791 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/24/02 12:00am)
Author: [no author name found] The challenge for future generations will be to define what is most essentially human. The extension of the Common Benefits Clause to acknowledge plaintiffs as Vermonters who seek nothing more, nor less, than legal protection and security for their avowed commitment to an intimate and lasting relationship is simply, when all is said and done, a recognition of our common humanity.— Supreme Court Appeal, Stan Baker v. State of Vermont, Nov. 1998Our mailboxes have been filled with letter after letter about abomination, talking about sinfulness, talking about judgment day coming soon. I'm here to tell you that gay and lesbian people and gay and lesbian couples deserve not only rights, they deserve to be celebrated. Our lives, in the midst of historic prejudice and historic discrimination, are to my view, in some ways, miracles.— Representative Lippert of Hinesbury, Vt., Journal of the Vermont House of Representatives, March 2000But I hope you will consider giving more than $50. To elect enough anti-"gay marriage" candidates sufficient to repeal "Civil Union" it is going to take sacrificial giving. Please try to send $100 or more even if it requires giving beyond what you thought possible.— Reverend David A. Stertzbach, Vermont Defense of Marriage Political Action Committee campaign letter prior to 2000 electionsMembers of the Legislature have listened to the public, and what they have heard is complex. As they listened, they heard, among other things, that it is fair and decent to treat all Vermonters with compassion and not to exclude same-sex couples from the benefits that attach to marriage. The House wouldn't have passed the bill it passed if members hadn't been listening to Vermonters who said these things.— David Moats, Pulitzer Prize winning editorial in The Rutland Herald,April 14, 2000
(04/24/02 12:00am)
Author: Nicha Rakpanichmanee Swarthmore Student Confesses to Child Pornography With a search warrant affidavit, the Delaware County Criminal Investigation Division (CID) investigated network files of a Swarthmore College student who confessed to owning and sending photos of child pornography and having phone sex with a detective who posed as a fifteen-year-old boy.As of last Thursday, the student's name remains confidential because no charges have been filed against him. Privacy concerns spread amongst Swarthmore students as rumors traveled across campus that the CID copied the entire network directory. However, Director of Information Technology Services Judy Downing said that, although the search warrant allowed access to all servers, the CID downloaded only files pertaining to the student under investigation.The CID's Internet Crimes Against Children Task Force cooperated with the New Hampshire and Swarthmore police in the investigation, which began when parents of a minor in New Hampshire reported receiving child pornographic images over the Internet.Downing stressed that Swarthmore would not begin to monitor network computer activities although the College policy on electronic use will be reviewed. In the absence of criminal charges, Dean of the College Bob Gross could not comment on whether the student will face internal disciplinary action.This is the second report of Internet crime at Swarthmore in many College officials' memory. The first occurred in fall 1999, when a student was expelled at the end of that semester for stealing a colleague's credit card number and using it online.Source: The Swarthmore PhoenixNYU Dental School Replaces Textbooks with DVDBeginning this fall, all students and faculty members of New York University College of Dentistry will for the first time use Vital Book, the DVD that replaces all four years worth of curriculum materials.All students will now be required to pay $1,200 per year for the DVD in addition to buying personal laptops to view the software. They will no longer refer to the 161 textbooks, the clinic manual, course packets and syllabi or other reference materials. Students will be able to update the DVD at no cost through online downloads and twice-a-year exchanges. In addition to discount packages for Dell, IBM and Apple laptops, NYU has organized a week-long technology orientation for incoming students and free training with the DVD company, Vital Source Technology, for all professors.Several concerns have emerged — academic, financial and technological. Some students say their professors are not all proficient in the pedagogical technology. Others cite missing resources in the DVD, such as lab procedures and video clips. Several students also say they do not want to read textbooks on a computer screen. While the dental school has provided printing resources for million-plus pages, some students have faced printing problems, to which Vital Source responded quickly. Even though several students are concerned that they do not have the option to buy or resell used books, others note that additional expenses are small relative to the total cost of approximately $60,000 for dental school tuition and housing.Vital Book is a result of collaborative effort of NYU, Boston University, State University of New York at Buffalo, the University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, the University of Colorado at Denver and the University of Texas at San Antonio. All six schools are using their personalized versions of the DVD.Source: Washington Square NewsDuke Students Charged with $100K TheftTwo Duke University undergraduates have confessed to stealing more than $100,000 in equipment from various buildings on the University's campus. They will be formally charged tomorrow. A third student from the University of Maryland at College Park has also been implicated in the scheme.Senior Charles Jeremy Kelley and junior Susan Webber Stone face interim suspension. According to a Duke University police spokesman, they will be charged with two counts of felony breaking and entering and two counts of felony larceny. The perpetrators were identified as the same people caught on video surveillance stealing $40,000 worth of equipment. Kelley and Stone were also identified on a later surveillance tape stealing $61,000 in equipment from the University's Schaefer Theater. After The Duke Chronicle printed pictures of the three suspects, the campus police department received several phone calls with information on the thefts. Kelley and Stone later confessed and identified the third suspect as 22-year-old John Jay Alexander, who will be charged with one count of each violation. Kacie Wallace, associate dean for judicial affairs at Duke, said that the two students could ultimately face expulsion. The Undergraduate Judicial Board will decide the outcome of the case.Source: The Chronicle of Higher Education
(04/24/02 12:00am)
Author: Meghan Michelson On April 26, 2000, Vermont legislators and Governor Howard Dean passed a law permitting eligible gay and lesbian couples to join in civil union, thus giving them similar rights, responsibilities and protections to those that heterosexuals couples gain through marriage. The controversy surrounding this law affected Vermont on a political and cultural level, and the debate caused a penetrating divide between Vermonters which has left permanent scars on Vermont's political landcape. The backlash following the passage of the law was severe, undermining the friendly atmosphere that once defined the seemingly homogenous state.Exactly two years have gone by since the civil union law was passed, dividing the state along political, religious and moral lines. For the most part, the opposition has taken a step down and come to accept the fact that civil unions are now a fixture of Vermont politics. However, several opposing voices remain, activists who have chosen to persist in their struggle against civil unions and the advancement of gay and lesbian marriage rights. An effort to repeal the civil union law and replace it with a broader system of reciprocal partnerships in May 2001, for example, was ultimately avoided, yet conflict continues to exist in public and private spheres. The most visible antagonist to civil unions, and one who does not accurately represent all of those in opposition, is Rev. David Stertzbach, leader of the Vermont Defense of Marriage Committee. Stertzbach condemns gay and lesbian unions of any kind and has written letters demanding that Republican lawmakers continue to push for the repeal of the civil union law. In a letter sent to all state House and Senate members early this month, Stertzbach wrote, "This is an issue of no compromise for me. Civil union was a moral Sept. 11 for both major parties. I will not go back to the 'partisan politics as usual' that left us unprepared for this disaster." Stertzbach continues to oppose civil unions despite the less than positive response from Republicans. In an April 4 article in The Rutland Herald, Republican Representative Patricia O'Donnell of Vernon, Vt., stated, "He [Stertzbach] doesn't represent Republicans. Somebody like that is dangerous. I think the more fanatical people like him get, the more the public stops listening to them." Euan Bear, editor of Out in the Mountains, a Vermont newspaper that addresses gay, lesbian and bisexual issues, responded to the hostile actions of Stertzbach. "I think he is entitled to his opinion, but I object when he is trying to cram his theology down my throat. When it interferes with my civil rights, I object doubly," she said. Bear, who was united in a civil union with her partner of 21 years in August 2000, has remained personally and professionally unaffected by any backlash stemming from the civil union controversy. "I have had a civil union and I did not experience any personal backlash, and I'm not aware of any backlash to the newspaper, although I was not working here at the time the law passed," she said. Out in the Mountains continues to be a strong supporter of civil unions, although Bear emphasized that the struggle for gay and lesbian equal marriage rights is only one issue of many that they face. "We're a newspaper, not lobbyists. We're happy to report on the issue of civil unions and we're happy to support all moves to equality, but civil unions are by no means our only issue," said Bear. Several lawmakers continue to remain adamantly opposed to civil unions, but for the most part they have come to terms with the state's majority rule to keep civil unions in place. One such lawmaker is Representative Loren Shaw of Derby, Vt. "I believe that homosexuals have a right to life as well as you and I, and without hassle. They are God's children. I don't have anything against these people. In fact, for the most part I find them very pleasant. I just don't want them to ram their belief down my throat, or try to make me think that it's morally okay. I, however, think that it is between God and them, a personal thing," stated Shaw. Shaw is opposed to civil unions partly for the distinction that the law creates between homosexuals and heterosexuals. "The lawmakers really messed up with the civil union law, and they have separated the homosexuals apart from the rest of the state, and this is a shame. These folks have as much right in this state as I, of course with the civil union they now have more rights, special rights at that. I have always opposed civil union for this reason," Shaw said. After representing the plaintiffs before the State Supreme Court, Attorney Susan Murray of the law firm of Langrock, Sperry and Wool in Middlebury remains active in supporting pro-civil union candidates for the state legislation."We're still working on lobbying. I'm fully prepared to go on continuing to support pro-civil union candidates in the upcoming campaign," said Murray. She commented on the reoccurring presence of civil unions, an issue that has dominated her career for the last seven years, but also the general public's acceptance of the once and still controversial law. "Civil unions are still an issue, but not so much in my everyday life as they used to be. The vast majority of Vermonters have realized that their lives are not at all changed by the passage of the civil union law. It has made life better for gays and lesbians and their families, but it has not affected non-gay people," said Murray. In contrast to Murray and fellow pro-civil union lobbyists, groups like the National Christian Coalition are still working to gain more anti-civil union influence in the state legislature. "We are still opposed to civil unions. Realistically, now what we're focusing on is getting conservative candidates who oppose civil union elected in the state," said Keith Mauck, the national youth director of the Christian Coalition. Although opposition continues to exist, the majority of it has died down since the more heated battles of the legislative process. What the future holds regarding the progression or regression of civil unions and same-sex marriage rights is unseen, but it is impossible for Vermonters to forget the deeply rooted moral divide that occurred at this time two years ago. In reference to these days Murray commented, "It was very ugly in Vermont two years ago. Vermonters like to think of the state as a friendly place, but at that time, it certainly wasn't."
(04/17/02 12:00am)
Author: David Castonuovo, Assistant Professor of Italian I have taken some heat because a number of articles in last week's Campus imply that Gay and Lesbian Employees at Middlebury (GLEAM, of which I am coordinator this year), had somehow approved the presentation of the "Art of Kissing." Please let me set the record straight (so to speak).When I was contacted about this event last November, it was originally described to me as a sort of "safe sex" program aimed primarily at heterosexuals (the idea, as I recall, was that kissing can be lots of fun and that kissing comes in handy when one wants to avoid sexual behavior that is overtly risky). Basically, I was (and am) interested in anything that promotes safe sex, even a program where "inclusion" is not the primary focus. But I advised the Middlebury College Activities Board (MCAB) to find out more about issues of "inclusion" before going ahead and booking the "show."Now, we know that heterosexuals as a group face enormous pressure from society (pressure exerted by almost every film, television show and commercial they ever see!) to have casual sex with multiple partners, rather than commit to long-lasting marital relationships. Indeed, most heterosexuals would probably claim that their right to divorce is a "civil right" rather than a "special privilege." Even Christian heterosexuals and the institutions that speak for them — once the primary defenders of marriage — seem no longer to care that divorce (unlike homosexuality) was explicitly condemned by Jesus as "adultery" (see Matthew, ch. 19).Mindful, then, of the tremendous societal pressure to copulate that is placed on heterosexuals (especially young heterosexuals), I was certainly in favor of considering any program on campus that would educate them. As a homosexual who lost some very dear people to AIDS, I remember all too well the nightmare of the Ronald Reagan and New York City Mayor Ed Koch era: their REFUSAL to educate the public (the result of their anti-gay and anti-minority prejudices) helped create a true health epidemic in the United States (not just among gays, but among hemopheliacs, drug addicts, inner-city residents, and people who needed blood transfusions). That epidemic ripped apart the hearts of many individuals and their families. (The same thing is still happening in Africa today.) Luckily for you students, by the time you were old enough to begin to be educated about sex, things in the United States had begun to change.After proffering my advice about inclusion to MCAB, I received the following answer from someone planning the "Kissing" event: "Allow me to first and foremost thank you for all the advice and consideration that you've offered duting [sic] the course of planning this program. Since I last spoke to you, there has been some new information that has come to light. After having spoken with the [sic] Michael Christian's (the performer) agent last night, I was able to clarify what was meant by the program being 'heterosexual.' There is one small portion of the show in which Mr. Christian speaks on how to make yourself more attractive to the opposite sex. That's it. I asked whether there would be any problem with having homosexual couples going up on stage and demonstrating and I was informed that there would not be a problem with that at all." It appears that MCAB — to quote Humphrey Bogart's remark about the healing waters of Morocco in the film "Casblanca" — was, at the very least, "misinformed." When the "Kissing" show did not happen on Feb. 14 as planned, I assumed it had been cancelled. I was never told that it had been rescheduled. One imagines that Mr. Christian charged MCAB a pretty penny for his performance. So I think the lesson for you all to take from "The Art of Kissing" is that whether you are straight or lesbian or gay, there is always someone out there who will try to make a buck off of you. This appears to be what happened (unwittingly, I assume) to MCAB. Yes, a "kiss is just a kiss," but the adage "Caveat Emptor" still applies.
(04/17/02 12:00am)
Author: Katie Simpson Editor's note: The author first submitted her article to The Campus last week but due to a technical problem, it was not printed. The Campus regrets the error.You may have heard some version of this story already. Yes, I am talking about "The Art of Kissing" protest. And yes, I was one of the protesters at that voyeuristic debacle Saturday night. What happened there is about more than just a ridiculously sexist, racist and heterosexist workshop or performance or whatever you want to call it. It's about a double standard when it comes to expressing the right of freedom of expression.Five concerned students (myself and four other women) decided that because of the content of the Web site run by the presenter,(Michael Christian, aka William Cane), and the content of his book, "The Art of Kissing," we would make some posters, buy tickets to the show, and monitor the performance for quality. We had no specific plan — we were just going to watch for offensive material and act accordingly. The reason we couldn't have a specific plan is because we didn't know what happened during his show. If the performance turned out to just be strange, silly or immature, we would have shaken our heads, written off the two hours we spent there and gone on our way. But unfortunately, the show was all of those things and more. It was filled with the same sexist, racist, and heterosexist material that was found in his book and Web site.Because news of our protest had leaked, there were five — yes five — security guards at the event. We protesters numbered only five. Yup, there were as many guards as there were protesters. You may be wondering, if there were five security guards at the event, how was the rest of campus adequately patrolled? This crossed my mind as well.One of my fellow protesters was thrown out of the show by one of these security guards for choosing to stand during the middle of the show to express her opinion — to disagree with the performer's choice of offensive vocabulary. Another protester left the show because its offensive language was too much. The rest of us decided it would be best if all five of us stayed together, so we also left the show, with the idea of going back in together at the end of the performance.When the show ended and people started filing out, we went back in to hold up posters for the exiting audience members to see. The posters we had hung up had been taken down and confiscated. These posters contained excerpts from the website and the book "The Art of Kissing" which contained sexist and heterosexist language, and discussed how such language and sexism leads to problematic power structures in relationships — which can then lead to feelings of powerlessness, rape and the unfortunate perpetuation of such unnecessary evils. With one exception, all of our other, big posters also somehow made it into the hands of the security officers. I stood on a chair with that poster. A fellow protester handed out condoms yelling her tongue in cheek response to the show, "because good kissing leads to good sex." (An ironic side note. The act was billed as an alternative to sex — kissing as a form of abstinence. Yet it featured a skit with a girl teasing a guy until he got an erection, illustrated by the umbrella he was holding. And there were many references to "getting all worked up," "foreplay" and "bodies rubbing together." If kissing leads to sex, which this act suggests, how does it support abstinence?) We were then asked to leave the social space so we moved into the lounge adjacent to The Grille, where I again stood on a chair with the remaining poster. This poster was more sarcastic than our others and was, in essence, poking fun at Christian's paradoxical "abstinence" message and the long list in his book that describes different ways to kiss different body parts. The poster said: "Isn't oral sex just another form of kissing? Introducing the genital kiss!" This poster, which was a simple and even inadequate response to such an offensive performance, was the source of a sort of showdown between us protesters and security and the town police. I stood calmly on the chair in the lobby, holding this poster above my head, while we answered questions from curious onlookers as to why we disagreed with the show. For the most part people were receptive to our ideas and understood and/or respected our desire to express ourselves. Yet almost immediately I was told to leave. Two security guards, one male and one female, asked me to give them my poster and leave. The other protesters and I said that we understood our First Amendment rights to include freedom of speech and expression so we refused to leave. We were asked repeatedly to stand down, and a guard even attempted to rip the poster from me, but we refused to leave. The guards were not able to articulate which school rule we were breaking, or why we should leave, except for the simple reason that they told us to. This was not reason enough for us, so I stayed on the chair, we continued to answer questions, and the security guards called the town police for "assistance." Shortly thereafter, a policeman arrived and asked me to give him the poster. He tried to tear it from my hands, but I would not give it up. We asked what law we were breaking and he said if he had to, he would charge us with "disorderly conduct." Now to me, this seemed ridiculous. I was not Michael Christian, onstage surrounded by eight couples making out in a near porn-fest; in my mind, Christian was the only person at McCullough guilty of disorderly conduct. And remember, we protesters were not yelling, or being physically violent or threatening in any way. There were no children around; the poster was less tasteless then many of the innuendos that were coming from the stage earlier in the evening. The policeman then said that if I did not leave, he would force me to leave. Does this sound like an over-reaction to you? A few women standing around, one of whom had a poster in her hands, answering some questions, engaging in dialogue. Sound threatening? Well, Middlebury College's Department of Public Safety and the town police sure thought we were. So we left, and now we're using this public forum to further this discussion, In the days since the incident, dozens of people who witnessed this violation of our freedom of speech have come up to me to express solidarity and concern and to hear the outcome of the mess. But the outcome is now unsure. Incident reports? That's what we've been told. Is this over? Not by a long shot.
(04/17/02 12:00am)
Author: Todd Metter I have protests on my mind. I'm not, although I could be, protesting something like having to attend class, indoors, during this recent spate of warm weather. I'm not protesting the dearth of performances lately by the amazing Brian the Juggler, although I, and all of you, should be (e-mail him at bpletche@middlebury.edu — he still has a few spots left on his upcoming campus tour). I'm not protesting the lack of non-blueberry-fruity ice cream flavors lately in Proctor — I have my mind already looking forward to Free Cone Day at Ben & Jerry's, which to the best of my knowledge comes on April 22 of this year. I would insert a parenthetical statement telling Ben & Jerry's where to send my check for that free advertisement (slogan: Todd Metter: reaching dozens of readers yearly!), but is it really a free promo? I bet that they lose lots of money on Free Cone Day, especially when people (read: me) just get their cone and get back in line, which gives them just enough time to finish the cone before it's time to order another one. Yes, I've timed myself, and yes, it's almost down to a science. I'll keep you posted. However, I bet that they do build up lots of goodwill that nets them more money on the other days of the year when you do have to pay for the ice cream. In which case, Unilever, please send me some coupons or something to MC Box 4154. Thanks. Editor, please note, this ends the filler portion of my article.What I am protesting? Basically, today I wish to proclaim my opposition to dumb protests. What are so many of you doing? Without judging the people involved, I wish to question the efficacy of the political motives of those involved in some recent protests — I'll keep it to on-campus ones for today. While it's fairly easy to come up with some inflammatory rhetoric, sound bites, spectacles, or what-have-you, there is a danger of having your organization or cause stereotyped by these actions, to your future detriment. That's not a revolutionary statement — I haven't said anything really new, but I do say that it's very important to keep these things in mind — much of life is politics, and the classic problem with politics is that it's generally short-term and local. As groups grab the limelight with attention-garnering activities, declarations, or actions, their short-term stock goes up. Lots of people, the day after, were talking about the demonstrations or activities at, say, the kissing show, or perhaps the CIA and World Bank presentations on campus. However, this increased public awareness and scrutiny of their particular issues or platforms often exposes perceived glaring defects in the logic or rationale of those who protested in the first place. Often, unfortunately, this realization or conclusion leaves a negative stigma, either in the individual or among the public, attached to the group's future activities. Here, I must leave the road of generalizations and platitudes and get right down to my own personal opinion. As always, I welcome debate; reach me at tmetter@middlebury.edu since my editor takes out my phone number (go figure!).While I consider myself a feminist in the sense that I believe in the equality of the sexes and the salience of women's rights, I do disagree with some activities, protests if you will, that lately have been sponsored by or have involved Feminist Action at Middlebury (FAM) or self-proclaimed feminists. For example, while I understand that those protesting at "The Art of Kissing" show were neither endorsed nor rejected by FAM, the attention that they garnered ultimately reflects itself most in the mirror into which all those concerned with women's issues must look. To the best of my knowledge, many different relevant Middlebury groups approved the content of the show months in advance. Apparently there was an open offer to have a gay or lesbian couple up on stage as well. Middlebury College Activities Board (MCAB) did background research in contacting other schools that had hosted this same show and found out that there had been no complaints concerning gender or sexual issues. While I don't, nor do I claim to, know all of the particulars, it does seem that a fairly concerted effort was made to avoid an offensive or anger-arousing show. Let me here reiterate my support of many American freedoms, among them the freedom of speech. I feel that an individual can and should protest or support whatever interests strike his ardor. By the same token, I don't, won't and can't condemn those individuals who protested the kissing show; that's completely in their rights, and even responsibilities and obligations if they felt offended by its material. However, I do feel that the way in which they went about it suggests a lack of planning and upside, because when the fervor faded, many people, including myself, were left asking, "just what exactly were they protesting?"On a related issue, there is nothing intrinsically wrong with the many posters pasted around campus lately concerning sexual assault, rape etc. and these posters' claims of the high rates of these deplorable activities occurring on campus. However, the posters' strategy of inflamed rhetoric and less-than-logical reasoning (if the national collegiate average for rape is 1 out of 4 women, and a level much less than that is being reported here, it is not correct simply to assume that the level here is also 25 percent and any mentioned level under that is deliberate underreporting and cover-up by the College) is less than an expedient way of building long-term public support for addressing these issues. On the other hand, it's very possible that these claims of one in four women raped are absolutely true. I do know of some people here who have been involved in such incidents, and certainly I deeply sympathize with them. As to the true rate of these incidents, I don't have enough information to know. However, I do know that I, personally and unfortunately, was disheartened enough by the methods used in these posters to perhaps be possibly less sympathetic to these sorts of things in the future. Notice that I didn't out-and-out say that I am now biased, because it's not that simple. And of course this is a controversial topic and I'm garnering attention, but clear also is the fact that of course past experiences and interactions affect how we approach future ones. While it's objectionable, and "unfair," of course a higher proportion (when compared to other ethnicities) of people of Middle Eastern descent or appearance are screened at security checks at United States airports. The fact that all of those involved in the Sept. 11 attacks fall into this category is, for good or bad, an unavoidable fact, and airlines or the government or whoever is in charge of these things has decided on this sort of screening as their current course of action. While when comparing feminist protests to airport screening I certainly am talking about events of tremendously different magnitudes of importance, the analogy is straightforward. Often, short-term actions or protests (such as posters), meant to have a clear effect (to arouse awareness of this issue) and to clearly support a cause (the resolution of this issue), end up having a less positive long-term effect due to the form of protest or action taken; showy but not substantive.While word-limit constraints prevent me from addressing any more topics (I had hoped to touch upon some of the issues surrounding the World Bank and CIA presentations), I feel that it is important to note that these other topics are no more or less important to me than that of those described in this article. I hope that in the future, perhaps next week, I may have a chance to look at those issues as well. Until then, I ask all of you, and this is unfortunately a basic truth of politics and many other things (advertising, for example — caveat emptor…), to think about what you see and hear and read and feel, and see if it makes real sense, good sense, is constructive, or if it is just an appea
l to emotion and not to efficacy. It's unfortunate that many activities done in the names of many things (religion is a salient example) end up only causing much trouble in the long run. Perhaps, as I eat my tasty and soothing Ben & Jerry's ice cream next week (Unilever, where is that check?), all of this will make more sense to me. Until then, happy protesting!
(04/17/02 12:00am)
Author: Raam Wong I have often heard it said that "no one dates at Middlebury." Actually, I normally only hear this from women who are telling me why we can't go out to dinner. Still, with the warmer weather, students are now on the prowl for either a long-term relationship or at least someone to share a drunken hookup with, someone who they will never see again except for awkward glances in the mailroom. The search for that special person extends to McCullough dance parties in which students face such war-like conditions as dehydration, exhaustion and sweat stains. While there are some students who succeed in hooking up, most fail, due in some part to their amazing ability to grind to music while being completely oblivious to what musicologists refer to as "rhythm." Many students never get to do the "Walk of Shame." Going home alone, they're forced to do the "Walk of Sexual Frustration Because Everyone Hooked Up Except Me." (Also known by the acronym W.O.S.F.B.E.H.E.M.) Some have even ventured to find love online. They find it stimulating to be able to talk to a perfect stranger using sexy, dirty online acronyms like, L.O.L. (Laughing Out Loud), I.L.Y. (I Love You) and D.A.I. (I Am Dyslexic). The first step to finding love online is creating a profile. While I don't have one, I'd expect my profile to read something like this: "Fun-loving. Bachelor. Smoker. Look like Brad Pitt." Of course, that's a ridiculous, unbelievable profile: I don't smoke. This brings up another fallacy of online dating — people always lie. For instance, if a woman tells you that she looks like the beautiful Latino pop singer Selena, that probably just means she likes Mexican food. Her appreciation of the Mexican culture only extends as far as enjoying Taco Bell's Beef Gordita Supreme, which, coincidently, happens to be her co-worker's nickname for her at the office. The rule is, no matter what physical descriptions a person may give you online, you should subtract six inches from their height and add 60 pounds to their weight. In mocking people's different endeavors with the opposite sex, I don't want to imply my track record has been perfect. I've had several failures, such as in the fourth grade when a girl refused to play doctor with me, claiming I had the wrong health insurance. And I am not very fashionably conscious either, considering I buy all of my suits in bulk at Ames. In fact, I can count all of my endearing qualities on one finger, which, by the way, has a yellow hangnail. However, I have come to realize that in order to be successful with the opposite sex, an individual must have a gimmick —that certain quality that sets a person apart from the rest of the pack. Every great man has used a gimmick to woo chicks. (Their first secret of courtship is probably finding a synonym for the word "chick.") Jesus Christ is a prime example of this. Now, most people don't immediately associate Christ with sex, unless they're me. But take my word for it, this dude had an enormous gimmick at his disposal. There's no better way to raise a woman's libido than sitting next to her in a bar and handing her your business card that says, Jesus 'Hank' Christ, Carpenter & Son of God. Now that is impressive. What woman doesn't want a man who can fix things around the house?For example, Elvis' gimmick was his deep, smooth voice. His universal appeal is evident in his given title: "The King." Of course, Elvis didn't actually get this nickname until after he died while sitting on the throne. His death in the john was a tragedy for millions of men, women and plumbers alike. Bob Dylan also had great sex appeal. Dylan's poignant songs were his gimmick. Unfortunately, now Dylan is nothing but an old, drugged-out guy who can hardly string a sentence together. He is often mistaken for the President of the United States.In the political realm, Congressman Gary Condit also had a knack for impressing the ladies due to his political power. When I was interning in D.C. last summer, it seemed that the entire city was consumed with the sordid details of his affair with Washington intern Chandra Levy. He destroyed the power of his gimmick, however, when most people began to suspect he was responsible for the intern's disappearance. (Shocked by the news that the congressman probably made the intern drop off the face of the earth, my loving parents called urging me to have an affair with the politician.) It is now time for you, the reader, to embrace your own gimmick, just like I've done. Though I've failed to develop any gimmick as astounding as being the "Son of God," I have done pretty well for myself as "Son of Tax Attorney."
(04/17/02 12:00am)
Author: Bryan Goldberg "We reserve the right to refuse admission or to eject any person violating facility rule, local, state or federal law or whose conduct is deemed illegal or disorderly." —"Art of Kissing" ticket disclaimerIn light of The Campus opinions articles blasting Public Safety and the Middlebury Police Department, I thought it was necessary for those of us who understand the law and the Bill of Rights to voice our opinions. As someone who identifies as a liberal, I have been more than excited by the amount of activism on our college campus these last few weeks. Unfortunately, the execution of recent protests, and even worse, the public response that they have generated, has been disappointing. Many of the critics who responded to the protest breakup in last week's Campus unfairly tarnished both the local authorities and the laws that they uphold. In the April 10 issue of The Campus Dominique Thompson '03 complained that Public Safety denied one particular protester the right to freedom of speech "when they threatened to 'physically remove' her from the premises if she did not stop protesting." Ms. Thompson failed to mention that the protester's ticket was purchased under the legal condition that he or she could be removed if his or her "conduct was deemed disorderly." The producers of the show, in this case MCAB, issued the ticket and therefore had the right to deem the protest "disorderly." Furthermore, Ms. Thompson falsely stated that "they [Middlebury College] crossed the boundaries of the law. 'Prevention of another's free expression of ideas by intimidation, abuse, or physical force' is a serious offense and also punishable in a court of law." The protesters were practicing free speech on private property. Middlebury College owns McCullough, and they get to choose who is allowed to be there. If the College puts MCAB in charge of McCullough, and MCAB decides that a few students are creating a disturbance, they have every legal right to make those students move.In a separate Campus opinions piece, Nahal Batmanghelidj '02 made many a strong statement regarding the first amendment to the Bill of Rights. "Unlike most people, I know that civil liberties were not only created by men in positions of power, but are also aimed at helping the powerful maintain their power. The First Amendment, under the guise of freedom for all, protects the rights of the powerful by ensuring that the powerless remain silent," Ms. Batmangheldj argued. Like many students, I was confused by Ms. Batmanghelidj's claim that she "knows" what our founding father's hidden agenda was when drafting the Bill of Rights given that she never once shared a conversation with James Madison, Alexander Hamilton or John Jay. Ms. Batmanghelidj defended her views by stating that "I am going to be labeled an anti-sex angry feminist for the beliefs I hold, they too [people who did not protest], by expressing similar beliefs will be setting themselves up for similar criticism. So ask yourselves, whose rights are the first amendment protecting? Does everyone really have the same access to this right?" Even though Ms. Batmanghelidj opted not to state the First Amendment, I will do so:"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."To answer her question, yes, "everyone really has the same access to this right." Nowhere in the First Amendment does it single out feminist protesters. Perhaps Ms. Batmanghelidj objects to the First Amendment because it does not prevent her peers from calling her an "anti-sex angry feminist." What does Ms. Batmanghelidj want from our Constitution? Would she like one that guarantees her right to protest but denies her peers the right to call her an "anti-sex angry feminist?" Ms. Batmanghelidj should understand that our founding fathers would never have had time to complete the document if they constructed it on a case-by-case basis. When students write articles in which they misinterpret the law or inexplicably dismiss the First Amendment, it not only destroys their validity, but it also reflects poorly on this community. It is also unfair to local authorities when their actions are falsely deemed inappropriate or illegal. Both Public Safety and the Middlebury Police Department should be commended for the way in which they handled the protest situation, for they followed the law and properly interpreted the First Amendment.
(04/10/02 12:00am)
Author: [no author name found] By Dana AllenI want to talk about spanking. I'm pretty new to it all and I have to say I really don't know that much about it. I mean, I got the occasional punitive tap from my parents when I was younger, but I have never really been on the giving end until this weekend when I spanked my girlfriend. Keeping in mind that this is a family friendly paper, I'll explain a little more. I was asked, or rather commanded, to spank my girlfriend as part of Middlebury College Activities Board's (MCAB) "Art of Kissing" show.If you went to this show, you didn't actually see me on stage. My partner in this endeavor and I agreed that we weren't going to go up there and essentially objectify ourselves in the name of entertainment that was based on the perpetuation of harmful gender stereotypes. Since then, I've talked to a number of people, most of whom have been in agreement with our decision. However there are those who didn't understand why we decided not to do it. This letter is for them.Their argument basically runs along the lines that the show is just that — a performance for the amusement of an audience. As such it shouldn't be taken too seriously and those of us who are making a big deal out of it are being over-reactionary. Keep in mind that feeding Christians to lions was also a show done for the amusement of audiences. Granted, no one was being fed to wild animals in McCullough this weekend, but the demonstration was equally as intolerable. The problem is this: masculine and feminine gender roles and the stereotypes associated with them can be extremely oppressive, especially to women. In a show where the women are openly asked to portray themselves as prostitutes and then become wanton tramps who get spanked by the presumed authority figure for the amusement of the masses, we are participating in a cycle of violence and degradation. These serious issues are being reduced to playthings for a comedian and his audience, further reducing their stature in the social consciousness. I know it's supposed to be funny. It's not. Violence against anyone is not funny. Degrading anyone's position in the world is not humorous. What could have been a funny, silly show about kissing was instead turned into a twisted caricature of male-female relationships that subconsciously served to reinforce the socialized power structures that oppress women. I'm not saying that this comedian is the source of all women's oppression, but rather that he, his show and entertainment forms like it are all strands in a web that collectively serve to bind feminine freedom. We all need to realize that it is small cumulative effects like these that continue to add up and create a culture in which women do not have the same privileges enjoyed by men. So I backed out of the performance because I felt all these things. How would I have felt had it been me on stage asked to objectify myself and get spanked? I would have felt humiliated and stupid, about the same feelings that I had when I was asked to do the spanking. I'm not about to go and make someone I care about, or even someone I don't know, feel that way on stage, even if it is "only a performance." I think that we can come up with better forms of entertainment than that. Virginia SnodgrassMaybe I'm one of those rare people who feel that they've never really been objectified. Maybe I just never noticed it before. In any case, Saturday night changed all of this. I was actually kind of excited, I wore tight jeans and a nice sweater and, to my boyfriend's dismay, eye makeup. I defended the show all week from the feminists because my friend organized it and for her sake I wanted it to go well. Not to mention that I hadn't bothered to check out this guy's Webssite. But, hey, "The Art of Kissing" sounds harmless, right? There's nothing offensive about kissing. In fact, I really like kissing. So, I signed up. I signed three of my friends up … and then there was the rehearsal."OK guys, there are just two rules to this. Don't talk during the rehearsal, it'll slow things down. Don't talk during the show, it'll distract the audience." Those were the words of Michael Christian, who ran the show. Sort of a shock. I thought it would be a little more laid back. I thought we would have as much fun as the audience, but we weren't even supposed to laugh. And then I guess I also thought this was going to be just kissing. I didn't think it was going to be all about role-playing. And not just any role, but roles that reinforced the most archaic and offensive gender roles. The older, sketchy teacher with the female student who uses her body to get the grade. The bad boy and the bad girl. In my opinion this was one of the worst because, while all the guys got to pretend to be James Dean, we, the 'bad girls,' got to be prostitutes. Because all bad girls are prostitutes. Because all prostitutes are bad girls. "Go ahead boys, give her a dollar," Christian said. I'll give YOU a dollar. Or the finger.And then there was the car scene, where I was to straddle my partner while he pretended to spank me. When Christian said that, I looked up and then at my partner who had a confused look on his face. I told him that if he spanked me I would beat him up. The amazing thing to me was that these role-play scenes went as far as to make racial slurs. For example, the Asian kiss involved standing as still as an Asian person would because all Asian people are shy and sexually repressed. Or my personal favorite, the South Pacific Kiss, where we were required to squat down and groom each other like gorillas and kiss violently. Clearly people from the South Pacific are violent gorillas.That was the last kiss and the last straw. Before that my partner and I had joked about joining Feminist Action at Middlebury's protest once we were on stage. But after being humiliated and objectified for the purpose of turning some guy on (to the point that one of the participants was supposed to hold an umbrella so that it was completely erect) and then getting him to hit on me, my partner and I decided not to participate. On a side note, contrary to the rumors spreading around campus, Eve Coronado, who organized the event, had no problem with our not participating. In fact, she apologized that the rehearsal had offended us and continues to support our decision.We left McCullough Saturday night and explained to everyone we ran into why we decided not to participate in "The Art of Kissing." I thought I would tell you too. In case you didn't see the show. Or in case you just didn't really think about it. I guess I didn't think anything of it either and thus assumed it was going to be harmless. But the implications of the role playing and the dialogues and Christian's text are serious and should not be taken so lightly. Fortunately, it was just a show. This wasn't me at a party walking towards some guy slowly and touching his chest and biting his ear so that he would like me. If I were lucky, he would interpret my actions to mean that I really wanted him, making him think that sex was next on the agenda. I do believe that this is how rape happens. And I am positive that the way women dress (sexy), and walk (sexy) and thus tease, are reasons that attackers say that the survivor was asking for it. I know that not everyone feels the same way about the show, in fact there were probably people who found it hilarious and think that I am crazy and overreacted when I decided not to go through with it. But maybe we should all be a little more critical about the way kissing, sex and relationships are presented to us. Maybe we should question stereotypes more often.
(04/10/02 12:00am)
Author: MCAB Executive Board In this article we will explain three things regarding "The Art of Kissing:" first, the process that lead to the booking of the event, second, the event itself and third, Middlebury College Activities Board's (MCAB) thoughts and reactions.Those of you who attended "The Art of Kissing" last Saturday night probably noticed some commotion. This disturbance was the result of a group of individuals protesting Michael Christian's Web site and his kissing presentation. Let it be known that MCAB first thought of bringing "The Art of Kissing" to Middlebury College last fall. Before booking the event, MCAB contacted the leaders of Feminist Action at Middlebury (FAM), Middlebury Open Queer Alliance (moqa) and Gay and Lesbian Employees at Middlebury (GLEAM). We gave these persons all the information we had concerning the show. We answered questions and even went as far as contacting other schools which have hosted this event in the past and asked for both their feminist's and gay's groups reaction to the program. When no objection was given by any of the above mentioned groups and when no complaints were supplied by the schools that we contacted, MCAB decided to go ahead and book the show. This process led us to be excited and confident about the event."The Art of Kissing" was originally booked for Feb. 14 in honor of Valentine's Day. MCAB decided against the date because we did not wish to compete nor take away from the "Vagina Monologues" audience. Once we changed the date to April 6, MCAB contacted FAM and moqa once again. We offered to have tables and suggested that FAM could hand out pamphlets on information concerning the month of April and women (abuse awareness month) during the show. We also offered a table to moqa and suggested that they hand out pamphlets concerning safe sex, since we knew this subject would be briefly addressed. Both organizations declined our offer. We had also extended an invitation to MOQA where same-sex couples would be welcome to participate within the actual show. This offer was also declined.Last Saturday MCAB allowed individuals to hang up signs in McCullough. MCAB did not prohibit entry to the event to anyone. We also asked that a Public Safety officer attend the event for preventative measures; they were there to protect the rights of the protesters and the audience's right to enjoy the show. Two officers were present throughout the event. After having asked one student to please turn off and put away her megaphone, which she persisted in using during the show, this student was asked to step outside. When another student began to throw condoms at the audience, she was asked to leave the Social Space as well. For those of you who still have any MCAB ticket stubs (regardless of the event) I encourage you to read the fine print on the back. Here you will find the behavior that is expected of you as a spectator. Only when these rules of conduct had been broken, were the students asked to leave the performance. However, it is important to know that MCAB had no problems whatsoever with the protest once the show had come to an end; on the contrary, we support the expression of different opinions.Then there was the "police" incident. Here, you may ask, "why were students asked to leave the lobby?" During a protest, the persons who partake of it must remain outside of where the event is taking place. One must understand that these students had already received some leniency and now the Public Safety officers wished to comply with the rules of the community standards. They felt the content of the signs to be inappropriate and offensive. When the students refused to leave, the police were called. It is school policy that when a student repeatedly does not do as a Public Safety officer asks, then the police are called. The students did not receive any state charges even though they were threatened with them.Finally you may ask, "what about the content of the show?" To this we reply, MCAB welcomes AND encourages all opinions and sentiments. "The Art of Kissing" could have gone two ways: it could have been taken lightly by taking the same approach that one uses when going into a comedy show (comedians can say "racy", "racists" and "politically incorrect" remarks in the name of laughter) or, one can look for the representations of gender and race roles. As we had previously mentioned, you are the judge of it and all opinions are welcomed and respected.Submitted by Eve-Anadel Coronado '02, Lindsey Gardner '03, Lisa Bennett '02, Andy Zrike '02, Jessica Salerno '02, Lindsey Perlmutter '03, Andrew Martel '04 and Meagan Dodge '03.
(04/10/02 12:00am)
Author: Deborah Jones "Sexist," "heterosexist" and "racist" was how five student protesters described Michael Christian's (pen and stage name William Cane) "The Art of Kissing," which was performed to a packed McCullough Social Space on Saturday evening.The event, organized and sponsored by Middlebury College Activities Board (MCAB), was a presentation of 30 different kissing and role-play situations, modeled by eight male-female pairs of students and emceed by Christian. He is the author of five books on the subject, a former English professor at Boston College and was nominated for the 2001 National Association for Campus Activities Speaker of the Year Award.Some viewers found the kissing demonstrations to be far from artistic and at times shocking and offensive. Five Middlebury women — Nahal Batmanghelidj '02, Kristen Gray '02, Samantha Severin '02, Katie Mae Simpson '02 and Gillian Wood '03 — protested during and after the performance.According to Eve Coronado '02, a member of MCAB's executive board, the organization did substantial research before deciding to bring "The Art of Kissing" to campus. They gathered information on the presentation and asked Feminist Action at Middlebury (FAM), Middlebury Open Queer Alliance (moqa) and Gay and Lesbian Employees at Middlebury (GLEAM) to approve it last September. The groups expressed no concerns at that time. Gray later maintained that the clubs had not been given enough information to make an educated decision about the program. Coronado also contacted several schools that have hosted Christian in the past and was told that students enjoyed the show and that there had been no complaints from either feminist or gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender groups. Nevertheless, in addition to the ensuing demonstration, a number of audience members expressed uneasiness during and after the show.Gray noted that the qualms about the show were sparked during a FAM meeting last week in which members expressed concern that Christian's Web site contained material that perpetuated gender stereotypes and ignored homosexuality. Kissing.com includes advice to young female visitors, telling them that "there are three things that you must do if you want boys to kiss you: dress right, smile and act friendly and flirt." The language is strictly heterosexual in its wording.Although the possibility of a protest against "The Art of Kissing" was first addressed at a FAM meeting and through its e-mail list, Gray explained that the participants were "a group of concerned individuals, some affiliated with FAM and some with moqa," but that neither group could be considered a real sponsor of the initiative. MCAB, which knew of the possibility of a disruption but was unable to negotiate a compromise with the protesters, allowed them to purchase tickets for and enter the performance despite their toting of posters, condoms and a megaphone."If we didn't disapprove of anything, we weren't going to do anything," Gray said. "[The protest] wasn't completely spontaneous but it wasn't preplanned either." The demonstrators especially opposed what they viewed to be Christian's continuous reinforcement of gender stereotypes in role plays. The show did not consist solely of exhibitions of different types of kisses, but rather asked participants to imagine themselves in certain relationships, including professor-student, dentist-patient and client-hairdresser, in which the women always represented the latter, less powerful character. Those protesting also expressed frustration with the emcee's seeming unwillingness to address homosexuality. When Christian asked women in the audience how they liked "boys" to kiss them, Gray raised her hand and responded that she did not like boys to kiss her. Christian then asked the room for "serious answers."In one of the most controversial moments of the evening, the emcee told a story of how, as a teenager, he fantasized about spanking and ultimately did spank his girlfriend. He later had the role-players act out this situation."He 'eroticized' hitting a woman without her consent," Gray said. "I don't think that we should 'eroticize' violence in any non-consensual way." At this point in the performance, she set off an alarm on her megaphone and was given a warning by public safety. She was later asked to leave after she threw condoms into the crowd. Christian noted kissing can be a good way to get to know a partner without engaging in sexual intercourse. "I don't strongly object to that point," Gray noted. "But I do find it foolish and irresponsible. His speech was highly sexualized yet he had this kissing for abstinence thing. You have a responsibility to encourage people to engage in sex safely."The protesters also cited evidence of disrespect for concerns about violence against women in Christian's remark that men like "bad" girls and that females should dress and act in a risqué manner if they wanted to be pursued. They found this to be particularly disconcerting in light of the recent campus dialogue on rape. "A lot of times with rape, if a woman was dressed in a way perceived to be sexy [at the time she was violated]…that can be used against her later," explained Gray. "It's a sort of double standard that we thought needed to be highlighted sometime during or after the show."Racism in the program was another concern of the demonstrating women, but one that never imagined addressing until Christian asked his role-players to exhibit what he called the "Asian kiss" and the "Trobriand Islands kiss." In the former, performers were to act "shy" and look both ways multiple times before leaning in for a quick kiss. The latter required the women to groom the arms and bite the eyelashes of the man. Some felt that these demonstrations were done in a manner that unnecessarily ridiculed people from Asia and the South Pacific.Two of the original performers, Dana Allen '04.5 and Virginia Snodgrass '02, backed out of the show after the pre-curtain practice. Allen explained that once learning what participants were expected to do, he felt that "We were using these silly gender stereotypes to perpetuate a cycle of violence against women for comedic value. That's not something I'm willing to support or participate in."Coronado, commenting on the show as a whole, said, "Comedians say some things…for the sake of laughter….It's up to the individual to judge. I can certainly see how people could be upset; I could certainly see how it could be taken lightly as well."After Gray was asked to leave the performance, the other protesters followed her to the area between the Social Space and the Grille to regroup. At the show's conclusion, they positioned themselves in the lobby to answer questions, hand out condoms and display their signs. Conflict occurred when Simpson, who was holding a poster asking if oral sex was not kissing, was asked to discard her sign by a Public Safety officer and trainee. She was told that the poster, which showed images of couples engaged in oral sex (from Starr Library's copies of "The Joy of Sex," "The Joy of Gay Sex" and "The Joy of Lesbian Sex"), was offensive. When she repeatedly refused to leave with the sign, which Gray explained was part of the group's stance that intense kissing and sexuality cannot be separated, the officers called for backup — three additional officers and two trainees soon arrived — and also contacted the Middlebury Police Department. The protesters, who say that they received no concrete answer from any of the officers as to why Simpson should discard her poster, ultimately left, but not without stating that their voices were being silenced by the College.Director of Public Safety Lisa Boudah, acknowledging that the College has no set policy at this time as to how to handle protests, said, "We have to rely on individuals to make decisions and make them from their perception. Determin
ing the best way to approach a situation [at a particular point in time] is always going to be a human decision even if we give officers the guidelines." However, she noted that the College is investigating how to respond to demonstrations. "It's been very eye-opening to us, and we're going to work to make certain everyone has a clear understanding of how to protest and how to respond to protesting."
(04/10/02 12:00am)
Author: Vanessa Wong Our campus vibrates with discussion about the protest lead by five females during "The Art of Kissing" performance, a Middlebury College Activities Board (MCAB) sponsored event held on Saturday evening in the McCullough Social Space. As a member of the audience, I was appalled by their actions, not because I challenge protest — I am in fact extremely relieved and excited that a group (albeit a small group) of Middlebury students finally expressed the courage and ambition necessary to lead such remonstration — but because I found their tactics ineffective and disruptive to a performance that didn't demand such a response, and ultimately offensive to performer Michael Christian [stage and pen name William Cane] and to the audience. So although I support protest on campus, I object to their methods. The protesters said they were reacting to the racist, sexist and heterosexist material that they found on "The Art of Kissing" Web site (www.kissing.com) that they suspected would permeate the performance. Cane's characterization of the "Asian Kiss" and "Eskimo Kiss" offended the protestors, seeing in them an imposition of racial stereotypes. Cane's reference to the erotic sensation he yielded from spanking his girlfriend during foreplay also perturbed them. I consider these petty issues and believe the protesters, as a result of biased rage, extracted undue controversy from a diminutive, comedic performance. It's important to realize that comedy is offensive, otherwise, comedians would be limited to desiccated, mundane but politically correct humor. Cane played on race and gender stereotypes and made a spectacle out of sexuality, but he wasn't so bigoted to demand that level of rage. However, that I personally found the material in Cane's performance to be largely inane is irrelevant. Individuals and groups will undoubtedly be sensitive to dissimilar things and are entitled to voice that resentment regardless of the unavoidable occurrence of opposing views. It was more the methods of protest that aggravated me: tossing condoms into the audience, speaking into a loudspeaker in the middle of the show and flaunting posters are surely ineffective and irresponsible means of protest. One of the goals of protest is to convey a clear message about one's position, yet a majority of the audience came out upset by the disruptions and moreover, confused by the protesters' disjointed efforts. A poster held by protester Katie Simpson '02, for example, read, "Isn't oral sex just another form of kissing? Introducing the genital kiss!" My reaction, like that of many people around me, was of sheer perplexity and asking myself what exactly was her message: abstinence or oral indulgence?Protest must first establish a sturdy goal, and then an appropriate means to achieve it. The goal, furthermore, must be justifiable and supported by facts. I found the protest on Saturday lacked that essential element: it conveyed no clear goal and was founded on suspicion, not knowledge. Despite this, the protestors belligerently paraded to McCullough to disrupt a performance whose offenses they could not yet even identify. Was their goal merely to disrupt then? Their mental setting on "anti-Cane autopilot" encouraged them to act out before any misdemeanor even occurred. I think their goal, though clouded by incoherency, consequently appeared to be an attack on Cane rather than the discriminatory message he conveyed. It is unfair to harass the performer before he has even spoken; the goal becomes frail and unjustifiable. As a result of this directionless cause, their means of argument seemed so arbitrary to what became their verifiable goals after watching the show. The protestors projected a militant and aggressive air, which precluded successful transmission of ideas to the audience. Ultimately, protest is beneficial to both the educational and social goals of students. Surely the intelligent students in this prestigious institution think about matters that don't relate to their evening reading assignments. It is crucial though, that they are better organized and more coherent than the one displayed last Saturday if any change will yield from such action. Otherwise, protests will be relegated to a definition as merely juvenile, inane reactions.
(04/10/02 12:00am)
Author: Nahal Batmangheldj On Saturday, April 6, MCAB sponsored an event titled the "Art of Kissing." The event opened with a scenario that required the men in the couples on stage to simulate dentists, and the women to simulate patients. The "dentists" were instructed by Mr. Christian, the presenter, to insert their tools into the mouths of the "patients," who were told to imagine that the tool in their mouth is the "dentist's" tongue. The "patients" start to "ohhhh" and "ahhhhh" in apparent pleasure as the dentists actually begin to kiss them. Upon completion of this scenario, Mr. Christian, asked the audience, "What will you be thinking of the next time you go to the dentists office?" And because the audience was never given a chance to answer this question, allow me to pose it to you now. "What will you be thinking?" I'm going to be thinking of how best to beat the crap out of my dentist should he try a move like that on me. Later in the show, a similar scenario was played out, except the players in this scenario were professor and student. As with the previous scenario, the men were in the power positions (professors) and the women were the students, who appear to love their professor's sexy touch, which Mr. Christian informed us is something that "they have been dreaming about." Apart from these two disturbing scenarios, there was an equally disturbing commentary that took place on the part of Mr. Christian, who informed the audience that he finds spanking sexually arousing. He went on to recount an event that took place in his basement where his girlfriend at the time "bent over and [he] raised his hand as high as [he] could to spank her." Of course, we were not given any information as to whether this action was pleasurable for her.Five women, myself included, decided to protest this event. Our posters were ripped away from us and one of the protesters was kicked out of the show. Following these events I received sympathetic comments from students, who informed me that the security guards and police officers had shamelessly robbed us of our constitutional right to free speech. And while I appreciate the support, if given the chance, I would have gladly agreed to censor the "Art of Kissing." Why? Because unlike most people, I know that civil liberties were not only created by men in positions of power, but are also aimed at helping the powerful maintain their power. The first amendment, under the guise of freedom for all, protects the rights of the powerful by ensuring that the powerless remain silent. I am not anti-free speech. I am, however, against speech that silences. What good is the first amendment when the speech it protects silences the powerless? When female patients are depicted as enjoying being sexually victimized by their doctors, when female students are depicted as desiring the advances of their professors, when Mr. Christian sent the message that women enjoy sexual violence and when all of this is done under the guise of "good fun," then women, who lack formal power because they don't make the rules that govern this society, are being robbed of their speech. Why? Because most women do not want to be assaulted by their dentist. Most women attend college to learn, and would rather not be taken advantage of by the professors who are supposed to be educating them. Most women don't like to be "spanked" or otherwise victimized by men. When you send the message, through your speech and/or actions, that women enjoy things that they don't necessarily enjoy, they are being robbed of their speech. I submit that all the women who attended the "Art of Kissing" were robbed of their speech. By depicting all the women on stage as desiring the same thing — to be sexually victimized — then it is the their speech that is being robbed. Put differently, if their speech is the speech that Mr. Christian allows them to have, then these women have no speech of their own. They have been silenced. Some will counter my argument by suggesting that women on this campus, like Mr. Christian, have a right to express their opinions. And to those of you who feel yourselves drifting towards this line of thinking, ask yourselves why only five women showed up to protest the event. In theory, we have the ability to challenge Mr. Christian through our speech, but how many women will really choose to do so? There are plenty of female students who thoroughly disagree with my opinions, but there are also quite a few who agree with me, and it is significant that of all the people who agree with me, only a few choose to stand with me and express their beliefs. Why? Because in the same way that I am going to be labeled an anti-sex angry feminist for the beliefs I hold, they too, by expressing similar beliefs, will be setting themselves up for a similar criticism. So ask yourselves, whose rights are the first amendment protecting? Does everyone really have the same access to this right? I recently learned that there were a few participants who backed out of the show at the last minute. Consider the possibility that the women who backed out were not the only ones who did not want to participate? Those of you who could see the look on the faces of the female participants as they were instructed to offer their arms to their male partners, who then gave them hickies, might know what I mean. Do you really think that they all wanted to have a disgusting bruise on their arms? A hickie, it seems to me, is far more like a dog marking its territory than an act which both partners equally enjoy. In this way, the "Art of Kissing," much like pornography (and I am hesitant to distinguish between the two because they are one in the same), is not merely about words, it is about actions. To quote feminist legal scholar, Catharine Mackinnon, "pornography is action, because pornography says what it does." The "Art of Kissing" was action because the on-stage participants did what Mr. Christian was saying. My challenge to the show is not limited to speech, it extends to what the participants were made to do. Whether they were all equally engaged and willing in what they were doing is not something I can comment on because I just don't know. However, to those of you who are inclined to defend Mr. Christian, know this: not only are you defending words, but you are also defending actions. Finally, allow me to anticipate yet another challenge to my views by informing you that I am not a conservative. This is not a moral issue for me. I am not concerned with family values. I am concerned with harm. I am concerned with the harm that some of the participants may have endured. And I am concerned with the harm that women are forced to endure compliments of men such as Mr. Christian, who normalize the victimization of women. Do you really think that the perspective offered by Mr. Christian is progressive? Do you commend his deviance from conservative values? Because if you do, you are dead wrong. At the end of his show he commented on two types of women, "the good girls" and "the bad girls." That is the most conservative stance that one could possibly take. Historically, women have been divided into these opposing categories. Women are constantly being sent the message that we have two options: we can be whores or we can be respectable girls. I don't know about you, but neither of these options sounds appealing to me. No, Mr. Christian is not a deviant. On the contrary, he stands among the most conservative of the conservatives. Next time you think you are being progressive by pushing a sexually liberal agenda, think about the values that you are really endorsing. What is so often considered sexual liberalism may actually function to uphold conservative values.
(04/10/02 12:00am)
Author: Bryan Goldberg Editor's note: The opinions and themes expressed in the piece are those of the author and not of The Middlebury Campus. I killed her on the Fourth of July last year. I wanted to kill somebody over a three-day weekend, so in the event of a missed flight or unforeseen complication I would not miss any work. Usually I only fly on chartered jets, but this time I took a commercial flight, as their incompetent bureaucrats are far less capable of keeping organized records. The hotel I stayed at was well below my means; the junky chain hotels cannot care less about their customers. I arrived sometime during the afternoon, took a nap, ate a quick dinner by myself and left the hotel restaurant in a sport coat and tie. The first woman I talked to was working the corner outside of an adult theatre. She did not take the initiative to approach me, despite the fact that I was a single man in business attire. I figured that she would be a solid candidate. I asked her to quote me a price for her services, and she was more than happy to do so. She took me to her apartment, and as she was undressing, I asked her if she wanted to play a game. She responded in the affirmative. I asked her what her name was and she told me it was Pepper. In response, I removed a fifty dollar bill from my wallet and burned it. She was surprised. Next I asked her if she enjoyed performing fellatio. Once again she responded in the affirmative. I burned a hundred dollar bill this time. She got angry and told me to leave. I convinced her to let me ask one more question. I asked her whether or not she had ever taken it from behind. She told me she had. This time I took out two hundred dollars and gave them to her. Now she understood the rules. She answered a few more questions for me, each time they became more personal, and each time the reward increased. I paid her five hundred dollars to describe the time her boyfriend struck her with a bottle and a thousand when she recounted losing her virginity to Uncle Samuel. Eventually, the time came for the important question. I asked her if she wanted to die. She said that she thought about killing herself at times. I asked if I could kill her. She responded in the negative. I thanked her for her time and left. I walked the streets for almost an hour before I found someone who fit the part. He was the type of man who looked like he looked older than he was. His black hands shook as he tried to lock up the convenience store. According to my watch, he spent almost six minutes trying to put the key in the lock. I wondered if he inadvertently masturbated every time he tried to piss. I would have paid to see that. I purposely waited until he had locked up the shop before approaching. I asked him if I could use his bathroom, and he made up an excuse. I pulled a hundred dollar bill out of my pocket and lit a cigarette with it. I repeated the question. He let me in and told me that I could take my time. I walked into the bathroom, took a look around and walked back out. When I told him that the bathroom was not clean, he apologized. When I pulled two Benjamin Franklins out of my pocket he offered to clean it. The dollars continued to change hands, but each time the task became less appealing. He earned five hundred dollars for submerging his head in the toilet for a full two minutes immediately after using it and a thousand more for trying to extinguish a cigar by hand. Finally, the time came for the important question. I asked him if he would play a game of Russian Roulette against my Rolex. He responded in the affirmative. He took a pistol out from behind the counter and put a single bullet into one of the eight chambers. For some reason his hands did not tremble as much this time. The gun clicked. I gave him the watch. I asked him if he would like to play again for an even better prize. He responded in the affirmative. This time he won my Armani; it fit him quite nicely. I made my way to the door, explaining that he had won everything that I had to offer. He was disappointed. Before I left, I asked him if he wanted to die. He answered in the affirmative. I asked if I could have the pleasure of killing him. He laughed at me. I left.As I walked the streets that night, I felt like a novice fisherman in a barren lake. Fortunately, one catch was enough to feed me for life. It was almost dawn when I finally caught a flounder that wanted gutting. She was eating by herself at a fast food joint, and I sat down at her table without stopping at the counter first. She asked me what I was doing, and I told her that I wanted to keep her company. She had clearly been using cocaine that evening. I asked her how much she paid for it. She told me. It must have been very good cocaine. She periodically looked at her Cartier for some reason; perhaps time was not moving quickly enough for her. I asked her what she did for a living; she was a professional heiress. She got up to leave, and I asked if I could drive her home. She responded in the affirmative. I was surprised to see that she drove the same car as me. When we reached her apartment, I asked if I could come up to her room. She responded in the affirmative. I mixed her a nonalcoholic drink but told her that it had some vodka in it. She was impressed with me because she could not taste the liquor. I asked her if she wanted to have sex. She responded in the negative. I asked her what she would do if I had sex with her regardless. She smiled. We were both virgins to rape, and her taste for it exceeded even my own. I waited until she was climaxing before I asked her if she wanted to die. She responded in the affirmative. I asked her if she wanted me to kill her. She responded in the affirmative. I snapped the woman's neck and walked out the door leaving no life inside of her. I wanted to enjoy my walk back to the hotel. The evening's fireworks had ceased around the time I left the prostitute, but somewhere far away I saw the explosions once more, first green, now red. They were celebrating me. I walked back the way I came, but everything looked different now. It reminded me of the way women all smelled worse after I lost my virginity, or the way in which ugly girls became gorgeous the day after I got married — and ugly again after I got divorced. I crossed the street, ignoring the red hand that ordered me to stop, for I was now a rapist, and I had the power to stop and go at my leisure. Traffic signals did not apply to me anymore either, for I was now a killer, and I had the power to choose who crosses.
(04/10/02 12:00am)
Author: Nicha Rakpanichmanee "If I want to overthrow democratically elected governments, is there a specific department for that?" Wells Lyons '04.5 asked on Monday night at the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) information session, a regular recruitment event sponsored by the Career Services Office (CSO)."I'll give you one more [question] before leaving," replied Regional Recruiter Bryan Peters. Lyons had earlier raised his hand and asked which department he should join "to help torture citizens." Lyons said he "just cracked up" when Peters' answer was the CIA Operations Department.Lyons walked out to put on a T-shirt labeled "human rights activist" in large print. With imitation blood splattered over his torso and arms, he joined nine other Middlebury College students who spread across the floor outside Bicentennial Hall 220 for nearly an hour. Their t-shirt labels included "freedom fighter (not a terrorist)," "environmental activist," "labor union organizer" and "student demonstrator." All 10 students appeared dead in small pools of red dye while some lay with duck-taped ankles and eyes wide open.The two CIA recruiters saw the protesters on the ground as they were leaving the session. Peters and Sandra Graham continued on their way towards the building's exit, stepping over a few inert bodies on the way. When asked to describe their reaction to this student protest, the recruiters both said, "None."Ben Brouwer '04 said he heard Peters remark "nice Kool-Aid" while crossing over Brouwer's "Chilean citizen" t-shirt. "I would like to have seen him stop and talk to us," Brouwer added, "but he obviously had a different agenda."Ben Gore '04 also came to protest the CIA's recruitment at Middlebury, though he stood around the pretend corpses with Trevor Snapp '02, who handed out to every passer-by a four-page flyer with headings like "The CIA and Terrorism" and "What You Should Know About the CIA and Torture."Gore explained that students came together spontaneously "to show that the CIA isn't particularly welcomed here at Middlebury, at least not by everyone." He called the CIA "a secret-police-type organization" that "undermines legitimate governments, shoots people and trains terrorists." Many international terrorists today, said Gore, received training and funding support through the CIA's involvement in their respective countries.In an interview yesterday, Peters stressed that, "Those are policy questions. I'm here to discuss only recruitment issues." He said that the information session was "not the venue [for] historical or covert news related" issues. Peters described his past three years of recruitment visits to the College as "favorable." He mentioned "a good number" of Middlebury students whose applications to the CIA are in the works. "I hope students are more passionate about their employment endeavors," Peters continued.CSO Executive Director Jaye Roseborough elucidated that the CSO welcomed recruitment efforts of any employer who signs the College's non-discrimination statement. The statement proscribes discrimination "on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, marital status, place of birth, Vietnam veteran status or disability." Roseborough noted one exception to the agreement — the CIA's policy to employ only U.S. citizens whose spouses and potential spouses hold the same citizenship."It's federal law," said Peters in the interview. He explained during the information session that the policy is established for reasons of "loyalties." Peters told his audience that extensive background checks and verifications such a two- to three-hour polygraph tests were essential to the employment process to ensure that CIA employees are "loyal U.S. citizens with integrity" and "not counterintelligence hired by some opposition or some bin Laden organization."At the information session, Michael Silberman '02.5 asked Peters and Graham whether "political consulting with other countries" is the CIA's "only operation." Peters replied, "Covert actions are very small and are authorized by the President. You're voting for him. So if you don't like what he does, then don't vote for him."Later, standing by the crowd of Bicentennial Hall frequenters and the "dead" bodies, Silberman said he was initially "just curious" in the CIA but was "disappointed" that the recruitment session was "a really arrogant presentation." "I haven't formed any opinions yet about the CIA despite rumors," continued Silberman. "But it was encouraging to see activism back at Middlebury. I think they raised awareness."Andrea Templeton '04 was studying in Tormondsen Great Hall during the student protest and commented, "I had no idea it was going to happen, and it was startling to see, some of them being friends of mine" She said the protest "reinforces the idea that there are two sides to every issue," particularly regarding the "good and bad things that the CIA does."Templeton called the imitation blood "a graphic piece of the protest" and said the silence of the protesters was "appropriate because they are protesting for a group of people who are silenced."Tommy Wisdom '05 sat in a chair next to the crowd of protesters in Great Hall, where he was reading and listening to music for the entirety of the protest. "I think the protest was a really drastic way to get [one's] point across and definitely drew my attention," he said. "I figured it was some sort of protest against something, but I don't know what it was about. After what I've seen, it probably had something to do with human rights or people in poor countries not being treated fairly." Assistant Professor of American Literature and Civilization Karl Lindholm '66 arrived at Middlebury as assistant dean of students in 1976. During his term in office following the Vietnam era, "students didn't trust the government," he recalled."But then the world of young people became more conservative," continued Lindholm. "In the Reagan years in the '80s, especially, there was less collective objection to the CIA." He said he remembered when CIA recruiters returned to college campuses such as Middlebury. "Those of us who had been here earlier, when we saw a sign that said 'Welcome CIA,' we were amused because it was so different in the '70s.""There's always a sense that the CIA might be up to some dirty trick somewhere," said James Jermain Professor of Political Economy Russel Leng. He put those suspicions in two categories, one of "dirty covert activities against governments that the CIA considers too far on the left" and another of "support for oppressive regimes." Leng noted, however, that covert activities are a "very, very small part" of the CIA's operation because "not many people want to gather intelligence at the risk of [their] lives."Leng pointed out one quandary of the protest — that liberal arts colleges are exactly the source for "good people" who will improve the CIA. "We need intelligence as long as there are security threats to the U.S.," said Leng. "The way to reform is not to get rid of your intelligence service."
(04/10/02 12:00am)
Author: Jasmin Johnson William Cane's "The Art of Kissing" found its way to McCullough Hall last Saturday. A sold-out event organized by the Middlebury College Activities Board (MCAB), it is difficult to ascertain what it really was. MCAB called it a "presentation," publicity e-mails to the College described it as a "lecture" and his Web site (http://www.kissing.com) refers to his road shows as an "entertaining mix of discussion and demonstration." The event really seemed like a formulaic college stage show beyond itself — complete with a host who had a hackneyed sense of how society functions, a half outraged, half giggly audience, indignant protesters with loudspeakers and placards, stern-looking campus security officers who kept things "under control" and college student "volunteers" on stage who, despite all that was going on around them, carried on with the show. William Cane is the person behind the pen name Michael Christian, who claims that his best seller "The Art of Kissing" has been translated in 18 different languages and has 250,000 copies in print worldwide. A former teacher at Boston College, he now travels to schools all over the country to "teach" about the "techniques of kissing" and how to make oneself "more kissable to the opposite sex." Cane's multimedia presentation, which was nothing more than a Power Point presentation and some music, contained charts that elucidated, among other things, the percentage of women who liked stubble and the percentage of men who liked lipstick when kissing.He began the show promptly, without properly introducing himself. He spoke briefly about how he got interested in kissing ("I'm human!") and spoke about how "lip-to-lip communication" can be valuable in the face of dangerous diseases like AIDS ("You can't get AIDS from kissing. This show may save your life."). He talked about his book, which like the show, is misnamed: "The Art of Kissing" really had little to do with art, skill or subtleness. He "advised" the obvious ("Kiss the neck, boys!" "Not too much tongue — don't throttle your partner!"), and at points implied that kisses were almost animalistic acts, like the exotic "Trobriand Island Kiss," which involved "teeth and blood."The 300 who were at McCullough that night expected different things from the show. A number were merely curious, some were there for meaningless distraction, some actually thought that they would learn something and there were those who came knowing they would be offended. A huge part of the ethical issues the show brought to surface boils down to how the audience perceived the show.The videos run during ticket sales at Proctor showed actual "lectures," but the equally tacky Web site should have been an indication to students that the show was by no means an informative one.After the show, students said they felt that the show was "ridiculous" and "stupid." They said they didn't learn anything they didn't already know and felt that Cane's "advice" was so stereotypical, it was actually laughable. They said that while they could understand why people were upset, the whole event was a farce and should not be taken seriously. However, if members of our community have expressed their outrage at the show, it is obvious that we are not yet at a stage in which we can stand back and laugh at such stereotypes because we are not necessarily beyond them. Students protested the show as being unacceptably sexist, "heterosexist" and racist. They have substantial reason to be offended although their means of protest — posters about oral sex and the intention to disrupt the show — may have been misdirected anger. If taken seriously, the show was indeed a dehumanization of intimacy. Cane did vulgarize, stereotype and commercialize the kiss by exploiting people's insecurities (people even get secret video shipping if they are shy). If not, it was all just plain distasteful entertainment. MCAB should appreciate that, evidently, most Middlebury College students do not want to laugh at such things. It is heartening to note, that after all, most of us, as a college, are thinking critically about even the entertainment that we deem acceptable.
(04/10/02 12:00am)
Author: Gillian Wood As a friend of a girl who has been prostituted against her will, I had to walk out of "The Art of Kissing" show when master of ceremonies Michael Christian so casually and bluntly insinuated that "the majority of men prefer bad girls. Pay her if you have to, like a prostitute." As a matter of fact, he is right on target. The National Task Force on Prostitution suggests that 1 percent of American women are involved in prostitution (the majority not by free choice as most of us would understand it), while according to the Kinsey report on sexual behavior, 69 percent of males admit to buying sex (Kenneth Cauthen, 1999). This is an overwhelming number of men exploiting the most vulnerable women in our country. To try and counter-argue that most prostitutes are not exploited and vulnerable is both nauseating and factually incorrect. My problem with this comment made by Mr. Christian is that he took a very real, serious issue that affects many of us and made it into a joke. He also made other suggestive comments such as "Oh, Daddy" (a reference that triggers incest for many) and "80 percent of women prefer men who do bad things to them." (What kind of sample did he use?!) Considering that between a quarter and a third of women are battered in their homes by men and that 38 percent of girls are sexually molested inside or outside of their families (Catharine A. MacKinnon, 1987), this does not strike me as something about which to joke. There were probably many women in the audience who may have been taken aback by these issues portrayed in such jest. I was one of them. It is not the humor itself that is the problem, nor is it that people cannot tell the difference between humor and seriousness. It is that here the humor was placed in a dangerous context. There are too many people in the world and on this campus who have to deal with abuse and its repercussions every day of their lives. It is utterly appalling to have the seriousness of such crimes trivialized and thrown back in the face of its victims time and again. Is not once enough?The words stated by this man seeped into the ears of everyone who was there. Whether people recognize their own desensitization or not, every time violence against women is presented in such a way, as comical and acceptable, especially without objection (which was attempted but silenced!), it is reinforced. By joking about this type of violence and prostitution in such a humorous and entertaining context as was seen Saturday evening, he desensitized people to these very real issues, and desensitization leads to inaction, if not more drastic repercussions. If you were not taken aback by such comments as these, you live in a protective world where ignorance is bliss and you are lucky. If you were offended by these comments, I am truly sorry that you had to be reminded … again. It should not be so.If no one speaks out, if no one challenges or protests, nothing will ever change and society will go on, driven by the 'moral majority' and its sexist, racist, heterosexist, classist rhetoric and values. I take a lot of crap from friends and enemies alike for being a radical feminist, but it is worth it to me. If it makes one girl feel safer in this world, if it means one survivor's shattered heart can find solace in what I have to offer; if I can un-blind some eyes and un-deaf some ears along the way, if it means one more gentle-man or one less hurt woman, then it is worth it to me. On behalf of the other concerned women and men offended by comments made in the show and on behalf of all of the women on campus who have been hurt and silenced either by fear, shame or policy, I am speaking out. You are not alone. Silence is the voice of complicity, folks. You are either part of the solution, or you are part of the problem. There is no in between.
(04/10/02 12:00am)
Author: Samantha Stevens I am disappointed in Middlebury College. I am disappointed in Middlebury College Activities Board (MCAB). I am annoyed at William Cane [stage and pen name for Michael Christian], author of the international best seller "The Art of Kissing." Lest anyone misunderstand the purpose of the protest that occurred on Saturday night, I want to make it very clear that I, personally, was not there to protest the concept of kissing as a substitute for sexual activity, I was not there to protest sexual exploration. I was there to protest, what I believed, to be a heterosexist, sexist, homophobic, racist display that Middlebury College provided funding for. To perpetuate heterosexism is to consistently operate under the assumption that everyone is heterosexual. I believe that it was clear from the display last night that we were operating, from the very start, in a heterosexist space. There were no same sex couples on stage. It would have been virtually impossible to accommodate them. Cane would have had to change his entire routine. His act feeds off of the exclusive interplay between men and women. If a same sex couple had attempted to participate, he would have had no vocabulary with which to accommodate them and their presence would have been reduced to a joke for the heterosexual masses. I did not expect to see a same sex couple on stage. This show was about the art of kissing for straight people. I was under no illusions. What I did hope for, at the very least, was that when addressing the audience, he would not operate under the same heterosexist ideology upon which his demonstration was based. But, Cane addressed his questions to a straight audience, making no mention of the fact that (very simply) girls do not always kiss boys. Boys do not always kiss girls. When Kristen Gray '02 answered his question: "Girls, how do you like boys to kiss you?" with the statement, "I do not like boys to kiss me," Cane failed to understand the implications of her comment and pressed the audience for 'serious responses.' I was not looking for validation from this man, but I was not prepared for such blatant homophobia. Cane went on to prove himself unabashedly sexist. The role playing was divisive and played off of cultural stereotypes. The role playing consistently put men in positions of authority while relegating women to subservient roles — considering the myriad of possibilities attached to their new boyfriend's 'money-making college degrees.' This is not over-analysis at the expense of fun. These are the very same jokes and little role playing games that we have been fighting against for centuries. Endorsements of these kinds of messages cannot be tolerated. They function in society to underscore sexist/oppressive thinking. And, I want to make it very clear that Cane's advocating of violence against women as a sexual tool (i.e. "I was spanked as a child .. .when I got my first girlfriend at age 13, she bent over and I reached my hand up as high as I could to give her the hardest spank that I could") is disgusting and scary! Sexual play is one thing, but this was not about that. This display was, largely, about encouraging straight men to work out their sexual aggression on the female body and then receive applause for it because it is all part of the 'art of kissing.'I was actually laughed at by a fellow female student when I suggested that the performance was, in addition to being sexist and heterosexist, also racist. She could not see it. What I saw on that stage was a white straight man in a position of power (evidenced by him being the only person to control the microphone, among other things), standing on a stage and defining the "Asian kiss" as the sexually repressed tentative, 'make sure no one is looking' kiss. We have a serious problem here. The student with whom I shared my opinion referred me to HBO's Def Comedy Jam, citing the jokes about black people that comics appearing on that program often make as evidence of a certain "get out of jail free card" that Cane should be granted. Not a chance! I have little to say in response to her comments aside from the fact that that is, in no way, the same thing. A white man standing on stage should not be stereotyping ethnic groups to sell his book. When he asked everyone to thank the Eskimos for their "nose kisses," I realized the full force of the stupidity I was really dealing with Middlebury College has shelled out money to import more heterosexist, homophobic, and racist rhetoric into Vermont. Women, members of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transexual (LGBT) community, people of color, people with disabilities, etc, get enough of that pointed at them every day on this campus. We are not afforded the privilege of ignorance where everything can be in good fun. People who have historically been silenced and whose presence had been systematically erased from public view cannot sit back and watch while 'institutions of higher learning' continue to pay lip service to inclusion, but promote exclusion.
(04/03/02 12:00am)
Author: Abbie Vacant "I watched many important films in Dana Auditorium. This is not one of them," said Robert Perez, a Hollywood screenwriter, who visited Middlebury College on Sunday, March 18, to show his first feature film, "40 Days and 40 Nights." After changing his major from philosophy to film/video, Perez graduated from the College in 1995. He spent his "year abroad" at New York University and the University of Southern California film schools, which helped Perez write more full-length screenplays than any other student at the College.Like many young people trying to get into Hollywood, Perez started at the bottom getting coffee as a production assistant. He worked these jobs for several months, all the while writing screenplays. His humor proved useful in getting him his first offer to write television shows. Perez, however, was not interested in television. "I don't watch TV. I don't like TV," he said. So Perez wrote his first feature, "40 Days and 40 Nights.""40 Days and 40 Nights" is the story of a guy who decides to go without sex or any sexual interactions for the 40 days of Lent in response to his increasing sexual appetite after his terrible break-up with a serious girlfriend. Unfortunately, he meets the girl of his dreams and his vow strains their developing relationship. It is a story about sex, relationships and self-control based on Perez's journals.The art-film technique combined with crude penis humor made an interesting juxtaposition. The lines were funny and the plot was entertaining, making the film enjoyable to watch. The weakness in the film lies in the acting of the lead character. Josh Harnett's good looks did not make up for the lack of energy in his performance. Despite Perez's adulation for the star, this film showed how Hartnett was not yet fully in tune with comedy. The lines and the situations were funny. Hartnett, on the other hand, was not.Nevertheless, Perez, who was there for the entire shoot, enjoyed how Hartnett "carried the movie." All through the development, casting and even shooting of the film Perez was writing and rewriting. "I was on the set the whole time," Perez remarked. There was much collaboration between him and the director. Perez's involvement with the film throughout shooting was a rare occurrence. Normally the writer writes the screenplay and leaves the rest to the director. Despite his absence during the rest of the filmmaking process, "The writer is where it all starts," Perez declared. In recognizing his importance, however, he did not deny the reality of the screenwriter's role in Hollywood. "[The writer] is the most important person in the process, but he is low on the totem poll," Perez commented."If you want more creative control, you direct," Perez said. And that is his goal. Perez said he wants to get more experience first, but that he plans on directing some day. He just completed a screenplay for Ridley Scott, "All About Bob," which is an adaptation of the German film "Alles Bob," and is in the process of writing another full-length feature comedy with Michael Lehmann, the director of "40 Days and 40 Nights."Perez admitted that he experienced typical Hollywoodpressures, but he maintained, "I write for me." He remarked that film was a collaborative medium and there was no avoiding the fact that people were going to have to interpret the words, either the director or the actor. In stating that, he did not believe that independent cinema had that much more freedom. "If you want a pure voice you should write novels," Perez observed. Perez said he wants to keep writing comedy. He commented that he enjoys making people laugh and smile and that he believes he does this best. "The problem with great comedians is that they think what they do doesn't matter. It does," Perez stated. There is a certain worth in comedy films. Regardless of the writer's impact on his viewers or the demands from the studio, according to Perez, "At the end of the day I think you are responsible to yourself."
(04/03/02 12:00am)
Author: [no author name found] $12.7 millionAmount the state of Vermont spent on clearing roads and highways of snow and ice during the winter season this year, which is less than last winter's total of $17.8 million. The savings, which is attributed to fewer heavy winter storms, offers little help to the already strained state budget. The House Transportation Committee cut $2 million from the road maintenance budget in March. 40 millionEstimated number of lives that would be saved worldwide from smoking related cancers and illnesses by raising cigarette taxes 10 cents per pack, according to a calculation by the World Bank. Last Tuesday Vermont senators discussed the controversial issue of raising state cigarette taxes in the hopes of reducing the number of young smokers. Although the measure was proposed last year and supported by Governor Howard Dean, partisan differences have resulted in prolonged debate on the proposal. $21,000 Amount of a federal grant used by the city of Burlington to fund a study on potential bicycle commuter routes, part of a statewide effort to reduce the number of people driving to and from work. The city's Metropolitan Planning Organization is designing a plan due in late summer to create alternative roadways and cycling paths to provide more bike accessibility into the downtown Burlington area. 550Number of Vermonters left jobless during the past year after the closure of several factories in Windsor County in southern Vermont. As part of the Successful Communities Initiatives, Governor Dean, community members, state officials and economic development specialists are currently researching alternative employment opportunities in the affected region. 1Percent portion of electricity that utilities will be required to buy from generators that use alternative energy sources starting in 2003, according to a new bill. The legislation, which passed last week in the Vermont Senate, hopes to support more environmentally friendly sources of energy. The bill states that the percent of alternative energy used will increase steadily after next year and will allow customers to request energy from renewable or clean energy sources. 50,000Number of members in the American Association of Nude Recreation, an amount that has doubled in the last 10 years. Vermont native and public advocate for nudity Jim Cunningham, 48, is taking a stand to increase the support of nudity and the appreciation of the human form of average people. Cunningham's publication, Naturist Life International, attempts to encourage people in Vermont and across the United States to feel comfortable with their bodies, regardless of the media's message, which Cunningham says is driven by sex and physical perfection. 11 Days since alleged bank robber, Ronald Nelson Foley, escaped from the Addison County Sheriff's Department lockup. Using a handgun, Foley overpowered a deputy last Sunday at around 1 a.m., stole the deputy's car and vanished. Officials, who did not discover the escape until 6:30 a.m., are in an ongoing search for the armed man. Statistics courtesy of The Rutland Herald and The Burlington Free Press. Compiled by the Local News Editor.
