773 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/25/18 9:56am)
It is very easy to not go and vote — ridiculously easy. After all, when Nov. 6 gets here it’ll be cold, and you’ll have work to do — so what’s the point? It’s an easy mindset to fall into, and part of the reason that barely half of the U.S. population typically votes in elections. Yet when you look at the costs of that choice, especially for us — the youngest generation — our complacency seems criminal.
According to Pew Research, in 2016 millennials (which most of us are, depending on who you ask), made up 27 percent of the U.S. voting-age population, only a bit less than the baby boomers. Yet while nearly 70 percent of boomers came out to vote, only around 50 percent of us did. Now, in 2018, our electoral power has increased — we are very nearly America’s largest living generation. The 2016 election was decided by fewer than 100,000 votes in three states — as President Barack Obama noted this week, “more people go to Coachella.” We have the power to swing every single election in this country, but only if we come out to vote.
We can tell ourselves that elections aren’t about us, that they’re not important. But we’re the generation that’s going to live with the results of climate change. We’re the generation that’s going to watch Social Security go bankrupt. We’re the generation that could make college affordable and healthcare accessible. We’re the generation that has that opportunity — and we have it in just 12 days.
I urge you to think about voting not as a choice between political factions, but as a responsibility. This country was built on the lives of those who died just so a fraction of the population — landowning, white males — could vote. And then came the Civil War, and the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments, which expanded the franchise to a population that would still be forcibly stopped from voting for another 100 years. Then came first-wave feminism and the 19th Amendment — granting suffrage to a gender that, to this day, still has to fight for equal protection under the law. This country saw a civil rights movement, the abolition of the poll tax, the lowering of the voting age — each a tremendous step forward caused by citizens who suffered and protested and lost a great deal to expand the franchise. This isn’t about party, it’s not about politics, it’s not even about individual interest.
It’s about civic responsibility. It’s about history.
By the time this is published, many states will still allow absentee ballot requests, and some will still allow voter registration. If your home state’s deadline has passed, Vermont allows same-day voter registration — meaning you can go down to the polls (at the Middlebury Town Offices) the day of the election and register right before you vote. Go to go/vote2018, or contact Middlebury’s MiddVote club, and get help filling out your forms and casting your ballot.
Figure out what issues are important to you, research who is running where you live and find out about them. Ask which candidate best fits your vision for this country — what you want for this community of 320 million (and counting). Then fill out your ballot and find a stamp.
There is no excuse for complacency. We have a responsibility to those who came before, to ourselves and to the next generation to make our voices heard. Those who are in power have no reason to listen to us, no reason to protect the things we care about — unless we vote. I hope that when Nov. 6 comes, you’ll be one of many who watches the election night results knowing that you spoke up — no matter who it was for.
(10/04/18 10:00am)
“these are not men who are scared in the way that we are scared”
By CHARLOTTE FRANKEL
When I came up with the idea for this column, my hope was to create a space for rather banal silliness to exist outside of the relative garbage can fire that is today’s political climate. I still hold true to this intention and will continue to hold fast to this mission in the coming weeks. However, I have also been gifted with a platform, and I would be remiss if I didn’t use it this week to write on the Brett Kavanaugh hearings and the subsequent responses I’ve seen from the media to friends’ deeply personal reflections.
I am a woman. I know, big shocker! Alert the presses (which I am doing right now!) Anything I write here about watching Dr. Christine Blasey Ford testify in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee has probably already been said or written by the various women in your lives. The lack of originality in what I’m about to say shouldn’t make you feel anything other than angry and sad. To watch Dr. Ford testify about her experiences of assault and have her testimony essentially summarily dismissed in favor of political gain was more than disheartening. It was heartbreaking.
To be frank, I didn’t expect to have such an emotionally visceral reaction to the hearing. The end result was exactly what I had expected. I had prepared myself for the outcome. But to actually see Dr. Ford sit in front of those men and watch them disregard her account of her assault broke me. Furthermore, it forced me to once again consider the ways in which I, a woman, and others like me, have been taught to accept some behavior from men as normal, or just par for the course of existing in the world as a woman. This was further cemented by the numerous posts on Facebook by my female friends reacting to the decision by the Committee and Dr. Ford’s testimony, recounting their own stories of abuse.
[pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]There was nothing funny about the complete lack of care expressed by some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to her testimony.[/pullquote]
I am a woman, and I have been followed for blocks by a man on a bicycle in New York City. I have been asked lewd questions by multiple male taxi drivers, forcing me to throw whatever cash I had at them and run out of the car at a stop, praying they wouldn’t follow me in anger. I have been followed down Main Street in Middlebury by a man who continually confronted me and a friend for some perceived slight. When I was 16, a drunk boy walked up to me at a party and took his time clawing his hand across my chest. No words were exchanged. He walked away as if nothing had happened.
Each of these stories I have told and retold; I don’t think I have ever once told them seriously. This is to say, I treated them all as a joke. These things happen every day to women just like me, so why should I consider my experiences anything special? It was funny. It was funny that some man with control of the locks on the car thought it was appropriate to ask me whether or not I had a boyfriend and what his penis looked like. It was funny that this strange boy thought it was OK to touch me in a possessive, frightening way without my consent. And it was so funny that every woman I told the story to could relate in some way. We’d all laugh and move on with our lives in the shadows of these ‘everyday assaults.’
I usually think that almost anything can be made funny. After all, as the classic formula states, tragedy + time = comedy. There was nothing funny about Dr. Ford’s testimony. There was nothing funny about the complete lack of care expressed by some members of the Senate Judiciary Committee to her testimony. And I can’t help but feel that there was really nothing funny about Judge Kavanaugh’s testimony as well, which was mined for jokes by every late night talk show out there.
[pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]I’m angry that I was in no way surprised by this.[/pullquote]
Humor is often used as a coping mechanism. But as I looked at the men who dominate late night give monologues about Judge Kavanaugh’s overuse of the word “beer,” his almost-crazed demeanor and his detailed calendars, I couldn’t help but think that these are not men who are scared in the way that we are scared. This is not to say that they are not empathetic or understanding of what Dr. Ford and many women have gone through. This is to say that they are limited in what they can joke about, and we are forced to hear the same recycled lines over and over again, because, where are we?
Shows like The Rundown with Robin Thede and The Break with Michelle Wolf, both showcases for female comedians of color, have been cancelled by their respective networks/streaming services. The only female late night talk show host currently on air is Samantha Bee, whose show has a shorter runtime than her compatriots. Seth Meyers often allows his female writers (of whom Wolf was one) tell jokes that he “can’t” tell, which is a step, but there is a complete lack of visibility when it comes to women in late night, where many of my friends actually gather their news from.
I guess I’m just angry. I’m angry that Dr. Ford’s testimony wasn’t enough to convince some senators to cross party lines and delay the nomination process, and I’m angry that I was in no way surprised by this. I’m angry that it feels like women are constantly shut down for telling their stories. This is not a commentary at all on the merits of these late night talk show hosts or their humor. Rather it is a statement of anger against women being systematically denied a platform to tell these kinds of jokes and cope with abuses of power through humor.
Well, that’s all for now. Tune in next week when I genuinely will get smushed between the stacks in the bowels of the Davis “FAMILY” Library (I still have yet to see a ‘family’ studying together).
“they waited until she was gone to open their mouths”
By LUCY GRINDON
In 1982, Brett Kavanaugh sexually assaulted Dr. Christine Blasey Ford. I believe it, and if you watched her testify last Thursday before the Senate Judiciary Committee, it’s difficult for me to imagine you don’t believe it too.
Her voice sometimes shook, often she held back tears, but the truth of her words was as clear as water. So many women have opened up and written about their long-hidden traumas over the course of the #MeToo movement; watching Dr. Ford recount her assault in her own voice, in real time, she seemed to be the ultimate embodiment of this era.
I wonder if any Republican senators could have been moved had they actually spoken with her. Instead, they waited until she was gone to open their mouths. They claimed to have hired outside prosecutor Rachel Mitchell to question Dr. Ford because they wanted the hearing to be coherent and methodical. Of course, we know the real reason — they wanted to avoid looking aggressive and disrespectful towards women before the upcoming midterm elections. The most depressing and grave reality, however, is not their implied inability to treat a woman with respect, but their collective refusal to engage with anyone who might disrupt their view of Brett Kavanaugh as a victim.
Many men in our society, including some of the affluent, white, educated men who occupy government positions, can’t seem to imagine any greater suffering than to be denied something they see as rightfully theirs, whether it’s sex, a gun, or a seat on the Supreme Court. Our culture of entitlement can turn male-female friendships into the “friend zone,” young men into violent “incels,” and freedom of speech into a prerogative to spread racism, sexism, or incitements to violence without facing opposition or criticism.
The stories of those who have suffered at the hands of entitled men are the strongest challenge to the dangerous idea that men who don’t get what they want are victims. Dr. Ford told powerful men how one of their own had hurt her, and the only way they could reassert Kavanaugh’s victimhood was by undermining her legitimacy as a witness.
During the latter half of the hearings, South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham did not question Dr. Ford’s honesty or the strength of her memory. Instead, he tried to delegitimize her by casting her as nothing more than a political tool. In a furious tirade accusing senate Democrats of power-hungry political maneuverings, he said to Kavanaugh, “She’s as much of a victim [of the Democrats] as you are.”
Dr. Ford has certainly suffered. She has sacrificed her anonymity, her privacy and even her family’s safety. But she was no one’s victim in that hearing room. Everything she has said and done over the past several weeks has been her choice. “I am a fiercely independent person. I am no one’s pawn,” she declared in her opening testimony.
Brett Kavanaugh already made Dr. Ford into a victim once, when she was 15. Graham’s effort to re-victimize her in the eyes of the country was a despicable attack on her personal agency and a denial of her heroism.
Despite intense fear, she stood up for the sake of truth, justice and duty, inspiring more people to come forward and hold sexual abusers accountable. Perhaps equally heroic was the way her testimony exposed the fraudulence of privileged men’s victimization masks — the ones they accessorize with dramatic pauses and tears and indignant shouting.
On Friday, Ana Maria Archila and Maria Gallagher, two survivors of sexual abuse, confronted Arizona Senator Jeff Flake with their pain in an elevator. “Don’t look away from me,” Gallagher demanded as she spoke. Injustice, abuse, and exploitation are too common, and one person’s emotional trauma is not more significant than anyone else’s, but U.S. senators and men who are nominated to the Supreme Court are not typically the world’s great sufferers. When people in positions of power and privilege are faced with that truth, they must not be allowed to turn away.
“Dr. Ford made those watching her want to be better people,
to emulate her bravery”
By MATT SMITH
Last Thursday, Dr. Christine Blasey Ford sat in front of some of the most powerful people in our country — the Senate Judiciary Committee — and she spoke her truth plainly.
She was honest when she could not remember something; she was “terrified” to be there and yet she felt it was her “civic duty” to testify. She spoke with such honesty and eloquence that it was hard to watch at times. Quite simply, Dr. Ford made those watching her want to be better people, to emulate her bravery.
This, contrasted with Judge Brett Kavanaugh’s visceral anger and belligerence in his opening statement and in his answers to the Democratic members of the committee, displays the ridiculous double-standards that were evident in Thursday’s hearing.
Speaking first, Dr. Ford was questioned by the Republican majority’s prosecutor (hired so they wouldn’t accidentally say something misogynistic) and by Democrats about the specifics of her story and the strongest memories of the night.
She did her best to answer every question directly and honestly, admitting when there were lapses in her memory. Conversely, Judge Kavanaugh spent his time denouncing the hearing as “revenge on behalf of the Clintons” and avoided answering nearly every question posed to him.
The Republican majority, after a tirade by Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican from South Carolina, spent their time attacking both the Democrats on the committee and the hearing itself as being unjust.
Indeed, what they thought was unjust was the “good man” being made to go through the “most unethical sham in politics.”
[pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]Our Senate now lives by an "eye for an eye" doctrine.[/pullquote]
Imagine for a moment that Dr. Ford yelled at the committee members (which her emotions must have compelled her to do) and Judge Kavanaugh had stayed quiet, calm, and tried to be as helpful and honest as possible, in keeping with the behavior of a Supreme Court justice. There would be no question of his confirmation.
And so, I watched a hearing that started as a profound moment for the #MeToo movement disintegrate into a bitter partisan fight, led by an all-male group of senators. While criticizing the Democrats for not joining their investigations, they refused to call further witnesses, subpoena documents, or ask for further FBI investigation.
And yet while Republicans repeatedly avoided doing their job Thursday, it’s hard not to acknowledge that both parties have larger motives: Democrats want to delay until the midterms, Republicans want to push this nominee through as quickly as possible.
Our Senate now lives by an “eye for an eye” doctrine. Republicans filibuster President Barack Obama’s Federal Court nominees, so now-retired Senator Harry Reid reduces the vote requirement to confirm those nominees.
Then Republicans refuse to speak to former Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland, so Democrats withhold Dr. Ford’s letter until the last moment to try and derail a nominee.
And now Republicans refuse Dr. Ford and the other accusers a proper investigation, and so the cycle continues. At what point do we say, “Enough. What’s right is right”? [pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]We have a responsibility to do more than hope.[/pullquote]
Even the successful and admirable attempts of Senator Jeff Flake, a Republican from Arizona, to have the FBI investigate have been constrained by an arbitrary one-week time limit and a narrow scope. Doesn’t Dr. Ford deserve more than that? Don’t we deserve more than that?
In just the past few days, three women whom I am close to have spoken for the first time about assaults in their pasts. They volunteered their stories when asked about their opinion on Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.
One said this: “the person who assaulted me would not remember my name or what happened – it meant nothing to him and forever changed me.”
Judge Kavanaugh has issued a categorical denial of all accusations directed at him of ever being blackout drunk, all the while admitting that there were times when he “drank too much.”
I ask then, is it not possible that Judge Kavanaugh did not remember this event because it meant nothing to him, because he was drunk at the time? Is it not possible that “it meant nothing to him and forever changed” her? In light of Dr. Ford’s extremely compelling testimony, that seems the most likely outcome.
We can hope that this week’s FBI investigation will shed more light on the allegations, we can hope that a man who has caused lifelong suffering will never sit in judgement of others.
Yet, we have a responsibility to do more than hope; we have a responsibility to vote for candidates who will believe and respect survivors. We deserve senators who won’t congratulate themselves on giving Dr. Ford a fair hearing and call her testimony “the most unethical sham in politics” not an hour later.
It is very, very easy to fall into a partisan vortex. It’s easy to fight with each other until we forget how much we have in common. Yet we all deserve a Supreme Court, conservative or liberal, that has members of sound moral integrity, who have led lives of virtue.
Can we not, at this moment in history, say to each other simply “What’s right is right, and we all deserve better than this?”
“why am I even here?”
By SOPHIE CLARK
On Friday I had a fully-fledged, borderline comical, breakdown. Swollen red face, giant tears, the whole deal.
All over a Supreme Court nominee.
Because it was not just a nomination process. It was a blatant, full bodied, laugh in the face to any woman who is trying to accomplish anything in her life. Dr. Christine Blasey Ford is everything Trump’s America could possibly want in a woman. From the outside, she is white, upper-middle class, non-threateningly middle-aged. From the inside, she has worked her entire life to receive an education, to earn a PhD and to become a professor.
And she wasn’t believed.
She wasn’t taken seriously. What does that mean for the rest of us? I went through the rest of that day feeling like a zombie. Passing from class to class questioning at every moment, “Why am I even here?”
Twenty-seven years ago, Anita Hill was hauled up in front of the same panel and treated with the utmost disrespect for all of the world to see. Treated so disturbingly in fact that it inspired a new generation of female candidates to run for office — to change things. It’s been 27 years, however, and what has changed? Why should we even bother?
To me, this hearing screamed: what is the point of getting a Middlebury education when in the eyes of this country, no matter what I do, I will never be enough?
I’m lucky my attacker is not a particularly ambitious guy, but many attackers are. And in twenty years when those men are up for promotions that they are seen as “entitled” to, will their victims be taken seriously? Will anything change?
Other generations are quick to criticize millennials for being overly emotional, too attached to issues — but this is not just an emotional response to the pain of survivors (although I am perfectly entitled to that). This is an objective understanding that those in power shunt half of its population to the side with ease. So why should we bother? Why should we contribute? Why should we get educated, or speak up?
What pushed me out of this rut was the enormous strength I witnessed in other people. I saw the two women who confronted Arizona Senator Jeff Flake bare everything I was feeling and too scared to show to the world. I saw my own peers grapple with their pasts and chose to fight back against what I chose to bury. It gave me hope that there is still a force for change, that women are told “No” time and time again and that we are not giving in until we are given a chance to speak up and be listened to.
Emotional responses matter. Feeling utterly despondent and alone matters. Because I will never forget feeling that way and will forever look for ways to stop it from ever happening again.
(10/04/18 9:59am)
This past Friday, Divest Middlebury took a major step towards our goal of finally aligning the college endowment with our mission statement. At 11:30 a.m., three students from Divest Middlebury arrived at Old Chapel to present the students’ position on fossil fuel divestment and the necessary steps the school must take going forward. Students gathered outside of the building to hear the presentation, intent on learning more about the movement that is currently gaining so much worldwide momentum. This day came as a result of years of effort by multiple generations of student and community activists; we are honored to build upon the work that initially created the Divest movement, and the influence of previous students’ activism has remained essential to guiding our cause forward.
Friday morning, three students met with the Board of Trustees to present the case for fossil fuel divestment on behalf of the student body. The presentation lasted 15 minutes and was met with applause and support from members of the Board. Trustees were engaged and curious; they inquired about paths forward and were supportive of the conversation. The sounds of chanting, singing and shouting from student activists surrounding the building added to the urgency emphasized in the presentation. Our movement is more than conversations behind closed doors, but a campus-wide issue; in fact, it was student power that made the presentation possible.
Last spring, the Middlebury student body demanded divestment through an SGA referendum in which 80 percent of students supported fossil fuel divestment with a 70 percent voter turnout, the largest in recent memory. Students pressed the Board to pledge divestment of all endowment assets that include any of the top 200 fossil fuel companies. This referendum brought the issue to the Board’s attention and showed them an irrefutable truth: divestment is a worldwide movement that addresses a crisis threatening members of our community at school, at home, and all over the globe. While divestment alone isn’t the solution to that crisis, it is a tactic that can fight it.
Middlebury students do not come from a single background unaffected by environmental struggles. We come from the coast of California, from mountains on fire, from decimated coal mining towns in Tennessee, from wetlands in Florida ravaged by development, from communities feeling the impact of super storms and hurricanes. We come as immigrants who have fled the impacts of drought and resource wars, as international students from Indonesia, Siberia, Mexico, Brazil, Zimbabwe, New Zealand and countless other impacted nations. Furthermore, the Middlebury community extends beyond students, encompassing low-income staff members impacted by changing weather in Vermont, faculty with the Vermont Gas Pipeline in their backyards and alumni and families scattered across this world. We come from farms without soil, from urban environmental justice areas clogged with power plants and oil trains and refineries, from communities torn apart by fracking and pipelines, from nations slowly going underwater.
Here in Vermont, Lyme disease rates are skyrocketing, summer programs at Middlebury are interrupted by heat waves and winters are getting both shorter and warmer. As a board member pointed out after the presentation, climate change is one of the most challenging problems our generation will ever face. Global warming is not a problem contained to the scope of traditional environmental thought. It is a crisis where oppressive forces intersect and augment—a crisis that disproportionately devastates already marginalized populations.
Middlebury currently owns $53.7 million worth of the fossil fuel industry. As such, the college lends its reputation for sustainability and its social credibility to an industry whose base economic model requires the continued burning of fossil fuel reserves.
Using our school’s name and money, the fossil fuel industry continues to feed climate change. The money that funds our education should not be used as a tool of the fossil fuel industry at the expense of the future. It is wrong to finance our education with a strategy that supports the destruction of our planet and our home communities.
On Friday, we told our Board of Trustees that continued investment in the fossil fuel industry is unacceptable. We must end our support for this industry — both for justice and for the future. We are confident that the Board will align Middlebury’s endowment with the College’s values of sustainability, community, and global leadership. After the presentation, Divest Middlebury received an email confirming that the Board is considering paths forward and will be releasing an official statement by the January 2019 Board meeting. To the Middlebury student body — thank you for your support. To those suffering from climate change and other injustices — we see you and we stand with you.
This article was submitted on behalf of Divest Middlebury.
(10/04/18 9:58am)
Even though I love Midd, by the end of my sophomore year I was ready for a break that was more long-term than summer. I was excited to be studying abroad in New Zealand at the University of Otago, a university with almost ten times as many students as Middlebury, and was ready to meet some new people — not to mention that I was eager to escape the U.S. given the recent political climate.
As I got ready for the (long) three flights that would transport me to the other side of the world, I didn’t have many expectations. I didn’t want to know anyone that I was going abroad with and sought to truly experience this journey on my own; while this mindset made things a little scarier, it also felt even more exciting.
When I got into North Dunedin around 10 a.m., I was sleep-deprived and not really in the mood to converse with the other students on my shuttle from the airport. Little did I know that some of the people on this bus would turn out to be great friends. Everyone seemed to know each other either through independent study abroad programs or due to how they all pretty much came from the same four schools (University of Denver, Saint Lawrence, Dickinson and Boulder). This made me a little anxious for the first few weeks, but as I texted my Midd friends, I was reassured that everything would be okay — and it has been!
I’m currently sitting here in my queen bed in a large, single room with my three other flatmates/ good friends in the rooms next to me or across the hall. I have just two weeks of classes left, and have had many opportunities to see some amazing places and do some amazing things — like jumping out of a plane 15,000 feet above ground! I’ve made some friendships that I think will last a lifetime and have discovered myself as a person with this new level of independence that I’ve been given. I truly would not change this experience for the world and am so grateful for all of the people that helped make this opportunity possible. Moral of the story: go abroad for at least a semester!
I am also grateful because being in a new place for three months (which will turn into five before I know it) has made me value my life at home in New Jersey and at school in Vermont so much more. I love it here and nothing bad has happened — no culture shock, etc. — but I miss my family, friends and our way of life back home more than I imagined. I’m not really “homesick,” but I am excited to have my two months of vacation with family and go back to school in January where my best friends and I can share stories from our time abroad. I promise that I won’t come back claiming that I’m “so cultured” having now spent a few months in a different country, or claiming some newfound maturity after being allowed to legally drink. I will, however, be the same person that I was before, just with a smile on my face that’s even bigger now as a result of having participated in a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity that has made me look at my life in a new way.
(09/20/18 9:59am)
As the Carolinas reel from the destruction caused by Hurricane Florence, the quiet coast of Maine is experiencing climate change in a much slower, yet still threatening, manner.
Kathryn Olson ’05 discussed the impact of climate change on this area in her talk entitled “Farms, Fish and Forests: An Ethnography of Climate Change in Maine.”
In Maine, temperatures have risen twice as much as those in the rest of the United States, and the Bay of Maine is the fastest-warming body of water in the world. Maine has a highly resource-based economy with industries in fishing and forestry, and for the past several years, Olson has been using ethnographic interviews, demographic surveys, observations and visual data to inform her work.
Olson has focused her recent research on what she calls the “Living Change Project” in which she investigates the subtle changes in identity, work and place in the wake of climate change, especially in her home state of Maine.
Farmers have been adapting to winters with shorter freezes and drought alternating with heavy precipitation in the summers and longer falls. These changes in the seasons have had a harmful impact on harvesting seasons and crop yield.
Foresters, too, are experiencing environmental and economic changes. With unpredictable freezing and thawing patterns, new populations of invasive species of animals and plants are wreaking havoc in Maine. Despite these obvious concerns, Olson found that foresters are more reluctant to admit the negative impacts of climate change, and they tend to view the forests as controlled by man rather than by nature.
Fishermen have faced perhaps the most significant plight. The number of soft shell clams, a specialty from the coast of Maine, are down by as much as 70 percent in some places on the coast due to a recent explosion in the population of green crabs, an invasive species that thrives in warm waters. Development of houses and tourist destinations along the coast has also greatly diminished fishing areas accessible to fishermen.
These challenges have forced the industry to adjust. For example, some have turned to aquaculture, the practice of farming fish, as a way to protect soft shell clams, as well as mussel populations, from the green crabs. Many Maine locals in the culinary industry are beginning to harvest the green crabs and popularize them on the market, with slow but promising success. According to an interview that Olson conducted with a fisherman, the fishery is only able to produce around ten percent of what it once could.
Olson’s talk drew the attention of many students and faculty, as her presentation highlighted the imminent issues facing local communities due to climate change. Here in Vermont, farmers and beneficiaries of resource-based industries are at risk in ways similar as those in Maine.
“Having spent the summer living [on] sailboats along the coast of Maine dodging lobster pots every day, I was particularly interested in the invasive green crabs and in the lobstermen’s pragmatic view of climate change,” Hannah Redmon ’20 said. “I appreciated how [Olson] examined the effects of climate change on Maine’s major industries through the eyes of people working in these industries every day. The way she combined science, sociology, creative writing and photography made her project both useful and engaging, no matter where her readers are coming from.”
Alec Fleischer ’20.5 said that Olson’s talk “clearly showed [that] climate change is already altering Maine’s formerly-stable marine and forestry sectors.
“These highlighted effects only mark the beginning of unprecedented problems that our generation will face in Maine, in Vermont, and across the world,” he said. “We need to rapidly transition [away from] fossil fuels and begin investing vast sums in climate mitigation.”
Maine’s future, according to Olson, lies in economic diversification and developing long-term sustainable industries.
Throughout this project, Olson has spent much of her time engaging with climate change skeptics and deniers, and encouraging tolerance and understanding of other perspectives.
From enacting large-scale policy changes for mitigating climate change to bolstering grassroots participation in the fight against climate change, Olson encourages working beyond academia and using social media and blogs, to spread positive messages. Olson left the audience feeling positive about how experts are addressing climate change, noting that the people she interviewed from all different economic and social backgrounds were working hard to adapt to the changes coming their way.
For more information on Olson and her work, see her blog:
www.livingchange.blog/
(09/13/18 9:50am)
SABINE POUX
Editor’s Note: This is the first installment in a weekly column, Foreign Correspondents, that will chronicle Middlebury students’ experiences studying abroad.
About seven weeks into my study abroad program, I received a WhatsApp message from my tutora, an Argentine girl from my university who had been assigned to help me and another exchange student get adjusted to life in Buenos Aires. Usually she texted in the group to invite us out to eat or to answer our questions about matters lost in translation. Today’s message was more serious.
“Well ladies,” she said. “You are witnessing the fall of Argentina.”
She was referencing the massive economic crisis that has hit Argentina, resulting from the country’s potential inability to pay its IMF debts and causing the Argentine peso to devalue at a staggering rate. Though my tutora’s tone may sound dramatic, the Argentine people are all too aware of what can happen in the face of fiscal disaster. During the 1970s and ’80s, in one of the most horrible periods of Latin American history, dictatorships in Argentina and its neighboring countries repressed, terrorized and assassinated thousands of civilians who opposed their neo-liberal economic policies. More recently, during the 2001 crisis, the entire government quit in one day, the country had five presidents in the span of one week and 36 people died.
Argentina’s history of turmoil remains fresh in the minds of most, and the mistakes and consequences of that past serve as constant warnings of what could transpire in the near future. The country regularly cycles through economic and political crisis and prosperity, and citizens fear a return to the nefarious governments of old. Some believe the current administration is headed in an authoritarian direction, and there are rumors that the president, Mauricio Macri, will resign, in which case the country would hold a special election to find a new head of state.
From a political science standpoint, this is an incredibly exciting time to be here. From any other angle, this is a quilombo of epic proportions. (I can’t tell you what quilombo means here, but a quick Urban-Dictionary search can.)
At Universidad Torcuato Di Tella, where I’m taking classes, it can be easy to forget about the crisis. Di Tella is a private institution, and though its tuition is considerably lower than tuition at any US university – roughly equivalent to about $3,000 a semester – public college here is free (and very reputable). Most students at Di Tella come from higher-than-average income brackets, and the wealth on campus is anything but subtle. Back in July, when I first entered the glossy, modern building that houses the school’s classrooms, three (!) restaurants and panoramic rooftop terrace, I was stunned by the sea of chic black turtlenecks, cool leather boots and iPhone X’s that assembled in the main lobby between classes, chatting over yerba mate and espresso from the French-themed café next door. Many of the students I have talked to live in gated communities in the provincia right outside the city and have traveled to more states than I have, an emblem of wealth considering the steep peso-dollar exchange rate.
Which is not to say that people at Di Tella are not talking about the crisis or that it is not going to affect them, because they are and it will. But everywhere else, it’s all people talk about. It’s all over the newspapers, and it’s the topic of most conversations I overhear on the subway. It’s the subject of every news program at the radio station where I’m interning, a community-based and politically-minded operation located in the back of a bar. Their slogan: “Sin aire no hay fuego.” Without air there is no fire.
My host mom, Sofi, thinks there are more homeless people on the street now than there have been in a long time. We’ve talked a lot about the crisis at home. Sofi is fortunate enough to have her own apartment and the means to get by, but the crisis sends shockwaves through her life just the same. She’s an artist, and in the last week has been working in her workshop day and night while blasting notícias (news) and Luis Miguel songs to create small hand-painted resin figurines that will be presented as awards for the winners of an upcoming film festival. Sofi signed onto the job months ago, and with the devaluation of the peso, the compensation she will receive is now worth almost nothing. It is as though she is working for free, she laments.
Sofi, like most others, is also worried about how the crisis will affect the cost of food and other necessities. She expects that the hefty inflation that menacingly lurks around the corner will cause prices to raise as salaries remain the same. A few days ago she stocked up on months’ worth of cat food, just in case. I did the same with bread and milk.
For now, prices remain relatively low, stirring up a confusing mix of emotions for us exchange students. I feel guilty for feeling any excitement about the relative ascendance of the dollar, but it’s hard not to be at least a little delighted by the new exchange rates – a month ago I converted Argentine prices to their dollar equivalents by dividing by 27, whereas now I divide by nearly 40. A $3 coffee becomes a $2 coffee. An already incredibly-cheap subway ride now costs only a quarter.
But of course, to solely rejoice in the economic turmoil of the country is myopic and apathetic toward the thousands who are suffering and mobilizing, the latter of which Argentinians do exceptionally well. As Sofi would say, there are many temas picantes – loosely translating to “hot topics” – that have the Argentines fired up. One of my first days in Buenos Aires, Sofi – a self-described “anarquista” who preferred the previous, more populist government and openly detests the conservative Macri – attended a march against the current administration’s increasingly militarized presence in the city. About three weeks later, we marched together among thousands of our fellow porteños in favor of a bill that would have legalized abortion, under certain conditions, throughout the country. We stood in front of the capital building in the pouring rain, waving the green pañuelo, symbol of the movement, and chanted with fervor about our hopes for a more feminist Latin America. Though senators voted narrowly to keep abortion illegal in the majority-Catholic country, abortion advocates speculate that the bill will pass next year.
Teachers from Argentina’s public universities are also mobilizing in protest of the low salary hikes the government has promised them in the face of severe inflation. As a result, many students are yet to begin classes at the University of Buenos Aires and other public institutions, though the semester technically began in early August. Teachers have reportedly come to an agreement on the issue, but in this political climate, nothing is certain.
The increasing number of protests and strikes are testament to the country’s great political divide. And with people from each side of the ideological spectrum espousing flagrant things about the other, it can be difficult to orient myself politically. My current strategy has been to listen to anyone who has something to say, and I’ve found no shortage of conversational partners – some of my most animated political chats have been in taxis or with cashiers at street kiosks. The people of Buenos Aires are passionate and open and kind, and they are invigorated rather than dejected by the need for change. The city buzzes with an electrifying energy. It is truly thrilling, and somewhat unnerving.
It is also a lot to digest. On one of the first days I was here, our academic programs coordinator told us that we don’t need to come to any conclusions now. Conclusions come later, he said. For now, just soak everything in.
Sabine Poux is a member of the Middlebury College class of 2020 and is studing in Buenos Aires this semester. She will be a news editor for the Campus in the spring of 2019.
(05/09/18 9:58pm)
The Gender Sexuality and Feminist Studies Department (GSFS) hosted the first ever themed game night last Friday in the Chateau Grand Salon. Students and faculty came together to explore feminist and queer theory through games designed and created by students in two GSFS classes.
Professor Carly Thomsen taught both classes, Politics of Reproduction and Introduction to Queer Critique. The intention of the students’ projects was to translate academic texts into an accessible form. The gathering filled the Grand Salon to capacity.
“I was really surprised to see how many students showed up” said Professor J. Finley of the American Studies department.
Although some professors who attended merely observed while students played, Finley played a Jenga game inspired by Foucault.
“I was really impressed by the absorption of really complex theoretical material and the ability of the people who made that game to make it into something that was engaging in an interesting and fun way.”
Spanish professor Roheno-Madrazo also played Foucault Jenga.
“I played Foucault’s Discourse Jenga, about how our societal discourses about sexual repression and oppression keep repeating in a self-perpetuating loop until they topple and get rebuilt...sometimes in very similar ways,” he said.
This game night started out as an assignment but ultimately manifested itself into a game night open to all. The intention of the students’ projects was to translate academic texts into an accessible form.
“What Carly [Thomsen] does is she really finds a way to bring the learning out of the classroom. The work she does to draw people into feminist work is great,” Finley said.
Finley and Thomsen are teaching a class called Beyond Intersectionality next spring, which will host a series of workshops and a symposium.
Thomsen stresses the importance of translation in her courses. The students’ desire to actualize their knowledge of what was going on in the world was the impetus for thinking about developing games as a class project.
“In a lot of Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies classes we read a lot of theoretical work or work that surprises students and sometimes angers students. And at the end of classes I used to always be asked, what do we do with this information?” Thomsen said.
The students’ desire to actualize their knowledge of what was going on in the world pushed Thomsen to make developing games a class project. Without the tools or the knowledge to change any of the problems that students were discovering through their studies, an opportunity to expand the feminist and queer studies syllabi arose.
But Thomsen has long used translation based assignments in her courses.
“In all my classes, instead of writing just a final paper, students do what I call a translation assignment and so they take one text, one academic text, and think about how they would turn it into an alternative format for an alternative audience, one beyond our classroom. The point of this is two-fold. In order to talk about a text in the world you have to know it in a far deeper and more complicated way than you do if the other people with whom you are talking have also engaged with that text,” Thomsen said.
“I think in this political climate it is especially important to be able to talk with people who we might not agree with,” she said.
(05/09/18 7:04pm)
The recent SGA referendum to divest Middlebury’s endowment from fossil fuels passed with 80 percent support. Clearly, our student body is calling for divestment. This raises the question: Why hasn’t the Board of Trustees voted to divest?
Students came out in record numbers to show their support for divestment. This election boasted a 68 percent voter turnout, representing over a 100 percent increase from last year. This is not just tacit approval — it demonstrates an active “endorsement to divest all endowment assets” by demanding that “Trustees vote in favor and begin the divestment process” during the Fall 2018 board meeting. Our student body insists that we hold our endowment accountable.
By divesting, we would join a global movement. According to data gathered by Fossil Free: Divestment, over 850 institutions around the world have divested $6.09 trillion from the fossil fuels industry. These include Colby College, the University of California system, New York City and the Rockefeller Foundation. In 1986, Middlebury divested from apartheid South Africa. Fossil fuels must come next.
Middlebury boasts carbon neutrality, has a world-renowned environmental studies program and signed the American Campuses Act on Climate pledge. Owning $60 million worth of fossil fuel investments lends Middlebury’s moral license and reputation of sustainability to a rogue industry. It is ethical hypocrisy to pay for the education of Middlebury students by investing in companies whose business plans contradict the college’s mission. Trustees have a responsibility to uphold the Middlebury’s purported commitment to sustainability and environmental stewardship. Divesting is a necessary step.
The purpose of our Board of Trustees is “to preserve the institution’s educational excellence and its financial vitality.” The board’s current investments in no way preserve Middlebury’s financial vitality. MSCI, a prominent financial analysis firm, created two nearly identical investment indices with one excluding fossil fuel corporations. If $1 billion had been invested in 2010, the fossil free index would now be worth $2.24 billion, compared to the $2.13 billion worth of the index including fossil fuels.
This is only the tip of the iceberg. The Paris Climate Accords, which Middlebury signed, require we limit Earth’s warming to 2 ̊ Celsius. However, fossil fuel corporations’ current evaluation is contingent upon them burning all reserves, releasing several times more carbon than permitted under the Paris agreement. Fossil fuel investments represent a carbon bubble that will burst as global governments take the necessary action to mitigate climate change.
The trustees’ silence is a failure to practice the “agency necessary” for “ethical citizenship at home and far beyond our Vermont campus” as laid out in Envisioning Middlebury. Hesitancy in endorsing any campaign is understandable, but divestment has broad and consistent support on campus and internationally. Most importantly, divestment is a critical step towards justice. It is time for Middlebury to end its contribution to structures of systemic injustice that feed climate change and disproportionately harm marginalized populations.
Our Board of Trustees now must stand with students and end our college’s support of an ethically corrupt industry. We have a moral imperative to divest, and it’s time our board acts.
(05/03/18 1:35am)
On Sunday April 29 Middlebury was one of dozens of schools nationwide to join a University of Chicago live simulcast Q&A session with artist and activist Ai Weiwei. The broadcast, held in Wilson Hall, was followed by a screening of Weiwei’s award-winning and visually stunning documentary about the global refugee crisis, “Human Flow.” The film, which was first released in October at the Venice International Film Festival, tells the stories of some of the world’s 65 million migrants, captured on film by travelling to refugee camps in 23 countries over the course of a year.
“Over 65 million people around the world have been forced from their homes to escape famine, climate change and war in the greatest human displacement since World War II,” the film’s official website reads “‘Human Flow’, an epic film journey led by the internationally renowned artist Ai Weiwei, gives a powerful visual expression to this massive human migration.”
During the Q&A session, Weiwei explained that he was inspired to make the movie in part based on his own experience being forcibly displaced from his home by the Chinese government during the Cultural Revolution.
“Maybe that’s why I get involved, because I care about people whose lives are changed being in this desperate situation,” Weiwei said. “I am quite identified with those types of people in those conditions.”
Weiwei, in addition to being an artist and filmmaker, is also a renowned political activist and frequently uses his art as social commentary. He meant for “Human Flow” to call attention to the global migrant crisis and rally viewers and their governments to action. During the Q&A he pointed out the role that the U.S. has played in the past in displacing families, as well as the current administration’s lack of responsibility in accepting refugees into the country.
“Iraq war, all those wars always have our shadows in there,” he said. “If we don’t really act on those issues, then we become a part of it. This is more than a joke. It’s so sad and so shameful as a nation, the strongest nation in the world that has all the resources … to not bear any responsibility. This is not asking for mercy, it’s asking for responsibility.”
A poll of the live-stream viewers showed that 97 percent believed the U.S. should let more refugees into its borders, while the other 3 percent “need to watch the movie again,” as Weiwei said.
Indeed, the film’s message is immediately rousing, as it opens with iPhone footage of a raft coming to shore in Lesovo, Greece and dozens of soaking Syrian refugees tumbling onto the rocky beach. It soon cuts to a drone shot of a large camp in Iraq, panning to scenes of destruction that began with the 2003 US-led invasion of Iraq, the caption reads. Throughout the 2 hours and 20 minutes, the film reaches distant corners of the earth and myriad groups of refugees, from Syrians camped outside the barbed-wired Macedonian border to Rohingya Muslims in Bangladesh escaping Myanmar’s ethnic cleansing to Palestinians enclosed by tall concrete walls on Gaza’s West Bank.
Much more than a documentary exposé, “Human Flow” is a riveting work of political art. It focuses particularly on holding the West accountable for its part in the migration crisis. Gruesome and raw footage of life at the camps is often overlaid with text, such as quotes from poems or relevant news headlines. One scene shows police burning a camp in Calais, France in order to violently evict the thousands of migrants living there as the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union appears in big text on the screen. In another, a hazy vision of black smoke billowing off burning oil fields in Iraq is overlaid with a Newsweek headline: “Oil was Prime Motivator in Iraq War.”
The artistry of ascending drone shots, orchestral music and lines of poetry serve to complement the film’s weighty subject matter. Weiwei insists that the film is still beautiful, though tragic.
“Even in the most suffering moment, there’s a beauty,” he said. “Because where there’s humanity, there’s beauty.”
Jason Vrooman, curator of education and academic outreach at the college and one of the organizers of the event, hopes that the Middlebury community will be inspired to lend their help to the refugee crisis by reaching out to activist groups such as the campus’ Amnesty International chapter and the Vermont Refugee Resettlement Program. They can also search therefugeecenter.org/human-flow to find more ways to help.
As Weiwei told viewers, “If we can help one person, or one family, or someone in your neighborhood, it helps humanity. It’s all connected. The willingness to act is the most important.”
(05/02/18 8:35pm)
The Middlebury Race to Zero team won the elementary schools contest in the U.S. Department of Energy’s annual Race to Zero Student Design competition held in Golden, Colorado from April 20-22. The college competed against 40 teams from 34 colleges and universities to design marketable, economically feasible and fully renewable buildings.
“In a monumental upset, our rag tag liberal arts team took first place in the Race to Zero Elementary Design competition,” wrote Alex Browne ’18 on the Middlebury Race to Zero team blog.
The contest was designed by the Department of Energy to engage students who are interested in architecture, engineering, construction and similar disciplines in thinking creatively about renewable and clean energy. Students were asked to update building designs and create plans for high-performance, energy-efficient buildings where renewable power could offset at least most of the energy consumption of the space.
Project manager Zach Berzolla ’18 learned of the competition through director of sustainability integration Jack Byrne. He worked with geology professor Will Amidon to develop a student-taught winter term class focused on Zero Energy building design. The course was designed to teach students about the Zero Energy design process by developing a design for a Zero Energy elementary school in Vermont.
Over winter term and the spring semester, the team designed a two-story, 21-classroom, 500-student facility, which they believed would best suit Middlebury’s residents and the Vermont climate.
Representatives from the college’s team presented their final redesign of local Mary Hogan Elementary School at the College’s Student Symposium on April 20 and again in front of a Department of Energy jury at the National Renewable Energy Lab on April 22. The college’s team won the contest while competing against schools with graduate architecture and engineering programs.
“Our team’s victory was a testament to the value of a liberal arts education,” said Browne, who was responsible for making sure Middlebury’s elementary school design was up to code. He noticed that some other teams’ plans were not.
Browne said his experience as a volunteer firefighter made him especially conscious of fire safety and building code compliance. He also said the team’s attention to detail meant all aspects of the final design were carefully thought out, which some other teams lacked.
Many members of the Middlebury team cited the importance of their holistic approach. The group began by studying existing Zero Energy schools before meeting with the principal of Mary Hogan Elementary, Tom Buzzel, to better understand the elementary school’s specific needs.
“Then as a class we decided on key pieces we wanted to include in our design and what the most important components were,” Berzolla said.
“In our early stages, our team spent what seemed to be an unreasonable number of hours arguing about every detail; from the number of faucets in a bathroom all the way up to recent changes in elementary school pedagogy,” Browne said.
Berzolla said the team spent two months refining the floor plans because every decision was intentionally chosen to create the best learning environment possible.
Later on, the team broke into smaller working groups that focused on specific categories including architecture, interior design and HVAC systems. Berzolla said that with every design choice, the group weighed cost, energy-efficiency and the design goals.
“We had to dive into a very detailed analysis of the mechanical, electrical, and plumbing systems for the building,” Berzolla said, although no team members had sufficient experience with these areas. Assistance from industry partners made the project feasible and gave the final design its depth.
Instead of modifying a standard design for the new elementary school, the college team discussed what the future of education should look like, and used those innovative concepts as the basis for their plan.
“We focused heavily on collaborative and experiential learning and our design tried to make this natural and easy,” said Gigi Miller ’18, a member of the interior design team. She said they aimed to create spaces that kids would be excited to come and learn in everyday.
Berzolla said this focus on the kids and creating the building as a teaching tool that students would be excited to learn in was what set them apart from other schools in the competition.
“We really tried to think about specific social factors such as different learning and teaching styles that may need to be catered to,” said Emma McDonagh ’19, who worked on the building’s architecture. Her group redesigned the current building’s convoluted layout to create more welcoming and flexible interior spaces.
The new school’s location was another important factor. The team selected a space beside the current middle school because of its flexibility and its connection with the outdoors. McDonagh said that such real-world implications made the project a great learning experience.
The team plans to present their plan to the Middlebury Selectboard in May.
(04/26/18 1:04am)
Whether it’s the small stickers under the light switches that say “Be bright and turn off the light!” or getting rid of the to-go boxes, Middlebury’s commitment to environmental sustainability is displayed often and unabashedly.
This past Sunday, Apr. 22, as a celebration of Earth Day, local clubs and organizations got the opportunity to exhibit how they’re making a difference in the fight against climate change.
The Earth Day event, which took place in Wilson Hall, was put on by the Student Government Environmental Affairs committee.
“We wanted to hold the event to showcase environmental work being done on a local, national and global scale,” said Jacob Freedman, a first-year on the Environmental Affairs committee who helped organize the event. “We also wanted the tone of the event to be one of hope and agency, a change from the negativity that often lingers in our conversations of global warming and climate change.”
There were a wide variety of representatives from both the College and the greater Middlebury community who attended to show a commitment to environmental sustainability and an appreciation of the Earth.
Another College representative was the newly founded Middlebury Hydroponics Club named Middponics. Approved last month, the new club’s mission is to build hydroponic setups while educating the Middlebury community on sustainable growing practices. Patti Padua, the caretaker of the bihall greenhouse, has given the club space to operate out of the greenhouse.
“We grow plants without dirt,” said Will Kelley, a first-year who is the co-president of the new club. “Hydroponics uses up to 90 percent less water than traditional growing methods, and is much more spatially efficient too. Plus, it doesn’t require the use of fertilizers that can be harmful to the soil. As long as the energy used for it is well sourced, hydroponics can be incredibly sustainable as a means of food production.”
While the club is still in its beginning phase, it is currently planning on growing herbs such as basil and thyme with the hope of eventually growing produce such as lettuce to supply to the dining halls.
Another booth at the Earth Day event was run by the Otter Creek Audubon society. The society recently held both of their biannual amphibian crossing events.
On Apr. 3 and Mar. 29, herpers—people who search for amphibians and reptiles—from around Middlebury gathered on Morgan Road to monitor and protect the amphibians as they migrated from their high altitude underground burrows, where they’ve spent the winter, to lower altitude, vernal pools to breed for the spring and summer.
“Cars can do a lot of damage on those roads when the frogs and salamanders are migrating,” said Ron Payne, the president of the local chapter who attended the Earth Day event.
According to their report on Apr. 3, 21 volunteers spent 1.75 hours at the crossing and moved a total of 258 amphibians and one reptile.
The society also conducts monitoring projects, and one study used some of the society’s data to predict where birds will want to migrate based on changes in the climate. The study concluded that many bird species will be forced out of their natural habitat in order to live in a climate most conducive to that species. Other Audubon work includes projects in local schools and work days to exterminate invasive species.
Two other organizations represented at the Earth Day event—Spirit in Nature: Interfaith Path Sanctuary and Standing for the Earth—called upon members of the community and members of the college to engage their spiritual and/or religious self to join the fight against climate change.
Spirit in Nature: Interfaith Path Sanctuary is an organization that operates on land leased by the college and builds and maintains trails that allow community members to engage with nature both physically and spiritually.
Part of their mission iterates: “We hope to heal our species’ broken cultural relationship with the rest of nature. We cast our anger in spiritual and religious terms and invite the public to mindfully walk the Spirit in Nature Paths in Ripton as a practice of re-connecting with the rest of nature.”
“We want our nature paths to be a place students can go to de-stress and hang out in nature,” said Ron Slabuge, a representative at the fair.
The other faith-based organization advertised at the fair was the Addison County Interfaith Action Network (ICAN).
Their mission states: “The mission of ICAN is to be a forum in our community where spiritual, religious and ethical concerns about climate change are articulated and engaged in constructive ways that encourage understanding and strive towards solutions.”
As a way to work towards their mission after the U.S. withdrew from the Paris climate agreement, ICAN started hosting a “stand up for the Earth” vigil every Saturday morning from 10:30-11a.m. in the town green triangle near the Weybridge church.
“ICAN hopes to create opportunities to allow people to be in touch with the depth dimension of their moral and ethical self in order to care about the earth,” said Reverend Daniel Cooperrider, a pastor at Weybridge Church and a member of ICAN. “Gratitude and compassion are two spiritual values we try to operate on.”
Middlebury students are actively engaged in the fight against climate change. Last Sunday was just a microcosm of what many students and local organizations do to help protect the environment at the college.
“The tone of the event hopefully inspired all who attended and showed that we are making a difference in protecting our environment,” said Jacob Freedman.
(04/18/18 4:30pm)
SGA RECOMMENDS AWARDING CREDIT FOR SUMMER INTERNSHIPS
The Student Government Association (SGA) unanimously passed a bill asking faculty to award academic credit for summer internships in their most recent meeting on Sunday. Junior senator Kailash Raj Pandey ’19 sponsored the bill.
Visit go/internshipsforcredit to view the full bill. The language remains to be finalized.
— Catherine Pollack
SPRING SYMPOSIUM
There will be no class on Friday to allow students to attend the twelfth annual Spring Symposium, where over 350 students will present their academic work in a wide array of academic disciplines.
Presenters represent all four classes, though the majority of presenters are seniors. Oral and poster presentations will be held in Bicentennial Hall, while art projects will be displayed in Johnson.
The day will begin with a welcome address by President Laurie L. Patton at 9 a.m. and conclude with a closing reception at 4:45 p.m.
— Elaine Velie
SGA EARTH DAY EVENT
The SGA Environmental Affairs Committee will host a “Cancel the Apocalypse” fair on Earth Day this Sunday from 12:30 to 2:30 p.m in Wilson Hall in McCullough.
Student organizations from the college and local organizations from the Middlebury community will be stationed at tables to share the ways in which they are working to combat climate change. The Sunday Night Environmental Group, Otter Creek Audubon Society, Middlebury Energy Committee, and Middlebury Area Climate Economy Initiative are some of the groups that will be in attendance.
Several individual students will present the actions they’ve taken to protect the environment, including Leif Taranta ’20.5, who spearheaded the switch to reusable to-go containers.
Attendants will also be able to snack on Midd Cakes’ new granola bars.
— Elizabeth Sawyer
TEN O’CLOCK ROSS BACK
10 o’clock Ross reopened on Monday, April 16 after being suspended mid-March due to issues regarding cleanliness. It will run Monday through Thursday from 10 p.m. to 11 p.m for the rest of the semester.
When 10 o’clock Ross was initially suspended, the SGA called on students to treat both the dining hall and the staff tasked with cleaning it with greater respect.
SGA president Jin Sohn wrote, “the Ross Dining Hall Staff trusts the student body by allowing us to enjoy late-night snacks in the dining hall after hours and we have failed to step up to the task.”
In an email announcing 10 o’clock Ross’ return, Sohn again asked students to clean up after themselves, to notify monitors of liquid spills, not to tamper with the frozen yogurt machine, and to help the monitors and staff ensure it runs smoothly.
The Campus published an editorial on March 21 citing the suspension of 10 o’clock Ross as just one example of students mistreatment of the college staff.
The March suspension was not the first time 10 o’clock Ross had been suspended, as alcohol consumption during 10 o’clock Ross last winter led to similar consequences. But it will hopefully be the last as students act with greater consideration and respect.
— Catherine Pollack
TWO RUNNING FOR COMMUNITY COUNCIL CO-CHAIR
Two candidates are running to fill the position of co-chair of Community Council for the 2018-2019 academic year.
Lynn Claire Travnikova ’20 has served as a commons resident assistant and as the social chair of The Middlebury Bobolinks, an a cappella group. Her campaign website can be accessed at go.middlebury.edu/lynn4cc.
John Gosselin ’20 has served as Atwater senator in the SGA for the past year. He is currently a member of Community Council. His campaign website can be accessed at go.middlebury.edu/jgforcc.
Voting will take place from noon on Thursday, April 19 to noon on Friday, April 20 at go.middlebury.edu/vote.
(04/11/18 9:45pm)
Here’s some unrequested food for thought: How would you feel if the United States and China decided in, say, 2021, to just go at it in a 20th-century style total war over some latter-day Franz Ferdinand incident? Or how about the scenario of joining Saudi Arabia and Israel in blowing Iran to bits? Sound fun? Or perhaps it’s soon time to patriotically defend American homeland security by turning Latvia into an open pit while doing battle with Vladimir Putin? This probably sounds ridiculous to you — sheer juvenile alarmism from someone without nearly enough degrees or Oscar nominations to permit such idle geopolitical speculation in public. And while that is an accurate indictment, I think that versions of these hypotheticals are more possible than is generally discussed today in our hyper-distractible, reality TV show of a country.
This is especially relevant now after the recent nominations of avowed warmongers Mike Pompeo as Secretary of State and former UN Ambassador John “There is no UN” Bolton as national security advisor, two men who have dedicated their public careers to wholeheartedly advocating for bloodshed over diplomacy. Undisguised military aggression, almost for its own sake, could soon come back into vogue in a way not seen since the disastrous invasion of Iraq in 2003. What is particularly worrisome is that all this is occurring simultaneously with the outward military expansion of China, and to a lesser extent Russia, raising the possibility of confrontation in one of the many far-flung places that the US has stationed its military.
Thus the quiet yet strategically monumental proclamation from the Pentagon earlier this year that “great power competition — not terrorism — is now the primary focus of U.S. national security,” as reported in the New York Times’ story “America First Bears a New Threat: Military Force” by David Sanger and Gardiner Harris last month. Why we would ever want to go back to great power competition is truly beyond me, given that it’s hardly been a century since the great powers of Europe obliterated each other for the sake of such manly “competition.” As security scholar Michael Klare pointed out in his piece “The New Long War” for Tomdispatch last week, if the world is to be split along three spheres of influence, as the Pentagon would now have it, we would be looking at a militarized zone thousands of miles long through some of the world’s most volatile regions. Under our new über-aggressive “leadership,” the potential for local conflicts to escalate in any of these border zones, like Syria or the South China Sea, could easily drag us into an unnecessary war, much as inter-Balkan squabbling nearly destroyed Europe a century ago. Great power competition is not great; it is what gave us the Cuban missile crisis, the Battle of the Somme, and the countless deadly proxy wars of the 20th century. It is a dangerous, idiotic and unproductive idea totally ill-suited to a world with nuclear weapons, a globalized economy and borderless ecological problems.
It is so ill-suited to our present moment that one cannot but think that its resurgence, with the accompanying jingoism, nostalgia and xenophobia, is somehow a psychological reaction to an increasingly unrecognizable and complicated world. Within the stunted emotional headspace of our president and his similarly minded circle, American exceptionalism cannot be dead when our military is still the exception in size. Without being too reductively Freudian, I might suggest that such a fixation on projecting power and “security” betrays the presence of a certain… insecurity. Pointing missiles at things and blowing up the occasional Syrian town will not solve unemployment, resource scarcity, institutional racism, climate change or any other of our real “wicked problems,” but it can give for some the illusion of control over chaos, that our “way of life” can and shall be protected from the enemy. I imagine a similar line of thought occurs among the Russian ruling class.
On another note, I find this strategic realignment pretty incredible given that the U.S. military is still currently engaged in numerous regional conflicts under the now tired pretense of fighting “terrorism,” squandering untold billions of resources and further disintegrating the Middle East and Africa. Are they actually saying that after almost 20 years of NSA surveillance, regime changes and drone strikes, shoddily justified as protecting Americans and the world from transparently evil terrorists and rogue states on the brink of success, our “War on Terror” is so easily reclassified as a secondary issue?
This just shows that “national security” is and always has been a thinly veiled euphemism for “excuse to keep a planetary military 70 years after WWII.” Mike Pompeo knows this well, having made his fortune selling aerospace parts to defense contractors like Lockheed Martin and Raytheon before a Koch-funded run for Congress in 2010. Far too many people have profited off of this state of affairs for too many years to agree to the proposition that international war should be relegated to the historical trash heap. John Bolton has as few friends and relatives in Damascus as he does in the Army rank and file; Beltway security professionals have as much to gain from this continued belligerence as those actually present for the conflicts have to lose.
Friends, the best time to oppose a war is before it is allowed to start. I have few illusions that people in the Pentagon actually care what you and I think about this stuff, but it is important that we not bury our heads in the sand and pretend that superpowers can’t fight wars anymore.
(04/11/18 3:36pm)
In response to calls for more divestment, treasurer David Provost and representatives from Investure, Middlebury’s endowment manager, justified the college’s continued investment in fossil fuels.
Middlebury’s investments in fossil fuel corporations have been a topic of contention on campus since a divestment campaign began in 2012. Provost held a forum on April 5 for students to better understand the issue and the college’s commitment to sustainable investing.
Several representatives of Investure joined Provost. They immediately stated that the meeting would center on audience questions rather than a scripted presentation. The founder of Investure, Alice Handy, associate and sustainability researcher Grace Bennett, and managing director John Hill attended the forum.
Handy outlined Investure’s goals in their management of the endowment, emphasizing their aim to maximize long-term returns on investments.
One student interjected and argued against the description of the endowment as a resource for future stakeholders in Middlebury, arguing that investments in fossil fuels fail to take into account the impact of climate change on future Middlebury students. The student said that hoping fossil fuel stocks will perform better implies a lack of interest in the future of the environment and the future of students, contradicting their concern for future generations.
Handy responded to the student’s concern by arguing that fossil fuels are still critical to the energy sector in the U.S.
“We have a long way to go in this country,” Handy said. “Your board has said that if these are good investments, you should be making them.”
Provost presented the college’s decision to work with Investure as one attempt to increase sustainable investing.
“Significant steps were made to try to find more sustainable investments,” Provost said. One of these steps was Middlebury’s $50 million investment into a sustainability series managed by Investure, he said.
“We want this fund to be successful,” Handy said. This is in part to show other investors that sustainable investing can generate big returns.”
Provost also noted that in addition to investment, the college should be more conscious of its energy consumption on campus, noting that despite great gains, “we are not where you as students want us to be.”
The meeting concluded on a hopeful note about both sustainability at Middlebury and in the financial market.
Discussing investment in renewable energy, Handy said she was “amazed at how quickly it’s moving.”
This event fell under Middworks, a larger project spearheaded by the Student Government Association (SGA) and the Senior Leadership Group (SLG). Middworks aims to organize events that encourage increased understanding between Middlebury’s students, faculty and staff.
(04/05/18 1:31am)
BURLINGTON— A quick walk through the co-op will shed light on the abundant uses of maple sap, which includes but is not limited to maple syrup, maple candy, maple cream, face cream with maple-sap extract and maple-infused water, which is expected to inspire a cult following similar to that of coconut water.
The state of Vermont is one of the world’s largest producers of maple sugar products, second only to Quebec, Canada, a province that produced around 8 times as much maple syrup in 2010 and is about 62 times as large as the Green Mountain State.
The maple sap harvesting season begins as early as late-January, and continues into February and mid-March. In the past, sugar makers (as producers of maple syrup are called) collected sap from either red or sugar maples through 2-inch-deep holes drilled at an upward angle into the trunks.
The sap would flow in a freeze-thaw cycle through metal or plastic sprouts into buckets hanging eagerly below the spout. The weather in northeast United States, with its long spring days and chilly nights, enable this unique business and way of life to thrive.
According a study conducted by the Center for Rural Studies at the University of Vermont, the average maple sugar producer in Vermont has 3,451 taps, a number that makes the traditional process of sap collection, which requires the buckets to be collected every day, a somewhat tedious ordeal.
When local sugar-maker Lew Coty first started his operations at Nebraska Knoll Sugar Farm through trial and error in 1977, he chose a site called Birch Hill, which he described as “an appropriate name as there were many birch trees but the maples were few and far between.”
A tap count in 2012 at Nebraska Knoll tallied 9,778 total taps and eight main lines, or tubes of sap flowing back into the sugarhouse. “When the sap is running well,” Lew said of the rush to collect and process the sap in early spring, “our operation quickly morphs into a state of immediacy.”
On his blog on Nebraska Knoll’s website, Coty describes the sap runs as “relentless and non-retrievable. Waiting for tomorrow to deal with the situation after a good night’s rest is rarely an option. Bouncing between exigencies and sneaking in power naps are part of the game.”
“Having your head bathed in hot steam for long periods completes the separation of mind from body,” Coty said of the physically demanding work of tapping and tubing. Referring to the condition he described as “living in the ozone,” he said, “You focus on the immediate and float while you can over the rest.”
Most larger scale operations like Coty’s now collect their sap by connecting their sprouts to a tubing system that transports the sap to a collection tank. Back at the sugar house, the sap is then filtered and pumped into the evaporator, where its water is boiled away and its sugars caramelized.
Through this process, maple syrup develops the unique flavors for which it is known. At maple competitions, terminology to describe the flavor profiles of various syrup-entries might include roasted, which compares the syrup to chocolate or roasted ground coffee, confectionary, a flavor linked to white sugar, mineral, garlicky, or woody, in a process not unlike that by which chocolate, wine, and cheese are judged.
Factors such as the climate and elevation of the maple trees, the time of year at which the sap was harvested and the boiling process all affect the final flavor of the syrup. Local sugar-maker Matt Davis at little Hogback Farm in Bristol, Vermont said that discerning palates may even be able to taste flavors from microbes in the pipelines and in the stainless steel or plastic tanks that store the syrup.
As a child, Davis had experimented with sugar-making as a hobby, but it wasn’t until eight years ago that he became a professional sugar-maker. According to Davis, syrup made during the colder months in the early sugar season is typically lighter in flavor, while syrup harvested in the later, warmer months is typically more caramelized, with a deeper roast.
In comparison to larger maple syrup productions with out-of-state investment, Davis said, smaller, local producers have “a bit more control over the final product.”
“We do end up having smaller, more distinctive batches,” he said.
“Smaller producers tend to do more direct sales to their customers, so that certainly affects how you’re going to think about the product you’re making,” Davis shared. “A lot of larger producers are just filling barrels of syrup to retailers, so on that end they may not be thinking about [their individual batches] as much.”
“We’re intimate with all our batches,” he enthused.
Coty shares this view towards larger producers, voicing that he “[hates] to see the huge operations that have been recently setting up in Vermont funded by out-of-state corporate money.” Two of Coty’s biggest challenges have been “global warming and bulk prices determined by a Canadian cartel.”
“They are changing the perception of maple syrup coming from quality oriented smaller producers to that coming from a factory,” he expressed.
Davis believes that his customers, mostly locals of Vermont, are looking for maple products with a local, personal touch. “We’re really trying to form relationships with our customers,” he said.
“They’re looking for a story, to know how [the syrup] is made; they want to know that we’re using quality equipment, that there’s no way we can potentially contaminate our product—and that they can actually come and see that for themselves.”
Asa teacher of ecology, Davis is also conscientious of the effect of maple production on local ecosystems. “Historically, sugar-makers have tried to remove other species to encourage maple growth,” he explained.
Maintaining diversity in the forest is important not only for encouraging resilience against different diseases and pests against the maple, but also for the some three-hundred bird species who nest on trees in the area, Davis said. Davis’ “sugarbush” currently houses sixteen tree species, of which two, the red and sugar maples, provide sap to be harvested.
Davis does not sugarcoat the reality of the industry, however. “There’s impact from any extractive activity,” he said. Though he recognizes that the scale of larger productions doesn’t necessarily imply negative ramifications on local ecology, “if those operations are leaning towards maple monoculture over a broad area, that’s certainly going to be a place where disease and pests could be more problematic,” Davis warned. “Especially if their neighbor is trying to maintain more diversity.”
Despite new and old difficulties in the arena of maple syrup production, the enthusiasm both Coty and Davis have for sugar-making is clear.
Various sections on the mechanics of sugar-tapping on Coty’s blog reflect his thirty-seven years as a sugar-maker, and he describes sugar-makers as both plumbers and soldiers in battle.
In an entry in 2008, Coty excitedly described a particular sugar-making. “First run syrup often has an immature quality, but this was slightly later with a pubescent glow. Unlike its later, darker cousins, which are usually clothed in garments of caramel or coffee or chocolate, this syrup lay on the tongue with the raw, naked, seductive taste of pure maple essence,” he said. “Sadly, this stellar flavor burns at both ends and its overwhelming allure will be noticeably diminished in a few months. We learn to indulge in this ephemeral delicacy while we can.”
In addition to selling his maple products at local farmer’s markets, Davis and his family are also avid consumers of the golden syrup they make. “We really like to experiment cooking with it,” Davis said. Two recent favorites of the Davis’ are maple chipotle turkey chili and maple-and-miso-glazed sweet potato tacos.
“I gorge by smothering all my meals with hot syrup right off the evaporator when we are boiling,” Coty confessed, “Unlike wine, maple syrup never tastes better than the day it’s made.”
“In the end,” Davis agreed, “the best part is always drinking it straight off the evaporator in the spring.”
(04/04/18 11:08pm)
On Tuesday, March 20, Dr. Katharine Hayhoe, director of the Climate Science Center at Texas Tech University, gave a talk via Skype to the Middlebury community entitled “Climate Change: Communicating Across Divides.” Environmental Studies Scholar in Residence Bill McKibben introduced Dr. Hayhoe, framing the talk around two questions: Who do you want to engage in challenging conversation of climate change? And how would you like to approach that? Hayhoe, an atmospheric and climate scientist who was named one of Time’s 100 most influential people in the world in 2014, spends much of her time traveling the world giving talks and thinking about these questions.
After McKibben’s introduction, Dr. Hayhoe began by discussing the idea of not believing in climate change. Today, our news headlines are telling the story of destruction by climate change, yet some people who are experiencing the effects of climate change first-hand and from afar still deny the facts.
Dr. Hayhoe showed several charts produced by studies that broke down study participants by political affiliation, which is the best predictor of how people view climate change science. One study asked if recent extreme weather events add to evidence for climate change, and while 80-90% of liberals said yes, only 30-35% of conservatives said yes.
Despite the fact that climate change is purely a matter of science, Dr. Hayhoe explained that people often make climate change an issue of faith and belief, which makes it difficult to challenge. This is due to the notion that a person’s ideas of climate change are often an integral part of their belief system. People have been told for decades that climate change is a “liberal hoax,” and ideas like that are difficult to change.
Particularly in our polarized political state, it is important to bridge the gap between parties and encourage politicians who have a plan and a credible idea of how to act on climate change.
With this introduction about belief in climate change, Dr. Hayhoe addressed McKibben’s questions of who to talk to about climate change and how to talk to them. Dr. Hayhoe categorized Americans in terms of their beliefs in climate change in six ways: alarmed, concerned, cautious, disengaged, doubtful and dismissive. Dr. Hayhoe spends little of her time talking to dismissives, which she approximates at around 10 percent of the population, because their disbelief in climate change is likely unchangeable. Instead she spends most of her time trying to move disengaged and doubtful people into the concerned group, which will encourage long-term action instead of producing unsustainable anxiety about climate change.
This goal in mind, Dr. Hayhoe has a three-step strategy for talking to people in a positive and constructive way about the imminent importance of climate change. The first step is to bond with and connect to the people you are talking to. Dr. Hayhoe suggests finding common, often faith-based values to discuss, noting the profound impact of religious leaders in constructively talking about climate change, particularly among Catholic groups.
The second step is to explain the science and explain why we should care about climate change. Few people think that climate change will harm them but instead will just harm future generations and polar bears.Convincing people that climate change is real and will affect them is crucial. Finding specific examples of how climate change could affect people directly, like how changing weather patterns and seasons are affecting dairy production in Vermont, helps people relate to climate change.
The third step is to inspire the people you are talking to and leave them feeling empowered. When talking about actions, explaining what you can do on a personal and organizational scale makes actions feel manageable. Sharing articles on social media is also effective and can spread messages of hope.
With this action plan of how to discuss climate change with any group of people, Dr. Hayhoe closed by answering questions from the audience about specific instances of creating positive conservations and encouraged us to do research into facts on climate change in order to be able to show people the importance of acting on climate change.
(03/22/18 1:33am)
BURLINGTON—Customers clamber to see the menu, kids are raised on to parents’ shoulders to get a superior view and the sweet smell of crêpes wafts through the building.
Vermonters who have been to The Skinny Pancake in Burlington, VT can vouch for the popularity of the restaurant. Garnering over 470 reviews and a hefty four stars on Yelp, The Skinny Pancake on the Burlington Waterfront attracts both locals and out-of-towners. Its versatile breakfast, lunch and dinner options also offer choices for vegan, gluten-free and other diet-restricted diners.
Perhaps one of The Skinny Pancake’s biggest staples is its Sweet Menu. Known for items such as “The Heartbreaker,” a banana, strawberry and Nutella-filled crêpe, this restaurant is described on Yelp as a “heavenly” and “life-changing” experience. Why, then, have owners and founders Benjy and Jonny Adler chosen to remove Nutella, an integral crêpe ingredient, from the menu?
The answer rests in The Skinny Pancake’s roots. Founded on being an ecologically sustainable business venture, the restaurant seeks out the creation of an environmentally safe “food shed” while maintaining a tasty menu. This overarching mission was the impetus to ditch Nutella and confront the product’s number two ingredient—modified palm oil, which is infamous for its detrimental environmental impact. In a statement on The Skinny Pancake website, Benjy Adler explains that the creation of modified palm oil plantations is responsible for the equivalent of 300 football fields worth of rainforest being torn down every hour. With oil palms replacing trees for production of this sugary hazelnut spread, environmentalists have grown concerned about the impact Nutella and similar products are having on the environment.
Even France’s ecology minister, Ségolène Royal, shared in a 2015 interview with Canal+ that, “We have to plant a lot of trees because there is massive deforestation that also leads to [climate change]. We should stop eating Nutella, for example, because it’s made with palm oil.”
Although Ferrero, Nutella’s parent company, has attempted to diminish its ecological footprint, its priority remains catering to the consumer rather than maintaining rainforest biodiversity. With the demand for palm oil plantations expected to triple by the year 2050, The Skinny Pancake has decided to make an impact where it can. Both Benjy and Jonny Adler see it as their collective mission to avoid contributing to this deforestation and to reduce the environmental impact of their business venture.
The importance of rainforests for global environmental health cannot be overstated— rainforests produce over one-fifth of our oxygen, house diverse populations of both plants and animals and help maintain the climate. Although Benjy and Jonny recognize this, they did struggle with reconciling their environmental mission and satisfying their customers.
Concerned about reduced customer satisfaction as a result of their ecological quest, The Skinny Pancake founders reached out to Alan Newman, co-founder of Magic Hat Brewery, Seventh Generation and Gardener’s Supply Company, for advice. After speaking with Newman, Benjy Adler wrote in a blog post that he realized, “Our Nutella conundrum need not be a binary choice between our values or our guests. We can pursue our mission and improve the tastes our guests have come to love.” With this adjusted mindset and the affirmation of The Skinny Pancake’s mission, the Adlers entered into the search for an ecologically-viable (and delicious) substitute for Nutella.
They finally settled on a delectable alternative, which is listed as “Choco Nutty Budder” on the revamped menu. As this palm-oil-free chocolate hazelnut spread made its way onto the menu, the eco-friendly owners added 15 new menu items, abandoned 10, and changed 12. Their desire to rid The Skinny Pancake of Nutella created structural menu changes that gave the restaurant a facelift and encouraged other sustainable practices.
In a Burlington Free Press interview, Benjy Adler reported that, “In keeping with our mission, we dug deeper into sourcing locally. We will be featuring Vermont blueberries on our menu year-round now, and we’re finally joining the movement to celebrate organic Vermont kale in all its glory.” It seems that The Skinny Pancake’s anti-palm-oil kick motivated the owners/founders to embrace the Green Mountain State’s food riches and implement changes that create an enhanced local image for their business venture.
While the implementation of Choco Nutty Budder will soon be appearing on the menus of other Skinny Pancake branches (including the Montpelier, VT and Hanover, NH branches), it seems that there has also been a fairly recent reframing of The Skinny Pancake’s business model. After a company-wide customer survey, the higher-ups of Skinny Pancake discovered that patrons of the Hanover branch desired an expanded non-crêpe menu, a bigger selection of alcohol, and the implementation of wait staff instead of the semi-service model in which customers order at the register after waiting in line.
While the creation of a more formal dining experience has not been as explicitly pursued in the Vermont branches, the changes in the New Hampshire branch signify the versatility of The Skinny Pancake and the owners’ willingness to evolve to satisfy customers while simultaneously maintaining ecological values.
Although Benjy and Jonny were initially concerned with customer satisfaction after the abandonment of Nutella, University of Vermont freshman Sam Brady, who considers herself a Skinny Pancake regular, affirms the general scope of their decisions. In an interview with The Campus, she divulged, “I know a lot of people really love Nutella on their crêpes… but it’s not good for the environment. Skinny Pancake’s environmental choices are very important to me because it helps reduce environmental waste.”
The “waste” that Brady refers to can be categorized as the ecological destruction that results in restaurants ignoring the implications of the ingredients they choose and the way in which they prepare their food. With over 7,200 pounds of Nutella spread used in 2017 alone at The Skinny Pancake, environmentally-conscious customers like Brady see the benefit, and even the draw, of small changes that are intended to transcend the Vermont community and discourage the current production method of modified palm oil.
While some organizations such as Greenpeace claim a boycott will not necessarily affect the problematic mode of production, it is clear that more sustainable food practices will develop if local restaurants cultivate changes such as The Skinny Pancake has.
According to Dan Detora, the director of food services, the SGA has allotted $20,000 for Nutella alone this year in Middlebury’ dining halls. The deliberate choice of local food chains like Skinny Pancake to eliminate the palm oil product provides an example of sustainable food practices that could lead students and the college to follow in similar sustainable food activism.
(03/22/18 1:14am)
Carolyn Barnwell ’07 came to speak on Thursday, March 15 in the Franklin Environmental Center at Hillcrest. Her presentation, “Visual Storytelling for Science and Conservation Impacts,” was part of the Environmental Studies Colloquium and focused on how scientists and conservationists can translate their data into stories to capture the attention of broad audiences.
Having found her love for storytelling in Ethnographic Methods, a course within the Sociology-Anthropology department in Middlebury, Barnwell used her college study-abroad experience to help farmers in Thailand break into the American fair-trade market by journaling and videotaping them and handing out video copies of her encounters to organizations in the US. Following her success in this field, Barnwell graduated in 2007 with a B.A in Human Ecology from the Environmental Studies department. Upon graduation, she continued to pursue her passion for environmental advocacy through the Thomas J. Watson Fellowship on climate change impacts and responses in the Pacific and Indian Oceans. In 2011, she joined National Geographic as an Associate Producer for the Science and Exploration Media Team and has dedicated her life to helping scientists tell their stories about global and local issues in creative and empathic ways.
Barnwell structured her presentation around the notion that scientists and conservationists often focus their work on statistics and figures that are incomprehensible to the general audience, creating a lack of attention and empathy on environmental topics that affect the greater public. Barnwell believes that in order to create successful communication, scientific stories need to have “empathy, engagement and focus.” She adores the quote, “Communicating science is as important as practicing it” because it captures her belief in the connection between science and storytelling.
Convinced that storytelling is an engrained human ability that allows us to pass on narratives from one generation to the next, Barnwell captured the audience by mentioning that telling stories excite the same hormone, oxytocin, in an individual as falling in love.
However, in order to do so, one needs to be effective in reciting the story and mentioning dry facts will not cut it. To test this out, Barnwell tried two exercises with the audience. First, she mentioned facts about the world’s melting glaciers, followed by another story of her personal experience in Iceland with vivid descriptions of the magnificent mountains and the sea that enchanted her. As her story had no jargon about the polar ice caps and tapped into the human ability to empathize, she believed it was more impactful.
Empathy, to Barnwell, is the ability to meet the emotions of another. Creating stories that empathize often triggers action from audiences. If explored through the lens of a single person, stories tend to be more effective than when generalizing about group events.
In addition to empathy, Barnwell discussed how important it is to focus on concepts for a broad audience. In fact, she said that National Geographic uses a strategy of ensuring that all their scripts are understandable to 12-year olds.
In a world with shorter attention spans, videos and stories need to be concise and precise, as the idea is to capture the audience’s attention and inspire them to search for more knowledge after having watched the video. She presented two videos, the first about the efforts to protect the natural landscape of Gabon and the other on the preservation of the Arctic seas. The former was captured by fellow National Geographic conservationist Mike Fay, whose work created a comprehensive database that they shared with Gabon’s president, leading to the creation of 13 national parks in Gabon and U.S. funding to protect the Congo Basin.
“Through visual storytelling, one can provoke action,” Barnwell said. “Science based conservation cannot have an impact without storytelling. Empathy and focus need to be used to bridge science to a story.” Barnwell believes that one of the most effective ways to do so will be through virtual realities, a system that various conservation groups have been trying to promote for future efforts.
(03/21/18 10:40pm)
This is the third in a series of three op-eds from the carbon pricing campaign at Middlebury. The first was focused on the federal level, the second was focused on carbon pricing in Vermont and this one endorses a carbon pricing mechanism at Middlebury College. To learn more or to get involved, come to Sunday Night Environmental Group at 8 PM at Hillcrest.
Middlebury prides itself on prioritizing environmental leadership. Our robust Environmental Studies curriculum is the oldest of its kind in the US, the Middlebury School of the Environment fosters learning beyond the classroom, and numerous environmental clubs and organizations actively engage with the climate movement beyond the boundaries of Twilight Hall and the college Knoll. Middlebury’s carbon-neutrality announcement in 2016 showcased our ongoing commitment to climate leadership. But there is room to grow and a responsibility to fulfill. As a recognized model for institutions that value social, environmental and economic sustainability in Vermont and beyond, Middlebury should redouble its contribution to climate action by implementing an internal carbon charge and acting as a leader for other institutions to do the same.
Since the Obama Administration, the country’s widened partisan rift has immobilized the White House’s progress on issues of climate change and carbon legislation. Arguably, President Obama did not do enough to enact carbon legislation, and in 2010 a Republican-controlled Congress thwarted his cap-and-trade proposal. President Trump’s election and his subsequent decision to pull out of the Paris Agreement then became symbols for the government’s heightened divisiveness and the demise of federal leadership on issues of climate change. With Congress mired down by partisanship and a presidential administration hostile to climate action, lawmakers will respond only in the face of united, staunch and coalition-driven lobbying.
Examples abound for the power of coalitions to drive positive change. For instance, according to Diane Toomey’s article “Why This Tea Party Leader is Seeing Green on Solar Energy,” the Georgia-based Green Tea Coalition has fused the conservative ideal of energy independence with the environmentalists’ demand for clean energy into a compelling case for solar power. In 2017, the Climate Leadership Council presented their “Conservative Case for Carbon Dividends,” whose proposal to enact a carbon tax reconciled pro-business and environmental values. In Vermont and other states, coalitions such as Energy Independent Vermont (EIV) have worked assiduously to collaborate with and engage different actors in grassroots campaigns. There is momentum, and it is growing. Colleges and universities should also participate and play an expanded role in this uphill struggle to regulate carbon and protect our environment.
The first step toward strengthening Middlebury’s commitment to environmental sustainability is a clear one. President Laurie Patton should join 35 other college and university presidents in endorsing the Higher Ed Carbon Pricing Initiative, a national campaign which amplifies the call on lawmakers to support carbon pricing. Carbon pricing has more bipartisan support than any other climate legislation because it can facilitate economic growth as well as cut carbon emissions. For instance, an in-depth independent study conducted by a respected group of economists, Regional Economic Models, Inc. (REMI), found that a carbon price in Vermont rising from $10/ton to $100/ton over a decade would result in net job growth, increased gross state product and reduced carbon pollution. As a self-proclaimed leader in environmental sustainability, Middlebury should harness its platform and endorse a campaign whose proposal is one of the best and most feasible options available for climate change mitigation. Middlebury’s use of carbon credits to certify “carbon neutrality,” while a valuable contribution, is not enough. Middlebury’s endorsement of carbon pricing will give state- and federal-level policy adoption greater legitimacy, align with the college’s sustainability mission, and pressure local, state and federal government officials to address an issue of rising salience.
In addition to expressing support for carbon pricing at the national level, Middlebury should buttress its environmental mission with a more concrete step: an internal carbon charge. An internal carbon charge is an effective policy tool for institutions such as Middlebury because it not only accounts for greenhouse gas emissions but provides economic benefits and incentives for abatement. For instance, a charge on departmental budgets commensurate to their aggregate greenhouse gas emissions (multiplied by the social cost of carbon) incentivizes more efficient energy use, technological innovation and behavioral change in order to reduce the cost of the charge. An internal carbon charge behaves the same way that a state- or federal-level carbon price does: it makes clean energy cheaper than dirty energy. Greater efficiency standards and a shift toward sustainable technologies would result in emissions reductions as well as reduced energy costs, which would not happen without the incentives a carbon charge provides. Moreover, the revenue collected from the charge would fund further sustainability projects and education efforts on campus. This critical element would create a feedback loop of behavioral change alongside increased investments in sustainable energy alternatives.
Swarthmore and Yale have been pioneers among institutions of higher ed in implementing versions of this policy on their campuses. For example, Swarthmore College’s Carbon Charge has three main elements. According to “Swarthmore Carbon Charge Program” on their college website, the first component is a 1.25 percent tax on departmental budgets to account for the social cost of Swarthmore’s annual carbon emissions, with the generated revenue to be earmarked for further sustainability and energy efficiency projects. The second element is a “shadow price” on the projected greenhouse gas emissions of new construction and renovation projects. This shadow price adjusts cost-benefit analyses for construction projects such that the projected costs reflect the social cost of carbon, thus making it more prudent to invest in sustainable technologies for each new building. The third and final element is the development and strengthening of education initiatives and an emphasis on encouraging behavioral change in the community.
The Carbon Pricing campaign under Middlebury’s Environmental Council proposes the designation of a committee comprised of students, faculty, staff and administrators in charge of determining the structure of this policy at Middlebury. The purpose of the committee would be to establish the parameters for the internal carbon charge, with the aim of reducing the college’s carbon emissions and using the funds to invest in sustainable projects that ultimately save the college money. A guiding principle and priority for the committee would be to prevent the carbon charge from resulting in increased tuition costs or decreased salaries. Finally, the committee would ensure continual engagement and transparency between students, faculty and staff in order to promote democratic decision-making, evaluate the efficacy of the policy in the post-implementation stage, and heighten adaptability.
Middlebury should reinforce its commitment to environmental sustainability by implementing an internal carbon charge. In the absence of federal leadership in climate policy, states, coalitions and grassroots organizations need to mobilize to fill the gap. Middlebury should too.
(03/15/18 2:46pm)
The fight against climate change is a test of human nature; it’s near-impossible to get people to do what is right for society when what is right is inconvenient. In order to make progress, we need to use financial incentives like a tax on carbon emissions, which would motivate people to use less gasoline, rely on renewables for home heating, and generally become more environmentally conscious. As a leader in progressive and socially conscious legislation, Vermont must be an early state to adopt this policy, for which there is already growing interest among residents; so far, over 500 Vermont businesses and institutions have demonstrated support for a carbon tax. Academic institutions are a major factor in this process, and Middlebury’s endorsement, given its image as a pioneer in carbon neutrality, would carry a lot of weight.
Vermont is largely reliant on other states for energy, with virtually all of its non-renewable energy coming from outside Vermont. This represents a hole through which Vermonters’ money is exiting local circulation; the environmental coalition Energy Independent Vermont (EIV) estimates that eight out of every 10 dollars spent on fossil fuels immediately exits Vermont. Instead of seizing money from the hands of Vermonters, a carbon tax would actually return it directly to Vermont’s citizens.
In addition to combatting the climate-related threat to our existence on this planet, a carbon tax would actually stimulate Vermont’s economy by catalyzing growth in the renewable energy sector and keeping money circulating within the Vermont economy. Vermont may not have any natural gas reserves, but it does have the capacity to have a robust renewable energy industry. Already, Vermont’s renewable energy sector employs over 19,000 Vermonters and produces near nine million megawatts of power, according a report commissioned by the Vermont Clean Energy Development Fund in 2017.
Carbon pricing has bipartisan support, with everyone from Barack Obama and Justin Trudeau to Lindsey Graham calling for a tax on carbon emissions in various issued statements and press conferences. In Vermont, opposition to the tax has mainly been on the part of people like Governor Phil Scott, who is generally opposed to any new taxation, and Vermont fuel dealers. One such lobbyist, Matt Cota of the Vermont Fuel Dealers Association, expressed in an op-ed in the Burlington Free Press that a carbon tax would not be effective in Vermont because approximately half of Vermonters live near the borders of New Hampshire, Massachusetts or New York, where they could conceivably fill up on gas and dodge the Vermont carbon tax.
This sentiment rests on several incorrect assumptions. First, New York state already has consistently higher gas prices than Vermont. In addition, New Hampshire, Massachusetts and New York, along with five other states, are currently considering their own carbon tax legislation. More, the carbon tax would not be so extreme as to override convenience; if the plan heralded and introduced in January 2018 by EIV is enacted, Vermont’s carbon tax would likely manifest in a 40 dollar fee for each ton of carbon emitted. This would trickle down to the consumer in the form of a three cent per gallon of gas increase starting off, eventually rising to 36 cents per gallon over eight years (alongside proportional increases to diesel, home heating oil and propane prices). In addition, the stimulus to the local economy gained from keeping energy revenue in circulation with Vermont companies would prevent many people from going out of state to fill up on gas.
At this point in the legislative process, where there is widespread support for the general idea of a carbon tax but no specifics currently set in stone, there are many things that this carbon tax could become. Many legislators and activists aim to make the Vermont carbon tax redistributive. Daniel Barlow, of the Vermont Businesses for Social Responsibility, describes his ideal policy as one “that returns the [carbon] tax money in either tax breaks or dividends to low and moderate income families.”
This kind of redistributive policy counters some issues common to punitive taxes — mainly, that they disproportionately affect rural and low-income populations who have less access to renewables and environmentally-friendly amenities like hybrid or electric vehicles and solar panels. A redistributive carbon tax would permit rural and low-income Vermonters to cut down on their carbon emissions in the same way that wealthy Vermonters do.
Not everyone needs to be actively, constantly engaged in protecting our planet. Changes in policy can change the way we act and emit carbon in a significant way without major consequences or activity on our part. This legislation is necessary, and it is also tremendously accessible. All it needs is widespread and passionate support, and soon.
