779 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/18/17 11:42pm)
MIDDLEBURY — At a public hearing hosted by the Vermont Climate Action Commission in Brattleboro on Thursday, Oct. 5, Middlebury students joined community members to discuss solutions to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change. Many solutions were proposed, including incentivizing renewables, divestment from fossil fuel companies and government subsidies of weatherization, with carbon pricing being the most popular.
“It really struck me to get to hear from Vermonters because you realize that all of these issues are impacting their lives and the things that they care about,” Oscar Psychas ’21 said about his experience at the hearing. “One thing I love about Vermont is that people are really civically engaged — they really care about making a positive difference in the government. I think it’s an exciting opportunity if Middlebury can be a part of that Vermont community and democratic spirit to take part in finding solutions to these important issues.”
For Vermont, a state reliant on agriculture, addressing these issues is all the more urgent. Following President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, many institutions, states and countries have agreed to continue to try to meet carbon emission reduction goals.
Vermont is a part of these ranks. Governor Phil Scott (R) signed Executive Order No. 12-17 in July 2017, creating the Vermont Climate Action Commission (VCAC) as a part of his commitment to reduce the state’s carbon emissions. The VCAC aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that will boost the economy and affect all Vermonters equally.
Although the carbon pricing initiative proved popular among residents, Gov. Scott has rejected the proposal. In a statement from September, Gov. Phil Scott said “I will veto a carbon tax if it comes to my desk because we cannot make Vermont more affordable by making it less affordable.” He also said that “real solutions will strengthen the economy and not add to the crisis of affordability many families and business are facing.”
Many agree with the governor that carbon pricing would negatively affect Vermont residents, citing higher gas prices as a concern.
Bennett Pienkowski ’20.5 explained another perspective: “Carbon pricing will be a net positive for the economy of Vermont because it is a potentially revenue-neutral campaign that will help us reduce emissions. The thought being that if you raise the price on carbon, we will spend less on carbon, and then less money will leave the state in the form of fossil fuel revenues. The money that doesn’t leave the state is going to be spent locally.”
Bennington College student Sabrina Melendez explained this idea further in an interview for VTDigger. “[Revenue-neutral] means taxing carbon emissions of fossil fuel companies at the extraction and distribution level and returning that money to the people of Vermont to make up for higher gas prices,” she said.
According to the Manchester Journal, although the ‘listening tour’ held by the Climate Action Commission has received praise, many are urging Gov. Scott to take the next step and uphold his commitment to the reduction of carbon emissions by supporting a carbon tax in Vermont.
At the Snow Bowl Family Bash on Saturday, Oct. 14, students hosted an educational booth in order to spread the word about the carbon pricing initiative at Middlebury. Leif Taranta ’20.5, a student who worked at the booth, shared some thoughts about the effort.
“We must live in occurrence with the values that we put forth. Middlebury is proud to have a carbon neutral campus and to model environmental sustainability, yet we still have harmful carbon emissions. There are many ways to take responsibility including divestment from fossil fuel companies and investment in renewables, but carbon pricing is one concrete, localized step we can take now, especially because we cannot count on the federal government to take action against climate change,” he said.
In addition to supporting the initiative on a state level, students at the Snow Bowl advocated for localized carbon pricing within Middlebury College.
“For the rest of the semester we’re going to be collecting signatures and getting people excited about supporting a carbon price on campus so that we’re upholding our own commitment to sustainability,” said Psychas. “That carbon price is not going to be coming out of the pockets of students, faculty or staff of the college.” President Laurie Patton has agreed to endorse the petition if enough signatures from the student body are collected, he said.
“We’re a leading education institution, maybe the leading educational institution in the state, and so I think when we take action, especially in such a small state, it sets a tone,” Pienkowski said. “And so if we institute our own carbon charge and get President Laurie Patton to support it, that says a lot.”
The Sunday Night Group, a group that focuses on environmental problems and awareness on campus, particularly climate activism, will be hosting more events in the coming weeks. On Thursday, Oct. 19, at 4:30 p.m. in front of Old Chapel, they will be teaching about divestment, another important step that Middlebury can take towards combating climate change and protecting the environment.
(10/18/17 11:23pm)
Former House of Representative member Barney Frank (D–MA) sat down with former New Hampshire governor John Sununu (R) last Wednesday to discuss the status of economic opportunity in the Trump era. Gail Chaddock, the former political editor for the Christian Science Monitor, moderated their discussion.
Sponsored by the Common Ground Committee and the Christian Science Monitor, the discussion was part of a series called “Critical Conversations,” an initiative started the college in response to the political events that occurred last spring. Its mission is to emphasize Middlebury’s commitment to free expression and inclusivity while promoting better arguments with greater respect.
The conversation, titled “Find Common Ground for Economic Opportunity in the Trump Era,” focused on four main topics: jobs and growth, economic opportunity and the social safety net, taxes and regulations, and immigration. Throughout the discussion, the two politicians emphasized the importance of maintaining civility during a time of increasing political polarization.
“The process of arguing and disagreeing is essential to democracy and to finding the right answer,” Frank said.
Both politicians blamed the proliferation of technology and the wide-spread use of social media for causing the current political climate.
“Because of today’s technology, people only talk to others whom they know have the same political beliefs. This promotes a cluster of sameness and creates a climate in this country that dissuades confrontation,” Sununu said.
Both men used this conversation to criticize the media — saying the media only covers the negative aspects of government and ignores the positives. Frank said this focus on negativity makes bipartisan cooperation increasingly difficult.
“When you compromise, you are the traitor,” Frank said. Both politicians emphasized a need for the media to find a balance between holding the government accountable and praising their successes.
In terms of economic policy, the two did not disagree on specific issues but instead they emphasized different aspects of the economy they deemed most important. Sununu highlighted the need to encourage capital investment on U.S. soil.
“The government needs to create incentives for companies to repatriate jobs here,” he said. “Democrats and Republicans need to come together for tax bill that has incentives while protecting the middle class.”
He added a need for the tax reform bill to include a way for the three to five trillion dollars in companies overseas to come back the U.S. economy.
Although Frank praised trade and capital investment, he put more emphasis on the need for equity.
“We make money by selling things to other countries. It’s a mistake we’ve made a push for trade yet we fail to compensate those people who are hurt by trade,” Frank said. “Trade does not offset the benefits between winners and losers. It multiplies the benefits for the winners, and the losers are the same.”
Both men condemned what they saw as President Trump’s inability to produce a coherent agenda — Frank going as far as to refer to Trump as “the insulter-and-chief,” but also they praised him for starting a dialogue about the need for countries who participate in NATO to pay their fair share.
Their discussion turned to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which allows undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children to apply to remain in the country. Both criticized President Trump unfavorable view of the policy.
“People whom were brought here without being asked should be allowed to live here and become citizens,” Frank said.
Sununu added that DACA was a potential cornerstone of cooperation for Congress, saying that this policy was the perfect opportunity for the two parties to reach across the aisle and begin compromising.
The conversation ended with both men emphasizing the most effective way for students to bring about change in the government was trust in the political system.
“It’s important to participate in the process and stay with it even if things don’t happen quickly,” Sununu said. “Keep participating and don’t get frustrated. The system was designed to be hard to change major policy.”
Frank stressed the need to vote against obstructionist politicians in order for more legislation to be passed.
“Primary elections have more of an effect on politics than final elections. Refusing to vote in the primary perpetuates extremists in politics,” he said.
The audience had mixed opinions on the discussion.
“I appreciated their perspective and their history having both worked in Congress for so long and how, as representatives of two different parties, they were able to forge compromises and have substantive discussions” said Margie Harris, a visitor from Portland, Oregon, in town to see the leaves change colors.
Jackie McMakin, a local resident of Middlebury, said, “It’s enlightening and refreshing to hear a Democrat and a Republican spark each other to go deeper and to create value for the country.”
But to some of the students in attendance the conversations centered too much on the importance of respectful dialogue during confrontation, which some students felt ultimately detracted from the over all content of the debate.
“They were too focused on civility so they ended up not having any substantive debate over policy,” Avery Dyer ’21 said.
David Rigas ’21 agreed with Dyer. “They emphasized the importance of disagreement, but it kind of seemed like they agreed on everything,” he said.
The next event in the Critical Conversations series will take place on Thursday, Oct. 26, at 7 p.m. in Wilson Hall. It is titled “How I Shed My Skin: Unlearning the Racist Lessons of a Southern Childhood.”
(10/04/17 11:46pm)
This past summer was the first time since 1893 that eight or more major hurricanes formed in a row in the Atlantic. This hurricane season was also the only season on record with three hurricanes with an Accumulated Cyclone Energy (ACE) — a scientific measure of the strength of the hurricane — over 40.
Only 26 of 424 Atlantic hurricanes since 1950 have had an ACE value above 40, making this summer anomalously active for a hurricane season. This level of activity and the devastating effects of these hurricanes have elicited many questions, many of which were addressed at the “Harvey, Irma, Maria: A Community Teach-in” event at the Franklin Environmental Center at Hillcrest on Sept. 29. The event gathered students and faculty alike to discuss these questions and the implications of this summer’s flurry of hurricanes.
The moderator of the discussion, economics professor John Isham, began by asking participants to posit the questions they had in order to create a list of questions before the discussion started. Questions ranged from specifics about the correlation between climate change and hurricanes to the media’s reaction to the hurricanes. The breadth of subjects touched by these questions emphasized how interdisciplinary a conversation about hurricanes should be, a need which was only reinforced throughout the conversation.
The first question discussed was the relationship between climate change and hurricanes. Environmental studies professor Molly Constanza-Robinson said the general conclusion of scientists was that “we aren’t causing them, but we’re intensifying them.” Dan Brayton, an English and American studies professor, backed Costanza-Robinson up by making clear that behind the complicated science of hurricanes lies the simple fact that “hurricanes are all about warm water.” Not only do hurricanes form over warm water, but they are also intensified by warm water. Together, the professors’ responses make clear that climate change is causing a rise in sea temperatures, which allows hurricanes to intensify easier.
From there, the conversation branched into the tragic situation in Puerto Rico. Puerto Rico was hit by category four Hurricane Maria on Sept. 19, causing the entire island to lose power, cell coverage and running water. This, coupled with the destruction of buildings and roads, has caused a dire and dangerous situation for all Puerto Ricans.
One student brought up how it took the United States a full week to lift the Jones Act to allow Puerto Rico to receive aid from other countries. The Jones Act prevents Puerto Rico from trading with any country but the United States, and delineates that if a ship from any other country wants to go to Puerto Rico, it must get explicit permission from the U.S. government.
This brought up questions about the role the United States should play in aiding Puerto Rico. Professor Isham described how Puerto Ricans are subject to U.S. Federal Taxes and economic limitations like the Jones Act without the privileges of U.S. citizenship. He viewed these as important aspects of this “post-colonialist” period in history.
Professor Rebecca Gould mentioned how the U.S. government said it was difficult to access and aid Puerto Rico due to its poor infrastructure, and said the government should instead be asking itself what is actually causing that poor infrastructure. Costanza-Robinson brought up how rich Americans in hedge funds profit off loans to Puerto Rico, the process of which is throwing Puerto Rico into increasing debt. She noted how this exemplifies the power of a small group of rich Americans to control the fate of millions of people.
Later in the conversation, Alec Fleischer ’20.5 of the Divest Middlebury movement brought up this point. He described how Middlebury is still invested in companies like these hedge funds and asked the question, “How are we different from these hedge funds if we’re still invested in them?”
Joseph Holler, a geography professor, then passed around a paper that showed a map that was part of the Flood Insurance Study done in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. The map was blanked out by a white square with writing on it that said “Flood hazard information for this portion of the transect has be superseded by the revised interior drainage analysis performed in 2014.”
Holler described how political processes redacted the actual flooding hazard information. Now companies are building and rebuilding in New Orleans as though it is safer than it was before Katrina, regardless of the fact that, in reality, it is not.
Isham concluded the discussion by asking the group, “What should we do?” One student’s response was to simply elect the right people. Participants generally agreed with this as a solution, though there was some debate about how to elect the right people. Another student lamented how he felt that those who are currently in the position to be elected are not people he would want to elect. Another student brought up the need to inform voters on the issues brought up in this conversation, from climate change to the U.S. international affairs in Puerto Rico.
This conversation brought up a lot of important problems surrounding this past hurricane season, too many to address in this article alone. While not all the mentioned issues were about the hurricanes themselves, they were all directly tied to the causes and devastating effects of hurricanes. This reporter left the conversation not feeling very optimistic about the issues that were brought up, but was impressed by the intelligent and open discussion. Conversations like these and the actions that result from them are vital if we are to address these challenges we face as a college, as a nation and as humans.
(10/04/17 11:41pm)
Those who have gotten to meet me probably know that I am a 21-year-old freshman, that I took part in two gap years before coming to Middlebury, and that I am running for first year senator. I noted throughout the application process that during my second gap year I enrolled in a computer science course, coded, worked, pursued my passion for bicycles, worked on college applications and spent time with family.
Yet I left behind details about my life that I did not feel comfortable sharing at the time. I left out the fact that most of that year was spent dealing with the aftermath of sexual assault, both in hospital beds and at meetings for an investigation that would culminate with the impunity of my perpetrator.
After having completed a highly rewarding gap year abroad in Leon, Nicaragua, working with renewable and energy efficiency initiatives, I returned home to partake in a summer program hosted at the university I was expecting to attend. But shortly before the program’s end, my life encountered the same predicament that too often affects young, college-bound men and women across the nation.
The story is all too familiar: a drunken night. A clouded mind. Unwanted touch. And finally, overwhelming confusion, anger, fear, sadness, powerlessness and even self-hatred and blame. I was unable to leave my dorm hall, eat in the dining halls or even sleep. I was forced to silently catch a train home and take a second gap year.
Fast-forwarding to my life here and now as a new Middlebury student I find myself running for first-year senate. I feel it is important to echo the words of Gregory Buckles, dean of admissions, during his convocation speech this past September: “We’re not looking for perfection, nor should you get wrapped up in finding perfection here at Middlebury,” he stated. “The truth is you’re not going to find it.”
While I do not expect Middlebury to be perfect, I do expect it to be better than what I encountered at the other college I was planning on attending (and thankfully never did). I expect it to be better than that place where I was told by an administrator to ‘learn my lesson,’ after painfully recounting my sexual assault. And thus far it has.
Over this past summer I contacted Sue Ritter (Title IX coordinator) asking for resources for survivors and received support. I recognize the complexity of the issues that permeate Middlebury’s campus, as well as my own personal lack of sufficient knowledge needed to form a fully educated and rational opinion. But I see that the college still has a long way to go when it comes to addressing sexual assault, health, transparency and accountability.
While I would like to refrain as much as possible from engaging in the gratuitous enumeration of the several positions that make up my platform, focusing on the source of the passion that drives this campaign instead, I feel it is important to discuss ways in which the school can more seriously tackle gender-based violence.
Health Care Access
To improve students’ access to their healthcare needs, the school should follow in the footsteps of colleges and install vending machines providing emergency contraception (Plan B), condoms, tampons, Advil and other medical products that students may need access to when Parton Health Centre is closed. This is particularly relevant for emergency contraception which research shows is most often needed during weekends.
Student Accountability
One of the main policies that I would like to pursue includes the creation of a student accountability office to facilitate avenues of cooperation between students and administrators, and provide productive criticism. This office would afford students the ability to report safely, comfortably and anonymously inappropriate behaviour by administrators and staff.
To improve students’ access to their healthcare needs, the school should follow in the footsteps of colleges and universities like Stanford, Pomona and UC Davis, among others, and install vending machines that provide Plan B, condoms, tampons, Advil and other medical products that students may need access to when Parton Health Centre is closed. This is particularly relevant for emergency contraception which research shows is most often needed during weekends.
Finally, but most importantly, a school that aims to seriously tackle gender-based violence should promote the following:
Climate Surveys
Performing a campus climate survey yearly to recognize the extent of this problem. Climate surveys allow students to anonymously and candidly describe their experiences on campus and evaluate the effectiveness and access to the resources that the college makes available to them. This tool is the first step to effectively addressing gender-based violence on campus, and is championed by national organizations like Know Your IX.
Data Transparency
The school should maintain easily accessible statistics of gender-based violence, extending beyond the limited Annual Security and Fire Safety Report mandated by the Department of Education under Title IX, which only go back three years. Furthermore, prints of such statistics and reports should be provided to incoming first-years during orientation.
Improving Bystander Training and Sexual Education
The sexual education offered to incoming freshmen is currently very cursory and brief. A more comprehensive sex-ed programme that addresses affirmative and enthusiastic consent, safe sex and healthy relationships (among other issues) more in depth is needed. The creation of said programme needs deep collaboration between students, faculty and staff but some of the points I would like to pursue include:
No first-year or incoming freshman should be allowed to receive ID or access to dorms without completing such a training course, and orientation should include more small group discussions on the issue sexual assault.
Group Therapy
Middlebury college, in partnership with the local organization WomenSafe, used to facilitate group therapy for survivors of gender-based violence. But this service was suspended due to “low-attendance.” As a SGA senator, I would like to pursue the reinstallation of this resource to better serve survivors.
Commit to Obama-era policies
Throughout this past summer, Betsy DeVoss’ Department of Education introduced significant changes to Title IX that reverse Obama era mandates — including the 2011 Dear Colleague Letter, which ordered universities to adjudicate sexual assault cases under the preponderance of the evidence standard. As a SGA senator I would urge the administration to commit to these Obama-era protections and standards, following in the footsteps of other colleges like Amherst.
Emergency Lights
Middlebury’s campus is spread out and can be quite dark at night. There should be more blue emergency phones located around campus to promote a more safe and comfortable environment.
(09/27/17 11:55pm)
In the wake of President Trump’s decision to rescind the Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), the college has continued to publicly and internally support DACA-mented and undocumented students.
College president Laurie L. Patton and chief diversity officer Miguel Fernández did not mince words in their defense of DACA-mented students in a Sept. 1 email to students.
“We are writing to state clearly that no matter what the [Trump] Administration decides to do, we will stand by our students, protect their rights, and continue to provide them an outstanding education,” they said. “We are proud of the accomplishments of our DACA students and will continue to support them in every way we can.”
President Obama created DACA through an executive order in 2012. The order grants legal status and protection from deportation to undocumented immigrants who were brought to the United States as minors. The email from Patton and Fernández came just days before President Trump announced his decision to end the program.
The protections provided by DACA will officially end on March 5, 2018. President Trump gave Congress a six month ultimatum to introduce legislation to reinstate the protections DACA provides. If Congress does not pass legislation, DACA-mented individuals may lose their legal status and face deportation.
In addition to publicly denouncing the actions of the Trump administration, the college will expand the legal resources available to DACA-mented students.
“Once we learned that the DACA program would be phased out, the college arranged for an attorney who is experienced with providing advice to DACA-eligible students to offer telephone and videoconference consultation appointments before the October 5, 2017 renewal deadline arrives,” said Kathy Foley, director of international scholar and student services.
Given the unpredictable future of many immigration policies in the Trump-era, the college plans to expand the resources available to students.
“The reason that this is a little different is that there has been a change within the government, so we feel as though some additional resources are potentially necessary to help students navigate,” said Fernández, the point person for DACA-mented and undocumented students on campus. “We hope to bring someone to campus to talk, later on, in person.”
The administration has continued to vocally pledge its commitment to DACA-mented students. A letter signed by Patton and other Vermont college presidents on Sept. 21 recognized the contributions of DACA-mented students to American society and Vermont college communities.
“We support swift action by Congress to bring forward legislation to establish DACA permanently in law,” said the letter. “We also support Vermont in joining fourteen other states in a lawsuit challenging the plan to terminate the DACA program….We stand united with DACA-mented students.”
The administration’s vocal support of DACA-mented students began last year with a series of all-student emails following the election of President Trump. In January, the college announced that DACA applicants to the class of 2022 would be considered with the same need-blind admissions policy afforded to American citizens.
“The administration has been very verbal in expressing their concern for DACA-mented students, and we are pleased with the promises they have made,” said a member of Alianza, a student group active in providing a community for DACA-mented students.
The student requested anonymity given the current political climate surrounding immigration issues.
The college is not required to share students’ immigration status with the federal government. However, the college has a established a system through which student volunteers are made available to speak with those hesitant to discuss their immigration status with administrators.
“One of the big challenges is wanting to work and help, and at the same time, not out the individuals, so how to best reach out and at the same time maintain privacy and protection. We want to maintain the safety and privacy of our students,” said Fernández.
In an email sent to all students on Tuesday, Miguel Fernández urged students to “be a visible ally.”
“I think it’s an important piece to make every attempt to make every student feel welcome and part of the community, so that takes work,” said Fernández.
Trump’s order has put the fate of over 800,000 DACA beneficiaries in the hands of Congress, but Fernández expressed optimism about the power of everyday citizens.
“I think the most important thing that we can do, as individuals and as a community, is to try to press our representatives to turn it into law. I’m confident that with enough pressure, with enough push, we can make this happen.”
The Campus will continue reporting on this topic as the situation develops.
(09/27/17 11:07pm)
I can hardly be the only person at Middlebury that has observed the unprecedented succession of extreme weather events, from the cataclysmic hurricanes in the Caribbean to the deadly floods in India and Sierra Leone, with a gnawing sense that the climate’s dreaded new normal is quickly arriving. I say gnawing, because anyone with a sufficient understanding of the problem knows that their daily lifestyle makes them complicit in it; indeed, as I boarded my carbon-spewing flight from wildfire-choked Oregon back to here, it was extremely apparent that even banal, seemingly apolitical acts of transit are inextricably linked to the greatest moral crisis of our age. In short, I am a hypocrite, and you probably are too.
Notice how simple, how natural it is to unleash personal value judgements around climate and sustainability, even self-deprecating ones. How can you claim to care about the planet when you don’t use LED light bulbs! Or an electric car? What, you don’t subsist on canned garden produce and solar hot water alone? When subjected to this kind of scrutiny, I suspect nearly all but the most dedicated and ascetically-minded come up short; in fact, to make oneself properly ‘sustainable’ to the extent necessary to reverse course on climate change is to embark on a daunting series of investments, changes to behavior, and general self-restraint, all within a society largely structured around the encouragement of ravenous consumption. When our collective, institutional misdirections are perceived as individual lapses in morality, it’s unsurprising that those sympathetic to environmental concerns feel guilty, and those unsympathetic or unknowledgable feel accused and attacked.
With this critique, I’m not trying to invalidate people’s individual contributions to sustainability as somehow pithy or useless. Nor am I trying to cast people attempting to live sustainably as judgmental. However, I think it is necessary that we not fall into the unproductive mindset that climate change can be solved on the individual level alone, that it is a problem stemming from individual choices, and that subsequent improvements in lifestyle alone will trickle up. For as long as we continue to structure our politics, career aspirations, technological solutions, and values on a faulty understanding of who and what is truly responsible, we will get nowhere.
I think it is first important to consider why exactly we see our personal lives as the arena in which the climate battle can be fought. The pronounced shift towards the glorification of the individual, so prevalent in modern Western society, one overbrimming with LinkedIn profiles and vainglorious celebrities, cannot be overlooked here. We humans have become increasingly atomized and alienated, both from the productive forces that provide our material needs and wants, and perhaps more importantly from the organizational capacity to direct society towards some preferred destination. This power has been deferred, as a matter of course, to private persons and organizations structured around the private creation and dissemination of profits. For the Middlebury student, it often seems that your best bet of ‘changing the world’ is getting a job that lets you do that (as if Gandhi had a 401k!). From that Randian morality comes not just ecocide, but also the cruel inefficiencies of America’s price-gouging health care system, or the nearly-universal corporate control of political parties and institutions made obvious in recent elections. The great irony is this pervasive myth of individual freedom, the ability to choose whatever, is an illusory one; sure, you can buy a can of Coke with your name on it, but it’s much harder to truly divest yourself from a climate-killing system. We, the economically fortunate, are given the opportunity to buy our way out of eco-guilt, through Teslas and solar panels, but this still leaves intact or even strengthens the overlapping networks of capital that has future trillions staked out on the extraction/production of oil, minerals, timber, beef, cars, etc. Thus we are forced to make do with the local and achievable, or the career; to assuage this guilt some found social enterprises, or become green lifestyle gurus, radical-minded journalists and academics, protest organizers, etc. In sum, we try to apply this fundamentally limited ethic of individual achievement, the crowning cultural innovation of capitalism, to solve its ultimate failure.
In order to really address the underlying causes of climate change, we must channel our individual guilt into condemnation of those forces that have arranged modern society so wastefully. Climate guilt, in the more judicial sense of the term, is far from equal. Last July, the UK’s Carbon Disclosure Project published a damning report showing that only 100 companies were responsible for 71% of global greenhouse gas emissions since 1988; naturally, oil companies like Exxon and Saudi Arabia’s Aramco topped the list. Garden and bike to work all you want, but these companies and their financial backers will stop at nothing to extract every drop of oil from the ground unless they are collectively, intentionally opposed. What is ecological is political, and vice versa. The main thing we should feel guilty about (I certainly do) is allowing ourselves to be continually strung along by these companies and their government representatives, instead of working actively to replace them. In future columns I will discuss more ideas for how and why this should occur (in a way that goes beyond regurgitating Bernie Sanders’ platform). The crowd campaigns and physical resistance against the companies that built the Dakota Access Pipeline was a good example of where to start, but we should strive to be more disruptive.
It is precisely those that are least responsible for carbon emissions, namely the poor and marginalized of the world, that are already suffering the most from its effects. And as long as global society is rooted in an individualized and private morality, rather than one of public solidarity and development, these people will never have the financial means to rebuild or relocate, let alone purchase a Tesla.
Tevan Goldberg is an environmental policy major from Astoria, Oregon.
(09/21/17 12:13am)
As the leaves start to change and the school year kicks into full gear, students and locals alike have the opportunity to celebrate the fall at the many apple orchards that exist throughout the state of Vermont. Whether your forte is picking apples, shopping at farm stands or consuming ciders and donuts, Vermont apple orchards will not disappoint in the activities and products that they offer.
Not far from the college, Happy Valley Orchard in Middlebury grows about 50 varieties of apples in their 14-acre orchard. They have the basics, like Cortland and Macintosh, but they also have a number of heirloom apples and other varieties, all available for picking.
“We don’t limit where you can pick,” Mary Pratt, co-owner of Happy Valley Orchard told The Campus. “You can pick anywhere in the orchard you want, and we are unique in that every row of trees has more than one variety of apple in it since we’re a small orchard.”
The orchard also boasts a variety of trees that should fit the needs of all visitors to Happy Valley.
“We have a lot of big trees here,” Pratt explained. “We have some that are probably over 50 years old so they’re huge. We also have some small trees, but since we’re ‘pick your own,’ people do like the big trees.”
From September to November, Happy Valley Orchard is open daily from 9 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. In addition to picking your own apples, the business also has a farm stand on site, at which customers can purchase things like cider, pumpkins, gourds, mums and donuts.
“We are noted for cider donuts,” Pratt emphasized.
Pratt said that Happy Valley has a cider mill, where they make their own fresh cider. Because of this, customers can purchase untreated cider, meaning that “it’s raw and it hasn’t had anything done to it.” The orchard sells their cider elsewhere as well. Selling cider wholesale, outside of the business requires a UV light process, according to Pratt.
“Right now, we press all of the cider for a hard cider company up in Burlington called Citizen Cider, so that keeps us pretty busy,” Pratt added.
Happy Valley is planning a big event called Cider Fest on Oct. 7 that they will host right at the orchard from 12 p.m. to 6 p.m.
“We combine with Citizen Cider and we have music, food trucks, we do apple tasting, we usually have fresh cider samples, and Drop-In Brewery will be here selling their cider and beer,” Pratt said.
Although owning an orchard is not an easy task, Pratt noted that she and her husband find joy in the challenges and successes.
“This is something that we really enjoy doing,” Pratt said.
A slightly longer drive from campus, Shelburne Orchards offers “pick your own” apples as well. They are open from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays and from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m. on weekends. Their website advertises the McIntosh and Gala apples that they have for picking, and notes that Honey Crisps will be coming soon.
In addition to apples, the orchard also has a store with their own distilled apple brandy, non-alcoholic Ginger Jack, cider and fresh cider donuts. The orchard celebrates the season with a number of apple-related events as well. This Sunday, Sept. 24, Shelburne Orchards will host its 16th annual Pie Fest, which will consist of an apple pie baking contest, pie eating and live music. For Vermonters looking for apples and cider in large quantities, Shelburne Orchards will also host a Truckload and Hard Cider Weekend on Oct. 14 and 15, from 9 a.m. to 6 p.m. where attendees can pay to fill their cars and trucks up with apples.
Other orchards, such as Sunrise Orchards in Cornwall, set themselves apart in that most of their work is done behind the scenes to create products that their consumers enjoy. Chris Hodges of Sunrise Orchards shared in an email to The Campus that their orchard is 200 acres and that they grew a number of different apples, such as McIntosh, Empire, Cortland, Honey Crisp, Paula Red, Macoun, Red Delicious and Granny Smith.
“The Vermont climate lends itself well to apple growing with hot summers and cool, sun-filled autumns that redden the fruit during its last stages of growth,” noted Hodges in her email.
Although customers cannot pick their own apples at Sunrise Orchards, they can enjoy them once the orchard begins the harvesting and selling season around mid-August. Sunrise Orchards sells its apples in stores all over Vermont, New Hampshire and New York. The orchard also ensures continued distribution throughout the year, as they refrigerate and store around half of their crop for just that purpose.
Sunrise Orchards prides itself on the quality of its fruit, land and growing practices. People at the orchard work with Red Tomato, which is a non-profit organization that focuses on ecological growing processes.
“We are part of a group of growers from around the New England region who adhere to strict growing practices that emphasize the health of our soils, waterways and workers, and encourages beneficial insect species in the control of pests,” Hodges emphasized.
For anyone interested in taking advantage of Vermont’s helpful apple-growing climate, these three orchards are a good place to start looking, but they are not the only apple growers in Vermont. For a more thorough listing of apple orchards, places to pick and apple events in Vermont, take a look at vermontapples.org. Happy picking!
(05/11/17 1:18am)
On November 8, 2016, perhaps you did not sleep from disbelief, joy or rage. In Havana, the nomenklatura of the communist party also lost sleep; a new situation emerged that broke the plans of a diplomatic approach prepared secretly and meticulously. The new tenant of the White House was a piece on the chessboard of international relations that no one had taken into account. And now? Many say that the process of rapprochement will still continue, while others, more cautious, prefer to wait before reaching a verdict. Personally, I already have mine. For the Trump administration, the arguments in favor of deepening relations with Cuba are insufficient to counteract the influence of the Cuban-American sector in Congress; these individuals are totally opposed to such relations, unless the Cuban government changes its policy towards human rights and democracy. This chess game will remain unfinished pending Raul Castro’s departure from office in 2018. Then, we will see if the new government of Havana and Washington will continue to play together.
Many of my stubborn academic colleagues presume that rapprochement is imminent, based essentially on two arguments. The first is that pressure from Latin American governments will lead to a white-washing of the US’s image in the region Many left-wing governments see the American embargo on the island as a remaining of an era of military interventionism in the continent. The second is that hidden financial interests will lead to the normalization of relations with Cuba.
What these academics miss is that the Latin American political spectrum is no longer the same as in 2009, when Obama felt diplomatic pressure at the Fifth Summit of the Americas held in Trinidad and Tobago. Nowadays, many leftist governments are not in power: Manuel Zelaya (Honduras), Fernando Lugo (Paraguay), Cristina Kirchner (Argentina) and Lula da Silva and his successor Dilma Rousseff (Brazil). Today, In their second terms, Michelle Bachelet (Chile) and Tabaré Vázquez (Uruguay) do not play an active role in regional diplomacy. Among those still in power, Rafael Correa will leave soon the presidency of Ecuador and his party’s candidate Lenín Moreno seems to be more moderate in foreign and domestic politics. In Bolivia, Evo Morales seeks a re-election in 2019 that would be unconstitutional. The influence of Nicaragua is really nil, and the constant political and personal accusations about President Ortega, including of rape by his stepdaughter, prevent him from being an influential personality. Venezuela today, a mere shadow of what it was, is headed by a vice president accused of links to drug trafficking and elements of Islamic terrorism, as well as a president whose mental capacity is in doubt. Furthermore, in case this detailed analysis does not convince you, it is obvious that Trump does not care too much about his diplomatic ties and image.
The argument that Cuba will offer the United States billion-dollar business opportunities is no more very solid. Tourism would be the vanguard of us Cuba financial relations, but still, many cruise companies lack incentive to deal with Cuba until the picture is clear. Earlier this year, American Airlines announced a one quarter decrease in the number of flights to Cuba based on “low demand,” and just few weeks ago, Silver Airways announced a reduction of flights as well.
What else does Cuba have to offer? Tobacco is surely the most profitable business. With regard to rum, the most famous Cuban-made brand is Havana Club. It turns out that the American company Bacardí already produces and sells Havana Club rum as well and there is still litigation that has taken little more than 20 years between Bacardí and Pernod Ricard (the Cuban government business partner). The bio-pharmaceutical sector may be attractive, but it would require a gigantic investment due to the lack of resources and cutting-edge technology that Cuba suffers, in addition to a constant brain drain. The same massive investments would be necessary in the case of the nickel because of the complete obsolescence of the Cuban infrastructure (also, the world market price of nickel is unstable with a downward trend). And while certain agricultural companies see a potential market in Cuba, they forget that the average salary in the island is around $ 25 per month. With less than $1 per day, the idea of having potential buyers falls apart. Could this mean cheap labor for the American companies? Of course, but it is not only morally questionable to take advantage of this situation, it would be necessary to calculate the financial feasibility. For example, if it is better to keep producing in Kansas, or invest in Cuban machinery, training, government fees and transportation costs. As can be seen, so far, most lucrative business opportunities lie in the distant future; today there is hardly anything concrete.
The main reason why I think the new administration will not immediately go forward is the political strength of sectors broadly opposed to a rapprochement with Havana. By the way, let’s remember that after the death of Fidel Castro, Trump was quick in describing Castro as a “brutal dictator.” Many, like Foreign Policy magazine, argue that the Cuban Lobby is even more powerful than the National Rifle Association. As for political representation, only preceded by the Jewish-American sector, today eight Cuban-Americans (of whom six are Republicans and two are Democrats) serve in Congress, and none, I repeat, none looked favorably on Obama’s policy towards Cuba. Three senators (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Bob Menéndez) and five representatives (Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Carlos Curbelo, Mario Diaz-Balart, Albio Sires and Alex Mooney) are the political strongholds defending non-negotiation with Cuba. It is not about potential and future investments; no, it is solely about power in its pure state. (Just think, two of them were in the presidential race!) Donald Trump knows that the hopes of having Democratic support in Congress are almost nil, so he needs the Republican Party where he already faces powerful enemies (John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Bush family and media darling Arnold Schwarzenegger). Trump does not need more adversaries, no matter how fierce he wants to appear. Moreover, Cuba does not seem to be a priority for the administration, and Trump needs all possible support for the centerpieces of his agenda (think: ISIS, the wall, immigration policy and economic protectionism, Russia and China).
Needless to say, the Cuban government has shown no interest in changing its political system or its position on human rights. If Havana does not give in, neither will Washington. However, in 2018, once Raúl Castro leaves office, we will see if the new Cuban government is willing to cede. The new Cuban administration’s hand will be forced by the crisis of its main allied and economic partner Venezuela, and its already existing dependence on the United States from remittances and American visitors. Fidel Castro’s death has cleared the way, but, the climate of uncertainty surrounding the power shift is high. It’s still unclear who will be the next president! And in a country with a Communist Party that has been clinging to power for six decades, a military caste accustomed to privileges, and a massive police state, it is hard to believe that Cuba’s behaviors is going to change quickly.
At present, Trump’s administration will not continue with the diplomatic rapprochement with Havana since the presumed diplomatic benefits simply don’t exist. In addition, although there are certain financial benefits, these elements are not strong enough to counteract the power of the Cuban-American sector in Congress. After 2018, depending on Havana’s move regarding human rights and democratic reforms, we will see if the chess game continues or if someone has left the table for good. Who knows?
(05/10/17 11:18pm)
EatReal distributed a survey to garner support for a proposal to reduce meat in the dining halls by 30 percent by the pound over the next three years. The majority of students approved the plan. It will likely pass through SGA next week.
I support the goals of this proposal with enthusiasm. The methods, however, are all wrong.
To justify the proposed changes, EatReal claims that “animal agriculture contributes more greenhouse gases worldwide than the entire transportation sector and is a leading cause of deforestation.”
This sentence is cut straight from “Cowspiracy,” a dramatic documentary that deserves credit for its boldness and intentions (sort of) but, at the end of the day, is sensationalist, oversimplified propaganda that warrants critical examination and perspective.
Why is it obvious they’re drawing from “Cowspiracy” to back this up?
First of all, the use of the term “animal agriculture” is a huge giveaway, because it’s a term popularized by “Cowspiracy” that refers to production of any animal products, including dairy and eggs.
The film’s message is veganist, and if EatReal wasn’t borrowing it, they would say “meat production,” an accurate phrase they use later in their list.
So if we take out the milk and eggs that make up almost 30 percent of livestock sector emissions, meat production’s contribution to climate change is significantly less than “animal agriculture” as a whole. The environmental ramifications of a meat-based diet are indisputably significant. But if we’re going to talk about meat, let’s talk about meat.
Second, the survey’s comparison of animal agriculture’s climate change impacts to the transportation sector is a clear reference to a 2006 FAO report that is a main rally cry of “Conspiracy.” Take the first fact from the documentary’s fact page: “Animal agriculture is responsible for 18 percent of greenhouse gas emissions, more than the combined exhaust from all transportation.”
In 2013 this report was thoroughly updated and estimates livestock production to be responsible for 14.5 percent of human emissions, and makes no claims comparing sectors.
“Cowspiracy” was released in 2014.
Ignoring the corrections on an outdated, questionable report is not just poor journalism, it’s compromising the truth to make a point, and that is when integrity flies out the window. We can do better research than this.
Not only is this livestock–transportation comparison illegitimate, it’s out of context. “Cowspiracy” uses global estimates from a global organization. These patterns do not hold universally. In the U.S., the EPA reports that transportation is responsible for almost three times the emissions of the entire agricultural sector itself (not even just livestock).
So when it comes to domestic environmental policy, transportation is a much more urgent problem than agriculture itself, much less “animal agriculture,” much less meat production.
Whatever your opinions on “Cowspiracy” are, it should bother you very much that EatReal is quoting it verbatim in this proposal. This group is responsible for advocating with a sophisticated understanding of these issues.
I say again, I am thrilled that Middlebury College is going to buy less industrial meat in favor of smaller producers closer to Addison County. It makes our environment, economy, humans and animals healthier. It’s a slam dunk.
But we need to be clear about why that is, and we need to do better than intimidation and sensationalism — even if it is being used to advance progressive ends.
Supporting an important and perfectly justifiable campaign with false and deceptive information damages the credibility of an entire movement. Let’s continue this work, but let’s be clear, informed and accurate. Otherwise, it inhibits the movement’s progress.
This movement is strong and growing. EatReal is Middlebury’s chapter of Real Food Challenge, a vast network of campuses creating a more just and sustainable food system. This stuff matters: for advancing agendas of social justice, human rights and environmentalism, which are all connected.
Let’s talk about why these issues are connected, and how. Let’s inform ourselves about our food system with sources that respect our dignity. Civil Eats is a great place to start.
(05/04/17 1:32am)
On November 8th, 2016, perhaps you did not sleep from disbelief, joy, or rage. In Havana, the nomenklatura of the communist party also lost sleep; a new situation emerged that broke the plans of a diplomatic approach prepared secretly and meticulously. The new tenant of the White House was a piece on the chessboard of international relations that no one had taken into account. And now? Many say that the process of rapprochement will still continue, while others, more cautious, prefer to wait before reaching verdict. Personally, I already have mine. For the Trump administration, the arguments in favor of deepening relations with Cuba are insufficient to counteract the influence of the Cuban-American sector in Congress; these individuals are totally opposed to such relations, unless the Cuban government changes its policy towards human rights and democracy. This chess game will remain unfinished pending until 2018 when Raul Castro leaves office. Then, we will see if the new government of Havana and Washington will continue to play together.
Many of my stubborn academic colleagues presume that rapprochement is imminent, based essentially on two arguments. The first is that pressure from Latin American governments, will lead to a white-washing of the US’s image in the region Many left-wing governments see the American embargo on the island as a remaining of an era of military interventionism in the continent. The second is that hidden financial interests will lead to the normalization of relations with Cuba.
What these academics miss is that the Latin American political spectrum is no longer the same as in 2009, when Obama felt diplomatic pressure at the Fifth Summit of the Americas held in Trinidad and Tobago. Nowadays, many leftist governments are not in power: Manuel Zelaya (Honduras), Fernando Lugo (Paraguay), Cristina Kirchner (Argentina), and Lula da Silva and his successor Dilma Rousseff (Brazil). Today, In their second terms, Michelle Bachelet (Chile) and Tabaré Vázquez (Uruguay) do not play an active role in regional diplomacy. Among those still in power, Rafael Correa will leave soon the presidency of Ecuador and his party's candidate Lenín Moreno seems to be more moderate in foreign and domestic politics. In Bolivia, Evo Morales seeks a re-election in 2019 that would be unconstitutional. The influence of Nicaragua is really nil, and the constant political and personal accusations about President Ortega, including of rape by his stepdaughter, prevent him from being an influential personality. Venezuela today, a mere shadow of what it was, is headed by a vice president accused of links to drug trafficking and elements of Islamic terrorism, as well as a president whose mental capacity is in doubt. Furthermore, in case this detailed analysis does not convince you, it is obvious that Trump does not care too much about his diplomatic ties and image.
The argument that Cuba will offer the United States billion-dollar-business opportunities is no more very solid. Tourism would be the vanguard of us Cuba financial relations, but still, many cruise companies lack incentive to deal with Cuba until the picture is clear. Earlier this year, American Airlines announced a one quarter decrease in the number of flights to Cuba based on “low demand,” and just few weeks ago, Silver Airways announced a reduction of flights as well.
What else does Cuba have to offer? Tobacco is surely the most profitable business. With regard to rum, the most famous Cuban-made brand is Havana Club. It turns out that the American company Bacardí already produces and sells Havana Club rum as well and there is still litigation that has taken little more than 20 years between Bacardí and Pernod Ricard (the Cuban government business partner). The bio-pharmaceutical sector may be attractive, but it would require a gigantic investment due to the lack of resources and cutting-edge technology that Cuba suffers, in addition to a constant brain drain. The same massive investments would be necessary in the case of the nickel because of the complete obsolescence of the Cuban infrastructure (also, the world market price of nickel is unstable with a downward trend). And while certain agricultural companies see a potential market in Cuba, they forget that the average salary in the island is around $ 25 per month. With less than $1 per day, the idea of having potential buyers falls apart. Could this mean cheap labor for the American companies? Of course, but it is not only morally questionable to take advantage of this situation, it would be necessary to calculate the financial feasibility. For example, if it is better to keep producing in Kansas, or invest in Cuban machinery, training, government fees, and transportation costs. As can be seen, so far, most lucrative business opportunities lie in the distant future; today there is hardly anything concrete.
The main reason why I think the new administration will not immediately go forward is the political strength of sectors broadly opposed to a rapprochement with Havana. By the way, let’s remember that after the death of Fidel Castro, Trump was quick in describing Castro as a “brutal dictator.” Many, like Foreign Policy magazine, argue that the Cuban Lobby is even more powerful than the National Rifle Association. As for political representation, only preceded by the Jewish-American sector, today eight Cuban-Americans (of whom six are Republicans and two are Democrats) serve in Congress, and none, I repeat, none looked favorably on Obama's policy towards Cuba. Three senators (Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, Bob Menéndez) and five representatives (Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Carlos Curbelo, Mario Diaz-Balart, Albio Sires, and Alex Mooney) are the political strongholds defending non-negotiation with Cuba. It is not about potential and future investments; no, it is solely about power in its pure state. (Just think, two of them were in the presidential race!) Donald Trump knows that the hopes of having Democratic support in Congress are almost nil, so he needs the Republican Party where he already faces powerful enemies (John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Bush family and media darling Arnold Schwarzenegger). Trump does not need more adversaries, no matter how fierce he wants to appear. Moreover, Cuba does not seem to be a priority for the administration, and Trump needs all possible support for the centerpieces of his agenda (think: ISIS, the wall, migratory policies and economic protectionism, Russia, and China).
Needless to say, the Cuban government has shown no interest in changing the political system or its position on human rights. If Havana does not give in, neither will Washington. However, in 2018, once Raúl Castro leaves office, we will see if the new Cuban government is willing to cede. The new Cuban administration’s hand will be forced by the crisis of its main allied and economic partner Venezuela, and its already existing dependence on the United States from remittances and American visitors. Fidel Castro’s death has cleared the way, but, the climate of uncertainty surrounding the power shift is high. It’s still unclear who will be the next president! And in a country with a Communist Party that has been clinging to power for six decades, a military caste accustomed to privileges, and a massive police state, it is hard to believe that Cuba’s behaviors is going to change quickly.
At the present time, Trump’s administration will not continue with the diplomatic rapprochement with Havana since the presumed diplomatic benefits simply don’t exist. In addition, although there are certain financial benefits, these elements are not strong enough to counteract the power of the Cuban-American sector in Congress. After 2018, depending on Havana’s move regarding human rights and democratic reforms, we will see if the chess game continues or if someone decides has left the table for good. Who knows?
Orestes Rafael Betancourt Ponce de León is a Master of Public Administration Candidate (2018) at Middlebury Institute of International Studies.
(05/04/17 1:30am)
This April, the Middlebury Institute of International Studies became the first graduate school to be named a Fair Trade University. Over the course of this academic year, students have been working to complete a fair trade campaign for the Institute. This process entailed increasing the number of fair trade products for sale on campus, integrating fair trade dialogues into the classroom, and creating a resolution about the Institute’s commitment to fair trade that is passed through the administration. This process has brought awareness of fair trade to the campus for current students, but the commitment of the administration represents a continued dedication to fair trade in years to come.
On April 14, a public forum took place at MIIS entitled “Setting the Course: California Leadership in the Age of Trump”. Three state government officials sat on the panel: Assemblymember Mark Stone, State Secretary of Natural Resources John Laird and the State Senator Bill Monning, who was previously a faculty member at the Institute. The Forum addressed the discrepancies between state and federal views on climate change and the responsibility of the state government to stand strong on environmental issues under the current administration. Alongside environmental issues, the panel addressed social issues such as California’s high incarceration rate. Panelists reminded attendees that no issue is isolated, and drew immigration policy and economic opportunities into the discussion of climate change.
Nonproliferation experts at MIIS have played critical roles in media coverage of North Korea’s nuclear program over the past few weeks. Recent tests of weapons as well as a military parade in honor of the nation’s founding leader on April 15 have heightened international coverage of the country’s nuclear program, and a variety of experts from MIIS’s James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies have been sought out as resources as national and international media sources work to analyze news and images related to North Korea’s nuclear program.
The United Nations’ annual translation contest awarded two out of its six 2016 student prizes to students of the Middlebury Institute on April 21. Shuai Wang won the student prize in the Chinese category, and Amy Mendenhall won the student prize in the English category, translating from Spanish. Shuai and Amy are studying translation and localized management and conference interpretation, respectively.
The Institute is one of 23 international institutions that have signed memorandums of understanding with the UN, ensuring cooperation in training future language professionals for the UN’s language examinations. Membership in this network allows students at the Institute to submit to this annual St. Jerome Translation Contest, and students are competing with future professionals in the fields of translation and interpretation across the globe.
The Middlebury Institute stretched earth day into earth week this April, with events ranging from April 17 up until the 27th. The week began with an invitation for students to sign a no-plastic-pledge for the week as the Ocean Club brought students’ attention to our impact on the oceans. Events featured complimentary fair trade coffee, tea, and cookies as the Institute seeks to integrate more fair trade products into the school’s events. The week featured trivia, an earth day fair, and a vegan tour of whole foods. Over the weekend, students attended a Volunteer Day at the Big Sur Land Trust and a climate summit hosted at the Institute. This 10-day earth week event perpetuated the excitement on campus over the Institute’s recognition as a fair trade university earlier in the month and raised students’ awareness of further positive impacts they can have on our community and the environment.
(05/04/17 1:30am)
On April 26, Amy Goodman, broadcast journalist, syndicated columnist, investigative reporter and author, delivered a keynote address to more than 200 audience members in Wilson Hall. Goodman’s visit to the College is part of a tour promoting her new book, coauthored with Dennis Moynihan and David Goodman, “Democracy Now!: Twenty Years Covering the Movements Changing America”.
Goodman founded the progressive, independent national news program Democracy Now! in 1966. Democracy Now! focuses its coverage on social movements often ignored by larger media outlets and seeks to amplify the voices of average Americans. In her speech, Goodman discussed some of the program’s most pressing stories, including Standing Rock, the revolutions in Tunisia and Occupy Wall Street. “I deeply think that those who are concerned about war and peace, those who are concerned about the growing inequality in this country, those who care about climate change, racial, economic and social justice and LGBTQ issues, are not the fringe minority. They are not even a silent majority, but the silenced majority: silenced by the corporate media which is why we have to take it back,” Goodman said.
Dennis Moynihan — former outreach director of Democracy Now! and uncle of Maeve Moynihan ’17 — and David Goodman — husband of 2016 Vermont gubernatorial candidate Sue Minter and brother of Amy Goodman — introduced her. Goodman’s speech focused on the importance of independent journalism in amplifying voices of resistance, especially in the Trump era. Goodman shared several examples of Democracy Now’s work in documenting social justice movements, including those that arose recently in Arkansas during the three recent double executions and during Occupy Wall Street. “I remember the corporate media and how they were dealing with Occupy. First they didn’t cover it for like a week, and this is in the media metropolis of the world: New York City. And then they start to ridicule it. This was not a leaderless movement, it was a leader-full movement,” Goodman said.
After learning of Goodman’s interest in coming to Middlebury, Moynihan worked with a variety of student organizations, faculty members and members of the community to plan and publicize the event. Moynihan worked with the Vermont Book Shop, located in downtown Middlebury, to publicize the event to both students and community members. The large interest drawn from community members caused Moynihan to change the location from Dana Auditorium to Wilson Hall. “My uncle Dennis has worked with Amy and Democracy Now! for a number of years, so she has been a close family friend to me for many years. The book tour was the perfect opportunity to have them speak at Middlebury,” Moynihan said. “I hope students and visitors left the event with a deeper understanding of what is actually going on in our world and a deeper commitment to independent media.”
Democracy Now! airs on WRMC 91.1 and online Monday through Friday at 7 PM EST.
(04/27/17 1:38am)
In the spring, summer and fall, Vermont is filled with the sounds and sights of numerous birds and their songs – but according to a new study by the Vermont Center for Ecostudies, Vermont’s total bird population has declined 14.2 percent since 1989. 13 species of Vermont birds studied significantly decreased in population since the start of the survey, said Steve Faccio, the co-author of the study and an ecologist at the Vermont Center for Ecostudies.
The exact cause of the birds’ decline in Vermont is unknown, but is theorized to include multiple factors. Among these factors is the introduction of invasive species that are not native to Vermont, the global trend of general climate change, the fragmentation of Vermont’s forest ranges by humans and damage done to forests by acid rain.
The Vermont bird study was conducted by reviewing the culmination of 25 years of bird surveys completed by volunteers between 1989 and 2013. The study began with 11 survey sites in unmanaged and rural parts of Vermont forests and progressively expanded to 31 survey sites in similarly pastoral and undeveloped parts of the Vermont countryside. The study of the birds away from roads and developments allowed the researchers to get a better look at the purely natural and undisturbed ecosystem of the birds without a direct human variable.
The most intense decline was found in the type of insect-eating birds categorized as “aerial insectivores,” in which the population decreased 45 percent. This category includes birds such as the Vermont whippoorwill, nighthawk, chimney swift and tree swallow. The single most rapid decline of bird species was the common blue jay, which saw a 25 percent decline between 1989 and 2013 in Vermont. The specific cause of the decline of these insect-eating birds is not entirely clear.
“It seems likely that changes in insect abundance or the timing of insect emergence plays a bigger role than habitat loss,” said Steve Faccio, the co-author of the study, in an email to The Campus.
According to the study, changes in insect emergence stem from global climate change. Because of climate change, insects emerge and hatch earlier than usual, before the birds are active. This eventually results in fewer insects for the birds to consume, harming the bird population. According to Faccio, it is still too early to know definitively whether the change in insect emergence is the deciding factor behind the decline of the birds.
Apart from the population decline, eight species, including the pileated woodpecker, mourning dove and the American robin, increased in population. Many of the birds that declined slightly during the first decade of the study stabilized themselves during the last fifteen years.
When asked what Middlebury students and the community could do on an individual level to help protect birds and keep them healthy, Faccio responded, “Be mindful of the things that negatively affect forest ecosystems—fragmentation, climate change, invasive species—and do what you can to avoid contributing to those impacts, as well as opposing actions/policies that contribute to them.”
(04/21/17 2:56am)
Evelin Toth ‘17 was recently awarded the prestigious Thomas J. Watson Fellowship. The Watson program, established in 1961, is a highly selective program that funds a year of international study for its forty-nine fellows. An environmental studies major and French minor, Toth plans to use her Watson year to study the effects of climate change on island communities.
Toth’s project, titled “Adapting to the Rising Seas: Climate Change and Island Communities,” will study the unique problems faced by these areas in handling the global issue of climate change.
“I decided to focus on islands, because island communities and ecosystems are particularly vulnerable to the effects of climate change. Due to this exceptional vulnerability, climate adaptation is a particularly acute issue in these places,” Toth said. Toth will travel to Sri Lanka, Indonesia, Taiwan, Samoa and Ecuador’s Galapagos Islands and will connect with local NGOs and environmental activists to conduct her project.
Toth hopes to gain a holistic view of how these communities alleviate problems related to climate change.
“While I have learnt a lot about climate change through an academic lens, I have always felt that in order to gain a profound understanding of its impacts, one has to engage with those communities that are directly affected by it,” Toth said.
Toth’s project will help her to better understand climate change and global solutions.
“I think that my Watson experience will be a bittersweet journey; I will learn about how climate change is affecting people’s lives and testing nature’s resilience. But I am also hoping to see how this shared, global challenge can unite us and help us rethink our relationship with nature,” Toth said.
Toth first learned about the Watson Fellowship her sophomore year and immediately knew that she wanted to apply for it. The application process began in the spring of her junior year and ended almost a year later.
“The Watson Fellowship pushes fellows to explore places where they have never been before. I grew up in Hungary, lived in Singapore for two years and moved to the States when I started college– engaging with people from different cultures and parts of the world has been an enriching experience in so many ways,” Toth said.
After she completes her project, Toth will continue her studies at the Yale School of Forestry and Environmental Management. “I am confident that the experiences I will gain during my Watson year will help me focus on the most crucial aspects of the climate problem in my future studies. Ultimately, I hope that the Watson year will make me be better prepared to join the global movement to combat climate change,” Toth said.
(03/23/17 7:35pm)
On Thursday, March 16, Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor who leaked classified information in an effort to expose widespread government surveillance, spoke over videoconference to Middlebury College community members in Wilson Hall as the Middlebury College Activities Board (MCAB) Spring Speaker. This was the first time that students gathered in Wilson Hall to hear a speaker after Charles Murray visited on
Snowden fled the United States in May 2013, and was later charged by the U.S. government with espionage and theft of government property. He currently resides at an undisclosed location in Russia, where he received renewed asylum in January 2017 for an additional three years.
Allison Stanger, Russell Leng ’60 Professor of International Politics and Economics, introduced Snowden and moderated the event. Stanger began by describing the effect Snowden has had on her upcoming book, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Leaks: The Story of Whistleblowing in America, which was near completion when Snowden’s story broke. “He forced me, more or less, back to square one,” she said, “but it will be a better book, I hope, for the extra effort.”
In his own opening remarks, Snowden said that the problem at hand involves more than the NSA’s activity. “The problem is that this has become easy for anyone with a certain amount of resources,” he said. While government surveillance programs were once costly and cumbersome, Snowden shared that contemporary programs have grown far more efficient. “One guy can track, with precision, an unimaginably large number of people. And that was me,” he said, referring to his work at the NSA.
Snowden criticized the government for participating in surveillance programs that “are not only unlawful, but have always been unconstitutional.” Moreover, he argued that the government misrepresents its justification for the very existence of the programs. “These programs do not and have not saved lives… These programs were never about terrorism,” he said. “[Surveillance] is useful for disrupting social movements, in being able to discredit people whose politics we disagree with... [These programs] are about economic espionage, diplomatic manipulation, and social control.”
Lamenting a lack of effective mechanisms for constitutional oversight, Snowden cited the press and a vigilant public as vehicles that could bring about greater government transparency. “My argument is that we are at this point forced to rely on our press... If we only knew what governments or corporations wanted us to know, we wouldn’t know much at all.” He continued, “If we didn’t have investigative journalism, we wouldn’t be talking about [this].”
Throughout his talk, Snowden articulated a message of empowerment, imploring the audience to remember that “Saying something matters…the reality is one voice can change the world.” He warned against the notion that freedom of privacy is not important if one has nothing to hide, arguing that “Privacy is the foundation of all other rights… if we lose that, we’re losing more than a right; we’re losing ourselves.”
Snowden also stressed the importance of recognizing the relationship between rights and privilege. “Rights don’t mean much to the powerful and the privileged,” he said. “Rights matter to those who are different, to those who stand out… If you say surveillance is okay as long as its not monitoring me, this is selfish and short sighted.
Snowden was careful to explain that he never personally published any documents in his 2013 reveal. Rather, he gave the information to professional journalists, and requested that they contact the U.S. government in advance of publication to ensure that each leak would not put anyone in danger. To Snowden’s knowledge, that process was followed in every case, and “they have never shown any evidence that anyone has come to harm as a result of these disclosures.” Instead, his actions “changed our laws, changed the thinking of the president, [and] won the Pulitzer Prize for public service. I believe that we live in a freer and fairer world because of it,” he said.
Emma Dunlap ’18 and Jocelyn Zemach ’18, co-chairs of the MCAB Speakers Committee, worked with an agent to secure Snowden as Spring Speaker. “We generally use an agent for our larger speakers,” Dunlap wrote in an email. “Our committee unanimously decided to ‘bring’ Edward Snowden to Middlebury believing that he would start an interesting conversation on campus, especially given the current political climate in America, U.S.-Russian relations, and cyber security concerns in general.”
According to Dunlap, “The event reached over 500 viewers on the live stream. I’ve received positive feedback from many attendees and I hope that the Middlebury community continues to discuss the ideas and opinions that Snowden brought.”
Rebecca Simon ’19 had a somewhat different opinion after leaving Wilson Hall, questioning whether Snowden came to Middlebury to push an agenda rather than engage in a discussion. “Though most of what he had to say was rather inspiring for young people to hear, it all seemed like an elaborate plan or a previously constructed lecture on why his position was correct,” she said. “I am so happy I waited 90 minutes in the cold to see him interact with Professor Stanger and students…I just thought that the discussion was going to be a discussion and not a lecture.”
(03/10/17 2:50am)
As soon as word got out that Middlebury College would host a lecture by Charles Murray (CM), students gathered and began organizing to ensure that he would not have a platform to share his ideas on our campus. Why did a large and diverse group of students put their lives on hold to plan and participate in organized dissent (knowingly breaking college policies and putting their education in jeopardy)?
The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC), one of the most reputable civil rights organizations in the U.S., takes a firm stance in defining Murray’s political position as one of white nationalism that promotes eugenics. According to SPLC, Charles Murray, “has become one of the most influential social scientists in America, using racist pseudoscience and misleading statistics to argue that social inequality is caused by the genetic inferiority of the black and Latino communities, women and the poor.” The SPLC goes on to say that “Murray, a statistically minded sociologist by training, has spent decades working to rehabilitate long-discredited theories of IQ and heredity, turning them into a foundation on which to build a conservative theory of society that rejects equality and egalitarianism.” Murray’s ideas and research were fundamental in driving a political agenda that we believe to be more mainstream on this campus than many admit. Opposed to addressing the lasting damages done by centuries of racist laws enacted by a culture that privileges whiteness, many people on this campus believe that people of color in the U.S. simply do not work hard enough.
On Thursday, demonstrators held signs that read “Resist White Supremacy,” “No Eugenics,” and “Expect Resistance Here” as they collectively read a statement that touched upon the deep history of eugenics programs in the state of Vermont throughout the 1930s, when Native Abenaki people were targeted for state-sanctioned forced sterilizations. In articles and open letters circulated before the event was scheduled to take place, students and alumni declared that under no circumstances should the College provide a platform for CM’s white supremacist ideologies.
Yes, freedom of speech is important and should be upheld in an academic setting; however, there are clearly fallacies within the administration’s interpretation of this constitutional provision. Not all opinions are worth amplifying or legitimizing. There are some theories that fabricate statistics and are rooted in hate.
And let us notice the context in which we choose to invoke free speech. There would be no cries in defense of the first amendment if student groups had brought a holocaust denier; no one would be yelling free speech if students were opposed to a climate change denier coming to campus. Neither the administration nor any department would have any issues denouncing these potential lecturers for their faulty science or hateful views. Yet as we saw on Thursday, our professors made an exception to offer a platform to racialized genetic inferiority, in the name of “rhetorical resilience” over academic honesty.
The Political Science Department endorsed Charles Murray as a fellow leader in academic thought. Why do we only care about free speech when it calls into question the genetic inferiority of our fellows students. What is the point of academia, if our political science professors can’t discern between conservatives and hate speech extremists?
We are deeply sorry that Professor Stanger was injured and hope that she gets well soon. Regrettable acts of violence aside, this protest was absolutely essential. If the rise of Donald Trump has taught us anything, it’s that the world beyond Middlebury College is not a classroom. If racist sh*t comes up, “rational” debate cannot dismantle it or effectively combat its growing power. The idea that bigotry will collapse under academia’s enlightened rationality is false. We must name it and deprive it of power. Robbing Charles Murray of one platform for his racialized pseudoscience is a small but important part of that resistance.
PS: Here are the two URLs that are hyperlinked in the piece
Eugenics in VT: http://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/VT/VT.html
Southern Poverty Law Center: https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/charles-murray
Anna Jacobsen ’16.5, Joshua Claxton ’18 and Austin Kahn ’17.5 consider the implications of last week’s protest.
(03/10/17 1:20am)
Earlier last week, a letter made it to my inbox which I was asked to sign. In this letter, members of the faculty voiced their opposition to the idea that President Patton would introduce controversial speaker Dr. Charles Murray before his invited lecture on Thursday, March 2nd. Given the information that the letter contained, pointing to the hugely problematic nature of Dr. Murray’s published positions and his dangerous proximity to White Supremacist thinking, I signed — I did not want a “presidential treatment” for someone with whose reported views I so fundamentally disagree. However, I did not and do not object to his giving a lecture on our campus.
A subsequent conversation with a colleague started me on a journey that, I think, might be worth considering as we are all trying to come to terms with last Thursday’s events. Asked whether I had read any of Dr. Murray’s writings myself before signing the petition, I had to admit that I had not. Strapped for time, I had read tidbits online and found them aggravating enough. And I trusted those who had drafted the letter that they knew what they were writing about. My conversation with my colleague was most uncomfortable — I realized that I had done exactly what we never want anyone in our classroom to do: I had not gone to the sources but had “bought” into what others had prepared for me, activating my “moral barometer” successfully. I went home and did my homework. As I was reading some of Dr. Murray’s most famous writings on women (I had limited time and chose this issue for my quest), I was feeling increasingly vindicated: what I found was indeed hugely objectionable to me, both as a woman and as an academic, just that now, I had substance to back up my objections.
A day later, it became known that President Patton had no intention to do a “presidential introduction” — I had bought into fake news. The day after, students’ protests denied access to many who would have liked to attend Dr. Murray’s lecture and oppose his views by taking on his actual writings and showing their flaws and (academic) shortcomings. Like so many others, I stood outside of McCollough and listened to fractured protest sound bites bleeding out of Wilson Hall onto the lawn. Later, I listened online as Prof. Stanger did a brilliant job doing exactly what should and could have been done by everyone: expose Dr. Murray’s positions where they are exposable, and even get him to admit to having changed his mind on a few occasions.
As a faculty member, as a woman, as an immigrant and as an individual, I understand the significant discontent that befell our students upon Dr. Murray’s visit, in our current national political and social climate of which the protest was surely a result — but to which it has now become a disturbing contributing factor. I am deeply distressed by the fact that we, as a community, have thus missed the first real opportunity after the election to come together and show what we can do and what we stand for as an institution of higher learning. Instead of preparing for this event, individually and in class or groups, and with enough lead time, we split into those who were inside and did not let the speaker speak — and those who stood outside in the cold, not knowing how to voice our concerns since all of a sudden, they became mixed in with actions that we did not want to be identified with. As the subsequent and completely unacceptable violence erupted, whatever form of justifiable protest got dragged down into the mud. This is shameful to me.
My interactions with my colleague were humbling and taught me a most valuable lesson about myself and how essential it is to practice responsible and informed dissent, no matter how much we trust those whose lead we want to follow. Listening to Professor Allison Stanger holding a discussion that must have been as difficult as it was appreciated made me understand what the event could have been, had we come prepared and ready to fight for our views, speaking out against a speaker. It could have made a powerful statement.
Bettina Matthias, Professor of German Director, German School
(03/03/17 2:42am)
No one’s humanity is up for debate. By hosting a speaker whose ideas dehumanize many students on our campus and cause very real harm both here and across the nation, Middlebury is providing support for oppressive forces already at work on campus. Charles Murray has defended and supported white supremacy, classism, ableism and misogyny through his books and interviews.
If you haven’t gotten the specifics of Charles Murray’s ideas from another source and are confused by the claims that his ideas dehumanize, this paragraph contains some of his ideas. If you don’t want to read this rubbish — skip it. The topic of his lecture on campus is his 2012 book, Coming Apart, which uses largely anecdotal evidence to blame poor people in America for being poor, attempting to explain economic inequality through a perceived gap in virtue. According to one review of Coming Apart, Murray’s argument states that “the decline of virtue in working class communities reduces ‘the ability of people to lead satisfying lives, the ability of communities to function as communities and the ability of America to survive as America’” (p. 126). Similarly blaming the problems of the U.S. on a “degenerate lower class,” Murray states in a 2014 article entitled “The Coming Apart of America’s Civic Culture” that “nothing short of a police state will force people to refrain from crime.” His previous scholarship has popularized ideas that intelligence is genetic, based on IQ and determines individual success. He argues that certain groups, specifically white men, have higher IQs and therefore are objectively more prepared to succeed than other groups.
AEI, and Laurie Patton’s Rhetorical Resilience, ask us to engage in “open and academic debate and discussion of a wide range of issues.” We believe, however, that no debate can be solely academic, but must also acknowledge that ideas have real and material impacts on people’s lives. As eight student organizations wrote in Beyond the Green last year, “When you ask us to consider the other side of the argument, you are asking us to consider our assumed inferiority as a logical position. In no way does this consideration further our (or your) education.”
Over the past few days, we have heard many people say that bringing Murray’s views to campus gives students a chance to practice countering conservative arguments. Murray is not coming to debate, and Middlebury students will not convince him to change his racist, classist, ableist and sexist views. In the current situation, a select number of students are being offered a chance to practice their debating skills at the cost of perpetuating and legitimizing harmful ideas. His arguments are not unknown to this student body. In our current political climate, radically conservative voices are creating policy for our nation from positions such as chief strategist for the Trump administration (Steve Bannon) and US Attorney General (Jeff Sessions). These voices are already granted huge amounts of power and airtime, and debunked science like Murray’s is not new or, unfortunately, fringe. Middlebury College has historically supported similarly racist and elitist efforts, such as craniology (the practice of measuring skull size to prove the superiority of white people), eugenics (a movement popular across Vermont and the world in the mid-20th century which promoted sterilization of the ‘mentally deficient’ including native, disabled, poor and queer peoples) and many other now unacceptable disciplines.
Additionally, debate is impossible when one side cares little about facts. As tenured Professors Essig and Sheridan agreed in comments to VTDigger: Murray is not “a political scientist; he’s a pseudoscience ideologue from a right-wing think tank here to promote its agenda.” Any claims that further violent and elitist arguments should not be given a platform at Middlebury. For example, when climate science is framed as a debate, it gives legitimacy to climate deniers, despite 97 percent of climate scientists supporting the evidence of anthropogenic global warming. This denial has acted to slow down action on climate change and therefore put increasing numbers of climate-vulnerable people at risk. This speaker is the equivalent to a climate change denier. The impacts of his ideas have affected welfare policy and views about class and race in very real ways; his books have been used as arguments against government welfare and for a police state.
It is not acceptable for the college to provide a platform for a speaker whose work marginalizes oppressed peoples. If you would like to engage in conversation about this event, please join us at our weekly meetings at 7 p.m. on Thursdays in Gifford Classroom — all are welcome.
Wonderbread: White Students for Racial Justice writes in about Charles Murray’s 3/2 talk: Emma Ronai-Durning 2018.5, Lucy Grinnan 2019.5, Sarah Koch 2018.5, Matea Mills-Andruk 2018.5, Kathleen Wilson 2018.5, Maddie Stewart-Boldin 2018.5
(11/18/16 1:53am)
What is feminist glaciology? How should we talk about intersectionality? Can graffiti bring people together? Is there a solution to mass incarceration?
These are just some of the many questions that were addressed at the TEDxMiddlebury event on Sunday, Nov. 13. The event, hosted in the Mahaney Center for the Arts (MCA), brought together seven live and two previously recorded speakers in three hour-long sessions. The speakers’ topics covered a range of ideas but all fit under the umbrella theme of “Playing the Game.”
The theme encompassed the different ways in which we navigate and play “the game,” and to each speaker this meant something different. Some interpretations were abstract while some were literal, creating a fascinatingly diverse arrangement of talks.
The conference was a function of TEDx, a branch of the TED conferences. TEDx offers independently organized events that amplify the sharing of “ideas worth spreading” in communities. The informative and entertaining TEDx talks, covering a wide range of subjects, allow speakers to communicate to the audience their novel ideas and passions in an enthralling way.
The student-run TEDxMiddlebury board, a branch of the Center for Creativity, Innovation & Social Entrepreneurship (CCISE), was the brain behind the conference. The TEDxMiddlebury volunteers and board members worked extremely hard to choose the theme, contact potential speakers and organize the event. Their efforts were evident in the enormous success of the event.
This year’s TEDxMiddlebury event was split into three sessions. Each speaker spoke for 18 minutes, and many used projected images to supplement their talks. The talks were followed by student-led discussions, as audience members commented and reflected on the speakers’ talks.
The afternoon began with Kaamila Mohamed’s talk, entitled “Intersecting Identities and Space Making.” Mohamed referenced their identity as a black genderqueer Muslim to show how these identities do not need to exist in separate spheres. Instead, they drew upon intersectionality to find peace with themself, and promoted a powerful message about self-acceptance and love.
Mohamed was followed by Sarah Finnie Robinson, a Breadloaf School of English alumnus. In her talk, “The Game of Our Lives,” Robinson referred to the election and other recent political and environmental contexts in order to destroy the idea that climate change is a belief and not a fact. She praised the College for its environmental efforts, but acknowledged that there is more that needs to be done.
Reshma Saujani came next with her pre-recorded talk, “Teach Girls Bravery, Not Perfection.” Saujani is the Founder and CEO of the tech organization, Girls Who Code. In her discussion, Saujani criticized society for teaching girls to be perfect but failing to encourage female bravery and ambition. She cited this as a source of the deficit of girls in STEM careers, and encouraged a shift in the way we address girls and their work.
After a 15-minute break we heard from Will Kasso, with his talk entitled “Colors.” Kasso, who grew up in the inner city of Trenton, New Jersey, used art as a way to escape the criminal activity of his neighborhood in his youth. Through graffiti, he not only found a community of artists, but also a profession he loved — he is now a professional visual artist. While on stage, Kasso did a live painting, and his talk was so well-received by the audience that it earned a standing ovation.
Adam Foss’s pre-recorded talk, “A Prosecutor’s Vision for a Better Justice System” came next. Foss, a prosecutor in Boston, discussed the importance of keeping people out of jail. Offering real and educational solutions, he said, will end the self-fulfilling prophecy of returning to jail over and over again throughout one’s life and will break individuals out of the prison system and propel them into more productive lifestyles.
Next came speaker Mattie Brice, with “Using Play for Everyday Activism.” Brice discussed using video games for change and how she has engineered video games to help her friends understand her battles with depression. In this way, video games have been an important avenue of social action for her.
The conference resumed after the second break with Gabbie Santos ’17. Santos is an International Politics and Economics (IPE) major at the College. He competed for a spot at the conference against many other students and told himself that if he won he would come out to his parents — hence the title of his talk, “Go Big and Call Home.” Santos spoke of his experiences as a transgender male and critiqued the gender binary and heteronormativity that are embedded in society. Santos received a standing ovation from his peers.
“I like to imagine a block,” said Santos, “with a spectrum on it that we cut into two parts, then four, then eight and we keep cutting and cutting and cutting until the parts are so small, the divisions so thin, that when we take a step back, we can no longer tell that there any divisions at all. It begins to look like one whole block again, a fluid spectrum.”
Next, Marco Mezzavilla, a research fellow in engineering at the NYU Polytechnic School of Engineering gave a talk entitled, “Wireless, Faster, Closer: 5G and Beyond.” He discussed the implications of up-and-coming 5G technology and travelled through the different generations of cell phones and Internet access. He tied these ideas to the importance of connecting worlds and how incredible it is that we can send messages across oceans “in a blink of an eye.”
Taking a different interpretation of the same theme was M. Jackson, with “Glacier, Gender, and Science: We Need More Stories of Ice.” Jackson described her experiences as a feminist glaciologist and the extensive criticism she has received towards her unique career. She discussed the necessity of having both female and male glaciologists in order to produce a well-rounded knowledge of the study. She proceeded to take this thought beyond glaciology and said it represents a greater indication of how we treat women in science and beyond.
Jackson’s talk about feminist glaciology resonated strongly with one student in particular, Georgia Grace Edwards ’18.
“I have always been obsessed with TED Talks,” said Edwards. “But I never expected to feel such a deep, meaningful level of connection like that which I experienced during M’s talk.”
“This past summer,” continued Edwards, “I worked for a helicopter company as a glacier guide on the Mendenhall Glacier in Juneau, Alaska, and I experienced so many of the gendered assertions that M voiced. However, in the moment, I didn’t know how to make sense of them and I didn’t understand what they meant in terms of a bigger picture.”
Jackson’s talk helped Edwards see the sexism she faced over the summer through a new lens and to realize the stigma surrounding female glacier guides.
“All my male co-workers had these big, scruffy beards and just looked like your typical rugged, Alaskan mountain men,” Edwards reflected. “And I think for tourists, that was the idea and the expectation they had in mind when they decided to come to Alaska. So no matter how many times I gave a more informative or energizing or funny tour, no matter how many times I gave my own gloves up to tourists or went the extra mile for them in any way (which the guys never did), I was never going to measure up to the masculine ideal that parallels the ‘man conquers glacier’ narrative.”
“And sure enough,” Edwards continued, “while I did make more in tips than any other female glacier guide, I did not even come close to that of my male counterparts. To have seemingly small observations like this one validated at the intersection of science and gender studies by a professional in the field of ‘feminist glaciology’ — which I had no idea even existed — was both liberating and relieving. I am incredibly grateful to Middlebury and to the TEDx team for bringing this speaker to campus, and for inspiring what may potentially become a new career goal for me.”
As Edwards’s revelation demonstrates, these talks offered unique connections between the speakers and the audience.
“TED Talks are an expression of something that you’re really into and love,” said Brice. “While I’ve always had these ideas in my head, I really got to communicate them to others, which forced me to shrink them down and make them concise and strong and factual.”
Santos added, “Speaking at TEDxMiddlebury was a very powerful experience, and I am very grateful for the opportunity. I came back from my year abroad in France, and I felt so ready and excited to share my most authentic self with our college community, especially as it is my senior year and days feel numbered. In important ways, my talk meant more to me than just any speech or any performance.”
The event’s nine individual talks were conducive to a deeply personal offering and receiving of ideas. The vulnerability of the speakers created intimacy in the theater, which made the event all the more meaningful. From climate change to video games to transexuality, the audience experienced a host of topics and was left to ruminate on a wide and range of ideas.
(05/12/16 8:02pm)
In many ways, this year at Middlebury felt like occupying a community divided. Three different events this weekend com- posed an especially ironic display of Middlebury’s climate: Derby Day, a symposium entitled “Activists, Allies and Accomplices: Responses to Racism Today” and the Distinguished Men of Color (DMC) Block Party. At Derby Day, mainly white students boarded buses to an off-campus party, wearing summer dresses and big hats — paying tribute to a horse race and, de facto, to southern culture. I was one of those students. The symposium, which most students in this community could benefit from attending, addressed the issues of class and race that were exemplified all too well at Saturday’s Derby-themed affair. The Block Party, a spring tradition, included a basket- ball tournament, BBQ and music performances. The racial split between each event was stark. On this day, I reflected on this interesting and ironic way to end my time at Middlebury as we continue to be divided as a community, with our social life more stratified than ever.
This isn’t the only irony that I have con- fronted this year. Another irony that I have grappled with is my own identity as a black woman and my position as the head of an institution deemed racist and classist by many. As Editor-in-Chief, I have spent all year defending The Campus newspaper, our policies and the importance of our role. That was my job. It isn’t my job anymore. Now, I am going to give you my perspective as an individual and not as a representative of this institution, because components of my identity have informed how I have approached the role.
Being a person of color has complicated my role as Editor-in-Chief. Submissions that contained inflammatory, at times offensive content affected me on a deeply personal level, as they did for many other students within this community. As a woman of color, I have been outraged by the suggestions of certain submissions. I think that at times my silence has been perceived as an implicit endorsement of these ideas when that could not be further from the truth. What differentiates me from other students on the campus, including other students of color, is that my role as Editor- in-Chief required that I choose content objectively, without letting my emotions cloud my judgement. This means that I have ap- proved the publication of content that I vehemently disagree with and have had to live with those decisions. These choices were not made indiscriminately. I agonized over them; however, I felt compelled to prioritize my responsibilities as an elected leader over the indignation I felt.
Those decisions defined the perceptions of my editorship. As our community discussed race, identity and privilege, it be- came clear that my role in these conversations would have to be as a representative of the newspaper, not as an independent person. The unique perspective I offer as a POC was not acknowledged, and it never was. Instead, my decisions and policies were attacked. As one student wrote to me, “I continuously expect more from you and am continuously disappointed ... I don’t expect change, but I do expect that a sentiment like this will stick with you and hope- fully make you think twice in the future.” I was painted as someone unsympathetic to
the minority experience on campus, even though I am a minority. My experience and my perspective was invalidated, I believe, for a number of reasons — including my role in the newspaper. I am not telling you this so you will feel sorry for me. I don’t need sympathy. What I do need, however, is the acknowledgement that my experience, while not all that unique, is indicative of a broader issue — a community that has developed very strict standards for what it means to be “black” and what it means to be “white.” And, for another subset, what it means to be a “white ally.” These standards have undoubtedly been imposed by both sides. I have been called “so white” by other students — including friends — numerous times. The problematic implication of this is that whiteness is associated with certain traits and that we have developed a narrow definition of what it means to be “white” or “black.”
The unfortunate and inevitable outcome of these narrow definitions has been the radicalization of conversations surround- ing race. Those who do not fully embrace the stances and objectives of one side have been excluded from the conversation. I, too, have felt this exclusion at times. Responses toward my decisions ranged from pedantic and hard-to-grasp to aggressive and emotional. If we want to be a truly inclusive community, then we need to reassess our constructions of “whiteness” and “blackness” and leave room for more fluid interpretations of identity.
Despite my plea for a community-wide shift, I am also complicit in the construction of the culture we have developed. Even though I stand by the editorial decisions we made, I still struggle to reconcile the expectations of my role with the fact that a student told me that I had personally made them feel unsafe and that my deci- sions have made them not want to leave their room. How do you come to terms with that? The guilt I feel, however, stands alongside the duty to lead this paper, which serves our entire student body and reflects the climate of our campus — as disappointingly narrow-minded as it can sometimes be.
Though I am leaving Middlebury, my hope for this community is that it will continue to embody the progressive spirit so fundamental to its ethos — to push bound- aries and set new standards, but while do- ing so, to recognize the humanity of those around us. Somewhere along the way, our anger and indignation drove us further apart. We imposed one-size-fits-all definitions of identity on one another and forgot that, in the words of Ta-Nehisi Coates, “We should seek not a world where the black race and white race live in harmony, but a world in which the terms black and white have no real political meaning.”
Middlebury will continue to grapple with these issues — the insidious nature of privilege at this school, class and racial divides — but my hope is that while we approach these issues, we remember that a great deal of nuance guides our thinking. I hope we continue to have these difficult, but important conversations. With that, I wish the best of luck to Ellie Reinhardt and Christian Jambora as they take the helm of The Campus. To my editors, you know the respect and admiration I have for each of you.
Abbadi, out.
