Search Results

Pre-season deer hunting event gives opportunity to young riflers

From sunrise to sunset on Saturday, Nov. 9 and Sunday, Nov. 10, local Vermont youth took to the woods all across the state in hopes of a successful deer hunt. This Youth Deer Weekend is one of the three hunting weekends in Vermont geared toward younger generations of hunters. The event precedes the opening of rifle season by one week. This gives youth — defined by Vermont Fish and Wildlife as those 15 and younger — the chance to get into the field before the deer season opens to older, more experienced hunters. “Youth weekend originally began as a youth day before being expanded to a full weekend,” Vermont Game Warden Wesley Butler said. Butler currently covers the Southern half of Addison County and remembers participating in the youth season himself when he was growing up in the area. “I got a 128 lb four-pointer on Saturday,” said Colby Butler, a successful local youth hunter. Colby started hunting when he was seven years old and is now 15. “I think that [youth weekend] is a really good time. I kind of like it more than regular season.” For him, youth weekend is really about family.  “Whenever I think of youth hunting I think of time with my brothers,” he said.  Butler explained that there are multiple laws that apply to youth deer season that are not present during what is often referred to as the “regular season,” which is open to all ages. During youth weekend a youth hunter must be accompanied by a licensed but unarmed adult to provide an experienced mentor for aspiring hunters as they are introduced to the activity. Youth hunters are also required to ask for permission on the land that they wish to hunt on — even if that land is not posted or otherwise restricted. This measure aims to  teach youth about respect for land and community members. Youth Deer Weekend allows participants to hunt deer regardless of the deer’s antlers or sex, which increases the opportunities for shots. Biologists can learn valuable information about the health of the herd from the does (female deer) and spike horns (small bucks which are illegal in the regular season) that youth hunters can hunt during this weekend.  This information, which is otherwise unavailable, can help inform policy recommendations. In terms of law enforcement, Game Wardens said that they want youth to have a positive experience, encourage hunters to take the season seriously and use the weekend for what it’s intended for. For this reason, Butler says that youth weekend violations result in increased fines and, potentially, the loss of an adult’s hunting and fishing license. This year Vermont Fish and Wildlife and local Middlebury businesses teamed up to host an Operation Game Thief event during youth weekend. The event, held at G. Stone Motors and Vermont Field Sports on Rt. 7, included raffles, discussions with game wardens and a barbeque for the community.  “We put together a youth event for the kids and the community to get them out and educate them about hunting and the different aspects of it,” said Tara Raymond, the Finance Manager for G. Stone Motors.  In addition to hosting, there were raffle prizes such as a lifetime hunting license, a Ruger gun donated by Vermont Field Sports, a shoulder mount by Bragg’s Taxidermy and a wildlife woodburning by Dattilio Artwork. Youth check in their deer by bringing them to certified weigh stations like VT Field Sports, and Rack ‘N Reel in New Haven, Vermont. Manager for Vermont’s Agency of Natural Resources Amy Alfieri was stationed at this location to examine the deer that were brought in. “The deer being brought in over the past couple years have had good fat on them and the population seems to be healthy,” Alfieri said, and went on to explain the examination process. She measures the spread (the widest distance) of the antlers on a buck, the quantity and health of the teeth to estimate age, and removes an incisor tooth from the deer to be professionally analyzed in a lab out of state. Alfieri also weighs the deer, visually assesses its health, and asks the hunters questions to understand if it was dressed properly in the field.  Tanner, 11, and his dad Chris Alexopoulos, a Fisheries and Wildlife Specialist for Green Mountain National Forest, visited the Operation Game Thief event between their time in the field on Sunday. Tanner shot his first deer when he was nine and hoped to get another one this year.  “Tanner is a fourth-generation Vermont wild game hunter,” Chris said. “The youth weekend is imperative. We have to keep the young sportsman involved and active.” The state hopes that having youth weekends will encourage participation and get new sportsmen and women who will take on the role of maintaining the healthy conservation of the beautiful Vermont wildlife. There are many hunting courses throughout the state and around the year. Interested youth can also attend Green Mountain Conservation Camp to learn more.

Let’s talk about sex, please

Hey Midd, We are your SGA Sexual and Relationship Respect committee (SRR). Not only do we represent you, but I think we have a common goal. We believe that sexual respect is crucial to making this campus a better place. On that note, we want to make sure that students have access to sexual and relationship resources on campus. We want to make sure that students are aware of these resources, that our campus culture promotes consent and respect and that we can accurately represent the thoughts and needs of the student body in our work. We recognize that students at Midd have varying levels of knowledge, experience and engagement with these issues. Still, we want everyone to be on the same page. That’s where you come in. SRR cannot accurately represent the diversity of your experiences and ideas or the uniqueness of our student body if students aren’t involved in the work that we do. We believe student feedback is important, and we need more of it.  A couple years ago, we heard from students that it was difficult to access safe sex supplies on campus. We thought we could do better. In response, over the last two years we’ve worked with Parton, ResLife and facilities to place free pads, tampons, condoms, lube and dental dams in all the first-year and sophomore dorms. This year, SRR proposed a bill which was passed in the SGA Senate, ensuring that these resources will remain available to students in the future. This year, SRR is focusing on the confusion and frustration with the Title IX process. We’re asking questions like, do students at Middlebury understand how the Title IX reporting process works? Do students understand that there’s a difference between making a complaint and actually reporting to start an investigation? In order for students to feel comfortable and confident accessing Title IX resources on campus, they should know the answers to these questions. We are currently trying to tackle this confusion by beginning to circulate accurate and clear information answering these questions and more. Students have told us that they want to see a change regarding the culture of sexual assault on campus. Last year we responded with the Complicity Project, which was displayed in Davis last spring and earlier this semester. The display included survey data and interviews from students and faculty regarding how every individual can challenge their complicity day to day. We believe that individual change is what facilitates a change in campus culture, so it’s important for students to consider how they can improve the way they interact with topics of sexual assault on campus. For years, students have expressed a desire for consent training during orientation. Current Middlebury students have expressed the same desire. Sports teams, social houses, student orgs and individuals have all reached out to the SGA or SRR asking for this development. After substantial research on similar programming at other NESCAC schools, SRR is collaborating with administrators to implement mandatory consent workshops during first-year orientation. We hope to start this programming this February. Similarly, we’re working to bring in professionally-facilitated consent workshops that would be available to all students and student groups on campus.  All of this is to say that it is when you engage with us that we are most productive and beneficial to you. Before this, you may not have known about SRR and you may not have been aware of our  initiatives. But when it comes to topics of sexual and relationship respect, we are the link between you, the student body and our administration. Student government functions most effectively with student input, and so we implore you to actively engage in these conversations and share your feedback with us. 

Sex Panther: Dating ... with style

Hello, everyone, and welcome to cuffing season! As many of you have noticed, the frigid arctic has begun to descend upon us. As the temperatures drop, the number of couples sky-rocket. For those looking for alternate ways to get cuffed this year (especially coming into J-Term), might I suggest using this as a convenient time to act on your dissatisfaction with Middlebury’s hook-up culture and asking someone out on — wait for it — a date? (You also do not need to be cuffed nor do you need to want to be cuffed to do so; friend dates are amazing too.) At Middlebury, a lot of the time we’re scared that the person we are into is less into us than we are to them. Asking someone on a date is perceived as the opposite of playing it cool (you know, because it conveys that you are actually interested in the person in a more profound way than wanting to sleep with them occasionally). While everyone defines labels like dating slightly differently, I personally don’t think you get to say you’re dating someone unless you’ve been on a date. At the same time, going on a date doesn’t mean you’re in a relationship — it just means you want to get to know the person better in a setting which isn’t dependent on you guys hooking up (no, “Netflix and chill” does not count).  That brings us to the dreaded “date.” I feel like I say this all the time, but I am incredibly perplexed as to why more people don’t go on dates here. Sure, I mean, I know we live in a small town, but come on — there are so many different, fun things to do for a date at Midd. So let’s spice up cuffing season and add asking people on dates to the mix. As your trusty Sex Panther (someone who passionately dislikes hook up culture here) I’ll even do some of the groundwork for you and review some local establishments for their date potential. This week, I’ll be looking at Otter Creek Brewery.  If you are in need of a date location and activity that is removed from the prying eyes of Middlebury, you should consider Otter Creek Brewery. Don’t worry, I have been to said brewery on two occasions now. Granted, on both occasions I was with friends, but I still feel qualified to review it for maximum date potential. The ambiance is fun and flirty. They have live music on Friday nights (which could honestly be a great distraction if your Panther of choice turns out to be a less-than-ideal love match). Their staff are friendly and helpful. You definitely don’t need to be an avid beer drinker to go, because the staff will resourcefully guide you towards a beer you can enjoy without grimacing. You can order a flight (small samples of a few different beers, which screams “I’m adventurous ... but also indecisive”) or a full-sized beer (which whispers, “I like commitment”). They have delicious nachos and wings (but maybe save the messy wings for the second date — unless you think you look cute with barbecue sauce on your cheeks). Their hot sauce is delicious, too, and everyone knows that hot sauce tolerance is directly correlated with fun potential.  Another awesome thing about Otter Creek is that their taproom has a huge window that overlooks the floor where beers are canned! That way, if you run out of things to say, you can use the window to spark a lively conversation about supply and demand, or a cost-benefit analysis of capitalism (hot). It is a little bit of a drive off-campus, but this affords you some welcome privacy and anonymity. Grabbing a beer is a great, low-stakes way to get to know someone and a great excuse to get off campus and be around people who aren’t Middlebury college students. No longer are you confined to the artificial party makeout scene. In the event you go with the intention of getting drunk, though, you should arrange a DD.  So, if you feel dissatisfied with how cuffing season is going for you, or how hook up culture here is performed, consider asking your crush out on a date. Good dates are like good I.P.As — they put a little hop in your step. Dates don’t have to be scary or boring. In fact, they might even allow you to show your best self — you know, in a way that isn’t always possible in an Atwater suite, where you drunkenly scream over the 2019 “Big Booty Remix.” Otter Creek is just one of many options for a date location. Stay tuned for next week when I explore another one!

Don't read these books alone

For the bookish among us, Halloween is a perfect time to revisit some of the spookiest tomes ever written. Brace yourselves for my top three fear-inducing books of all time. Don’t read this article alone. I’m giving third place to Ford Maddox Ford’s “The Good Soldier” (1915). The novel tells the story of four early 20th-century couples: two hopelessly naive Americans, and two world-weary Brits. John Dowell, the American narrator, tries to make sense of his shattered world after discovering that his wife had a long-term affair with Captain Edward Ashburnham, Dowell’s only friend. Meanwhile, Briton Lenora Ashburnham schemes against her philandering husband. In a sinister plot twist, Ford even adds one or two possible murders. I write “possible” since Ford’s protagonist is a confused, laughably unreliable narrator. Consider this rambling passage: “I don’t attach any particular importance to these generalizations of mine. They may be right; they may be wrong; I am only an ageing American with very little knowledge of life.” Beneath Dowell’s bumbling language lies unnavigable darkness. Psychological horror does not often feature in romantic novels. The most heart-stopping scene in “Pride and Prejudice” (1813), for instance, is when Jane Bennet gets a bad cold. But “The Good Soldier,” despite its lusty beginnings, slowly becomes an utter nightmare. “I know nothing — nothing in the world — of the hearts of men,” relates Dowell. “I only know that I am alone — horribly alone. No hearthstone will ever again witness, for me, friendly intercourse.” Note the use of the word “intercourse.” Ford writes about sex in the same way that horror writer H.P Lovecraft characterizes the cosmic entity Cthulhu in the eponymous short story: as an ominous, primordial reckoning. “The Good Soldier” ends with Nancy Rufford, the Ashburnham’s ward, descending into madness. After Nancy falls for Captain Ashburnham, the four main characters unite in banishing her to India. She spends the rest of her days in a madhouse, murmuring “Credo in unum Deum omnipotentem” [I believe in one all-powerful God] over and over again. Like Nancy’s recitation of the Nicene Creed, “The Good Soldier” will haunt you long after you have reached the story’s end. My runner-up is “The Woman In White” (1859) by Wilkie Collins. T.S. Eliot wrote, in the introduction to a 1928 edition of the book, that Collins’s other great novel, “The Moonstone,” is “​the first, the longest, and the best of modern English detective novels in a genre invented by Collins and not by [Edgar Allen] Poe.” “The Woman In White” has even more sleuthing than “The Moonstone” (1868). But while the latter book has a comic tone, “The Woman In White” invokes pure dread. The novel’s opening scene is simple, but spooky. Walter Hartright, an impoverished drawing teacher, walks through the streets of London late at night. From out of the fog appears a young woman clad in pale tatters. She asks for some directions, but then suddenly flees. We learn that her name is Anne Catherick, and that Anne has recently escaped from a ward for the criminally insane. Some months after this strange encounter, Walter falls in love with Laura Fairlie, a wealthy art student. All is well for a bit, but developments arise. For one, Anne Catherick is stalking Walter. For another, Laura gets engaged to Sir Percival Glyde, an old rake who values his fiancée’s dowry a bit too much. I shall divulge no more of the novel’s plot; “The Woman In White” is too good a book to be spoiled. Let us suffice to say that identity theft, mail fraud, false imprisonment and a nationalist Italian spy ring all feature in Collins’s blood-curdling narrative. What makes Collins’s novel truly terrifying, though, is its main villain, the plumply evil, wickedly charming Count Fosco. The Count likes to sing church hymnals, drug unsuspecting heiresses and murder for money. In a weirdly funny scene, he even talks to his pet mouse. “...And then, Mouse, I shall doubt if your own eyes and ears are really of any use to you. Ah! I am a bad man... I say what other people only think, and when all the rest of the world is in a conspiracy to accept the mask for the true face, mine is the rash hand that tears off the plump pasteboard, and shows the bare bones beneath.” Cynical and sadistic, Count Fosco raises the novel’s stakes to a fever pitch. Move over, “Rebecca” (1938) — “The Woman In White” easily dwarfs all other English country-house thrillers. I’m giving some honourable mentions before I unveil my top winner. “The Raven” (1845) by Edgar Allen Poe has not lost its neurotic punch over the years. Try reading the poem aloud for optimal spookiness — Poe’s jumpy style suits the spoken word perfectly. Another great scary read is Donna Tartt’s “The Secret History” (1992), a bleak character study about six students at a liberal arts college in Vermont. (If you are a fan of Vermont horror stories, I also recommend ​our article on the vandalism at Atwater A and B​). But Agatha Christie’s “And Then There Were None” gets my Spooky Story Gold Medal. Unlike my third and second place winners, Christie’s sparse novel can be read in one sitting. It tells the story of ten perfect strangers who are stuck on an island vacation resort. One of the guests, we discover, is a psychopathic murderer. Who could the bad guy be? Phillip Lombard, a dapper gun-for-hire? Thomas Rogers, the creepy butler? Just when you think you know who the murderer is, Christie kills off your prime suspect. Christie gives a ghostly aura to “And Then There Were None.” In particular, the novel’s dream sequences are unsettling: they contain flashbacks that foreshadow the grisly fates of Christie’s characters. In an eerie scene, an old woman speculates that the murders are a divine judgement. She is right, in a sense: all the people trapped on the island have their own demons to confront. Even before the novel’s climax, it becomes clear that Christie’s characters are all going on a one-way ticket to Hell; the murderer merely expedites their journey. Read “And Then There Were None” once for the scary bits, and then read it again just to marvel at Christie’s athletic prose.  So that’s my list. And, yes: I am aware that I have neglected some of the horror genre’s usual suspects. Stephen King, Mary Shelley and dozens of other fine writers did not make my final cut. I suppose that is because I don’t find fantasy a particularly exciting genre. “It” (1986) and “Dracula” (1897) have fangs galore, but the mundane wickedness of “The Good Soldier” is to me much more terrifying. The books that get under my skin understand the demons of the human condition; true scariness confronts the monsters of everyday life. The horror, dear Brutus, is not in our Count Draculas, but ourselves.

On respect and dignity

I remember exactly what I was wearing: a white, spaghetti-strapped, shirred crop top and my favorite high-waisted blue jeans. Gold hoop earrings. Worn-in Stan Smiths. It was the evening of graduation. I was exhausted from having been the commencement marshal during the ceremony earlier that morning, from having packed my entire dorm room away in less than two hours. The dining halls were closed, so I made my way to Shafer’s to get a sandwich to go. As I walked out of the store, I noticed two men sitting across from each other at one of the picnic tables outside. I didn’t know them personally, but I recognized them as Midd Kids. One of them was looking directly at me and didn’t take his eyes off of me. As I turned onto the sidewalk, I heard him ask his friend if he knew who I was. The friend looked at me and then proceeded to tell him that I was the new SGA president. Immediately, the guy slammed his hands on the table, swerved his head in my direction to take a look at me again and exclaimed dramatically, “That piece is the SGA president?!” I kept walking. I consider myself to be an outspoken person, someone who doesn’t take anyone else’s sh*t. But I kept walking, quietly. As if I hadn’t heard them. At parties, some men feel entitled to approach me simply because they “know” who I am. I’ve overheard someone say, “Imagine if I f*cked the SGA president,” and another guy dare his friend to “take the president home.” Just the other day, I walked by two men after parking my car in the Ridgeline lot. As soon as they passed me, they began to giggle and one commented, “Did you check out the SGA prez?” I’ve only really been in this role for three months, but already these interactions have become the norm. It’s terrible already that I have to overhear others sexualizing me. What’s worse is that my title itself — SGA President — seems to play a central role in their sexual fantasies. Let me be frank. I have worked my ass off to earn my peers’ respect and assume this role. I prioritize SGA every single g*ddamn day, often at the expense of my academics, sleep, social life and senior year in general. I work constantly to try to make Middlebury a better place for all students.  I did not do all this just to be degraded, to be reduced to nothing more than a powerful woman some guys would get a kick out of “conquering.” I did not do all this just to cry in countless counseling sessions about this same exact issue. To be reminded nearly every day that no matter how much I accomplish, I am still primarily perceived as a sex object. That’s not part of the job description. I refrained from writing about this for the longest time, but it has gotten to a point where I feel unable to confidently do my job. I find myself wondering if some men do what I ask because they agree with me, or because they find me attractive. If my looks on any given day are a more important tool of persuasion than my intellect ever will be. I doubt myself and my abilities on a daily basis even though I know I am more than qualified.  I also know that unfortunately, none of this is unique to me. It feels like women have to work extra hard just to get a chance at assuming a position of power. But I’ve come to realize that getting into the room isn’t the hard part — staying in that role with legitimacy and respect is. It’s a pattern we need to break. Varsha Vijayakumar ’20 is president of the Student Government Association.

Sex Panther: Should I use a condom?

This week’s column is the second installment in a multi-part series on STIs. For part two of my series on sexually transmitted infections (STIs), let’s dive into whether you should use protection or not during sexual encounters of the third kind (oo, spooky!). Spoiler alert: you should probably just use protection. The only condition where it is ok to forego using protection to avoid STIs is if you are with a partner you trust completely, who you know has been tested for STIs and does not have any. Your relationship with your partner may be monogamous (oo, monogamy — even spookier!) or your partner may have other partners — just make sure they are using protection with their other partners, or that you know everyone involved is STI-free.  There are a few important things that I’ve left out of the map (in the print edition) — for instance, if you’re going rollerblading, you should wear knee pads for a different kind of protection. On a more serious note, there are lots of different ways that sex happens, and you should make sure you are protected for all of them. For example, using a dental dam or a condom is the only way to protect yourself from getting an STI. If you’re planning on any kind of anal penetration, you should use a condom and lube. If you are planning on both vaginal and anal penetration, do not transition between the two willy-nilly. You need to use a new condom if you go from anal to vaginal. Don’t go between the two without either removing the condom and putting a new one on, or calling it quits after the “butt stuff”.  The bottom line is that pure trust is not only scary, it’s also risky. If you have any kind of icky feeling that you should be using protection, then use protection. There’s no one size fits all approach to sex and protection (although all condoms are the same size...). When in doubt, just use a gosh-darn condom or dental dam! And, if you want to make protection fun and Halloween-themed this weekend, find someone on SPECS and beg them for a glow-in the-dark condom. Stay tuned next week for part 3 of my series on STIs: how to ask someone to use protection (oooo, asking — spookiest!).

Starting a conversation about STIs

This week’s column is the first installment in a multi-part series on STIs. Gather around the fall leaf-fueled campfire; let’s talk about STIs. I’ll start by saying that you should not be having unprotected sex, unless you’re certain that your partner doesn’t have an STI, that you don’t have an STI and that you’re unable to become pregnant (either because of the kind of sex you’re having, or because you’re taking a backup birth control method to avoid pregnancy). Sure, using protection is a great first step, but you should probably have an understanding of what you are protecting yourself against. When I use the acronym STI, I mean Sexually Transmitted Infection, not Subject To Inspection or Star Trek Insurrection (just to clarify for anyone who never had the pleasure of their eighth grade P.E. teacher explaining what chlamydia was in front of a classroom of terrified pre-teens).  STIs are transmitted through sexual contact. The most prevalent STIs are chlamydia, gonorrea, syphilis, HPV and HIV. Over the last five years, there has been an increase every year in the rate of people contracting STIs, making them a lot more common than you might think. While rates of teen pregnancy are dropping (hurrah!), rates of STIs are rising (oh no!).  By no means are we immune to STIs within the Middlebury bubble. It is estimated that one in four college students will contract an STI. Now, you may think that you’re one of the 3 who won’t get an STI — and by no means am I implying that you’re just a statistic — but there is definitely a much higher chance that you will get an STI than you should be comfortable with, especially if you’re having unprotected sex (and no, the “pull-out method” does not count as protection). Almost half of the people diagnosed with STIs in America are 15–24 year olds, putting us, as college students, at a very high risk. The bottom line is that if you’re sexually active with multiple partners (or heck, even one regular partner) you should get tested regularly. Often, the symptoms of STIs don’t present themselves. For instance, the only physical symptom of HPV is genital warts (again, super common — you should definitely get a pap smear to check for abnormalities next time you go to the OB/GYN, even if you don’t present any physical symptoms). The STI most commonly contracted by college students is chlamydia, which often goes unnoticed for long periods of time (if and when you experience symptoms, they include burning sensation while urinating, abnormal discharge or itching rash).  You can’t tell who has an STI just by looking with the naked eye. Did you know that Vincent Van Gough lived with untreated syphilis? I sincerely hope that you don’t want to go the way that Gough did (ha, ha), because untreated syphilis can lead to blindness and infertility. I know that you’re probably thinking you share very few lifestyle similarities to Vincent Van Gough, but hear me out. Rates of syphilis have been increasing over the last few years (despite the name syphilis sounding like it belongs in an old-timey, black and white movie). The symptoms for the first stage of syphilis include chancres on your genitalia, which are easily mistakable for pimples. The sores are super contagious, so if you’re concerned, get tested immediately.  The good news about STIs (at least for the bacterial ones like syphilis, gonorrhea and chlamydia) is that they’re curable by antibiotics if caught early. The even better news is that you can get tested for free at Parton — without any need for insurance, or parents finding out! You can get a prescription for birth control from Parton, too (and you can get it delivered to Parton, instead of the pharmacy), as well as a prescription for an HIV prevention drug like PrEP or Truvada. You can get tested for free at the Planned Parenthood in Middlebury. Any kind of surgical birth control (such an implant or IUD) is available there too.  Yes, the idea of getting an STI is scary, but there are resources and information available to you. So the next time your partner tries to dissuade you from using protection because it doesn’t feel good, kindly remind them that neither do STIs. If you want to be having responsible and informed, unprotected sex, start by getting tested — and stay tuned for part 2 of this series on STIs.

Ask Tré: Dating a Trans Person

Would you ever date a trans masculine person? — Anonymous Hello to all of my readers inside and outside the Middlebury community. To me this question stood out for multiple reasons. One, this question is very personal and I have this platform to share my perspective on a variety of issues, so that’s what I’m going to do. Two, this question is what I would consider “bait,” meaning it’s set up in a way that if not answered the “correct” way would cause an uproar. A question like this, to say the least, has the capacity to be  controversial. Luckily, for whoever submitted this and my readers, I’m not scared to voice my opinion about anything, no matter how controversial an issue is.  First of all, let’s unpack this question a bit. To ask would you ever date a trans masculine person is a bit much. It’s too specific and sounds like you’re fishing for a specific answer. Let’s start with, “Would you date a trans person?” I recently wrote a column about the use of labels in which I wrote the following: “Personally, I am the kind of person that really hates to use labels because then those labels become a way for people to assume things about me before getting to know me.” If you haven’t read the first Ask Tré, I encourage you to do so. Trans people are people. I also talked about the fact that I don’t like to be put in boxes, so to ask would you date a trans masculine person just seems to put me in one of those boxes. The idea this questions brings up — that the person I would date has to be masculine — is outdated and contributes to the toxic masc culture in the queer and trans community.  Secondly, I myself am a non-binary person. Not to say that all nonbinary people are attracted to all people, but I have never held myself to dating within a specified group. Gender itself is a social construct created on the basis of assigned sex at birth (but that’s a lesson for another day). So yes I would date a trans person, but not because they are masculine or feminine. I wouldn’t date a trans person solely because they are trans. When I’m looking to date someone, I focus more on what they can contribute to a relationship mentally and emotionally — not just physically. We need to get out of this space where we judge everything and everyone based on physical attributes and how someone presents themselves. This is a lesson not just for Middlebury students or just the queer and trans community, but for all kinds of people.  Finally, to whoever wrote this comment: I’m not sure what your intention was when writing this question. However, I think that you should stop focusing on who is masculine or feminine, who has the right body type, what labels fit your imaginary criteria because it only limits who you make yourself available to. This campus is repressive when it comes to deciding who gets to participate in relationships and hookup culture. Not to mention that most students are not being realistic when trying to approach potential suitors because everyone has a type. This goes beyond having a preference or being a product of the environment. Understand that your “preference” is problematic and as long as we continue to allow behavior like this, nothing will change.  My advice: Get rid of the imaginary criteria checklist. Stop focusing on who fits what box. Try to have as many positive experiences with as many people as possible, because we are living on borrowed time. As always, I look forward to my readers submitting questions to my column. If you don’t know, you can submit your own questions at the go link: go/asktre/. My goal is to produce one piece every week for the entire year, so keep the questions coming.  Love,  Tre Stephens

"Votes... for women?" exhibit opens at Middlebury College Museum of Art

“There will never be a new world order until women are a part of it.”  These are the words of Alice Paul, an activist who fought for ratification of the 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which declared that the right to vote shall not be denied on the basis of sex.  As we celebrate the 100th anniversary of that amendment, we ought to remember the people and organizations that worked to make this important milestone possible. That is the message behind Middlebury’s latest museum exhibit, “Votes… for women?”, which opened Sept. 13. Curated by History Professor Amy Morsman, the exhibit acknowledges the remarkable contributions of those involved in the push for women’s suffrage while also examining their words and actions through a critical lens. The exhibit was partly inspired by the work of my first-year seminar, “The Woman Question.” Taught by Professor Morsman, the class explored the changing roles of women in the U.S. in the years prior to 1919, when women were relegated to housework and removed from the public sphere.  The exhibit begins with the Seneca Falls Convention of 1848, organised by Elizabeth Cady Stanton and Lucretia Mott. At the historic convention, delegates drafted the “Declaration of Sentiments,” a manifesto demanding gender equality. Resembling the 1776 Declaration of Independence in its language, the document insisted on the equality of men and women and their fundamental rights of “Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.” Among its resolutions was a call for suffrage, for which Stanton and Mott became subjects of ridicule in the press at the time. A theme of the exhibit is that suffragists struggled with internal politics. They were divided over the 15th Amendment, which was passed in 1870 and prohibited voting discrimination only on the basis of race. This division led to the creation of two separate groups, the National Woman Suffrage Association (NWSA) and the American Woman Suffrage Association (AWSA). The NWSA sought enfranchisement through a federal amendment, whereas the AWSA took a state-by-state campaign strategy. The two groups later merged into the National American Woman Suffrage Association (NAWSA) in 1890, which decided on the state-by-state approach. The National Women’s Party (NWP), another suffrage group, emerged during the 1910s. It was founded by Alice Paul, who had prior experience leading suffrage campaigns in England. She brought this experience to the U.S. and organised protests in Washington D.C. for federal suffrage legislation. The exhibit shows original banners that NWP members held while picketing in front of the White House, as well as images of these pickets. The exhibit critically explores the intersection of women’s suffrage, racial justice and economic status and states that the suffrage movement was divisive at its core. It points out that Ida Wells-Barnett was told to march in the back with other black women during the 1913 suffrage parade in Washington D.C. It also says that working class women in the suffrage movement often worked behind the scenes since they had to balance activism with their employment, whereas the women at the center of the movement often came from backgrounds of privilege and status.  [pullquote speaker="Carrie Chapman Catt" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]The vote is a power, a weapon of offense and defense, a prayer. Use it intelligently, conscientiously, prayerfully. Progress is calling to you to make no pause. Act![/pullquote] A panel dedicated to Vermont discusses the rather small suffrage movement in the state. It attributes the lack of a widespread movement to the rural nature of the state compared to neighboring New York, which had a very active suffrage movement. A separate timeline also features important milestones here at Middlebury. The college — founded as an all-male institution — became coeducational in 1883, and the Chellis House opened on campus in 1993 as a resource for female students.  As we celebrate the centenary of women’s suffrage in the U.S., the exhibit reminds us that further progress still needs to be made to secure voting rights for all Americans. According to the exhibit, the 15th and 19th Amendments were worded as vaguely as possible and, as a result, allowed for  the possibility of poll taxes and other disenfranchisement techniques. For instance, black women could not  vote until the Voting Rights Act of 1965. Even today, citizens in Puerto Rico and other U.S. territories cannot vote in federal elections even though they are just as American as those in the 50 states. Many states have attempted to enact strict identification laws that disproportionately affect certain marginalized groups. Morsman concluded her opening remarks with an uplifting quote from Carrie Chapman Catt: “The vote is a power, a weapon of offense and defense, a prayer. Use it intelligently, conscientiously, prayerfully. Progress is calling to you to make no pause. Act!”  Catt said these words in celebration of the 19th Amendment being ratified in 1920, but they are just as applicable today. The “Votes… for women?” exhibition will remain open through Dec. 8. Professor Morsman will also discuss key strategies of the suffrage movement this Thursday, Sept. 26 at 7 p.m. in the Museum.

Title IX office fundamentally restructured

The Title IX office underwent structural changes in the last year, and its newly hired staff hopes the changes will increase transparency surrounding the services and resources they offer to students.  Title IX protects people from sex and gender-based discrimination in educational programs and activities that receive funding from the federal government. The restructuring of Middlebury’s Title IX office was prompted, in part, by the Workforce Planning initiative that began last year. The changes were also made due to recommendations by an advisory group, which prompted the administration to move the Title IX office out of risk management and over to the Office of Institutional Diversity, Equity and inclusion (OIDEI).   Under the old system, the Title IX Coordinator reported to the Vice President for Human Relations and Chief Risk Officer, Karen Miller. In the new system, the equivalent position now reports to Chief Diversity Officer Miguel Fernández.  The changes to the Title IX Coordinator’s job description came with a new job title:  the Civil Rights and Title IX Coordinator. This role will be filled by Marti McCaleb, who began her tenure July 15, after Sue Ritter ’83 left the position last November. McCaleb joins Humans Relations Officers Eric Lόpez and Thaddeus Watulak, who began in their positions last spring.  According to McCaleb, the move from Risk Management to the OIDEI reflects the intention of the Title IX act.  “Title IX is very much a thing that is founded in educational equity, not in risk management or compliance,” McCaleb said. “It is not a question of protecting the college from a potential lawsuit, it is about what is right for our campus community.”  Despite the shift in administrative structure, the adjudication process for disciplinary investigations will largely remain the same. The primary difference between the previous and current arrangements is that the new system distances the relationship between the Title IX coordinator and the Human Rights Officers (HROs) who act as “fact-finders” in matters of disciplinary investigation, meaning that they review the information, speak with all parties and ultimately decide if someone is responsible for violation policy.  In the old system, the HROs reported directly to the Title IX coordinator, meaning that the Title IX coordinator directly oversaw the investigation. McCaleb explained that affected parties may have felt less comfortable seeking support from the same person who was overseeing their investigation. Now, HROs report directly to Fernández. McCaleb believes this will positively affect how experience students, faculty and staff experience the process.  “I am not overseeing the collection of evidence or the daily pieces of the investigation,” McCaleb said. “My role is to be a support rather than to be a supervisor of the investigation. I am more of a conduit for the parties to make sure that the process is fair and unbiased and that all parties know their rights and can access the services and supports they are entitled to while an adjudication is ongoing.”  The move also makes sense, said Fernández, because of the broader capacity of resources in the OIDEI.  “At the heart of title IX is discrimination based on sex or gender,” Fernández said. “The office [of institutional diversity, equity, and inclusion] also deals with anti-harassment and discrimination that is sometimes not based on gender or sex. When you start thinking about civil rights and discrimination, now you start to see the connection to institutional diversity, equity and inclusion.” Although most people think of funding for sports teams and sexual misconduct when they think of Title IX, McCaleb said the law applies far more broadly.   “It could apply equally to a female faculty member passed over for tenure because of her gender or a female graduate student in a lab that doesn’t get the same opportunities that her male colleagues would,” McCaleb said. “And obviously it applies in the case of a student who is experiencing sexual harassment or has been sexually assaulted.” McCaleb recognizes that students may have several misconceptions regarding the role of the Title IX office. One is that many people believe that if they report an incident to the Title IX office, they will be forced to initiate a formal investigation. In reality, McCaleb said, the office defers to the wishes of the complainant, unless not reporting poses a danger to an individual or the community.  To help people better understand the Title IX office, McCaleb and other employees began hosting information sessions with various student groups, academic departments and other offices to educate them about sexual norms and interpersonal respect at the beginning of this academic year. With these outreach events, which she plans to continue into the academic year, McCaleb hope to educate students, faculty and staff about the support services available in, and the processes of, the Title IX office.  Based on feedback McCaleb has received during these sessions, she has noticed that many students do not understand how to navigate the system. McCaleb hopes that by being transparent regarding her office’s process, students will be more likely to seek the support they need.  “I am very much on a listening tour this semester of hearing people’s experiences and how they have experienced the office or not experienced the office,” McCaleb said. “Do people consider the Civil Rights and Title IX office a place where they can go, or is it a place that they actively try to avoid? Every institution has its own culture on how it addresses interpersonal violence.”  Now that the Title IX office is located in OIDEI, Fernández hopes that the intersections between Title IX and other identities will become more apparent.   “Part of what we’ve been doing this year is trying to think about the relationship between the different components on campus,” Fernández said. “What’s the relationship between the Anderson Freeman Center and Title IX, and the Scott Center, and disability resources, and education for Equity and Inclusion? We are all working around equity, inclusion, and identity in different ways.”

The Librarian is in

The first time I read this work, at 14 or 15, I had an extremely limited understanding of colonialism. But I returned to it, twice, years later, having met a variety of African people and having visited the continent twice. If you did not cross paths with “Things Fall Apart” in high school, the work, Chinua Achebe’s magnum opus, tells the fictional tale of a West African people/village/tribe/group/region, Umuofia, and its first encounters with European colonizers. No, that’s not quite right, is it? It tells of Umuofia’s traditions, language, society, hierarchies, fashion, celebrations, structure, folk tales, myths, religious and spiritual beliefs, law, diplomacy and habits of war. And then, and only then, does it tell of its first encounters with white, religious European colonizers. That’s really quite better put, as one of the unspoken theses of the work is that African peoples had a “before.” A past. An identity. A cosmos and universe before contact with Europeans. Africans’ stories did not begin when Europeans arrived to the lands inhabited by black peoples. Isn’t that an extraordinary thought? One not enough of us in the United States or around the world sit and grapple with nearly enough. Why do I love this book? Its creation feels like an act of love and a gift to all people who have been disenfranchised by the imperialist ventures of the last few centuries. It addresses the idea of “erasures” on a global scale. It wrestles with the idea of gender roles and suggests that their suffocating strictures are hardly new. The plot of “Things” is not what I would call “speedy” or “dynamic.” However, while Achebe’s artistry and plot are leisurely, the author is nothing if not deliberate. Every word is intentional and reflects his skillful craftsmanship. I’d recommend this work to anyone enrolling in a postcolonial literature class, anyone studying abroad in West Africa or South Asia and anyone wanting to study historical periods that highlight contact, encounters and clashes between cultures. For more works that treat contact between Africa and Europe, I highly recommend the film “Paradise: Love,” directed by Ulrich Seidl, which covers sex tourism in Kenya.

The murky social contract of the DFMO

For those of you who are not familiar, DFMO stands for “Dance Floor Make-Out”— which, whether we like it or not, is a time-honored tradition at Middlebury College. On Sunday mornings, DFMOs form a classic, confusing topic of discussion at tables in Proctor or Ross. The perplexing nature of the DFMO lies in both the complicated set of circumstances which lead to two often very sweaty people swapping saliva; the particular nature of the DFMO; and the DFMO’s implications, or aftermath. By nature, DFMOs vary. Variations hinge on whether or not the making out was limited to the dance floor; whether or not both parties parted ways immediately afterwards; if the making out (and possibly more!) continued in one of the two parties’ dorm rooms; if numbers were exchanged; and, lastly, whether there continues to be mutual interest in making out, whether it be on dance floors, in dorm rooms or even on Battell Beach (not a bad option, if you don’t mind the mosquitos). Arguably, the most confusing part of the DFMO is what turns the singular DMFO into the plural. During the course of my research, it became clear to me that the quality DFMO itself is not what guarantees that fateful next-morning-text, or else the inevitable — and interminable — awkward encounters in line at the dining hall. Instead, it is the circumstances surrounding the DFMO which have the potential to keep it to a single, one-time thing, or else bring about future, plural DFMOs. My in-depth research has indicated that there are three distinct categories of DFMO in particular: the random DFMO, the blind DFMO and the icky DFMO. The random DFMO is, of course, completely random. There is generally a complete lack of expectations from either party about a shared future and so, as a result, this particular form of the DFMO rarely leads to relationships … unless the random makeout session becomes a pattern, and names and are eventually exchanged. (Or if the pair happens to meet somewhere civilized, like the library, and decide they like each other’s faces in daylight or voices when they aren’t screaming over the thumping bass of “Mr. Brightside”).  The blind DFMO is one in which both parties simply need a forum to hook up — one that isn’t a formal “date.” Middlebury isn’t exactly a place where people get asked out on dates without casually hooking up over the course of a semester and then forcefully asking themselves almost a year later, “wait, uh ... are we dating?” This kind of DFMO, in which both parties have expressed a prior interest and the Atwater dance floor simply acts as a social lubricant, seems to be the most successful model for creating a relationship. The essential nature of both the random and blind DFMO is that they should be fun, flirty, and (so long as the DFMO is not premeditated) all expectations ought to be left behind, like PBR cans on the sticky Atwater floor.  Now that I’ve defined what the DFMO should be, it is easier to talk about what it shouldn’t be. Above all else, the DFMO should not be something born out of intimidation or obligation. We have all probably seen — or, for many of us, experienced — a situation that felt or looked wrong. I can remember one of my first DFMO experiences freshman year and the subsequent “dish” session that occurred in Ross the next morning. What happened is not that important; what is important is that I was left feeling unsettled and uneasy about what had transpired. For one thing, my understanding going into the DFMO was completely different than his. I had not yet learned the expressive tools to communicate what I wanted, and waking up the next morning, I knew I had gone further with the DFMO than I wanted to. I didn’t even get a text the next day. This is a prime example of the icky DFMO; “icky,” because that is the most accurate way to describe how I felt about myself and my body the next day. As in my experience, the icky DFMO is bred from unequal expectations, high levels of intoxication and imbalances in power (with “power” usually meaning social capital).  My advice to you, Middlebury students, is to know what you want, to set your boundaries and understand that the DFMO is definitely not the only way to find love or connection here at this confusing institution. First and foremost, please know that you don’t need to do anything that you are not comfortable with, whether it be a DFMO or beyond. I hope that now, as certified DFMO experts, primed and ready to identify the best possible set-up for a successful DFMO, your Sunday morning conversations will not be cause for ickiness or alarm, but for fun and sex-positivity.

specs-1-475x405

specs-1

specs-2-475x362

Let’s talk about SPECS, baby: Students lead new orientation event

SPECS (Sex Positive Education for College Students), a student organization focused on sex positive peer education, initiated new programming for this semester’s first-year orientation week on Sept. 4. The group hosted an information table in Axinn with boxes of condoms, lubricant, dental dams, and different contraceptive devices and safe sex devices, according to MiddView Orientation Intern Niki Kowsar ’21.5.  “You generally see condoms and know what they are but for other products you might not know much about it,” Kowsar said. “It was really interesting to learn more about them.” The event was one of 13 optional activities for incoming students, and was aimed at spreading the word about what resources SPECS has to offer, Peer Sex Educator Emma Brown ’21 said. The impetus for SPECS came out of a class project and first became a club in 2017, said Peer Sex Educator Anna Durning ’19.5. The group underwent several iterations before becoming a group under the supervision of Barbara McCall, Director of Health and Wellness Education. “Sex positivity is a counter approach to mainstream shaming and abstinence-only sexual health education curricula,” McCall wrote in an email to the Campus. “It means acknowledging that sexuality and sexual expression can be a normal, healthy part of people’s lives.” SPECS delves into subjects, like pleasure, that may have been ignored or brushed aside in high school or previous sex-ed experiences, Brown said. She also emphasized the group’s focus on consent and sex education beyond the traditional, heternormative curriculum. However, the discretionary, drop-in format of the orientation event did not allow for substantial programming, and only four new students visited the table, Durning said.  “I was really excited to learn that SPECS was given permission to participate in orientation, but disappointed when I found out that our event had to be during the optional, drop-in activity time,” Durning said SPECS members felt that orientation would have been an opportune time to institute a mandatory sex ed workshop and reach more new students. Said Durning, “Given the nature of the workshops, students can find it embarrassing to choose to attend them so making them mandatory would erase the social pressure that keeps people from turning up.” But the group was still able to have productive conversations with students and put together a “build-your-own safer sex kit” activity at the event, Durning said. Ella Houlihan ’21, another Peer Sex Educator, was also disappointed that SPECS did not receive mandatory slots for this year’s first-year events but remains optimistic about the (sex) positive influence the group can have moving forward. McCall did not comment on the details of how SPECS was designated an optional rather than mandatory activity for orientation, but said she would like to see the group continue to participate in the coming years. “It’s important for every student to have medically accurate, non-judgmental and age-appropriate information about their bodies and safer sex practices,” McCall said. Students go to each other with questions first, she said, so SPECS gives peer educators a chance to address those concerns and provide resources. Kowsar and SPECS Peer Sex Educators said they’re hopeful the student organization will take on a more significant role during future first-year orientation weeks.  SPECS plans to keep collaborating with ResLife and with the Student Government Associations’s Sexual and Relationship Respect Committee to make sure that all students can receive consent workshops, Durning said.  Students can expect to see other programming in the coming months, including pleasure and communication workshops and trivia nights in Atwater Dining Hall. SPECS will also conduct first-year dorm workshops and is accepting requests from sports teams, social houses and other groups on campus to facilitate workshops.

Spotlight on the South

As Middlebury students hunkered down in the library to work on final exams this May, state lawmakers were gearing up to put Roe v. Wade to the test. Nine southern and midwestern states captured national attention for passing a wave of abortion restrictions. Mississippi, Ohio, Missouri, Kentucky, Louisiana and Georgia all approved bills that would ban abortion once a fetus has a detectable heartbeat. Arkansas and Utah voted to limit the procedure to the middle of the second trimester.  Alabama’s governor signed a near-total ban on abortion on May 15. The ban would allow no exceptions in cases of rape and incest. Alabama doctors who administer abortions could face up to 99 years in prison if the law goes into effect in November, after a six-month waiting period following the bill’s signature. At Middlebury and other colleges around the country, students reacted publicly and emphatically. Amidst finals week stress, students shared testimonials and action guides on social media, discussing the implications of the new laws. The news hit particularly close to home for students from affected states. “This took place over finals for me and it was a surreal moment in time,” said Holley McShan ’19.5, who is from Alabama. “The rage it sparked made it difficult to think about anything else.”   Worlds away from home  That week in May exemplified why many students from the South, where the most restrictive abortion laws were passed, grapple with their relationships to home. Southern states are often maligned by progressives in other parts of the country as trailing years behind states like Vermont — which recently codified protection of abortion rights under state law* —  when it comes to women’s rights, abortion access and race relations. When non-southerners at Middlebury voice these criticisms, some southern students find they miss the mark on how these issues manifest at Middlebury and their own homes. Jess Garner ‘19.5, who grew up in a suburb of Jackson, Mississippi, said they have always felt the need to defend Mississippi to non-southerners at Middlebury.  “The worst part is the incapacity of some people to realize how much the liberal or centrist bubble of their upbringing has taught them to scapegoat the South, while ignoring the same problems in their backyards,” Garner said.  When news like Alabama’s near-total abortion ban reached campus, southern students said peers from elsewhere were quick to condemn their home states.  “This spring, I saw peers saying that we should just ‘cancel’ Tennessee,”  said Sophie Swallow ‘20.5, who is from Sewannee, Tennessee. “What does that do? What about all the people working for change? What about all the people in need? It’s easy to criticize Tennessee, but it’s harder to go and try to make change.”  Martha Langford ‘20, who is from Jackson, said news of Mississippi's restrictive abortion law reminded her of how isolating it can feel to grapple with such news among people who don’t fully understand what’s at stake in her home state. “I feel exhausted by the odds stacked against economic, racial and reproductive justice in Mississippi, and I often feel alone in this exhaustion at Middlebury,” she said.  Dani Skor ’20 grew up in Clayton, Missouri, a town in St. Louis County. St. Louis is home to the widely-publicized last clinic in Missouri still able to provide abortion care in the state. A sense of pride for St. Louis has been a central part of her identity at Middlebury, but she has felt the need to reconcile that pride over the past two months.   “I felt like I needed to separate myself from my home, and that hurt,” she said. “Since the law passed, I've realized that just as I can love a family member or a friend who has different opinions than me, I can be pro-choice and still love and take pride in my home state.”   Skor said that watching the news unfold from her study abroad semester in Italy was isolating and made her homesick. Swallow watched the news of Tennessee’s restrictive law — a “trigger law” signed by the state’s governor on May 10 that would ban abortion there if Roe v. Wade were overturned*— unfold from Guatemala City. She has spent the past year there working with an organization that provides contraceptives and sex education to young women. “Being far away made me forget about the power of conversation and that minds in Tennessee can be changed,” Swallow said.  Closed-door clinics Abortion remains safe and legal in the nine states that passed restrictive abortion laws in May, due to waiting periods that separate law signage and implementation.  Court battles over the laws’ constitutionality may hold implications for the future of Roe v. Wade. Certain extreme abortion bans, like the one signed in Alabama, were written with the intent of provoking lawsuits that might eventually result in a Supreme Court battle over Roe. If Roe does fall, 21 states are considered at risk of banning abortion outright. A recent study headed by Middlebury Economics Professor Caitlin Myers predicts that, in a hypothetical “post-Roe” scenario, the average woman in affected areas — places where travel distances to nearest clinics are expected to change —  will experience a 249-mile increase in travel distance to nearest abortion clinic. Myers grew up Burnsville, West Virginia and LaGrange, Georgia. While analyzing data from the Abortion Facilities Database for her study, she looked at what a post-Roe landscape would mean for her hometowns.  If Roe were overturned, she said, West Virginia’s only remaining abortion clinic would close, and women in Burnsville would have to travel 170 miles to Pittsburgh to access the medical procedure. She estimated that 20% more women would be unable to reach an abortion provider with this increase. That number would be even higher — around 33% — in LaGrange. “As an empirical economist, my job is to identify, measure and understand causal effects, not to tell people how I feel about them,” Myers wrote in an email to The Campus. “But as a native of Appalachia and the deep south, I do sometimes look at what the results say about my hometown … Roe matters a lot in the places I’m from.”  Students like Langford, McShan and Swallow recognize that their privilege gives them an advantage in retaining opportunities for care as their states restrict abortion access.  “I’m grappling with the fact that I have enough privilege that, if needed, I’d likely be able to get around these bans and still have reproductive autonomy,” McShan said.  Langford said she grew up recognizing that if abortion completely disappeared from Mississippi, she would still have a much easier time accessing care than poor and black women who live in rural areas of the state.  Her feeling of safety shifted in high school, when she realized that the Jackson Women’s Health Organization, a low rose-colored building in Langford’s neighborhood, is the last open clinic to provide abortion care in Mississippi. The other remaining clinic closed in 2006. For Langford and other pro-choice Mississippians, the Pink House represents both hope and anxiety for the state’s future. Simultaneously, the constant possibility of losing the clinic in the face of new regulations brings a fear that this beacon of hope for Mississippi’s future could quickly be dashed.  “I wonder how many other students at Middlebury are limited to hope in a singular pink building,” Langford said. “I don’t know if people in more progressive and affluent states share that kind of political anxiety.” * Corrections: An earlier version of this story mischaracterized the bill guaranteeing legal access to abortion access in Vermont. The bill was passed as a state law, not a constitutional amendment. Additionally, an earlier version of this story erroneously referenced a “fetal heartbeat law” that passed in Tennessee’s house of representatives in March, then fell before its senate. The legislation that Swallow referenced was a different piece of legislation — a trigger law that passed in May. 

Contra Khan: A Response to "Moss Pushes False Narrative...Yet Again"

First off, I’d like to thank Mr. Khan for that little trip down memory lane! Let me state right off the bat that I have no regrets about standing up for the rights of LGBT people and other marginalized groups at Middlebury. I don’t retract a single comment, especially about Rehnquist, who not only sided against equality in every major Supreme Court case on gay rights for over two decades, but in 1986 and again in 2003 – a mere three years before Middlebury named a chair after him – considered that I should be a felon in over 20 states because of who I sleep with. (Bowers v. Hardwick in 1986 upheld Georgia’s sodomy law that carried a sentence of 1-20 years in prison for consensual sex between men. Lawrence v. Texas in 2003 found the remaining 14 state sodomy laws unconstitutional and overturned Bowers, but Rehnquist joined the dissent.)  I don’t care what logic he used to justify his decision, it’s still clear to me it was really based on animus. Fortunately, by 2003 a majority of Supreme Court justices was on my side, as in 2006 a majority of voting faculty was on my side, not that of President Liebowitz. Then, as now, the people making decisions at Middlebury were blindsided. They were as unaware of what some of us knew about Rehnquist as the organizers of the Hamilton Forum were of what some of us knew about Legutko. My suspicions that they were unaware are confirmed in that other pearl-clutching article about my Facebook post, which Khan refers to. But people, it’s Facebook! It’s not as if I’ve gone on the lecture circuit and criticized my Middlebury colleagues at other institutions! Facebook is just not that serious. Furthermore, my feed is private, restricted to friends. That someone took it upon himself to steal my post and share it with, among others, students, whom I never add as friends until they graduate, is a gross violation of my privacy and totally unethical. Imagine if I stole private pictures of someone’s children from social media and shared them with some group they didn’t want to see them! The post was made in the heat of the moment, and I later tempered it. But I had been looking forward to confronting Legutko with pointed questions and was already upset that I was deprived of that possibility. Now I heard that he was speaking anyway, but I had been shut out. It seemed a bizarre move on the part of those who talk about answering speech with more speech and about questions being the coin of the realm. Someone might have reached out to the one person on campus who seemed aware of what Legutko stood for in Poland and in Europe. Finally, to the question of my publication record. Perhaps Mr. Khan doesn’t know, but different disciplines have different expectations. Some still insist on books, but others accept serious articles and book chapters, and these expectations are changing with digital publishing as well. I have over two dozen publications since those two books. The latest was the translation of my chapter on Russia for the French edition of a volume on Anti-Gender Campaigns in Europe. The chapter title, “Russia as the savior of European civilization: Gender and the geopolitics of traditional values,” could with the substitution of “Poland” for “Russia” easily describe Legutko’s book. Though short, the chapter has some 57 citations, which is 57 more than Legutko’s work. Not to brag, but last year I was even invited to Harvard to give a talk on Russia’s Political Homophobia and Geopolitics. This is what I brought to the attention of my colleagues and students at Middlebury. Now Poland’s turn to political homophobia has been in all the papers. Mr. Khan did inadvertently point to one real problem. It is likely true that my productivity has taken some hits from my activism on campus. Cis straight white men especially tend to have no idea how much emotional and intellectual energy some people on campus expend to make Middlebury a better place for marginalized students. I can’t even fathom the kind of daily toll this work takes on my colleagues who are faculty and staff of color here. But on the bright side, there is sometimes some progress. My op-ed on IVCF in 2016 (which, by the way, was about excluding a candidate from leadership not because of his stance on marriage, but because he was gay) ended with this: “Perhaps now is finally the time for Middlebury to create an LGBTQ center and hire a director who could both pro-actively make Middlebury a more queer-positive place and be brought in to help respond to any homophobic or transphobic situation that might arise in the future.” I note with pleasure that the college is now advertising for a full-time assistant director for the Anderson Freeman Center to support LGBTQ+ students and beginning discussions of what just such a center might look like. Kevin Moss is Jean Thomson Fulton Professor of Modern Language & Literature at Middlebury College. 

Moss Pushes False Narrative… Yet Again

I am a 2017 graduate of Middlebury and will matriculate at Harvard Law School in the fall. While at Middlebury, I co-led the American Enterprise Institute (AEI) club that invited Dr. Charles Murray to speak, and I was one of the two students heckled on stage by anti-Murray protesters during the event. As a future attorney and accidental free-speech advocate, I have been particularly concerned by Professor Kevin Moss’s recent false attacks on political science professors in the fallout from the Legutko lecture cancellation. What I read sickened me, not only for its inaccuracy, but also for what it showed me about the troubling state of intellectual life today. [pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]With fact-checkers like this, who needs fake news?[/pullquote] Moss’s op-ed of April 25 was not the first time that he has played the polemicist in our student newspaper. Moss has not published an academic book in 20 years, but he has made time to criticize members of the Middlebury community. In 2017, he attacked Middlebury alum Professor Paul Carrese ’89 for stating the obvious: that Charles Murray was prevented from speaking at Middlebury. Moss, pointing to the inaudible live stream held in a private locked greenroom, “corrected” Carrese, and claimed that Murray was not prevented from speaking. With fact-checkers like this, who needs fake news? In 2016, Moss wrote in to scold a Christian student organization at Middlebury regarding its theological requirements that its leaders not support gay marriage. In 2007, The Campus reported on his failed effort to get the College to reject a two-million endowment in the name of the Chief Justice of the United States. Moss objected because he did not agree with the Chief Justice’s legal opinions. This sad and embarrassing attack on political diversity earned a sharp rebuke from then-President Liebowitz, printed in these very pages. Liebowitz wrote that Moss’s resolution “misrepresents and distorts the record of Justice Rehnquist.” That rebuke should not surprise anyone who has followed Moss’s recent contributions to campus discourse. Moss’s attacks on members of the community are not confined to the pages of The Campus. On April 17, Moss created a bizarre meme calling for “a few poli sci professors” to “be fired.” This was set against a backdrop of fire. How clever. After Moss posted this online for dozens of faculty and alumni to see, it made the rounds with recent alumni, students, and other members of the Middlebury community. It was also mentioned in the Addison County Independent. This was a stunningly public and childish act. In his op-ed of April 25, Moss offers the same kind of unsupported claims and distortions that earned his 2007 resolution a rebuke from President Liebowitz. First, Moss expresses surprise at Professor Callanan’s statement, in his open letter of April 15, that some of the Legutko quotations circulating campus were doctored or taken from context. As an alum with a deep interest in free speech, I kept a close eye on the campaign against the Legutko lecture. It is clear to me that Callanan’s characterization was entirely correct. Take for example the use of square brackets in the second quotation pictured in “College Braces for Right-Wing Speaker Accused of Homophobia,” published in The Campus on April 16, 2019. Compare this doctored version of the quotation to the original as it appeared in context in the Polska Times. In the original, Legutko was referring to same-sex marriage in context, not LGBT rights as a general class. The quotation was distorted through the insertion of inaccurate supplied words in order to make it more inflammatory. If a lawyer used square brackets in this manner in a submission to a court, he could face reprimand. [pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"] Moss’s op-ed trafficked in mischaracterizations and libelous ad hominem attacks.[/pullquote] Another example is in the student protesters’ open letter itself. Although this letter only draws on a few of the many quotations put in circulation, even here they do not get them all right. Protesters insert the phrase “communist and liberal-democratic artists” as the antecedent of “they” in one of the pull quotes. Anyone who reads the sentence carefully can see that the letter’s authors got the antecedents of “they” wrong. The letter chops off the first half of the sentence, which makes clear that the antecedents of “they” are the various themes, tropes, and figures which function similarly in liberal-democratic and communist art. The protesters’ insertion completely distorts the meaning and context. There are other examples from emails circulating from the week of April 15. After reviewing his writings, many will take issue with some of Legutko’s beliefs. When you set out to turn an entire campus against a visiting scholar, however, you had better be impeccably accurate in your presentation of the evidence. Moving beyond his inaccurate discussion of the quotations, Moss further claims that Callanan’s letter contained “much more false information.” Unfortunately, Moss does not tell us what that information is. This is not because he will not, but because he cannot. In a world in which “fake news” is becoming more common, these types of attacks only serve to further degrade the situation. It would add a great deal to the debate surrounding what happened to Professor Legutko and the larger issue of free speech on campus if Professor Moss actually presented an argument on the issues. That, however, was not in his interest, as it is harder than creating digital art or attacking someone’s character in a newspaper. Moss’s op-ed trafficked in mischaracterizations and libelous ad hominem attacks in order to assassinate the characters of people he cannot meet in open argument. Moss’s attack on professors of great integrity and intellect was completely unwarranted. The proliferation of character assassination has made American society sick with the cancer of angry partisanship. No one is immune to its charms. It is all too easy to turn to when one cannot or will not address ideas. The result is that we are losing what makes us unique as human beings. What is clear is that Middlebury needs to take a closer look at its problems. The trustees should start seriously asking why Middlebury has not yet joined institutions such as Princeton University and Claremont-McKenna College in endorsing the Chicago Principles of Free Expression. Middlebury’s Trustees should endorse the principles at their upcoming meeting and incorporate them into the Handbook. Parents, alumni, faculty, and students should demand nothing less.

A Call to Mothers: Tell Your Daughters It’s Okay to Masturbate

“You know it’s okay to masturbate, right?” These jarring words came from my mother while we were making sun-tea together in our kitchen. I was 14 and horrified. I uttered a curt “Yes, mom” to shut down the conversation as quickly as it had started. From my memory, her rhetorical question was brought on by no comment of my own. I was a private teenager and had less than no interest in talking to my parents about sex (along with most of America’s teens, I’d imagine). Sun-tea unfinished, I casually, yet swiftly, left the room to avoid a very-much-unwanted continued conversation. All she had said were seven words. She clearly thought there was no need for an explanation (thank you, Urban Dictionary) as she knew that one sentence would do the trick in unwinding the bundle of prejudices I had held in regard to masturbation. ‘Masturbation is gross. Sacrilegious. Dirty. Un-lady-like. For boys.’ These were the sentiments that the vast majority of my female friends held growing up and that, unfortunately, some still hold. My hometown was exceptionally progressive and homogenous, with only one outwardly conservative student in my graduating high school class of 138. Regardless of its supposedly liberal ideals, our public high school had its share of gendered afflictions, just like any other. And due to the hushed nature of sex, the problem wasn’t put into words. For girls, we didn’t know what we were missing because no one was willing to talk to us about it. Starting in the final years of middle school, some boys were already joking about sex and masturbation at recess—normalizing the conversation from the outset. While boys learn from others at sleepovers, along with YouTube, Urban Dictionary, Pornhub and maybe even their overly presumptuous fathers, girls are left in the dark. According to Dr. Perri Klass in an Op- Ed from December for The New York Times, this isn’t just a problem in the social realm: there’s a complete deficit of conversations about masturbation in pediatricians’ offices as well. And when these conversations do happen? “We do leave girls out of the conversation almost totally,” said Dr. Elizabeth Erickson, an assistant professor of pediatrics at Duke University, in an interview in the New York Times Op-Ed. From conversations with friends, I am the only female I know whose mother even uttered the word “masturbation” while growing up. In hindsight, I was the lucky one. According to our friends at Planned Parenthood, masturbation also comes with a host of emotional and physical benefits: reduced stress, sounder sleep, improved self-esteem and body image, even “strengthened muscle tone.” However, this is not a call for universal masturbation. It does not interest everyone and that is, quite honestly, not my concern. This is, rather, a call to normalize conversations about masturbation for girls as a means to enable them to take agency over their own sexual health at a young age. Masturbation can help girls learn about their own bodies before getting involved with anyone else’s. When we don’t broach the subject, we risk creating power imbalances. When it’s normal for boys to talk about sex while the same conversations are stigmatized for girls, one sexual partner in a heterosexual relationship will be inherently more informed than the other. By “informed,” I mean to say that the sexual partner’s primary education may stem from porn sites and graphic boasts from pubescent peers. Heterosexual porn is infamous for focusing on the “male gaze,” which means that for the pubescent viewers, sex will appear to hinge on a female performance, as opposed to a reciprocal experience. Telling girls that it’s okay to masturbate is also a way of fighting against what has become known as the “orgasm gap” that exists in heterosexual encounters and relationships. In one study that examined the rate of orgasming among couples, researchers found that among 800 college students, 91% of men reported orgasming nearly every instance of having sex, while only 39% of women did. This gap runs the risk of making girls feel as if they don’t deserve to be as physically pleased as their male counterparts, potentially contributing to a feeling of being lesser than. (For comparison, 95% of lesbian women report orgasming with their partners.) Allowing girls to go ahead and discover what is pleasurable and comfortable before engaging in sex may strengthen communication with future partners and enhance overall well-being. And it will hopefully avoid instances in which she’s told what to do by a “more informed” partner wearing Vans and a snapback. So why is masturbation still such a taboo subject? To put the topic in a historical perspective, U.S. Surgeon General Jocelyn Elders was forced to resign in 1994 by President Clinton after publicly saying that masturbation is “a normal part of human sexuality” and should be taught in sex-ed classes. This was only 25 years ago, just around the time that people of my generation were entering the world and our parents were mulling over various parenting tactics. A close friend recently confided that she first learned it was okay to masturbate during her sophomore year of college in a “Gender and Women’s Studies” class when the professor insisted that every woman in the room buy a vibrator. At this point, my friend had already had a boyfriend for a year and a half. Evidently, 20-something is too late to realize it’s fine to masturbate. Destigmatizing masturbation equips girls and women with the power of sexual knowledge from an early age. There are few greater gifts to a young girl than giving her the ability to take agency over her body; casually telling her it’s okay to masturbate may be the first step.