1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(03/03/16 12:04am)
Fun fact: Vermont is home to more writers per capita than any other state in the country. Must be all the Frost in the air. Now, as the sun’s warmth makes the campus shed its crystal shell, the wonderful works of those writers emerge to our very own stage, to be performed aloud by your friends and peers.
In the tradition of Public Radio International’s Selected Shorts, six student orators will read selections from the New England Review (NER) literary magazine in this second annual live performance of NER Out Loud, at 8 p.m. on Friday, March 4 at the Mahaney Center for the Arts (MCA). This event combines the masterful language of gripping stories with the animated delivery and performance of public speaking and spoken word.
The excerpts will be followed by a “S’more Readings” reception with the readers and NER staff, along with representatives of several student literary magazines and lots of snacks. Both events are free and open to the public.
This year’s assortment of prose and poetry, carefully chosen from all works published in 2015 by NER, offers a thoughtful medley of topics. For instance, “Forty-Two,” read by Kathleen Gudas ’16.5, intimately conveys the pains of loving a man who is married to someone else. Meanwhile, “High School in Suzhou,” read by Mariah Levin ’16.5, inspects women’s roles across different cultures.
Sally Seitz ’17 reports that the piece she will be reading, “The Red Painter,” depicts “any artist’s struggle to create work and be happy with the work created;” a sentiment that should echo through Middlebury students.
And according to Alexander Burnett ’16, his story, “To Bundle or to Tarry,” is essentially about “bed-sharing in early America … essentially colonial spooning.” It differs from the rest in that it was originally published in 1871 but banned in 1872 because it offended Victorian sensibilities at the time – even though the author, Henry Reed Stiles, was only proving what had been common practice for hundreds of years.
Melanie Rivera ’19 will read “At the Tribunals” by Patrick Rosal, and August Rosenthal ’17 will perform “Eleven Girls” by David Ebenbach.
As someone who is relatively inexperienced with public speaking and definitely frightened by it, I enjoyed the opportunity to ask a few questions to several of this year’s orators.
Middlebury Campus (MC): What do you like about public speaking?
Sally Seitz (SS): “Well, particularly with NER it’s less about public speaking for me, and more about storytelling. It’s rare to get a chance to just sit and hear a story out loud. As students, we are exposed to plenty of written stories, but being told a story orally is a completely different experience and art form.”
Alexander Burnett (AB): “This will be my first performance with Oratory Now, but I did Speech and Debate all throughout high school, so I’ve always enjoyed public speaking. It’s a powerful feeling to command a room.”
MC: Do you ever get anxious before speaking?
Mariah Levin (ML): “To this day, I get nervous before talking in front of people. I think it is just a normal part of being exposed. But, with more experience I know how to calm my nerves and channel the energy to be helpful instead of harmful.”
Kathleen Gudas (KG): “Although I’m a Theatre major, I still get stage fright. I usually deal with my pre-performance anxiety by listening to music and taking deep, low breaths.”
NER Out Loud is the result of a new partnership between the New England Review, the Mahaney Center for the Arts and Oratory Now, the student speech society.
Oratory Now is committed to helping people speak with conviction, sincerity and persuasive power. Members believe that by learning to speak and listen effectively, we can become a more connected and resilient community. In addition to public speaking contests and events like NER Out Loud, Oratory Now also offers workshops and classroom coaching to help hone students’ public speaking skills. Visit go/oratorynow to see upcoming opportunities.
Meanwhile, the New England Review seeks to provide a place outside of mass culture where meticulous craft and steady thought are the norm instead of speed and information overload. The publication accepts submissions year-round in nearly every form of the written word.
Editors and contributors to the student literary magazines Blackbird, Frame, MiddGeo and Translingual will also be on hand at the post-show reception to discuss their publications and give sample readings from their pages.
(03/02/16 11:59pm)
Were the Paris climate talks of 2015 a success or a failure, and where do we go from there? These were the central questions in a talk entitled “Adequacy and Equity under Neoliberal Climate Governance: Assessing the Paris Moment” on Thursday, Feb 25. Co-sponsored by the Geography Department and the Rohatyn Center for Global Affairs as part of the Howard E. Woodin ES Colloquium Series, the presentation featured Timmons Roberts, Ittleson Professor of Environmental Studies and Professor of Sociology at Brown University.
Standing before a packed room of ES majors, faculty members and curious students looking to expand their knowledge on a deeply relevant issue, Roberts opened his speech with a few stark statistics. Due to the nature of global climate governance, people in the least developed countries – including Myanmar, Nepal and Bangladesh – are five times more likely than anyone else to die from natural disasters. Comprising only 11 percent of the total population, the most disadvantaged civilians of the world live in areas that experience 21 percent of climate-related disasters and witness 51 percent of climate-related deaths.
These disproportionate numbers stem from what researchers have dubbed “the climate paradox,” in which the least responsible parties – those that have contributed least to carbon dioxide emissions – are the most vulnerable to climate change. Lacking the proper infrastructure to respond to environmental damage caused by global warming, these lesser developed countries pay dearly for the climate policies instated by and for their wealthier, more powerful neighbors.
So did the United Nations Climate Change Conference of 2015 – also known as the 21st Conference of the Parties, COP 21 or the Paris climate talks – address this inequity? Roberts, who brings the students in his climate and development lab to the event each year, unpacked the details of last December’s Paris agreement, a plan to reduce climate change as negotiated by the 195 participating countries, and its long-term implications for the world. Because countries had not settled on many concrete measures before the 2015 conference, nearly every single issue – from peaking emissions to net reductions – was on the table.
A major goal outlined in the 12-page document is to “hold the increase in global average temperature to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels, recognizing that this would significantly reduce the risks and impacts of climate change.” Roberts cast a wary eye on this clause, however, explaining that researchers do not know if the 1.5°C limit is even enough to maintain a safe long-term environment. Besides, with human activity already elevating the global temperature by 1°C, the 1.5°C threshold may turn out to be more difficult to uphold than researchers imagine.
Roberts provided a historical context for the Paris talks by explaining the evolution of global policies across the past few decades. In 1972, representatives convened in Stockholm to piece together a pre-cautionary approach to climate change. At the Rio Earth Summit in 1992, the cost of conservation entered the international dialogue. Five years later, the Kyoto Protocol institutionalized liberal environmentalism, and certain wealthy countries became subject to binding limits on emissions.
More recently, the Copenhagen conference in 2009 marked a significant turning point in global climate governance, as officials ushered in a new process of pledge and review entitled the “Intended Nationally Determined Contributions” (INDC). The United States and China, the two largest emitters, made initial announcements of their national pledges in 2013, creating a domino effect throughout the international community. In total, 189 national pledges were submitted, all of which reflected a general willingness to make meaningful and pragmatic changes to their climate policies. With these INDCs in effect, the global average temperature went down slightly, from 3.6°C to 2.7°C.
“It wasn’t enough, but it was something,” Roberts said, before quoting the following line from George Monbiot in The Guardian: “By comparison to what it could’ve been, it was a success. By comparison to what it should’ve been, it was a disaster.”
According to Roberts, the shift from top-down command to a completely flexible and voluntary approach gave birth to a system of “shared irresponsibility.” Plagued by a lack of accountability, the policy enacted in Copenhagen has been criticized as inequitable and undemocratic.
“The pledges are not binding,” Roberts stated. “Logically, wouldn’t a better way of solving this problem have been figuring out a budget and dividing it up by a fair burden-sharing formula? If I were king of the world, that’s what I would do. That’s the rational management approach. We tried that for 15 years, but countries simply didn’t sign up [at the Kyoto Protocol].”
The Paris talks strived to incorporate all present parties at the conference in a long-term plan for environmental conservation. However, the lack of binding commitments and enforcement measures make some experts doubt the efficacy of the agreement. Countries are expected to sign the document and implement it in their own legal systems between April 22, 2016 (Earth Day) and April 21, 2017, but there is no established consequenc if they fail to do so. Furthermore, each nation will determine their own goals of emission reduction. The Paris agreement operates on an unofficial “name and shame” system, also known as the mantra of “name and encourage.” The proposed measures will not go into effect until the 55 parties who produce over 55 percent of the world’s greenhouse gas have signed.
Roberts pointed out that the flexibility granted to participating countries is entirely strategic.
“Countries worried about their sovereignty don’t want to be told what to do, but they may go beyond what they are asked to do,” he explained.
For instance, knowing that the appearance of coercion might lead to a political blockade, President Obama purposefully used the word “should” instead of “shall” throughout the U.S. treaty. 66 senators must agree to the proposed measures, which may be difficult given the nature of the people occupying those seats.
Based on the new book Power in a Warming World, which Roberts co-authored alongside David Siplet, Assistant Professor of Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado-Boulder, and Mizan Khan, Professor of Environmental Science and Management at North South University in Bangladesh, the speech emphasized the importance of a neo-liberal climate governance that exemplifies both efficacy and equity. Deemed by Roberts as the “holy grail of climate justice,” this approach is partially lacking from the Paris agreement.
Because the voluntary aspect of the Paris agreement is a far cry from the hard-hitting conservation policies that the world so desperately needs, Roberts urged the audience to spring to action. Now is an opportunity for citizens to hold their governments accountable, particularly as the opportunities to enact radical change become fewer and farther between.
“The kinds of solutions to our climate problems that we can put forward now in 2016 are really limited. We used to be able to bring out state regulations or strong international agreements,” Roberts stated, referencing the binding 1987 protocol to address the hole in the ozone, as well as the extra decade once allotted to developing countries like China and India to reduce their carbon emissions.
In light of the recent presidential primaries, perhaps it was fitting that the first question posed after the presentation concerned Donald Trump. The controversial Republican candidate has expressed the intention to back out of the Paris agreement should he assume office.
“I feel like I have to ask – what effect would Trump have on U.S. agreements with other countries?” a student asked.
“It’s hard to imagine Trump being very multilateral,” Roberts responded, his understatement prompting laughter from the crowd. “This problem needs a global solution, and the U.S. acting unilaterally is not a good approach. A lot is on the line.”
The moral of the story? Elections matter – and the full implications of the Paris talks will continue to come to light as countries choose whether or not to opt into these national pledges.
(03/02/16 9:11pm)
Last week’s editorial is a hypocritical mess and falsely claims that The Campus gives students an adequate space to voice their opinions. In “A Paper for the People,” the editorial board takes pride in publishing any article that’s not outright slander. “This section is a reflection of the submissions we receive;” “it reflects” the views of the campus. “We do not wish to be selective” in the articles we publish and adding a warning to a piece is “undue editorial power.” See, they say, send us whatever, we’ll publish it!
Let’s be clear: This isn’t journalism. No self-respecting newspaper publishes like this.
An editorial team isn’t a glorified spam filter, a newspaper isn’t a printed-out copy of Yik-Yak. Editors shouldn’t censor based on their own political leanings, but they also shouldn’t allow any drivel through. They should edit and curate. They should refuse to publish articles that lack evidence, that peddle shallow morals, that are poorly written. When something like “I’m Only Human” arrives on an editor’s desk, they have a duty to evaluate it, not just publish it because it “is able to articulate an opinion.” When something fails to meet The Campus’ stated value of a “constructive and respectful dialogue,” it shouldn’t be published.
But The Campus claims they’re different from other newspapers. The Campus puts forth that since they publish everything, they’re acting as the student voice. It’s a convenient excuse to abdicate responsibility for what they publish. It’s also untrue on both accounts. As stated in the masthead, The Campus allows editors to deny publication *for any reason.* Opinions have been denied publication in the past. If The Campus is publishing everything it receives now, that’s only because they lack submissions – if everyone at the college submitted something this week, The Campus would be forced to be selective.
But more importantly, publishing everything doesn’t make for a student voice.
Currently, the op-ed section isn’t consciously biased, just too myopic to see why no one wants to submit anything. We know many minority voices can’t be found in this section. But what if more minorities submitted? The editorial board makes the insipid Millsean argument that if only they could publish all the views of the student body, then we’d be a step closer to progress. What a flip flop: to quote the board’s “A Call for Compassion,” “at an elite, informed institution such as Middlebury, let us hold ourselves to a higher standard of speech – one that respects and acknowledges the power dynamic at play.” Minorities here get harassed for their identity alone; publishing an unpopular opinion can subject vulnerable students to further harassment. No amount of inclusive rhetoric can bracket real world status inequalities. Neutral spaces are not free spaces.
Then there are numerous, insidious ways The Campus doesn’t fulfill its democratic promise. The Campus summarily rejects “lists and poetry,” thinking these forms don’t belong in a newspaper. Of course, this statement is wrong; the op-ed section has published both lists and poetry before. In 2013, The Campus published “It Is Easy Being Green,” a poem that had a trigger warning. Opinions don’t need to take a certain form. Poetry and other writing styles are some of the most accessible means of expression, available to anyone. “Journalistic” writing on the other hand, is a style that’s not intuitive at best and classist at worst. Privileging one over the other means The Campus can’t claim it’s a place where students truly can express themselves.
Another way The Campus fails to be a voice for students is by taking a stance against anonymity. Sure, The Campus allows for anonymous submissions under extenuating circumstances. But in an editorial they overwhelmingly valorize the “courage” to publish under a real name, only paying lip-service to the benefits of anonymity. This approach discourages two groups from publishing: 1) people with actual unpopular opinions and 2) any vulnerable minorities who will face harassment for their views. Some of the most real conversation happens in the anonymous comments and some of the most incisive commentary comes from Beyond The Green’s anonymous articles. This op-ed section fails at sparking these kinds of conversations. Instead, we’re subjected to editorials that don’t seriously challenge anything. Take the “Disrupt the Finance Pipeline” editorial from September, which wavers between thanking alumni at Goldman Sachs for reaching out and condemning the financial industry for taking advantage of Midd students. The editorial concludes that students should be “more thoughtful” about their futures. Here’s a cautionary tale of mixing clickbait headlines from The Atlantic with boardroom consensus. This editorial, like many others, apparently failed to contribute to a constructive dialogue on campus: there’s one comment online. And it’s sarcastic.
Even seemingly aesthetic quibbles are actual signs of democratic failings. When President Patton gets to write 300 words over The Campus’ word limit, are all community members here equal in expressing their views? When The Campus insists every writer includes her hometown, isn’t that forcing the student to subject herself to arguments against her upbringing and not her opinion? What does a writer’s hometown even add to the dialogue?
Ultimately, The Campus’ claim of being an adequate space for student voices is wishful thinking. And here we come to some of the worst of this editorial. The writers emphatically state that The Campus does not solicit for op-eds. However, a newspaper dedicated to expressing a multitude of student views would have already proactively worked with cultural organizations to include a diversity of views. A true people’s voice doesn’t just happen. The “publish everything” mindset doesn’t work. It’s on The Campus to cultivate a truly inclusive student voice.
Now publish this.
(03/02/16 9:01pm)
This column is written by white students and for white students. Each week, we will discuss topics or themes regarding race and, more specifically, the role of whiteness in race relations. If you would like to reach out to us personally to continue these conversations, please feel free to do so.
“Why does it always need to be about race?”
“Are we still talking about this?”
“I don’t see color, I just see people for who they are.”
We’ve all heard these things. Maybe we’ve even said these things. We remember saying these things. There is a term for this ideology, called colorblindness. To be colorblind is to claim that the best way to end racism and discrimination is to treat everyone equally without considering race or ethnicity. In a way, it is to say that we should ignore race and simply treat people as people. But are those really mutually exclusive?
A professor said in one of our classes last week: “I would love to not have affirmative action. That would be amazing. The problem is that we live in a world in which it’s necessary.” Treating people equally, without ‘seeing color,’ is to take a person out of an historical context. In the case of affirmative action, the policy accounts for the inequality that pervades academic institutions by promoting equity, a concept driven by needs and justice, not blanket equal shares. When we are in the majority group, which as white people on this campus, we are, we tend to think the world is fair because the world is fair to us. It is necessary to acknowledge from what our whiteness allows us to benefit. We definitely can, and do, face oppression, based on our gender, our sexuality, our socioeconomic background and our ability. But not racial oppression.
Racism and prejudice are not the same thing; racism = prejudice + power. Racism against white people does not exist. As a white person, you may have experienced prejudice in your direction from a person of color, but racial structures of power in this country systematically privilege white people and disenfranchise people of color, particularly black people. White people benefit from privilege and power when we are not immediately profiled (and murdered) as dangerous for holding a toy gun, as Tamir Rice was; when raising our voices to a police officer does not make that police officer answer immediately with force, as Sandra Bland did. Try to notice how many white students are in each of your classes. A White Student’s Union on Middlebury’s campus is unnecessary because the entire campus, along with this country, is essentially a White Student’s Union.
The colorblind argument is used now because of our country’s history of racism, segregation and systemic oppression. During the Civil Rights movement, it would be silly to even attempt to hide one’s racist habits. The mechanisms and laws that reproduce racial inequality are no longer overt with their racism because overt racism is now taboo, which wasn’t the case a mere 50 years ago. Systemic racism has obscured itself to those who are not victims to it, making it easier to believe that we no longer live in a racist society. It makes it easier to ignore how discriminatory housing laws and white flight (when white residents of a predominantly white neighborhood begin to move out as the space becomes more diverse) affects the demographics of a neighborhood, therefore affecting its schools. You put this together with over-policing of non-white neighborhoods and a racist cycle becomes apparent. See Ta-Nehisi Coates’ epic “The Case for Reparations” for more information on redlining, gentrification and other racist housing and urban planning policies.
Ask yourself: am I able to not see color because no one has made me aware of how out of place I was because of my color? Have I found myself in spaces in which I am the only white person for the majority of my days? When was the first time I realized I was white? When was the first time I realized how society sees my whiteness? How does the media portray my whiteness? Are there multiple portrayals of whiteness in each media instance? Have I ever worried that my whiteness could get me killed?
Saying that we don’t see color leaves us unable to acknowledge when someone has experienced racism, both interpersonally and institutionally. It creates an environment that denies that negative racial experiences exist and invalidates people who can’t help but see color because other people see color on them. Since we have not been subjected to racial oppression as white people, we must listen and learn when people of color share their experiences with us. We cannot suppose that our society is not racist. When we say to a person of color that we don’t see their color, that connotes that their skin color is a negative thing and that we are able to appreciate them in spite of their color. This says that whiteness is the norm and that we are able to treat them well even though they are outside of that norm.
*In this particular article, the term “colorblindness” is used. It is the common word for this ideology but we would like to note that the very use of this word is ableist and we encourage everyone to think about (and share!) possible other ways to reframe this ideology.*
What we are reading:
1. Beyond the Green: Collective of Middlebury Voices
2. The Case for Reparations (The Atlantic)
3. Equality is Not Enough: What the Classroom Has Taught Me About Justice (Everyday Feminism)
(03/02/16 4:31pm)
On Feb. 21, the Student Government Association [SGA] passed a bylaws amendment to reform the organization’s election procedures. The bill, written by SGA Director of Membership Zak Fisher ’16, and sponsored by SGA President Ilana Gratch ’16, eliminated the use of single-transferable-vote (STV) and instant-runoff (IRV) voting, and replaced them with a winner-take-all system.
In past elections, the SGA has used IRV and STV systems for which voters rank their preferred candidates for any given position. The procedures are designed to attain proportional representation in the election process.
With an STV system, if the voter’s preferred candidate has no chance of being elected, the vote is transferred to their second choice, and the process continues until the winner(s) are determined. It also ensures that if a candidate receives a higher percentage of the vote than necessary to win, the excess vote is redistributed. STV is complemented by an IRV system, which dictates that when a candidate fails to receive a determined percentage of the vote, the candidate with the lowest vote total is eliminated and their votes are redistributed. This process continues until a winner emerges.
It is the belief of the SGA Elections Council that these systems, as worded in the bill, resulted in “misinformation and confusion” amongst the electorate.
“I think, generally, students didn’t understand the old election procedures,” Fisher said. “There were false understandings of ‘strategic advantages’ that could have adversely affected the election returns and polluted the legitimacy of those returns.
According to Fisher, the need for reform became apparent when, at the beginning of this academic year, not one senator felt they could adequately explain the system. “When the people who are elected, the people who, theoretically, are most motivated to understand it, don’t understand it, we have a problem,” he said.
The past electoral system also presented logistical issues. It took far longer to tally the results, making it more prone to mistakes. Fisher explained that during the old process, as more rounds of voting were needed, the likelihood that an election would result in a tie increased.
It is the hope of the SGA that the new process, a winner-take-all system, will make elections far more efficient and easier to grasp. In the new structure, candidates in single-member constituencies will win solely for achieving the highest number of votes. In multi-member constituencies, such as class senator elections, the two candidates who get the most votes will win.
The bill was approved by the Senate just four days before the election of the new 2019.5 senators, giving the new system a chance to prove its effectiveness. Febs had the opportunity to select two senators from a field of three candidates, in which Rae Aaron ’19.5 and Sebastian Grandas ’19.5 emerged victorious.
Fisher said that it took him five minutes to tally the votes and, within half an hour, the results had been relayed to Gratch and the student body.
“For as long as I’ve been at [the College] and involved in SGA in some capacity, I’ve witnessed the great deal of confusion that surrounds SGA elections. To be sure, the instant run-off/single transferable vote system is a sound one, but given that so few students actually understand its intricacies, it doesn’t necessarily make sense to use the system at [the College],” Gratch said. “I’m excited that we now have a voting system that is more accessible to the general student body.”
These procedural changes may not be the only reforms that the Senate makes this year. At present, they are examining legislation to shift the timeline of the general elections and drafting solutions to deal with elections that may end in a tie.
(02/25/16 3:32am)
Harper Lee’s beloved classic To Kill a Mockingbird was published in 1960 and won her the Pulitzer Prize in 1961. The zeitgeist novel depicted in bare terms racism in America and reaffirmed the values of equality and unity. The book has sold more than 40 million copies globally and has become a staple of high school curriculums. But despite the book’s acclaim and instant success, Lee repeatedly vowed never to publish a novel again. For the next 56 years, she lived a private life in small-town Alabama and an anonymous one in New York City, her career a single gem.
Not long before she went dark to the public — just four years after the publication of Mockingbird and two years after the film version — Lee recast her literary objectives in a 1964 interview with Roy Newquist, the editor of a book titled Counterpoint. Perhaps because of the rarity of such encounters with Lee, the Newquist interview has become one of the few sources of material that illuminate her mystery. In it, Ms. Lee clearly stated her literary ambition: “to describe a disappearing way of small town, middle class Southern life. In other words, all I want is to be the Jane Austen of south Alabama.”
Less often quoted than this statement is her explanation of it. She wanted to “leave some record of the kind of life that existed in a very small world. She hoped to do this “in several novels, to chronicle something that seems to be very quickly going down the drain.”
Lee said she was always fascinated with the “very definite, rich social pattern” that makes up the tiny towns of the South. “I would simply like to put down all I know about this because I believe that there is something universal in this little world, something decent to be said for it, and something to lament in its passing.”
Beyond Harper Lee’s crowning achievement of Mockingbird and her lone interview with Newquist, the front-page obituary of Lee in Saturday’s New York Times recalled the literary world’s biggest story of 2015: the publishing of her second novel, Go Set a Watchman. The book, in all its controversy, is crucial to considering Lee’s legacy, which had been fixated for more than half a century on one work. Watchman was met with a considerable amount of backlash, with some accusing Ms. Lee’s publisher of taking advantage of her in her old age.
They raised eyebrows at the timing of the manuscript’s discovery and the announcement that it would be published, which was only weeks after the death of her sister, Alice Lee, who had long been Harper’s confidante and whom many considered to have been her protector. Skeptics use reports of Lee’s deteriorating state at the time the manuscript was discovered as evidence that she could have easily been coerced into agreeing to something she had not wanted for 56 years. “It would be very difficult to prove this one way or another,” Bertolini said.
In a New York Times column, Joe Nocera called the book a “fraud” and “one of the epic money grabs in the modern history of American publishing.” Jonathan Sturgeon wrote in Flavorwire that Watchman is not Mockingbird’s sequel or prequel, but rather its prototype. Lee herself described the book as her first book’s “parent.” Sturgeon points to wholesale passages in Watchman that were later reworked for Mockingbird.
Pieces of literature have been published against some authors’ wishes, noted John Bertolini, Ellis Professor of English and Liberal Arts. He noted Vergil and Franz Kafka as examples. “Of course the same thing happened with Kafka: he ordered that all his works be destroyed, but they weren’t. Fortunately for all of us, Vergil’s orders orders on his manuscript of the Aeneid weren’t followed either.”
With all the debate over the origins of Watchman, the biggest bombshell turned out to be an explosive plot twist that no one saw coming. Atticus Finch, the crusading lawyer of To Kill a Mockingbird, whose principled fight against racism and inequality inspired generations of readers, is depicted in Watchman as an aging racist who has attended a Ku Klux Klan meeting, holds negative views about African-Americans and denounces desegregation efforts. “Do you want Negroes by the carload in our schools and churches and theaters? Do you want them in our world?” Atticus asks his daughter, Jean Louise — the adult Scout.
Bertolini said he was astonished by the reaction to the book. “It involved one of the most colossal misreadings of a book that I’ve seen. It was said that it turns out Atticus is a racist after all, and that’s not, I believe, the point Harper Lee was making in that book. She was demonstrating that Atticus was continuing to educate Scout, and that he thought it was a flaw in her that she idealized him so much. He did that precisely to provoke her to think about his having a flaw, about his not being a perfect man.”
The very fact that the manuscript exists, he said, means a lot. “The book makes an important statement that should be read — about not blindly idealizing somebody, not expecting perfection from all human beings under all circumstances. Atticus may have done that deliberately to help to Scout grow up, to become a mature, understanding, forgiving human being. This is, after all, what he spent his whole life doing.”
Claire Borre ’18, an English major, said that Watchman complicates the emphatic depiction of Atticus as a hero and exposes his flaws to modern readers. “I read Go Set a Watchman as a completion of Scout’s coming-of-age that was started in To Kill a Mockingbird,” she said. “Having read Mockingbird as a young girl and then reading Watchman this past summer, I connected to both in very different ways. Scout’s first attempts at understanding the world, like my own, were heavily influenced by those around her, whereas Jean Louise, and myself as a college student, must learn to look inward for her own value.”
Borre continued: “The more adult perception world presented is not as strictly good or evil as in Mockingbird, and Lee reveals a more nuanced worldview that makes people reevaluate their perception of the hero Atticus. It is a shattering of the hero image of Atticus.”
Bertolini pointed to the strength of her first novel as a lasting part of her legacy. “To Kill a Mockingbird, both the book and the film, had an influence in the Civil Rights Movement that was analogous to the impact of Harriet Beecher Stowe’s Uncle Tom’s Cabin in persuading people to be against slavery. I first encountered it when I was in high school, first the book and then the film, which had a big influence on me. I will never forget that.”
The general consensus among book critics is that Go Set a Watchman is not as well written as the masterpiece of Mockingbird is. “Isn’t that true of all the secondary books by great authors?” said Bertolini. “They’re usually much better than the best of the ones being published today, because true artistic talent and genius is a rare thing.”
For all the excitement, confusion, surprise, drama and controversy, the world nevertheless has another Harper Lee work.
(02/25/16 3:15am)
Despite Senator Bernie Sanders’ 20-point margin of victory in Vermont’s neighboring state of New Hampshire, Senator Patrick Leahy reiterated last week that he will continue to support Clinton’s candidacy, and plans to cast his superdelegate vote in her favor.
Leahy and Sanders have served alongside each other in the Senate for almost a decade. Combined, the two men have over fifty years of experience in Washington.
Leahy has represented Vermont in the Senate since 1975, while Sanders was first elected to the House of Representatives in 1991, where he remained until his 2006 ascendance to the Senate. Both progressives, Sanders and Leahy have no drastic ideological disagreements. Nevertheless, Leahy represents the Democratic Party establishment in a way that Sanders, who only recently registered as a Democrat after decades as an Independent, does not. Leahy is a member of the Clinton campaign’s “Vermont Leadership Council,” a 25-person committee that includes state elites such as former Governor Howard Dean and incumbent Governor Peter Shumlin.
As a sitting Democratic Member of Congress, Leahy is automatically conferred the title of superdelegate – a delegate to the Democratic National Convention who is free to support any candidate for the party’s nomination, unlike a typical delegate who is bound by the primary results of his or her home state. And while Sanders is widely expected to win easily in Vermont’s March 1 primary election, Leahy says that he cannot go back on his pledge to support Clinton.
“One of the touchstones of our family – I learned it from my grandparents, I learned it from my parents and I’ve tried to teach my children – is you keep your word,” he said. “Long before Senator Sanders ever said he was going to run, I urged then-Secretary Clinton to run and told her I’d support her. I think anybody who knows me, anybody who knows my years as state’s attorney or my years in the Senate, knows that I’d never break my word. And certainly Senator Sanders would never ask me to break my word, nor has he.”
Middlebury College Professor of Political Science Bert Johnson says that Leahy’s consistency hardly comes as a surprise.
“It’s not all that unusual for a superdelegate to support someone other than the most popular candidate in the state,” Johnson said in an interview.
Indeed, as a forty-year incumbent who remains popular in his home state, Leahy recently scored a 71 percent approval rating among his constituents. Sanders is first among all Senators with 83 percent support.
Leahy has little to lose even by endorsing the eventual loser of his state’s primary. Clinton remains the Democratic front-runner by virtually any metric, and while Sanders’ resilience has proved surprising, he remains the undeniable underdog as Super
Tuesday looms on March 1. In other words, aside from his self-professed determination to keep his word, it also makes political sense for Leahy to align with the candidate who remains most likely to capture the nomination by August.
Yet if Clinton does come out on top, Johnson says that superdelegate votes like Leahy’s will probably not be the deciding factor after all.
“I would be very surprised if the superdelegates were decisive in this election,” Johnson said. “In 2008, when they had the potential to be decisive, they fell in line with the leader among elected delegates, Barack Obama, even after Hillary Clinton had a substantial lead in superdelegate endorsements early in the campaign.”
Indeed, however things shake out, Leahy made one thing clear: he is a Democrat above anything else.
“If Senator Sanders is the nominee, I’ll happily campaign all over the country for him,” said Leahy. “We’ve worked together, he’s a good friend of mine, our wives are friends and I’m proud of a lot of the issues he’s raised.”
(02/25/16 12:44am)
“A friendly desert community where the sun is hot, the moon is beautiful and mysterious lights pass overhead while we all pretend to sleep. Welcome to Night Vale.”
These are the words that launched the now internationally popular podcast Welcome to Night Vale back in 2012. They also remain perhaps the most concise way to communicate the style and premise of the podcast, which takes the form of a radio show for the fictional town of Night Vale. The podcast is absurd, sometimes unsettling and often beautiful.
Just a few months ago, the creators of the podcast released a novel that hit the Amazon bestseller list instantly. Although set in the same town as the podcast and featuring many of the same characters, the novel is an original, self-contained story, and so it is not necessary to be familiar with the podcast in order to understand the novel. Readers follow the narration of Diane Crayton, a single mother trying to learn how to connect with her shape-shifting son Josh, and Jackie Fiero, a pawn shop owner who is given a piece of paper she subsequently cannot get rid of that reads simply, “KING CITY.” Brought together by their search for a mysterious man in a tan jacket, Diane and Jackie find themselves allies as they try to hold onto their lives in a world that is making even less sense than usual.
Night Vale, both the podcast and the novel, has a peculiar style that may not bode well for everyone. Reminiscent of magical realism, it inverts and confuses reality without acknowledging what is happening is strange. For instance, there is no explanation for why Josh can shape-shift; he simply can, and no one questions the fact that Diane’s son may be a horsefly one day and a sentient patch of haze the next. There are long forays into description, painting the picture of the town and its inhabitantants in an extraordinariily beautiful manner. The town itself, in all its weirdness, is just as important as any of the main characters.
For all of the bizarre changes in reality that make up Welcome to Night Vale, its greatest strength lies in its ability to take the strange and use it to comment on real, relatable situations. In particular, the relationship between Diane and Josh is remarkably conveyed, with the strain of single parenthood and the struggles of communication between the mother and the teenage boy evident in every line. Of course, in the real world, teenage boys are not literal shape-shifters, but there is fickleness and uncertainty, a slipperiness of identity in puberty that we have all experienced. Diane’s every action is more than understandable as a mother who no longer knows how to relate to her son, a problem perhaps augmented by the fact that he does not always have a human form.
One reason behind the podcast’s popularity is its positive representation of various minority groups, especially the LGBTQ community. This is present in the novel as well. Both Diane, a working single mother, and Jackie, a young and independent business owner, stand out as people who do not often get to be protagonists. Fink and Cranor’s exceptional thoughtfulness when it comes to these portrayals is a positive mark for the novel for several reasons. Besides obvious benefits for people who belong to those minorities, working outside stereotypical characters allows for fresh and more surprising stories. The story in the novel is unpredictable not only because the rules of reality are different, but also because this is not a story that has been told a hundred times before. The characters are strongly individual, refusing to blend in with other books or movies. Their personalities are distinct and developed, and every decision they make is logical from what we know about them.
It is difficult to get an accurate impression of Welcome to Night Vale without actually reading it yourself. Descriptions get lost in trying to convey the strangeness without truly communicating the allure of the enchanting language and unexpectedly touching story. Even once you start reading, you might be too confused trying to understand what is happening to decide whether you actually like the book or not – and between the fantastical element and its peculiar style, there are certainly people who will not like the book. For others, it will be a favorite for years to come. Welcome to Night Vale will take you on a journey into a desert town, surprise you, move you and leave you dazzled by the mysterious lights overhead.
Find this book in the Davis Family Library through go/bookingit.
(02/24/16 9:08pm)
To the generally privileged, poverty is incomprehensible. People of privilege, with pale skin and/or free vacations and/or “intellectual conversation” — which is almost always defined by conformity to the standard of the privileged class — cannot understand how central poverty, or social disadvantage, can be to a person’s life. Disadvantage shapes every opportunity, thought and desire. While privileged students can afford SAT prep books, poorer ones may not even know what those three letters stand for. While privileged students can debate what college to go to, poorer ones are oftentimes unsure about going to college — or simply unable to do so.
I am acquainted with certain types of disadvantages. My middle school was a tiny spot in the middle of the Mojave wasteland, a place where — two years after my family moved out — a war between Bloods and Crips erupted. Thinking about “college,” a term so distant and irrelevant that it bore absolutely no meaning, was unheard of. All conversations were combative, a show of masculinity or cruelty, often interlaced with homophobic and racist slurs. Most of my friends were trapped, unable to imagine a reality outside of this de facto oppression that perpetuated itself with each successive generation. My friends’ parents couldn’t speak English — or at least the version of English that is deemed “correct” — and their livelihoods depended on the whims of the government’s “immigration policy.” Others were the products of the United States’ history of black oppression, of redlining and segregation never corrected. In the words of Ta-Nehisi Coates, they were “responsible for the worst actions of other black bodies, which, somehow, will always be assigned to [them].” Their livelihoods also depended on the whims of government and the ruling class — namely, the government’s constant debate on whether to be “tough on crime,” oppressing the oppressed, or not.
I escaped merely because my family had the privilege of mobility, and of conforming to the ruling class’s standards. We were white, natively spoke English and could devote our time and resources to moving instead of surviving. We moved to Las Vegas, where I attended a public high school in a neighborhood known as one of the most dangerous spots in the county (a privilege compared to the many who remain trapped in the Mojave). There are more than three thousand students at that high school. Every class crams fifty students, and there are never enough seats. I happened to be accepted on luck — literally, via a lottery — to a selected community within that public high school with more courses and increased availability. Although almost all of those students came from disadvantaged families, pretty much all of them wanted to succeed academically. The privilege of that community allowed my escape. I learned that people were nice, what SATs were, that “college” actually existed. I am at Middlebury today because of the opportunities made available to me through that program.
These experiences inform my reaction to Rachel Frank’s “Conversation in Confines,” which was published last week. It’s frankly ridiculous that people of such disadvantage are oftentimes compared equally to students who face no obstacles but themselves, who have studied for the SATs since middle school, who come from backgrounds where college was “real.” I suffered disadvantage, but not nearly as much as many others face. Affirmative action is a means of making up for all of those obstacles; it is a basic step to actual equality of opportunity. To drop affirmative action is to confirm the immoral notion that the privileged have more of a right to attend colleges — to attend programs like my high school’s, which was the only reason I escaped — than those who face obstacles incomprehensible to the privileged.
Affirmative action is a moral requirement for more reasons than just the facilitation of “institutional diversity.”
(02/24/16 9:06pm)
Politics today seems to be more about shouting insults than offering solutions. Fox, MSNBC, Donald Trump, all seem to be more interested in ratings than the issues faced by every day Americans. At this point, we are all numb to it. For years we have looked at politics in terms of red and blue and have failed to consider the motivations of our counterparts. We have refused to listen to any opposing ideas, and arguments now occur more frequently than discussions. As students at Middlebury College, we see this occurring on a daily basis. This has led us to a point where progress no longer seems possible. We believe that progress can be made with thoughtful political discourse. To us it seems that the solution to our current problem lies in better understanding the values and principles that guide us. In this spirit, we would like to introduce our values and principles.
We believe that every person has the right to work towards achieving his or her dreams.
We believe that every American is a unique individual and not simply a member of a group. We believe that each individual knows how best to achieve his or her own happiness. We are conservatives.
With Donald Trump and Ted Cruz both throwing around the word conservative so much, it is often forgotten what the word really means. When defining conservatism, it is important to remember what is being conserved. Fundamental to conservatism is the preservation of our founding principles, the right to life, liberty, property and the federal structure of our nation. These principles guide our understanding of policy, the role of government and how we solve the many issues facing our nation today. It is clear from this that Donald Trump and Ted Cruz are more concerned with promoting populism and the values of the religious right than in conserving these principles.
Conservatives care about the first generation college student who could not find a job. Conservatives care about the little girl who grew up in a poor neighborhood who was forced to go to a failing school when there was a successful one a district over. Conservatives care about the skilled immigrant who wants to start an auto shop, but does not have the money nor the English skills to comply with the licensing requirements. Conservatives care about the single mother who has to work multiple part-time jobs because she cannot find full time employment. Conservatives care about the average American.
We need to change the way that we go about our political discourse, and we want this article to start the discussion. We hope that we can focus our conversation on policy solutions rather than political attacks, and we hope that we can go beyond the talking points and delve deeper into the substance of the issues. Only through thoughtful debate and discussion can we truly achieve a more perfect union.
(02/24/16 9:05pm)
Dear Katrina,
I want to thank you for letting us hear your story. Thank you for saying what you really mean to say. It is only through such difficult dialogue that understanding may ever begin. So thank you again for being yourself.
I totally agree with you. Political correctness means nothing. Back home, I was never a good player in that rope tightening game — straighten your back, hold on to your balancing beam and keep yourself on the thin black line. Watch your mouth because Big Brother is watching. I hated that and I still do now. My home country has taught me not to put my faith in political correctness. It is a world where the meanings of words are lost. People can say anything. But in the end, what matters most is often what is not said, right?
I cannot agree with you when you say “just to avoid offending someone.” It is not “just.” “It” is not just. To reference my favorite quote from Oscar Wilde, “The truth is rarely pure and never simple.” For people like me, this over-complication is not a matter of choice. This complexity, this barrier, these shackles and mantles are what we bear and navigate every day of our life. They have been there before I was born. Life is indeed complicated enough. I used to wish I could forget about all these complexities as well. I wish everyone could forget about them so that I didn’t have to white-wash myself, to tweak my accent and ignore everything that reminds people of what I wish they could forget. Only recently did I realize maybe these are things I don’t want to forget. These are things that are part of me and define who I am. To forget would mean to lose myself. Some differences are not just skin-deep. They run in my blood.
We are all different. But our differences will not stop us. Today, it is less difficult to see the shared humanness in us. Darwin and genetic studies have made that point for us quite strongly. The greatest challenge for our world today — and for our generation in particular — is not to un-see the differences, but rather, to embrace each other nevertheless. Love is about seeing, knowing and accepting completely, including our differences. How can we love people if we do not even start to see and understand the differences?
There must have been wounds deep enough to make these hearts so sensitive, that what seems like a light touch can trigger painful experiences. And if the same system and institution that inflicted these pains is still running, we shall not forget. I agree that there are things more important than the act of donning a sombrero, namely the implications behind it: systematic discrimination, prejudice and indifference, just to list a few. These things are around us, in this country. Just because they are less visible does not make them less serious, urgent or important. Let’s talk about our differences and what caused them, and then try to understand them.
There is a Confuciust saying, “Xiu Shen, Qi Jia, Zhi Guo, Ping Tian Xia.” Jesus also said, “Love thy neighbor.” So I want to talk about love. I believe love is about empathy. Love is an art, a craft and an effort. I think one of the most common misconceptions in our contemporary society is that love is supposed to be easy. We are taught to believe that if love goes through ups and downs — if it is tiring, upsetting or painful — you should just throw away that love. That is simply not the case, and I recommend Erich Fromm’s The Art of Loving for an excellent elaboration on this. If we are really trying to love and understand each other, we must not let the consumerist culture infiltrate into our concept of love. This journey will not be easy, simple or convenient. There are so many obstacles, including historical legacies, class, race, prejudice, stereotype, ignorance, misconception, hate, fear and indifference. If we know that taking a class or playing a sport requires time and effort, we should not expect that love, one of the most amazing human achievements, should always be smooth-sailing.
The path to a truly inclusive campus is long and tough. We will make mistakes and get tired, for we are all only human. Yet whenever I feel depressed about this world, I too look to the encouraging words of Morrie: “To love.” Simple. Concise. A verb. And that’s what all it’s about.
Love, Shan
Shan Zeng ’19 is from Chengdu, China.
(02/24/16 8:59pm)
I face lingering disappointment after re-reading Katrina Drury’s piece “I’m Only Human,” published on Feb. 18. On the other side of the fold, a column over, Laurie Patton offers timely, levelheaded comments on the much-discussed Texas Supreme Court case, which questions the role of race in college admission procedures. In concluding remarks, President Patton calls for compassion and more “worthwhile” discourse on issues of race and identity: “Let us recommit ourselves to the spirit of understanding,” she says.
I commend Drury for adding her thoughts to the years-long campus debates on diversity, privilege and power, though I am skeptical, therein, of her efforts to reach for a “spirit of understanding.” Core to her piece is her belief that school-wide expectations surrounding political correctness and “microaggression” are a kind of white censorship and thus hold no social merit. “I don’t care about being politically correct,” Drury writes, on these expectations, “and if people don’t like my opinion, so be it... I hate having to censor every word I utter and monitor every action I make just to avoid offending someone and being branded as a racist...”
Drury’s display of hatred is worrying. She disregards and demonizes the everyday troubles of minority students, which, since my first weeks at the College, have been aired widely to me and in this paper. Her central arguments — “we have developed thin skin,” “we have the luxury to whine about people hurting our feelings” and “why can’t we all just be human and love each other” — are homespun at best. In my six semesters collaborating with Middlebury students, I have never read more uncomplicated claims or insensitive language. And what’s unsettling here is Drury’s tone in casting her assertions: it is divisive and untactful.
As Drury’s peer, I am irked. As a Middlebury student, I am discouraged by my college. As an organizer for the environment, I feel a duty to emphasize the importance of empathy. In my eight years of mobilizing around a cause, I have learned that respect and understanding is critical. There’s tact — an art form — in making a point, even to contenders; subversiveness is not part of that dance.
If all else, Drury, your words have sounded an alarm in this community; I give you that. They bear testimony that a fully-realized diversity, equity and inclusiveness at today’s Middlebury College remains a pipe dream. All things considered as a school in this milieu we are still in a stage of diagnosis, much less care or prevention.
(02/24/16 8:57pm)
We are writing directly in response to the op-ed from the last issue, “I’m Only Human.” The op-ed has upset a lot of people and has hurt a lot more. As demonstrated by the polarized comment section online, it unfortunately represents the views of a sizable portion of the student body. And while censoring their views would not be productive, we must explain why they are misguided.
Cultural appropriation and microaggressions may appear trivial compared to the experiences of people like Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown and Sandra Bland. At Middlebury, people of color are not getting shot. But racism on this campus is very real.
Middlebury College, despite the wonderful education it provides, can be a painful and isolating place for many black students.
“You’re kinda an Oreo. Black on the outside and white on the inside!”
“I don’t really see you as a black person.”
These comments can shape how students of color perceive themselves at Middlebury. We might feel weak or inferior when people use the n word; as “ghetto” when people appropriate the ghetto; or as unintelligent when people joke about the way we speak.
True, a white student saying the n-word is not an international crisis like Syria or Boko Haram, which the author cited as “more important things to worry about.” But the accumulation of microaggressions is a macroaggression. They shape how minorities are treated in the real world. Seeing black people as “aggressive” can trigger police brutality, and seeing them as “stupid” could inhibit their ability to get hired. This prejudice is just the top layer of a worldview that systematically exploits people of color, and a litany of others, so it is crucial that we challenge it here at Middlebury.
In an effort to ignore this reality, some advocate a form of perverted humanism – the idea that we can all get along with each other on the understanding that we are all human beings, not as “black, white, gay or straight.” Some may think, “We all are human, and ought not worry about differences like gender, sexuality or race. Progress is sloppy, and we shouldn’t be monitoring our own speech or behavior. Make mistakes, think big and don’t take anything personally!”
This is callous. Like it or not, we do not live in a post-racial society. Even children, from a very early age, begin distinguishing between different races. We should acknowledge the reality we live in, instead of inventing another, even if it does make life more complicated.
And one final point: As students, we are not as removed from the real world as we would like to think. When we leave Middlebury we will become law-enforcement, teachers and parents. At that time, the argument over ‘micro’ or ‘macro’ issues parodies itself: Inequality is inequality, and prejudice is prejudice. And respecting the dignity of all people should not be a chore.
Harry Cramer ’16.5 is a Local Editor from Wellesley, MA and Kahari Blue ’19 is from New Haven, CT.
(02/24/16 8:54pm)
Dear Katrina,
As always, the willingness to put pen to paper, with a signature, and publish it in a public forum is important and admirable. Thank you for taking the time to write and for offering your thoughts. As I understood your op-ed, you are deeply frustrated with what you perceive to be hyper-sensitivity among many students. You wrote, “We have developed such a thin skin, taking everything personally and getting offended at the tiniest things. We’re lucky that we live in a country where we have the kind of luxury to whine about people hurting our feelings.” I would actually argue that feelings matter and the fact that you shared your feelings so passionately is affirmation of that claim. But, what really confused me about your statement was that in all three public forums that I attended, and in conversations, I have never heard anyone talk about ‘hurt feelings’ nor did I hear anyone asking for any kind of censorship. Rather, what I heard, repeatedly, was a call for all of us to imagine and be curious about how patterns of behavior, both personal and institutional, that are often taken at face value as neutral are, in fact, hostile and exclusionary.
One way to think about this is to call to mind the ‘melting pot’ metaphor. Generally, the term refers to the idea that the unique cultural identity of the USA is made through the assimilation or ‘melting’ of previously distinct ethnic groups or cultures into one. Sounds nice and inclusive. But, an interesting question to ask is, “Who is in charge of stirring the pot?” In my experience, when most “White” people are asked to reflect on this question they realize that they had assumed that a “White” person was always in control of the stirring. If you are “White,” and someone of a different gender, or ethnicity, race, sexuality was stirring the pot would you jump in? (And it is worth remembering that, historically, few have had much of a choice). In other words, are you willing to adapt and change to others in a way that they have been required to adapt? Suddenly, what was presumed to be a warm, friendly, non-ideological space where everyone assimilates becomes not so warm and friendly when I/“White” person has to relinquish control. Turns out the melting pot does not refer to the melding of everyone into some new, hybrid expression of unity, but an effort to demand that everyone adapt to “White” norms. Maybe, that thin skin is actually my own as I realize that I do not want to blend/listen/change.
The realization that the melting pot is not a neutral space is akin to the transition from ‘diversity’ to ‘inclusion’ on college campuses. Diversity is the effort to ensure that historically under-represented groups are given fair and equal opportunities to enjoy a college education. Under the ‘diversity’ mindset, the institution is assumed to be a neutral place where everyone can succeed if they just work hard. The institution does not need to change because, you know, it is fine and exists in some mythically neutral space of higher education. If you are having problems, it must be you. You just need better mentoring. But, after decades of ‘diversity’ initiatives, more and more students challenged this assumption as they experienced an intense and deep cost to ‘success.’ Turns out places of higher education like Middlebury are not neutral spaces at all — they are filled with all sorts of restrictive norms regarding ‘appropriate’ behavior, what a ‘normal’ student looks like, literally, what counts as worthy of academic investigation and what does not, and, and, and. Like the melting pot, these restrictive norms come out of one particular cultural tradition that is now being challenged to realize the fact that it is one among many cultures not some neutral standard.
Thus, inclusion is the next, much more difficult evolution. Inclusion requires the institution — which means each and every one of us — to examine long-standing patterns and norms that those who are from the dominant group thought were neutral, but that actually create hostile environments. It is really important that each of us, in our multiple identities and multiple campus roles, recognize that the challenge of inclusion has nothing to do with ‘feelings’ in the manner in which we normally think. Again, in our forums and in various writings I have not heard any student complain about their feelings being hurt. What I heard, repeatedly, was a call to examine hostile and exclusionary patterns that are based on centuries of both intentionally exclusionary and just plain, thoughtless behavior. As a community, we must commit to staying curious and compassionate with one another as we continue to evolve. We are so new to this that there is already a sense of exhaustion. Well, get some rest everyone. We are just getting started.
Jonathan Miller-Lane
Associate Professor & Director,
Education Studies Program
Faculty Head, Wonnacott Commons
(02/24/16 5:00pm)
President Ilana Gratch ’16 began the Jan. 24 meeting of the Student Government Association (SGA) with the announcement of a new working group to examine dynamics of power and inclusivity on campus. The hope is to implement courses on these topics into the College’s curriculum.
Gratch also announced that the Feb election will take place on Feb. 25 and that, despite a special election held earlier this fall, both seats will be up for election.
Speaker of the Senate Reshma Gogineni ’16 shared that she is currently working to update MiddCourses with faulty biographies and information on teaching styles.
Wonnacott Senator Lisa Han ’16 reported that funds have been secured to purchase rental skates for Kenyon Arena. Once storage space for the skates is obtained, the skates will be ordered and made available for students.
SGA Treasurer Aaron de Toledo updated the group that the finance committee will be taking new money requests until Apr. 1. Most organizations have already made their new money requests and the committee is currently transitioning to look at spring budgeting. He also shared that the yearbook came in $22,000 under budget and that money will be returned to the SGA.
Senators discussed a proposal to purchase an app and website called LaundryView that would allow students to view when their laundry is finished and when machines are available for use. Last year, the SGA passed a bill to fund half ($3,500) of the project, but the College is not able to pay the other half of the cost. President Gratch shared that one potential way to fund the project would be to increase the cost of laundry by $0.25 for every wash and dry cycle. Senators discussed the merits of the additional cost and came to the consensus that doing so would not be beneficial to students.
The meeting concluded with a discussion of creating an SGA-run Facebook group/page to share information and resources about diversity and racism. Senators were skeptical of the effectiveness of such a group. Many agreed that, if it were implemented, it would have to be a small part of an overall effort by the SGA.
At the Jan. 31 meeting, Associate Dean of Students for Residential and Student Life Doug Adams asked the SGA for feedback on how rooms should be assigned in the new Ridgeline Housing Complex. According to Adams, students have expressed frustration with the room draw system, and asked that a new method be implemented for the project. Senators agreed that since one of the goals of the new housing is to keep students on campus, seniority should play a role in the process. President Gratch agreed that seniority should be considered, but pointed out that Febs may be disadvantaged should they choose to live with an individual one semester below them, versus one semester above.
First-Year Senator Charles Rainey ’19 introduced a bill recommending that Middlebury College President Laurie L. Patton send an all-school email addressing the controversial comments on affirmative action that the now late Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia made in December. The bill also called for President Patton to address the MLK Today event held in Mead Chapel on Jan. 18 that, as worded in the bill, “featured numerous highly offensive and post-racial actions (to name a few of a long list: a majority white oratory choir reading black experiences in the first-person, white students delivering quotes in a context that police POC’s reactions to racism and songs repeated by the entire chapel suggesting POCs smile and many more).” After much debate, the resolution passed six to four, with two abstentions.
Senator Rainey introduced another bill that called for the SGA to release its own statement to the student body addressing both the MLK Today event and Justice Scalia’s comments. The resolution passed seven to five, with one abstention.
(02/24/16 4:58pm)
On Feb. 5, Don Kjelleren resigned as Director of Professional and Career Development for the Center for Careers and Internships (CCI). He ended his 17 years at the College to become the Director of the Williams College Career Center.
Kjelleren will be replaced by Ursula Olender, Associate Dean of Students and Director of the Career Center at Amherst College, who will start on March 21. She has further experience as the Director of Career Services at Colgate University and the Associate Director of Career Services at Dartmouth College. In the interim, students looking for advising in finance, consulting and business can schedule appointments with Susan Walker, associate director at the CCI.
While at Middlebury, Kjelleren specialized in guiding students interested in finance, consulting and business. Sarah Sicular ’16, a peer career advisor in the CCI, said, “So many students come in for finance and he had a huge personal network and always had all of the interests of his students at heart. I think a lot of students are really missing out that they don’t get to have Don as their advisor. He helped build up the Middlebury pipeline to careers in finance.”
During his career at the College, Kjelleren built up a large web of connections by networking with alumni, parents and companies visiting campus. Peggy Burns, Director of the CCI, reassures students that Ursula will be coming with that exact same network from her previous work, particularly at Colgate and Amherst. “We could not have asked for a more seamless transition,” she said.
Besides spending time advising students, Kjelleren trains as a triathlete with world ranking. He also has enjoyed biking to work on warm summer days and swimming in the freezing cold of Lake Champlain.
About her colleague Burns said, “It was fun having someone in the office with this incredible athletic prowess and experience with extreme sports. He has a good sense of humor and he cared very much about the staff and the students.”
Although Kjelleren says he will miss those bike rides, his colleagues and the students, he very much looks forward to in his new job. He is excited for the challenge of a tremendous growth opportunity. He said, “The culture and feel of the Williams Career Center is very different than Middlebury’s, in part because the Center is housed in College Advancement and so there are about 90 professional staff running around at high speed doing great things.”
While Kjelleren’s colleagues are certainly sad to lose him to Williams, they are excited about the great opportunity ahead of him. Furthermore, he leaves an excellent finance and consulting program behind him, which according to Burns is a strong foundation that the CCI expects to build upon in the future.
Burns believes this foundation will only benefit from the new perspective Olender brings.
“Ursula is coming from a campus that has a strong commitment to diversity and it is something she is particularly passionate about,” Burns said. “Her feet are firmly planted in the idea that these four years are a developmental process and she really wants to meet students where they are. She’s very committed to making the career exploration process a little less scary for students.”
Kjelleren leaves some parting words of advice, “Students, shift your focus from ‘What do you want to do?’ to ‘Who do you want to be?’ Be confident, dream big and don’t settle for less.”
(02/24/16 4:48pm)
The Middlebury Campus sat down with Laurie L. Patton to discuss her first few months at Middlebury as the College’s 17th president. In this profile, Patton discusses what has surprised her about Middlebury, what her first days were like after her appointment and what she hopes to focus on in the coming months.
Middlebury Campus (MC): What have you accomplished during your first few months as President that you are proud of and what do you hope to accomplish or focus on during the coming months?
Laurie Patton (LP): So I’m not sure whether “accomplishment” is quite the right word, since I’m still just getting to know the community and presidencies usually make their mark over the long haul, after a period much longer than seven months. And I prefer to think of what we have accomplished together, since presidents don’t actually have much unilateral power! Those two caveats aside, I am proud of so many things we have already done as a community: the first year of our new faculty governance system at Middlebury College; the great work faculty at Monterey have done on their new governance system; the second year of our new Board of Trustees governance system; the faculty vote this fall on a new AAL requirement which was started by students; the creation of Alliance for an Inclusive Middlebury; the Disability Advisory Group; the Task force on Stress; all the great work that has come from faculty and students and staff on mindfulness practices and developing resilience. These are all about community practices that change culture over time, where we communicate better with each other and enhance quality of Middlebury life.
MC: Is there one thing that hasn’t lived up to your expectations or that has surprised you?
LP: The pleasant surprise has been how collaborative and constructive people are. I knew this about the Middlebury community, but the depth and extent of it has been truly a joy to encounter. On the down side, I also worry that we have too many bureaucratic layers. Even though we are a newly complex organization, I think we need to ask whether we are already too complex sometimes. I am greatly looking forward to the strategic planning process to think about this issue across the Middlebury landscape.
MC: The national conversation surrounding racial issues has touched upon the role of institutions in protecting students from being offended. To what extent do you think Colleges should protect their students from potentially offensive situations? Is this possible? Beneficial? What is the distinction between protecting and censoring? At what point is freedom of speech in danger?
LP: As you know this question of inclusivity is a major priority for me. We can and should discuss in constructive ways how we handle situations of offense. We are just now putting in place the bias incident protocol, which means that there are procedures for when these incidents occur. And we need to uphold our community standards of conduct and speech that are already in place, which specifically emphasize that we should work to report and change unwelcome behavior before the environment becomes difficult or hostile for those affected. I also think that the opposition between free speech and inclusivity is a false one. We become a more inclusive community through the exercise of free speech. That also means that we try to create resilient spaces, where all members of our community have the skills to deal with an offense when it occurs. Because offenses occur in both small and large scales, and we are also dealing with structural bias that involves the slower process of systemic change, multiple solutions are needed: protocols for bias incident reporting; resilience training; constant review of bias in our systems and constant encouragement toward constructive engagement.
MC: In light of recent events involving racial injustice issues across college campuses, what does a more inclusive Middlebury look like to you?
LP: I would love to see students and faculty and staff become less afraid of engaging constructively with each other on difficult topics. That alone is going to take a lot of time. I would also love to see better interaction in classrooms and on athletic fields, so that we can talk more comfortably across differences. I don’t think any campus has it right yet, but I think we need to be more invitational and develop a spirit of hospitality in spaces where we have been less welcoming and less mindful of historically underrepresented points of view.
MC: A recent New York Times op-ed titled “Rethinking College Admissions” raised concerns about the admissions processes at the most selective colleges. In your opinion, are current admissions standards flawed and, if so, what can Middlebury and its peer institutions do to mitigate the issue?
LP: Middlebury is a proud member of the Coalition for Affordability and Access that was referred to in the report. I think turning the tide on the ways in which we engage applicants is essential, and we will be working closely with other members to see how we can work collectively on this issue. That includes serious consideration of many of the recommendations that have now been put forward, and focusing less on the resume and the “credentializing culture” and more on the transformative experiences of the individual and that individual’s capacity to transform the college community they enter. We also need to do better work with families, particularly those from low-income households, who may not think more actively about the possibilities of a Middlebury education. The situation all colleges find themselves in is this: we both embrace and revile by the rankings system and the system of building credentials. I think we need to focus as much on the life-script as we do on the transcript, and that’s going to mean both outreach to different communities as well as a more holistic evaluation system of our applicants. I think our admissions office does a great job with that, but I have been impressed by how they are always looking to do better.
MC: You carry a wealth of experiences, illustrated through your extensive curriculum vitae and long list of honors, awards and accomplishments. Is there a particular feat that has stood out to you and marked a defining moment in your career?
LP: Yes. I think it was the moment I decided not to go into the corporate world to become a conflict mediator, but instead stayed in the academy and use my conflict mediation skills there. I realized then that higher education is one of the oldest and most fascinating forms of collective activity we have in civilization, beginning with the systems I study in ancient India. And that committing my life to that, and using conflict mediation skills in that context, was the most important work I could do as a scholar, teacher and leader.
MC: Considering the presidential search process had been long and private, the announcement of your appointment came very suddenly. What were the moments like before, during and after the huge announcement?
LP: The last 10 days before the announcement were harrowing. I was trying to keep a lid on the gossip, so that both wonderful institutions of Duke and Middlebury could be protected. My most powerful memory was on the day of the announcement. My question was: can I come back home to New England having become the person I’ve become? As I walked up the hill with Marna Whittington, our head of the Board of Trustees, and Dave Donahue, my assistant, I watched everyone stream into the building to hear the announcement. And all of them were surrounded by the unique beauty of the campus. That moment was deeply moving. I felt like I was being greeted and welcomed home by family I hadn’t met yet. Someone said, as I left the building, “The strength of the hills is hers also!” and tears came to my eyes. After the announcement we very quickly began the hard work of getting to know the community.
MC: What advice did our former president, Ron Liebowitz, share with you that has stood out to you?
LP: Ron and I have very similar energy levels and perspectives on how forward-looking higher education needs to be. We talked about many topics and had a really smooth transition, and I think his perspective on keeping this creative energy alive at Middlebury was most helpful. The continuity of vision was a great blessing.
MC: What are lessons you have learned from the students of the College so far?
LP: Middlebury students are extraordinary and I have been spending a lot of time with them. They want to be creative and they want the College to get out of the way and help them do that. I have learned about next steps on sustainability; I have learned how they want to push us on more inclusive practices and I frequently feel that if I ask students to help I am going to get extraordinary responses. I am always cheered up when I spend time with students.
MC: Favorite memory or activity from your first J-term?
LP: One scavenger hunt team crafted a wonderful response to the presidential challenge, where they found a new community or artistic use for several of the scientific instruments in our special collections. It was fabulous! And then the next day I got all the sweaters that different teams had knit for Padma and Suka, my great Pyrenees dogs. Science, arts, community and sweaters – as they say in Yiddish: what’s not to like?
(02/17/16 8:56pm)
I am a white student who has “white privilege” and who has committed hundreds of “micro-aggressions” throughout my life due to my “ignorance” of other cultures. There. That’s what most of you want me to say. But now, please allow me to say what I really feel. I warn you, though, you may not want to hear what I have to say. I don’t care about being politically correct, and if people don’t like my opinion, so be it. I have listened to many of your opinions on matters of race and diversity, so I hope you will at least be tolerant enough to listen to mine.
Honestly, I’m sick and tired of all this politically correct talk of racial equality and white privilege and micro-aggressions. I’ve actually grown to hate it, because that’s all I hear about – don’t say this because you might offend this group of people, don’t wear that because you might offend that group of people. We’re constantly being instructed on what to say and do in order to have a more caring and inclusive community, and I don’t know about you, but I hate that. Not the part about living together in peace and equality – that’s definitely a very admirable goal – but rather, I hate having to censor every word I utter and monitor every action I make just to avoid offending someone and being branded as a racist, sexist, or whatever other -ist there is. Life is complicated enough, so why make it more complicated by making everyone over-analyze everything to find and prevent micro-aggressions? Let’s face it, there are more important things to be worrying about. Elsewhere in the world, terrorists are beheading Christians who won’t convert to Islam, homosexuals are getting arrested and even killed because of their lifestyle, “refugees” are raping women because they see women as inferior, and innocent children are being burned alive. And people here find it upsetting when someone wears a sombrero?
In reality, the micro-aggressions aren’t the problem. People are the problem. We have developed such a thin skin, taking everything personally and getting offended at the tiniest things. We’re lucky we live in a country where we have the kind of luxury to whine about people hurting our feelings. At least our feelings are all that are hurt.
What’s more is that if people are so desperate for equality, then why do they constantly point out our differences? We’re always forced to label ourselves and put ourselves into boxes based on our race, ethnicity, religion, gender, political leaning, etc. How are we supposed to achieve equality when all we see are the divisions between us? Yes, people are different. Just look around you and you will see that. But most of the differences people focus on are skin-deep. If you take away the outer layers, we’re all essentially the same; we’re all made of the same basic bones and organs, and we all share the same human DNA. In one of my favorite books, Tuesdays with Morrie, Morrie says, “If we saw each other as more alike, we might be very eager to join in one big human family in this world, and to care about that family the way we care about our own.” I think more people should adopt this attitude. Instead of being black, white, gay, straight … why can’t we all just be human and love each other for that alone?
Katrina Drury '19 is from Cincinnatus, New York.
(01/28/16 3:43am)
Middlebury’s Charter House Coalition currently helps house and feed over 500 people per year through a number of ever-expanding programs. The non-profit has come a long way since the organization started hosting monthly community dinners back in 2004. “If someone had told any of us back in 2004 what we were getting into, we probably would have run the other way,” jokes Doug Sinclair, executive director of the non-profit.
Sinclair is one of the community members who has seen Charter House grow organically, from a time when it hosted quiet dinners where volunteers matched the number of guests, to the far-reaching shelter and meal-provider it is today.
At the beginning Sinclair was simply one of many members willing to pitch in some extra time to help those who were food insecure.“We’ve just responded to community needs as they’ve arisen and as more people have wanted to get involved,” Sinclair said. Word spread rapidly about community dinners and within the year, they were a weekly event. In 2005, the organization rented its first apartment to help a family who needed shelter, commencing the Charter House’s housing program. By 2007, the entire apartment building was under Charter House ownership.
The economic downturn in 2008 created a crisis in supplying enough emergency beds and meals. The back portion of the Charter House building was opened because it was empty at the time, but now welcomes around 20 guests per night during the winter months and dozens more for community lunches and breakfasts.
As the organization grew, management demands increased along with it. Prior to his relocation to Vermont 12 years ago, Sinclair worked as a chemistry and physics research manager developing electronic and photonic devices.
“Managing a volunteer organization is very different than managing most kinds of commercial operations, but managing research has a lot in common with managing volunteers because you’re managing a lot of people each bringing their own talents and ideas,” Sinclair said of his experience. Indeed, the volunteer basis of Charter House makes it unique. “We have not discovered any other organization that has this many volunteers,” said Sinclair. Over 950 volunteers participate annually in Charter House programs, 30 percent of which are college students. The number of hours volunteers collectively contribute totals to the amount of 12 full-time paid staff, saving the organization hundreds of thousands of dollars each year.
Apart from the college and its students, numerous church groups and other service organizations have been integral to the continued operation of the Charter House. Many volunteers choose to come in for a couple hours a week, but Sinclair’s weekly commitment ranges from 15-20 hours in the slower summer months, and far beyond 40 if the College is out of session but the winter shelter is open.
“To some extent my job is to plug the holes,” Sinclair said. “The management team has to jump in any time something comes up that isn’t covered elsewhere.” Thus, there is no one thing Sinclair does on a day to day basis. His responsibilities range from budget concerns to large-scale rethinking of the organization’s programs, to everyday staffing of the shelter. Sinclair is the first to admit that the financial tasks and other details are not his favorite part of his role.
“The management kind of things you do because they need to get done,” he said, “The part I enjoy most is working with volunteers and working with the folks we’re serving. There’s so much energy in people who come work here. It makes it a lot of fun for me.” Sinclair particularly likes the engagement from student volunteers who help out frequently in all of the Charter House’s programs, including the warming shelter, fund-raising, community meals and farm-to-table gardens. Student initiatives have also been formative in the organization’s development. Sunday Grill Night, conceived of and executed by the Men’s Rugby Team this past fall, has been a huge success and helped accomplish the Charter House’s goals of providing at least one meal for community members every day of the week. Sinclair’s interest in working with students also manifested itself in his other occupation as a chemistry and physics teacher at state colleges, a position he retired from just last May. He enjoys being around those who are still figuring out what their life will entail, a situation he himself experienced upon his move to Vermont.
When he moved here with his wife, the change in location was the only detail of which he was certain. Sinclair was drawn to Middlebury because his son attended college here, graduating in the early 90's.
"The first thing was to move to Vermont, the second was: what am I going to do?" Sinclair recalls. “I decided to take a year to explore different possible things to do.” His volunteer work developed in the background as he continued teaching until it became what he calls his “full-time hobby.” He reflects that his own involvement with the Charter House has developed parallel to the growth of the organization itself.
“The reason we’re still involved is because we found out how much value it brings to the folks we’re serving but also brings a lot of value to each of us and so many volunteers continue to say, ‘gee, I get more out of it than I put into it.’” Though Sinclair admits that recent discussion has turned towards a transition of power, he insists he will continue to be a regular volunteer as long as possible. In all likelihood, Sinclair’s successor will be multiple people, as the responsibilities he fulfills are fairly demanding for a single volunteer position. But this is merely a positive sign that the Charter House hopes to continue to grow into an even greater community force than it is today.
(01/28/16 12:59am)
Just as the Lord Chamberlain’s Men playing company once toured England over 400 years ago to perform the plays of William Shakespeare, the First Folios of the man regarded as the most influential writer of the English language are about to embark on a grand tour of their own. As part of this yearlong, nation-wide tour, one of them will pause for display at the Middlebury College Museum of Art from Feb. 2 to 28 in the exhibit “First Folio! The Book that Gave us Shakespeare, on Tour from the Folger Shakespeare Library.”
Shakespeare’s First Folio, published in 1623 – seven years after his death – is, to our knowledge, the first book ever to record the complete collection of his plays. Of the 750 editions published, an estimated 233 survive. 82 of these are held in a special vault at the Folger Shakespeare Library in Washington D.C., according to the Folger website. It is the largest collection of First Folios in the world.
This year, to commemorate the 400th anniversary of Shakespeare’s death, the Folger Library is taking 18 of its editions out of the vault for public viewing. A copy will pass through each of the 50 states of the US, as well as Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico. Middlebury College will serve as the only host site in Vermont.
While the application process to be a host site involved countless people collaborating over the course of a year — notably, community partners, the Ilsley Library, the Town Hall Theater and the Vermont Humanities Council — two figures on campus were particularly involved: Professor of English and American Literatures Timothy Billings, who wrote the grant application, and the Director of Special Collections, Rebekah Irwin, who coordinated logistical and event planning.
Billings admits to being “in love with Shakespeare for over 40 years.” His admiration began from a viewing of Franco Zeffirelli’s Romeo and Juliet, which he saw with his mother at the age of six or seven. Growing up, his parents regularly took him to Shakespeare productions, often at the Ashland Shakespeare Festival at the Angus Bowmer Theater in Seattle, which Billings’s architect father helped design. Billings went on to study Shakespeare during and after college, and got the rare chance to see Folger’s collection of First Folios during a summer fellowship.
“There’s a special vault inside the vault — which is where the very, very precious things are held,” Billings said. “Most researchers never get to see that. They lay them on their sides because setting them upright puts pressure on the bindings, so the safest way is to have them all horizontal on each shelf. You see all these bindings, all different, some of them are gorgeous and ornate, some of them are really just dark and simple. All 82 of them. It’s a stunning thing to see.”
Each First Folio is unique, both in its binding and its interior, due to the printing and publishing practices of the time each was made. Billings explained that in Shakespeare’s time vendors sold books as interiors; the customer would buy the pages of one or several texts sewn together and take them to a binder, who would then create a cover for the pages, as simple or ornate as the customer could afford. Because of the stop-press correction process used by printers at the time, each Folio contains pages with features exclusive to that version.
“And so the particular one that we get has its own history and carries with it the lives — in this very tangential way, this kind of aura of the lives — it has touched along the way,” Billings said.
Irwin shared that paper produced for the Folios further distinguishes the editions and their histories. “Paper during that time and the early renaissance was made using rags. Rag pickers was a medieval term for the very poor members of a social class who would gather rags and those rags would be made into paper. So the paper from books that are really old is actually quite beautiful and in very good condition compared to the paper that was made, let’s say, in the 1870s. The paper that the First Folio’s made out of is beautiful paper and in wonderful shape,” said Irwin.
While each Folio boasts its own physical features and personal history, all of them together have contributed to the legacy of Shakespeare. Each Folio contains 36 plays. Of those, 18, including Julius Caesar, Twelfth Night and even Macbeth had never been formally recorded and would have been lost had they not been printed in the Folios. The fact that the Folios were published at all, and preserved so well, has also played a role in forming Shakespeare’s place as an emblem of Western culture.
And then there is the unspoken, obvious reason why the Folios are so valuable: the stories inside are really, really good. “Even when I re-read Shakespeare I’m continually taken aback and even surprised at how good some parts are,” Billings said. “Just when I’m starting to feel blasé with overfamiliarity something smacks me, and I think, ‘This is just so damn good!’”
Because of the rarity and value of these Folios, security and safety are major priorities during this tour. Not even Irwin, who has coordinated so much of the project, knows how the book is getting to Middlebury or where it is coming from. She asked. They haven’t told her. According to Irwin, it’s coming in a sensitive, specially made box, equipped with temperature, light and humidity controls.
Once on campus, the Folio will remain in the box for about 12 hours before being handled. The museum will maintain proper temperature and light conditions, as well as humidity levels right at 50 percent, ideal for book preservation.
“Paper is like skin,” Irwin said. “Our conservation manager will often say that all of our books are organic, and they’re dying, rotting, like anything else. And so we just do everything that we can to slow the decay process. With this special book, we have to not just slow the process, but try to get as close to stopping it as we can.”
She added, “For every day that a book is kept in bad conditions, it reduces the life cycle by years. There have been scientific equations that can show that the paper will degrade faster for every temperature degree below its ideal set-point.”
The exhibit taking place at the Museum will include multi-panel displays provided by the Folger Library, in addition to digital content and activities. “The scholars at the Folger are first rate, so the material we’re getting from them is going to be superb, I have no doubt,” Billings said.
The College has collaborated with the greater Vermont community to provide as much free programming to as much of the public as possible surrounding the Folio, including visiting and resident speakers, workshops, theater performances, film screenings, a folio festival featuring live Renaissance music and more.
While none of us will ever know what it was like to hear Hamlet’s famous “to be or not to be” soliloquy from the mouth of Richard Burbage, who played him in the work’s original productions on the Elizabethan stage, the upcoming exhibit will give college students and Vermonters alike the rare chance to read the words of that very speech on a page almost as old as Burbage himself. It’s the closest thing to time travel we’ve got.
