3rd of the size of mine in English. I am held almost eerily accountable of pure knowledge and my ability to regurgitate facts. Even still, when cashiers, street vendors and government employees hear my American accent, they often switch to a slower tone, enunciating each word in a painful, although still helpful, way. Just this week, when the grandparents of a three-year-old girl I babysit here arrived at the house for a visit, I realized I could process every word they were saying with ease. But wait—were they speaking like this for the preschooler or me? The uncertainty of my language ability in comparison to that of a small child is concerning. But this stunted feeling has in fact spiked a positive and unintended effect in which I’ve begun to yearn to return to this simpler and elementary era. A paradigm shift has been set off in that my simpler thinking and speaking have seeped into my way of being. Just this afternoon, I thought I had packed a lunch that was entirely appropriate for a 20-year-old college student. Surveying the kitchen counter, I came to realize that the contents before me were laughably juvenile: a rice cake with peanut butter and banana, a yogurt, an oddly cute jar of carrot sticks and a small pouch of squeezable applesauce. I am sure that I ate this exact lunch every day of Kindergarten. Yet, the benefits of my newfound child-like outlook aren’t confined to my lunchbox. I’ve also found that many social interactions are tainted with innocence. Without the immediate ability to evaluate nuance of speech or opinion, I constantly find myself giving people the benefit of the doubt. It is at times frustrating that I can’t find more descriptive adjectives for new friends’ dispositions other than ‘sweet,’ ‘kind,’ or ‘friendly.’ But as self-deprecating of my French ability as this piece has been, I’m not entirely incapacitated. I can converse with other students in my classes and hold my own at one of my host family's festive Sunday lunches, often accompanied by bottles of champagne, with their extended family. My slower thinking and simpler language simply force me to take a bit more time to exact what I want to say. And, in turn, to refrain from making quick or unfounded assumptions about the others I’m meeting. Come spring, although I may not strip entirely nude and jump into the nearest park fountain as I did the first time I was in Paris (age four), I do hope to retain some of the joys I’ve found in being forced to act a bit more like a child.

Legutko Still Speaks to Politics Class After Administration Cancels Public Lecture

Despite the cancellation of his public lecture earlier today amid what college administrators described as “safety concerns,” the right-wing Polish politician Ryszard Legutko still spoke on campus this afternoon to a private classroom audience. A peaceful protest originally scheduled to take place outside of the lecture did not occur. In an email to The Campus on Thursday, April 18, Head of Media Relations Sarah Ray clarified the “safety risk” that prompted the cancellation was an inability to crowd-manage the escalating number of people planning to attend the event. "The fact that there were students who were planning to hold an event near the lecture was not an issue," she said in a subsequent email. “The safety concerns stemmed from the rapidly growing number of people who had expressed an interest in attending the two events. We simply did not have adequate staffing to ensure the safety of all the attendees.” When asked whether other students were threatening the protesters, Ray responded that she could not confirm this. Rather than speak before an audience at the Kirk Alumni Center as planned, Legutko delivered his lecture to Political Science Professor Matthew Dickinson’s “American Presidency” seminar. The talk, initially intended for the nine students in Dickinson’s class, became a pseudo-public event as students arrived over the course of the talk, which continued about 15 minutes after the class period ended. Student protesters, who had originally planned to peacefully and non-disruptively protest Legutko’s talk with a queer celebration, were not present at the event today. A student in Dickinson’s class who was involved in the Hamilton Forum — the speaker series that brought Legutko to campus, headed by Political Science professor Keegan Callanan — asked if he could invite Legutko to the 1:30 p.m. class in the Robert A. Jones ’59 (RAJ) House. According to Dickinson, the event was entirely impromptu. “I asked the students, as part of the classroom experience, do you want to invite him in here to critique his argument,” Dickinson told The Campus. When students expressed interest, Dickinson administered a secret ballot. He said that he would not invite the speaker unless there was a unanimous decision to invite him, which there was. Before Legutko arrived, Dickinson had students research the politician’s views and formulate questions. “We spent the first hour of class conducting our own research to gather questions for discussion,” said Owen Marsh ’20, a student in the class. According to Marsh, Legutko came in to the class about halfway through, at 3 p.m. Dickinson did not invite students from outside his class because he did not originally intend for the event to be public, but students sporadically filtered into the RAJ conference room throughout the talk. Political Science Professor John Harpham and the students in his “Rousseau” seminar joined the crowd after hearing about the lecture from a student in the class and cutting class short. Some of Harpham’s students, who had planned on protesting the lecture, chose not to attend. Legutko delivered the lecture he was originally planning to give at the now-canceled event, though it was abbreviated for lack of time. He then took questions from Dickinson and the audience, which was by then comprised of students from his class, students from Harpham’s class and other visitors. A portion of the question and answer period was recorded on live stream by The Campus. Provost Jeff Cason, who sent the school-wide email earlier about the cancelation of the lecture, told The Campus in an email that the college did not know about Dickinson’s decision to invite Legutko to his class in advance of it happening. Cason clarified that if the college had received a request, they would have advised Dickinson not to host Legutko “given our safety concerns.” “If we had been approached asking if there were safety concerns, we would have said yes, most definitely,” he said. “We don’t have any policy to shut down a speaker invited to a class; faculty have speakers come to their classes regularly without any centralized approval.” INSIDE THE CLASSROOM Dickinson asked Legutko if reinterpretations of marriage over time to include same-sex marriage are a social intrusion. Many of the concerns student activists initially voiced about Legutko’s visit centered around controversial statements he made regarding same-sex marriage and gay rights. “I am very reluctant to tamper with the meaning of words,” Legutko responded. “Once you change the meaning, you are in for trouble. Marriage as we understood was between a man and a woman. What has happened recently is a radical change. I don’t think that we should be allowed to go as far as changing one of the most fundamental institutions of the world.” Legutko took more questions about liberal democracy and his views on tradition. One student asked how Legutko felt about the controversy surrounding his visit, and invoked the Charles Murray incident. “Charles Murray was the first thing on my mind when I was invited ... It was unpleasant information, but it proves what I wrote in my book ... How can these things happen?” Legutko responded. “Why is there this spirit of ideological crusade?" Dickinson stepped in to inform Legutko that student protesters had no intention of stopping him from speaking. Callanan, sitting in the audience, argued that there were some students who wanted the invitation revoked, claiming it was “not a majority, but definitely some.” Dickinson responded that he respectfully disagreed with Callanan, and that no protesters had an interest in stopping the event. GOING FORWARD After the talk, Dickinson expressed concern to The Campus about the administration’s decision to cancel the event. He heard about the decision as he was arriving to his class, and though he emphasized that he did not know the details of any alleged safety concerns, felt that the choice to cancel the talk “validates our fears coming out of the Murray talk.” He added that the administration’s cancellation of the event denied students the right to protest, another manifestation of free speech. “In my conversations with the protesters they made it quite clear they were going to voice their concerns about inviting this guy to campus, but they were not going to try to shut him down, which is precisely which should happen,” said Dickinson. “They lost that opportunity to express that feeling of being violated in their own home, and that’s their right here as students,” he added. Dickinson also fears that media coverage of the events will reflect poorly on Middlebury. “[The media] is going to portray this as, once again, Middlebury College not being able to tolerate controversial views, and that’s not the case. The students did not shut this down, they did not prevent him from speaking,” he said. Callanan told The Campus that he already invited Legutko back to Middlebury next year. Dickinson said he hopes that Legutko will return. “I would hope students have the opportunity to protest and engage in response to him appearing on campus in a way they weren’t able to this time because of the administration’s decisions,” Dickinson said. Although the whole college community did not have the chance to listen to and/or protest Legutko’s talk, Dickinson was pleased with how the students in his class engaged with the speaker. “I was very proud of Middlebury students today, very proud of them,” he said. [related title="Related Stories" stories="44374,44323,44368" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]

Polish Alumnus: Legutko 'a ruthless politician that contributed to Poland's downfall'

Editor's Note: The below letter has been widely circulated among members of the Middlebury community. It has been reprinted here with permission. The sections in bold were done by the author. Dear Middlebury Faculty, Those of you who do not know me – my name is Thomas Gawel, I graduated from Middlebury last May. I majored in International Politics & Economics with Russian and minored in Film & Media. I was raised in rural Poland and had the opportunity to intern at the European Parliament two summers ago. Currently, I’m working towards my JD degree. When I first saw that Mr. Legutko was invited to speak on campus, my reaction was not outrage. It was, quite honestly, a mere surprise. Perhaps Mr. Legutko is recognized in academia, but, in reality, he is one of the most unremarkable and boring political figures that Poland has ever produced. Why would he be worth flying into VT to give what is likely going to be a very boring self-promotion lecture, I do not know. Leaving the issues that many students and some faculty rightfully raise aside, I want to point your attention to another one. What I personally find surprising about this event is that some of you fail to recognize that Mr. Legutko is a hypocrite. He represents Law & Justice, a party that works tirelessly to destroy what is left of Polish free media and rule of law. This party has fired virtually all journalists from public media, placed its former MP as the president of the largest Polish TV network, and daily feeds ruthless propaganda to millions of unaware Poles. They have illegally taken over the Constitutional Tribunal and the Supreme Court, for which there are procedures pending against the country at the European Commission. They did so to bypass the Constitution and transform young Polish democracy into a very dangerous hybrid of economic socialism and nationalism/xenophobia. Yes, they won democratic elections. But they illegally reached for much more power than they had the mandate for, and, one day, they will be held accountable. Hundredths of thousands of Poles took to the streets over the past three years to protest this mockery of a government. This is a single best proof of how problematic Law & Justice is. If you want to shake hands and take smiley pictures with Mr. Legutko while he promotes his book, go ahead. But, if you do so, at least acknowledge a whole part of his ‘legacy’ that shows his lack of basic integrity. Mr. Legutko is not an innocent scholar whose work is a prophecy; he is a ruthless politician that contributed to Poland's downfall. If you do not think that you owe this truth to all Middlebury students, you should at least realize that you owe it to me and other Polish students, past or future. You cannot and should not separate Mr. Legutko’s scholarship from his words and actions as a career politician. Your open letter to students, Mr. Callanan, paints a very positive picture of this unfortunate guest. But it is a very incomplete picture. Students should be told that the man that will lecture them about drawbacks of liberal democracy is working tirelessly to destroy one, just across the ocean. I find it outrageous that you would leave such an important part of Mr. Legutko’s ‘legacy’ out of your letter. My country is going through quite a turbulent time; by giving Mr. Legutko a platform to promote his book, you legitimize the destructive party and government that he is associated with. As a Middlebury alumnus from Poland, I am truly hurt that you showed such level of insensitivity and ignorance. I am all for Middlebury inviting speakers that hold views different than those of the campus majority. But you could at least seek speakers who are not bigots and hypocrites. Thomas Gawel graduated from Middlebury College in 2018.

College Braces for Right-Wing Speaker Accused of Homophobia

UPDATE — Wednesday, April 17: The college has canceled Legutko's lecture, citing security risks. Professor Keegan Callanan said he has already invited Legutko to speak again on campus next year. Click here for full coverage. —— Tuesday, April 16 An upcoming lecture by a far-right scholar and member of the European Parliament has renewed the college’s ongoing debate over the difference between free speech and hate speech, and whether those accused of the latter should be allowed to speak on campus. Ryszard Legutko, a scholar and far right member of the European Parliament from Poland, has made incendiary remarks about LGBTQ activists, tolerance and multiculturalism, and is a critic of liberal democracy. Legutko was invited to speak by the Alexander Hamilton Forum, a series founded last year that “aims to foster thoughtful engagement with the ideas that have informed the creation and development of the American polity.” The talk, which is co-sponsored by the Political Science Department and the Rohatyn Center for Global Affairs, will be held tomorrow, Wednesday, April 17 at 4:30 p.m. in Kirk Alumni Center. “I don't understand why anyone should want to be proud of being a homosexual,” Legutko said in 2011. “Be proud of what you do, not of being a homosexual.” Student activists have planned a performance protest in response. The protest will take place outside of the lecture and is, in part, intended to be a celebration of queer identity. Protesters plan to hold signs, play music, and throw a dance party. They will also hand out pamphlets informing attendees of Legutko’s views. Protest organizers will be shuttling protest participants to the center from Adirondack Circle, starting at 3:45 p.m. “It is absolutely, unequivocally not the intent of this protest and those participating in this protest to prevent Legutko from speaking. Disruptive behavior of this nature will not be tolerated,” wrote Taite Shomo ’20.5, an organizer of the protest, in the official Facebook event. After the Facebook event for the protest went live, the director of the Hamilton Forum, Assistant Political Science Professor Keegan Callanan, wrote an open letter in defense of the lecture. “At Middlebury, some would prefer that we not have the chance to hear and to question Prof. Legutko and other heterodox scholars. The Hamilton Forum takes a different view,” Callanan wrote. “In short, the Hamilton Forum has no ideological litmus tests.” Responding indirectly to Legutko’s comments on gay rights, Callanan claimed in his letter that some of Legutko’s comments had been altered or taken out of context, and compared Legutko’s views to the “position on same-sex marriage once held by President Obama, President Clinton, and Secretary Clinton.” When a Campus reporter reached out for an interview, Callanan replied only with a copy of the letter. Callanan did not respond to additional questions asking how speakers for the Hamilton Forum are selected and whether the forum’s organizers were aware of Legutko’s history of controversial views prior to inviting him to campus. He also did not answer inquiries about the Hamilton Forum’s source of funding, which has not been made public. The subject of Legutko’s lecture is not his views on gay rights. His talk is entitled “The Demon in Democracy: Totalitarian Temptations in Free Societies,” and will examine the way “that western democracy has over time crept towards the same goals as communism, albeit without Soviet-style brutality.” LEARNING ABOUT LEGUTKO Russian Professor Kevin Moss, who studies gender in Eastern Europe, first encountered Legutko’s position on tolerance and the LGBT community last week when he saw that Legutko had made incendiary comments about homosexuality on a Polish news channel. “Through my colleagues in Poland I became aware of what else he had said, and what his views were, and it turned out that the ‘demon’ in democracy that he is referring to is tolerance,” Moss told The Campus. Legutko’s views are shared throughout his right-wing, populist Law and Justice Party, which holds the most seats in Poland’s legislature. The party was responsible for a now-reversed law that instituted jail time for suggesting that Poland was complicit in the Holocaust, and recently came under fire from the European Union (EU) for attempting to amend Poland’s courts in ways that threatened the state’s separation of powers. Legutko and his party also oppose expanding rights for gay Poles. After discovering Legutko’s controversial views, Moss shared his findings with members of the Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies Department, inclusivity groups and Political Science professors. The information spread and several student initiatives opposing Legutko’s visit materialized over the last few days, the most prominent among them a queer-focused protest of the lecture. Word about the protest has spread by way of a Facebook event page, entitled “Ryszard Legutko is a f*cking homophobe (and racist and sexist).” The page’s go-link, go/homophobe, has been advertised on chalkboards and posters across campus. Some have written the go-link on the official lecture posters. THE PROTEST “As someone who cares about making this campus a better, more thoughtful place, I think it would be irresponsible not to protest against such a person's presence,” Shomo said. “I intend on exercising my own right to free speech and protest by refusing to allow Legutko to speak here without informing the community of his harmful ideas.” Protesters are mindful of the discipline that student protesters faced following the Charles Murray protest. “We decided that it would be better for the safety of students who want to be involved in this protest if we did not try to stop Legutko from speaking,” Shomo said. “Outside of the event, we will be celebrating queer identity — something that we feel this institution is implicitly undermining by giving Legutko a platform to speak,” said Grace Vedock ’20, another protest organizer. “Students are encouraged to come to the lecture in rainbow colors and carrying pride flags.” THE COMMUNITY RESPONDS In the lead up to the protests, activists also drafted an open letter urging the Political Science Department and Rohatyn Center to rescind their sponsorship of the lecture. The letter quotes Legutko’s past statements, and has been signed by hundreds of students, dozens of student organizations, and several faculty members. Erik Bleich, chair of the Political Science Department, responded to the open letter with a letter of his own. “I will also support your right to protest this speaker or any speaker and to state your views as fully as possible,” he wrote. “My fundamental goal is to uphold the key values of academic freedom and inclusivity, even during moments when these core values are not fully or easily compatible.” Tamar Mayer, director of the Rohatyn Center, explained her decision to sponsor the lecture. “We get hundreds of requests a year and we base our decision on the limited information provided by the organizer,” she explained. “Nothing whatsoever that could have raised a flag.” All seven members of the Rohatyn student advisory board denounced the center’s endorsement in a letter to The Campus. “While we were neither informed of nor involved in the decision to sponsor the event, we are acting in our fullest capacity to advise the Rohatyn Center leadership, imploring them to withdraw support and co-sponsorship,” the members wrote. “We stand in solidarity with the rest of the student leadership listed on the open letter to the RCGA and Political Science Department.” The Hamilton Forum also has a student fellows program. The Campus reached out to Linda Booska, the Political Science Department coordinator and listed contact for the Hamilton Forum, and inquired about the names of the fellows, which are not listed on the website. She did not respond. The Campus asked both Booska and Callanan whether students were involved in the selection of speakers. They did not respond. In the course of reporting, The Campus also learned that one of the forum's main student coordinators advised other students involved in the forum not to speak with Campus reporters in order to keep “out of any potential public battle,” though they said the decision to do so was ultimately theirs. The forum also has a three-member steering committee: Political Science professors Murray Dry and Allison Stanger and former Vermont Governor Jim Douglas ’72. PANEL DISCUSSION On Tuesday afternoon, the Rohatyn Center and Political Science Department hosted a panel discussion in Dana Auditorium as a prelude to tomorrow’s lecture. “The department is taking a ‘more speech’ approach by co-sponsoring an additional panel discussion,” Bleich wrote in an email announcing the panel. “The goal is to provide context for the Legutko talk and to address some of the key concerns raised about his positions.” The panel brought Political Science professors Gary Winslett, Katherine Aha and Russian Professor Kevin Moss together to discuss their respective expertise on liberal democracy, the rise of the Law and Justice Party in Poland and the anti-gender movement in Eastern Europe. Bleich moderated the event. In the question and answer period after the panel, students grilled Bleich about the Political Science Department’s decision to sponsor the lecture. Students also raised questions about extra credit being offered for attending the lecture, criticized Bleich’s decision to approve Callanan’s request to sponsor the lecture, and drew connections to the protests associated with Charles Murray’s lecture over two years ago. The tradition has been that sponsorship requests submitted by a member of the department are automatically approved. Bleich responded that he was open to discussing the way that speakers are approved by the department, but said he would be hesitant to implement a system in which faculty members vet their colleagues’ requests.   Despite divisions, students and faculty appear united in their common goal of not stopping the lecture. Moss, in particular, is looking forward to asking Legutko tough questions. “If gay people are controlling the world and destroying families and destroying religion as well, please give me examples,” Moss said he will ask Legutko. “How many people have died in this struggle? Because gay people have died; there are suicides among gay people. How many Christians have committed suicide because of gay tyranny? Please tell me. I am waiting for your statistics.” A Campus reporter will be on hand to cover tomorrow’s lecture. Correction: A previous version of this article stated that Callanan had advised students in the Hamilton Forum not to respond to requests for comment from Campus reporters. This directive actually came from a student coordinator. We regret the error.

What We Talk About When We Talk About Not Letting Each Other Talk About Sensitive Issues

Okay, let’s take it from the top. Three weeks ago, the Local Noodle received a picture of a CHEM 103 test with a question asking students to calculate lethal doses of gas as it was used in the Holocaust. We unanimously agreed it deserved to be publicly known and formally denounced, but had heard nothing from the administration. We waited a couple weeks, and still, even after spring break, heard nothing. Not from the administration, not from the Community Bias Response Team (CBRT), and not from The Campus, whom we knew were also aware of the incident. So, we drafted our article, and after some group reflection and deliberation, we decided it ought to be published. Thirty-six hours after our article went up, at 9:12 a.m. on a Sunday, without having reached out to us, the CBRT sent out an all-school email. In it, they denounced the test question, acknowledged the student initiative to decolonize the curriculum, and criticized our article, saying its “light handed references to and engagement with the Holocaust have caused additional harm.” That email, in our mind, was inappropriate. The CBRT grouped our article into the same paragraph as the chemistry question and apologized for both together, as if the professor’s question was equally offensive as our attempt to bring it to light. This joint condemnation of both the question and our article was then reiterated in an all-grade email to the senior class and again in an email to Atwater Commons. These new emails also announced that motions were made for the entire faculty, and yours truly, to have to attend sensitivity training, still without any attempt to contact The Noodle. (We reached out to the CBRT on Sunday and have yet to hear back from them, or from any other administrative body.) Let’s pause. This was not the CBRT’s attempt to give us feedback. It was not an attempt to respectfully open dialogue about this incident, or the implications of our article. It was a strong-arm tactic used by the administration to scare a student publication. It’s a way to publicly shame The Noodle, to make a show of denunciation while covering their asses. The CBRT did not explain their accusation beyond the fact that we “caused additional harm.” They don’t say to whom, or in what way, or why. This email was meant to clean up the CBRT’s image and deprecate the group that called attention to their initial failure. As an editorial board, we struggled to figure out whether and how to respond to this shaming. Our initial thought was to issue a rote apology, because given how such denunciations typically unfold, we feared that defending our article would automatically be perceived as insensitive and ignorant. We nonetheless decided to respond because we think that not doing so would be a missed opportunity to have a serious discussion about who we are as a campus, and how we protect the role of social criticism even if it touches on sensitive topics. It’s okay to critique satire. We are more than happy to hear and talk about when we may, in our attempt to expose abuses of power, bump up too hard against protected social values. But the CBRT did not try to engage in this conversation. It flattened the complexity of our article into a misstep, as a way to blame us and defend its own passivity and lack of public response. In doing so, the CBRT shifted the conversation. They distracted it from the thing we ought to be focusing on — like, say, the actual test question, and their own public inaction — to a debate about whether our article is offensive. The truth is, like with any hard-hitting satire, some people will think our article was offensive, some will think it wasn’t, and there’s not much good trying to convince people one way or another. We stand by the publication of this article the way it is, but, to any who were hurt by it, we do honestly assert that was not our intention. From what we’ve heard, most of the specific feedback has centered on the name choice of Richard Klement. To address this directly: this was unintentional. Our idea was to Anglicize the name Ricardo Klement, the pseudonym Eichmann used when he moved to Argentina. The fact that Richard Klement also happens to be the name of a Holocaust victim was a total accident. We appreciated the direct feedback on this because it helped us clear up a misunderstanding that had nothing to do with the satirical purpose of the piece. Satire’s goal has never been to win everyone over. It uses tools like absurdism and irony to make its point, but its goal is to offer very real and constructive social criticism. It’s inherently provocative and uses humor to draw attention to social actors and reflect their failings back at them. Inevitably, satire echoes those failings, and thus can easily be confused with the wrong it seeks to criticize. In this case, we feel like the public conversation surrounding this incident has been distracted by our article, when it could — and should— be directed at the things we ought to be talking about: an appallingly insensitive chemistry question. The fact that a professor asked students to calculate the mechanics of a gas chamber used in the Holocaust is unthinkable. The fact that the CBRT was not planning on publicly addressing it, even though news of it had spread amongst students feels unfathomable. But at this point, the debate over our critique has taken on a life of its own, as evidenced by the mass reaction. Something seems to have struck a deeper note. What’s prompting such a forceful response, from students and faculty alike? Clearly it’s something much bigger than the question of whether a satirical article does or doesn’t cross the line. We believe that the CBRT answered that question in their vague, blanketing critique of our article. The offense, again in their words, was “light handed references to and engagement with the Holocaust.” The fact that that was the only explanation of the “additional harm” our article caused highlights a questionable cultural norm: the idea that engagement with a sensitive topic, just by the nature of its engagement, must conform to a certain script or run the risk of being labeled as harmful. Yes, we called attention to a problem, and yes, we did it in a provocative way, but that is the point of satire and of our publication. We aren’t saying we did it perfectly. But to condemn the article in such a reflexive and public way preemptively silences any constructive discussion of the topic. Such a reaction is antithetical to open conversation, and it speaks to a larger trend on our campus of fear-based self-censorship around topics that should and need to be to discussed. We would like to use this platform to make a broader argument: that as a campus, we should be able to authentically engage with sensitive issues, free from the fear of being labeled, shamed, and denied the opportunity to open dialogue. If not, we’ll build barriers to engagement with the things that divide us— the very things that need engagement most. The Local Noodle is a student-run satirical newspaper.

1g-wake-up-color-small-475x317

Protestors March 65 Miles from Middlebury to Montpelier as Part of Climate Solutions Walk

The protesters stood in a circle on the Middlebury Town Green, holding their handmade signs high: “Every Day is Earth Day,” said one; “Got Emissions?” read the text beneath a cow-patterned milk jug; an arrow pointing to a hand-painted globe declared, “I’m with her.” United by their shared desire to take action against climate injustice, Middlebury College students joined community members for the kickoff of the Climate Solutions Walk that took place this past weekend. The crowds took to the hills, inspired by the young legislators propelling the Green New Deal forward in Congress and the teenagers strengthening the climate movement around the world. Their goal, in solidarity with Vermont’s native communities, was to recognize the climate emergency. The activists hoped to celebrate solutions to this emergency while also grieving the damage it has already caused. The walk, a 5-day, 65-mile trek from Middlebury to Montpelier, began on a windy, overcast Friday morning, but people chatted enthusiastically in spite of the sharp breeze and the rain forecast for the next several days. Most of them wore winter coats, knit caps, waterproof shoes, and backpacks. Some wielded cloth signs with “Climate Justice for Us” printed in bright colors around a drawing of a flower. Others pinned smaller “Climate Justice” signs to their backs and wore them like capes. Organizers structured the kickoff as an interfaith ceremony of opening and reunion, and asked those present to call out brief invocations as they were moved to. Among the shouted phrases were: high peaks, love, my daughters, facts, climatic freedom, justice, transformation, tenderness, resistance against extinction, power of the people, resilience, hope, wilderness, gratitude, earth, compassion, reciprocity, clean water, and joy. Four people then blessed the natural elements, each represented by an object resting on a cloth square in the center of the circle: shreds of fabric tied to a stick, a candle inside a lantern, a clear vase of water, and a potted plant. Divya Gudur ’21, one of the student organizers of the march, invoked Hinduism as she blessed the fire. The speakers asked people to call out their intentions for the walk. Responses included: the power of the climate movement, awareness of the precious earth, healing, make our concerns visible, for the sake of future generations, giving truth to power, embodying our nature, my grandson, waking up, visibility, relationships, connection, going deeper, amplifying solutions, finding new directions, living by example, remembering what it means to be a true steward of this land, and being thankful. Environmental journalist and activist Bill McKibben, co-founder of 350.org and the Schumann Distinguished Scholar at Middlebury, concluded the kickoff. “As we walk, think about the people—even in the last two weeks—the people in the Midwest who dealt with floods like they’ve never seen before, lost their cattle, lost their crops, lost their homes,” McKibben said, going on to outline some of the countless instances of suffering caused and exacerbated by climate change. “Think about the people in Mozambique, who two weeks ago suffered what they’re now describing as the worst natural disaster in the history of the Southern Hemisphere, when a cyclone smashed into Mozambique and Malawi and Zimbabwe and left a thousand people dead, and huge areas just turned into malarial lakes,” McKibben urged. “Think about the people in Iran, where they’re having the worst flooding right now they’ve ever had, every region of the country under an emergency order.” McKibben left his speech with words to keep the climate activists motivated even when their feet tired of walking: “Something like that now happens every single day. Someplace in the world people get their Irene now, every day. That’s what happens when you change the atmosphere.” This walk follows in the footsteps of another climate march, from the Robert Frost Cabin in Ripton to Burlington, organized by McKibben in 2006. “Middlebury—college and town—has been a real cradle of the climate movement,” McKibben wrote in an email to The Campus. “Because it has the oldest environmental studies department in the world, it naturally focused on these issues before others did.” McKibben also described the residents of the town of Middlebury and of the state of Vermont as key players in the climate movement. He offered less credit to the state of Vermont, writing “Vermont should be making clear and steady progress, but it really isn't: the legislature hasn't risen to the occasion, and so even here it is necessary to keep reminding them. It's always necessary to keep the pressure on!” The protesters marched out of the Town Green, their signs aloft, singing, “Lead With Love,” and paraded off down Route 7 for the start of the climate walk.

Reel Critic: ‘Apollo 11’

It is a story we are all familiar with. The plot is fairly simple – three men, one moon and a comical number of American flags. In fact, it is a story we are so familiar with that we often forget the undeniable magic it holds – the type of magic that deserves to be acknowledged, told and retold.  Todd Douglas Miller’s documentary “Apollo 11” does just this. Through a gripping collage of authentic footage and animated diagrams, Miller plunges you into the out-of-this-world summer of 1969.  The documentary is unusual and exciting. There is no acting, no commentary – it allows you to feel the journey for yourself through a cleverly assembled collection of video clips and voice recordings taken during the mission. The stars of the film, Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins, appear as themselves, adding to the truly genuine emotion of the film and deepening the audience’s appreciation. We feel their excitement, their stress and their accomplishment. It gives the film its weight, its soul. In truth, “Apollo 11” embodies a living, breathing history textbook.  Along with its authenticity, “Apollo 11” is deeply aesthetic. As the film careens through the crowd of onlookers, zooming in on gaudy flower caps and tailgates spread out across Florida’s glistening beaches, it is hard not to feel nostalgic. When the illustrious Saturn V is rolled onto the launch pad, you see the beauty behind the grueling mechanics of the launch. The same red painted on the sides of the rocket is later seen in the stripes of the American flag as it stands on the moon.  Even more impressive is the quality of the footage taken half a century ago. The colors are surprisingly fresh and the atmosphere they create is undoubtedly mesmerizing.  What’s more critical yet is the documentary’s ability to bring the astounding feat back down to earth. It focuses profoundly on the human aspect of the event rather than the scientific or political, even with Nixon’s address to the crew. It does not cast the astronauts, scientists or technicians as anything more than they are. They were real people who did a genuinely unreal thing.  We see Armstrong, Collins and Aldrin as they are transported to the launch pad. We hear their heart rates at the start of the mission and as they land on the moon, and our hearts are pounding for them. We hold our breath as Armstrong steps off the lunar module and says those twelve words ingrained in our memories since we were children: “That’s one small step for [a] man, one giant leap for mankind.” But this time they sound different, they’re no longer a cheesy cliché — we can feel them in our bones.  Suddenly the story we thought we knew so well is washed in an entirely new light. You feel as if you yourself have been part of the mission control, the astronauts and the technicians who created history in a matter of eight days. Towards the end of the film as our heroes are flying back home, the camera zooms past a sea of white coated scientists, technicians and mechanics. It is a moment of pride, not just for the nation which put the first man on earth, but for the entire human race. We did that. We are capable of exploring a world beyond our own, and in a time when we are questioning the capacity of human unity and achievement, this movie comes as breath of fresh air.  Whether it is the long-lost footage finally resurfaced, the thrilling symphonic soundtrack or simply the story itself, “Apollo 11” restores a sense of wonder to a somewhat outdated topic. If you have seen “First Man” or any other interpretation of the mission, this film is sure to eclipse the rest. In the words of Marvin Gaye — ain’t nothing like the real thing.

The case for veganism

I’m vegan and I went abroad for my febmester. Sometimes I struggle figuring out which of these to tell someone first when I meet them. At this point, I’ve decided to just go with both and berate people with my amazing cultural experiences and moral superiority. I’ve been vegan for a year and a half. When I jumped in cold tofurkey last year, the only thing I thought I knew about veganism was that vegans are loud, annoying and can’t stop talking about veganism. I decided it would be fun to play up that character and jokingly be the annoying vegan around my friends. But as most things go in my life, what started as ironic is now entirely unironic. This is because over the past year I’ve learned that veganism is way more important than I thought. It blew my mind how little I or the average person knows about the impact of dietary choices. I want to share a few of the mind-blowing facts I’ve learned about the three tenants of veganism (environment, health, and ethics) and describe why I’m not afraid to be an annoying vegan. [pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]Veganism is way more important than I thought.[/pullquote] A vegan diet is by far the diet with the smallest impact on the environment. If we all consume animal products at the rate we are now, we will never see our world overcome the climate change crisis. Scientific studies have shown for years that the most effective way to benefit the environment (besides not having kids) is to cut back on animal products in your diet. This is because production of all types of animal products is incredibly less efficient than plant products. If we took all of the land that is being used to raise animals or grow crops for those animals and instead used it to grow crops for human consumption, we could meet the food requirements of the entire world multiple times over. The animal agriculture industry is responsible for 18% (some say upwards of 51%) of all greenhouse gas emissions, more than all cars, trains, planes and every other vehicle in the transportation industry combined. However, environmental impact goes well beyond just carbon footprint. It’s commonly stated that our oceans are dying, but it’s a little known fact that the majority of the trash in the ocean is fishing nets and equipment. Overfishing is destroying coral reefs and vital ocean ecosystems. Animal agriculture is responsible for up to 91% of Amazon deforestation. The animal waste runoff from factory farms pollutes rivers and is destroying ecosystems. It takes 56 gallons of water to produce a single egg and 1,000 gallons of water to produce a gallon of milk. It’s time for Middlebury to stop blindly thinking that our animal product consumption is in line with our environmental ideals. There are huge health benefits from switching to a healthy vegan diet even from a healthier standard American diet. A vegan diet helps prevent thirteen of the fifteen leading causes of death in the United States, including cancer, diabetes, stroke and especially heart disease. That’s not vegan propaganda; there are a multitude of studies to support this claim. The American Dietetic Association states that a plant-based diet is appropriate for all stages of the life cycle, including pregnancy and childhood. In other words, according to nutritional experts, you will not get any deficiencies with a well-planned vegan diet. Additionally, you can easily get your protein needs on a vegan diet. Fifteen members of the Tennessee Titans NFL team are vegan. There are many vegan super athletes and many super athletes going vegan. [pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]It’s time for Middlebury to stop blindly thinking that our animal product consumption is in line with our environmental ideals.[/pullquote] Animals in the agriculture industry are subject to the most brutal pain and suffering you can imagine being inflicted on a living being. The phrase “humane slaughter” is an obvious oxymoron, and the entire concept is a myth. Due to the demands for efficiency in the butchering process, slaughtering methods are almost always performed sloppily, leading to excruciating pain and immense fear in the animal. The footage of factory farming that you’ve hopefully seen (if not, watch the film Dominion), is not the extreme footage. It’s the industry standard. Over 90% of farm animals in the United States live on factory farms with these brutal practices. Local farms are also far from being cruelty-free. The production of dairy requires the non consensual impregnation of cows and for calves to be taken from mothers immediately at birth. Hens have been bred to lay eggs twenty times more than what is biologically normal for them, leading to painful health complications. In the vast majority of cases, male chicks that are born in the egg industry are immediately (like moments after birth) tossed into a meat grinder. If you’re against animal abuse, you’re against the animal agriculture industry. These facts are only the tip of the iceberg. Most people say that they’re fine with people being vegan as long as they’re not annoying about it, because diet is a personal choice. But diet is not a personal choice. You’re literally choosing the fate of other living beings and the fate of the environment. So I’m not going to be shy about telling you to be vegan. Every day we are destroying the environment a little more. Every day people are being killed or crippled by preventable diseases. Every day millions of sentient, feeling animals are being born into a life of pain and misery. There’s no time to be shy. Please contact me if you have comments or questions. I’m always willing to talk about these issues. Editor’s Note: This op-ed was previously published with the headline: “Why I’m an Annoying Vegan."

Ask Tré: On Sexuality

Dear Tré, How do I deal with the fact that everything has to have a label? Sexuality is fluid but I feel pressured to “decide” what I am. -Anonymous Dear Reader, Thank you for your submission! I want to address what you said about sexuality. You said “sexuality is fluid, but I feel pressured to ‘decide’ what I am.” When it comes to sexuality, I like to think of it as a coloring page. People say there is a right and wrong way to color a page, but I beg to differ. Some may color in the lines, out of the lines, some may not color the page at all, or may not use the “appropriate” colors when creating their masterpiece. What matters is that you know that you are content and proud of what you created. It’s the same with sexuality. You are in control of how you define your sexuality. Nothing and nobody can change the way you feel, and there isn’t one way in particular that you should present your sexuality. So, you are correct. Sexuality is fluid and you shouldn’t feel pressured at all when it comes trying to figure out what the appropriate identity tag is for you. I’d like to address your original question by sharing some of my own story in hopes that it will help you in some way. When I first came to Middlebury, there were many people who thought I was just gay. Even I thought I was gay. But as I have grown, I just haven’t found that to be true anymore. I have claimed to be gay, bisexual, pansexual and even demisexual. What I found out though, is that maybe, just maybe, I’m just sexual. Why should I have to place a label on myself just to fit into a certain group? Everytime I thought I found the right label for myself, I would just start questioning all the contradictions I had with my newly found sexuality. I mean even my friends joke around and question what I am, and while I argue with them every now and again about it, I also just tell them to mind their own business because it shouldn’t matter to them. I’ve learned that even friends need to be put in their place from time to time. I have accepted that people have labels and that labels are something that will be around for a while. But, don’t expect me to label myself because I don’t find it necessary to have one. Just like I accept that there are labels out there, the world will have to accept that labels don’t work for me. Over many years, we have been trying to find ways to label ourselves for two purposes: to find people with common identities and to single out anyone who is different from us. I use the word “us” because we all do it in some way, shape, or form. Labels have been around for a long time and I don’t think we are in the age, yet, where labels don’t matter. In terms of finding a label for your sexuality, if you feel like you don’t need one then you probably don’t. You shouldn’t feel pressured to label yourself as anything if you don’t want. My advice to you and to the rest of readers who may have the same question is that it doesn’t matter how you identify as long as you continue to walk in YOUR truth. It is no one’s business what you do in YOUR personal life. If you feel pressured by anyone to box yourself into a label, tell them that it’s not their decision and if those people can’t accept that, then just tell them that this is not up for debate as it isn’t even about them. Walk in YOUR truth and look fabulous while doing so. I hope this advice serves you well, and if you ever want to ask more questions you can always submit questions to go/asktre/ or find me on Facebook at Tré Stephens. Thanks for reading and check next week’s edition of Ask Tré. 

Beyond the Vagina (Monologues) Speaks to Contemporary, Diverse Feminism

This Friday night in Hepburn Zoo, as I watched the full cast of womyn and femmes dressed in red and black perform My Revolution Begins in the Body, the opening monologue of this year’s Beyond the Vagina (Monologues), I found myself remembering a cab ride I took through Delhi one Saturday night in September.  Beyond the Vagina (Monologues) is a collection of performance pieces in the tradition of Eve Ensler’s groundbreaking 1994 feminist theater piece “The Vagina Monologues.” In September I was on my way home with my friend Maya, driving through the chaotic streets of Delhi and talking about the performance by Indian dancer and theater artist Maya Krishna Rao we’d just watched called “Loose Woman.”  The two performances were, of course, quite different. Rao wore rope sandals and makeup that was dramatic, bordering on grotesque, as she stomped and gestured in the kathakali style (a form of traditional Indian dance historically performed by men) while delivering her monologue. I’m sure I missed ninety-nine percent of the meaning she was trying to convey, given my limited understanding of Hindi, Indian culture and dance, but I was nonetheless captivated by Rao’s commanding strength and charisma for the entire two-hour performance.  Beyond the Vagina (Monologues) was in English, performed by my classmates and mostly devoid of dancing — with the notable exception of Caleb Green’s beautiful original choreography to Andrea Gibson’s “Your Life” – but the entire performance still viscerally reminded me of Rao’s “Loose Woman.” Both performances illustrate the palpable, undeniable power of a woman unapologetically taking up space, power that’s recognizable in a way that can transcend the particulars of language and culture.  Empowering female and non-binary identifying individuals wasn’t the only goal of the Monologues. Breaking the silence was another. Co-directors and producers Stella Boye-Doe and Steph Miller say that they hope the show starts conversations that continue on campus. “It’s about breaking down stigma, starting to talk about things that are taboo right now,” said Miller.  Described in the program as having “a new eye for inclusivity and intersectionality,” Beyond the Vagina (Monologues) builds on the 1996 “Vagina Monologues” by “recogniz[ing] the extent to which our global conversations of womanhood, femme, gender, sexuality and identity have changed and grown.” Boye-Doe and Miller spent winter term selecting the monologues and pieces that would speak to a contemporary, diverse feminism.  After only about three weeks of rehearsals, the company put on a show that covered a range of subjects, from sex and pleasure, to assault and trauma, to gender identity. In addition to three original monologues written and performed in this year’s show, there were also sketches and monologues from Ensler’s original script, as well as past performances of Beyond the Vagina (Monologues).  The range of topics was matched only by the range of tones struck by the performers over the course of the night, and sometimes in a single scene. A monologue called “MeToo is a movement, not a moment,” adapted from a TED Talk given by the movement’s founder Tarana Burke, made me tear up. Immediately afterwards, two women armed with dark red lollipops came on stage for “Reclaiming Cunt,” poetically reminding the audience of the power of a woman in command of her own sexuality. A funny song about what a scary time it must be to be a man was followed by a group of women talking about their vaginas, gracefully moving between humor, relatability and exasperation. After one woman helps another find her clitoris in “Clit” with perfect comedic timing, sex positivity and a little help from a mirror, a large portion of the company implored the audience to embrace their flaws and imperfect humanity — their “ugly” — and remember that “you are magnificent,” in the final monologue, “Moving Towards Ugly.” More could be said about each component piece that comprised this year’s Beyond the Vagina (Monologues). But Maya’s words in the cab that night after watching Rao dance in September best capture the feeling I walked out of Hep Zoo with on Friday: “That made me feel like I don’t at all want to be a woman who is quiet.”

The Excellent Mediocrity, Mediocre Excellence of Franz Schubert

Schubert’s piano pieces for four hands are so mediocre, in a sense, as to be especially excellent.  Piano masters Alexander Melnikov and Andreas Staier, hailing respectively from Russia and Germany, performed a wide selection of these pieces by Franz Schubert last Friday as part of the Mahaney Performing Arts Series.  Mediocre is the wrong word, by far, to be using for these pieces and yet, I struggle to select a more appropriate one: they fall between extremes, occupying a high middle ground of art. A somewhat appropriate description comes from the TV Show A Good Place in which Manny Jacinto’s character explains a “scale from one to thirteen [where] eight [is] the highest. It goes up and then back down like a tent.”  The Schubert pieces played were an eight, middle of the road and yet the best. The problem here is that Schubert is not Bach. His pieces are not dramatic like, say, Bach’s Prelude and Fugue No. 2 or his Toccata and Fugue in D minor. Nor is Schubert Debussy. His music is not dreamlike and ephemeral like Nuages or Clair de Lune. The comparisons could go on; he’s no Liszt or Mozart either. Schubert’s pieces here were not deeply moving per se but nor were they light and frivolous. They were not overwhelming, they did not transport one to a different state, but yet they were consistently intriguing and engaging. As I was trying to find a proper adjective, I considered both “pretty,” and “nice,” — because they were. Although there is no cause to diminish them as such. The pieces were beautiful and seemingly nothing more.  There came a point when this quality started raising particular questions about the state of Schubert’s art. What was the point of such music? It didn’t seem to come from any deep emotions. No anguish or true love stemmed from them. Did they stem from fears? Joy? Awe? Or were they simply playthings for Schubert to share with his friend and student the Comtesse (countess) Caroline von Esterházy? They were too good to be shallow pieces written without emotion and yet not raw enough to be deep personal expression.  Again, I found myself circling around a middle ground — and yet, they were excellent.  There was certainly a range. Some pieces were light and very much felt like a plaything for a Comtesse. Take the first piece, the third of Six Grande Marches in B minor. It slid around, sometimes a light, at times flowery tune punctuated by deeper, stronger interludes. The first of the Ländler also had a prominent sense of levity through much of it. It could easily be an exercise written simply for the amusement of two flirtatious pianists. And yet the second Ländler was much more ominous, more mysterious. The third, exhilarating, producing much the same feeling as one gets when cruising along a sunny road in summer.  Take this in contrast to the closing piece, on the other end of the program: the Fantasia in F Minor. This piece was, of all the night’s program, the most dramatic. Dedicated to the Comtesse, whom one friend called Schubert’s “ideal love,” the piece has a definite sense of wistfulness. This is raw, especially in comparison to the tighter pieces earlier in the program. Still, it seems to restrain the possible outflow of emotions that one might find with a different artist. That is to say, one neither shakes nor swoons upon hearing it, but one is nonetheless entirely engaged.  Ultimately, I cannot answer any of the questions or contradictions raised above, perhaps a musicologist of higher degree would be better addressed, but there is something I find intriguing about the idea of Schubert’s mediocre excellence. He clearly had the technical genius with which he could have unleashed the same shivering chills, bone rattles and heart wrenching emotional catharsis that other composers have left us. Equally possible (although as the vanguard of the budding Romantic spirit, perhaps only anachronistically possible) was his potential to create immersive soundscapes that release into the imagination a Bacchanal flood like the later impressionists.  But he doesn’t. Instead, he produced music that is so simply well-crafted that no other quality distracts from its excellence. The music, and not the effect that it produces, pulls in the listener’s attention. The listener can’t help but acquiesce.

WRMC Meet Your DJ: Mikaela Chang

Student DJ Mikaela Chang discusses what makes radio special and shares her recent picks of  music and campus events. “I didn’t know anything about college radio,” Chang says about her introduction to WRMC four years ago. It was all word of mouth, and she and a friend decided to sign up without any prior opinions. Chang calls her first show kind of embarrassing. The idea was to pick songs in relative major and minor key signatures each week, and the show’s description earnestly encouraged the intended audience: “Confuzzled? Tune in, you’ll get it.” As for Chang’s  current show: “It’s called ‘ho hum,’” she smiles, “kind of like a sigh, but also like you’re in thought.” It airs Thursday nights from 10  to 11 p.m., and it is Chang’s musical diary.  “I wanted the solo space to flesh out my own thoughts.” ho hum’s stream of consciousness style allows Chang to actively analyze her current music choices. The show’s content has changed notably since its beginning in Fall of 2016, but she still enjoys the personal, sometimes scary experience of sharing her ideas on air. “They’re thoughts you would write in a journal,” she says, not necessarily things one would easily tell the listening public face-to-face. The show also revolves around her desire to share meaningful discussions with other Middlebury students. “Hey stranger  — it’s been a minute! Let’s talk,” the description reads. Chang describes the experience of seeing people around campus and feeling the impossibility of holding a long conversation. Radio, she finds, is an effective medium to make those exchanges happen.  Additionally, Mikaela is on WRMC’s executive board as part of the concerts committee. She enjoys working behind the scenes and, “hearing about what the audience wants.” She also acknowledges the unfortunate enduring image of WRMC as an exclusive organization and considers part of her role to be working to dispel that. “I hate that there are still people who are scared of [WRMC].” She recognizes some competing visions for the station and varying levels of perceived inclusivity from different students. “Straight up, explicitly, I wanted to be a representative of Middlebury’s POC community.” Chang hopes that the future of Middlebury college radio continues to involve diverse participation and creativity from a wide range of students. To find new music and updates, “I heavily, heavily depend on Spotify,” Chang admits. She uses the Release Radar and genre categories. “R&B Soul is something I listen to a lot.” Inevitably, though, she still misses many exciting releases. “It’s awesome and also the most stressful thing ever.” Chang’s recent music picks include a new album, “sleepless in ______” by Epik High (Chang describes them as “an old Korean hip-hop group”) and the music video for Doja Cat and Rico Nasty’s collaboration, “Tia Tamera.”  “Tierra Whack just came out with a couple singles, too,” she suggests. Asked to put together a spring break playlist, Chang had a hard time narrowing it down.  “When I think about going home, for some reason I play a lot of Frank Ocean...I don’t know why, but I’d probably just be listening to anything by him.” Also on the list were Latin trap artist Bad Bunny and some reggaetón, along with a nod to her mom’s music taste: “My mom really likes K-pop, and so I’d probably be listening to a lot of BTS. She’s a hardcore fan.” Chang also stressed exploring the events happening right on campus. “If there’s anything that four years at Midd has taught me, it’s that there is always something cool happening.” She highlights WRMC’s annual spring concert, Sepomana, this April and the Korean Culture Show on May 3. She also recommends checking out arts events in the Gamut Room, at the Mill, and at the MAC. WRMC has just released an app to make listening even easier — search WRMC Radio on the App Store or Google Play to keep up with Mikaela’s show and explore the others happening almost all day, every day.

Sex Panther: F*ck Foreplay

Editor’s note: Throughout the semester you’ll be reading articles from Middlebury students of different identities and experiences on all things sex and relationships. Helloooooo again, sex kittens! I have a topic to talk to y’all about this week that is very near and dear to my heart and that I am 100 percent certain needed to be canceled, like, yesterday. What could a sex-positive Sex Panther possibly have a vendetta against in the world of all things sexy?! Foreplay, of course.  Yeah. You read that right. Screw foreplay.  I mean it. Not the actions we associate with foreplay, of course, but the word. Besides rolling a little creepily off the tongue, the idea of foreplay really delegitimizes a lot of fun, feel-good sex. It reinforces that penis-in-vagina (PIV) sex is the be-all-end-all act constituting sex when that is just SO NOT TRUE. Besides feeding into repressive systems of power that go into dictating what gets to (culturally) count as “real” sex, foreplay as a concept naturally reinforces, on some level, the idea that a (cis) penis going in a (cis) vagina is the only natural or acceptable culmination of sexual activity. Foreplay as a concept is heteronormative. It is cisnormative. It is patriarchal, and it is officially canceled because it automatically places everything outside of PIV sex outside the realm of actual sex.  [pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]Foreplay as a concept is heteronormative. It is cisnormative. It is patriarchal, and it is officially canceled.[/pullquote] I say screw that — in whatever way that means to you. Because there are SO many more ways to have sex than just PIV, and there is SO much more pleasure to be found once you start to break down those internalized notions about the “right” way to screw. Sex isn’t a checklist, and it sure ain’t a baseball game. So throw out the bases, because the only agenda you should be holding yourself to is the one you and your partner(s) make together.  I guess my issue here is really with how we define sex. Our restrictive definition of sex (missionary, PIV, etc.) automatically means we have to create an extra category just to fit all the other — arguably more fun and exciting — stuff (like oral sex and sex with toys). In the European middle ages, the handy label of “sodomy” did the trick of covering the “other” category. No, really. Basically, any act that was not procreative, missionary, PIV, and religiously ordained could and often did fall under the category of “sodomy” as a sexual sin. This repressive culture of sex has carried over to today, when what we call foreplay is presented as non-essential and even frivolous. Frivolous? How dare they?! Getting my titties tickled creates sensations of pleasure just as much as touching my clit or being penetrated. Why let this antiquated hierarchy of pleasure based on legitimacy and respectability — and ourselves — keep us from inhabiting our own bodies and owning our own pleasure? This is my problem with foreplay. There’s no room to say “I don’t actually want anything in my pussy at the moment, but I will cum for you if you pinch my tits and talk dirty to me, babe,”  with no other alternative than orgasm. If that’s not what you want if you don’t want to (be) penetrate(d) but want to have sex, there is a massive social consciousness that says, ‘Actually, no, that doesn’t count as sex,’ even though it TOTALLY DOES. I am not arguing against taking time to turn each other on, to explore the softness and hardness and curviness of each other’s bodies, to finger or fellate, to break out the nipple clamps and blindfolds. Please, by all means keep doing that. Just stop calling it foreplay.  Instead, why can’t we broaden our definition of what sex means? Why can’t we eradicate PIV intercourse as the pièce de résistance and honor the pleasure our bodies feel from all the other wonderful methods of stimulation available to us? That’s not to say we should shun PIV intercourse altogether by any means. What I am saying is that we need to see it as simply an option on an extensive menu of sex. Prioritize pleasure, not the penis.  As a queer person who is not too titillated by penis, I challenge you to tell me that the sex I’m having with my partner(s) at any given time isn’t sex just because there’s no penis involved. Because to me, that’s laughable. To me, the sex and pleasure I pursue is infinitely better. It ignores the naturalized progression of sex and instead empowers everyone involved to ask for what they want and to savor every sensation without feeling like there’s some end-goal to get to. Call it what you will, but recognize that everything outside the realm of PIV intercourse is also sex.   From this point of view, the concept of foreplay just doesn’t make sense. Everything we do is sex and everything we do is foreplay and everything we do can be both at the same time. So don’t tell me that eating someone out, or mutual masturbation, or fingering, or frottage don’t count as sex. Don’t tell me they’re just foreplay. Those sources of pleasure are just as intense, just as important and just as valid as PIV intercourse. It means that sex is still something accessible to everyone; folx of different genders and sexual orientations, folx with disabilities or traumas, folx with STIs or folx for whom placing a penis in an orifice simply isn’t a viable or safe option. So this is my manifesto against foreplay. Only my partner(s) and I get to determine what counts as sex for us, and we don’t believe in foreplay.

Addison Central Teens Offers Support and Compassion

MIDDLEBURY — Tranquility is perhaps the last word that one would think to associate with a teen center. However, before the kids arrive at 3 p.m., tranquility is exactly what one might experience at Addison Central Teens. Located at the Recreation Park near Mary Hogan Elementary School in Middlebury, the center has been running since 2008. A pool table sits prominently inside the center, quiet and neatly organized with the cues standing in place on their rack. Cicilia Robinson, the center’s AmeriCorps member, prepares for the afternoon snack. She walks around the kitchen deliberately, as if competing in the final seconds of a televised cooking competition. Devon Karpak laughs with Cicilia about their shortage of paper towels, of which they had only just received a new delivery. Karpak has served in his current capacity twice, once in 2017 and again with the recent departure of the center’s executive director. “My passion is serving youth, helping them with that transitional period in their lives, finding their passions, and making sure they make decisions that are going to benefit them in the long run while also making mistakes in a safe environment,” he said. Karpak emphasized the turbulence of adolescence. “You’re gonna screw up,” he said. Through these failures, however, Karpak sees the potential for growth. To him, the teen center is a place where teens can make mistakes in a safe and nurturing environment. “You don’t feel like the adults or the system is coming down on you,” Karpak said. Robinson has been with the center since September of 2018 and also emphasized the need for supportive supervision that is not as harsh as at schools.  “It is a place where they can explore things like non-sexual intimacy, and we understand that is important for growing as a human being,” Robinson said. The center serves a diverse community of teens in grades 7 through 12. Karpak said that one of the center’s greatest resources is its diversity. The teen center has grown dramatically recently, experiencing a threefold increase in participation over 16 months. Participants are from a range of socioeconomic backgrounds and the center serves multiple LGBTQIA students. “We are showing kids that it is cool to be themselves and that you can be friends with people who are not like you,” Karpak said. Karpak attributed the growth of the center to the accepting space which the center offers. “People feel comfortable here, we are filling a need in the community; we’re increasing our presence in terms of showing that people are welcome here,” he said. Robinson is excited by the expansion of the program and its new ability to provide services to more teens who need them. In the past, the teen center has offered activities ranging from boat building to financial literacy. “They are being really present and they are learning and they want to learn even after being in school all day,” Robinson said. The center also hosts support groups for mental health and for LGBTQIA students. Karpak emphasized the need for these resources in rural communities like Middlebury and is excited that the center is growing to offer more resources for the teens. “It is growing and filling into the places that are very needed in this community,” he said. The center relies on volunteers, and students from Middlebury College often participate. Robinson is the only full-time volunteer, so help from Middlebury students expands the amount of work that can get done in a day. Robinson and Karpak noted, however, that Middlebury students have so much more to offer than simply being helping hands. “The kids think [Middlebury students] are way cooler than the adults so they can relate to them,” Robinson said. Karpak concurred, “Each Middlebury College student relates to a different group of kids within the teen center differently and really elevates the overall experience.” Giulia Park ’19 got involved with volunteering for the center because of her experiences with after-school programs growing up. She found that the ability to connect with these students was one of the most valuable parts of her experience. “I was able to bond with the teens that regularly came to the teen center, and it was super fun to watch them experiment with their identities and become more comfortable in their own skin as the weeks went by,” she said. Park remembered building these relationships fondly. “My co-volunteer Lizzy Vinton and I were in charge of the snack prep, which helped us get on the teens’ good side— there’s nothing like grilled cheese to put a smile on the face of a moody teenager,” she said. Karpak was emphatic in his desire to continue growing the center’s relationship with the college. In addition to Middlebury student volunteers, a Computer Science professor also ran a course at the center and helped to install desktop computers. “We want as much interaction with the college as we can,” Karpak said.  Robinson, a Middlebury alumna herself, stressed the importance of remembering to support the community that so strongly supports us. “The kids need it and they’re worth it, they’re so worth it,” she said.

White Allies Asked to Support Eliminating White Supremacy in Curriculum

The Hillcrest Orchard was filled to capacity for the “White Allies: It’s Your Turn” meeting last Thursday evening, with students lining the windowsills and crowding onto the floor as organizers Treasure Brooks ’21 and Wengel Kifle ’20 spoke about the need to eliminate racial violence from the Middlebury curriculum. [pullquote speaker="Treasure Brooks ’21" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]The academic institution is the greatest mobilizer of white supremacy.[/pullquote] “Repeat after me,” Brooks told the crowd, “the academic institution is the greatest mobilizer of white supremacy.” Attendees echoed her words. Later, asked how she came up with the phrase, she said, “It’s just the truth.” Promoted as an opportunity for white students, particularly those who oppose campus inequality but rarely speak up outside the classroom, to learn about advocating for racial equity, “White Allies” offered white students a glimpse into the social and academic difficulties faced by students of color. Brooks, who is black, described Middlebury as a site of colonial indoctrination, and said that the first step toward being on the right side of history is to decolonize the curriculum by incorporating diverse viewpoints that are often neglected by academia. “Decolonizing the curriculum, I think, is to intentionally teach different authors and teach from perspectives that are non-western and non-white,” Brooks said. Most of the academic content used in Middlebury’s courses was produced in colonial and white supremacist systems, she said, and the intentional addition of different perspectives to curricula makes the context more complete. “It’s not just adding in new voices,” said Renee Wells, director of education for equity and inclusion. “It’s adding in new voices that can name the ways in which our historical modes of thinking are oppressive.” The event was completely student-run, but Wells described herself as a sounding board for student concerns, including those recently put forth by Brooks and Kifle regarding campus climate and curriculum. During the meeting, Brooks referred to Carr Hall, which houses the Anderson Freeman Center, as a space for students of color. One white student, seated on the floor in the back corner of the room, turned to the person beside her, and whispered, “What’s Carr Hall?” The other student, also white, just shook her head. At the end of the meeting, the presenters had participants break into groups by academic department and then passed out petitions, urging students to approach professors about the need for Middlebury to undergo an institutional process of academic decolonization, and to request that faculty members sign on in support. The meeting organizers began co-writing the petition the day after Brooks served as guest discussion leader for Middleground, a new student group created as a platform at the end of last year for students to share personal stories about the challenges they face at Middlebury. Brooks, a History major, told The Campus about a STEM major who spoke at Middleground and started to cry while describing an experience with intolerance in the classroom, and the profound effect it had on her own attitude toward college academics. [pullquote speaker="Treasure Brooks ’21" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]The violence we experience in the classrooms is truly across disciplines.[/pullquote] “The violence we experience in the classrooms is truly across disciplines,” Brooks said. Changing the social climate on campus is a complex endeavor, but Brooks and Kifle see expanding diversity within curricula as a goal that is both critical and attainable. Brooks read the college’s mission statement aloud during the meeting, emphasizing its claim to prepare students to “contribute to their communities, and address the world’s most challenging problems.” “Whose community are we learning how to help, to engage with?” she said. “Whose?” Most Middlebury students would describe themselves as allies, Kifle, who is also black, said in an interview with the Campus. But she noted that white students lack the double consciousness held by students of color and, as a result, frequently don’t realize that they are not getting the entire perspective. Expanding the curriculum, she said, helps everyone. “It’s not that people of color need this more,” Brooks said. “The chasm in our education is more visible to us because we know our own history and we know what’s missing.” Middlebury’s mission statement promises to prepare students to address the world’s most challenging problems, but the current lack of global, critical perspectives presented in the classroom fails to accomplish that, Kifle said. Limiting the voices available to students to one dominant demographic, specifically white men, hinders the scope of their education and leaves them unprepared to face real world issues. “Professors are just serving as moderators instead of educators,” Kevin Mata ’22 said, after Brooks invited students of color to share their opinions about the academic environment. “A lot of them are teaching the way that they were taught,” Brooks said at the meeting. “That does not make it right.” Kifle told The Campus that the petition circulated at the meeting demands the education Middlebury already claims to provide its students, holding the college accountable for what its mission statement promises. “What we’re attempting to do is not radical whatsoever,” Brooks said. [pullquote speaker="Francoise Niyigena ’21" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]We all come with different misconceptions about people who are different from us.[/pullquote] “We all come with different misconceptions about people who are different from us,” said Francoise Niyigena ’21, one of the founders of the student organization Middleground. She started the organization with a group of friends after they realized that they had all come to college expecting to have transformative conversations with people who were profoundly different from them, but that those conversations rarely happened. Niyigena said that most students who currently attend meetings are struggling with some aspect of campus culture, or face discrimination in the broader community, but that the group welcomes anyone who wants to learn. Middleground meets every other Thursday from 6–7:30 in the Hillcrest Orchard. Kifle will facilitate its next meeting, focusing on immigrant students’ experiences, on March 14. Kifle told The Campus that the petition serves as concrete evidence of support, but that their main motivation for holding the meeting was to raise awareness about, and increase student involvement in, the process of decolonizing Middlebury’s curriculum. The “White Allies” organizers said they had big plans moving forward, but added that those plans depend on white allies’ continued support.

The Librarian Is In

It is a shame, is it not, that I was 32 before I came to place Audre Lorde within a literary and social context. Middlebury, of all places, gave her to me. Not my undergraduate institution. Not my graduate school experience(s). Not my travels abroad. Rather, my job, as a librarian, on this campus. In college, I took a class called “Hurston, Hughes and Wright,” which studied 20th century literature by black writers.  But it wasn’t ’til I came here, to rural Vermont, that this black, lesbian, feminist thinker, Audre Lorde, was introduced to me.  Professor Catharine Wright was engaging the author’s memoir, Zami, in her class, “Outlaw Women,” and I wanted to know more about the content students were reading, so I checked the work out. And Audre Lorde’s name resurfaced again and again on this campus.  So I began to wonder, “Was there a secret club I didn’t belong to where people learned who this woman was and were made better for it?”  Then Marcos Rohena-Madrazo, a man I admire, spoke to me about how fabulous Lorde’s Sister Outsider was. So when it became available as an audiobook at go/overdrive/, I checked it out.  Succinctly, Sister Outsider is a collection, as the book’s cover art suggests, of essays and speeches that, for me, largely questions, for one, who is allowed to participate in feminist discourse and, two, who is considered a producer of knowledge.  To the first of these questions, Lorde transparently posits that lesbian women have been excluded from feminist discourses that undeniably concern them.  Second, she lobbies for change that proactively seeks out the most marginalized women to participate publicly in feminist discourse. It’s more: she asks that regular and systematic efforts be made to recruit poor, “colored” and gay women to platforms and gatherings where their rights, livelihoods and well beings are discussed. Her works suggest that an exclusive and exclusionary feminism is no feminism at all. With fear of blaspheming, I can’t say that what she said/wrote in her speeches and essays sounded new to me. But perhaps, in the year of my birth, 1984, she was one of the first who found a way to say it publicly and explicitly. Perhaps it is because she said and wrote it then that it sounds rote to me now some 30 plus years later. I do think it’s quite remarkable that I could spend so much time in college, 10 plus years, and not know any of her works intimately. (Who sets the curriculum and for who is it designed? What knowledge is considered worthy and worthwhile? Does education only happen within the classroom?)  That’s troubling. However, what I appreciate most from what I’ve seen of her oeuvre thus far is actually how very many diverse narratives Lorde represents in one person: she is black, a child of immigrants, a poet, vision-impaired, politically engaged, a lesbian and a mother. Her words, therefore, consider quite a variety of perspectives.  I’ll be honest: I wasn’t expecting a chapter on her travels to Eastern Europe or an exegesis on Grenadian-U.S. relations. But I got both plus much more. I’d recommend this work to anyone who is beginning to understand and identify their interlocking identities and feels puzzled and/or “shook.”  For more work like this, I recommend Kimberlé Crenshaw’s work in Critical Race Theory: The Key Writings that Formed the Movement or Crenshaw’s work in Feminist Theory, edited by Wendy K. Kolmar, which I have yet to read. Learn more about the author at go/katrina.  Literatures & Cultures Librarian Katrina Spencer is liaison to the Anderson Freeman Center, the Arabic Department, the Comparative Literature Program, the Gender, Sexuality & Feminist Studies (GSFS) Program, the Language Schools, the Linguistics Program and the Department of Luso-Hispanic Studies.