1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(09/27/17 11:26pm)
The first WRMC show is still memorable. On a chilly September morning, my two co-deejays and I shook ourselves out of our beds, trekked to Proctor , and climbed to the WRMC studio. Excitement kept our heads up as the bell tower struck 4 AM in the morning. We slipped our headphones on our heads, opened our playlist, and became radio rebels, beaming out to all three of our listeners in the Greater Champlain Valley.
Since 1949, WRMC has offered the same excitement to generations of Middlebury College students. Outside of the broadcast booth, events such as Sepomana , the Grooveyard, and S.O.S Fest give the radio station a unique and powerful influence on the live music scene on campus. In order to better understand the structure and misconceptions surrounding WRMC, the Middlebury Campus sat down with the station’s general manager Meghan Daly. The following interview has been edited for clarity.
Middlebury Campus [MC]: What would you say is WRMC’s role on campus?
Meg Daly [MD]: I think WRMC plays a very interesting role on Campus, because it’s one of the biggest, if not the biggest, student org on campus. We often have about 150 DJs per semester, but not so many people will show up to every weekly meeting. So I think it’s hard to say what WRMC’s role is because it kind of flies under the radar despite being such a huge org and broadcasting to the entire Champlain Valley. Another part of our role on campus is providing concerts for people. That’s our most visible role.
MC: With events like Sepomana, Grooveyard, and S.O.S fest, WRMC definitely does feel like one of if not the source for live music here on campus. With that kind of responsibility, do you think WRMC does a good job inviting people that appeal to a broad cross section for the community?
MD: That’s another good question. We do want to find acts that will appeal to everyone, but at the same time we want to attract acts that normally wouldn’t come to Vermont. For example, I couldn’t see an act like Noname coming otherwise, because there is not a huge hip-hop scene in Vermont. We’ve booked artists who’ve responded to our emails asking ‘where is Vermont?’ As much as we want to appeal to everyone, there is an intentionality to be bringing artists who are underrepresented on this campus. An act like Noname was the perfect balance of both.
I think sometimes WRMC has a reputation of bringing super obscure artists, but that’s never the intention. We bring them because we think it will be a really good show, and we’re limited by budget too.
MC: Can you talk more about the funding you get for these events?
MD: All of our funding for programming will come through the finance committee. Any profit we do manage to make off of sales will go into are gift accounts to use for things like snacks for a gen board meeting. Suffice it to say that we don’t get as much funding as MCAB, so that’s why they will usually put on bigger concerts than we do. But we just kind of find an artist we like and reach out to their booking agent with dates. I’ve made [the requests] very personal in the past if it’s an artist that I feel very happy about. Often times we’ll get a response like ‘all right, they can come for $10,000’ and we reply that we have maybe a thousand. And they’ll do that. So they highball us quite a lot. But I’m definitely proud for the acts WRMC has brought in the past. I think there have been some pretty special shows in the mix.
MC: When seeing the executive board of WRMC for the first time, I think many people carry the assumption that most if not all of you are culturally tied to the Mill. In your words, what kind of culture do you think WRMC perpetuates for itself?
MD: So… I ran for general manager actively trying to work against that. I’m not part of the Mill, even if I guess I look like it. But, I think two of our board members live there and others have in the past, so it’s not an unfair assumption at all. The board is largely part of this White hipster culture which often congregates in the Mill, at least in years past. My policy has been that we’re not going to have any events in the Mill because I want to break that relationship between the two because I think it does a disservice to both organizations. People who might want to be part of WRMC but dislike the Mill might be scared off by that and vice versa. I think they should be two very distinct organizations. I don’t know when they got so fused together. It’s not a relationship that I want to encourage. But that’s the general impression of WRMC on campus and we’re still trying to figure out how to dispel that notion and not make people feel WRMC is the most pretentious thing ever, especially because there are times in the past where it has been. It’s a tricky thing figuring out the relationship between WRMC and the Mill and convincing people that they are two different things.
But the flip side of that is that when anyone brings a counter cultural artist, people will just call that pretentious. Sometimes it is trying to fill an alternative niche on campus, because sometimes that is necessary. People might want to see something different.
MC: What is it about these two orgs that creates such a feedback loop between them?
MD: I’m not too sure what the Mill’s purpose is, but I think it focuses on people with alternative tastes. A lot of people in WRMC have similar tastes for the alternatives. And in the past, our bigger events have been at the Mill so the first time people were introduced to WRMC was at the Mill. A lot of the board has historically been part of the Mill. It makes sense that a lot of people in an art’s house would like music, so it’s natural. But I don’t think the conflation serves either.
MC: How does WRMC go about finding a balance between its alternative tastes and DJ’s who might want a more mainstream style program?
MD: Even though WRMC does tend to gear towards the alternative, we’ve always had a lot of pop shows. This year we’ve tried to be intentional about disregarding hierarchies of taste and saying no genre is inherently better than any other unless it’s blatantly really offensive. But we’ve always had really diverse programming. For example some people are going to start live casting Middlebury Union football games for us. It’s a misrepresentation of WRMC to say that it’s only the alternative, but that is its reputation. I hope that people don’t think they have to seek out a really obscure genre for a good show. Often the best shows just have a cool concept.
MC: When you have an org whose leadership is part of very select groups, does that feed into the perpetuation of its culture and who gets the best times?
On our application, questions of whether you know anyone on the board are to help us remember if someone was really excited about the radio or music in general. It’s helpful in that respect, but I can also see why people might think ‘oh if I don’t know someone on the exec board, what does that mean for me and my show?’
MC: What do you want people to associate WRMC with?
MD: It’s easier to say what I don’t want them to associate us with: pretentious hipster culture. I’m not trying to shirk responsibility for that since WRMC has perpetuated that in the past and probably still perpetuating in ways I’m not aware of and for that I’m sorry and I’m working hard to try not to. I don’t want people to look at radio as something for the hipster weird kids. I want it to be for everyone. I selfishly want people to love radio. I think a big thing is trying to make the music scene at Middlebury more cohesive because you have the Gamut Room crowd or the WRMC crowd and the acapella crowd. All of us are equally invested in the music scene so I think trying to partner and collaborate with them will hopefully be helpful.
MC: What does inclusivity in radio look like?
I think a huge part of it is making WRMC a comfortable space that they can be in without worrying if they’re cool enough. Also there’s a mission statement of no racism, sexism, queer phobia, and just not being a bad person. There have been instances in the past where offensive things were said and we’ve had to talk with people about why it’s not ok. It’s definitely a topic that we’ll be exploring a lot this year. As a general manager I want to be as directly engaged with the question as possible.
MC: Where is WRMC going?
MD: As far as where things are going, I kind of want to flip that back on the DJs because I’m only one person and the board is only 10 people and it’s really up to the DJs to say if they want to engage with that or not and I’m not faulting people who don’t. But the executive board can only do so much to shift the culture and it has to be a collaborative effort between everyone.
I just hope WRMC feels like a fun thing for people to do and that people are interested in it and curious about it. In the past it seems like WRMC could be an unhealthy environment for the amount of time people put in or unhealthy attitudes about music or coolness, but this year I want it to feel like place people are happy to be involved in and they don’t force themselves into it. Obviously, my dream as someone who is absolutely in love with radio is that other people will absolutely fall in love with radio, but that’s my selfish dream and that’s not what needs to happen. I just want people to have a good time and treat each other well and get something out of it. We’re not trying to take over the world. We just want it to serve the people well. It’s something for the 150-200 DJs who feel good spending a few hours a week doing this thing.
(09/27/17 11:13pm)
Hello, welcome to my new column! Here, I will be talking about culture, Middlebury culture, of which there is undoubtedly much to appreciate. As the editorial this week discusses, our community’s ethos is special and beautiful. It is one of diversity, intellectual rigor and curiosity, and physical health to name a few. However, we are far from perfect. Despite the pristine facade of our limestone buildings, we have infrastructural flaws in our culture that need to be talked about more often and casually (not only in formal debates and when our name is in the headline of every media outlet).
All those wonderful aforementioned things that I listed are either conditional or vague enough that they belie the reality of our culture. There are toxic aspects to our space. We are diverse in our academic offerings and our individual interests but ultimately this community is too white, too rich, and too heteronormative. We are academics in ways that make us top candidates for the Fulbright but it is hard for us to connect with the real world and we discourage conversations about emotions--esotericism and pretension do nothing to push our community forward. Many of us are also super healthy but our varsity letters or daily workouts tend to create a culture of athlete privilege and body shaming.
This is pretty harsh criticism, but it is necessary. I want us all to look at our culture critically and think about each of our individual roles because I believe in our capacity to continuously improve and grow. My experience here has been transformative and I care about this community. We need a dialogue that intentionally includes our shortcomings. We are often a little too proud of ourselves, perhaps even delusional due to pride (and privilege) and way more complacent than I would prefer.
This column will serve, on a bi-weekly basis (I do have a life outside of the Middlebury culture y’all), to provide critical thoughts on our cultural fabric and suggestions for our future. Just like this column’s namesake, Migos, I want to do this for the culture. I don’t want us biting from mainstream Nescac culture — let’s set it for others to follow. All my opinions that I will put forth are developing ideas that I am sharing publicly so that they can be discussed. My goal is not to indict; rather, it is to constructively, respectfully criticize and propose a path for growth.
This work will take everyone of all identities and experiences, but some groups of people historically do way too much labor in generating meaningful change and we must acknowledge that. Our culture must come under a critical eye and so must each of us on an interpersonal level. You cannot believe in your own growth and then shut down when you are called out. Own your own improvement. I believe it is the duty of each of us for the betterment of our community.
First up will be a series of articles talking about “bro culture.” Next week, will be the first piece: a thorough analysis of the word “savage,” which has gained exorbitant popularity and been embedded in the culture on this campus. Thanks for reading and stay tuned.
(09/21/17 12:54am)
After senior college officials announced changes to the college handbook earlier this month, several student leaders expressed disappointment that they were not involved in the process, citing earlier meetings with senior officials during which they were promised input.
Kyle Wright ’19.5 and Travis Wayne Sanderson ’19, the current and former co-chairs of Community Council, were two of four students who met with senior administrators last spring.
Wright and Sanderson co-wrote and sponsored a bill last spring that aimed to change language in the “Demonstrations and Protests” section of the handbook in order to better protect the rights of student protesters. The Student Government Association (SGA) passed their bill at the body’s April 23 meeting.
After that resolution was passed, Sanderson and Wright participated in a meeting with President Laurie L. Patton, dean of the college Katy Smith Abbott and diversity officer Miguel Fernández to discuss the bill’s suggestions. Other students at the meeting included Emily Cipriani ’19.5 and Sandra Luo ’18, then a member of Community Council.
“At the meeting the four of us had with Laurie Patton, Katy Smith Abbott and Miguel Fernandez, which lasted one night from 6 p.m. until 11 p.m., there was a spoken agreement to involve students in the process this past summer in response to the bill SGA passed last semester,” Sanderson wrote in an email to The Campus.
Wright interpreted the same commitment from the administrators at the meeting.
“Katy and I had multiple conversations that were like, ‘We’re going to look at it this summer, handbook review is performed during the summer,’” Wright said. “It was communicated very clearly that there would be further conversations specifically and explicitly involving the handbook.”
But on Sept. 13 Smith Abbott announced the completion and availability of an updated handbook for the 2017–2018 academic year that did not involve students.
“I don’t know of any student involvement, which was promised to us,” Wright said.
Cipriani and Sanderson were both on campus this past summer, but were not contacted to resume discussion.
“[President Patton] mentioned that she hoped that since Travis and I were going to be on campus for language school maybe we could continue the conversation into the summer,” Cipriani told The Campus in an email.
“This seemed genuine on her part, however nothing came of it. Neither Travis nor I were contacted, and due to time constraints and the language pledge I did not contact President Patton. Whether something would have panned out if I had I will never know, but if President Patton was willing to meet with us until close to midnight my guess is she would have made something work.”
Sanderson interpreted his exclusion as indicative of a lack of administrative interest in student’s wishes.
“Their not inviting us sent a clear signal that they were not concerned enough about students’ opinions to have students in the room,” he wrote. “If Student Government, the representatives of the school, shows overwhelming support for a bill, then there should be active effort by the administration to try to fulfill its requests.”
Sanderson cited the availability of the April SGA bill as another missed opportunity for administrators to include student voices in a policy revision over the summer.
“Even if they had not invited us, they could have utilized the protest policies bill passed by SGA to reform the section. In the bill, there were very clear requests, democratically passed by a large majority of the elected representatives of the student body, thus signaling student body support,” he wrote. “These requests included down to the word of how to revise the section, so there was no vagueness whatsoever.”
Wright was similarly frustrated.
“It’s so troubling to see that we can have a very explicit conversation where things are agreed upon ostensibly, and then people are not involved. The change doesn’t happen and there’s no communication,” he said.
“I understand that plates can get full. People have a lot that they’re dealing with in the administration, but there’s this culture of unrest that has been percolating and is aggravated by this type of behavior and performance.”
He emphasized that the relationship between the administration and student leaders needs to change.
“It seems like summer comes around and students are no longer relevant. Once we’re not longer actually there in the space, any sort of coalition that was established dissipates,” he said. “It’s something that needs to change.”
Cipriani posited that the administration’s obligations to other interests may have prevented change to the relevant policy over the summer.
“With regards to the lack of changes, when the Charles Murray protests first happened, I assumed that the largest problem was that [administrators] were out of touch with the student body,” she wrote. “After meeting with President Patton, Katy Smith Abbott and Miguel Fernandez, I have come to the realization that [administrators] understand what students want, they just have other priorities, namely alumni donations and their own personal views on free speech.”
In an email to The Campus, Chief Diversity Officer Miguel Fernandez wrote that he was not involved in this year’s revisions of the handbook.
“My understanding of the changes to the handbook is that it has been a reorganization and not a change… the change in structure is for clarification, separating policies from practices, etc,” he told The Campus. “This does not constitute a review or change of policies, in which we would have every intention of including students.”
When The Campus reached out to Smith Abbott for comment on whether or not students were involved in the summer changes to the handbook, this reporter was directed to another administrator.
After The Campus sent a follow-up email to Smith Abbott, asking whether another review of the handbook would take place during the coming academic year, she agreed to comment. Smith Abbott described a plan to include students in the future, citing a student handbook advisory committee the administration hopes to create.
“In the near term, my hunch is that this group would focus on the demonstrations and protests policy, as per the SGA resolution of last spring,” she wrote. “Because that resolution was reviewed by the president and SLG relatively late in the spring, it makes sense to bring students together now to further discuss this policy and to consider other areas where our policies can be clarified or enhanced.”
Smith Abbott hopes the advisory committee will have a long-term impact on the way students interact with the handbook.
“The hope is that a standing student committee would ensure regular review and feedback on all aspects of the handbook,” she wrote. “Although the comprehensive updates...will continue to occur during the summer, while most students are away, the work of an academic-year student committee would ensure that we have input from a broad range of student perspectives, and that these could be incorporated into those annual (summer) updates and edits.”
“I’ve written to Kyle Wright, student co-chair of Community Council and Jin Sohn, SGA president, to ask for their partnership in constituting this committee,” she added.When The Campus asked Wright about his potential involvement in the committee, he replied that while he appreciated the intentions behind the proposal, he was frustrated by the way the plan came about.
“I was immensely disappointed to learn, only upon reaching out to Katy myself this past Monday, that plans regarding a handbook review had materialized without input from students,” he wrote. “Entire conversations had occurred regarding the creation of a ‘handbook review committee’ supported by the SGA and Community Counsel without immediately involving SGA President Jin Sohn or myself.”
“Until [Monday] afternoon, I had received no communication from Dean Smith Abbott or other pertinent parties in respect to moving that process forward; nor, to my knowledge, were any other students contacted regarding that process,” he added.
Wright is disheartened by what he sees as continued failures in communication between administrators and students.
“This lack of clear and inclusive communication on the part of administrators continues to contribute to a campus culture in which conversations surrounding major decisions are made inaccessible to students,” he wrote.
“Nevertheless, I am glad that members of the administration have outlined a preliminary proposal to involve students in a review of handbook policy. I am very hopeful that we can continue to strengthen student and community involvement and move forward in addressing our most pressing concerns despite this snafu,” he added.
Will DiGravio contributed reporting.
(09/21/17 12:19am)
On Friday, Sept. 15, WRMC and Middlebury College Activities Board hosted Middlebury’s annual S.O.S. (“Start of School”) Fest on the Kevin P. Mahaney ’84 Center for the Arts front lawn. The free concert featured Middlebury singer-songwriter Rubby ’18 and Chicago-based poet-rapper Noname.
(09/20/17 11:47pm)
There’s this scene in “Page One: Inside The New York Times,” a 2011 documentary film about the paper of record, that I can’t stop thinking about.
It features David Carr, The Times’ media columnist who became the paper's de facto spokesman before his death in 2015. In the scene, Carr debates the future of news with Michael Wolff, the founder of the news aggregation blog Newser.
Wolff succumbs to hyperbole in the course of their exchange, going so far as to declare that traditional news outlets who engage in original reporting are dead. Rebuking his opponent’s ridiculous claim is too easy for Carr. With a grin on his face, he holds up a printout of Newser’s front page and tells the audience that the blog is, in fact, a good looking website.
“But I wonder if Michael has really thought through ‘get rid of mainstream media content,’” Carr says. Again, he holds up a printout of the blog’s homepage, this time with every story containing information originally reported by “mainstream” outlets cut out with a pair of scissors. “Go ahead,” he says, peering through a piece of paper that looks like Swiss cheese.
I think of this scene often because I keep encountering folks who either don’t know or don’t appreciate the value of original reporting.
For example, last month a friend asked me why people continue to subscribe to The Times when blogs like Vox and Slate post concise content online for free.
I was shocked.
Did he not understand that those websites, while important and worth reading, relied heavily on the reportage of papers like The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times et al? Could he not see that without reporters churning out copy and immersing themselves in their respective beats, most digital and television outlets would not exist?
The short answer: no, he did not. And I don’t blame him. If I wasn’t pursuing a career in journalism, I probably wouldn’t know or care either.
And it’s not just political news that’s the problem. The other day, a Facebook friend of mine shared a fake article that said Charles Manson had been granted parole. I don’t fault him for the mistake, the phony blog was well-designed and looked like a legitimate news organization. Perhaps we should update an old adage: Don’t judge a website by its homepage.
This is a problem, and as we continue to rely on the internet for, well, everything, we must take media literacy seriously to ensure that subsequent generations are not illiterate. The medium may be changing, but news isn’t going anywhere.
Every night, I scroll through Twitter in awe watching The Times and The Post battle to break news about the president and his men and women. As a young journalist, with a compulsion to join the print media, I can’t help but wonder if this is what it was like growing up in the heyday of newspapers. It reaffirms my belief that tough and true reporting will always prevail.
I was reminded of this a few weeks ago when I came across a tweet by Pete Hegseth, a Trump supporter and guest host on “Fox & Friends,” a morning program on Fox News. His tweet read, “Spilled my coffee this morning on [Fox & Friends]. Finally found good use for failing [New York Times]. #NotFakeNews,” and included a picture of a coffee-stained Times acting as a coaster.
When I saw his tweet, I laughed because it proved David Carr’s words true. Folks can trash The Times all they want, but they’ll still read it. Because without it, blogs and opinion TV shows like “Fox & Friends” will have nothing to broadcast or discuss. It truly is the media kingdom with all the power.
So, will traditional media fail while fake news prevails? To paraphrase my hero Carr: hell no.
Note: A version of this column first appeared in the Addison Independent. It has been reprinted here because it is the first in a series about the future of traditional and print media.
(09/14/17 4:06am)
The word “community” is a trite word on this campus — in classes, in club meetings, in glossy admission materials. Since the beginning of her tenure, President Laurie Patton has stressed the importance of “rhetorical resilience” in strengthening the communal ethos of Middlebury.
But when it comes to the long and complicated work of building a more just and tolerant community, what is the non-rhetorical (interpersonal) labor necessary? Our campus is small and intimate. Trust is the underlying fiber that weaves us together.
It’s safe to say that this core tenet of our campus is fractured. Charles Murray’s appearance last spring revealed and exacerbated the pre-existing rifts that divided us and continue to drive us apart — between people and systems, between people and people. Those schisms were picked up by national media outlets, exploited, sensationalized. Everyone had an opinion on how and why the Murray incident occurred and what should have happened instead. The drama was discussed and re-discussed. Some voices were amplified, others drowned out. Now that the national media has moved on, we’re left in this shared space to mend our community.
The turbulence surrounding Charles Murray’s visit wasn’t about him. His visit was merely the straw that broke the camel’s back — the incident that opened up the floodgates and revealed the burgeoning tension, frustration and anger that lived on our campus. What the event proves is that Middlebury was not, and still is not, the ideologically homogeneous bubble that some may have believed it to be. We must address this reality head-on because the events of March 2 unveiled divisions and threatened our trust in one another.
The usual conversations about race, class and gender will help us begin to heal. But it is crucial that we move forward with more rigor, and especially more vulnerability, to rebuild our shared space. Vulnerability is what allows us to change and improve. When we are vulnerable we are transparent, revealing our most authentic selves — especially the flaws — and making us more empathetic and prepared to grow.
But it’s hard to guarantee vulnerability. It’s a challenging, serious thing to ask of anyone. True vulnerability is nearly unheard of from our administration, a body bound up in obscure legal requirements and inhibited by a strict PR narrative. Meanwhile, the faculty are vulnerable on occasion. Take when Bert Johnson publicly apologized for the departmental process of symbolically co-sponsoring Charles Murray’s talk. But more often than not, the faculty — worried, in every likelihood, about upholding authority in the classroom — seem rigid and lacking in tenderness.
Moreover, as students at an elite college, we are trained to believe we are perfect and “good, open-minded people.” But this hubris is not conducive for vulnerability. We are not good at admitting fault. All this serves to create distance, fear and distrust.
We also need to assume the best of each other. A successful community requires a foundation of goodwill. We must engage with people in a way that allows everyone to fail and learn, while recognizing that the onus of explaining and educating falls on the same groups of people all too often. This is hard to balance, but not impossible. Rebuilding the trust between students, faculty and the administration starts with recognizing that many in our community face challenges to their identity, and sometimes humanity.
It also means problematic ideas should be confronted accordingly and not indicted as malice. Similarly, systems and institutions should not be confused with individuals. We as students can criticize the administration and faculty, while simultaneously acknowledging individual administrators and professors who are serving our best interests. We all can stand to be more sensitive and patient as we look to make our campus an example of unity, equity and kinship.
All members of the Middlebury community — including the 638 new freshmen we are welcoming this fall — should believe in each other’s goodness and be dangerously vulnerable. In the past, The Campus has used its position of relative power in ways that have alienated fellow members of our community. We pledge to better use our platform to amplify the voices of those who have been speaking up about injustice at Middlebury all along — such as the AFC and cultural organizations.
Certain student leaders have stressed, time and time again, the importance of refusing to shy away from the effects of division and inequity at Middlebury. We need to learn and build from the mistakes of last year. We will undoubtedly make more, but with commitment, this year can be one of growth for our community.
(09/14/17 4:05am)
On Saturday, May 27, after The Campus had wrapped for the semester and most Middlebury students had packed up and headed home, Lubo Cuba ’19 spent his morning dominating Claremont-Mudd-Scripps’ Nikolai Parodi en route to the first NCAA DIII singles title in program history. A few hours later, Cuba teamed up with William de Quant ’18 to secure the DIII doubles crown, another Middlebury first, with a resounding victory over Herman Abban and Pawel Jaworski from Carthage. Now three months from that date, with the dust completely settled, we sat down with the pair to take another look at their historic seasons.
If a Just God exists — and, moreover, if he has a vested interest in the outcome of athletic competition at the Division III level — he was probably smiling down on Chattanooga, Tenn., on a late May afternoon as Lubo Cuba ’19 and William de Quant ’18 left the championship court with a pair of national titles under their arms.
You’d be hard-pressed to find a pair of more deserving young men: hardworking, passionate and fully cognizant of how fortunate they’ve been to arrive at their current position.
Sit them down separately, and you’ll see just how different athletic excellence can look in two individuals. De Quant, one of this year’s senior captains, has the demeanor of a confident and vocal leader: Born in France but having grown up all across Europe before finishing high school in Florida, he gives the impression of someone who’d be comfortable in any situation in which you could think to place him, and then some.
Cuba, on the other hand, guards a quiet fire behind a playful but somewhat shy countenance, exactly what you might expect from someone who left behind the glamour of a highly visible, top-25 Division I program — the University of Michigan — to chase a national championship on a lower-profile Middlebury team that, in many ways, is just as competitive.
Get the pair of them in the same room, and it becomes clear that the two have spent more than a little time together as the No. 1 doubles team for the Panthers.
De Quant began, looking back on the season as a whole: “We had a rough patch of two or three weekends in a row where we didn’t do great. But I think we always knew that —”
“— we had a chance to win it all,” Cuba interjected with a smile before sitting back and allowing his teammate to continue.
“We had a chance to win it all,” de Quant repeated. “We knew that, if we played well and up to our capabilities, we had a chance to win. As a Middlebury team, we have the knowledge that we can win and that if we do the work the right way, if we have our heads on the right way, and if luck turns our way on the day, we should be able to win.”
Don’t be surprised if you couldn’t tell whether he was referring to Cuba and himself as individual players, as a doubles pair, or to the entire Middlebury team that spent most of last season at No. 1 in the DIII rankings. Sometimes, it’s unclear as to whether de Quant himself knows. To hear him tell it, he’s at his best when he’s just another player in a Middlebury uniform — unconscious of whether he’s playing in a team match or for an individual championship.
“It’s a different sport when you’re on a team,” he explained. “You’re playing for a different thing, the motivation is different. I think that helps a lot of players grow and develop: being part of a team where you’re on the sidelines, you’re cheering for them. And when you’re actually on the court playing, you’re not playing for yourself. You’re playing for a point on the team.
“The team culture matters a lot to me specifically, because I came in without a lot of confidence on the court. I didn’t have too many good results in Juniors [the individual tournaments in which high-level players compete before college]. But when I came in to the team and bought into the culture of Middlebury tennis, that’s when I started hitting my stride and getting some results.”
That Middlebury tennis has an exceptional team culture is beyond doubt, at least from Cuba’s perspective. And he would know as well as any, having spent a season getting regular playing time for the Michigan Wolverines. He didn’t miss a beat when asked to draw a comparison between his time in the Midwest and in New England.
“I think the team here is closer,” Cuba offered. “We definitely do more together, on and off the court, which is great to see. And I think that definitely contributes to our success.
“Honestly, the training is pretty much the same hours — the last three days, I think we’ve played four hours a day. . . . I don’t think at Michigan we played four hours on a Saturday.”
Of course, more factored into his decision than the number of hours he’d be spending on the court. “The main reason I transferred was, first, to get that more diverse education that Midd offers,” he continued; “second, to compete for national titles. And look, we got them in singles and doubles, but the team title is more important, and hopefully we can get that this year.”
That “team title,” the NCAA Division III Team Championship, is perhaps that to which de Quant was referring earlier, when he spoke of his confidence in Middlebury’s chances every year, every weekend, every time they take the court. As a team, the Panthers have qualified for the NCAA tournament for the past 16 years in a row, winning it all twice and finishing within the top four in each of the last four seasons. Their coach, Bob Hansen, has accrued the most DIII team championships in the history of the sport between his time at Middlebury and at the University of California–Santa Cruz.
So it’s hardly surprising that the Panthers expect themselves to be there every year, and that they’re not fully satisfied with anything less. It’s hardly arrogant for Cuba and de Quant to feel at least some disappointment on account of the team’s semifinal loss to Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (CMS for short), even though the two brought home their fair share of NCAA titles.
Nevertheless, excellent players handle both victory and defeat with aplomb.
“Coach Hansen always likes to remind us,” de Quant said, “there’s a difference between winning a national championship, and being a championship team. Last year, we were a championship team, which we weren’t expected to be for a while. So last year was very difficult. We didn’t achieve the ultimate goal of winning an NCAA team championship, but a lot of guys, a lot of guys made big jumps, and there were a lot of individual highlights.
“I think that we should still kind of be proud of the work we put in,” he concluded, as if genuinely worried that he ought to think otherwise.
“Having Lubo come in from Michigan and, in his first year at Middlebury, do what he did? It’s a testament to the year that we had as a team, as a group, because he wouldn’t have been able to do it without everyone else’s effort pushing him and making sure that he continued to play well, too. . . . It was a tough ending, losing that NCAA championship and the Nescac championship, but there were still a lot of really good things to say about the year.”
The game of tennis requires an extraordinary amount of concentration and precision, at a very quick pace, over the course of a match that can stretch out for quite some time. As a general rule, letting one’s focus slip is detrimental. Wasting time focusing on the wrong thing almost always proves fatal. Given how Cuba and de Quant bounced back from the team’s postseason losses — to Bowdoin in the Nescac finals in early May, and to CMS in the NCAA tournament — it’s hardly shocking that the pair already had some experience dealing with adversity during the regular season.
Cuba described the pair’s even-handedness with an appropriately casual affect. “I think that was one good thing that we did,” he said of the team’s brief mid-season woes, “we never looked too far ahead. You know, when we had that rough patch, we kind of just said, ‘Oh, let’s go get a top-four ranking so we can make the tournament.’
“And then once we got in the tournament, in the first round we were down a set, and we were like ‘Let’s just get through this first round.’ It was just little by little, and then we were in the finals and we played what I think was our best match yet.”
When pressed to elaborate on the details of those setbacks, Cuba turned to de Quant with a wry smile.
“You talk about Nescacs,” he said, with an air of deferral.
“I wonder why you’d say that,” de Quant fired back.
Cuba shrugged. His expression became serious, even sympathetic.
“Well, you lived it the most.”
Some background: The year prior, Middlebury and Bowdoin had faced off in the Nescac championship. Although Middlebury came away with the conference title, the Polar Bears had the last laugh when they defeated the Panthers in the 2016 NCAA championship, 5–0. But Middlebury had been victorious in their 2017 regular-season matchup; as the Nescac finals approached, both teams were bracing themselves for a hard-fought contest.
With good reason. Recalling how the match played out, de Quant didn’t mince his words. “We lost 5–4. Last match on, at 4-all — I was actually playing the last match on at No. 2 singles. Split one set apiece. And literally, the last set to decide the match in the Nescac final, it just went his way.
“I didn’t play that well in that last set. He played well. He was solid; he’s a very good player. That’s just kind of the way things turn out sometimes. It was gut-wrenching, because you have your team on the side, cheering you on, you have their expectations and their hopes riding on you, right? So I think that for me, that was tough — losing that, feeling like I dropped the ball for the team.”
Then, as though he were correcting himself: “I don’t think we read too much into that.”
Cuba knew exactly where his partner was going. “No,” he picked up, “I mean, we rebounded fine, the team got through regional NCAAs pretty comfortably. And honestly, even the match we lost in the semis against CMS, I still think was under control. We were up 3–0 after doubles, and every match we lost in singles. I lost with five in the third, we had a couple people lose with six in the third, 7–6, 7–6. I mean, every match was tight, it could’ve gone either way.
“Unfortunately, it didn’t go our way that day.”
You might wonder how Cuba can call a match that he lost “under control.” But he’s a little more qualified than most players to say so, given how many of his matches do go his way. Of the 32 singles matches he played to the finish last season, Cuba only lost three. He was only slightly less consistent playing doubles with de Quant, dropping a whopping six out of 30 matches.
So when a player of Cuba’s stature says he’s got things “under control,” opponents would do well to take note. Nikolai Parodi, the No. 1 singles player for CMS whose win over Cuba in that NCAA semifinal helped bounce the Panthers from the tournament, found out the hard way a few days later how scary Cuba can be when things are going his way. To say that the then-sophomore cruised his way to the finals would be an understatement: he didn’t drop a single set en route. And when he met Parodi in the championship match with a chance for revenge, well, those who were hoping for something resembling their last encounter were sorely disappointed.
Perhaps his own post-match reaction would speak to how effortless the victory was for Cuba. “For singles,” he recalled hesitantly, “obviously I was super happy that I won, but I don’t think I really showed it — as much as I maybe should have?”
A better explanation: “He won his match in 37 minutes,” de Quant broke in. “He didn’t show that much emotion because it was 6–1, 5–1.” If there was traffic in Chattanooga, you might’ve missed the match entirely.
“It was a good week,” Cuba admitted, sheepishly.
But for some reason, the doubles final a few hours later garnered a different reaction from Cuba. “I just felt a lot happier to win doubles — maybe because I had you on the court also with me,” he said, turning to de Quant. “And . . . I don’t know, just that match point when we won it — I was just a lot happier after the doubles one.”
It wouldn’t be out of the question. De Quant admitted to being pretty emotional himself, for a number of reasons. Obviously, as the consummate teammate, part of it was the joy of watching Cuba succeed alongside him with the knowledge that he’d helped him to get there. But part of it had to do with de Quant’s own tennis history.
“It was very special for me because my parents were there,” he began. “I’ve played a lot of tennis for a long time, and my parents have always been very, very invested. . . . And it’s always been kind of a difficult road. I never did that well.
“And so for them to. . . .” He stopped. “I was just unbelievably happy. I was over the moon, because I had finally won something big. And kind of proven to myself that I was capable of doing something like that.
“So for my parents to be there,” he went on, the words coming more easily, “sharing that moment with them was very special, and that made it extra-special for me. And having Bob [Hansen] there as well, patting me on the back and telling me, ‘This was not a surprise to me whatsoever’ — well, it was really a bit of a surprise to me when it happened.
“Going in,” he summarized, “we knew that there was kind of a chance for us to make history with Middlebury never having won an individual title before. We wanted to do that not just for us, but for the program, and for Bob, who had tried so hard and put so much work into the program. He really wanted it as well, so it was also for him.”
Hansen is entering his seventh season as the Middlebury head coach. To hear his players talk about him, you’d imagine he’s the sort of man they’ll be telling their grandchildren about.
At times, the stories of his commitment and dedication border on the comical. “The man could talk for five hours straight about tennis,” said de Quant with a chuckle before quickly adding, “which is a good thing.”
Cuba jumped right in with a grin. “He’ll tell us before practice that he couldn’t sleep last night because he was thinking too much about the direction the team’s heading — always just to better the team, whatever it takes to get us better, he’s always thinking about us first.”
But as the two went on, the impact Hansen has had on them became even more eminently apparent. “You can take the No. 14 guy on the team, technically the worst player on the team, put him on the bottom court against some other player. You could have the best two players on the team playing on the first court, and Bob will go up to the guy, the No. 14 guy, and sit him down and talk to him about his game. He’ll have watched a lot of the match, he’ll have comments, he’ll have feedback on how to build his game. I mean, he cares about every one of the guys, and he is so invested in everyone’s growth.
“And he doesn’t just recruit good tennis players — he wants to recruit someone that he knows will bind to the culture and that he can teach and that he can help grow. He’s spent decades being a leader and a father figure for college guys, and he really cares about us. . . . I don’t know if it hurt him or us more when we lost that match in the NCAA semifinals, because he cares so much about the guys — I’ve never seen anyone as passionate about tennis and the team as he is.”
Cuba hardly remembered his own reaction after his singles title, but he certainly remembered his coach’s. “It was funny,” he said; “I told him before the match that I really wanted one of those NCAA hats that they were selling. And he was like, ‘If you win, I’ll buy you one.’
“And the first thing when I saw him after the match, he had bought me the hat. And he was just as happy as I was.”
It’s hard not to expect success with a man such as Hansen at the helm; with the reigning singles and doubles champions on the team in Cuba and de Quant, it’s nearly impossible. But the players don’t need anyone else to tell them that they’re capable of capturing the NCAA team championship. They can visualize it for themselves.
“I think ending the season the way we did,” said de Quant, “getting those two championships, really set the tone for this next year. They’re obviously individual successes, but having Lubo set his mark the way he did in singles —”
With impeccable timing, Cuba jumped in to correct him: “The fact that we’re both returning players on top of our recruiting class… On top of getting Noah [Farrell, an extremely talented player in his own right who took the 2016–2017 season off] back, I think this is the year to win it.”
“We’ve been close, every time,” de Quant enunciated, “with Noah, and with Lubo, and having the class that we have, we’re going to have all the pieces this year to take it to the house. We’ll keep our heads down and work as much as we can, and hopefully the pieces fall in the right way.”
Smart money wouldn’t bet on them falling any differently.
(05/11/17 2:19am)
In the wake of the disciplinary proceedings relating to student protests of Charles Murray, administrators and students have renewed past discussions about implementing restorative justice and restorative practices at the College.
These two terms are often used interchangeably, and their difference can sometimes be ambiguous. However, restorative justice is often defined as consisting of community-building alternatives to punitive action after an incident, while restorative practices refer to broader efforts to cultivate relationships and prevent conflict.
When it comes to the use of such policies in response to the Murray incident, however, students and administrators have articulated differing understandings of restorative justice and whether or not it could be applied retroactively.
In a conversation with The Campus, Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of the College Katy Smith Abbott focused largely on restorative practices, which she characterized as a holistic “culture shift” that would not necessarily impact the basic structure of the judicial process. Though Smith Abbott stressed that she, like others in the community, is still gaining a fuller understanding of restorative practices, she expressed a reluctance to apply them immediately to the Murray protests.
“We’re in a really tough moment now where many of us can say, ‘Oh, if we’d already had restorative practices on this campus we would’ve had different kinds of conversations, post-March 2, that could’ve potentially influenced the judicial process,’” Smith Abbott said. “We are not comfortable saying we’re going to implement [restorative practices] in a rush.” She cited the advice of experts in restorative practices, with whom administrators have consulted, as the reasoning for taking a slower approach to implementation.
Rather than changing existing judicial procedures, Smith Abbott expects these practices to provide additional avenues for dealing with conflict. “It’s expanding the menu considerably, so that we have different resources and competencies to be able to ensure that we care for individuals and communities,” she said.
Even if restorative practices were applied retroactively to Murray protesters, she noted, “It’s not to say that there would be no judicial sanction for a policy violation, but [only] that the conversation would be informed by this work.”
In recent weeks, however, student advocates have advanced their own interpretation. A flier distributed throughout campus, titled “No Discipline Without Justice,” demands that the College “immediately halt its official disciplinary process and reconsider all discipline leveled against Mar. 2 protesters.” The flier also calls for the implementation of restorative practices, which, it asserts, “can radically and progressively change the College’s culture.” Additionally, in solidarity with students facing discipline, organizers at the Chellis House distributed armbands and pins reading “RJ,” for restorative justice.
Travis Sanderson ’19, who has been involved in the student advocacy, discussed its importance in an email to the Campus. “Without restorative practices, there is no long-term institutional change that will last and address sufficiently the pain and harm currently felt among segments of our community,” he said.
“Fortunately, we are moving forward as a College with restorative practices,” he continued. “Just not quickly enough."
The administration’s consideration of these topics may have its origins in a December 2015 town hall discussion with President of Middlebury Laurie L. Patton. At that time, Patton raised the possibility of implementing restorative justice in the context of bias and cultural appropriation, noting that restorative justice “focuses less on the idea of legal violation and more on the ideas of community and repair.”
In the spring of 2016, a four-step plan was created for implementing these practices at Middlebury. According to that plan, restorative practices “seek to build relationships and a sense of community in order to prevent future wrongdoings or conflict.” In addition, they aim to “reduce, prevent, and improve harmful behavior, repair harm and restore relationships and resolve conflict and hold groups and individuals accountable.”
Ultimately, however, due to financial restrictions, the College was unable to move forward with the plan. Its $30,000 price tag was impractical as concerns surfaced College’s financial difficulties, and the timing of the proposal would have required that it receive discretionary funding rather than simply being included in the annual budget.
Thus, the College has yet to implement the proposed plan, which would take about a year to complete. “We would need to have at least fifty trained facilitators on campus to address any conflict or concern using restorative justice practices,” Dean of Students Baishakhi Taylor said in an email. “It would take about twelve to sixteen months to get this many colleagues trained and create appropriate scaffolding of support around the practice before implementing it.”
Student advocates have cited Patton’s 2015 words as evidence for the benefits of restorative practices. In response, while Smith Abbott acknowledged the “understandable desire to say that this thing that the president first named as restorative justice could be implemented right now,” she concluded, “I don’t see the things as antagonistic — restorative practices and an approach to college policy violations being adjudicated by a community board.”
Still, Smith Abbott left open the possibility that the implementation of restorative practices could change the course of future disciplinary processes. “In terms of how restorative practices would impact the outcome of policy violations, I think that’s very real,” she said. “I think that’s where the Judicial Affairs Officers and the Dean of Students, in conversation with me and probably several others, would determine how we balance a desire to uphold college policies ... with the primary goal of any disciplinary process, which is individual growth, education, community and the repair of any fissure that has occurred.”
(05/11/17 1:09am)
Samuel Beckett’s absurdist tragicomedy “Waiting for Godot” is a notoriously difficult piece, and a group of students took on the challenge.
(05/10/17 11:37pm)
“Like the mother bird at her plundered nest,” Hecuba says.
Grieving, suffering Hecuba.
“Do you even remember, King of the gods, that we exist, while the very air explodes around us, and fire reduces our city to ashes and stone?”
Troy is to be burned. The most agonizing of Hecuba’s wails are not enough to stir the gods. Abandoned, the mother stands alone and bereft of hope. She has lost her son, the Prince of Trojans, the best of men: Hector, the son of Priam. She has lost her daughter, a sacrifice to the very gods who now pretend to be deaf. Now, she must lose her grandson.
Andromache must give him up, though he is her own son, her only son. She must look on as her child is thrown from the walls of Troy. Humanity must look on, as all justice is violated, as the ugliest face of the Greeks – of the best of humans! – is uncovered. A face naked and ugly – a face human, all too human.
Caitlyn Meagher ’17 played Hecuba and when I looked into her eyes, I was almost convinced. To convince an audience in a tragedy is no easy task, and Meagher managed to do it for almost the entirety of the two hours. Considering the production did not even allow her an intermission, she did a very fine job indeed.
Madeleine Russell ’19 played Andromache. She had to summon a mother’s devastation as her child is stripped from her arms and say not a word as he dies the most gruesome of deaths. I cannot comprehend how one could ever do justice to Andromache’s tears, but Madeleine did it exceptionally well. Her stage presence was remarkable, though her gestures and her movement around the stage were a little too quick for the Andromache of my imagination; perhaps that was the director’s intention.
The director, Vanessa Mildenberg, visiting assistant professor of theatre, definitely managed to create a contrast between the resigned, old Hecuba and the desperate, suffering, but still young Andromache.
Roxy Adviento ’18 played a scheming, unrepentant Helen with convincingly seductive eyes. Michael Brady ’17 impressed as Talthybius and his final monologue, which was delivered while holding the vulgarized body of Astyanax in his arms, was tender and could reduce one to tears.
The set was appropriately minimalist, but I wish they had used rocks of a different material. Instead, the rocks were nearly identical blocks – identical in both color and shape – which sounded hollow when stepped upon or when Hecuba struck one in rage, which damaged the illusion. Altering the illusion was not a problem by itself: the helicopter sounds of the beginning and the US army uniforms of the Greek soldiers, for example, altered the illusion to make it more relevant, more real, for us.
Mildenberg allowed her actors to experiment quite a bit in order to create unique characters. Mary Baillie ’18, who was a member of the chorus, said each of the chorus members invented a backstory for their characters in order to “individualize” the chorus members. While I am not sure the Greeks would have liked that, it worked fine for us moderns. We like a personal voice and a personal story and have no patience for the voice of the collective, even though the entire purpose of the chorus in Greek tragedy might be to represent the invisible but overwhelming voice of the city – or the ‘society’, in our modern vocabularies.
The lighting design was phenomenal, especially in the final scene, when Troy was set on fire. Professor of Theater Mark Evancho made it seem as if the whole stage was lit, and I had to actually turn around to confirm that there were no naked flames in the room. Costume design was notable too, and although an overall grey-brown color scheme was followed, Visiting Assistant Professor of Theatre Mira Veikley created a unique look by combining modern and ancient clothing. Tanks were combined with what seemed to be plain potato sacks, petticoats with peplos, striped patterned shirts with drab, torn pants; the costumes toyed with the attention of the spectator, but the color scheme kept them from becoming distracting.
“Women of Troy” was complex and heartbreaking, though it is never easy to do justice to Euripides’ tragedy. Working off of Don Taylor’s evocative translation, Mildenberg has envisioned a performance that occupies both the modern and Ancient Greek worlds. Her vision is an attempt at a simultaneous approximation of the ancient and the modern, and I think she has done a good job of realizing it.
(05/04/17 3:58am)
The Student Government Association (SGA) passed a resolution at their April 23 meeting that recommended a series of changes to the “Demonstrations and Protests” section of the College Handbook.
The bill aims to change the language of the Handbook in order to better protect the rights of student protestors. The bill was authored and sponsored by Community Council Co-Chair Travis Wayne Sanderson ’19 and Brainerd Senator and Community Council Co-Chair-Elect Kyle Wright ’19.5.
According to current Handbook language, any violation of the College’s “Demonstrations and Protests” policy “may result in College discipline.” It also states that “disruption may also result in arrest and criminal charges such as disorderly conduct or trespass.” The first recommendation made by the bill is to change the word “disruption” in the final sentence to “violent disruption.”
“Currently, as the policy stands, any form of disruption can be responded to with arrest or criminal charges. Disruption is defined in the policy as including the holding of signs, so technically speaking, if the policy says that you can respond to the holding of signs with criminal charges, there’s a problem,” Sanderson said. “We wanted to refine that so it just said violent, so that it narrowed the scope by which you could have such severe consequences.”
The second recommendation is to alter the Handbook policy that reads: “Distribution of materials such as leaflets may not be confrontational and must allow people to decline to receive the materials.” The resolution calls for the removal of the phrase “may not be confrontational.” Sanderson said that the current language is “ridiculous” and seemed “relatively easy to fix,” and that there was no conflict within the SGA itself over the recommendation.
Another recommendation is to insert language into the Handbook that explicitly prevents Public Safety officers from using violent force. The language reads: “Public Safety, as well as outside security and contractors hired by Middlebury College or its affiliates, not including state or federal law enforcement, may not use violent force against students unless they, or another individual, are first acted upon violently by those students.”
According to Sanderson, the recommendation is simply putting into words what Public Safety already practices.
“There was absolutely no clarification as to the situations in which Public Safety could use violent force as a tactic for response,” Wright said. “Though Public Safety has clarified to the Community Council that it is not their practice to use violence in responding to cases of disruption or protest, the fact that that language wasn’t clarified, I think, for us, left it far too open-ended.”
The resolution comes as the College is investigating more than 70 students it believes may be subject to disciplinary procedures for participating in the protests that prevented Dr. Charles Murray from delivering a scheduled lecture on March 2. According to the College, more than 30 students have already accepted disciplinary sanctions.
Wright and Sanderson’s resolution recommends that the College “reconsider any discipline leveled against students involved in the protests against Charles Murray and Middlebury College that were founded in the wording of the college Handbook prior to the passing of this bill.” In short, if the resolution were to be implemented by the College, then the new Handbook language would be retroactively applied to those who participated in the March 2 protests.
Sanderson justified retroactively applying the changes by citing a Nov. 13 protest against President-elect Donald Trump, after which the College did not enforce its own policies.
“According to the policy, that [protest] could have been defined as disruptive and not designated. The protest policy calls for having a designated protest area, having it approved by public safety, etc. We had none of that, there was no enforcement [of the policy],” Sanderson said.
He argued that since current policies are not consistently enforced, it is not fair for the College to discipline students.
“Given the fact that there was no enforcement of the policy until it was convenient, there’s a problem. If you are only enforcing the policy as a means to attack, which is exactly what’s happening now, what needs to happen is the commitment to enforce the policy in a more consistent and more neutral way,” he said.
“If you have one, a policy that they only enforce when [the College] wants to, and two, a policy that is not complete to begin with, then I don’t believe that policy is a valid thing by which to judge people because it’s not objective in the first place, it’s not fully thought out. If you have a policy that is not fully thought out, a policy that is not being enforced fully in the first place, then that should not be used to punish protesters, regardless of the fact that it happened before the [proposed] policy changes happened.”
Wright agreed, citing retroactive action as a norm used by legislative bodies.
“If we’re trying to make a philosophical case for why retroactive action works, there are laws passed through Congress all the time that work retroactively, because the conversation has never been about adherence to the rules, it’s been about whether or not those rules are just,” he said. “If they’re not in the best interest of the student body, I don’t know why we would have a precedent wherein everything that was done in the case of that rule remains valid. We’re hoping to have a talk not about rules and adherence to rules necessarily, but whether or not those rules exclude or include people in ways that are meaningful to people on this campus.”
The SGA Senate passed the resolution 10-3-1. First-Year Senator Jack Goldfield ’20, Cook Senator Connor McCormick ’18, and Feb Senator Rae Aaron ’19.5 voted against the resolution.
Aaron said that she supported making changes to the College Handbook’s current protest policies; however, she disagreed with retroactively applying them to the Murray-investigations.
“In order to make effective long term updates to the College’s antiquated protest policies to empower marginalized voices, the community should engage in thorough inclusive dialogue rather than make abrupt alterations to the Handbook aimed at retroactively excusing students for breaking College policies,” she said.
Vice President for Communications and Chief Marketing Officer Bill Burger said that the College has yet to conduct its regular review of the College Handbook.
“We welcome any suggestions that the community has,” he said.
(05/04/17 2:00am)
Dear Dr. Patton:
We write to protest the Middlebury administration’s punitive response to students involved in the events surrounding the Charles Murray lecture on March 2, 2017. Middlebury students have reported being placed on probation and having disciplinary letters added to their files for protesting both the lecture and also the fact that the college gave its imprimatur to the event by having faculty and administration introduce and preside over it.
Additionally, we are concerned that the administration has taken or plans to take other more serious disciplinary actions. As academics who value maintaining college campuses as spaces that encourage critical thinking and that serve as welcoming and democratic spaces for all, we write in support of these students. We exhort you to proceed with a keen sense of their well-being, and their right to participate in protests for social justice, in a long tradition that includes Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Senator Bernie Sanders.
Charles Murray is a widely discredited scholar who masks racist ideas under a veneer of respectability. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes Murray as a “white nationalist” who is fond of “using racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics to argue that social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority of the black and Latino communities, women and the poor.” A well-known provocateur, he has a long history of coming to college campuses to create turmoil and foment hatred. Because his dangerous ideas are so well known, 450 Middlebury alumni signed an open letter, published in the student paper the day prior to his lecture, protesting the event.
Alumni described his invitation to campus not as “an educational opportunity, but a threat.” We join these alumni in their dismay. Indeed, our own is compounded by the fact that the administration disregarded alumni, some faculty members’, and students’ clear message that Murray’s appearance was not an occasion for dialogue and free speech, but for fanning the flames of racism during a tense time in the United States, when hate crimes are on the rise.
We are aware that the protesting students, many of whom are now being disciplined by the college, possibly acted in contravention of college rules. We are also aware of the different reports of what happened after the lecture as Murray and Middlebury faculty member Allison Stanger were departing the hall. Competing versions of what transpired at the protests exist--whether any violence that might have occurred was accidental or deliberate; whether it was initiated by students, security, or other parties.
This uncertainty does not negate basic facts—students have a right to reasonable protest; and protest by its very nature is a challenge to an authority that refuses to listen.
We believe the administration must take responsibility for what ensued during Murray’s visit, which was sorely mishandled. In his thoughtful public apology to colleagues and the Middlebury community, especially people of color, Prof. Bert Johnson, the Chair of the Political Science Department, recognized mistakes in his decision-making and expressed regret that his agreement to co-sponsor the Murray lecture “contributed to a feeling of voicelessness that many already experience on this campus.” We note that to date the administration has issued no such apology to those at Middlebury adversely affected by Murray’s college-sanctioned visit, even as an apology has been tendered to Charles Murray and Allison Stanger.
As Prof. Johnson’s words suggest, the responsibility for what happened at Middlebury cannot be placed exclusively or even primarily on the shoulders of students who are now being disciplined. The administration, faculty and other members of the college community who invited, enabled, and formally welcomed so dangerous a figure as Murray in full knowledge of his history bear responsibility, as does the Middlebury administration for then overriding objections leading up to his lecture, and disrespecting students’, faculty, and alumni concerns.
Dr. Patton, we ask you to consider this: when Charles Murray was in high school, indeed only a couple of years younger than the Middlebury students being disciplined, and as the Civil Rights Movement was getting underway, he burned a cross, and then claimed not to know the true meaning of his action (NYT). The scholarship he has since produced continues to breed hate and prejudice. Why would Middlebury choose to enable such a man, and the specious “scholarship” and narratives he propagates, rather than nurture the spirit of students who stand against racism?
To punish students and to defend Murray is to degrade the meaning of academic freedom and free speech. Instead, we hope that you might make of this occasion one that can foster critical thinking and reflection in an environment that is safe for all students and members of the Middlebury community, including those who are the most vulnerable. Rather than disciplining students in ways that might prove permanently damaging, we urge you to take this an opportunity for learning, not just for the students but, indeed, for the whole college community.
Respectfully,
Cynthia Franklin, University of Hawai'i
David Palumbo-Liu, Stanford U
David Lloyd, University of California, Riverside
Neferti Tadiar, Barnard College, Columbia University
Ebony Coletu, Pennsylvania State University
David Shorter, UCLA
Naoko Shibusawa, Brown University
Jean M. O'Brien, University of Minnesota
Cheryl Naruse, University of Dayton
Andrea Hairston, Smith College
Yumna Siddiqi, Middlebury College
Adam Miyashiro, Stockton University
Kevin P. Murphy, University of Minnesota
Timothy J. Reiss, Professor Emeritus, New York University
Darwin Tsen, Penn State
Ian Balfour, York University
Bill V. Mullen Purdue University
Salah D. Hassan, Michigan State University
Laura Lyons, University of Hawai'i
Dr. Aaron Hostetter, Rutgers University-Camden
Aren Aizura, University of Minnesota
Yogita Goyal, UCLA
Sony Coranez Bolton, Middlebury College
Maria Bates, Pierce College
Anthony Alessandrini, City University of New York
Jacqueline Shea Murphy, UC Riverside, Associate Professor
Jesse Knutson University of Hawaii, Mānoa
Lisa Kahaleole Hall, Wells College
Jih-Fei Cheng, Assistant Professor of Feminist, Gender, and Sexuality Studies at Scripps College
Hassan Melehy, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Shanté Paradigm Smalls, PhD, St. John's University
Karma R. Chavez, Mexican American and Latina/o Studies, University of Texas at Austin
Kevin Black, Boston University
Mikaila Mariel Lemonik Arthur, Rhode Island College
Cynthia Wu, SUNY at Buffalo
Alex Lubin, University of New Mexico
Emily Raymundo '10, Ph.D. Candidate, University of Southern California
Laila Farah, DePaul University
Alvin L.J. Kim, UPenn
Naomi Schiler, Brooklyn College, CUNY
Lyndsie Schultz, Washington University in St. Louis
Mimi Thi Nguyen, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Rei Terada, Professor of Comparative Literature, UC Irvine
Rebecca E Karl, NYU, History
Jigna Desai, Univ. of Minnesota
Lara Langer Cohen, Swarthmore College
Greta LaFleur, Yale University
J. Kehaulani Kauanui, Wesleyan University
Cathy Arellano, American River College
Cristina Bacchilega, University of Hawai'i
Lucas Klein, University of Hong Kong (Middlebury graduate, class of 2000)
Lisa Moore, St. Olaf College
Craig Willse, George Mason University
Scott Anderson St. Olaf College
Monica Zikpi, University of Oregon
John David Zuern, University of Hawaiʻi at Mānoa
Tom Sarmiento, Kansas State University
Sunaina Maira, UC Davis
Mari Yoshihara, University of Hawaii
Paul Lyons, University of hawaii
Rabab Abdulhadi, San Francisco State University
Roy Perez, Willamette University
Kimberly Drake, Scripps College
Rachel Cloud
Dr. Stephanie Han Hawaii Pacific University
Hosam Aboul-Ela, University of Houston
S. Shankar, University of Hawai‘i
Dr. Rashmi Varma, University of Warwick, UK
Zach Schwartz-Weinstein, Independent Scholar.
S. Heijin Lee, New York University
Elaine Freedgood, NYU
Susana Loza, Hampshire College
Fabio Lanza, university of Arizona
Rebecca Hill, Kennesaw State University
Shamita Das Dasgupta, Rtd. NYU Law School.
Lisa Makman, University of Michigan
Naomi Paik, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign
Poulomi Saha, UC-Berkeley
Oscar V. Campomanes, Ateneo de Manila, Philippines
Bret Benjamin, Associate Professor, University at Albany SUNY
David Zellmer, LMSW, University of Michigan
Timothy Brennan, University of Minnesota
Moustafa Bayoumi, CUNY Brooklyn College
Dawn Kaczmar, PhD Candidate in English at University of Michigan
Andrew Urban, Rutgers University
Masumi Hayashi-Smith, Holy Names University
Kristina Johansson
Peggy Luhrs, Institute for Social Ecology
Jordan Alexander Stein, Fordham University
Anson Koch-Rein, Grinnell College
Sarah Melton, Boston College
Willa Cowan-Essig, SUNY
Barbara Ofosu-Somuah
Mazin Qumsiyeh, Professor (previously Yale, now Bethlehem)
Nalini Iyer, Seattle University
Miranda Joseph, University of Arizona
Andrew Paul Gutierrez, Emeritus Professor, UC Berkeley
Dr. Hatem Bazian, UC Berkeley
John Rieder, University of Hawaii at Manoa
100. Anu Biswas, Middlebury College class of 2016
101. Monisha Das Gupta, University of Hawaii at Manoa
102. Todd Essig, Ph.D., William Alanson White Institute
103. S. Charusheela, University of Washington, Bothell
104. Steven Salaita, American University of Beirut
105. Betty Joseph, Rice University
106. Barbara Foley, Rutgers University-Newark
107. Anushiya Ramaswamy, Southern Illinois University Edwardsville
108. Piya Chatterjee, Scripps College
109. Leora Mosman, Student - Saint Mary's College of California
110. Tamara Vatnick, Middlebury College '07
111. Sonora Jha, Seattle University
112. Ketu H Katrak University of California, Irvine
113. Bonnie Zare, University of Wyoming
114. Ioana Luca, NTNU
115. Sarita See, U of California Riverside
116. Dr. Iokepa Casumbal-Salazar, UCLA
117. Richard Cullen Rath, University of Hawaiʿi at Mānoa
118. Jordy Rosenberg University of Massachusetts
119. Yi-Chun Tricia Lin, Southern Connecticut State University
120. P J Thomas , S B College , M G University, Kerala India
121. Heidi Howkins Lockwood, Yale PhD '09, SCSU faculty
122. Lisa King, University of Tennessee
123. Colin Dayan, Vanderbilt University
124. Kate Beutner, U of Hawaii
125. Hayle Meyerhoff, Haverford College
126. Julia Pike, Amherst College
127. Kelley Baumann, Amherst College
128. Bobby Shogren, Amherst College
129. Elizabeth Dunn, Middlebury College
130. Esperanza Chairez, Amherst College
131. Bryan Doniger, Amherst College
132. Phoebe Chatfield, Yale University
133. Rachel Cohen, Amherst College
134. Peggy K. Takahashi, University of San Francisco
135. Estelle Lopez, Southern Connecticut State University
136. Charlotte Rosen, Northwestern University
137. Anthony Granite, NMSU
138. Molly Stuart, San Francisco State University
139. Kevin Walters
140. Michael Hisry, Borough of Manhattan Community College
141. Martin Man, Yale University
142. Emma Broder, Wesleyan University
143. Ann Heppermann, Sarah Lawrence College
144. Andrew Drinkwater, Amherst College
145. Karla Lorena Huaman Ruiz, St. Olaf College.
146. Margot Friedman, Skidmore College
147. Sarah Kate Murphy, Appalachian State University
148. Candace Fujikane, U of Hawai‘i
149. Samuel Dewees, Wesleyan University
150. Federico Sor, NYU Shanghai
151. MJ Engel, Columbia University
152. Graham Cairns, Columbia University
153. Lisa Henderson, University of Massachusetts Amherst
154. Kevin Gannon, Grand View University
155. Monica Barron, Truman State U
156. Christine Harker, Truman State U
157. Hannah Goodwin, UC Santa Barbara
158. Alice Jardine, Harvard U
159. Kenna Neitch, Texas Tech University
160. Fawzia Afzal-Khan, Montclair State University
161. Luis A. Ledesma, Contra Costa College
162. Jackie Weinstock, University of Vermont
163. Lauren Berlant, University of Chicago
164. Suzanna Walters, Northeastern University
165. Nancy Daley-Moore, Truman State University
166. Kanika Batra, Texas Tech University
167. McKenzie Campbell, Eastern Michigan University
168. Tina Escaja, University of Vermont
169. Dan DiPiero, Ohio State University
170. Carrie Baker, Smith College
171. Jane Chin Davidson, California State U of San Bernardino
172. Israel Cantu Silva, Professor, Autonomous University of Nuevo Leon, Mexico
173. Kavita Daiya, George Washington University
174. Serena Parekh, Northeastern University
175. Maree ReMalia, Middlebury College
176. Lindsay London, RN, UVM
177. Lauren Stuart Muller, City College of San Francisco (Middlebury MA 87)
Middlebury Alumni and Students, and beyond:
Julianna Tschirhart, Middlebury College '11
Nicholas Hodder-Hastorf, Middlebury College Alum
Nathaniel W. Kerr, Middlebury College 2011
Sandra Luo, Middlebury College '18
Lucy Grinnan, Middlebury Class of 2019.5
Alex Macmillan, Middlebury Class of 2015
Ujjayan Siddharth, Middlebury College
Anna Cerf, Middlebury College '18
Meridith Carroll, Middlebury College '15
David Chen, Middlebury '14
Marissa Perez, Middlebury College class of 2016
Pete Kerby-Miller, Middlebury College
Nell Sather, Middlebury College
Fiona Mohamed, Middlebury College
Karl Lin, Middlebury College
Tiffany Martinez, Middlebury college
Michelle Kim, Middlebury College
Stella Boye-Doe, Middlebury College
Weston Uram, Middlebury
Clara Sternberg, Middlebury College
Moss Turpan, Middlebury College
Jane Ames, Middlebury College
Austin Kahn, Middlebury College
Isabelle Shallcross, Middlebury College
Jackson Frons, Middlebury College '16
Maya Goldberg-Safir, Middlebury College alum '12.5
Samantha Kaufman, Middlebury College
Toren Hardee, Middlebury Class of 2011
Angeline Rodriguez, Middlebury College
Alexandria Jackman, Middlebury ' 14
Maya Doig-Acuna, Middlebury College '16.5
Aashna Aggarwal, Middlebury College '16
Nic Valenti, Middlebury College
Patrick McElravey, Middlebury College
Rebecca Coates-Finke, Middlebury College alum
Jiya Pandya, UWC and Middlebury College
Nick Delehanty, Middlebury College
Klaudia Wojciechowska, Middlebury College
E. Emmons Hahn, Middlebury College ('10) and Cornell University ('14)
Sydney Shuster, Middlebury College
Emily Rosenkrantz, Middlebury College
Barrett Smith, Middlebury College Class of 2013
Taylor Cook, Middlebury College
Juliette Gobin Middlebury College '16
Katie Corrigan, Middlebury College
Hannah Blair, Middlebury College '17
Molly McShane
Samantha Lamont, Middlebury College class of '17
Erin Reid, Middlebury College '17
James Scott, Middlebury ‘19
Toni Cross, Middlebury College
Kate McCreary, Middlebury College
Elizabeth Lee, Middlebury College '17
Taite Shomo, Middlebury College
Feliz Baca, Middlebury College '14, University of Arizona
Lucia Christensen, Middlebury 2016
Zachary Lounsbury, Middlebury College '16
Anahi Naranjo, Middlebury College
Jake Guth, Middlebury College '19
Sarah Thomas, Class of '14
Josh Brosnan
Gaby Giangola, Wesleyan University
Ameya Biradavolu, Middlebury College '16
Lily Heinemann, Temple University
Katie Preston Middlebury College
Gabriella Reynoso, Columbia University
Tessa Peierls, Amherst College
Clara Beccaro, Columbia University
Alexis De La Rosa, Middlebury College
Dale Aram Tassbihi, University of Maryland, College Park
Dylan Otterbein, Middlebury '15.5
Hannah Phelps, Middlebury College
Anna Paritsky, Middlebury College
James Webster, Stanford University '73
Cecilia NÃoñez, Universidad de Buenos Aires
Aaliyah Triumph, Columbia University
Tim Hansen, Middlebury College
Jack Tipper, Middlebury College
Julia Deng, Brown University
Pat Burke, Retired Military
Lee Schlenker (Middlebury '16)
Bri Aine, Claremont Colleges
Chris Feeney, Middlebury College
Gabe Weisbuch, Middlebury College class of 2018
Sparkle Joyner- Middlebury '12
Kate Murray, Middlebury College '15
Toni Cuevas, Middlebury College
Pedro Bitar
Hannah Muellerleile, Reed College
Adina Marx-ARpadi, Middlebury College '13.5
Jada Young, Columbia University
Milo Levine, Yale University
Kate McCreary, Middlebury College '15
Joshua Claxton, Middlebury College
Crystal Farkaschek, Middlebury College
Samuel Boudreau, Middlebury College
Sam Koplinka-Loehr, Middlebury College '13
Firas Nasr, Middlebury College, '15
Parker Ziegler, Middlebury College
100. Abigail Escobar, Middlebury College '20
101. Diana Luna, Middlebury College class of 2016
102. Andrew Bridgers, Middlebury College
103. Odessa Cross, University of California Santa Cruz
104. Addis Fouche-Channer, Middlebury College
105. Chelsea Melone, Middlebury College
106. Shahruz Ghaemi, Amherst College '19
107. Krysta Wetzel, St. Olaf College
108. Kai Wiggins, Middlebury College '16.5
109. Tia Schaffer, St. Olaf College
110. Kylee Novak, St. Olaf College
111. Rachel Hemond, student at Middlebury College
112. Margaret Lindon, Middlebury College class of 2016
113. Danielle Davis, St. Olaf College
114. Ashley Smith, St. Olaf
115. Ladji Mouflet, Middlebury College
116. Zachary Lounsbury, Middlebury College Class of 2016
117. John Percival, St. Olaf College
118. Eliza Klein, Williams College
119. James Moser, Middlebury College class of 2016.5
120. Rachel Bradshaw, Linfield College
121. Canary Ly, Middlebury College
122. Jessica Joslin, University of Michigan
123. Robin Murray, Circle in the Square Theatre School
124. Addie Mahdavi, Middlebury College Student
125. Alyssa Brown, Middlebury College
126. Israel A Mora, Middlebury College
127. Nitya Mankad, Middlebury College
128. Natalie Jamerson, Whitman College
129. Leena Chawla, Middlebury College
130. Kolbe Franklin '08, University at Albany-SUNY
131. Danielle Surrette Middlebury College
132. Sarah Goodwin, Skidmore College
133. Margaret Rose-McCandlish, Middlebury College 17.5
134. Bess Hepner, Smith College alumni
135. Ana Vega, University of Delaware
136. Rebecca Duras, Middlebury College
137. Ben Simonds-Malamud, Northeastern University
138. Tom Dobrow, Middlebury College class of 2016
139. Zoe Ravina, Emory University
140. Tiff Chang, ex-student at Middlebury College
141. Morgan Mahdavi, Kalamazoo College
142. Rui Tai Hu, Middlebury College '16
143. Ixchel LÃ3pez, Wellesley College
144. Sean Edenson, Temple University
145. Jessica Masinter, Middlebury Student
146. Natalie Brottman, St. Olaf College
147. Emily Johnston, Wellesley College
148. Jasmine Ross, Middlebury College Class of 2016
149. Dylan Walker, St. Olaf College '18
150. Monica Tamayo, California State University Los Angeles
151. Stephen Chen, Middlebury College
152. Becca Holdhusen, Middlebury College
153. Javier Miranda, Iowa State University
154. Alexis Rufi, St. Olaf College
155. Jocelyn Tenorio, Middlebury College '19
156. Ellie Simon, Middlebury College
157. John Cheesman, Middlebury '16
158. Caley Henderson, Middlebury College
159. Jonathan O'Dell, Middlebury College
160. Alaire Hughey, Linfield College
161. Lynn Travnikova, Middlebury College
162. Juan Andrade-Vera, Middlebury College '19
163. Hannah Rae Murphy, Middlebury College '14.5
164. Erin Davis, Weybridge, VT
165. Hannah Helmey, Emory University
166. Marbella Cervantes- UIC
167. Elizabeth Aguilar, University of Central Florida
168. Tara Maloney, St. Olaf College
169. Amber Scott, Claremont McKenna College
170. Alexander Bacchus, Middlebury College
171. Thea Lund, St. Olaf College
172. Phoebe Gunther-Mohr, University of Vermont
173. Emmanuel Choi, Berklee College of Music
174. Emmet Mahdavi, Bard College
175. Erika Lin, University of California Santa Cruz
176. Anwyn Darrow, University of Vermont
177. Shaheen Bharwani, Middlebury College
178. Sophie Swallow, Middlebury College
179. Giannina Gaspero-Beckstrom, UVM
180. Molly Rose-Williams, Middlebury College
181. Yael Platt, Brandeis University
182. Georgiann Steely, St. Olaf College
183. Aoife Duna, Middlebury College
184. Ruby Edlin, Middlebury College
185. Ahmara Smith, Savannah college of art and design
186. Kyle J. Wright, Middlebury College '19
187. Kaitlyn Francis, Middlebury College
188. Arleigh Truesdale, St. Olaf College
189. Charlotte Cahillane, Middlebury College
190. Vang Thao, St Olaf College
191. Lilia Escobar, St. Olaf College
192. Graham Glennon, St. Olaf College
193. Alexis Finemyn
194. Rika Kimonaka, Northeastern University
195. Shannia Fu, Middlebury College
196. Greyson Gove, Pomona College
197. Rick Hong Manayan, Wesleyan University
198. Kayla Carlson, St. Olaf College
199. Ján Tompkins, Anglo-American University, Prague
200. Catherine Stookey, St. Olaf College
201. Maya Peers Nitzberg, Middlebury College '16.5
202. Nina Sweeney, Middlebury College
203. Brenda Quintanilla, Loyola Marymount University '19
204. Katherine Novey, Middlebury College, '20
205. Magen Eissenstat (Rice University '17)
206. Alex Brockelman, Middlebury College '18
207. Luke Rein, College of Charleston
208. Emma Walker, Middlebury College '18
209. Katie Willis, Middlebury College '12
210. Rose Hoffman, Bennington College '20
211. Carley Tsiames, Amherst College
212. Hannah Habermann, Middlebury '18
213. Genevieve Darling, Hamilton College '18
214. Gillian Durkee, Middlebury College '11.5
215. Lily Oyler, Middlebury College alum ('15.5)
216. Joanna Georgakas, Middlebury College '14
217. Maddie Dai, Middlebury College '14
218. Avery Travis, Middlebury College '18
219. Dokter Snus, Middlebury College '13
220. Hana Gebremariam, Middlebury College '17
221. Sandra Markowitz, Middlebury College '15.5
222. Paige Guarino, Middlebury '18.5
223. Kim Ammons, Middlebury College '11
224. Thomas Brummett Cranbrook Acadamy of Art MFA 1983
225. Surya Tubach, Middlebury College
226. Devon Tomasi, Middlebury College '17
227. Michael Wegter, St. Olaf college '18
228. Caroline Carty, Carleton College '20
229. Audrey Tolbert, Middlebury College '13
230. Morgan Gorst, University of Nevada, Las Vegas
231. Samantha Gaines, Middlebury College
232. Prasanna Vankina, Middlebury College '18
233. Jason Milan
234. Gabriel Coleman, St. Olaf College '17
235. Zach Howe, Middlebury College '11
236. Kiana Cateriano, Middlebury College class of 2015.5
237. Amity Calvin, Middlebury College '16
238. Sofi Hecht, Middlebury College '18
239. Cora Kircher, Middlebury College class of 2020
240. Therese Ton, Swarthmore College '19
241. Curtis Mraz, University of Puget Sound '18
242. Jeremy Alben, Middlebury College '18
243. Rebecca Berry, Middlebury College, '16.5
244. James Kipp, Middlebury College
245. Sara Swett Middlebury College 2017
246. Alexandra Bertagnolli King, Middlebury College class of 2010
247. Lewis Nottonson, Middlebury College '19
248. Diana Luna, Middlebury College '16
249. Jan Shireman, parent of Alumni
250. Emily Cipriani Middlebury College '19.5
251. Bianca Howell, Yale University
252. Sasha Rivera, Middlebury '12
253. Sumner Pitt, Saint Olaf College '19
254. Shan Zeng, Middlebury College '19
255. Emily Newman, St. Olaf College '17
256. Sam Catlin, The University of Chicago, Middlebury College '14.5
257. Sabrina Munsterteiger, University of Minnesota
258. Victoria Burns, University of Iowa
259. Cara Levine, Middlebury College '20
260. Emma Webster, Bard College '17
261. Octavio Hingle-Webster, Middlebury Class of '17
262. Ann Surber, Wesleyan University
263. James Wheeler, St. Olaf College
264. Angie Bush, University of Utah '09
265. Alexandra Griffin, Williams College '19
266. Naomi Chalk, St. Olaf College '18
267. Kjersti Anderson, St. Olaf College '17
268. Adilene Alvarado Saint Mary's College of California
269. James Scott, Middlebury College '19
270. Liam Hannan, St Olaf College '18
271. James Scott, Middlebury College '19
272. Maree ReMalia, Middlebury College
273. Silvia Cantu Bautista, Middlebury College '20
274. Irene Henry, St. Olaf College
275. Lucy Jermyn, Massachusetts College of Art and Design
276. Sam Snyder, Middlebury College '17
277. Sharai Lewis-Gruss, Middlebury College '07
278. Kristina Butler, St. Olaf College '17
279. Pearl McAndrews, St. Olaf College
280. Terri Strassburger, Syracuse U
281. Jared Smith, Middlebury College '13
282. Phoebe Martel
283. Justin Martinez, St. Olaf College '20
284. Jackie Park
285. Lucy Nussbaum, Middlebury College '19
286. Fraser Query
287. Zubair Khan, UMD '19
288. Emma Urbaska, University of Vermont '21
289. Tarik Shahzad, Middlebury College Class of '20
290. Kjersa Anderson, St. Olaf College '18
291. Jenna Haywood, University of California Santa Cruz
292. Maggy Mulhern, Middlebury College '17
293. Allegra Molkenthin, Middlebury College
294. Julie White, Prescott College '16
295. Olivia Collens, Middlebury College '18
296. Nathan Rose, Middlebury College '18.5
297. Allie Aiello, Middlebury College '17
298. Lucy Nussbaum, Middlebury College '19
299. Amitai Ben-Abba, Middlebury College '15
300. Julia Beck, Middlebury College
301. Lorena Neira, Middlebury College '17
302. Sarah Willstein, St. Olaf College '19
303. Denise Hingle, parent of Middlebury Student
304. Demetrius Brown, St. Olaf
305. Camille Ross-Williams, Concordia University '20
306. Mercy Garriga, St Olaf College, '18
307. Kashka Kril-Atkins, University of Toronto
308. Kathleen Wilson, Middlebury College '18.5
309. Emily Cox, Middlebury College '17
310. Georgia Grace Edwards, Middlebury College '18
311. Grace Murtha-Paradis
312. Dillon Cathro, St. Olaf College
313. Jessica Dils, Parent, Middlebury College
314. Isabela Torres, Amherst College '19
315. Brittany Kembel, St. Olaf College, ‘16
316. Efren Ramirez Jr., VP of CUBe, St. Olaf '18
317. Josh Schneider, Co-Director, Cascadia Action Network
318. Asha Rao, Co-Director, Cascadia Action Network
319. Jennifer Crandall, Middlebury College
320. Alyne Goncalves, Middlebury College
321. Paola Reyes, Escuela Profesional de Danza de Mazatlán
322. Emily Butka, St. Olaf College
(05/04/17 1:36am)
Racial and economic oppressions recently have been thrown at each other in Trump era politics as if one contradicts the other. In part, the white poor have started claiming oppression as their own, claiming that policies like affirmative action or individual prejudices amount to “reverse racism” (i.e. racism against white people). It is pretty common knowledge among college-educated liberals that “reverse racism” cannot happen; in other words systemic racism is different from an individual act of bigotry. Systemic racism refers to a system that advantages certain races over others and in which people of certain races are more likely to hold institutional power. Bigotry is the individual prejudice one has for a group of people.
There is truth, however, to the increasing claims of oppression of the white poor — not for their race but in other ways. Interestingly, over the past two decades, the white poor are the only demographic in the United States whose health outcomes have declined — the white poor are now living shorter, less healthy lives than they were at the turn of the century. They are also a demographic for whom wages have either stagnated or dropped. In many ways, things are not going well for the white poor, yet many liberals will remind them that they still hold “white privilege.” In some ways, this is true. In others, it is not. It depends on what you mean by the vague, and all-encompassing phrase.
The white poor have not suffered slavery, racial segregation, racial profiling, cultural exploitation or appropriation. At the same time, however, they are in many ways not a part of white normativity. Take, for example, the derogatory term “white trash.” The term itself implies something along the lines of white, but not as good, white but less than white — white but poor.
Just like all other relations to power, whiteness is inseparable from other identities white people hold, be that gender, sexuality, or class. This country is run by white people, with their access to education, their political connections, their historical power in this country, their wealth. But many of these advantages afforded to white people are classed advantages. It is a very different position in society to be white and born to two professional parents in a wealthy town just outside of Boston than it is to be white in rural Missouri and struggling to put food on the table or steadily losing jobs to a globalized market.
Not all white people are equally powerful or fit into an imagined white middle-class mold. Returning to the example of “white trash,” it is worth exploring who is considered white trash among the white poor. What makes the distinction between being “white trash” or finding oneself in “genteel poverty”? Generally, the answer is one’s adherence (or lack thereof) to normative white middle-class values, mannerisms, and definitions of respectability. Many of the white poor are othered by white normativity — because they do not succumb to white respectability politics or because they are too poor to have access to the systems that advantage white people.
We must apply intersectional perspectives in a way that allows for nuances even among the generally powerful group in this country. To say that the white poor have white privilege is true; it also dismisses the fact that many of the systems that advantage people are simultaneously racial and contingent on class. It would be more accurate, then, to say that the white poor have some white privilege. The white poor are advantaged by the purely racial mechanisms of oppression, but not the the ones tied up in wealth.
Edward O’Brien ’17 writes about the intersections of poverty and race.
(05/04/17 1:32am)
The Brentano String Quartet performed Johann Sebastian Bach’s “The Art of Fugue” on Saturday, April 29, in Robison Hall as the first part of the Middlebury Bach Festival, which also included a performance of Handel’s Esther. The Art of Fugue commands its place in the repertoire of classical music as the fullest existing exploration of contrapuntal technique, or counterpoint. This reputation can sometimes lead to dry performances that sound like a manual read aloud.
Thankfully, the Brentano String Quartet’s interpretation and performance style made for an interesting evening that reinvented this piece for the audience.
At every possible moment, the quartet educated the audience on the meaning of counterpoint and how the musical concept relates to other parts of our lives. At its most basic, counterpoint, or contrapuntal technique, is the combination of multiple subjects in a musical work in a rhythmically and harmonically pleasing way. A piece using the strict rules of counterpoint is sometimes called a fugue, but there exist many pieces that use counterpoint to some extent and they have many different names.
The overall aim of using these rules is to create a piece of music that combines different melodies in creative ways to create something greater than any of them alone. Most music uses two-voice counterpoint, or homophony, in which one voice takes the melody and the other accompanies it. The accompaniment can switch voices, but is always in a subservient position. In strict counterpoint, the voices are usually equal to each other for extended periods of time, sometimes sharing prominent positions but usually working with each other. Nearly all of Bach’s music employs counterpoint to some extent, but in “The Art of Fugue” he attempts (and succeeds in) documenting the possibilities that strict counterpoint allows.
The quartet, during breaks from the music, included readings from various literary works that used contrapuntal imagery to illustrate their ideas. These readings were diverse and even included a short play that showed in words what counterpoint means.
In the play, the first violinist began speaking about “The Art of Fugue” and its history. Then, the second violinist spoke about a contrary reading of the history of the work. After that, the first violinist spoke again with new information, but he spoke over the second violinist. Then, after the first violinist stopped speaking, the cellist spoke up with a third opinion about Bach’s work.
The players traded these words amongst themselves for some time, speaking over each other, to show the audience what counterpoint would look like if notes were substituted for words.
In addition to the play, which took place just before intermission, the lights dimmed every two or three pieces and the loudspeakers interjected with literary entries from Carroll to Sagan. This part of the performance gave the entire evening a feeling that it was about more than the music, that these pieces had an effect on more than just the world of music, but on everything.
Much of the music itself is similar in length to the modern songs we hear every day, but Bach’s pieces have a degree of complexity not seen elsewhere in the classical repertoire. The entire catalogue consists of 14 fugues and four canons increasing in contrapuntal complexity from beginning to end.
These fugues consist of subjects and countersubjects, sometimes called answers. Whenever the subject did not repeat in one of the voices in its entirety, that section constituted an episode in the fugue, meant to lengthen the piece and avoid too much repetition. The fugues included contributions from all the players in equal parts.
The original “Art of Fugue “did not include instrumentation markings, meaning that it can be played equally well by string quartet, harpsichord, organ, piano and my favorite, the saxophone quartet. The canons, on the other hand, included only two of the players for the entire piece. They traded musical material between each other in a lighter, less strictly contrapuntal way than in the fugues. Between the canons and the readings, there were plenty of opportunities to relax from trying to hear the interplay between the themes in the fugues.
Beyond the interesting music, the Brentano String Quartet provided an excellent and engaging concert in which they showed their skill and shared their extra-musical knowledge of the piece and those like it.
(05/04/17 1:29am)
Last Wednesday, Russian television journalist Tikhon Dzyadko warned the Middlebury community about the similarities between Donald Trump’s behavior toward the American media and Vladimir Putin’s restriction of the press in Russia in his lecture, “The State of Press Freedom in Russia: What Trump Could (and Should Not) Learn from Vladimir Putin.” He drew attention to the parallels between the Kremlin’s restriction of the press and Trump’s actions in his first hundred days as president.
Dzyadko argued that the Kremlin uses economic means to control the few independent news organizations that still exist in Russia. The government defames news outlets so that they lose their audiences and can no longer support themselves.
“There’s no need to harass or kill journalists when you can put pressure on the media in economic ways,” Dzyadko said.
Dzyadko himself used to work for Russia’s only independent news station, Dozhd. Between April 2010 and January 2015, Dozhd would broadcast programming including live interviews with government officials and coverage of protests to large online and television audiences.
“At some point, it became too much for [the] Kremlin,” Dzyadko said.
After the invasion of the Ukraine (Dzyadko mentioned that the Russian media are not allowed to use the term “annexation,” and must refer to Crimea “becoming part of the country”), the Russian government decided to shut Dozhd down.
When Dozhd aired a poll questioning the Soviet Union’s decision to defend Leningrad during World War II instead of surrendering the city to the invading Nazis to save hundreds of thousands of lives, the Russian government accused Dozed of being unpatriotic.
Dzyadko recalled “there was a poll for the audience which they used to say that journalists of Dozhd did not respect what our grandmothers and grandfathers did during the war. They started a campaign saying that people from Dozhd are neo-Nazis.”
The government’s defamation all but bankrupted Dozhd.
Dzadko said, “At the end, our partners from cable and satellite companies got calls from the Kremlin and they told us that they were offended so much by our poll that they had to cut their contracts with us, and that’s how Dozhd lost its audience, and that’s how Dozhd lost the main part of its advertisers. Some of them left because our audience had collapsed, and some left because they were worried about doing business with us.”
Dozhd still creates content, but according to Dzyadko, no one is seeing it. There are only several independent news organizations left in Russia, and the majority of journalists are employed by the state. Dzyadko argued that journalists are willing to give up writing about sensitive topics, telling the truth of what is happening and investigating the government because they are afraid for their financial security.
“These people, especially young journalists, they are afraid of making people from the government mad,” Dzyadko said. “And they have their apartments to rent, they have their kids to feed, they have their plans to go on vacations. So they just compromise. They compromise once, and then again, and again and again, and after they compromise on a little, the next time they are ready to compromise on a thing which is bigger.”
Now that Donald Trump is the president, Dzyadko wants American journalists to be wary of tactics that could lead them to make the same mistakes that Russian journalists made in the first term of Putin’s presidency.
“During the first months of his presidency, we saw several attempts coming from Donald Trump and coming from his administration to somehow use Putin’s manners and his politics in the US,” Dzyadko said.
Dzyadko noted two examples of American journalists’ responses to Trump. He criticized television executives and anchors for attending an off-the-record meeting at Trump Tower where Trump reportedly scolded and insulted them, and he praised New York Times journalists for declining to attend a similar meeting. Trump eventually agreed to meet with staff of the New York Times on the record, and nothing bad happened.
“Journalists of New York Times showed that if they don’t compromise in order to get in the future some information from the sources and in order to not get bad relations with the White House, the world will not collapse, and the government will find a way,” Dzyadko said.
“Journalists must work for their audience and not for the government,” Dzyadko continued.
Dzyadko also observed that the way Trump is fighting with CNN and other television stations looks exactly like the way Putin fought with a television station which he eventually took under state control in 2001.
Dzyadko added that the Russian government has enacted ridiculously specific anti-terrorism laws that it uses to penalize news organizations, and that Russian courts almost always rule in favor of government officials over journalists.
“If you are reporting on the Islamic State, you have to mention that this organization is forbidden in Russia. If you forget these four words, you can be shut down because of anti-terrorism policy,” Dzyadko said.
Finally, Dzyadko cautioned Americans against the type of passivity he sees among the majority of Russians. He believes they are content getting their information from the state media because they like what they are being told. “If you hear every day that everything’s fine, you’re fine,” he reasoned.
Instead of becoming complacent, Dzyadko insisted that the people of the United States must reject so-called alternative facts. “Your hair is black,” he said to a student attending the lecture. “If I say it’s blonde, that wouldn’t be an alternative fact, that would be a lie.”
(04/27/17 3:37am)
The Middlebury team headed to Middletown, Conn., for their third West NESCAC series against the Wesleyan Cardinals this past weekend. After taking the previous series from Hamilton, the Panthers were riding into Middletown with a four-game win streak and a chance to keep it going.
On Friday, April 21, Allison Quigley ’18 started on the bump for Middlebury. Quigley, who would throw her 10th complete game of the season, is one of Middlebury’s most reliable pitchers, sitting at an 8-5 record.
The Panthers took the lead in the top of the first when Olivia Bravo ’20 tripled to the gap in right-center. Bravo, who is hitting an impressive .379 with 15 RBI’s, scored on a single from fellow first-year Melanie Mandell ’20. Although Wesleyan would score in the bottom of the inning to tie the game at 1-1, it would be their only run of the game.
Quigley got into a jam in the bottom of the third when the bases were loaded with one out. But she quickly worked herself out of trouble with a fielder’s choice and a groundout to end the inning, setting the stage for the Panthers to take the lead in the fourth.
Carrying that momentum, Middlebury was able to score two runs. Hye Jin-Kim ’17 plated Quigley and Sarah Freyre ’17 after a single to right field that extended their lead to 3-1.
In the top of the sixth, the guests added onto their lead when Quigley doubled to center and scored on a Freyre double to right. Leading 4-1, both Freyre and Mandell scored on an error to give the visitors a 6-1 advantage. Kim reached first following these two runs and later scored on a groundout by Siobhan O’Sullivan ’17. Quigley would hold the Cardinals scoreless in the seventh for her ninth win of the season.
Freye, a team captain, earned NESCAC Player of the Week hitting .522, recording her 100th career hit in a 5-1-1 week for the Panthers. She belted six doubles to go along with a home run, eight RBI’s and nine runs scored.
Due to poor weather conditions, Saturday’s double-header was moved to Sunday, April 23, and Wesleyan proved harder to put away this time around. In the first inning, the Cardinals got on the board with an RBI double to left field and almost scored again, but Ali Della Volpe ’18 had other plans. Wesleyan’s Julie McDonald hit a fly ball to left field with the bases loaded; Della Volpe, however, caught the ball for the second out and fired a laser to Liza Tarr ’19 gunning down the runner trying to tag up for the third out of the inning.
“In my head this was just another routine play,” Della Volpe said. “I knew ahead of time that if the ball came my way, it was going home. I stayed calm and was prepared to do what I had to do to get the out.”
The hosts tacked on two runs in the bottom of the third inning, however, to give them a 3-0 advantage. Middlebury’s offense, though slow to get started, finally picked up at the top of the fifth.
Mandell scored on a double by Marybeth Stone ’20 cutting the lead to 3-1. Freye joined Stone on base and both scored on a double from Gardner tying the game 3-3. The score remained that way until the top of the eighth inning when O’Sullivan hit a solo homerun to deep center field, giving the Panthers a 4-3 edge.
The hosts answered back in the bottom of the inning, plating one run and tying the game. The Cardinals almost won in the eighth, but O’Sullivan threw out Estella Zeng at the plate trying to score and sent the game into the ninth. Middlebury was unable to score in the ninth, however, and with two outs in the bottom of the stanza, Wesleyan’s Julie McDonald singled to right to end the game.
“As a team, we knew that we had played strong defense and exploded on offensive,” Kim reflected. “But honestly, we were just missing some timely hits.”
Irene Margiotta ’19 tossed the first five innings, followed by Quigley who recorded the loss. Quigley, however, struck out a pair making her the fifth pitcher in softball history to record 200 career strikeouts — she sits at 201.
“This season is different from others because we have a small team and only two pitchers,” Gardner said. “We rely on our pitchers every game and [Quigley] is always there ready to pitch when we need her — so is [Margiotta]. Both of them are extremely valuable to our team and are great team players, as they are always willing to step on the mound when we need them.”
In the nightcap, Middlebury jumped on Wesleyan early, scoring twice in the first inning. Freye reached first and later scored on O’Sullivan’s double in the gap; Gardner followed right behind with a double of her own giving the Panthers a 2-0 lead. At the top of the third, Freye drove in two runs with a double to center and then scored on a base hit by O’Sullivan. With a 5-0 advantage, Middlebury only gave up one run in the fourth. Margiotta pitched another complete game to earn the 5-1 win for Middlebury giving up only one run on three hits.
The Panthers return home for their final NESCAC series against Williams College on April 28 and 29.
“The mentality really is one game at a time,” Kim said. “But it’d be really run to sweep Williams. Moving forward? ‘Work hard and get better everyday,’ in the words of our captain.”
(04/27/17 1:47am)
On April 20, Middlebury College’s initiative Oratory Now hosted the second revival of the Parker-Merrill Speech Competition. The event, originally established in 1825, took a 50-year hiatus before being reintroduced last year. This year, the competition’s topic was “What if instead…we try this?”
The six finalists were Anna Dennis ’17.5, Griffin Price ’20, Kyle Meredith ’19, Lynn Travnikova ’20, Sarah Howard ’19 and Tabitha Mueller ’18. Each delivered a 6-minute speech that was judged by three faculty judges: Reginald L. Cook Professor of American Literature Brett Millier, Assistant Professor of Dance Christal Brown and Knox Professor of International Studies Jeff Cason.
The contestants were judged on three categories: persuasiveness of idea, persuasiveness of argument and persuasiveness of delivery.
According to the competition’s organizer, Visiting Assistant Professor of Theater Dana Yeaton, it was important that more value be placed on the content of the speech. “We don’t want you to just dazzle us with your footwork; we want you to say something,” he said.
The finalist’s arguments breached a wide range of topics. Meredith spoke of how “people experience the world in extremely different ways that all feel undeniably real,” which leads to increased negativity and dogmatism. Mueller described the dangers and hurt caused by people’s biases and assumptions of others. Price spoke about the country’s relationship with terrorism and media coverage.
Travnikova, who tied for second and won a $250 prize, argued for the benefits of being conscious consumers. Howard, who also tied for second, discussed the importance of being present in one’s day-to-day life.
Dennis, the competition’s champion and recipient of $500, spoke about “the role of emotional intelligence and vulnerability on campus.” Dennis chose this topic because of the problems she sees with interpersonal communication, believing that “vulnerability is actually the source of our power; the emotions and experiences that are revealed when people are vulnerable with one another are what unite us.”
In order to be a successful speaker, Yeaton believes that one must consider the audience.
“A successful speechmaker grabs an audience and never lets go. Which is almost impossibly difficult, and can only happen if the speech was conceived with that audience in mind. Great speechmakers are more like singer-songwriters than they are philosophers,” he said.
In addition, Travnikova also mentioned the importance of the audience in public speaking. “[Success is reached through] the ability to understand one’s audience and ensure a connection is made through the words being said; being able to eloquently and succinctly convey ideas through words, and also your presentation,” she said.
Yeaton believes that public speaking has a great impact on both societal and individual levels.
“Public speaking is the glue that holds society together. Or fails to. And what could be more empowering than believing you have the heart and mind and body it takes to project your ideas to an audience?” he said. “On the flip-side, if you don’t want to be manipulated, you better learn the tricks people are using to manipulate us.”
Regarding the importance of public speaking, Price also believes in its power.
“Public speaking has the power to reach beyond what is possible with just the written word. It taps into an immense human craving for storytelling that is central to our identity as a species. This makes it immensely important to the way we can understand ourselves and the world around us,” he said.
Oratory Now also works with organizations such as TEDx and other events such as Spring Student Symposium. They also offer coaching to faculty and students.
(04/27/17 1:39am)
This week’s MiddMouth poet is Tyler Belmont ’17. Tyler is from Colorado Springs and is majoring in International Politics and Economics. He enjoys playing bass, writing poems, and advancing the empathy that derives from enlightened cultural exchange, among other things that generally never come close to becoming a self-reliant citizen or eliminating insurmountable sums of student loans.
MB: How would you describe your creative process?
TB: The best creativity comes in bursts and struggles. I find that my better products are expressions between separation’s anguish and the struggle to obtain hope and grace: separation from God or from love and loved ones; struggle for a more perfect understanding; hope for the world we live in. Struggles like these often manifest themselves in an attempt to understand the implications of identity, as well as the degree of individual and collective agency within the channels of history. I find a flavor of the day and let it ferment in a state or place in which I find myself or to which I desire to return. No poem is ever truly resolved. I’m always coming back for revisions, but I also keep the old versions in case I over-revise and need to back-track towards scruffiness.
MB: How would you describe your relationship to poetry?
TB: Ever since my high school English teacher (a former Bread Loafer!) made me lead an hour-long discussion on Wallace Stevens and his “Emperor of Ice Cream,” I’ve found poetry to be a capricious means of digestion. On the best days, it’s like eating something deliciously alive. But in digesting what the world feeds, poetry also has a way of cementing the mind’s rabbit holes. Unfortunately, I find that I often unduly cling to despair so that I might extract a more potent artistic experience, which becomes exhausting. I heard they make meds for that. In somebody else’s words, art can be therapeutic, but it’s no substitute for therapy. This is something I’m beginning to understand; there are weeks when I try and leave poetry alone.
The Pursuit of Dignity
By Tyler Belmont
Salted wood strewn along the frosted shore yields
in flames the warmest of cold comforts, casts
the solitariness of glazed winter to the fringe.
If there is any single truth
that might be granted, let it now be this:
that it is incorrect to say that this is resignation.
Let it rather be the uplift
from an impervious fog, a steady hand
that proffers a tired camaraderie’s comforts
in its palm; cold tablets to be twisted
down the length of the esophagus. And with it
comes the ultimate restoration of a pride,
the unadulterated agency
that once left the side, evading reach
within this aimless fog, and was today
in the tablets’ fleeting sapors
rediscovered.
(04/27/17 1:38am)
This week our editorial focuses on reforming the judicial process at Middlebury, particularly in relation to sanctions the College is giving to Charles Murray protesters — all protestors who were in the room, turned their backs and chanted. We write this as an appeal to the administrators on behalf of those who protested Charles Murray. We urge administrators to read this carefully, with heart and soul in and ego aside. We believe that protesters did not violate community guidelines.
Here is our premise: we think the administration needs to be particularly careful, holistic and sensitive given the fraught and delicate nature of why people protested in this case. We think there are three basic ways that the College needs to approach this situation differently than they are.
First, we do not believe it fits with community guidelines to punish protesters. When we come to Middlebury, we agree to follow certain community guidelines with the intent of fostering a strong community. That is why we have an Honor Code. When people somehow betray the community, we take disciplinary action. But we argue that those who protested the Charles Murray event did so out of deep commitment to the community.
When a man to campus who calls into question the humanity of some of the students on this campus, to protest that man shows a commitment, a solidarity and a respect for the humanity of the people he dehumanizes. No, the protest did not happen in a way that was convenient for the administration (quietly with signs under a certain size, neatly outside the auditorium). Save for those who followed Murray and became violent, however, most people in Wilson engaged in a disruptive (is that not the point of protest? To disrupt oppressive systems of power?) but nonviolent protest that demonstrated not only our school’s intolerance for intolerance, but also that we stand with people of color, women and low-income students on this campus. Does it really fall in the spirit of violating community guidelines if you do it with the intention of defending community members?
We argue, then, that the protest was perfectly in line with community guidelines and with Middlebury’s core beliefs, perhaps even more so than the administration was. The protest stood up to those in authority to say that we stand with everyone on this campus who feels vulnerable today. Even if you do not believe Murray represented these things (and we disagree with you if that’s the case), then you must acknowledge that this was the intent of the protest. If this is the case, then to proceed with normal disciplinary processes — designed for those who have somehow betrayed the community — is riding roughshod over any intent of the protestors and demonstrates that the administration has not heard them. It’s not enough to smile and apologize while putting someone on disciplinary probation — if we believe these things to be true, then we should not put them on disciplinary probation.
Second, who the administration sanctions calls into serious question who in our “community” we value. The Political Science Department invited and co-sponsored a man who calls into question the humanity of many of the students on this campus. Many of these students spoke beforehand to the administration, asking for them to change the nature of the event or to disinvite Charles Murray. When their words fell on deaf ears, they organized a protest. Even students who got swept up in the momentum of the protest day-of are being punished. One student admitted to chanting “Black Lives Matter” for a few minutes during the protest. According to him, he was told he violated the “respect for persons” community guideline and was put on probation. This example begs the question: respect for which persons? Punishing a student for saying the words “Black Lives Matter” aloud, on the basis of a “respect for persons” community guideline, blatantly privileges some persons over others. Murray actively argues that the poor are less intelligent than the rich, that women are less intelligent than men and that people of color are less intelligent than white people. Yet the students who are being sanctioned by the administration are the ones who chanted “Black Lives Matter.” This demonstrates a greater concern for some people on this campus than for others.
Furthermore, this is one of many examples people of color and other marginalized groups trying to work within the system, being ignored and then being punished for protesting. Punishing the protestors, therefore, plays into the same oppressive systems of power that Murray defends, that the College claims not to defend and that the protestors protested.
Given the points above, the third point of consideration is that disciplining the protestors with intimidating judicial practices will only deepen the divides and exacerbates the wounds that surfaced when Murray came to campus. The administration is equally as complicit as anyone else in the Charles Murray fiasco. Bringing Charles Murray to campus was an act of violence against marginalized students. Any path forward must be one of mutual accountability and healing, not one that reinforces existing power structures and absolves the administration and those who brought Murray to campus of any responsibility. To hire a private investigator to identify students from videos of the protest, to send intimidating emails demanding that students turn over all texts and documents related to the protests and to discipline those who stood up for their community members will only keep tensions high and exacerbate the deep divides in our community. This is not to say that we believe everyone involved should be punished; we think no one should. In order to heal, we need to move forward such that one body of people does not exercise its power to punish another. If we want mutual understanding, we need to come together without sanctions or discipline, but with open ears and minds.
We acknowledge that there is a wide variety of opinions of whether or not Murray should have been invited, how the protestors should or shouldn’t have protested and who is at fault for the whole event. So if we disagree, and if there are legitimate arguments on all sides, then why is it fair for the administration to privately dole out sanctions as if they bear no responsibility? If we are truly the close-knit community we used to claim to be, then it doesn’t make sense for the administration to discipline without conversation or to act without listening. Any response to the Murray event needs to be mutual, empathic and have healing — not discipline — at its heart.
If you have been contacted by the administration and would like to be in touch with other students who have been contacted by the administration for disciplinary action, please send an email to samilamont@gmail.com.
Opinions Editors Sara Hodgkins ’17.5 and Edward O’Brien ’17 write about college discipline after the Murray protest.
(04/21/17 5:13pm)
We have all been part of our own Putnam County Spelling Bee, though we may not have realized it until the weekend of April 13-15. We may not have spelled the words or participated in the mass hilarity of the show itself, but we certainly connected with the awkward, uncomfortable, spastic and ultimately beautiful moments that come with growing up.
“The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee” was put on by the Middlebury College Musical Players (MCMP) and was performed and directed entirely by Middlebury students. Olivia Christie ’19 directed, Ronnie Romano ’20 directed music, Sam Boudreau ’19 stage managed and Alex Williamson ’17 directed tech. It ran in the beautiful Town Hall Theatre in the heart of Middlebury. Unlike on-campus venues, Town Hall Theatre seemed to be far more accessible to members outside of the college community, and the audience was composed of a wonderful blend of people old and young.
The diversity of the crowd was also a mark of the power of the play to connect with everyone over the course of its two acts – we all grow up at some point, after all. The first act, which set the scene for the spelling bee and introduced us to the characters, unfolded like chaotic poetry with constant rhyme of humor. Each character revealed their own quirk, and in many scenes, all came together to sing beautiful songs with fluidly disjointed choreography. Much like the beginning of adolescence, the first act showed the characters to be incredibly awkward and passionate and, as many adults may forget, complex.
In fact, actress Emily Cipriani ’19.5, who played the adorable Leaf Coneybear, shrewdly noted that “the humor keeps the pace rolling and warms the audience up to the characters, making later, more serious themes more approachable.”
For example, the first act had songs like “My Friend the Dictionary,” “Pandemonium” and “I’m Not That Smart,” which, though humorous, served to highlight some of the more common trials of adulthood.
“Pandemonium,” which featured speller Chip Tolentino (Michael Koutelous ’20), focused on how life can be incredibly unfair. The cast performed the song twice, and in the reprise, Chip – a favorite to win the bee – spelled his word wrong, becoming the first contestant to get out. Though the song stimulated laughter and the choreography was endearing, for me – and I am sure for other audience members as well – the scene evoked memories of feeling that life could be unfair.
Leaf Coneybear’s “I’m Not That Smart” was easily relatable to anyone who has ever felt inadequately smart in comparison with those around them. According to Cipriani, the song was an example of how Leaf “did not believe in theirself.”
“My Friend the Dictionary,” sung by Olive Ostrovsky (Maria Bobbitt-Chertock ’20), was an ode to all the children who have ever felt alone in their lives. It was a sweet song, featuring disconnected rhymes and simple lines. Yet it held within it the power to leave smiles on our mouths and sadness in our eyes.
The show also featured various adult characters, such as Rona Lisa Peretti (Madeline Ciocci ’20), Doug Panch (David Fine ’17) and comfort counselor Mitch Mahoney (Tim Hansen ’18). Though adult, these characters were no less awkward than the spellers and had their own problems. There was also an appearance from Jesus (Amy Conaway ’20), who remarked that “gender is a social construct.”
When the curtains opened again for the second act, the lines between humor and intelligent reflection blurred to the point of invisibility. Koutelous sang about his “Unfortunate Erection” and we laughed heartily, but our hearts felt for him. What is more awkward than an erection in the very public setting of a spelling bee?
“It’s a funny show, but that doesn’t mean that these kids don’t deal with very real and very deep issues that make them so relatable,” said Jess Garner ’19.5 who played Logainne SchwarzandGrubiere. “Olive’s depression and loneliness, Marcy and Logainne’s controlling parents and extreme pressure to succeed, Logainne’s anxiety, Chip’s veneer of confidence, Leaf’s misunderstanding family and ostracization and Barfee’s frustrations with being talked down to are all aspects which really help to make a comedy a more layered and resounding show.”
When Sabine Poux ’20, who played the genius Marcy Park, sang about how she speaks six languages, we saw a smart girl reveal the layers of insecurity and doubts that any hard-working child has thought about at some point: Does everyone think I am boring? Do people think of me as anything more than a smarty-pants?
When Bobbit-Chertock, Miranda Seixas ’20, and Tim Hansen ’18 combined forces to sing “The I Love You Song,” we sat in rapture as the tangled emotions and expectations of family love were simplified into three notes harmonized perfectly into one. No family dynamic is the same, but the song found the right key to express the importance of those dynamics, touching every one of us listening.
When Logainne SchwarzandGrubiere had a meltdown because of the constant pressure put upon her by her two fathers (Christian Schmitt ’19 and Austin Kenny ’19), we remembered the pressure we endure from our parents and life. Hell, I was reminded of the pressures I was going through that day.
However, just like the first act, the emotional scenes were clothed in humor, and for this they were far more enjoyable for us than the scenes we experienced ourselves in years past.
By the end of the play, it was clear that the motley crew of lovable characters had all grown up in a way. Leaf discovered that they were pretty damn smart. William Barfee, played by the hysterical Sean Meagher ’20, discovered that he could be his weird self, spell words without his magic foot and find friendship and love with people as quirky as him. Logainne found her own confidence and blossomed outside of her fathers’ stern instruction. Marcy realized she could lose if she wanted to, even though she could have easily won. Finally, Olive finally found a friend in Barfee, as well as kindness in the form of Panch, who had been rather mean to the kids throughout the bee.
Within the chaos of “Spelling Bee,” the one constant was a smile on the faces of everyone in the audience. Though there were scenes that made us sad, the play’s consistent humor, wonderful acting and beautiful songs never once let us get down on the scenes or the lives they portrayed.
I think it was the ability to keep us all in good spirits that made this show as magical as it was. It reminded us of how hard adolescence could be, but it forced us into realizing just how damn beautiful and fun it was too.
Upon interviewing the cast, it seemed that another reason there was such joy in watching the show was that the cast and crew gelled so well.
“What was great about this show was that the cast just clicked, creatively and emotionally,” said Bobbitt-Chertock. “Everyone helped foster this welcoming, supportive environment, which is a real gem in theatre – an art form that infamously entails a lot of diva-tantrum-throwing.”
“The best thing about this play was the people involved,” Ciocci agreed.
Fine added that the dedication of the directors was crucial to the show’s success.
“Our cast and crew had no weak links at all, and Olivia and Ronnie did absolutely superb jobs as director and music director,” he said. “It was a privilege, and I am very proud of our performances.”
The glowing review from the cast illuminated the final, wonderful point to take from “Spelling Bee”: no matter who we are we all grow up with others, and it is with their unwavering support and presence that we all can find our way safely into adulthoo
