779 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/01/18 9:59am)
The current midterm election cycle has seen record numbers of women running for office across the country. There may be few Vermonters more qualified to speak on that topic to Middlebury students than Madeleine Kunin, the first and to this day only female governor of Vermont.
Kunin, who was Vermont’s governor from 1985 to 1991, visited the college last Tuesday to read from her second memoir, “Coming of Age: My Journey to the Eighties.” Kunin was greeted by a room packed full of students and town residents alike.
Ruth Hardy, the executive director of Emerge Vermont and a Democratic candidate to represent Addison County in the Vermont Senate, introduced Kunin. Kunin founded Emerge Vermont, which trains and provides resources for female-identifying Democrats seeking public office. Holding back tears, Hardy recounted her time working with Kunin, with whom she celebrated success and recovered from failure.
Hardy remembered the joy she and Kunin felt at Hillary Clinton’s success in winning the Democratic nomination for the presidency and their sadness at her loss four months later.
[pullquote speaker="Ruth Hardy" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]A woman in her forties has time to wait for the next big election, while a woman in her eighties may not.[/pullquote]
“As painful as it was for me, I knew the loss was far greater for Madeleine,” said Hardy. “A woman in her forties has time to wait for the next big election, while a woman in her eighties may not.”
The adversity that Kunin faced, however, has not dulled her impact in Vermont and beyond. As she concluded her introduction, Hardy’s message was simple and perfectly conveyed the success of Kunin’s work as a role model and advocate.
“Thank you for all that you have done for me and for women and girls across Vermont,” Hardy said.
Indeed, Kunin’s work to pave the way for women in politics is significant. Kunin was born in Zurich to Jewish parents and moved to the United States to escape the Nazis as a young girl. Hardy told the audience that as a mother, Kunin fretted for the safety of her young children as they crossed railroad tracks each morning to get to school. Her initiative to find a solution to this problem led her to politics. Kunin went on to serve as the first and only female governor of Vermont, and the only woman in the United States to serve three terms as governor. After her governorship, Kunin continued her work in government as the United States Deputy Secretary of Education and Ambassador to Switzerland and Lichtenstein under the Clinton administration.
Kunin also hopes her memoir will tell a story beyond her political career. “You are caricatures almost in public life,” she said. “You are either liberal or conservative, good or bad [...] I think at some level, even though I’m shy about bringing it out to the extent I did, I also want people to know what my life and thoughts were — that I was more than this flatlined public caricature of a woman.”
The perspective is unique because Kunin is able to be more direct, noted Karin Hanta, Director of the Feminist Resource Center at Chellis House.
“She candidly reflects on aging through a gendered lens,” Hanta said. “She no longer feels like her words are ‘filtered through a fine meshed screen’ because her public life no longer depends on public approval.”
[pullquote speaker="Madeleine Kunin" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.[/pullquote]
Kunin also read from her writings in poetry and prose, which described her experience growing old.
“I want to stay in the brilliance, [but] there is also sometimes a desire to retreat,” Kunin said.
This sentiment was also reflected in her remarks on the importance of political engagement today.
“That is the most dangerous thing — that we get so depressed that we shut the doors and turn off the lights, and we can’t afford to do that,” Kunin said.
Hanta emphasized that Kunin served as a role model for people who identify as women asserting themselves in politics rather than fading into the background.
“In today’s political climate, Governor Kunin’s accounts of strength in the face of adversity — she was sometimes ridiculed and rendered invisible in her political life — inspire women to persevere in playing an active political role,” said Hanta. “By addressing a topic that is not often talked about, she inspires women to have courage and speak their truth.”
When asked about specific advice that she had for women in politics, Kunin responded first saying she was glad that someone had asked. She reflected on the fact that in the United States, progress for women in politics has been excruciatingly slow compared to other countries.
[pullquote speaker="Madeleine Kunin" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]That is the most dangerous thing — that we get so depressed that we shut the doors and turn off the lights, and we can’t afford to do that.[/pullquote]
This year, however, she believes that things are changing. She expressed her pleasure with the outpouring of women running for office this year and believes that we actually have President Trump to thank for this.
“If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu,” Kunin said, articulating her belief that the most effective and tangible remedy for the problems women face in the world is running for office.
Such experiences of invisibility in politics are all too familiar to Kunin, who recalled her testimony during the confirmation of Justice Clarence Thomas to the Supreme Court.
“It was all men, the whole Senate Judiciary Committee, and we knew they weren’t listening to us,” Kunin said.
She recounted how powerless it felt to look up at the dais and to know that she had no impact. In spite of the adversity and challenges that Kunin sees women facing today, she remains hopeful.
“Despite the dark times, I would urge you to continue to believe in democracy — the pendulum does swing,” Kunin said.
Perhaps the dark times Kunin referenced reflect Yeats’s prophetic line: “things fall apart; the centre cannot hold; mere anarchy is loosed upon the world.” But Kunin concluded with a concise message of hope, elaborating that even in the hardest of circumstances, we must have hope and not give up on democracy.
“The centre will hold, but only if we are vigilant,” she said.
Kunin’s reading was made possible by The Vermont Book Shop and The Feminist Resource Center at Chellis House. College Democrats and Feminist Action at Middlebury also sponsored the event.
Editor’s Note: Ruth Hardy is the spouse of Prof. Jason Mittell, The Campus’ academic advisor. Mittell plays no role in any editorial decisions made by the paper. Any questions may be directed to campus@middlebury.edu.
(11/01/18 9:57am)
Former Vermont Governor Madeleine Kunin had a favorite saying about representation in politics, one that stuck with many of the women she worked with: “If you’re not at the table, you’re on the menu.”
It was with that philosophy in mind that Kunin founded Emerge Vermont in 2013 to help elect more women to public office. Kunin was inspired to start the organization after she spoke at a conference hosted by Emerge America, the national parent organization. Since its inception, Emerge Vermont has trained 88 Democratic women to run for office. 20 Emerge Vermont alumnae currently hold elected office in the state. In 2018, 34 Emerge Vermont alumnae are running for office or for reelection, including gubernatorial candidate Christine Hallquist.
These 34 Emerge alumnae run alongside a record number of female candidates across the country this year. According to PBS News, more women than ever before have won major party primaries in races for governor and Congress this year. Most of these women are Democrats. “I’m thrilled that so many women are thinking about it who haven’t thought about it before,” Kunin said in an interview with The Campus. “Emerge is really filling a need.”
Though Kunin applauded the high number of female candidates, she said Vermont still has a lot of work to do. Vermont is the only state that has never sent a woman to Congress. Kunin is the only female governor to have served in Vermont.
Many women in government are working to change the state’s political culture to make it more egalitarian. State Sen. Debbie Ingram (D-Chittenden) said that women need to run to advocate for issues that impact them disproportionately, such as women’s health care needs and child care.
“When half the population is female then we should have a similar proportion in our government,” Ingram said. “We can’t expect men to continue to be in the majority and represent our interests. We need to speak for ourselves.”
But it is often a challenge to get women to run for public office, as State Rep. Jill Krowinski (D-Chittenden 6-3) experienced firsthand. Krowinski currently serves as the House majority leader and is a member of the Emerge Vermont advisory council. When somebody first suggested she run for office in 2012, she hesitated. Krowinski was familiar with politics. She had served as the director of the Vermont Democratic House Campaign, the executive director of the Vermont Democratic Party and run a gubernatorial campaign, but she saw her role as helping other women get elected. She said she “had to be talked into” running herself. This experience further hit home for her the importance of programs like Emerge.
Emerge Vermont offers two types of trainings for women: a six month in-depth training and a boot camp weekend option. The six-month intensive includes 70 hours of programing, during which participants learn about everything from public speaking and fundraising, to campaign strategy and field operations, to cultural competency and ethical leadership. During the training sessions, prospective candidates get advice from Washington experts and local politicians.
In 2018, the full program cost $750, and the bootcamp $265. Executive Director Ruth Hardy, who is currently working part-time as she runs for an Addison County state Senate seat, said there are several options available for women who cannot afford the full cost. “Scholarships are available, as are payment plans, and assistance with fundraising to cover tuition,” she said. The 2019 tuition has not yet been set.
Hardy said that Emerge Vermont tailors their training to the state’s political landscape, but that much of their curriculum translates to other places. She also noted that while “campaigning in rural areas is different than urban areas,” alumnae sometimes move and run in other places. Hardy also mentioned that Middlebury students have participated in the bootcamps in the past, and that they would be welcome in the longer program as well, although the scheduling commitment would be difficult to balance with a full course load.
State Rep. Carol Ode (D-Chittenden 6-1), who graduated from Emerge in 2014, remembers that the program challenged her to consider all aspects of running for office. Ode and Ingram, who are both currently running for reelection, mentioned that they still receive support from Emerge in the form of bi-weekly strategy phone calls.
“We’ve had periodic phone calls where several of us get on together and trade ideas and talk about what’s going on the campaign,” Ingram said. “Emerge has sent out several emails highlighting those of us who are running and getting the word out.”
Equally important to the strategy sessions, Ingram said, are the lasting relationships that Emerge alumnae form with one another. “We refer to each other as Emerge sisters and it really does feel that way, that we have a special bond,” she said. “We help each other with campaigns and call each other to vent when we need to.”
Ingram has also worked as a mentor for subsequent classes of Emerge trainees. As part of the program, the women spend a day shadowing a representative at the state house. “Some of them have reached out to me to ask if we can get coffee and ask me advice and I always try to make time to meet with them,” she said. “I want to make sure I help women come along and get more women running for office.”
For Democratic women considering running for office, Ingram, Ode and Krowinski all recommend Emerge Vermont as a good way to get started. Krowinski also noted that not all the women who participate necessarily end up as candidates. “We have alumnae who have gone through the program and didn’t feel ready to run for office so my next advice for them was to get involved in a local campaign,” she said.
Going forward, Emerge Vermont is considering expanding their program on the local level. “We are seeing a lot of interest, especially given the climate nationally, of women wanting to run for office,” Krowinski said.
Applications for the next round of training will open in 2019, and the next training session will begin in the spring.
Editor’s Note: Ruth Hardy is the spouse of Prof. Jason Mittell, The Campus’s academic advisor. Mittell plays no role in any editorial decisions made by the paper. Any questions may be directed to campus@middlebury.edu.
(11/01/18 9:56am)
MIDDLEBURY — The race to represent Addison County in the Vermont Senate is shaping up to be one of the most competitive in the state’s history. With the announcement of Claire Ayer’s ’92 (D-Addison) retirement, six candidates are vying to fill the district’s two seats in Montpelier. Total campaign funding has exceeded $100,000, a historic high, making up a disproportionate 20 percent of the total Vermont Senate campaign financing across 13 different districts.
Incumbent Sen. Chris Bray (D-Addison), seeking to defend his seat, is joined by fellow Democratic candidate Ruth Hardy. Two “pro-business” Independents, Blue Spruce Farm owner Marie Audet and Vermont Coffee Company owner Paul Ralston, have also entered the race on a joint ticket, with the support of Gov. Phil Scott (R). Republican Peter Briggs and Libertarian Archie Flower are also running in the highly contested election.
Ayer’s vacant seat prompted Ruth Hardy to put her name on the ticket, but Hardy is no stranger to politics. She serves as the executive director of Emerge Vermont, a non-profit organization that trains and helps women run for office, graduating prominent alumnae such as Christine Hallquist, this year’s Democratic gubernatorial nominee. She also served three terms on local school boards.
“By running for the State Senate myself, I am walking the talk,” Hardy said. “I am doing what I ask of other women – which is to step up and run for office when the opportunity arises and when the need is great.”
This may in part explain why Hardy, a first-time senate candidate, has amassed the most individual donors of any candidate, and obtained endorsements from key Democratic figures like former Governor Madeleine Kunin, the state’s first and only female governor, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) and Ayer herself. Hardy’s platform focuses on access to healthcare, affordable education and child care, as well as climate change.
After knocking on more than 1,500 doors, she concluded that health care access and affordability is the number one concern of Addison County residents.
“What I am hearing from voters over and over again is that they are worried about health care,” Hardy said. “What I would like to work on is having universal access to primary care as a starter for Vermont.”
Audet, the other first-time candidate, describes herself as an “organic candidate,” saying that her extensive experience in local business and her ties to the community are what pushed her to put her name on the ballot.
“Paul and I are coming at this from a position of experience, having firm ties to our communities, and being leaders in our communities as people who do things for the growth of our communities,” Audet said. “I felt that it would be good for the legislature to have some regular working folks — boots-on-the-ground kinds of folks.”
Audet and Ralston are running together on what they have called a pro-business ticket, focusing particularly on the agricultural business prominent in Addison County. Ralston is a former two-term Democratic member of the Vermont House of Representatives.
The duo have pushed for creating business incentives and inducing bottom-up change instead of levying taxes. When it comes to environmental policies, for example, Ralston says they are generally in favor of lowering carbon fuel emissions, but opposed to a direct carbon tax.
“One of the issues that I have faced every time I speak to people is that they are afraid of Vermont becoming unaffordable,” Audet said. “We need businesses to thrive to pay taxes. We need businesses to want to employ people. We need businesses to pay people well. That is another big hole of representation that we are finding.”
Ralston cited high taxes as a culprit for the recent business closures in downtown Middlebury, pointing to high property taxes as a barrier for entry and operation.
“Many of the things that we would be promoting are not the big, sexy ideas,” Ralston said. “They are the practical, affordable, simple steps that can be made without raising taxes, without dramatic changes.”
Governor Scott’s support for the independent ticket may well have disappointed Republican hopeful Peter Briggs, who has raised less money than any of the candidates except Flower.
In 2016, when Briggs ran against Ayer and Bray on an agricultural-focused message similar to Audet’s and Ralston’s, he won 21 percent of the votes, compared to Ayer’s 31 percent and Bray’s 27 percent. Briggs is running again with a platform that is against taxation, hardline carbon emissions reduction bills and gun control laws.
Audet and Ralston have clashed with Bray, the lone incumbent in the race. During the campaign, the independent ticket questioned Bray’s agricultural and environmental policies, framing them as out of touch with the farming community.
Bray defended his track record, citing bills that he proposed which have provided farm subsidies, protected and maintained current use, and helped farmers integrate to greener options.
“Within two months of arriving, I started crafting legislation, which I have been for a decade, that is highly supportive of farmers,” said Bray. “Bill after bill, program after program, and dollar after dollar, I have stepped up to support farmers to change their practices. Every large and medium farm in this state has received many, many thousands of dollars.”
Bray also added that Blue Spruce Farms, which Audet owns, received millions of dollars worth of government support in the last decade. Citing this example, Bray pointed to the pragmatic flaws of the independents’ policies, stating that subsidies and regulations must go together.
“There is a certain hypocrisy with accepting high levels of subsidies, from government and state, and then rejecting regulation that travels with it,” he said. “It is environmental and economy that go hand in hand.”
Bray’s platform is centered on balancing the environment with business opportunities. For example, he pointed to the Farm to Plate program, which has created new work opportunities while increasing access to healthy local produce.
Bray also jabbed at Ralston, who previously served in the statehouse as a Democratic representative. “One of the opponents in the Senate race has a four year record already in the Vermont house,” said Bray, referring to Ralston. “I would invite and encourage anyone who is considering candidates to carefully scrutinize that record, and look at what contributions that legislator made on issues that we are talking about today.”
According to Sun Community News, Ralston himself sent a perplexing message to potential voters at a candidate forum held in Bristol on Oct. 17, seeming to encourage constituents to vote for Audet and Hardy.
“This campaign has been a bit of a Dickensian experience for me: The best of times, the worst of times,” Ralston said. “I do believe it would be good for us to have fresh ideas... the best decision may be to send two women to Montpelier as our senators”
But, Ralston later elaborated that the message was not to annul his own ticket.
“We are trying to get elected, both Marie and I need to go to Montpelier. We need to go to Montpelier together. That is what I hope happens,” Ralston said. “If that cannot happen, there needs to be a change and that means someone else of the six people has to go. In that moment, I thought, ‘People should think about whether a good alternative is sending two women to Montpelier.’”
Despite differences, candidates coalesced around the importance of college students exerting their voting rights either in local elections or in elections back home.
“Middlebury College students, in particular, are here for four years and live here and it is your home. There are a lot of things that happen in the Vermont legislature that affect you while you are living in Vermont,” Hardy said. “If I am elected, I really hope that Middlebury College students will come to the state house. I can help them make their voices heard.”
Editor’s Note: Ruth Hardy is the spouse of Prof. Jason Mittell, The Campus’ academic advisor. Mittell plays no role in any editorial decisions made by the paper. Any questions may be directed to campus@middlebury.edu.
(11/01/18 9:54am)
OFFICE OF PETER REP. WELCH
Congressman Peter Welch, Vermont’s sole representative in the U.S. House, has served in Congress since 2007. This week, he spoke with fellow Vermonter Ellie Anderson ’19, a local editor for The Campus, about some of the salient issues heading into the midterm elections, both within Vermont and nationwide.
What would you say to college students who are not particularly motivated to vote in the upcoming midterm election? What issues do you believe are the most critical for college students to pay attention to and vote on?
The reason to vote is that it’s all about your future. Do we want a future where diversity is respected? Where we attack climate change? Where we address this mountainous student debt that kids are graduating with? All these things are extraordinarily important. What kinds of opportunities are going to be there for you as students when you graduate? What kind of world are you going to live in?
Voting is about making a decision to participate in the effort to change the world for the better. There have been some really compelling [issues] where there’s been great leadership by younger people — climate change is one, gun safety is another, respect for people regardless of their race, religion, creed, or sexual orientation is another. All of these causes are absolutely crucial to the future of our country, and young people have very much been the leadership up front. Voting is just a further way of expressing solidarity with others who want to have a better future.
The national administration is a concern for many Vermonters and Middlebury students right now, particularly because of the political divide that the nation is facing, which was illustrated by the bombs that were mailed to various “Trump critics” last week. What were your reactions to this threat? What can you do as Vermont’s representative to address these concerns about this divide and the state of the national administration?
Politics is about trying to resolve differences in a peaceful way. The responsibility all of us have, starting with the president, is to have respect for people who we disagree with, to have respect for people who are different from us. That has to be the baseline, so no matter what my position is, or yours, we have to start out with mutual respect where I acknowledge the right that you have to take the position that you have, and reciprocally, you acknowledge my right to take that position.
What you’re seeing is this winner-take-all approach to politics, where the person who one disagrees with is demonized. That makes it impossible for people to find ways to reach common ground. It’s extremely dangerous to a democracy when there’s a breakdown of basic rules of civility and mutual respect. I’m very alarmed by it at the national level.
Parkland shooting survivors and activists Emma Gonzalez, David Hogg and Alex Wind recently visited Burlington to speak about their new book and call for increased gun control. Were you able to attend? Where do you stand on Vermont’s gun control legislation as far as the banning of bump stocks, expansion of background checks and increase of the minimum age requirement to purchase a gun? Where do you stand on gun regulation on a federal level?
I met with the Parkland kids when they came to Washington and they were very inspiring. They went through just an incredible tragedy and I was impressed with how focused they were in trying to improve our gun safety laws.
I was not there when they came to Vermont, but I did meet with them in Washington, and met in Vermont with young people who organized the March for Our Lives rally in Montpelier. Sen. Sanders and I were there, just listening to one student after another give an eloquent statement about the necessity for gun safety. So this is an issue that is extraordinarily important. Gun safety has been something we’ve resisted and young people are leading the charge. They know that schools have become the target of choice for shooters — we had a near miss in Vermont, in Fair Haven. I totally support the gun safety legislation that Vermont passed and Gov. Scott signed. We need gun safety legislation in Washington and I’ll continue to fight for it.
You were outspoken in your opposition to Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court. Student activists at Middlebury College have recently raised concerns about poor treatment of sexual assault cases and victims on our own campus, and a student last spring posted a list on Facebook naming alleged perpetrators of sexual assault. What are your thoughts about how institutions like the Supreme Court or Middlebury should approach sexual assault claims?
Well you know the colleges obviously are all working through that, but in Washington I’m working with Congresswoman Jackie Speier (D-CA) on legislation that would get rid of the so called “magic asterisk,” where the student who is disciplined for sexual assault on one campus applies to another without the disclosure in the application that that person had a sexual assault violation.
Our legislation would require that that information be included in any transfer of transcript. So that’s what I’m doing in Washington — I don’t want people who have been convicted through the process at one school to be able to shed that from their record by simply applying to another school.
In the past you have supported the rights of individual states to make their own marijuana laws. While possession of marijuana was legalized in Vermont this year, Gov. Phil Scott has expressed his continued opposition to legalizing its sale. While you’re more involved with federal policies, do you have a stance on creating a taxed and regulated marijuana market within Vermont?
I favor legalization on a state level, but at the federal level I believe that we should respect the decisions the states make. It’s fully legal in Colorado — I think at the federal level we should respect that and not be threatening federal prosecution.
Also at the federal level, we should pass legislation allowing for medical marijuana. That should be a national policy — I don’t believe that the government should get between a doctor and a patient when it comes to prescribing a medication or something that will alleviate pain, like marijuana or any other substance that is appropriate. So I fundamentally believe that at the federal level we should respect states’ decisions on marijuana, whatever their policy may be.
State Rep. Kiah Morris resigned in September after receiving continued racist harassment. What were your reactions to racism directed at Rep. Morris? Do you have any thoughts about how to combat this type of racism and foster a more diverse legislature in a very un-diverse state like Vermont?
I was appalled at what she had to suffer through. Kiah’s a friend, she’s been an outstanding legislator. Whoever was verbally attacking her was doing so on the basis of her race, and also at a time when her husband was having a significant medical issue, and it’s just cruel and completely reprehensible.
Bottom line, I think we have to have tolerance and acceptance of everybody, regardless of what their race is or their sexual orientation. Vermont’s been pretty good on this, but we have to be vigilant all the time. The kind of language that we’re getting out of the Trump administration hurts, it doesn’t help. I think in Vermont, each and every single one of us [should] do each and every thing we can to have an accepting, open, and respectful dialogue, totally unrelated to a person’s race, gender, sexual orientation, religion. We’re all Vermonters.
During this election cycle, there has been significant news coverage about voter suppression in various states including Georgia, where the state government recently stalled thousands of voter registrations. If Democrats take back the House, do you think that’s an issue they should be focusing on?
I do. In a democracy we want to encourage people to vote, not discourage them from voting. We want to make it easier, not harder. It’s very alarming to me that some of these states — unfortunately with the help of the Supreme Court, which undercut the protections of the Voting Rights Act — are trying to win elections by keeping people away from the polls, by doing everything they can to discourage them from voting, by making it more difficult for them to vote. I want to make certain that if we do get the majority we pass legislation that absolutely and effectively protects the right to vote. We should make it easier to vote.
Vermont’s very good — same day voter registration, early voting. The more people that vote, the more people who have a stake in the democracy, the more they feel the election is legitimate, the better our chances of making progress are.
(11/01/18 9:52am)
Hannah: My sophomore year at Middlebury, I was sitting in Proctor thinking about the 2012 election. Growing up in Virginia, I had been involved in campaigns throughout high school, including the Obama campaign in 2008, but was involved in climate organizing in college and was feeling disillusioned by the political process and its ability to truly impact the things I cared about, like climate change. Then one of my friends said, “You know, none of the things you care about will pass if Mitt Romney is president. You have to fight for a candidate like Obama who we can push to be better on our issues.” And that principle has really stuck with me. I took a semester off from college and moved to New Hampshire to organize for Obama and have continued fighting to elect candidates we can push and then pushing them to be better ever since.
Teddy: The first door I ever knocked on was because of Hannah. She wrangled some funding to bring a group of students to Derry, New Hampshire, where she organized in 2012. She filled up a van, far too early on a Saturday morning and we knocked on doors three days before Election Day in a 35 degree “wintery mix.” All signs pointed towards a bad experience — instead, it was a ton of fun, made a difference and changed the trajectory of my life.
Hannah: Through these experiences with student organizing, we realized how powerful young people are when we mobilize and turn out. After college we started working for NextGen in New Hampshire turning out young people to vote in the presidential primary. We both worked for several campaigns since then before coming back to NextGen to turn out the #youthvote in the midterms this year, using the skills and building off of the relationships we had developed organizing on campus at Middlebury.
Teddy: Young people make up a third of the electorate, but because we vote at only half the rate of older Americans, politicians ignore our needs. If we all turned out to vote on Nov. 6, politicians would have to listen to us, and we would be able to hold them accountable. The last two years have been terrible, as so many communities are under attack. We need to vote on Tuesday (and volunteer to turn out other voters) to ensure our leaders listen to us and build the future we deserve.
Editor’s note: Hannah Bristol ’14.5 is national organizing director for NextGen America, and Teddy Smyth ’15 is NextGen America’s New Hampshire state director.
(11/01/18 9:52am)
It is clear that youth engagement in government and politics is more important than ever.
From the excitement and commotion of campaigns to the details of policy-making, young people are becoming more willing to campaign for candidates they care about, advocate for policies that make communities stronger, and vote. It is critical, especially now, to care about the results of the upcoming midterms.
Why should you care? Because the vast majority of elected officials don’t have the same personal connection to many of the issues that matter most. They’re done paying their student loan debt, they won’t have to live in a world ravaged by climate change, they won’t have to drink the water we pollute, they don’t have to go to underfunded and underperforming schools. Even if your elected officials agree with you on these issues and many more, make sure your voice is heard and that our government understands that the policies they enact will determine our futures.
Throughout recent history, youth turnout has been disproportionately low. This election we can change that. By voting, you can send a message that our future matters. This election we can ensure that our leaders hear our voices. We can hold accountable those who voted against our interests.
On Nov. 6, let’s disprove the conventional wisdom that midterms are always dominated by older voters. Your vote is your voice, and your voice should be as important to candidates as anyone else’s.
Editor’s Note: Ethan Sonneborn is a freshman at Mt. Abraham Union High School in Bristol. He ran for governor in June’s Democratic primary.
(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.
