1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(01/19/17 5:03pm)
Representatives from the College administration formally asked members of the Student Government Association (SGA) on Jan. 15 to assist in the funding of MiddView orientation trips for three years, beginning in fall 2017.
MiddView trips in their current form — mandatory for all students and free of charge — have existed since fall 2013. The SGA and the College agreed to split the cost for the program’s first three years, with the College assuming full financial responsibility in fall 2016. However, facing unexpected financial challenges in recent months, the College has been forced to turn back to the SGA. As it stands, the College is asking the SGA to contribute $50,000, roughly one-fourth of MiddView’s $204,000 cost for 2017.
The SGA is not obligated to comply with the College’s request, and may choose to refuse any contribution whatsoever, to fund only a portion of what the College has requested, or to fund only one year.
Speaking to The Campus, three administrators charged with approaching the SGA discussed the causes of the College’s financial predicament, the importance of fully funding MiddView trips and the possible consequences should the SGA decline to do so.
“Some of the unexpected [financial] challenges that the broader institution has faced, including the undergraduate college, means that while we’re certainly financially strong — our endowment points to that — we still need to make certain decisions to ensure that we preserve that endowment,” said Dean of the College Katy Smith Abbott. “That has meant a kind of fiscal belt-tightening, and now a pulling-back for fiscal year 2018, so that non-compensation budgets are being cut by four percent.”
The Administration’s decision to turn to the SGA, Smith Abbott explained, resulted from the “pre-existing collaborative partnership” that already existed between the two groups. “Because that previous partnership had been suggested as a pitch by students to the senior administration, I think that seemed as though it was a fruitful place to begin the conversation,” she said.
Funding MiddView trips in full, they agreed, is crucial to the mission of the program. Derek Doucet, associate dean of students for student activities & orientation, explained that “a single unifying experience that every student goes through at the beginning of college is really valuable, particularly in a time where we’re trying to be more intentional in the way we address issues of equity and inclusion.”
“This is a program where athletes and non-athletes mix, where international students mix with domestic students,” Doucet said. “It’s very intentional in the fact that the groups that we create are drawn from across all different areas of campus. To have that first experience be one that is immediately breaking down some perceived barriers that are often talked about on this campus, I think is really valuable.”
An SGA decision to refuse funding, while not catastrophic, would compromise these strengths. “We’re not saying that if we don’t get this funding from the SGA, MiddView is going to collapse,” Doucet said. “But it would look very different than it has in the past, that’s for sure.”
“We could think about a fee-based program with a very generous financial aid packet built in so that socioeconomic considerations were not a barrier,” he said. “But there are equity and philosophical issues that I have with that particular approach too. So we would have an opportunity, beginning in 2018, to completely rethink how we run the trips program.”
“The way the program is run right now is the most inclusive way we could run it,” agreed Amanda Reinhardt, assistant director of orientation. “In the outdoor education and recreation world, there’s a huge lack of people of color participating in that way, and so what would that mean for students on this campus who maybe don’t already feel welcome here, to have to make that choice: do I opt into this program, or do I not?”
“It doesn’t mean we wouldn’t make a different model inclusive,” Reinhardt said. “There would just be more barriers to participation that we would need to lower. We’d need a lot of help and creativity to figure out how to lower those barriers.”
The SGA will decide whether or not to fund MiddView at their Jan. 22 meeting. According to Interim SGA Finance Committee Chair Peter Dykeman-Bermingham, who delivered a presentation at the Jan. 15 meeting of the SGA, there are several different courses of action that the SGA could take should they decide to fund the program.
“I was looking at [several] options should the Senate decide that they are going to fund it,” he said. “I was very seriously considering student value, of where we put money for impact. Our allocations fund everything from cultural orgs and club sports, to food and service clubs. And I want to make sure that the student body, holistically, gets the most out of their money.”
One option that the SGA has, should the body decide to allocate funds towards MiddView, would be to decrease all spending by five percent, thus resulting in a cut of student organization budgets. Members of the SGA could also choose to tap into the SGA’s reserve fund which, according to Dykeman-Bermingham, is just over $100,000. The SGA reserve fund is used to fund new money requests, as well as any unanticipated expenditures that may occur throughout the year.
“Our reserve has two major functions. One is insurance, so that if something goes wrong we have the funds and capital to put money towards it,” Dykeman-Bermingham said. “The other is to encourage innovation in the student activities realm. If someone comes to the [Finance Committee] with a very good idea that we hadn’t originally budgeted for, that’s the piggy bank we’ll reach into to help promote and bring that to fruition.”
Another course of action that the SGA could take would be to raise the Student Activities Fee (SAF). At present, the SAF is roughly $415 and is used to fund student-sponsored organizations and on-campus activities. It is the responsibility of the SGA Finance Committee and, for larger expenditures, the SGA Senate to distribute this money each year. Students who receive financial aid do not pay the SAF, as it is included as a part of financial aid packages.
The SAF is set by the Board of Trustees and, historically, has been adjusted each year by the consumer price index (CPI). The SGA would need to recommend that the Board of Trustees raise the SAF by $20.40 to cover the entire cost of MiddView.
Dykeman-Bermingham also presented two integrated solutions to members of the SGA that included raising the SAF, depleting reserves and decreasing SGA spending.
The first option would be to raise the SAF by the consumer price index (CPI) plus two percent. This would raise the SAF to $430 and generate an additional $36,750 in revenue per year. The SGA would then deplete their reserves by roughly $30,000 over three years and decrease annual spending by 0.3 percent ($3,250).
The second option would be to raise SAF by the standard CPI plus one percent, deplete reserves by $30,000 over three years and decrease annual SGA spending by 1.3 percent ($13,050).
According to Dykeman-Bermingham, several one year options are also being considered. While the final decision lies with members of the SGA, Dykeman-Bermingham said that the finance committee will advise the SGA should they seek their counsel.
A final decision will be made at the Jan. 22 meeting of the SGA.
(12/08/16 5:00pm)
Middlebury College announced today that it has met its goal of a net zero carbon emissions footprint by the end of 2016, fulfilling a commitment made in 2007 by then-president Ronald D. Liebowitz and making Middlebury the fourth college campus in the U.S. to declare itself carbon neutral.
Nearly all of the current carbon footprint will be offset by carbon credits earned from a land trust agreement on 2,100 acres of College-owned forest land in the Bread Loaf Wilderness in Ripton, Vt. The tract will be protected through a conservation easement held by the Vermont Land Trust.
The College established the Bread Loaf Preservation Fund in 2014 to preserve the land “in perpetuity.” The fund is financed in part by the Moore Charitable Foundation, which is chaired by Louis Bacon ’79, a conservation philanthropist and a College trustee.
Bluesource LLC, a privately-held firm based in Utah, conducted field studies on the tract in October and November to estimate the amount of carbon sequestered in the forest. Another party will have to independently verify this number before the College can apply to the American Carbon Registry, a nonprofit organization that issues official carbon credits that can be bought and sold on a market.
Once the College receives its credits — which are expected to exceed the 12,905 metric tons of carbon necessary to reach net zero emissions — it will sell the remainder of them.
The idea for carbon neutrality at Middlebury first came about in the late 1990s. It gained traction when the Environmental Council started a project called the Carbon Reduction Initiative in 2002. They presented a report to the Board of Trustees recommending that the College reduce its carbon footprint by levels specified in the Kyoto Protocol — 8 percent below 1990 levels by 2012.
The report proposed projects that could reduce the College’s fossil fuel consumption levels. The trustees approved one of these projects, the biomass gasification plant, in 2006. The plant cost $12 million and burns about 24,000 tons of woodchips purchased from local timber companies.
During gasification, wood chips are super-heated in an oxygen deprived environment to the point that they smolder and release gases. The gases are then ignited to heat the boiler, producing steam. The filters in the biomass facility are rated to remove 99.7 percent of the particulates from the exhaust.
Biomass gasification at this plant is considered carbon neutral becauses the forests that supply the wood chips are growing at a faster rate than timber is being harvested. Local foresters frequently verify the growth rate of the forests, according to Mike Moser, director of Facilities Services.
In 2006, student activists in Sunday Night Group, emboldened by the trustee’s approval of the biomass plant, proposed to then-president Liebowitz that the College pledge to become carbon neutral. He agreed to let them present to the trustees at their next meeting. In May 2007, with Liebowitz’s backing, the trustees formally resolved to make the campus carbon neutral by the end of 2016.
Beginning in 2012, the College financed three solar projects to source some of its electricity. One solar farm is along College Street, across from the recycling center; another is called South Ridge on state Route 7 in Middlebury; and a third is being constructed at Wilber Electric in Pittsford, Vt. The College has also financed 87 renewable energy projects, including a manure digester being constructed at Goodrich Farm in Salisbury, Vt., which will turn cow manure into methane gas that can be used to heat campus buildings.
At the end of fiscal year 2016, carbon emissions totaled 13,539 metric tons. For the past nine years, Middlebury College Snow Bowl has purchased an average of 590 metric tons annually in carbon credits from Native Energy, which funds renewable energy projects and is based in Burlington, Vt. The sequestered carbon in the Bread Loaf forest will provide at least 12,905 metric tons worth of carbon offsets, enough to yield a balance of zero carbon emissions.
The College was emitting 14,473 metric tons of carbon at the close of fiscal year 2015. It reached neutrality in the past fiscal year in part by consuming 70 percent less in No. 6 oil and using compressed natural gas to make up the lost energy. But the offsets certified by the American Carbon Registry for the sequestered carbon in the Bread Loaf forest — offsetting 85 percent of 2015 emissions alone — were the most significant factor in reaching net zero carbon emissions since the biomass plant was completed in 2009.
“An awful lot of carbon neutrality is definitional,” said Churchill Franklin ’71 of Cornwall, Vt., a benefactor of the Franklin Environmental Center, in a video posted on the College’s Vimeo channel. “By some definitions, there’s plenty of work still to do.”
Credits from the sequestered carbon will hold their value for five years, according to Jack Byrne, director of sustainability integration. A third party must reassess the sequestration credit values by conducting field work at the five year mark, and can adjust the values if the studies show changes. If the credits lose all their value, the College will have to find another solution for maintaining carbon neutrality, Byrne said. But the College is always looking to make the campus more energy efficient and to do more with less, he said.
Representatives for the College projected pride in making the announcement today, reflecting on the success of an idea nearly sixteen years in the making.
“I am thrilled to announce this significant moment in Middlebury’s history of environmental leadership,” said Laurie L. Patton, the College’s president, in a statement. “I encourage the campus community to pause and reflect on the importance of this achievement and recognize the visionary work of so many people who brought us to this point.”
Nan Jenks-Jay, dean of environmental affairs, said that achieving net zero emissions was a collaborative project that was driven considerably by student input.
“This is really about an institution committing to bold sustainability goals, collaborating and innovating with learning and leadership at the core,” Jenks-Jay said. “Middlebury’s carbon neutrality achievement demonstrates how a community can engage in bringing about important environmental solutions — solutions that are more important each day.”
The announcement comes amid President-elect Donald J. Trump’s transition to the White House, which has dogged environmental activists because of Trump’s promises to bring back coal and to withdraw the U.S. from the Paris Agreement signed by President Obama earlier this year. When asked about how President-elect Trump’s environmental agenda will affect the College’s sustainability efforts, Byrne said he sees the College continuing to serve as a model for other institutions seeking to take local initiative.
“A lot of the significant progress in this area has taken place at the local and state level over the years,” Byrne said. “What goes on at the federal and global level is extremely important, and policy and tone matter a lot. But in the absence of that — which we may have, or we may have less of — I think it’s important to continue to show how you can do this on your own.”
The College, he said, “can promote and inspire and encourage others — not just educational institutions — to show that you can do this environmentally, economically and morally.”
(11/18/16 1:53am)
What is feminist glaciology? How should we talk about intersectionality? Can graffiti bring people together? Is there a solution to mass incarceration?
These are just some of the many questions that were addressed at the TEDxMiddlebury event on Sunday, Nov. 13. The event, hosted in the Mahaney Center for the Arts (MCA), brought together seven live and two previously recorded speakers in three hour-long sessions. The speakers’ topics covered a range of ideas but all fit under the umbrella theme of “Playing the Game.”
The theme encompassed the different ways in which we navigate and play “the game,” and to each speaker this meant something different. Some interpretations were abstract while some were literal, creating a fascinatingly diverse arrangement of talks.
The conference was a function of TEDx, a branch of the TED conferences. TEDx offers independently organized events that amplify the sharing of “ideas worth spreading” in communities. The informative and entertaining TEDx talks, covering a wide range of subjects, allow speakers to communicate to the audience their novel ideas and passions in an enthralling way.
The student-run TEDxMiddlebury board, a branch of the Center for Creativity, Innovation & Social Entrepreneurship (CCISE), was the brain behind the conference. The TEDxMiddlebury volunteers and board members worked extremely hard to choose the theme, contact potential speakers and organize the event. Their efforts were evident in the enormous success of the event.
This year’s TEDxMiddlebury event was split into three sessions. Each speaker spoke for 18 minutes, and many used projected images to supplement their talks. The talks were followed by student-led discussions, as audience members commented and reflected on the speakers’ talks.
The afternoon began with Kaamila Mohamed’s talk, entitled “Intersecting Identities and Space Making.” Mohamed referenced their identity as a black genderqueer Muslim to show how these identities do not need to exist in separate spheres. Instead, they drew upon intersectionality to find peace with themself, and promoted a powerful message about self-acceptance and love.
Mohamed was followed by Sarah Finnie Robinson, a Breadloaf School of English alumnus. In her talk, “The Game of Our Lives,” Robinson referred to the election and other recent political and environmental contexts in order to destroy the idea that climate change is a belief and not a fact. She praised the College for its environmental efforts, but acknowledged that there is more that needs to be done.
Reshma Saujani came next with her pre-recorded talk, “Teach Girls Bravery, Not Perfection.” Saujani is the Founder and CEO of the tech organization, Girls Who Code. In her discussion, Saujani criticized society for teaching girls to be perfect but failing to encourage female bravery and ambition. She cited this as a source of the deficit of girls in STEM careers, and encouraged a shift in the way we address girls and their work.
After a 15-minute break we heard from Will Kasso, with his talk entitled “Colors.” Kasso, who grew up in the inner city of Trenton, New Jersey, used art as a way to escape the criminal activity of his neighborhood in his youth. Through graffiti, he not only found a community of artists, but also a profession he loved — he is now a professional visual artist. While on stage, Kasso did a live painting, and his talk was so well-received by the audience that it earned a standing ovation.
Adam Foss’s pre-recorded talk, “A Prosecutor’s Vision for a Better Justice System” came next. Foss, a prosecutor in Boston, discussed the importance of keeping people out of jail. Offering real and educational solutions, he said, will end the self-fulfilling prophecy of returning to jail over and over again throughout one’s life and will break individuals out of the prison system and propel them into more productive lifestyles.
Next came speaker Mattie Brice, with “Using Play for Everyday Activism.” Brice discussed using video games for change and how she has engineered video games to help her friends understand her battles with depression. In this way, video games have been an important avenue of social action for her.
The conference resumed after the second break with Gabbie Santos ’17. Santos is an International Politics and Economics (IPE) major at the College. He competed for a spot at the conference against many other students and told himself that if he won he would come out to his parents — hence the title of his talk, “Go Big and Call Home.” Santos spoke of his experiences as a transgender male and critiqued the gender binary and heteronormativity that are embedded in society. Santos received a standing ovation from his peers.
“I like to imagine a block,” said Santos, “with a spectrum on it that we cut into two parts, then four, then eight and we keep cutting and cutting and cutting until the parts are so small, the divisions so thin, that when we take a step back, we can no longer tell that there any divisions at all. It begins to look like one whole block again, a fluid spectrum.”
Next, Marco Mezzavilla, a research fellow in engineering at the NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering gave a talk entitled, “Wireless, Faster, Closer: 5G and Beyond.” He discussed the implications of up-and-coming 5G technology and travelled through the different generations of cell phones and Internet access. He tied these ideas to the importance of connecting worlds and how incredible it is that we can send messages across oceans “in a blink of an eye.”
Taking a different interpretation of the same theme was M. Jackson, with “Glacier, Gender, and Science: We Need More Stories of Ice.” Jackson described her experiences as a feminist glaciologist and the extensive criticism she has received towards her unique career. She discussed the necessity of having both female and male glaciologists in order to produce a well-rounded knowledge of the study. She proceeded to take this thought beyond glaciology and said it represents a greater indication of how we treat women in science and beyond.
Jackson’s talk about feminist glaciology resonated strongly with one student in particular, Georgia Grace Edwards ’18.
“I have always been obsessed with TED Talks,” said Edwards. “But I never expected to feel such a deep, meaningful level of connection like that which I experienced during M’s talk.”
“This past summer,” continued Edwards, “I worked for a helicopter company as a glacier guide on the Mendenhall Glacier in Juneau, Alaska, and I experienced so many of the gendered assertions that M voiced. However, in the moment, I didn’t know how to make sense of them and I didn’t understand what they meant in terms of a bigger picture.”
Jackson’s talk helped Edwards see the sexism she faced over the summer through a new lens and to realize the stigma surrounding female glacier guides.
“All my male co-workers had these big, scruffy beards and just looked like your typical rugged, Alaskan mountain men,” Edwards reflected. “And I think for tourists, that was the idea and the expectation they had in mind when they decided to come to Alaska. So no matter how many times I gave a more informative or energizing or funny tour, no matter how many times I gave my own gloves up to tourists or went the extra mile for them in any way (which the guys never did), I was never going to measure up to the masculine ideal that parallels the ‘man conquers glacier’ narrative.”
“And sure enough,” Edwards continued, “while I did make more in tips than any other female glacier guide, I did not even come close to that of my male counterparts. To have seemingly small observations like this one validated at the intersection of science and gender studies by a professional in the field of ‘feminist glaciology’ — which I had no idea even existed — was both liberating and relieving. I am incredibly grateful to Middlebury and to the TEDx team for bringing this speaker to campus, and for inspiring what may potentially become a new career goal for me.”
As Edwards’s revelation demonstrates, these talks offered unique connections between the speakers and the audience.
“TED Talks are an expression of something that you’re really into and love,” said Brice. “While I’ve always had these ideas in my head, I really got to communicate them to others, which forced me to shrink them down and make them concise and strong and factual.”
Santos added, “Speaking at TEDxMiddlebury was a very powerful experience, and I am very grateful for the opportunity. I came back from my year abroad in France, and I felt so ready and excited to share my most authentic self with our college community, especially as it is my senior year and days feel numbered. In important ways, my talk meant more to me than just any speech or any performance.”
The event’s nine individual talks were conducive to a deeply personal offering and receiving of ideas. The vulnerability of the speakers created intimacy in the theater, which made the event all the more meaningful. From climate change to video games to transexuality, the audience experienced a host of topics and was left to ruminate on a wide and range of ideas.
(11/17/16 10:43pm)
News of Donald J. Trump’s election as the nation’s 45th president sent waves of shock and uncertainty throughout campus, prompting students to stage protests against the president-elect and discussions of what the next four years will bring.
For many, election night was a surprising and ultimately devastating display of the American electoral system at work. The long election season culminated in a packed Crossroads Café Tuesday night Nov. 8. When, at 7 p.m., Vermont projected to go for Hillary Clinton, the group of mostly liberal-leaning students cheered loudly, proud of the state for being the first in the country to vote for Clinton.
Most students felt optimistic at this point, and Crossroads had a celebratory feel. People chatted with friends and shouted happily when early states were projected for Clinton. For some students, a Clinton victory was all but inevitable.
“I’m very confident in a Hillary victory; I’m just curious to see how much America will go for Trump,” James Callison ’17.5 said early in the night. “The only thing I am concerned about, however, is the Senate election. I’m worried it’s going to go 51-49 Republicans.”
Others did not share Callison’s certainty, but nonetheless felt that Clinton would most likely end up pulling through.
“[I feel] sort of cautiously optimistic, which is bad, because you want to feel hopeful that reasonably optimistic predictions from statisticians and political watchers… are solid predictions that you have faith in,” Noah Liebmiller ’17.5 said. “But at the same time, there’s a lot of self-doubt. I would hate to have my hopes crushed at the end of the day. One in four things happen all the time. Cubs came back from 3-1 the other day. Cavaliers came back from 3-1 in July. Nothing’s ever sure.”
At the same time, Liebmiller felt excited for election night and looked forward to watching the contest unfold.
“We’ve been waiting for this to happen for almost two years, and every day it got a little bit more intense, and so many crazy things have happened,” he said. “If you’re a nerd who loves politics, this is like Christmas morning, but it’s only once every four years.”
Charlotte Massey ’18, on the other hand, did not have much optimism and half-jokingly explained her contingency plan if Donald Trump were to emerge victorious.
“We’re flying to Europe tomorrow for a debate tournament, so the mindset is, if Trump wins, we’re just staying there,” she said.
In spite of the nerves, the atmosphere remained relaxed and congenial well into the night. Students enthusiastically grabbed free Grille food and watched as Matthew Dickinson and Bert Johnson, professors of political science, commented on the results as they rolled in. Until about 9 p.m., Dickinson and Johnson reiterated that Donald Trump had a very narrow path to victory.
And then it became clear that Trump was outperforming expectations. Dickinson and Johnson began to express surprise as states like Virginia, Michigan and Wisconsin remained extremely close with slight Trump leads.
The hum of conversation in Crossroads softened as students realized what was happening. The cheers for the few states that were called for Clinton became even louder. Conversations turned toward expressions of anger and frustration.
“It really pisses me off that it’s even this close because if she wins it’s still really depressing about what’s happening in America,” Caley Henderson ’18 said.
“So many people seemed so confident, and I thought I was ready mentally for the idea that it was going to be close,” Liebmiller said. “And I’m still not clear whether it’s close yet, but it’s starting to feel really close, and that’s not a pleasant thing.”
By 12 a.m., many of the students at Crossroads were thinking back to that moment that Vermont was projected and wishing the rest of the night would have gone much differently. Crossroads had closed, and Pennsylvania would soon be called for Trump.
At 3 a.m. on Wed. Nov. 9, Trump had been declared victorious and gave his acceptance speech to the nation.
“I felt that the values of America had failed those that are most vulnerable in society,” Callison said later about his reaction when he realized that Trump had won.
He and several other students gathered in Crossroads again on Wednesday morning to discuss the results, express their feelings and commiserate. Political Science professors, including Johnson, Sarah Stroup, Erik Bleich and Orion Lewis, led the conversation and attempted to give students some context for the election. But even they had a challenging time making sense of the results.
“This has been one of the most extraordinary elections in memory, with a result that most political scientists would not have bet on,” Johnson said later. “Those of us who study U.S. elections will now have to examine why the polling data leading up to the election was out of step with the result.”
While the students had come together to watch Hillary Clinton’s concession speech, the gathering ended up being a catharsis of sorts. It was a moment for students and professors alike to try to make sense of the intense emotions they were feeling.
For the rest of the week, many students and staff at the College struggled to figure out how to move forward. Some professors canceled class or delayed tests; others attempted to keep conducting business as usual. But among many students, the overriding emotions were confusion and sadness. Some professors and staff who have worked at the College for many years compared it to the days after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks; others were shocked at the depth of the emotional response from students.
“I have not seen our campus so paralyzed,” Stroup said. “Optimism and articulation were suspended. Our first years are navigating this historic moment in a new environment. Usually I can find some evidence and arguments from political science to these events, but we all got it wrong -- which requires some humility.”
Johnson perceived the same strong, passionate reaction from students. “The state of alarm on campus is something I have not seen before in my twelve years here,” he said. “I can understand why many are concerned with the result, and to be frank, I share many of their concerns.”
As a result of the election, the College organized several different opportunities later in the week for students and faculty to come together. During one such event, which took place on Friday, Nov. 11, members of the College community broke up into small groups to converse and reflect on the election and how to move forward.
In one group, the participants talked about the different ways that people might get active to make a change, the ability of faculty to take a stance against certain political rhetoric and how people might deal with the despair and hopelessness they feel. The participants agreed to be anonymous, but they all expressed an appreciation for the cathartic effect of the meetings.
For many, the willingness of students to engage in difficult and rewarding discussions at events like this was a particularly bright spot in an otherwise tough week.
“I have been surprised at and comforted by the range of conversations I have had,” Stroup said. “Yes, these are based on little sleep and half-formed thoughts, but people have reached out to discuss and deliberate.”
In response to the results, President of the College Republicans Club, Hayden Dublois ’17, emphasized the crucial importance of being there for those who are marginalized or scared by a Trump presidency.
“Even as a Republican, I’m disgusted by Donald Trump and disagree with his policies. But rather than rioting, I think there is a two-fold response that is more effective. First, be there for those who feel marginalized and scared by a Trump presidency,” said Dublois in an email to the Campus. “Second, oppose Donald Trump’s policies that you disagree with. Call your Congressman or Senator; donate to an interest group; join an advocacy organization — whatever you have to do to oppose the particular policies you disagree with.”
As the days passed, sadness and confusion transformed into anger and a desire to act. In conjunction with several students, Travis Wayne Sanderson ’19 helped plan and organize an election protest, which was held at 4 p.m. on Sunday, Nov. 13 outside Mead Memorial Chapel. Sanderson thought of the idea after taking note of similar events at different campuses. He saw it as a good method to transfer our community’s emotions into a constructive goal.
The Facebook event page, which garnered interested from over two hundred students, read: “Our presidential election has ended in terror for the lives and livelihoods of millions of marginalized people. We cannot sit still in a time of injustice. On Sunday, our Middlebury community will gather at the front steps of Mead Chapel to stand together against racism, fascism, hatred and all forms of oppression. We hope you can join us in standing up in this moment of history.”
Students eagerly gathered around the steps of Mead Chapel right at 4 p.m., with the crowd gradually growing as the protesters made their way down toward Davis Memorial Library. Many students held cardboard signs with slogans reading, “Not My President,” “Stronger Together” and “Love Trumps Hate.” The crowd, comprised of roughly 250 students, chanted as they then made their way across campus from Davis to McCardell Bicentennial Hall. Two of the chants that echoed across campus were “Immigration, Not Deportation” and “Build Bridges, Not Walls.”
Back on the steps of Mead, Sanderson took the stage first. Several speakers followed Sanderson, offering individual stories touching upon topics ranging from immigration reform to discrimination within on our own campus.
“Overall, I’m happy with how the protest went,” said Charles Rainey ’19, a student representative of Community Council, who spoke at the event. “The message is clear — we have a passionate subset of the population, a diverse group of kids that came out to really show that love trumps hate, that black lives matter, that the pussy grabs back and that we stand in solidarity with LGBTQ+ folks. I hope that this leads to a broader discussion for how these values we hold dear, and our feelings about the election, can be translated back on campus and make this campus a more inclusive one.”
As part of his speech, Rainey read two poems by Hanif Willis-Abdurraqib. He emphasized the need to cultivate constructive conversation moving forward.
Moving beyond the protest, Sanderson envisions cultural organizations, as well as other student groups active in inclusivity, helping to continue the dialogue on a more permanent basis. However, he recognizes that this is a democratic effort.
“The conversations that have to be cultivated in the next months and years rely on people and organizations not only hosting them and making the spaces for them, but also on people in dining halls and other spaces making sure there isn’t a tolerance for intolerance in this place,” said Sanderson. “Even if you’re not directly involved, there’s space to be more inclusive and more of an exception to the dominant narrative of intolerance that has taken the nation since last week.”
(11/17/16 4:41pm)
News of Donald J. Trump’s election as the nation’s 45th president sent waves of shock and uncertainty throughout campus, prompting students to stage protests against the president-elect and discussions of what the next four years will bring.
For many, election night was a surprising and ultimately devastating display of the American electoral system at work. The long election season culminated in a packed Crossroads Café Tuesday night Nov. 8. When, at 7 p.m., Vermont projected to go for Hillary Clinton, the group of mostly liberal-leaning students cheered loudly, proud of the state for being the first in the country to vote for Clinton.
Most students felt optimistic at this point, and Crossroads had a celebratory feel. People chatted with friends and shouted happily when early states were projected for Clinton. For some students, a Clinton victory was all but inevitable.
“I’m very confident in a Hillary victory; I’m just curious to see how much America will go for Trump,” James Callison ’17.5 said early in the night. “The only thing I am concerned about, however, is the Senate election. I’m worried it’s going to go 51-49 Republicans.”
Others did not share Callison’s certainty, but nonetheless felt that Clinton would most likely end up pulling through.
“[I feel] sort of cautiously optimistic, which is bad, because you want to feel hopeful that reasonably optimistic predictions from statisticians and political watchers… are solid predictions that you have faith in,” Noah Liebmiller ’17.5 said. “But at the same time, there’s a lot of self-doubt. I would hate to have my hopes crushed at the end of the day. One in four things happen all the time. Cubs came back from 3-1 the other day. Cavaliers came back from 3-1 in July. Nothing’s ever sure.”
At the same time, Liebmiller felt excited for election night and looked forward to watching the contest unfold.
“We’ve been waiting for this to happen for almost two years, and every day it got a little bit more intense, and so many crazy things have happened,” he said. “If you’re a nerd who loves politics, this is like Christmas morning, but it’s only once every four years.”
Charlotte Massey ’18, on the other hand, did not have much optimism and half-jokingly explained her contingency plan if Donald Trump were to emerge victorious.
“We’re flying to Europe tomorrow for a debate tournament, so the mindset is, if Trump wins, we’re just staying there,” she said.
In spite of the nerves, the atmosphere remained relaxed and congenial well into the night. Students enthusiastically grabbed free Grille food and watched as Matthew Dickinson and Bert Johnson, professors of political science, commented on the results as they rolled in. Until about 9 p.m., Dickinson and Johnson reiterated that Donald Trump had a very narrow path to victory.
And then it became clear that Trump was outperforming expectations. Dickinson and Johnson began to express surprise as states like Virginia, Michigan and Wisconsin remained extremely close with slight Trump leads.
The hum of conversation in Crossroads softened as students realized what was happening. The cheers for the few states that were called for Clinton became even louder. Conversations turned toward expressions of anger and frustration.
“It really pisses me off that it’s even this close because if she wins it’s still really depressing about what’s happening in America,” Caley Henderson ’18 said.
“So many people seemed so confident, and I thought I was ready mentally for the idea that it was going to be close,” Liebmiller said. “And I’m still not clear whether it’s close yet, but it’s starting to feel really close, and that’s not a pleasant thing.”
By 12 a.m., many of the students at Crossroads were thinking back to that moment that Vermont was projected and wishing the rest of the night would have gone much differently. Crossroads had closed, and Pennsylvania would soon be called for Trump.
At 3 a.m. on Wed. Nov. 9, Trump had been declared victorious and gave his acceptance speech to the nation.
“I felt that the values of America had failed those that are most vulnerable in society,” Callison said later about his reaction when he realized that Trump had won.
He and several other students gathered in Crossroads again on Wednesday morning to discuss the results, express their feelings and commiserate. Political Science professors, including Johnson, Sarah Stroup, Erik Bleich and Orion Lewis, led the conversation and attempted to give students some context for the election. But even they had a challenging time making sense of the results.
“This has been one of the most extraordinary elections in memory, with a result that most political scientists would not have bet on,” Johnson said later. “Those of us who study U.S. elections will now have to examine why the polling data leading up to the election was out of step with the result.”
While the students had come together to watch Hillary Clinton’s concession speech, the gathering ended up being a catharsis of sorts. It was a moment for students and professors alike to try to make sense of the intense emotions they were feeling.
For the rest of the week, many students and staff at the College struggled to figure out how to move forward. Some professors canceled class or delayed tests; others attempted to keep conducting business as usual. But among many students, the overriding emotions were confusion and sadness. Some professors and staff who have worked at the College for many years compared it to the days after the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks; others were shocked at the depth of the emotional response from students.
“I have not seen our campus so paralyzed,” Stroup said. “Optimism and articulation were suspended. Our first years are navigating this historic moment in a new environment. Usually I can find some evidence and arguments from political science to these events, but we all got it wrong -- which requires some humility.”
Johnson perceived the same strong, passionate reaction from students. “The state of alarm on campus is something I have not seen before in my twelve years here,” he said. “I can understand why many are concerned with the result, and to be frank, I share many of their concerns.”
As a result of the election, the College organized several different opportunities later in the week for students and faculty to come together. During one such event, which took place on Friday, Nov. 11, members of the College community broke up into small groups to converse and reflect on the election and how to move forward.
In one group, the participants talked about the different ways that people might get active to make a change, the ability of faculty to take a stance against certain political rhetoric and how people might deal with the despair and hopelessness they feel. The participants agreed to be anonymous, but they all expressed an appreciation for the cathartic effect of the meetings.
For many, the willingness of students to engage in difficult and rewarding discussions at events like this was a particularly bright spot in an otherwise tough week.
“I have been surprised at and comforted by the range of conversations I have had,” Stroup said. “Yes, these are based on little sleep and half-formed thoughts, but people have reached out to discuss and deliberate.”
In response to the results, President of the College Republicans Club, Hayden Dublois ’17, emphasized the crucial importance of being there for those who are marginalized or scared by a Trump presidency.
“Even as a Republican, I’m disgusted by Donald Trump and disagree with his policies. But rather than rioting, I think there is a two-fold response that is more effective. First, be there for those who feel marginalized and scared by a Trump presidency,” said Dublois in an email to the Campus. “Second, oppose Donald Trump’s policies that you disagree with. Call your Congressman or Senator; donate to an interest group; join an advocacy organization — whatever you have to do to oppose the particular policies you disagree with.”
As the days passed, sadness and confusion transformed into anger and a desire to act. In conjunction with several students, Travis Wayne Sanderson ’19 helped plan and organize an election protest, which was held at 4 p.m. on Sunday, Nov. 13 outside Mead Memorial Chapel. Sanderson thought of the idea after taking note of similar events at different campuses. He saw it as a good method to transfer our community’s emotions into a constructive goal.
The Facebook event page, which garnered interested from over two hundred students, read: “Our presidential election has ended in terror for the lives and livelihoods of millions of marginalized people. We cannot sit still in a time of injustice. On Sunday, our Middlebury community will gather at the front steps of Mead Chapel to stand together against racism, fascism, hatred and all forms of oppression. We hope you can join us in standing up in this moment of history.”
Students eagerly gathered around the steps of Mead Chapel right at 4 p.m., with the crowd gradually growing as the protesters made their way down toward Davis Memorial Library. Many students held cardboard signs with slogans reading, “Not My President,” “Stronger Together” and “Love Trumps Hate.” The crowd, comprised of roughly 250 students, chanted as they then made their way across campus from Davis to McCardell Bicentennial Hall. Two of the chants that echoed across campus were “Immigration, Not Deportation” and “Build Bridges, Not Walls.”
Back on the steps of Mead, Sanderson took the stage first. Several speakers followed Sanderson, offering individual stories touching upon topics ranging from immigration reform to discrimination within on our own campus.
“Overall, I’m happy with how the protest went,” said Charles Rainey ’19, a student representative of Community Council, who spoke at the event. “The message is clear — we have a passionate subset of the population, a diverse group of kids that came out to really show that love trumps hate, that black lives matter, that the pussy grabs back and that we stand in solidarity with LGBTQ+ folks. I hope that this leads to a broader discussion for how these values we hold dear, and our feelings about the election, can be translated back on campus and make this campus a more inclusive one.”
As part of his speech, Rainey read two poems by Hanif Willis-Abdurraqib. He emphasized the need to cultivate constructive conversation moving forward.
Moving beyond the protest, Sanderson envisions cultural organizations, as well as other student groups active in inclusivity, helping to continue the dialogue on a more permanent basis. However, he recognizes that this is a democratic effort.
“The conversations that have to be cultivated in the next months and years rely on people and organizations not only hosting them and making the spaces for them, but also on people in dining halls and other spaces making sure there isn’t a tolerance for intolerance in this place,” said Sanderson. “Even if you’re not directly involved, there’s space to be more inclusive and more of an exception to the dominant narrative of intolerance that has taken the nation since last week.”
(11/11/16 12:50am)
Among the attendees of the first ever Feminist Alumnx Retreat this weekend was Melian Radu ’13, a former English and American Literatures major with a focus in Creative Writing and a Gender, Sexuality & Feminist Studies and Sociology minor. A recent MFA graduate of the Iowa Writers’ Workshop, Radu has been featured in Vetch, the first literary journal devoted to poetry by transgender writers. The mission statement of Vetch is to “help bring into the world trans poetry that does not feel the need to translate itself for a cis audience.”
On Friday, Nov. 4, Radu performed in an intimate poetry reading, which included such works as “Premortuary School,” “How Much Google Will You Do, Gull?” and “The Part of the Penal Code Which Applied to Drag Queens Was Section 240.35, Subsection 4.” Her work offers commentary on technology, intimacy and surveillance. She is currently working on her debut manuscript at her new home in L.A.
The Middlebury Campus had the opportunity to speak with Radu on her experiences at the College, the inspiration behind her poetry and her recent publication in Vetch.
How did you start writing poetry?
I was interested in writing as long as I could remember, but I figured I could do novels. I wanted to write fantasy novels – I still want to write fantasy novels – but my junior year of high school, I was like, “I want to improve the descriptive writing in my fiction. All the imagery is very bland, and poetry is about cool images, so I’ll write some poems to practice.” And from there I tried poetry and never went back.
The most serious-ish poem I can remember writing that year was inspired by the movie The Brave One with Jodi Foster, which at the time I didn’t have much of a political-ish, theoretical sense of. But now that I look back, it speaks deeper. It’s a vigilante justice sort of movie, where her husband’s long-term partner is mugged and the system fails to do anything about it, so she sort of takes it into her own hands. It’s sort of this somewhat feminist-y, action-y, dark, intense thriller. So I felt compelled, I guess, to write a poem about that and explore sort of what her motivations were.
What did you study at Middlebury?
I was an English and American Literatures major with a Creative Writing focus. It’s a very unofficial-ish sort of thing, but it does mean you take some extra creative writing classes and you get to do a creative writing thesis instead of a big long paper – which is why I picked the major, really, initially. It was still a very new thing when I got to Middlebury. My main intellectual pursuits were in my minors, which were Gender Studies and Sociology.
How did those two fields of academia intersect with your writing?
The more I got into critical theory and whatnot, the more it kind of came into my poetry. And my undergraduate thesis was about true incidents, mostly, of people attacking or in some way damaging works of art – even though I do have rather a suspicion of poetry. I’ve seen lots of poetry that wants to be political and therefore ends up not being very interesting or poetic.
That’s not the case in a broader sense. I mean, Claudia Rankine is part of the most famous at the moment. You know, incredible books she’s put out in the past few years that just electrified people in the sense of what people can and should be doing in terms of our larger culture and society. But I’ve also seen the other side, where it’s just very hand-fisted, schlocky and not interesting. So I want to avoid that. But I am, of course, drawn to these concerns. So yeah, that thesis, whenever I mention it to people, I guess the contrast was pretty immediate. People were like, “Oh my gosh, someone would blow up the statue or they would splash acid on this famous painting or punch a hole in a Monet? Like, that’s disgusting, how horrible. That’s worse than, like, beating somebody up. They should be in prison for that.” That, to me, is horrifying.
So I guess the concern at the center of it was, of course I like art. I love these classic works. But at the same time, I also, in the end, place a lot of value, more value, I can come right out and say it, on human life. So when I see people being actually in prison for long periods of time or whatnot for these things, it immediately unsettles me. I was interested in exploring that sort of contradiction in those poems. Like, different ways of looking at these incidents.
Do you see your poetry as a form of activism?
I don’t know how much of it is known at Middlebury anymore, but I certainly did some things when I was here. I mean, all-gender housing, all-gender restrooms, whatnot. I believe deeply in that kind of work, and I sort of believe deeply in the artistic work that I do. So somehow there’s definitely the overlaps to it, and I’m cool with those. But also for me, I draw some line in the sense of, I want to write poetry that’s interesting and effecting change or affecting a person. But I do have a distrust of people who want to see their poetry as the first and foremost activist thing they do.
I mean, I see ways in which it’s worked, and I guess it relates to my own work a lot, but there was a particular discussion a few years ago of drone poetics. Like, we have this dislike of this uprising drone usage, drone warfare, so we’re gonna write these poems in the sense of, we’re gonna look back at the state, we’re gonna surveil them. Our poems will be like little drones watching over the government or something. I don’t know, you can hear my skepticism – like, are these poems gonna be read to people in the government? Are they gonna suddenly be like, “President Obama’s gonna realize what terrible thing drones are and stop using them to bomb small children”? I doubt it.
The people who write these poems probably do other things as well, but I guess I would be skeptical of anyone who thought that was the first and foremost way we’re gonna have impact. As one tool in a toolbox, great, I guess that’s the bottom line of it. But I like concrete action for sure. I like very much that I was able to write poems that said interesting, cool things while I was at Middlebury, and I also did other things that would have concrete effects.
Your work will be featured in the newest issue of Vetch. Can you speak more on nature of this publication?
It’s the first publication primarily of trans-authored poetry, at least on an ongoing basis. [The editors] are very much interested in the idea of what is it like to write poetry from a trans perspective. Every issue seems to have a great theme they bring up to anyone who’s submitting, with a broader concern that’s also rooted in a trans experience. This new one that’s coming out, they gave us “ekphrasis” – literal Greek – which is looking at something, describing something, in the oldest classical sense. The perfect ekphrasis sense is, you look at a statue, describe it in words, and then someone who saw those words would have the exact same experience as the person who looked at the statue. Now, that perfect description is kind of tough to pull off, but it’s the idea of work that responds to something that you see.
A lot of my own thesis was ekphrasis in terms of reacting to the work as I was seeing it, to a photo that was being damaged, or reacting to the site of somebody damaging it. So that was the theme of the issue, but they made it like, “We think transness is often involving rewriting one's experience in a certain sense. How can you rewrite as you also reinterpret something you see visually?”
What inspires your poetry?
What I do like about Vetch in their mission is a way to engage a trans identity in a way that is not totalizing. It’s not all about that. It is nice to be able to expand outward. Like, yes, we’re trans, we’re writing from that experience, but also there’s a lot more than that going on. It’s very rare for me to write a poem anymore that is about my gender dysphoria or something, but certainly it’s in there. I mean, I do write a lot about sex and nudes and whatnot. So it’s really shot through with a lot of queer sexuality. But technology is really the driving force.
What is one piece of advice you would give to an aspiring poet?
This may be overly prescriptive, but I know it worked well for me and I’ve given it to a lot of people: to very aggressively pursue change or avoid sameness in their writing. Very much my Middlebury writing career was gradually trying a new thing in every poem. If the last two poems were first person, this one's gonna be third person. I haven’t written a formal one in a while, so I'm gonna do a villanelle [a 19-line poem with two repeating rhymes and two refrains]. This one’s from my own perspective about my life, but now I'm gonna do a persona poem from somebody else's poem.
Avoid getting caught up in a “this is my style” if you want to develop a voice. That’s a concern that people have and I very much had at one point – and did I really develop a voice? I don’t know. I guess people say, “That sounds like you, that’s unique, so that’s a voice” – but what is, anyway?
What would you say to anyone interested in your work?
That they should feel free to jump at the chance to critique it. ’Cause it is very much in constant flux, and I am always more than ready to have somebody say, like, “No. Not working. On any number of levels.” Which can be creative or, like, “No, I think the way that you engage with surveillance is overly informed by this particular idea you have that is inaccurate. ’Cause there are other aspects to how technology shapes people’s lives in ways you’re not considering.” Because poetry is very much informed by one’s perspective and mine has those limitations. I’m always interested in exploring and plugging holes in, but also expanding in different ways.
PEER REVIEW
Your dog dies and you give him to
Science. You do this with all your things.
On a hook on the wall of the study
glints Journal of Microbiotics: Science
saw fat content in the rate your ice
cream melted. His study has reduced
obesity and was widely hailed in Europe.
Winter was hard, with Science taking
up the whole couch. Poor St. Nicholas—
your parakeet whose body you gave
to Science who gave it back: Husk is
husk, he said. There is nothing to learn from this.
When the ice thaws you think you will sink
Nick to Belize. Science is getting a PhD
in psychoanalysis and asks: Who are the men
in your life? What else will you give me?
I am hungry and could eat nine cigars.
Your dog has died but his stem cells
cure your SAD. Science will save you yet.
(04/21/16 10:40pm)
During your daily trek to classes, the library, or your favorite dining hall last week, you may have encountered an unusual sight – people making interpretive movements while donning headphones and walking around a public space. If you stayed for long enough, you might have noticed that the ordeal seemed entirely unplanned: over the course of an hour or so, random passersby would occasionally enter the space, receive a pair of wireless headphones and a written prompt, participate in a spontaneous, improvised performance for several minutes and then continue on with their day. Some people simply stood by and watched, while others walked past the scene without a second glance.
Also known as drop-in dance performances, these informal, audience-based productions popped up twice last week, once in the Great Hall of Bicentennial Hall and once on the patio outside Ross Dining Hall during the lunch rush. The heavy foot traffic around these venues allowed for a large number of students to observe and potentially engage with the performance.
A third art installation took place within the Warner Hall Greenhouse on Wednesday evening, April 13, though this one did not involve audience participation. Students and trained performers danced around inside as random passersby observed through the glass.
These improvisational performances came as part of the Movement Matters program, a two-year residency through the Andrew W. Mellon Foundation and Middlebury College Dance Program that uses movement to explore the intersectionality across disciplines. The team consists of choreographer and performer Maree ReMalia; sound designer David Bernabo; choreographer, dancer and educator Jil Stifel; and visual artist Blaine Siegel. Based in Pittsburgh, they are melding their different artistic fields together through participatory events.
“The very nature of these drop-in events is that it’s not necessarily a viewer who is sitting and being danced at,” Stifel said. “It’s something that you happen upon the same way you happen upon a flower. It’s something to be engaged with and interested in before moving on.”
Rod-based installation pieces were prominent in both performance venues. Constructed by Siegel and placed artistically throughout the space, these flexible physical structures were available for participants to interact with, destroy and rebuild.
Each drop-in performance was set against a score that sourced sounds from the organic farm and select locations on campus. Created by Bernabo and audible only to the headphone-wearing participants, the score served as both the ambience and inspiration for physical expression. This phenomenon is commonly referred to as “silent disco” – the experience of dancing to music that only one person can hear.
To initiate the self-improvised performances, each participant was offered a written prompt. These statements ranged from straightforward (“Yell at the space,” “Start a movement and repeat it with growing intensity” or “Swirl”) to silly (“Find a happy dance in your feet and get groovy”) to abstract (“Decorate the air with your movement” or “Respond to the architecture with textured movement”).
The Movement Matters team recognized that the significance of interpretive dance may not be immediately apparent to the viewer – or to the performer, for that matter. However, they expressed hope that participants benefited from the spontaneous, non-verbal expression of the self.
“During our event at BiHall, we were asked by a student why what we are doing is important. It’s a good question – especially in an environment that runs on assignments, discourse and evaluation,” Stifel said. “Through research, we know some of the ways that we can foster resiliency in our brains are through mindfulness, exercise and social connection. By taking time to move our bodies with other people following specific prompts, we are engaging all of those practices at the same time. In this way, the act of dropping into a movement exploration is an artful way of strengthening our powers of resiliency.”
That is not to say that everyone felt quite ready to engage, however. Some people turned around and walked the other way when they saw the installation, as they did not want to cross through the space. Others talked to the facilitators of the event as they walked by, but did not participate. This hesitancy speaks to the perceived inaccessibility of dance – a non-verbal medium of expression that often leaves viewers feeling more confused than enlightened.
As such, ReMalia acknowledged the importance of meeting individuals where they are and not pushing them too far past their comfort zones.
“It’s a process,” she explained. “For someone who doesn’t encounter dance or move in a certain way very often, even coming upon it can be the first step.”
Indeed, the post-performance reflections of some participants expressed appreciation for the spontaneous exercise.
“Freeing and I smiled the whole time. It didn't matter what others were doing, just what I felt moving through,” one person wrote.
“It was interesting seeing all around me and being fully visible yet having physical constraints,” another said.
And finally: “I had a baby 4 months ago and all throughout pregnancy and early infancy, my body was a principle factor in day to day life. Not so much recently. Finding a ‘happy place in my feet and getting groovy’ felt really good. Thank you.”
(03/23/16 10:52pm)
The Middlebury women’s hockey team ended their NCAA tournament run on Friday, March 18, after falling 5-3 to top-ranked Plattsburgh State in the semifinal round. They finished the season with a record of 21-6-3, the team’s most since the 2010–11 campaign and the first time the Panthers punched a ticket to the Final Four since their run to the 2012-13 NCAA final. The teams have now each won three NCAA tournament games against the other — the Panthers won in their most recent meeting in the 2013 national semifinal.
The Panthers recorded 10 straight wins leading up to the semifinal, nine of which were shutouts.
Middlebury had the first scoring opportunity of the game, going on a power play at the 3:08 mark but not capitalizing. Two minutes later Plattsburgh State took a power play of their own and turned it into a 1-0 lead just as it was about to expire. For the goal, Karen Hudson one-timed a pass in the slot.
The Panthers bounced back after stopping a second Cardinal power play at 9:48. Seconds later, Jessica Young ’18 received the puck from Janka Hlinka ’18 and wristed a shot around a defender into the far corner of the net.
Middlebury tried several times to take the lead before the end of the first, but failed. Maddie Winslow ’18 shot from point-blank range on a feed from Young, but Cardinal goalie Camille Leonard denied the puck. Plattsburgh State closed the first period with a 13-7 shot-on-goal advantage.
The Cardinals continued their momentum early in the second. A minute in, Kayla Meneghin placed her own rebound into the goal to bring the Cardinals a 2-1 lead. She nearly extended that again at 4:32 on a dramatic breakaway, but her shot went high above the crossbar.
At 5:36, the Cardinals made it a 3-1 game with a hard wrister from Muna Fadel in the slot. They had two chances to extend that lead within half a minute, but Panther netminder Julia Neuburger ’18 made both saves at 12:50 and 13:10. She then came in clutch with a glove save after Megan Delay of Plattsburgh State shook two defenders and blasted the puck from the left point.
The Cardinals extended their lead to 5-1 to close out the second period. They went went on the power play at 16:04 and scored within six seconds. A minute later, two Plattsburgh State forwards worked a pass-and-cut play all the way to the net. Plattsburgh State led Middlebury 16-5 in shots on goal for the second period.
Middlebury turned up the heat in the final period in a last-ditch effort. Their second goal of the game came more than halfway through the period, with Young netting her second goal of the game when Elizabeth Wulf ’18 batted down a puck mid-air for Young to place over the goal line. It was Young’s 13th goal of the season.
With two minutes remaining, Wulf scored a goal of her own as she one-timed a Winslow pass to the back of the net. At the 18:04 mark, Middlebury pulled Neuburger from the net in favor of an extra forward. The Panthers managed to keep constant pressure on the Cardinal net, even going on a power play with 50 seconds left, but could not score.
Plattsburgh State finished with a 41-23 advantage in shots on goal, having gone 1-for-6 on the power play compared to Middlebury’s 0-for-4. The Panthers last made the finals in 2013 when they fell in a gut-wrenching 1-0 defensive thriller against Elmira; their last NCAA title came in 2006.
“I was proud of the way the team responded in the third, scoring two goals and not giving up any,” Head Coach Bill Mandigo said. “It was a very good season. Winning the NESCAC championship in Kenyon and making it to the Final Four was something the team did not think was possible in December.”
Mandigo praised the players for their collective effort. “The team worked hard and got better every day. This was a very good group to coach and I will miss seeing them on a daily basis,” he said.
With their hopes for a national title dashed, the Panthers played in a consolation game on Saturday, March 19, against Elmira, falling 4-1 to take fourth place in the tournament.
Elmira took the lead 14 seconds into the game on a rebound. At 3:57, Middlebury answered on a power play, with Jenna Marotta ’19 one-timing a pass from Winslow. Elmira made it a 2-1 game at 14:38 in the first period. Middlebury nearly had an answer seconds later, but the Soaring Eagle goalie blocked the shot.
Elmira extended their lead to 3-1 in the second period with a backhander from the right faceoff circle. The Panthers had two opportunities in the period, a power play at 5:18 and a big flurry at 10:10, but could not convert either.
In the third period, Middlebury upped the pressure on the Elmira net, but still were unable to score the puck. With 1:48 remaining, Elmira added an empty-net goal, handing Middlebury a 4-1 loss.
The Panthers began the year with a tough schedule that included top-ranked opponents like Elmira and Norwich. They made an impressive run to the tournament, surpassing last year’s loss in the NCAA quarterfinal round and winning the NESCAC title. With an impressive young roster, headlined by NESCAC player player of the year Winslow, as well as a solid in-comming freshman class, the team has a good chance of continuing to dominate on the national stage next year.
(03/23/16 10:42pm)
The Middlebury women’s lacrosse team continued its early-season success on Saturday, March 19 winning its home opener over Wesleyan. The team scored six goals within the first nine minutes of the game and never looked back as the Panthers drubbed the Wesleyan Cardinals by a score of 13-5.
Middlebury established control of the game right out of the gates as senior co-captain Alli Sciarretta ’16 tallied two goals within the first 2:37 of the first half to give the Panthers an early 2-0 advantage. Claire Russell ’18 followed with a beautiful finish off a feed from Chrissy Ritter ’16. The Panthers maintained momentum and mounted a scoring streak as the first hard continued.
Bea Eppler ’17 found the back of the net 41 seconds later followed by Bridget Instrum ’16 to make it a 5-0 game. The scoring did not stop there as the Panthers took a 9-1 lead into the half thanks to a pair of goals from both Sciarretta and Ritter.
Wesleyan ended the shutout with 1:07 left in the half on a goal from Martha Harding. Defensively, the Panthers dominated the half allowing only three shots on goal the entire half. The half ended with a score of 9-1 in favor of Middlebury.
The impregnable defense can be attributed to the “confidence in [the team’s] goalies as well as their confidence in each other, which has allowed the team to play with a lot of intensity and take some risks that [they] may not take otherwise,” Maggie Caputi ’16 said.
The Panthers came out strong to start the second half with a 3-0 run. Ritter got the scoring going with a goal 1:19 into the second half while the Cardinals were down a player. Megan Griffin ’16 set up the next two goals, with her first assist going to Eppler and the second to Russell to establish a 12-1 lead with 16:10 remaining.
Middlebury’s run ended with 15:33 left in the contest with a goal from Wesleyan. Unfortunately, the Cardinals were able to finally break through the defensive wall and score two more goals, resulting in a score of 12-4 with 6:06 left in the contest.
Jenna McNicholas ’19 responded for the Panthers, tallying her first career goal with 1:17 left in the second half to conclude the Panther scoring effort on the day.
Caputi was at the helm of the defense throughout the contest, causing four turnovers and scooping six ground balls. Hollis Perticone ’18 contributed to the win by recording a team-high four draw controls.
Tough defense and key saves between the pipes from Madeleine Kinker ’16 and Kate Furber ’19 allowed the Panthers to cruise to the eventual 13-5 win over Wesleyan.
“The success of any defensive unit is dependent on the strength of the goalie, and [Kinker and Furber] have been extremely effective and integral to our wins,” Caputi stated.
Middlebury’s dominant offensive performance was reflected in shots, with the Panthers outshooting the Cardinals by a 29-11 margin. Middlebury also held a slight advantage in ground balls, scooping 25 compared to Wesleyan’s 23. The Panthers were strong from the faceoff-X, controlling 13-7 draws on the afternoon.
Fourth-ranked Middlebury (5-0, 3-0) will return to action Saturday, March 26, when they host Bowdoin at 12 p.m. The Panthers beat Bowdoin 14-8 in regular season play last year before experiencing a tough 14-8 loss to the Polar Bears in the NESCAC semifinal matchup.
“The team is excited for Bowdoin this weekend,” Eppler said. “[We look] forward to working hard this week in preparation for Bowdoin. This game is going to be competitive and will test [the team] in new ways which will allow us to gain a better understanding of where we stand in the NESCAC.”
Following that, the Panthers will travel to Pennsylvania on Tuesday, March 29 to play a non-conference game against Dickinson. The team will then travel to Maryland, where they will face Stevenson in another non-conference matchup.
(03/23/16 3:20pm)
The March 6 meeting of the Student Government Association (SGA) began with a vote to recommend that President of the College Laurie L. Patton increase the Student Activities Fee by roughly $0.82 in order to keep the fee in line with changes in the Consumer Price Index (CPI). Currently, the annual fee paid by all students is $410.
Junior Senator Karina Toy ’17 announced that after a meeting between members of the SGA and leaders of cultural organizations on campus, the SGA will be emailing their weekly agenda to organization presidents and sending emails to cluster boards during election seasons in an effort to make sure the SGA is more diverse.
First-Year Senator Charles Rainey ’19 updated the group on the events that have been held by the First Year Committee over the past year. Events included a “Cookies and Chill” night, a Reg and Feb meet-and-greet and an intercultural open-mic night where students wore an article of clothing important to their culture.
Senators voted to approve a proposal introduced by President Ilana Gratch ’16 to begin the SGA election process two weeks earlier than scheduled. Official dates have yet to be determined but elections will occur in mid-April.
The March 13 SGA meeting began with an update delivered by Dean of Students Baishakhi Taylor, who shared that the Alliance for an Inclusive Middlebury (AIM) will be hosting a symposium on diversity and inclusion featuring speakers and student leaders from other schools. AIM — which launched in December — is currently developing a website that will be released in the near future. Alumni Affairs is working to make changes to the Kirk Alumni Center to make its photo exhibit more inclusive. The administration will also be hosting a series of faculty dinners to discuss inclusivity and diversity on campus.
Senior Senator Madeleine Raber ’16 shared with senators that roughly 275 students attended the 51 Main student-run bar night. Brainerd Senator Jewel Chen ’16 stated that a printer will be added to the LaForce Library in Ross.
Sophomore Senator Colin Boyle ’18 introduced a bill to establish a committee comprised of senators, finance committee members and representatives of club sports teams to draft a plan to deal with the funding of club sports. Boyle’s proposal came after SGA Treasurer and Finance Committee Chair Aaron de Toledo ’16 presented a plan at the March 6 SGA meeting to implement a system of club sports funding in which teams would receive funding caps based on their overall cost and participation. De Toledo introduced the proposal in an effort to make the funding of all clubs more equitable. Senators rejected de Toledo’s proposal and passed Boyle’s which, in addition to forming the committee, leaves the current funding system in tact. Should the committee fail to draft a funding proposal, de Toledo’s plan will be implemented, subject to a senate vote.
Senators approved changes, proposed by de Toledo, to the Finance Committee guidelines. Changes to the guidelines include establishing a precedent that the committee will only fund food and snacks deemed essential to the club and eliminating the funding of hotels and flights for student events.
(03/17/16 2:56am)
As the sun shined bright and Main Street bustled with attendees of the 8th Annual Vermont Chili Festival, the seventh-ranked Middlebury men’s lacrosse team welcomed defending national champions and top-seeded Tufts to Youngman Field at Alumni Stadium on Saturday, March 12. After going down by three goals early in the game, the Panthers battled back to eventually tie their NESCAC rival in the fourth quarter before ultimately falling to the Jumbos by a score of 12-10.
The Jumbos got on the board quickly with a Jake Gillespie goal just 22 seconds into the contest, followed shortly by a nice finish from Tim Giarrusso ’16 to tie the game at one apiece. Gillespie, along with the rest of the Tufts offense, maintained momentum and powered the Jumbos to a 3-0 run with his Gillespie’s second of the day, in addition to tallies from Ben Andreycak and Austin Carbone over a span of just 1:50 in the first quarter. The Panthers stopped the bleeding with a rally from senior leadership as co-captain Jon Broome ’16 found midfielder Jack Cleary ’16 from behind the cage for a high shot to notch the score at 4-2 for the remainder of the first quarter.
The Panthers came out with a new level of intensity in the second quarter, peppering Tufts goaltender Alex Salazar with three shots in quick succession before Giarrusso found the net for his second goal of the day to bring the home team within one with 13:57 remaining. However, the Jumbos offense picked up right where it left off in the first quarter and responded by scoring four of the next five, including two bouncers from Cam Irwin and Kyle Howard-Johnson at 10:12 and 9:15, respectively. Again, a Panther senior stepped up to keep Middlebury in the game as Sean Carroll ’16 converted a Broome feed with 6:46 remaining. After a pair of Tufts goals only 31 seconds apart from John Uppgren and Andreycak, the Panthers put together a quality extended possession that ultimately culminated in a Henry Riehl ’18 goal and another Broome assist. Their efforts brought the score to 8-5 in favor of the Jumbos as the first half came to an end.
The game settled down in the second half as the Middlebury defense locked in and prevented the extended scoring streaks that had defined much of the first half. Instead, the Panthers put together a streak of their own with goals from Kyle Soroka ’16 and Jack Gould ’19 at 10:51 and 9:29. Tufts’ Connor Bilby responded to Middlebury’s best offensive run of the day with a piece of individual talent in a nice dodge and finished with just 3:02 remaining in the third quarter. Momentum swung back to the home side, however, when solid play on both sides of the ball resulted in a Middlebury goal. After causing a turnover in the final minute, Parker Lawlor ’18 scooped the ball before firing a goal with just eight seconds left to bring the Panthers within one heading into the final quarter.
Although Andreycak’s third tally with 12:13 remaining gave the visitors the 10-8 advantage, Middlebury continued to demonstrate their defining grit and resolve throughout the final quarter. John Jackson ’18 was a force from the faceoff, affording the Panthers valuable possession opportunities by going 15-25 in addition to scooping six ground balls. Gould got the offense rolling in the fourth, converting on a man-up opportunity just a minute before Lawlor scored his second unassisted goal of the day to level the score at 10-10 with 9:05 remaining. Only 20 seconds later, Gillespie dodged from the right side and found the back of the net for the eventual game-winning goal, while Andreycak added another at 7:38 to round-out Tufts’ offensive effort. The Panthers fired four shots in the remaining minutes but could not pull any closer as Tufts took possession in the final minute and ran out the clock.
While ultimately unable to gain the advantage in scoring, the Panthers outplayed Tufts in many categories throughout the contest. Notably, Middlebury nearly doubled their opponent in shots, posting a 59-30 advantage as well as a 32-27 edge in ground balls. The Jumbos relied on consistent goaltending in the win, with Salazar recording 18 saves on the day while Will Ernst ’17 made nine stops for the Panthers.
Clearing was a strength for both teams, with the Panthers finding success on 13 of their 15 opportunities, while the Jumbos went 18-22. Middlebury was 2-3 while playing with an extra man, while Tufts posted a goal in four tries.
“We just need to keep improving on a daily basis,” said Broome, one of Middlebury’s captains. “The game against Tufts showed that we can play with any team in the country, but it was also clear that we still have a lot of work on. Specifically, we need to be better in unsettled situations on both ends of the field.”
The Middlebury men’s lacrosse team dropped their second straight game on Tuesday, March 15 when St. Lawrence came to Youngman Field at Alumni Stadium. In nail-biting double overtime fashion the Saints took a 14-13 victory from the Panthers at home, a place where victories traditionally do not come easily to opponents. As a result, Middlebury’s record drops to 2-2; a line they will look to improve this Saturday when they travel to Wesleyan to play an ever-important NESCAC matchup. St. Lawrence returns to action on Saturday as well when they travel to Davenport, Fla. to take on Western New England University.
Both sides came out of the gate hot as the Saints’ Conor Healy opened the game only 1:10 into the contest a little more than a minute before Cedric Rhodes ’17 responded with an underhand strike from 10 yards away. The trend continued as Jordan Dow ’18 put the guests back in front at 9:36, only to bring on another Middlebury response as Michael McCormack ’19 ripped his first career goal with 9:12 remaining. St. Lawrence began to take the game over, however, as Healey and Dow led the Saints on a four goal run to put the visiting side up 6-2. After Jon Broome ’16 finished a Jack Cleary ’16 feed with only half a second left in the first quarter, Middlebury started the second quarter with a Rhodes man-up goal to make it a 6-4 contest with 13:49 left. Again, the Saints responded with a multiple goal run to give the visitors the 8-4 advantage. To counter, Middlebury looked to its senior leadership and found some in the form of two straight goals from Broome, on scoop and dish assists from Kyle Soroka ’16 and Harrison Goodkind ’16, respectively. Andrew Jarret ’17 gave St. Lawrence the 9-6 advantage heading into the half when he scored with only 24 seconds remaining.
After an offensively dominated first half which saw 15 goals, the third quarter had just three. Middlebury opened the final quarter by going on a four goal run of their own including the final two from a Jack Gould ’19 goaland the same connection culminating in a Soroka goal to give the Panthers a 12-10 advantage with 10:47 left. After a two goal counter by the Saints and Gould’s third of the day, an unassisted rip with only 2:11 left on the clock, Dow scored his fourth to equalize the contest at 13-13 and force overtime with just six seconds left. Sean Carroll ’16 had the best look in the first four-minute overtime period when he found space 10 yards out but ripped it just high. St. Lawrence’s Vautor then found space with just over a minute left in the second period, only to be denied by goalie Will Ernst ’17, who had 10 saves on the day. After a Middlebury possession that yielded a pair of shots with a man-up chance, Dow ended the game in the closing seconds redirecting a pin-point pass by Alec Dietsch ’17 from the right side for the Saint victory.
(03/17/16 2:50am)
By some miracle, the men’s and women’s tennis teams played outdoors on the first weekend of the spring season, a rarity in Vermont, and they dominated. Both teams shut out Bates and Hamilton 9-0 on Saturday, March 12, to move to 2-0 in the NESCAC and overall. Nine different players for the men’s side earned at least one victory, while all eight healthy members of the women’s team won on Saturday, March 12.
The men’s team, which is ranked third in the nation, opened their season in the Duke Nelson Recreation Center against no. 22 Bates on Saturday morning. In doubles, the pairs of Noah Farrell ’18 and Ari Smolyar ’16, Palmer Campbell ’16 and Hamid Derbani ’18 and Will de Quant ’18 and Timo van der Geest ’18 won 8-5, 8-6 and 8-2 in first, second and third doubles, respectively.
In the only match where a Panther lost a set all day, no. 1 in the nation Noah Farrell ’18, competing in his first match since winning the singles national title in the fall, defeated no. 25 Josh Rosen 6-0, 3-6, 13-11. In other singles action, no. 24 Smolyar beat Chris Ellis 6-0, 6-4 in the second spot and Campbell, de Quant, Derbani and van der Geest also won in straight sets in third through sixth singles, in that order.
Later that morning, the Panthers moved outside to the Proctor tennis courts to face Hamilton, who had not won a match in the NESCAC since 2013. The same three doubles’ pairs defeated the Continentals. Farrell and Smolyar shut out their opponent 8-0 in first doubles, while Campbell and Derbani won 8-5 in the second slot and de Quant and van der Geest won 8-2 the third slot.
Head Coach Bob Hansen showcased his team’s depth, choosing to rest Farrell, Smolyar and de Quant and start Kyle Schlanger ’18, Peter Martin ’19 and Cole Sutton ’19. Schlanger, Martin and Sutton defeated their opponents, while Campbell, Derbani and van der Geest also took care of business in straight sets in the fourth, fifth and sixth spots respectively to cap off a perfect day and start to the season for Hansen’s squad.
“The team is gaining momemtum as we head out west for spring break,” said Campbell. “We look to avenge last year’s loss in the NCAA final and knock off defending national champion Claremont-Mudd-Scripps.”
The sixth-ranked women’s team played both of its matches outdoors on Saturday, winning all 18 of its matches without losing a set. In doubles play of its first match against Hamilton, Ria Gerger ’16 and Kaysee Orozco ’17 won 8-3 in first doubles, Lily Bondy ’17 and Sadie Shackelford ’16 shut out their opponent 8-0 in the second slot and Molly Paradies ’19 and Christina Puccinelli ’19 conceded only one game in the third slot, winning their first collegiate doubles match together 8-1.
Singles play was even more one-sided as the Panthers outscored the Continentals 72-3 in total games won. Gerger did not concede a game at the top of the ladder, and Paradies and Shackelford followed suit, both winning 6-0, 6-0. On the second, third and fourth rungs of the ladder, Alexandra Fields ’17 (6-1, 6-0), Bondy (6-0, 6-1) and Puccinelli (6-1, 6-0) all only lost one game.
Middlebury handled Bates in a similar fashion later in the day. The Panthers only lost two games in all of their doubles matches combined, as the same pairings from the morning matches versus Hamilton brought in more victories. Bondy and Shackelford swept their opponent for the second straight match in the second slot, while Gerger and Orozsco won 8-1 in the first slot and Paradies and Puccinnelli did the same in the third slot.
All six Panthers won in straight sets in singles: Gerger (6-2, 6-0), Fields (6-3, 6-1), Puccinelli (6-3, 6-1), Paradies (6-1, 6-2), Lauren Amos ’16 (6-2, 6-3) and Orozco (6-0, 6-1).
“As a team, we have been putting in more hours than we ever have,” Gerger said. “If anything, our most noteworthy performance has been what has happened before match-day.
Both teams will host Wesleyan this upcoming Saturday, March 19. The Cardinals’ men’sc team is ranked 23rd nationally, while their women’s team is ranked 17th.
(03/17/16 1:23am)
Once every year or so, ABC graces us with a season of television unlike any other; one lucky man (or woman) has the opportunity to date approximately 25 mostly-white women (or mostly-white men), all desperate for love. As the season goes on, the “bachelor” (or “bachelorette”) slowly eliminates people until they are left with two in the final episode. In the series finale, these final two contestants meet the parents of the bachelor, who then chooses one of them to propose to, and one to kick to the curb. As someone who has watched The Bachelor and all its offshoots religiously since 2010 (Ali Fetodowsky’s season), I found myself uniquely qualified to synopsize and review this Bachelor finale in the context of the many superb finales that have come before it.
This season has followed Ben Higgins, described by some as “the most boring bachelor of all time” on his quest for love. Ben began the season six weeks ago with 25 beautiful women, roughly 13 of whom appeared to be normal, gainfully employed and publicly sane. Going into the finale on Monday night, Ben had eliminated all but two: Lauren B., a fake southerner from Portland who won Ben’s heart early on by quickly snagging the first one-on-one date, and JoJo, something of a dark horse in this competition, who really did not seem to make much of an impression on Ben until the second half of the season. Here is all you need to know to be caught up: against the rules of the show and his own better judgment, Ben has told both Lauren B. and JoJo that he is in love with them. Only one of them can win.
The following are my live reactions from watching the finale on Monday night:
Looks like this episode is going to take place in Jamaica. I’m not even going to get into the socioeconomic implications of that. It looks like Lauren B. will meet Ben’s parents first – let’s see if she can use her fake southern charm to convince them that her son proposing to someone he’s known for six weeks is a good idea.
Lauren is able to immediately charm Ben’s parents with a witty anecdote about their first date but does seem a little intimidated going into her conversation with Ben’s mom (rightly so, perhaps – Mrs. Higgins has the facial expressions and general demeanor of a wryly discerning dachshund). Ben’s mom doesn’t seem all too impressed by Lauren B.’s golly-shucks southern belle vibe, emphasizing the difficult realities of marriage and occasionally suggesting with an awkward laugh that, perhaps, this whole experience makes her want to die inside. Mr. Higgins is little more forgiving in his chat with Lauren B., seeming most concerned by the length of his cargo shorts and occasionally gazing off into the distance, as if to wonder “I was young once, where did the years go?”
JoJo’s outfit choice for meeting Ben’s parents is a little more conservative than her usual apparel – definitely a smart play but potentially damaging in the long run, as wearing rompers have not boded well for women this season (we’re looking at you, Jubilee). Ben’s dad has little to say to JoJo, having seemingly DGAF’d the entire process by this point. Ben’s mom seems touched by JoJo’s tears, seemingly a little drunker than she was for Lauren B.’s visit and thus a bit more forgiving. By the time JoJo emphasizes that her and Ben’s relationship was founded on an ability to get through hardships (to the degree that hardships can happen on what is essentially a three-month-long romantic vacation), Ben’s mom is firmly in Camp JoJo.
Ben has taken after his father wardrobe-wise for both dates, opting to wear a simple blue polo that emphasizes the utter inoffensiveness of his personality, perhaps in a play to make us forget that he slept with three women last week only to send one of them home and immediately tell the other two that he loved both of them. His facial stubble, an interesting variable to watch out for in an otherwise bland season, has grown to the peak of its pathetic amplitude. After introducing both women to his parents, Ben returns home to get their take on the situation, which is, basically: “Aww, honey, we really liked both of them, especially that JoJo. They were both great, but that JoJo really is a lovely gal.”
Ben walks off into what looks to be a Chrysler Town & Country (at what point in the season did they stop chartering limos?), muttering to himself like a small child with an Adderall addiction. “What am I going to do?” he shivers dramatically. “I’m in love with two women. And I love both of them.”
When we return from commercial break, a freshly shaven Ben embarks on his (final?) date with Lauren B., emphasizing that he has prayed a lot for guidance about what the right decision would be. You go Ben, never compromise those morals that got you this gig. Lauren B. and Ben’s date consists of riding around on a boat in Jamaica and kissing each other’s necks, but it’s not all fun and games. In her talking head about two minutes into the date, Lauren shrewdly notes that “[Ben] has a heavy head,” beginning to worry about the state of his relationship with JoJo.
When she asks Ben if he has any doubts, he immediately replies, “No.” This is the man who has spent the entire episode telling us how conflicted he is because he is in love with two women. Ben goes on to say that Lauren B. is too perfect, ending his speech with a poignant thought (and this is an actual transcript that I rewinded multiple times to get right): “When things get too good to be true, I get v – really nervous. I mean, I, I, I knew I loved you f – in like, right away and I didn’t even know why. And it freaks me out and it’s weird and it’s crazy and it’s good and it’s life. What in the hell is hap – like, that’s where my mind’s at, is just…” That’s it. Never let it be said that men on The Bachelor aren’t perfectly capable of expressing their feelings.
Ben goes on to talk about how his relationship with Lauren is too perfect – as opposed to his relationship with JoJo, the other gorgeous women he has been traveling around the world with for the past six weeks, which is, apparently, not too perfect. But maybe better? At this point in the episode I’m unsure, confused and ready to get off Ben Higgins’ wild ride.
The night portion of Ben and Lauren B.’s date brings little in the way of clarity. Ben broods like a less interesting Bruce Wayne, staring at Lauren B. like he knows that she would never date him outside of this show. “Lauren, no matter what happens … you’ve made this whole thing better,” Ben says before leaving, not exactly providing the assurance she might expect of the man who is potentially proposing to her in two days. The date ends with the haunting words of a red-eyed Lauren B., looking a bit like a wounded baby hawk whose mother has not brought it food for some time now: “I feel like tonight was the last time I heard Ben say that he loves me. I don’t really know … I don’t really know what I would do.” And so we enter commercial break, our hearts somber and Lauren B.’s romantic horizons looking dim.
We come back from commercial break to even more stock videos of the Jamaican countryside, but JoJo walks into frame before too long. Ben immediately begins kissing her neck and making “grr” noises. “I am confident I am going to be Ben’s wife,” says a steely JoJo in one of her talking heads, presenting a stark contrast to the constant fretting of Lauren B. this episode. Us longtime Bachelor watchers, though, will be quick to note that finale bait-and-switches are quite common, so perhaps JoJo should not be so confident after all.
Stuff happens, Ben and JoJo are kissing under a waterfall and eventually she begins pressing a newly defensive Ben for information about why he is being such a weirdo. “Let me guess, there’s two people … and you’re confused,” probes JoJo, to which Ben tactfully replies, “Yeah.” At this point, both girls are terrified that Ben loves the other one more and the show takes a noticeable uptick in quality. This is why we watch The Bachelor – to watch people terrified of having their hearts broken have their hearts broken. When JoJo begs Ben to tell her one thing about their relationship that worries him, he replies that there isn’t one, to which she begins frenetically breathing and twitching. This is the face of desperation, of a woman who has no power over her own happiness.
“I feel like I always have to compete with other people; I’m so tired of competing,” cries JoJo after accosting Ben on the floor of his hotel bathroom, seemingly unaware that she is currently a part of a reality dating competition, where competing is sort of the point. After some more bathroom-floor crying by both parties, JoJo takes us into commercial break by powerfully setting the stakes for the rest of the episode: “The next time I see [Ben, he] could make me the happiest person or … could make me heartbroken, you know?” Oh we know, JoJo. We know.
After roughly another seven minutes of Ben brooding in a resort wicker chair, in a hotel bed, and on a balcony to his own dramatic voiceover (at one point, he actually says, “I’m a lost man right now”). Ben gets a special visit from Neil Lane, famous jeweler and perennial Bachelor finale visitor who gives the bachelor a free engagement ring, usually massive and gaudy, in exchange for gobs of free publicity. But alas! As Ben gazes at the ring he has chosen, he says with a sly grin, “I think I know who I’m going to pick.” Neil Lane doesn’t react – we all know he doesn’t give a s*** but, for how much they’re paying him, the least he could do is pretend to be interested.
Next, we’re treated to a montage of both women getting ready for Ben to either propose or break up with them. This is the moment we have all been waiting for, the peak of any Bachelor season and, perhaps, the part of the show that reveals the cruel barbarism it is at heart. Each of the women will helicopter to a private island to find Ben standing alone, suited up and holding an engagement ring. The first girl, whoever she is, is the reject, and Ben will cast her aside like leftover copies of Chris Harrison’s failed romance novel. She will probably yell at him and cry a bunch, but will then be driven off in a discreet black SUV, never to be heard from again. Next will come the other girl, who Ben will propose to, hopefully with some kind of speech that makes up for the fact that he really only just made up his mind about all this yesterday. We cut to commercial break with baited breath.
First we see her feet stepping out of the helicopter, then the body of her dress. Soon, it becomes obvious. This is JoJo, first to the island, first runner up, the woman Ben will send home in a monumental display of exploitation porn. As JoJo approaches Ben we get a voiceover from her about how much she loves Ben and how she knows he would never blindside her. JoJo gives Ben a heartbreaking monologue about trusting him, about him being her best friend in the world, about how she’s never going to run from this. Ben responds, detached, avoiding eye contact. “I didn’t know if I could find love… Um, I found it with you… but, I found it with somebody else more.”
Pure spite from JoJo, who angrily looks into the distance and passive-aggressively tells Ben “it’s fine” while on the verge of tears. “Can I walk you out?” Ben asks, to which JoJo replies, “If you want.” She is emotionally desolated, having just realized that her hugely embarrassing moment will be broadcast on national television. “I want to go home,” JoJo cries in the limo on the way home.
The rest of the episode is all kisses and roses. Lauren B. tells Ben that she didn’t know love like this existed before him and Ben tells her that he never wants to say goodbye to her, falling on one knee and pulling a massive rectangular ring out of a small black box. “Lauren, will you marry me?” Ben asks, to which she sputters like an animatronic owl. They kiss to some incredibly romantic stock music, and, as Ben offers Lauren his final rose, the episode ends on a hopeful note, suggesting that love is available to all of us, even those who type reviews of reality television shows alone in their rooms late at night. Yes, if this season of The Bachelor has taught us anything, it’s that love is available to all of us. Except for JoJo.
(03/16/16 8:56pm)
This article is not meant to be comprehensive as it neither discusses the depth and complexities of policing, prosecution and incarceration nor the intersections of identities. We encourage you to explore how trans and gender non-conforming people, queer people, people with disabilities and impoverished people might acutely bear the negative impacts of mass criminalization.
Nowhere is it more apparent that we do not live in a post-racial society than in the United States criminal justice system. At an incarceration rate of over 700 per 100,000 people, the United States holds five percent of the world’s population, yet a staggering 25 percent of the world’s incarcerated population (and one third of the world’s incarcerated women). This is not an easy statistic to grasp, considering that the incarceration rates of China and Russia combined are still less than that of the United States. In absolute numbers of people under correctional control, the United States again takes the gold with over 2.3 million people incarcerated and nearly five million more on probation.
Racial discrimination marks every stage of the criminal justice process, from arrest to sentencing to incarceration. While the Fourth Amendment in theory “guarantees [the] right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers and effects” and guards “against unreasonable searches and seizures,” its protections have been largely undermined in recent decades. Beginning with the Supreme Court’s 1968 decision in Terry v. Ohio, legal restraints on police searches began to soften. As Michelle Alexander articulates in The New Jim Crow, so long as a police officer has “reasonable articulable suspicion” that a person may be involved in unlawful activity, “it is constitutionally permissible to stop, question, and frisk [them]—even in the absence of probable cause.” Take New York City’s infamous stop-and-frisk practices, for example. In 2012, 55 percent of the 500,000 people stopped and frisked were Black, despite the fact that the city’s Black population was only 25 percent of the whole population. Although the NYPD reports that rates of stop-and-frisk have dropped within the past three years, over 50 percent of stops target Black people, with a rate of innocence above 80 percent (NYCLU). In Arizona, indigenous peoples were 3.25 times more likely to be stopped and searched, despite no correlation with illegal conduct. According to a database of civil rights complaints brought against law enforcement officers, U.S. attorneys have declined to prosecute cases 96 percent of the time (Justice Department, National Caseload Data; Pittsburgh Tribune Review).
The racial component of police violence can be difficult to track given that many law enforcement agencies do not report arrest-related homicides by race. In 2011, the CDC reported that Black people were more than twice as likely as white people to be killed by law enforcement. Recent estimates from the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) indicate that this racial disparity could be even greater. Notwithstanding the potential margin for error in these statistics, the numbers fail to expose the gruesome and violent actions that U.S. law enforcement inflicts on Black and Brown people. As just one example of such action, Tamir Rice, a 12-year-old holding an airsoft gun in a Cleveland park, was shot and killed by two police officers before their patrol car had even come to a stop. Rice received no first aid from the offending officers, and died the following day of gunshot wounds. The officer was not indicted. It is difficult to argue that the same fate would have befallen a white child in Rice’s shoes; in a recording released after the homicide, the 911 dispatcher asks twice whether the suspect was Black or white before sending officers. Rice’s 14-year-old sister arrived at the scene and was immobilized by the police officers, handcuffed and put in the police car, unable to bring final moments of comfort to her little brother.
Incidents of police brutality that do not result in homicide are even more difficult to track. Emergency room records reveal that from 2001 to 2012, Black people suffered five times as many nonfatal injuries from law enforcement than white people. Furthermore, a study conducted by the BJS in 2008 found that “the percentage of Black people who reported experiencing the use or threat of force during their most recent contact with police was nearly three times that of white people.” These are the very people that U.S. police forces pledge “to protect and serve.” Marissa Alexander from Jacksonville, Florida, a survivor of domestic abuse, fired a warning shot through a wall, injuring or killing no one, after her husband threatened to kill her. She feared for her life since her husband had physically abused her. She was sentenced to 20 years in jail. Activism surrounding the case helped get her released after three years of serving her sentence. Florida’s “stand your ground” law didn’t seem to apply to her in the way that it applied to George Zimmerman.
Incarceration and police practices in the U.S. reflect highly racialized criminalization patterns. The U.S. imprisons a larger percentage of its Black American population than South Africa did at the height of apartheid. Latino, Indigenous and Black men are incarcerated at three, four and five times the rate of white men, respectively. This disparity extends to women as well, with Black and Indigenous women incarcerated at a rate six times that of white women and Latina women incarcerated at over two times the rate of white women (Bureau of Justice Statistics).
Like the racial overtones to police violence, racial disparities also plague sentencing practices. Though the War on Drugs may not be the primary driver of the mass incarceration boom, it is perhaps the most striking example of disproportionate treatment of Black people under the criminal justice system. Despite evidence that the rates of drug use and sale do not vary significantly among Black and white people, Black people are disproportionately arrested, charged, convicted and imprisoned for drug crimes. Three-strike policies, mandatory minimums and overall harsher drug sentencing laws mean that drug arrests that previously did not result in extensive time in prison are now four times more likely to result in prison sentences.
According to the International Centre for Prison Studies, 21.2 percent of prisoners in the U.S. (roughly 465,000 people) are un-sentenced at any given time, i.e. held in jail or prison on bail, usually awaiting trial or sentencing. If someone is unable to pay for bail, even though in the eye of the law they are “innocent until proven guilty,” they are still imprisoned, unable to go to work or take care of family members. To cite one case, 16-year-old Kalief Browder, arrested on robbery charges, spent three years in jail without a trial. Two of those years were spent in solitary confinement. Browder committed suicide two years after being released.
Incarceration’s detrimental effects are not isolated to the sentenced individual; consequences ripple within their family and community. Not only do families of incarcerated people generally lose an income, they then have to pay, on average, about $13,000 in fines and court fees for their family member, as shown in the report “Who Pays: The True Cost of Incarceration on Families.” Costs continue throughout the sentence as families pay exorbitant phone rates and travel fees for visitation. These costs impose a tremendous burden.
Once marked by the criminal justice system, a person is also subject to an onslaught of legal discrimination. A person who has been arrested or incarcerated can be barred from jobs and schooling because of requirements to “check the box” on applications. They can also be excluded from SNAP (the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, commonly known as food stamps), denied public housing benefits and stripped of their voting rights. Moreover, conditions of probation and parole can dictate where a person may live or be at any given time, with whom they can associate and when they must be in certain places. All of this is to say that even despite the most earnest attempts to reintegrate into communities, legal and structural impediments make this extremely difficult, if not impossible.
Hundreds of books on mass criminalization and its racialized components have been published and we urge everyone to further their research on this topic. The implications of what we have highlighted, however, are this: while the majority of Middlebury students regularly break the law without fear of consequences, when Black, Latino and Indigenous people behave identically, their hyper-policed bodies and minds are more likely to be criminalized, disrupting the lives of individuals and communities they interact with. Mass incarceration is part of a chain of institutions designed to strip the constitutional rights of people of color. In other words, law enforcement is not one bad apple within an otherwise functioning system; the entire tree is rotten from its core. These incarceration statistics are the synthesis of quota- and profit-driven policing, over-policing in communities of color and systematic racial discrimination within a judicial system designed in many ways to disenfranchise Black, Latino and Native people. As white people, it is essential to keep asking, whom does law enforcement protect? And how do we maintain these systems of policing and pre-emptive criminalization on the basis of race?
What we are reading:
“Thanks to Republicans, Nearly a Quarter of Florida’s Black Citizens Can’t Vote,” (The Intercept).
“Kalief Browder, Held at Rikers Island for 3 Years Without Trial, Commits Suicide,” (The New York Times).
“Native Americans are the Unseen Victims of a Broken US Justice System,” (Quartz).
“Obama Bans the Box,” (MSNBC).
Senghor, Shaka. (Writing My Wrongs: Life, Death, and Redemption in an American Prison).
Aliza Cohen ’17 is from Chattanooga, TN
Juliette Gobin ’16 is from Harrison, NY
Emma Ronai-Durning ’18 is from Salem, OR
Anna Iglitzin ’17.5 is from Seattle, WA
Annie Taylor ’16 is from San Carlos, CA
(03/16/16 8:39pm)
Community Council met on Tuesday, March 8, and began with a brief presentation by Associate Dean for Judicial Affairs and Student Life Karen Guttentag, and Associate Dean for Judicial Affairs and Student Life AJ Place. Each year, as mandated by the College Handbook, two Community Council members serve on the committee to select the student members of the next year’s Judicial Boards.
“It’s a really interesting way to get a perspective on the community and what people’s concerns are,” Guttentag said. “Participating in this is a really exciting and enlightening lens into how the community is working and into how different members of the community experience it.”
Next, the Council welcomed Alden Cowap ’17 and Matt Witkin ’16.5, who serve as President and Vice President of the Chromatic social house. Cowap and Witkin visited the Council to propose an amendment to the Social House Fall Term Housing Policy Regulations.
The current regulations allow no more than two sophomores to live in Tavern or Chromatic houses, and no more than one sophomore to live in the Mill or Xenia; Cowap and Witkin proposed increasing these maximums to six and two, respectively.
“Social houses provide a very deliberate and diverse community experience,” Cowap said. Cowap also cited the ability of social houses to facilitate campus leadership. “By allowing sophomores to live in the house, it makes them more engaged and active members, which will lead to better leadership, and to them wanting to take on leadership positions at a younger age so we don’t just have juniors and seniors.”
In the end, the Council was convinced, and voted to approve Cowap and Witkin’s recommendation by a vote of 13 to 1, with 2 abstaining.
On Tuesday, March 15, Council members spent most of the meeting brainstorming potential projects to focus on for the remainder of the semester. Among numerous other ideas, Emma Bliska ’18 suggested instituting “protected breaks,” meaning that assignments could not be due immediately after a school vacation.
Ilana Gratch ’16 proposed allowing faculty and staff to eat at dining halls at all times. (Currently, faculty are only allowed to eat once per week with a student, and no such program exists for staff).
Vignesh Ramachandran ’18 suggested a reform of the counseling services at Parton Health Center; specifically, Ramachandran cited numerous students of color who feel that they have received inadequate counseling by the mostly-white staff. “A lot of my friends who can afford it go to counselors in town, who they rate better,” he added.
Finally, the Council reviewed a list compiled by Bliska detailing possible solutions to student stress; a continuation of the Council’s concentration on the subject during the Fall semester. The list had been compiled from suggestions made by various Council members, though each idea had not necessarily been voted on individually by the entire Council. If approved, this list would have been sent directly to the working group on stress established by President of the College Laurie L. Patton.
In the end, however, Council members expressed reservations over endorsing a document whose recommendations had never been approved individually, and elected to postpone further action until next week’s meeting.
(03/16/16 8:31pm)
The Student Government Association (SGA) voted to pass the Club Sports Funding Methodology bill on Sunday, March 13. The proposal, sponsored by Sophomore Senator Colin Boyle ’18, calls for the creation of a committee tasked with developing alternative methods of funding club sports before a March 2017 deadline.
Currently, about 350 students are active in club sports including the crew, rugby and water polo teams. Funding for these teams is predominantly derived from the $410 Student Activities Fee (SAF) that every student is required to pay at the beginning of the year in addition to the comprehensive fee covering tuition and housing — the Department of Athletics does not contribute funds for these teams. To cover additional costs, these teams rely on alumni donations, extensive fundraising initiatives and personal contributions.
Boyle’s proposal will seek to bridge the deficit between the full operating costs of these teams and a per capita funding scheme, like the one proposed by SGA Treasurer and Chair of the SGA Finance Committee Aaron de Toledo ’16.
De Toledo’s proposed bill would reform the methods in which the Finance Committee allocates funds to club sports by operating on a per capita basis, calling for a tier system in which clubs are designated certain funding caps based on the number of participants and the general cost of the sport. Sports such as the equestrian, crew and sailing teams would comprise the first tier, and their funding would be capped at the maximum $410 per person.
In turn, funding for the club sports recognized in the first tier — which tend to require the most expensive equipment — would be cut by nearly a third of their current levels. Changes in this form of funding would have little effect for teams in lower tiers such as cycling, fencing and badminton, which are not as costly.
“We try to strike that balance as best we can, but given the fact that we do hear criticism, we want to create a more transparent process, but also a more equitable process,” de Toledo said. “It’s not a strict equality thing by any means. However, it’s capping [the funds] a little bit by kind of balancing that spectrum of equality and meeting everyone’s needs.”
Under Boyle’s bill, the proposal detailed by de Toledo will not take effect and no changes will be made to the current funding methodology. The new committee will be tasked with finding alternative funding solutions and will be comprised of the head and two members of the Finance Committee, one treasurer or representative from each individual club sport and two members of the Senate.
However, if this committee does not find a feasible solution by March 2017, the SGA and the Finance Committee will pass de Toledo’s plan.
Nathaniel Wiener ’18, treasurer of the sailing team, said, “If the budget goes into effect as proposed, we will either be forced to cease being a competitive team or raise our team dues to $300 to 400 per participant … [this increased fee] will likely lead to decreasing first-year enrollment next year and, in turn, decreased funding for the club going forward since we will have fewer competing members.”
Clara Sternberg ’19 of the equestrian team voiced similar concerns that cuts to team funding would force membership to be more exclusive, allowing only those who can afford an increased membership fee to participate.
“The prospect of limiting beginner participation would go against our desire to bring people into the sport, especially those who have not had the opportunity to ride before coming to [the College],” she said. “It is likewise unfair to ask team members to pick up the funding discrepancy by paying more out of pocket when we already spend hundreds of dollars to be able to ride.”
Members of the crew team also expressed apprehension towards de Toledo’s proposal and, along with the equestrian and sailing teams, attended the SGA meeting on March 13. Senators opened the floor for discussion of the proposals raised by de Toledo and Boyle. When the senate voted to pass Boyle’s proposal, loud applause ensued from all three teams.
“We are very happy that the Senate chose to pass this proposal and not institute a funding cap for this year, as it will give us time to work with them to find a better solution,” President of Middlebury Rowing Erika Sloan ’16 said. “We understand the difficult position that the SGA is in — ideally, at least some of our funding would be covered by the administration/athletics and not fall to the SGA. Though the school has been unwilling to do so in the past, we hope that the committee formed as a result of Boyle’s proposal will enable us to move towards that goal in a clear and organized way.”
She continued, “Drastically cutting our funding, as the original proposal would have done, would have had a devastating impact on our ability to remain the team that provides such an important opportunity to so many Middlebury students. With no other options, we would have been forced to raise our membership fees. This is the absolute last thing we want to do, as our goal is keep rowing at Middlebury open and accessible to anyone who wishes to learn the sport and be part of the team. We already stretch our gift account thin providing as much financial aid as we possibly can, and raising the participation fee would likely also raise barriers to inclusivity that are simply unacceptable.”
Boyle, who is also a member of the crew team, was thrilled by the decision.
“I think a lot of club sports just encountered the reality that they almost just lost a significant amount of their budget,” he said. “I think it will light a little fire, and I think that club sports will need a lot of momentum behind finding a solution because I think we know administration needs to be pushed.”
(03/16/16 8:31pm)
Last Sunday, March 13, the Student Government Association (SGA) passed Sophomore Senator Colin Boyle’s Club Sports Funding Methodology bill. The bill extends club sports funding at its current level and, in anticipation of future budget constraints, delegates a committee to find an alternative method of funding by March of 2017. The Campus calls upon this committee to find a solution that is both equitable among the club sports programs and fair in regards to all student activities.
Currently, club sports are exclusively funded by Student Activities, which derives its funding from the $410 activities fee paid by each student at the start of every year. Students are required to pay this fee on the premise that it will directly benefit them. In some ways it does – a large portion of the budget supports organizations like MCAB, the SGA and Commons that service the entire student body. However, an entire 10 percent of the budget supports club sports teams. Only 350 students participate in club athletics, yet every student pays to support these programs. While The Campus understands club sports to be integral to the College’s athletics program, we believe these teams represent a disproportionate amount of the Student Activities budget.
Club sports provide a diverse array of competitive and recreational opportunities where varsity options do not necessarily exist. For many students, playing a club sport is a defining element of their Middlebury experience. Many of the teams are highly competitive or even compete at the varsity level. For example, our men’s rugby team is one of the best in the country, and women’s water polo is ranked in the top 15th nationally.
We realize that these programs are expensive and require resources that non-athletic organizations do not. While some student organizations can afford a tighter budget, significantly reducing a club team’s funds could jeopardize its existence. Every year, more students are participating and team budgets are increasing. While the average student organization budget is two thousand dollars per year, the median sports team receives eight thousand dollars. Club sports are increasingly expensive to fund; asking all students to support these programs is not a sustainable solution.
Until the College finds a better way to source the funds, we would at least like to see increased equity among the programs. Currently, some teams have access to the Athletic Department’s trainers, while others do not. Other teams have fundraising pools to support students struggling to pay out of pocket expenses, while others do not. If the school is choosing to fund club sports teams instead of bringing in more speakers or sending cultural organizations to conferences, all teams must have equal opportunities. For those teams that compete at the varsity level and receive the most resources, the College should consider making their varsity status official. Participating at the varsity level, sailing and crew compete against teams that are funded by their schools’ administrations; perhaps Middlebury should follow suit. Teams that demonstrate low participation numbers should not be funded through the student activities fee that places the financial burden of a select few on the general student population.
If the committee does not come up with its own solution, a plan introduced by Finance Committee Chair Aaron de Toledo will take effect. De Toledo’s proposal creates funding caps for club teams by creating three tiers. Tier one sports – men and women’s water polo, men and women’s crew, sailing and the equestrian team – are ones that the are uniquely expensive or whose coaches are paid for by the College. Tier two sports – quidditch, men’s volleyball, cycling, fencing and ultimate frisbee – do not have coaches but compete against other schools. Tier three teams – badminton and figure skating – do not compete. The plan would cap the tier one sports at $410 per person, tier two at $307.50 and tier one at $205 – all in an attempt to find a balance between equality and meeting the teams’ needs. De Toledo’s plan also proposes a College-sponsored financial aid pool, so that all students who want to participate have the chance to do so. The Campus calls on the SGA to reconsider de Toledo’s plan or one like it going forward.
We recognize that the administration may not be able to take on club programs as an additional cost. Nonetheless, the College should at least reexamine its budget to see if there any funds that could be reallocated, or consider external funding sources such as team-driven fundraising or alumni donations. Neither the current system nor the plan put forth by de Toledo are ideal, and we expect both the Finance Committee and the SGA to make difficult decisions. At this time, The Campus believes that charging the entire student body is not a sustainable model, especially considering the rising costs. We would like to see our Student Activities budget supporting programs that benefit everyone, not just self-selected individuals.
(03/10/16 4:04am)
Last weekend, March 4-6, Saskia Pownall-Gray ’16 and Tiffany Hau ’16 competed at the College Squash Association individual championships at Chelsea Piers in Stamford, Connecticut. Pownall-Gray and Hau entered the tournament ranked 51st and 60th.
Powell-Gray faced 46th-ranked Hedvika Suchanova of Dickinson College in her opening match. She was defeated in a five-match marathon, losing the deciding game 11-7.
Powell-Gray then entered the consolation bracket, and lost to George Washington’s Abigail Shonrock in a three-game match. In the last game, Pownall-Gray showed signs of comeback, but ultimately Shonrock gained the upper hand and won 15-13.
Hau competed against 37th-ranked Alexandra Toth from Princeton and unfortunately fell in three games (11-5, 11-4, 11-7). However, Hau remained upbeat about her time at the championships.
“I had a wonderful weekend and played some of the best squash I had all season,” Hau said. “It was really exciting [playing at Chelsea Piers that] I hadn’t been to before.” Hau had a crowd of supporters on hand, including her family, Panther teammates, Coach Mark Lewis and friends from home.
After her loss in the opening-round match, Hau beat 69th-ranked Brandy Williamson from Mount Holyoke in a four game showdown. She won the final game 11-5. Though she lost in her next match against 53rd-ranked Victoria Arjoon of Bates College, Hau put the weekend in perspective.
“It was nice being able to finish on that [note] being a senior in my last weekend of squash,” Hau said.
When asked about her goals, Hau said she just wanted to enjoy her time and compete to her best potential.
“I wanted to enjoy it,” Hau said, “it was my last weekend of collegiate squash so I wanted to leave the weekend feeling proud of myself and the way that I played. I wanted to be able to look back and remember how fun it was. I definitely achieved that and with those good feelings definitely came some good results.”
Hau also gave praise to her teammates for their support and encouragement.
“[Though] it was strange not having the whole team together,” Hau acknowledged, “hearing from [teammates] and remembering the energy from the weekend before at Nationals definitely propelled me through the tournament.”
(03/10/16 4:03am)
The Middlebury men’s lacrosse team opened up the season last Saturday, March 5, with a big 5-4 win over their NESCAC rival Connecticut College, followed by a 16-10 defeat of Endicott on Tuesday, March 8.
With the win, the Panthers, currently ranked sixth nationally, continued last year’s trend of domination at home. The Panthers have now won 11 straight games on Youngman Field at Alumni Stadium after going 10-0 on their home turf in 2015.
After the Panthers held Conn. College scoreless in the first quarter, in large part due to the play of goalkeeper Will Ernst ’17 who made three of his 12 saves in the opening period on his way to being named NESCAC Player of the Week, the Camels’ Ross Thompson broke the tie with 13:10 left in the second quarter with an unassisted shot from 12 yards out.
The Panthers refused to stay down for long, however, as Joey Zelkowitz ’17, a First Team All-NESCAC selection last year, responded with a caused turnover and a coast-to-coast goal less than three minutes later. The Panthers kept firing and took advantage of a man-up opportunity at the 7:05 mark when Kyle Soroka ’16 fed first-year Jack Gould ’19 for Gould’s first career point.
The Camels, in typical gritty NESCAC fashion, evened the score at 2-2 with 2:35 left in the first half when Tucker Mscisz scored his first of two goals on the day.
Mscisz’s second tally came early in the second half when he snuck a low burner past Ernst at the 13:07 mark to give Conn. College the 3-2 lead. The Panthers had an answer, however, as Gould fed a pass to Captain Sean Carroll ’16, who smoothly finished to end yet another quarter with the game all knotted up.
Both teams continued to play tight defense in the fourth quarter as neither side could break the tie until Henry Riehl ’18 found a pocket of space at the 8:24 mark and converted on a Parker Lawlor ’18 pass.
The Camels responded quickly with 6:26 left in the game as Thompson assisted a PJ Kelleher goal. At the 5:44 mark the Riehl-Lawlor connection produced what would be the game winner as Riehl’s second goal of the day put the Panthers up 5-4 heading into the final minutes of play.
At a crucial and potentially deadly point with 4:40 remaining the Panthers found themselves man-down for one minute. Ernst came up huge with two saves on Kelleher on back-to-back point-blank opportunities only to make a third on Mscisz, following a timeout from the Camels.
After a high shot with 10 seconds left and an ensuing Middlebury timeout, Conn. College found themselves in an opportunity to win the game with a good look at the net. Unfortunately for the Camels, as was the case all afternoon, that also meant a good look at Ernst who yet again came up big for the Panthers and stopped a Derek Bertolini shot as time expired.
Senior Captain Jon Broome ’16 was happy to start the season on the right foot but he was far from satisfied.
“The first few games of the season are always interesting because every team is still trying to figure out what works, schematically and personnel-wise. Our defense played well and our offense generated some good looks, but we still have plenty of room for improvement,” Broome said.
Riehl, with two goals, Gould, with a goal and an assist and Lawlor, with two assists, led the Panther offense on the day. On the other side of the ball seven different Panthers caused turnovers. Middlebury held a 31-30 edge in shots, while Conn. College won the groundball battle by a margin of 23-16. The Panthers cleared 12-16 opportunities, while the Camels went 15-23.
On Tuesday, Middlebury defeated Endicott 16-10. Carroll led the Panthers with five goals, while Broome scored twice and assisted on four goals.
The Panthers will take on Tufts, the defending national champions, at home on Saturday, March 12 at 2 p.m.
(03/10/16 4:01am)
The Middlebury women’s lacrosse team opened its season on the road with a 17-6 win over Connecticut College on Saturday, March 5 and a 17-5 win at Rensselaer on Tuesday, March 8.
Saturday’s matchup was the women’s first contest without the leadership of former Head Coach Missy Foote, who led the program for 34 seasons. In her final season, Foote guided the team to a 16-4 record and an appearance in the NCAA Final Four. Replacing Coach Foote is Kate Livesay ’03, who returns to Middlebury after serving as head coach of the Trinity women’s lacrosse team from 2010-2014 before joining the Panthers as an assistant coach in 2015. Coach Livesay commented on her first win as Middlebury’s head coach following Saturday’s victory.
“[The win is a] nice affirmation of all the hard work over preseason,” Livesay said. “You never know exactly what team is going to show up when there is no game to scout prior to playing a new team. For us, it was important that we were able to have success in many of the new things we were trying and to have a win on top of that is great.”
Middlebury’s win was a team effort with nine different players scoring goals. However, the undeniable star of the game was captain Laurel Pascal ’16, who matched Conn. College’s entire scoring effort by adding six of her own on the day.
Pascal was not the only midfielder who had an outstanding game. Alli Sciarretta ’16, Hollis Perticone ’18 and Bridget Instrum ’16 each finished the game with two goals apiece, while Mary O’Connell ’17 dished out six assists in addition to scoring a goal herself. The scoring was rounded out by Chrissy Ritter ’16, Bea Eppler ’17, Hailey Cosseboom ’17 and Emma McDonagh ’19, who each contributed a goal to the win.
Middlebury established a fast pace early on in the contest, quickly surging to a 5-0 lead. Conn. College responded with two goals to round out the score at 5-2. From that point, the Panthers dominated the game, mounting a 7-0 run to close out the first half.
Leading 12-2 at the half, the Panthers kept the pressure on Connecticut College by maintaining a strong offensive effort throughout the remainder of the game.
First-year Goaltender Kate Furber ’19 played the majority of the game, recording four saves in her collegiate debut. Madeleine Kinker ’16 finished the game in the net for the Panthers. Livesay believes that Furber is going to make an immediate impact for the Panthers.
“She is very aggressive, vocal and quick. She also anticipates very well,” Livesay said.
The coach expects Furber to be a “big presence” within the team’s high tempo defense as the season progresses. Outside of the cage, the Panther defense was anchored by strong performances from Maggie Caputi ’16 and Jessie Yorke ’17.
“Defense was the strength of our team that day,” Livesay added.
Having an extra week of preseason before their first game this year allowed the team to “both mentally and physically prepare for the season,” Kate Hodgson ’16 said. Several members of the team believe that the extended preseason preparation was an integral part of their win this past weekend.
“As a whole, we are stronger and faster than we have ever been in past years and I think that comes from our conditioning in preseason,” Eppler said.
On Tuesday, Middlebury dominated Rensselaer from the beginning, jumping out to a 3-0 lead within the first 3:20 of play and cruising to a 17-5 win. Ritter and Sciarretta both scored three goals, while O’Connell assisted on two.
The team will travel to the Boston area this weekend for a doubleheader on Saturday, March 12 against Tufts followed by a second contest on Sunday, March 13 versus MIT. Tufts handed the Panthers one of their four losses last season in a tight game that was decided by a score of 12-11.
