779 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(01/16/13 8:42pm)
Superstorm Sandy may be a bit of an afterthought now that both J-Term and winter in Vermont are well under way, but remnants of the catastrophic storm are still very much visible back home in New Jersey. Thankfully, my home and neighborhood managed to remain reasonably unscathed in the wake of the storm surge, as did much of northern New Jersey. However, coastal areas of the Jersey Shore and Long Island (Brooklyn and Queens included) along with Manhattan are still far from back to normal, and as NPR’s Pam Fessler reports, the relief aid flowing into the region teeters along the line between comprehensive and overwhelming. Donations of clothing and financial resources abound, but the reality brought before our eyes concerning the prospect of storms the magnitude of Sandy potentially becoming the norm begs the question of how long we can afford to continue putting bandages on the situation.
Though the lauded efforts brought forward provide welcome reminder that people are capable of being decent human beings every once in a while — see Governor Chris Christie’s uncharacteristic civility immediately following the storm — maybe the costs and damages faced by those affected by Sandy along with help of all who came to their aid may not have been necessary. While many argue that it was only a matter of time before Manhattan faced a disaster of this variety, evidence repetitively quoted by groups like 350.org points to the fact that in earlier decades storms like Sandy would have been an utter impossibility. Paired with our continued neglect to address issues of climate change, the present levels of long-lived greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are only going to increase the likelihood of more storms like Sandy and Irene before it, as well as necessitating Irene- and Sandy-scale relief efforts — more costs.
Economics refers to an externality as a cost or benefit not transmitted through price — in other terms, a failure of the market to accurately represent the cost of an action or choice. An externality, represented as marginal external cost, is the difference between the private and social prices associated with something; working within our Sandy example, let’s call it storm relief. Slate reports that the federal government is currently working out a proposal to bring roughly $50 billion in aid to New York and New Jersey. The New York Times last November estimated the cumulative damages faced by New York and New Jersey to be somewhere around $70 billion. So while Washington has thankfully committed to help mitigate some of the costs of storm relief, it still goes to show that, working on the assumption that Sandy’s magnitude was something affected by our own choices and behaviors — say, the consumption of fossil fuels — that $70 billion is a cost of that action that wasn’t included in the price of the choice that led to it. It was a price that occurred outside of the market.
Now I can’t say for sure that if people 20 years ago knew that disasters like Sandy would be the consequences of them filling up their tank of gas to get to work, they’d stop using gasoline. People will always need to get to work, but maybe someone who would eventually lose their house to a freak storm would rethink the cost of a gallon of gasoline; whether they’d still knowingly purchase it is another story. The crux of the matter is that the way we approach economic questions like these brings in the matter of how we value things — not just in the present, but in the future. If the cost of an action in the present won’t be returned or payed off in the future in terms of benefits, then the action won’t be carried out. Put another way, if the benefits of pollution abatement don’t exceed the cost of abatement in the present, then we’ll just keep polluting. The fact that it’s simple human tendency to value things in the present more highly than things in the future makes the situation exponentially more complicated.
How long can we ethically continue to neglect these issues of value? I can’t say. What I can say is that a disturbingly high number of families’ lives will probably never be the same, and that in itself may suggest that it’s time we consider just how many more storms we can realistically deal with. Sandy was an externality. Sandy was a market failure. Luckily, economics also tells us that we can fix externalities, and we still have the opportunity to reconsider where our ethics and values lie.
(12/22/12 3:55pm)
In the wake of a high-profile student protest and amid a growing university movement to combat climate change, Middlebury College announced in early December that it would initiate steps to address the feasibility of divesting its endowment from the fossil fuel industry.
In a campus-wide email, College President Ronald Liebowitz expressed his willingness to “engage the community on an issue of great interest and import to the College and its many constituents”—a commitment to expand dialogue on concerns previously only discussed seriously in activist forums. He explained that Middlebury would host a series of panels on divestment with representatives from the College’s endowment management firm, Scholar-in-Residence Bill McKibben, and veteran investors. “A look at divestment,” he continued, “must include the consequences, both pro and con, of such a direction, including how likely it will be to achieve the hoped-for results and what the implications might be for the College, for faculty, staff, and individual students.”
In an unusual and impressive demonstration of transparency regarding the College’s finances, Liebowitz also disclosed the percentage of the institution’s $900 million endowment currently invested in fossil fuel companies: roughly 3.6% or $32 million. The statement provided a degree of openness that many say has been missing since 2005 when the College began outsourcing the investment of its endowment to Investure, LLC, an investment management company with an aggregate portfolio of approximately $9.1 billion.
Liebowitz’s announcement was met with enthusiasm from McKibben, the founder of grassroots sustainability organization 350.org and chief spokesman for the organization’s Do The Math tour, a national campaign encouraging colleges, churches and pension funds to divest their endowments from the world’s top 200 fossil fuel companies.
“President Liebowitz used just the right tone and took precisely the right step,” said McKibben in statement released by 350.org. “It won't be easy to divest, but I have no doubt that Middlebury—home of the first environmental studies department in the nation—will do the right thing in the right way.”
On the rural Vermont campus, some students were more tempered in their reaction to the statement. Why wasn’t the College considering more definitive steps, committing to fossil fuel divestment like Unity College in Maine, or pledging to invest in sustainable and socially responsible companies, like Hampshire College in Massachusetts?
“We want to see change happen faster,” said Sam Koplinka-Loehr, a senior environmental justice major. “Panels and discussions are not new,” he explained, “they have been happening since before I arrived on campus.” Koplinka-Loehr was one of five students disciplined by the college for the dissemination of a fake press release in November—a prank designed to raise awareness about divestment and encourage the college to take action.
Other students wondered how the College’s practice of outsourcing its endowment management to Investure—which pools Middlebury’s funds with the endowments of twelve other institutions or foundations—might impact the viability of divestment. The President’s email included a disclaimer noting that the financial information provided was not based on a comprehensive review of Middlebury’s holdings, but rather “the underlying long positions of the Investure Funds of which Investure has actual knowledge from third-party managers.” While this model permits greater efficiency and economies of scale, the many steps of remove limit transparency and could complicate the divestment process.
Members of the student group Divest for Our Future, however, argue that Investure’s co-mingled endowment structure opens up potential for collaboration. They have been in contact with similar student groups at Investure-managed schools such as Smith College, Barnard College and Trinity College in an effort to coordinate initiatives, hoping that acting in unison might encourage Investure to alter its investment policies across the board.
This type of joint effort has a history of success. In 2010, Middlebury students teamed up with representatives from Dickinson College and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund—both of which have endowments managed by Investure—to establish the Sustainable Investments Initiative, an Investure-managed portfolio dedicated to environmentally responsible investment. With $4 million from Middlebury, $1 million from Dickinson, and $70 million from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the portfolio has yielded high returns, says Ben Chute, co-leader of the Socially Responsible Investment Club at Middlebury.
Outside of the logistical debate on feasibility, divestment as an effective strategy to strike a blow at the fossil fuel industry has faced criticism. Nation contributing editor Christian Parenti has questioned the effectiveness of using coordinated divestment as a tool to affect the bottom line of fossil fuel companies, suggesting that if universities were to sell their shares, someone else would likely scoop them up.
Jon Isham, an economics professor and director of Middlebury’s environmental studies program, thinks that while the direct effects of divestment on fossil fuel stock prices may be negligible, the move—if widely adopted—could significantly damage the industry and encourage investment in sustainable energy. “It’s wrong to say that divestment in and of itself is going to effect change solely based on the implications for stock prices,” said Isham. “But it might still make fossil fuel companies worry—it could mean that stock is viewed as something nobody should hold, which happened in tobacco. Divestment is an attempt to give the industry a black eye.”
The divestment movement “is something college students can latch on to,” explains Isham. “They understand their campus, they’re on their campus, and they are very keen on making a difference in the world, not only around climate change, but also around poverty and human rights. This is a way they can make change on campus.”
Indeed, Middlebury students have pushed for the upcoming panel discussions to incorporate representatives from student organizations such as Divest for Our Future and the Socially Responsible Investment Club. “If there is true intent to listen to student voices, the administration should provide avenues for students to engage in these issues,” said Koplinka-Loehr. “We need the opportunity to engage in critical dialogue on equal footing with the administration if we are to be successful.”
KELSEY COLLINS contributed to this report. The article was originally posted to the Extra Credit blog in the Nation.
(12/08/12 5:47pm)
Visiting Assistant Professor of Education Studies Tara Affolter addressed the entangled issues of race and education in her lecture on Thursday, Dec. 6 entitled “Tell Them You Saw Me: Invisibility, Race and Racism in the Liberal Arts Classroom.” Affolter is applying for a tenure-track position in Education Studies at the College, and this lecture was part of her evaluation as a candidate.
Affolter has a Ph.D. in education studies and taught secondary school for fifteen years before becoming a professor at the College. She became interested in the links between race and education after working with the Head Start program and teaching children from low-income families.
Recently, she conducted a study regarding race and education in which she interviewed forty students of color who attended American “elite liberal arts colleges” on their experiences in the classroom. This study is not yet published.
Affolter concluded that there is an unhealthy atmosphere for students of color at predominantly white colleges.
“Students of color experience patterns of exclusion [and] alienation,” explained Affolter.
Affolter attributed this campus climate to problems with campus discourse and curriculum.
Survey data collected from 2,042 students at 141 liberal arts colleges revealed that non-white students felt scared to talk in the classroom at double the rate of white students.
Students of color often feel like they need to watch their tone or that what they say is interpreted by white students as speaking for their entire race, said Affolter. Students in her study revealed that they often feel like “a nobody or a nation” when they speak; they are either invisible or hyper-visible to their classmates.
“Part of white privilege is what we say will be heard [and understood],” said Affolter.
Another flaw to campus discourse, Affolter discussed, is that white students may unintentionally make racist comments which go unacknowledged by students and professors.
“Comments like that take students out of the classroom, silences them, marginalizes them,” explained Affolter. Additionally, if racist comments go unchallenged, she added, they may be accepted as fact.
Students of color in Affolter’s study reported that professors often lead very controlled and cautious discussions in regards to race that only serve to skim the surface of the issues at hand. Race issues are frequently discussed only as historical fact and not as problems wracking today’s society.
By not tackling issues of race in the classroom effectively, students are missing educational opportunities, suggested Affolter. She believes that the curriculum is the area the College most needs to address in order to produce a healthy and diverse campus climate.
On the whole, Affolter challenged all the College’s professors to lead in their classrooms conversations in which race is discussed productively.
“I really do believe that the classroom is the place where we need to make the change,” said Affolter.
Maya Doig-Acuna ’16, whose poem about "the influence of black poets and writers on her own growth" was read by Affolter during her lecture, has been moved by Affolter’s message on campus.
“As a student of color, there were things that she said […] that resonated with me from other students’ experiences that I didn’t really realize were even there, kind of tensions that I had felt in classrooms before that I didn’t know how to identify or how to explain,” said Doig-Acuna about Affolter’s lecture. “[Her lecture] made me feel better about this school because I realized so many people cared.”
Doig-Acuna also shares Affolter’s belief that much could be done to improve the state of racial diversity at the College.
“I didn’t expect to feel such a segregated community,” reflected Doig-Acuna. “I wish that everybody had more of an interest in going beyond what’s familiar, and talking to new people, and engaging in the dialogue about diversity.”
Doig-Acuna and Affolter share the belief that “issues of race and identity are issues that belong to everyone and everyone should care about.”
Jay Saper ’13, who recently wrote a satirical editorial for the Campus entitled “Fire Tara,” believes that Affolter plays an extremely important role in the College community.
“Who she is and what she has to say really resonate with many people on campus who feel that in her work she challenges a lot of what is marginalizing various identities at this place,” said Saper, who has taken a class with Affolter every semester that she has taught at the College. In 2011, he ran a campaign called “Keep Affolter” advocating that Affolter remain as a professor on campus.
“She […] is not just someone who participates in fifty minute lectures and publishes so as to lengthen her CV. [She] is someone who is really a member of our community and a support for so many students,” Saper added.
Affolter wishes to remain at the College because of the flexibility in course design and offering in her department, and because she feels she makes an impact at the College.
She will learn if she received the tenure-track position in the Education Studies department in the coming weeks.
(12/06/12 1:24pm)
In a posting on The Eighth Man, "a quiddicth media site designed to bring together elements of strategy and sports analysis," Benny Nadeau discusses the implications of Middlebury's recent losses and failure in qualifying for the World Cup:
On November 17th, 2012 at the Northeast Regional Championship, the world stood absolutely still. While teams like Boston University and Hofstra University dominated and announced their legitimacy to the IQA community, there were also a few other pleasant surprises from pool play. The Boston Riot had put themselves in a good position to sneak into the World Cup and NYU came out of nowhere with an impressive set of first games. However, there was one team that everyone was talking about.
Middlebury didn’t survive the first day.
In April, for the first time in IQA history, there will be a new World Cup champion.
Middlebury, of course, created this game. Without them, this community that we’ve all come to love and obsess over might not even exist. To them, we owe everything. And yet, the world couldn’t help but act a little overjoyed that, for once, there would be no Middlebury at this year’s World Cup. However, they’re the one team that changed everything.
There have been five world cups and at the end of the tournament each year, it has been Middlebury hoisting our makeshift trophy while the rest of the world was forced to look on. Eyes fixated on their celebrations, the IQA community has made it their number one goal to dethrone the kings of our sport. At World Cup 4, I was a freshman on the Emerson College Quidditch team. I played only fifteen seconds at that weekend and I was still dreading the moment they took the title. What stuck with me to this day was what my coach, Michael Gray, used to tell us.
“Do you think Middlebury is practicing in the rain right now? No, they aren’t! We are the only team in the world that can beat Middlebury, but we have to want it.”
You see, the entire world wasn’t playing Quidditch to win a championship; they were playing to beat Middlebury. Beating Middlebury was the only way to be considered the winner. For better or for worse, the road to glory ran right through Middlebury. Emerson lost that year in the quarterfinals to Tufts and our team sobbed in our tents for over an hour. We weren’t entirely sad that we lost on a scoring miscalculation, we were sad that we didn’t get another shot at Middlebury.
Of course, that was a different Middlebury. The next year, they came in as underdogs and many people believe that they had absolutely no shot of winning a fifth straight title. With new elite powerhouses like Texas A&M, Kansas and Florida, there was no way the little liberal arts school could pull it off once more.
They lost, but not in the finals. In fact, their unfortunate snitch snatch loss against Michigan in pool play was impossibly bad timing. A quaffle goal mere milliseconds before UM pulled the snitch sent waves across Randall’s Island: they were beatable. Word of their loss, no matter how unlucky, spread like wildfire and teams were giddy with excitement. This was the year!
Then there was Marquette. In an event that will live in infamy, bracket creators stopped the game between Middlebury and Marquette in the round of sixteen after it had already started. As the story goes, Marquette was well on their way to a dominating performance and earning their title as the first team to ever eliminate Middlebury from a tournament. The bracket was re-made and instead of losing, Middlebury slipped by Boston University and pulled their snitches on the way to another improbable finals appearance once more.
“I hated that they got a second chance,” said Curtis Taylor, current Marquette University captain.
They made they the most of a second chance and won their unprecedented fifth title in a row. The community was fuming, how could they do it again? They didn’t even create an all-star team from tryouts like most other teams. Infamously, Middlebury always created their tournament team a week before the World Cup based on the winner of their house league. That only made the losses worse.
Vowing revenge, the IQA looked towards spring semester. Champions Series came in April and Middlebury decided to attend. Excitement began cropping up that Middlebury was actually going to compete in a tournament outside of the World Cup. Until now, it was mostly unheard of and teams were euphoric at the opportunity to see them face off once more against Emerson, BU, Villanova and Minnesota. Then, they hardly even sent a team at all. Middlebury’s team consisted of one senior and the rest of their single digit roster were freshman.
The Mattapan Muppets, the original Boston Riot team, eliminated them and became the first team ever to knock them out of a tournament, but it seemed hollow. That wasn’t the Middlebury that the world had come to fear. It wasn’t anything close. Most of IQA became irrationally upset, speaking upon notions of disrespect and hatred for Middlebury’s skeleton team—harboring even more loathing for the team that dominated the sport.
Everyone hated them for winning, but we still hated them when they lost.
Finally, this story culminated in an anti-climatic ending on November 17th, 2012. Throughout the fall season, Middlebury underwhelmed to the impossibly high standards set for them. They lost to UVM and McGill’s B team in October, most considered them done. Some believed that it was a classic Middlebury trick and that a superstar team would show up to regionals to dominate and show the haters they there were still the undisputed champions.
The last dominoes fell after losses to Emerson, Vassar College and Stony Brook University and then it was official: Middlebury would not be going to the World Cup. There would be no second chance. There would be no redemption for every team that had ever lost to Middlebury. Middlebury changed everything for a final team in November.
Of course, reactions were mixed.
“All of a sudden really, they’re not only out of the conversation, they’re out of the competition.” Jackson Maher, an Emerson College junior remarked, “Now, it’s just Emerson and a bunch of gigantic schools. It’s just kind of sad to me. I hope that they can make a comeback.”
For every person who jumped up and down upon Middlebury’s elimination, there were just as many who realized what the sport really lost. The sport lost a champion, at least for this year. Their elimination means that there will undoubtedly be a new winner come April. But are they really a champion if they didn’t go through Middlebury?
“It’s sad that people won’t have the opportunity to close the book on an old era.” Curtis Taylor said.
Other theorists say that Middlebury never wanted to continue playing Quidditch at such high level. Rumors swirled that Middlebury wanted to go out on top and say that they never lost in a tournament setting such as the World Cup. Once the game grew so much, so fast, they wanted out. Middlebury always claims that this wasn’t the sport that they created.
Perhaps, there is something to talk about there. We’ve revolutionized a sport from a fictional book and in a matter of years made it a worldwide phenomenon, but at what cost? Most of the teams that played for the fun, whimsical nature of it all are nearly gone. It was survival of the fittest, and once the big universities caught wind, many smaller colleges had no chance. We’ve all heard the stories, that it was just a fun game to play to pass the time.
Look at us now. Look at us and see how far we’ve come from nothing. Quidditch is an international hit, and it is undeniably Middlebury’s doing. Yet, all these years, teams have put targets on their backs. Beat them and you win. Well, we finally did, but did we win anything?
On Novemeber 17th, 2012, the fall of Middlebury was complete. Everything has changed in one fell swoop and Middlebury will not be competing at the next World Cup. From here on out, the culture of Quidditch will be forever different, even if Middlebury qualifies next year. If this is what we’ve wanted for six years, why aren’t we happier?
(12/05/12 11:22pm)
Last Wednesday, Anne Knowles, professor of geography, received the Award for American Ingenuity from the Smithsonian. Currently the chair of the geography department at the College, Knowles teaches courses in historical geography, cultural geography and the history of cartography.
Knowles and eight others received the Ingenuity Awards for innovations in the fields of climate science, social change and music, among others. This is the inaugural year of the award.
“I had never felt truly humbled until I met the other awardees that evening,” said Knowles, of receiving the award for her work in historical Geographic Information Systems (GIS).
“GIS is a technology that allows you to map anything with location,” explains Knowles in the video clip on the Smithsonian website.
Knowles has used GIS to visualize the Battle of Gettysburg, the Holocaust and the development of the iron industry in the United States. GIS software allows a historian to affix information from the past — troop movements, census data, environmental data, etc. — to specific locations on a map. This process allows historical geographers to “reveal patterns and relationships that would otherwise be invisible,” according to Knowles.
Despite her work in a wide range of topics, the Smithsonian chose to focus on Knowles’ visualization of the Battle of Gettysburg.
“I imagine that is what’s most relevant to an American audience,” said Knowles.
Knowles’ work with the Battle of Gettysburg revealed that General Robert E. Lee could see far more of the battle than historians had previously thought he had witnessed. By combining sketches of the battle, information about troop placement and topographic data, Knowles shed new light on General Lee’s decision to order Picket’s Charge.
In her remarks at the ceremony, Knowles explained that sometimes her work had felt like swimming upstream, as many colleges and universities have closed their geography programs in recent years.
However, Knowles has continued to make notable headway in the field of historical geography. In recent years, she has edited two books on the use of GIS for studying history, and has an upcoming book on the development of the American iron industry.
Indeed, pursuing her passion for a truly grounded and spatial sense of history was not always easy. Knowles searched for years for a faculty position before Bob Churchill, former chair of the Geography department, offered her a position at the College.
Since then, she has collaborated with undergraduates to map the Holocaust (she is teaching a seminar in the spring, “Geographies of the Holocaust”) as well as a host of independent projects.
“The nature of the work would have been very different, had I not been hired at Middlebury. The energy of the undergraduates is astounding,” she said.
Yet this enthusiasm seems to work in both directions, as students in Knowles’ classes regularly commented on the creativity that their professor elicits.
“Knowles encourages a sort of non-linear thinking,” said Molly Rose-Williams ’13.5, a student who first took Knowles’s “Place and Society” course in her first year at Middlebury, and now studies with the geography professor in her “History of Cartography” course. “She’s always looking for connections, and her passion is infectious,” Rose-Williams said.
Through her classes Knowles has provided students with a new to way to look at history, through the process of visualization. Such a creative approach has been recognized by the Smithsonian through the presentation of an award that recognizes historical geography as a relevant and innovative way to study the past.
(12/05/12 6:42pm)
On Tuesday, Dec. 5 President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz sent the following email to students, faculty and staff with a subject heading, "On the College's Endowment":
This fall, several student groups on campus have raised questions surrounding the College’s endowment, specifically with regard to holdings related to fossil fuels. One group, the Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing (ACSRI), has been meeting regularly with Patrick Norton, the College’s Vice President for Finance and Treasurer, and one of its members attends Investment Committee meetings of the Board of Trustees. Other groups, some part of a national movement on college campuses, have also engaged the College administration and community, hoping to learn more about the College’s endowment, how it is invested, and whether we should divest of our investments in fossil fuel companies.
As an academic institution, the College administration and the Board of Trustees are interested in engaging our students’ interest in the endowment. Such engagement, however, must be serious and be based in responsible inquiry and research. It must also be respectful and inclusive of all opinions. A look at divestment must include the consequences, both pro and con, of such a direction, including how likely it will be to achieve the hoped-for results and what the implications might be for the College, for faculty, staff, and individual students.
With input from several groups on campus, including ACSRI, we will set up and host panel discussions with experts in endowment management and divestment. It will include, for example, representatives from the firm that manages our endowment (Investure), veteran investment managers, and our own Scholar-in-Residence, Bill McKibben.
The management of Middlebury’s endowment is complex and has evolved over time. We are part of a consortium with other colleges and foundations whose pooled resources are invested in a number of “fund-of-funds” and therefore the College is very limited in either selecting or deleting any particular investment within its overall portfolio. Despite such limitations, the Investment Committee, the Administration, and Investure have been working with ACSRI to ensure that socially responsible investing is discussed and reviewed as a regular and ongoing part of the investment process. We have instructed Investure and the managers they engage to follow the environmental, social, and corporate governance (ESG) principles that align investors with broader objectives of one’s mission and society at-large.
At the same time, the primary fiduciary responsibility of our investment committee is to maximize its investment returns to support vital programs including financial aid and staff and faculty compensation, while managing risk. Currently, the endowment finances approximately 20 percent of the College’s annual operating cost —approximately $50 million this past year. It is vitally important to understand both the risks and rewards of one’s investment decisions as we are the stewards not only of the endowment for the current generation of Middlebury students, faculty, and staff, but for future generations as well.
At present, approximately 3.6 percent of the College’s $900 million endowment is directly invested in companies related to fossil fuels. For those interested in the amount directly invested in defense and arms manufacturing, the share of our endowment in those companies is less than 1 percent—approximately 0.6 percent. I have included an explanatory note at the end of this communication to provide information on the methodology used to determine these percentages. I encourage you to contact Patrick Norton if you have any questions about this methodology or about the College’s endowment.
As President Liebowitz indicated, the email ended with a note on the utilized methodology:
Investure Managed Funds
Data on investments in fossil fuel and arms for Investure-managed funds (the “Investure Funds’) were provided by Investure, LLC (“Investure”) to Middlebury College upon request and only covers the underlying long holdings of the Investure Funds in those circumstances when information was available as described below. This information is presented on a lagged-basis, and does not include any underlying holdings in a client’s legacy fund portfolio. Moreover, this information is not based on a comprehensive review but rather is based solely on available information on the underlying long positions of the Investure Funds of which Investure has actual knowledge from third-party managers and/or reporting on the exposure of those underlying positions.
As a result, underlying positions may be missing from this analysis that, if included, could be material to an understanding of the College’s portfolio’s underlying positions in fossil fuels and arms. In those cases where Investure had actual knowledge of underlying holdings from managers and/or reporting on an Investure Fund’s exposure, Investure utilized a combination of third-party classifications, at its discretion, including but not limited to certain Standard Industrial Codes and the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, to help identify investments in fossil fuel and arms companies. This information is solely for informational purposes, is not complete, and does not contain material information about the Investure Funds and a client’s portfolio. This information should not be relied upon in any way in making an investment decision. Investure reserves the right to make changes in a client’s portfolio at any time and Investure is under no obligation to update the estimated information included herein. With the aforementioned in mind, of the Investure Funds approximately 3.75% is invested in fossil fuels and 0.8% is invested in arms.
Non-Investure Funds (“Legacy Funds”)
For its Legacy Funds the College used the exact methodology to determine percentages invested in fossil fuels and arms as is described above for the Investure Managed Funds. With the aforementioned in mind, of the Legacy Funds approximately 3.2% is invested in fossil fuels and 0.1% is invested in arms.
Students received a forwarded version of the original email after "the all students address fell off." In what one can only assume to be a quip about the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee's (DLWC) hoax email, Liebowitz continued, "I guess I needed to get permission."
Media outlets quickly picked up the story, with Seven Days posting:
While the announcement isn't, by any means, a firm commitment to divest, the email sparked encouragement among students on campus campaigning for divestment. The divestment movement is spreading to college campuses across the country as climate activist and Vermont resident Bill McKibben headlines a bus tour to encourage schools, churches and foundations to strip their endowment funds of investments in the 200 top fossil fuel companies. McKibben told Seven Days last month that while divestment won't financially cripple the powerful industry, it could represent an "inherently moral call, saying if it’s wrong to wreck the climate, it’s wrong to profit from that wreckage."
McKibben, who also serves as a scholar-in-residence at Middlebury College, responded to Liebowitz's email on Tuesday with a statement through his environmental group 350.org. "President Liebowitz used just the right tone and took precisely the right step," McKibben's statement read. "It won't be easy to divest, but I have no doubt that Middlebury — home of the first environmental studies dept in the nation — will do the right thing in the right way. It makes me proud to be a Panther."
The article continued with student reactions:
It's a step in the right direction, says Greta Neubauer, a junior history major at the college from Wisconsin. Neubauer is part of a new campus group called "Divest For Our Future" that has been pushing for divestment this fall. The group is asking the board of trustees to release a statement that they recognize divestment as a priority, and are working toward that goal.
"We think that this is really an unprecedented opportunity for Middlebury to lead in this movement," says Neubauer, citing the college's early creation of an environmental studies program and its pledge for carbon neutrality as previous examples of leadership. "We really hope that they continue in that leadership role, and recognize that this is a chance to do something exciting ... and be seen as a leader in a movement that could potentially create real change."
Sophomore Teddy Smyth of Georgia, an environmental studies major, applauded the college for unveiling some concrete endowment numbers. While he and Neubauer both admitted that actual divestment would likely be a slow process, he says the fact that the administration is talking about this "is a huge first step."
VT Digger featured another quote by Neubauer '14.5:
“We are excited to see the college commit to continuing the conversation about divestment begun this fall,” said Greta Neubauer, one of the organizers of Divest for Our Future, a student group on campus. “We are also appreciative of the work they have done to provide greater transparency and believe that this is a positive step. “We look forward to continuing this community-wide dialogue and working to make fossil fuel divestment a reality at Middlebury.”
The Montpelier-based online publication also discussed the larger impact of President Liebowitz's statement:
The Middlebury announcement could have ramifications beyond the college because the college’s endowment is managed by Investure, a firm that also helps manage the endowments of a number of other colleges, including Trinity College, Smith College, Barnard College, and major foundations, such as the Rockefeller Brothers Fund and the Carnegie Endowment. Students at Middlebury have already connected with students at other Investure managed schools to discuss how to work together to push the firm in a more sustainable direction.
“Every college in the country should be, at least as transparent as Middlebury about how much money they have wrapped up in the fossil fuel industry,” said Dan Apfel, Executive Director of the Responsible Endowments Coalition. “Students deserve to know how much of their education is being paid for by companies that are wrecking the planet.”
The announcement will also help build momentum for other fossil fuel divestment campaigns across the state of Vermont. This November, students at the University of Vermont asked their board of trustees to divest its $346 million endowment from the oil industry. The Vermont Public Interest Research group is currently analyzing what percentage of Vermont’s pension fund is invested in fossil fuel companies. Two state legislators, Rep. Kesha Ram (D-Burlington) and state Sen.-elect Chris Bray (D-Addison) — who both serve on the UVM board of trustees — are currently discussing divestment policies with the State Treasurer’s office.
The Burlington Free Press and Middblog commented on the announcement. On Wednesday, Middblog continued their coverage through interviewing Student Liaison to the Investment Committee of the Board of Trustees Ben Chute '13.5 and Nathan Arnosti '13 of ACSRI. Chute and Arnosti provided some explanation for the more complicated aspects of the announcement:
MiddBlog: 3% of our endowment invested in fossil fuels, and less than 1% in weapons industries doesn’t sound like a lot to me. Is it less than you guys expected too? On the other hand, does that mean it will be more feasible to divest such a small part of our endowment? Or is it actually not that small?
Arnosti: I was also pleased to see that, according to Investure’s estimates, only 3.6% of Middlebury’s endowment is directly invested in fossil fuels, and .6% is directly invested in defense and arms manufacturing. These figures, certainly at the low end of SRI’s estimates, suggest that Middlebury’s endowment is not solely reliant on the fossil fuel industry for financial returns. Though our investments are spread across many vehicles – thus complicating the picture significantly – divestment from fossil fuels is more feasible when it comprises 3.6% of our portfolio than it would be with a larger percentage of these investments. That said, 3.6% is not trivial: with a $900 million endowment, that equates to around $32 million of investments in fossil fuels.
MiddBlog: Can you translate all the jargon at the end of his email into plain English? Where exactly do these statistics come from and what do they reflect? Are they showing the whole picture in your opinion?
Arnosti: To clarify the specifics of Investure’s reporting, Investure states that they have used “available information” from their many investments, meaning that these figures are approximated. It would be helpful to know what percentage of Investure’s investments were included in this approximation, as that would better indicate the potential margin of error. Also, it is important to note that these figures refer only to direct investments in fossil fuels and defense manufacturing. Thus, while Exxon Mobile might count as part of the 3.6%, a company that manufactures machinery for offshore oil rigs might not. Where we, as a community, draw the line with these industries is a crucial topic of discussion.
The New York Times also published an article about both divestment and McKibben, but made no mention of Middlebury or President Liebowitz's announcement.
Advocacy groups and activists similarly discussed the announcement. "Go Fossil Free," a project coordinated by a coalition of groups including 350.0rg, Energy Action Coalition, Responsible Endowments Coalition, the Sierra Student Coalition and As You Sow, reblogged VT Digger's summary. In the meantime, the DLWC also released a statement on their blog:
Liebowitz confirmed that Middlebury currently has at least $6 million and $32 million invested in industries of violence and environmental degradation respectively. Members of the College are working to reduce those numbers to zero, which would put Middlebury at the front of the pack in the growing national student movement calling for ethically invested endowments.
“One dollar invested in death, is one dollar too many,” says Tim Schornak of the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee (DLWC), an organization of Middlebury students, faculty, parents and alumni working to align Middlebury’s endowment practices with its professed values.
Last October, the DLWC made national headlines for releasing a satirical press release claiming the College had chosen to divest from war in honor of the Dalai Lama’s visit to campus. Their action led the Middlebury College community to embrace the idea that investing in violence and environmental destruction is no joke. Alumni are weighing in with their agreement, pledging not to give a dollar more to the College until it does not go to war. Liebowitz’s remarks indicate that such a day may not be so far off.
(11/28/12 11:54pm)
On Thursday, Nov. 15, Olav Ljosne, senior manager of international operations at Royal Dutch Shell, came to campus to speak on a variety of topics, including the future of energy demand and conflict surrounding oil. Both students and members of the faculty filled the Robert A. Jones ’59 (RAJ) Conference Room to hear the talk, titled “Meeting Future Energy Needs.” Unlike the day before at the University of Vermont, where a group of climate justice activists interrupted Ljosne to the extent that his presentation could not proceed, those in attendance at the College did allow for Ljosne to speak during his allotted time. However, the talk was not without interruptions. Before Ljosne began, two students presented him with a fake diploma while graduation music played, congratulating him for engaging in “multiple human rights violations consistent with the practices of the Middlebury College endowment.” During the question period at the end of the talk, two other students became agitated, accusing Ljosne of being a liar, before falling to the floor in protest. However, a student drew applause from some members of the audience when, in response, he told his peers that they were embarrassing the College and should stop.
The question we ask ourselves in light of these events concerns the status of free speech on this campus. To what extent are students willing to tolerate such behavior as was exhibited by the protesters, some of whom are members of the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee (DLWC)? Clearly, opinions diverge. Some find the means through which these students expressed themselves to be entirely consistent with the severity of the topic at hand, which dealt in part with accusations against Shell of human rights violations in Nigeria. Others, however, consider such behavior offensive and disrespectful, not only to Ljosne, who made the effort to come to campus, but also to those in attendance who wanted to learn more about Shell’s position and engage in sincere, constructive dialogue.
It seems clear that the protesters at Thursday’s meeting aimed to spark thoughtful discussion around Shell’s practices. Though many on campus may agree with the criticisms raised by this group of students, their actions, ironically enough, appeared to inhibit dialogue to a far greater degree than to facilitate it. As in the aftermath of the false press release sent out by the DLWC, once again the student body is left deciphering the actions of a small group, as opposed to critically analyzing the content of the issue at hand. Substantive discussion regarding Shell’s oil practices in Nigeria is largely absent from the current dialogue on campus, replaced with chatter about the drama that unfolded at Thursday’s talk. Certainly, the dialogue that ensues such protest cannot be entirely controlled by the protesters themselves; it is up to the students to decide whether or not they will focus on the critical issues. However, protesters do have the ability to project an inviting manner, engaging more students and promoting a more productive dialogue.
The current reality shows the paralyzing effects resulting from protest that polarizes a portion of the student body. Activism that engages many groups of people is not necessarily weak activism; in fact, throughout history, the most successful movements demonstrate that there is great strength in numbers. The efforts of a small group, however worthy they may be, will ultimately fail unless they solidify a broader following by appealing to more people and including those with slightly different viewpoints. Activists may also find that educating students on the issues before a controversial speaker arrives will help to facilitate constructive dialogue. While some of the activists at Thursday’s meeting hold forums each Friday to discuss issues with the college community, how inviting are such events to others who feel intimidated by the group’s aggressive tactics? Further, activists should look to diversify how they communicate, expanding beyond the spaces they establish; it shouldn’t matter what platform or forum is used — a productive conversation can happen anywhere, from Proctor tables to Middblog, and should not take place solely on their terms.
Taking a step back, we see that the real issue here is not between Middlebury students and a visiting representative from Shell. Certainly, students owe guest speakers who come to campus a certain degree of respect, even if they disagree vehemently with that speaker’s opinion. For the most part, protesters at Thursday’s meeting did allow Ljosne to speak.
The crux of the issue, then, is the relationship between the protesters and their peers — the rest of the student body. Middlebury students are bright, incredibly passionate people who bring different skills and perspectives to the table. As members of a small college community, we are somewhat surprised to see those with whom we attend class and interact on a daily basis challenge authority in such an overt manner. Protest does not necessarily have to be loud and dramatic to be effective; taping their mouths during Ljosne’s talk, showing solidarity by dressing in one color or picketing outside the RAJ are alternate methods that might have been less polarizing and more effective. The reason we remain focused on the methods and drama of the situation instead of the content of the matter itself reflects the fact we are accustomed to the type of constructive, inclusive discussion in which all can voice their opinions and contribute.
Free speech on campus has many dimensions — it implies an atmosphere that encourages collaboration and open exchange of divergent ideas, as well as tolerance of others. In this case, we must tolerate those who protest a visiting speaker, as well as acknowledge the right of the speaker himself to express his ideas, and the rights of other students to speak their minds. Just because others choose not to show their frustration as dramatically as the protesters does not mean that they do not care deeply about the issues. Some students, for example, asked questions that reflected thought and research. The protesters’ satirical performance overshadowed, and potentially dissuaded, those who wanted to ask pointed questions in a more traditional manner. Further, receiving a reply one does not agree with — a reply that appears veiled in corporate rhetoric — may be incredibly powerful in itself; Middlebury students deserve the opportunity to be critical listeners, and hearing a stock response from a Shell representative may send a stronger signal to the student body than any amount of interruption.
Learning, progress and development of a consensus takes place in a welcoming environment, such as that of a Middlebury classroom in which professors and students alike are respected instead of ridiculed. Though classrooms may be better suited for discussion than action, we must bring these practices of dialogue into the real world. Instead of utilizing divisive tactics not conducive to constructive conversation or the inclusion of others, we as students should identify our common interests and join together to promote the type of change many of us hope for. Undoubtedly, the work we could accomplish together far exceeds that which we achieve as separate entities.
(11/28/12 11:45pm)
A recent op-ed (“Divestment Creates Positive, Systemic Change”) argued that divestment is a valuable tool in the fight against global warming. While I wholeheartedly share in the author’s concern about climate change, I am not convinced that Middlebury College’s divestment from fossil fuel companies would constitute a step towards realizing this goal.
Divesting from a publicly traded company will not lower the company’s share price. Simple economic models tell us that if a stock is sold in sufficient volume to lower its price, non-ideologically motivated buyers will simply take advantage of the lowered price to buy stock until its price returns to the equilibrium point. While the pro-divestment op-ed noted this, the author suggested that if enough investors take action, the financial stability of the company could be jeopardized. Yet this misses the point entirely: it does not matter how many would-be divesters decide to sell — as long as there are non-ideological buyers somewhere, divestment will not impact the company’s valuation.
Far more importantly, the op-ed also fails to note the crucial fact that most of the oil industry is not controlled by publicly traded companies. According to the U.S. Department of Energy, national oil companies — not publicly traded international oil companies — control the majority of current production (55 percent as of 2010) and the vast majority of oil reserves (85 percent). Even ExxonMobil, the largest publicly traded oil company, accounts for only three percent of world petroleum production. Divestment would not have an economic effect on private or state-owned oil companies. Furthermore, because those companies are accountable to governments and not to shareholders, they are also far less likely to care about the moral or symbolic message that divestment could generate.
Even the much-lauded case of divestment from apartheid-era South Africa was not the unmitigated success that activists would have us believe. A London Business School paper titled “The Effect of Socially Activist Investment Policies on the Financial Markets: Evidence from the South African Boycott” found that divestment efforts had “little discernable effect” on either the financial valuation of corporations invested in South Africa or on South African financial markets themselves.
Perhaps one could argue that these criticisms of divestment are misguided, and that divestment is not merely an economic tool, but a social and a moral one. Even if this were the case, we owe it to ourselves to consider not only the benefits of divestment, but also the potential costs. Another study, “The Stock Market Impact of Social Pressure: The South African Divestment Case,” found that there was a negative impact on companies that divested: “Stock prices of firms announcing plans to stay in South Africa fared better relative to stock prices of firms announcing plans to leave [emphasis added].” Could divestment have a similarly negative financial impact on Middlebury?
Campus activists do not seem to consider this important point. In their rush to condemn oil companies, many activists do not appear to grasp the fact that their proposed divestment will have costs as well as benefits. While activist groups have done a remarkable job raising awareness, they have yet to publicly present a plan for how divestment could actually be implemented. Many crucial questions remain unanswered, and indeed, unasked. What are the potential costs of divestment? Who should bear these costs? How much are we willing to sacrifice? What do we want the purpose of our endowment to be? And above all else: is divestment the best way to accomplish our goals?
The best way to fight climate change is not through disruptive agitprop. The small number of students who reject community discussion and mutual respect in favor of radical direct action — who I recognize do not represent the entire divestment movement — should recognize that they are merely alienating potential supporters and weakening the claims of the divestment movement as a whole.
Dissimulation and disruption can only lead to distrust and polarization. Middlebury is better than that. The path to 350 parts per million runs not through the narrow halls of Old Chapel or the crowded seats of Dana Auditorium, but through the classrooms and laboratories of Bicentennial Hall.
So let’s use our skills as Middlebury students not merely to criticize the way things currently are, but to envision a better way forward. Rather than name-calling, protests and accusations, let’s see a concrete model of how the endowment should be managed. With this in mind, here’s an open call to the Socially Responsible Investment Club, Divest for Our Future, the so-called Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee and all students, faculty, staff, administrators, trustees and members of the Middlebury community who are concerned about the future of our endowment: let’s see a cost-benefit analysis of divestment by the end of this academic year.
Written be MAX KAGAN '14 of Freeport, ME
(11/27/12 10:26pm)
Middlebury Magazine's Maria Theresa Stadtmueller recently published an interesting article about two Middlebury graduates' local startups:
Not all business start-ups incubate in the family garage. Gardens, kitchens, and J-term classes have inspired two recent Middlebury graduates and one student to explore the business side of improving local eating options and farmers’ bottom lines. Not surprising in this state, they often cross paths. Annie Rowell ’11 is the Farm-to-Institution Program Associate at the two-year-old Vermont Food Venture Center in Hardwick. While helping farmers process their fruits and vegetables, she sometimes teams up with David Dolginow ’09, who manages a new frozen vegetable line by Sunrise Orchards in Cornwall. And Suzanne Calhoun ’14 found Sunrise apples gave the perfect twist to several of her condiments, Suzanne’s Sweet Savories, which she cooks up at the Venture Center.
Annie Rowell ’11 was an internationally focused political science major — she speaks French and studied Arabic — when she realized the pull of her family’s Vermont farming heritage. While taking a closer look at the politics of food in her native Craftsbury, Rowell found a path into the food business. Associate Professor Bert Johnson, a specialist in local and state politics, helped her develop a senior thesis that held the lens of policy and economic change theories to Craftsbury’s proposed adoption of more locally sourced school lunches. “It was a really great experience studying my own community as an observer,” she recalls. A subsequent internship with the Center for an Agricultural Economy in Hardwick synched with the inauguration of its Food Venture Center and led to her current job. She still has a hand in the politics of food, especially through the state’s Farm to Plate strategic; but she also enjoys the physicality of production and “geeks out” over broccoli floret machines and vegetable wash conveyers that add muscle to the VFVC’s rentable commercial kitchens. “Our first year, we processed 1,700 pounds of bulk broccoli in a little under a day and a half; this year, we did 2,200 pounds in one day,” she recalls, scanning the data sheets she keeps in her office down the hall from the kitchen.
The VFVC offers professional equipment, food safety certification, and business know-how to entrepreneurs; Rowell also focuses on connecting farmers to schools, hospitals, and other institutions interested in serving what Vermonters grow. “This has been a huge production and data-gathering year,” she says. “It’s exciting what this means for Vermont’s future. For example, we know broccoli can grow well, and our equipment can process it well, and we have all this data to figure out institutional demand and how we can fill it.” Greater demand for local vegetables can mean more growing options for farmers. Rowell feels fortunate in her work, and not only because of the great aromas that waft into her office (”Yesterday was maple nuts—yum!”). “I can’t imagine having as much ownership elsewhere in what could be seen as an entry level position—doing the projections, managing relationships, and leading productions.”
As a student, David Dolginow ’09 was building environmental policy chops—working with the Sunday Night Group, taking a J-term class that crafted recommendations for Middlebury’s climate neutrality; he even took time off and worked at a Democratic lobby shop in Washington, D.C. The religion and geography major was co-teaching a J-term class on “Food and Justice in Vermont,” touring farms and hosting farmers to discuss their work, when he and one of those farmers, Barney Hodges ’91, started talking about the future of frozen vegetables. Hodges, the second-generation owner of Sunrise Orchards in Cornwall, wanted to diversify his orchard business using their added asset of a refrigerated warehouse in Shoreham. Two years later, thanks to a USDA grant, Sunrise and Dolginow are doing just that. Sitting at the orchard’s farmhouse dining table, Dolginow notes their progress: “Our vegetable operation is still small compared with apples,”—a yearly average of 5.5 million pounds of apples and 50,000 pounds of vegetables—“but that’s double last year’s total.”
The business end is a natural for Dolginow, who grew up around his parents’ jewelry store in Leawood, Kansas. The natural end he learned interning in the College’s organic garden, working at a local organic farm post-graduation, and canning the harvest in the Weybridge House kitchen with friends.
“I remember thinking, ‘people en masse might not get back into home canning, so let’s do it for them, with the farms they want to buy from.’ That’s what we’re trying to do at Sunrise, and it seems to be working.” Dolginow calls Sunrise “a mid-tier supply chain partner” thanks to its two refrigerated box trucks, warehouse, and strong networks. “We buy produce from farms, move it to processors [like the VFVC], pick up the frozen products, and then warehouse and distribute them.” Customers include a network of 25 northeastern food coops and customers such as Middlebury, Fletcher Allen Hospital, and now food service giant Sodexo, which serves 10 million people a day in 7,000 institutions. Working the fine edge between price and volume, Dolginow says, it’s easy to see why the food industry has grown to such a scale. “Our solution is to work only with family farms in the northeast, period.” His job satisfactions? Chefs thrilled with their produce; a role in local food security; and the daily variety: “Produce is always changing—it’s tangible and dynamic, and that seemed a good use of my Middlebury College brain.”
They’re not your typical college-student road trips: driving from Maine loaded with 400 pounds of wild blueberries in your Outback; heading up to Hardwick to cook and can condiments at the Vermont Food Venture Center; making the rounds of farmers’ markets and coops to get people sampling your product. Suzanne Calhoun ’14 admits, “I have a high busy tolerance but I’m definitely pushing it.” What Calhoun is also pushing—tastefully—is reconnection with the fresh, clean flavors of fruits and vegetables in home cooking. Calhoun’s fledgling business, Suzanne’s Sweet Savories, features seven “piquant preserves” to liven up meals with tastes from tomato to carrot and pear to cranberry. Calhoun grew up gardening and canning with her family in Jericho, Vermont. Her desire to share those pleasures with others comes, in part, from her concern with the modern state of food: “We’ve become so disconnected from nature,” she says. “It really concerns me.” In contrast, a 6-year-old could recognize all the ingredients listed on Calhoun’s preserve jars.
Kudos from hungry friends and family started Calhoun thinking about scaling up into a business, but, she says, “I didn’t know what was involved or where to go.” Spending J-term in the MiddCORE leadership immersion course answered many of those questions and helped her establish ongoing relationships with business mentors. After further feasibility homework, she scored a MiddChallenge Grant and the suggestion to check out the VFVC. There, she found more connections through Annie Rowell: High Mowing Seeds just down the road from VFVC had tons of great tomatoes used for their seed testing; Sunrise Orchards had surplus apples perfect for cooking. As Calhoun develops savvy about marketing and sourcing, she remains committed to working with local farmers. Meanwhile, after a busy first summer, company headquarters (her parents’ basement) is well stocked with preserves for distribution so she can concentrate on studying math, computer science, vertebrate biology, and music. Meanwhile, she’s thinking ahead to new products to reconnect people with real food.
(11/07/12 11:58pm)
The splendor of autumn in Vermont is always something to look forward to, especially in a small corner of Addison County where an annual fall visitor comes to roost.
Each fall around mid-October, thousands of strikingly white snow geese flock to Dead Creek, a wildlife management area in Addison County, to rest on their long journey south.
The Dead Creek habitat is characterized by its open stretches of water, cattail marshes and wooded areas. The uplands include farmland, open fields and forests. The state put in a series of dams and actively manages the water levels of flooded impoundments to preserve snow geese habitat.
Although their stay in Vermont is short, it does not go unobserved; hundreds of locals and visitors alike also flock to this area to photograph and observe these birds.
In the warmer months, snow geese rest and breed in northern climates on the Arctic tundra — in Greenland, Alaska, Canada and even the northeastern tip of Siberia. As the season changes, however, the birds take flight, following their familiar migratory path, which takes them southeast to the United States and Mexico.
The birds cover around 5,000 miles round trip. This distance is possible because of the efficient flying “V” formation — while in flight, each bird flies slightly above the bird behind it, creating uplift for its follower and reducing wind resistance. As the head goose, the bird flying at the point of the “V” gets tired, it drops back and rotates out of position, allowing for another bird to take its place.
According to scientists, this process affords geese the chance to travel greater distances than they would be able to alone.
With such a great distance to travel, snow geese can easily become fatigued or hungry and risk being left behind. Sanctuaries, such as the one provided at Dead Creek, give the birds a place to rest and rejuvenate on their journey.
Managed by the Vermont Fish and Wildlife department, Dead Creek Wildlife Management Area (WMA) is a 2,858-acre tract of land that spans Panton, Addison and Bridport. The Dead Creek WMA began as small parcels of land purchased from farmers, and, over time, has grown in size due to purchases financed by a Vermont state tax on firearms and ammunition.
A large portion of the Dead Creek WMA is regulated as a refuge, prohibiting public access. Snow geese rest among the trees and in the water in this area, out of hunters’ range.
Snow geese are not the only wildlife to be seen at the Dead Creek WMA — Canadian geese, other duck species and other waterfowl also inhabit the preserve. Regulated hunting and trapping is allowed, but only in controlled hunting areas. The season for hunting snow geese runs from Oct. 1 to Dec. 29.
The geese reach their peak number in mid to late October. The geese have numbered in excess of 5,000 in previous years and the annual population fluctuates because the population growth trend for snow geese is on rise.
Some observers are worried by the population increase. According to Cameron MacKugler ’09, New Haven resident and avid hunter, this trend could eventually lead to an abrupt decimation of the species, particularly in colder regions to the north of Vermont.
“There are more geese than there are grasses and the geese are grazing beneath the soil and consuming the plants’ roots as well, “ MacKugler said. “This is essentially destroying the tundra’s ability to regenerate ... and is leaving the land barren. State agencies monitoring hunting have expanded the daily limit of snow geese that a hunter may kill. While hunters may take 5 Canada geese, they may shoot 25 snow geese per day.”
Although the national population of snow geese is stable, fewer snow geese are flocking to Dead Creek now than in years past.
Professor of Environmental and Biosphere Studies Stephen Trombulak explained the recent change.
“Over the last few years snow geese have preferentially shifted their migratory route through the Champlain Valley over to the New York side of the lake,” he said.
Trombulak is not worried by the shifting migratory patterns.
“Plenty of geese still come through the area,” he said.
Observers continue to visit Dead Creek despite the declining number of geese. Often, observers hear the birds before they see them. Rising up from the cornstalks, massive flocks of the white birds will take to the air, drowning out all other sounds. Their bright white plumage accentuated by black-tipped wings contrasts with the fall foliage. Some grey snow geese, called “blue geese,” can be seen flying among their white counterparts at the close of their fleeting stay here in Vermont.
While many observers may miss this spectacle, vestiges of the snow geese are left behind — white feathers, floating atop the water or caught in the grass, offer a promise for next year’s return.
(11/07/12 11:48pm)
Despite the bleak forecast and closures throughout Vermont prior to Sandy, the state experienced only minor flooding and high winds in the aftermath of the storm. Meanwhile, areas along the northeast coast were not so fortunate, and like Vermont after Irene, have a long road ahead to recovery.
With a lot of damage still left to process from Irene, Vermonters were extremely concerned about the potential for another natural disaster coming up the eastern seaboard. Looking back, Governor Peter Shumlin characterized Vermont’s fortune with a sense of relief.
“We are pleased that we have escaped the bullet on Sandy without more damage [and] without loss of life,” said Shumlin in a televised broadcast two days after the storm.
Strictly speaking, Vermont did not entirely avoid damage, but compared to the staggering figures posted for areas like New York City and parts of New Jersey, Vermont’s power outages appear relatively inconsequential.
“We did lose 36,000 power customers during the storm,” said Shumlin. “Right now, we have connected back up all but about 8,000, and we expect to have them connected back in the near future.”
By contrast, the main electricity provider for New York City, Con Edison, estimated that over 800,000 homes were without power immediately after the storm. While above ground circuits may be quickly rebuilt, recovery for the sprawling underground infrastructure will be harder to reconnect. Mayor Michael Bloomberg, however, underlined the greatest loss as a result of Sandy in a press conference on Nov. 2.
“The death toll from Sandy continues to rise,” said Bloomberg somberly. “We now know that at least 41 New Yorkers have perished.”
Since then, a cold front has set in on the city, threatening the many thousands displaced from their homes as a result of Sandy’s devastating storm surges.
In response, Vermont, along with other states in the northeast, has sent state law enforcement officials to aid in the ongoing recovery effort to the south.
“We are obviously extremely sympathetic and empathetic, having survived Irene and other storms, to our neighbors in the south,” said Shumiln, “and we’re going to be offering them all the help that they deserve and need.”
Shumlin went on to report that Vermont will send two helicopters to New Jersey to help distribute food and resources and provide emergency response for those still in need.
In addition, the Vermont State Police (VSP) reported in a press release that they will be sending 11 troopers to New Jersey, joined by 15 troopers from Maine, to form a task force to aid local law enforcement.
“We are honored to be able to support the recovery efforts in the aftermath of Hurricane Sandy,” said Colonel Tom L’Esperance, director of the Vermont State Police. “As part of the greater law enforcement community, it is vital that we help one another during times of crisis.”
The VSP noted the significance of this act, adding that this is only the second time since the VSP’s formation that it has sent officers to support another state; the first time was in 2005 when VSP troopers assisted in Louisiana’s recovery from hurricane Katrina.
Despite the extreme damage to infrastructure along the coast, all nuclear facilities in the trajectory of the hurricane were either successfully shutdown or managed to withstand the severe conditions while running at normal capacity.
“Careful planning and comprehensive preparations days in advance of the storm paid off at all of the facilities, which were prepared to take the steps necessary to maintain safety against high winds, record flooding and disturbances on the regional electric grid,” the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI) wrote in a recent press release.
While many facilities were forced to shut down in New York and in other states affected by the storm due to disruptions in the electric grid, Vermont’s sole reactor, Vermont Yankee, was asked by the regional electric grid operator only to reduce its output to 90 percent of capacity.
Recovery efforts will continue throughout the northeast in the coming weeks as officials decide how best to rebuild given coastal vulnerabilities to this kind of extreme flooding. Looking ahead, some groups warn that this storm and other natural disasters have been exacerbated by climate change and will continue to grow in frequency and severity in the years to come.
The largest reinsurance company in the world, Munich Re, found in a study released just two weeks prior to Sandy that North America has been the most affected part of the world in recent decades by extreme weather events, which was only bolstered by the onset of hurricane Sandy.
“The study shows a nearly quintupled number of weather-related loss events in North America for the past three decades,” wrote Munich Re.
While many doubt human involvement in these disaster events within the U.S., the report indicated in no uncertain terms that there is a connection between green house gas emissions and extreme weather.
“Climate change particularly affects formation of heat-waves, droughts, intense precipitation events, and in the long run … probably also tropical cyclone intensity,” Munich Re concluded.
(11/07/12 11:24pm)
In the past few days, I have read headline after headline detailing the damaging effects of Hurricane Sandy on the New York metropolitan area. Millions are still without power and dozens have been killed; countless homes and businesses have been destroyed. In scanning through the headlines, however, I can’t help but be concerned about the distorted priorities of coverage. The devastation to New York’s wealthy elite, in the form of closed high-end restaurants or flooded Chelsea art galleries, seems to be the focus of the media. The conversation about who has been disproportionately hurt by Sandy and about the roles that race and class play when hurricanes hit, is altogether absent from the discourse. Once again, the legacy of ignoring marginalized communities in times of national emergency has been affirmed, and what walks and talks like a natural disaster is more likely a man made one.
While wealthy folks from the village were stressing about how they were going to get uptown to charge their phones, as one New York Times article covers, thousands of people were lining up for emergency food and water downtown. The neighborhoods most severely affected by Sandy are, expectedly, the same ones most severely affected by systemic class and racial inequality. While its true that hurricanes don’t discriminate, people and societies certainly do, and this is no exception.
Take the Red Hook Houses in northern Brooklyn, for example, where over 6,500 residents have gone without heat, elevators, food and water for over a week after Sandy. Elderly and disabled residents are being forced to walk up 12 flights of stairs without elevator access, mothers are desperately washing their young children with bottled water and thousands are going to sleep each night without heat, in temperatures dropping into the 20’s. Red Hook has received virtually no aid from FEMA or the city, and its residents are literally surviving because of the generosity of neighbors’ donations. Lower Manhattan, on the other hand, has had almost all of its power restored. Trees in my parents’ upper-class towns in the suburbs are already being replanted. Random? You decide.
Red Hook, similar to many other forgotten communities, like the Jacob Riis Houses in Lower Manhattan, has a long history of marginalization. These are predominately communities of color whose residents live below or near the poverty line, who could not simply leave town when Sandy struck, as many New York City residents did. As one Reuters article states, “Those with a car could flee. Those with wealth could move into a hotel. Those with steady jobs could decline to come into work.” Without public evacuations, people must rely on individual resources, which, in New York City, are distributed far from equally. According to census data, last year the wealthiest 20 percent of Manhattan residents made close to $400,000 on average, while the poorest 20 percent made around $10,000. As Reuters points out, only a handful of developing nations, like Sierra Leone and Namibia, have income inequality rates that rival those of New York.
So, although the media is overlooking the disproportionate attention given to certain neighborhoods, really it should come as no surprise that the hardest hit are overwhelmingly home to the working poor. The housing projects are, in fact, just the tip of the iceberg as one New York journalist notes: “Waterfront communities like Far Rockaway and Coney Island are utterly devastated, parts of Queens have suffered horrific damage from fires, and […] we’ve heard nothing about what city officials are doing to assist residents of Staten Island who are virtually stranded.” Unfortunately, all of this is really nothing new.
It only takes one look out my window to be reminded of what happens when communities are forgotten by the nation in times of disaster. I am in the Lower Ninth Ward of New Orleans, and the street I am living on is lined with houses that have been boarded up and empty since Katrina hit, over seven years ago. If I were to show you a picture of the house across the street, with its roof collapsed in, you might think it was from 2006, right after the hurricane. On the other hand, if I were to take a drive uptown to the wealthy, predominately white neighborhoods back in 2006, they would be almost completely restored. But hurricanes don’t discriminate, right?
The class and racial dynamics of Hurricane Katrina’s effects are far too complex to go into detail here (although I encourage you to read about them elsewhere), but the obvious comparisons to Sandy must be made. The Lower Ninth Ward is a predominately black and working-class neighborhood, which was hit the hardest by Katrina and the hardest by national indifference. Just like the residents of Red Hook, the Lower Ninth was disproportionately neglected immediately after the storm, and has continued to be neglected seven years later. There are no services or jobs in the neighborhood, the unemployment rate is something like 75 percent, the incarceration rate is the highest in the country and thousands of residents are still unable to return home. To top it all off, the levees that famously broke are being rebuilt just down the street, and are allegedly weaker than the old ones.
Despite the media’s negligence of covering systemic racism and classism in relief efforts, they are realities that must be brought into the discourse if the full story is to be told. As climate change continues to make natural disasters the norm, it is pretty clear that Sandy is not going to be the last hurricane of the decade. However, if there is a positive (if not bleak) side to storms like Sandy and Katrina, it is that they expose pre-existing inequalities and push us to address them; to make our communities more resilient; and to work towards a more just and equitable future.
Written by JENNY MARKS '14.5 of Bedford, N.Y.
(11/07/12 11:14pm)
Divestment is a tool that is best used as part of a broader movement towards a real-world goal. My goal is to keep the global temperature from rising two degrees Celsius above the pre-industrial temperature, an increment that was about the only thing global leaders could agree upon at the Copenhagen Summit. In the 1980s, activists had the goal of ending Apartheid in South Africa, and used divestment as a tool to do so.
Next it is important to consider how businesses are related to the given goal. Will divestment be an appropriate tool towards that goal? In the 1980’s, U.S. companies were doing business in South Africa, supporting and profiting from the Apartheid regime. In facing climate change, fossil fuel companies have a vested interest not only in extracting and selling five times the amount of carbon as will raise the global temperature two degrees, but also in funding climate-change-denying science and lobbying against climate change legislation.
When investors do remove their money from the culpable companies, or divest, it must be a widespread action. Admittedly, one shareholder’s divestment will not significantly impact the company — the shares will simply be sold to another investor. But if a large cohort of investors across the country, or even across the globe, mobilizes to divest, than the value of the company’s shares could drop and the company could begin to lose its financial stability. Perhaps more important are the social and political impacts of broad scale divestment. When divestment is used in concert with boycotts, lobbying, political pressure, civil disobedience and widespread media coverage, the companies can be stigmatized so that they change their business practices, they lose their political power or the public consumes less of their product.
In the case of South Africa, the divestment movement included more than 55 colleges and universities, 26 U.S. states, 22 counties, 90 cities and many religious organizations and pension funds. The divestment movement caused 200 U.S. companies that had been supporting the Apartheid regime to cut their ties with South Africa. But change in those businesses was not the ultimate goal — rather it was an important tool used in conjunction with a broader social movement towards ending Apartheid. Governments issued sanctions against the regime, human rights organizations lobbied and activists in South Africa and around the world rallied against the regime. When Apartheid officially ended in 1994 with the election of Nelson Mandela, he specifically cited divestment and the withdrawal of U.S. companies as key factors in the end of Apartheid.
The movement against climate change is on a similar track. Students at more than 40 campuses are already pressuring their administrations to divest from fossil fuel industries. Climate change is the target of countless environmental and human rights groups, international agreements and coalitions of reputable scientists. Businesses in renewable energy, efficient technology and green buildings work to reduce fossil fuel consumption. Thousands of activists through organizations like 350.org mobilize to raise awareness of the urgency of climate change. In other words, there is a broad and multidimensional social movement against climate change. But through lobbying and campaign contributions, fossil fuel companies are effectively preventing more rapid and systemic change. Additionally, it is not just the industry’s spending practices that are the problem. Rather it is their inherent business model. The fossil fuel industry is so big and so profitable that even a widespread divestment movement will probably not keep it from selling 80 per cent of the reserves it has discovered. But divestment could easily be the catalyzing force in separating our politicians from fossil fuel interests, in demanding climate change policy, in ending fossil fuel subsidies and in exciting the public to a new degree of urgency in reducing its carbon consumption. Divestment from fossil fuels, coupled with social pressure against the industry, will work within the broader social movement to keep climate change from passing two degrees.
Written by JEANNIE BARTLETT '15 of Leyden, Mass., Co-President of the Socially Responsible Investment Club (SRI)
(11/07/12 11:10pm)
It’s hard to believe that it’s been three weeks since His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama graced us with his presence and dropped enlightenment bombs like it was his job for two glorious days. With that said, this column may seem a bit dated, but hey, I needed to get that election column out the other week so you all could be good and educated before hitting the polls, and chances are that most of you haven’t completely forgotten about Tibet’s spiritual leader’s visit quite yet. Let’s take some time to revisit some of His Holiness’ more illuminating points, reflect on Buddhist teachings and talk about why “Educating the Heart” and “Cultivating Hope, Wisdom and Compassion” can play crucial roles in building our communities and preserving our planet.
For anyone unfamiliar, Buddhism is a rich and intricate religious tradition centered as much on philosophical inquiry and research as it is on teachings and practice. As His Holiness alluded to in his talk, much of Buddhist thought has been focused on closing the gap between our illusory perceptions and reality. As a result, Buddhism has provided insight in the areas of philosophy of the mind, psychology and the study of consciousness hundreds of years before modern mind science arrived at the same conclusions. And while His Holiness spared the audience from a longwinded discussion on Buddhism’s contributions to mind science, one product of Buddhist inquiry mentioned — and possibly one of the most important points made by the Dalai Lama in Nelson Arena — could hold particular importance in attempting to formulate an ethical case for environmentalism: the notion that there is no self, and that individuation is an illusion which must be overcome.
Now, that concept may have been a bit hard to swallow for most people in our society, and is enough to induce existential crises in those more philosophically inclined. It’s no mystery why our culture holds notions of the self and individual so near and dear; as Americans, we’re told not only that the highest end we can aspire to is personal success, but that even as a collective unit we’re inherently superior to every other group of people out there. American exceptionalism has proved exceptionally pervasive in our collective consciousness, and while I’m not trying to belittle all of the great things about the land of the free and home of the brave, it’s this precise kind of mentality that has facilitated the extent to which we view the way we treat the planet and other people as acceptable.
One of the effects of remedying this attachment to the thought of ourselves as separate from others is that the well-being of others gains a lot more value in the grand scheme of things. If we can reconcile the discrepancy in the way we value others in relation to ourselves, being concerned about community welfare — and goods and services shared by the community — becomes a whole lot easier. When greater equity is placed in the way others are affected by our actions, it gets somewhat harder to be alright with the costs of pollution and other kinds of environmental degradation to people who aren’t us — what economics calls externalities. And as His Holiness asserted during his talk, there’s even incentive to make this the case. We shouldn’t only be concerned for others’ well being as much as our own because it’s ethically appropriate; research has shown that the way our brains work, we even get satisfaction when helping others. So not only is there a case for not being mean to one another, there’s even a neurobiological case for being nice to one another. And in case anyone was wondering, the Dalai Lama has researched the biological sciences and psychology extensively.
So if there is anything to take from His Holiness’s visit to Midd, it’s that we need to be more trusting and open with everything outside of us — whether it’s our own self, our culture or our species. The world in which we live is shared, and we ought to start treating it as such. In the words of the His Holiness: “We are the generation that will shape the world to come.” Lets do so as a community.
As an aside, to all the people I heard after the talk claiming His Holiness does not “believe in climate change,” you’re wrong. During the student and faculty talk on Oct. 12, he acknowledged that the way nature’s cycles work is partially affected by our way of life. And when he attended the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s (MIT) forum on climate change on Oct. 15, he claimed that “all of humanity’s children will be affected by climate change,” and that a solution “will only come through compassion.”
(11/07/12 10:54pm)
Richard Cizik, president of the New Evangelical Partnership for the Common Good, spoke last Friday, Nov. 2 in the Robert A. Jones ’59 Conference Room about a unique conversion experience, one he is hoping to bring to his fellow evangelicals.
“I was converted in 2002 at the Oxford Conference on climate change,” said Cizik. “Six years later I gave an interview on NPR’s Fresh Air and I gave too much ‘fresh air’ to my evangelicals and all of them rose up on the conservative religious right side and said ‘fire the guy.’”
Cizik, for 28 years of his career, worked for the National Association of Evangelicals and for 10 of those years was the vice-president for governmental affairs. Cizik resigned in 2008 after supporting civil unions, President of the United States Barack Obama and action on climate change in an interview with NPR’s Fresh Air, which led to criticism from his fellow evangelicals.
“I said a few other things, like I had voted for Barack Obama. I said I can support civil unions, like other evangelical youngsters,” said Cizik. “And I said I believe in climate change and the science and we’re going to have to change the way we live, and that was too much.”
In his lecture, “For God’s Sake, Let’s Focus on the Earth!” Cizik said evangelicals are facing a theological crisis.
“I am going to be a consultant for you to [evangelicalism] because that movement, you see, has said no to all that we, I hope, in this room believe about what is happening to the planet,” said Cizik. “What I want to talk about is the theological challenge of the 21st century: climate change and the environment and the future of the planet,” said Cizik. “We are going to have to see and think more clearly about this...I happen to think we are going to have to see what the scriptures say about this.”
Cizik said there are 1,000 verses in the “green Bible,” or verses that refer to a responsibility for humankind to care for and protect the environment. He believes evangelicals must “shift from thinking this way – that our purpose in life is to live in order to die in order to live in a disembodied spiritual existence with God forever in heaven – from that vision, which is theological heresy, to a vision that we were born, not to live and die with Him in a disembodied existence, but to be with Him, co-partners, in the renewal and redemption of all of creation.”
Cizik said the world needs a conversion experience to change our vision to where everyone, of all creeds, can see what is happening to the planet. Calling it the shift from ethnocentric to cosmocentric thinking, Cizik said the Bible gives Christians a mechanism to see the spiritual importance of taking steps to halt climate change.
“We have to employ a strategy unlike we have ever employed in the past,” said Cizik, “We need to be inspired to action.”
Cizik believes colleges have a role to play.
“The strategy is to care more deeply, and the ethics professors on every campus, including this one, have to ask themselves and their students, what makes people care?” Cizik said, “The younger generation isn’t more environmentally ‘green’ just because they are more educated.”
According to Cizik, motivating people does not require more information, but communicating why people ought to care, and to do so, diverse communities have to work together.
“The strategy has to be bringing people together, particularly the scientific community, the religious community, to do this.”
As a result of Hurricane Sandy, Cizik said climate change and the environment “will be back on the screen, but nothing will change if we don’t internalize it with the eyes of our hearts, this shift to a new way of living that is deeply ingrained in how we think and how we feel.”
Cizik, delivering his lecture mere days after Hurricane Sandy struck the east coast, said the event should send a message to evangelical Christians.
“All of those conservatives who believe science is evil and trust in a God and believe He will take care of them no matter what and resort to a fear-based politics had something happen this week that should shatter their ignorance.”
Nevertheless, Cizik said the responsibility is up to us.
“We have to present the information to them in ways they will accept and understand.”
Jordan Collins ’15 was impressed by Cizik’s message and strategy for making change happen.
“I thought that Cizik presented a very important perspective on the shift Evangelical Christians need to make, to a more ‘cosmocentric’ appreciation and care of the earth,” she said in an email. “It was a pretty radical position considering Christianity's ingrained traditions, but his points on using personal stories and bold action to inspire people and chip away at ignorance were definitely reasonable. It's reassuring to have such a provocative change agent to whom those of faith can relate, with a message Christians are more likely to take to heart.”
(11/07/12 10:11pm)
On Monday Nov. 5 the Community Council met to finalize the creation of the Residential Life Committee and speak with representatives of the Honor Code Review regarding its plans for this year.
The constitution of the Honor Code mandates that a committee be created every four years with the purpose of reviewing the language and effectiveness of the Honor Code, making appropriate alterations when necessary.
This year the committee is comprised of Karen Guttentag, associate dean of judicial affairs and student life, Holly Allen, assistant professor of American studies, Steve Abbott, professor of mathematics, and students Amy Schlueter ’13, Jackie Yordan ’13 and Matt Ball ’14.
The 2012-2013 Honor Code Review Committee is considering four honor code related issues: turnitin.com, orienting new students to the honor code policy, faculty support and communication of expectations.
Turnitin.com is a service that checks written work for plagiarism — a service that could make the process of checking student work much less time consuming for faculty members.
“One of the issues that is really challenging for faculty members when checking student work for plagiarism is that it is a very onerous process. We are exploring if [turnitin.com] is a reasonable resource to invest in,” explained Guttentag.
“I’ve come across some fairly egregious cases of academic dishonesty and I know faculty members who won’t take the time to track down plagiarism because it is overwhelming,” said Allen.
“But having these practices and knowing there is consistency among the faculty that shows we are all on the same page may help create a climate of academic honesty,”
Some student members of Community Council were less supportive of the online tool, explaining that they felt as though such tools undermine the trust between students and faculty, so central to the Middlebury experience.
“The reason in my mind that we have an honor code is trust. Professors trust students to do their own work and students feel and recognize that,” said Barrett Smith ’13, student co-chair of community council.
“Turnitin.com and tools like it undermine that trust. This is a system that is built entirely on respect that is built between faculty and students.”
Aside from Turnitin.com, the Honor Code Review Committee is looking at ways to successfully orient first year students with the honor code. The committee has suggested creating an honor code video comprised of student interviews in which current students describe what the honor code means to them.
The group would also like to create an online tutorial for citations — one of the most common sources of academic honor code violations for students.
Lastly, the committee would like to review and expand on the language of the code.
“We are looking to create broad enough definitions so that they encompass the many forms of academic dishonesty,” explained Allen.
“I have been charged with the task of looking at how different schools define academic dishonestly. And many schools do have more comprehensive definitions.”
The introduction to Middlebury’s honor code outlines three prohibited activities: plagiarism, cheating and duplicate production of work. Yet Guttentag believes that other forms of academic dishonesty may be worthy of consideration.
“There is also the fabrication of data, having someone sign you into to a lecture that you did not attend, or lying about when you turned a paper in,” she explained.
The Honor Code Review Committee will continue to examine the code through the year and Community Council will review any proposed changes.
“If we are giving the students the tools they need and it is being expanded on in classes, especially first-year seminars, I think it would make a huge difference” concluded Shirley Collado, dean of the college.
(10/31/12 7:17pm)
I am a proud Republican. But last week, I filled out my absentee ballot and voted for Gary Johnson, the Libertarian presidential candidate.
When I first announced that I planned to vote for a third-party candidate, many of my friends were a little angry. “This may be the most important election of our lives. How can you throw away your vote on a third-party candidate?”
Nearly a quarter of Americans feel that in this election, they support “the candidate they disagree with less,” and bipartisan polarization has long been blamed for this “lesser of two evils” outlook. Indeed, our bipartisan system has divided most political issues to the point where the two party’s views stand in fundamental opposition to each other, leaving no room for compromise. And yet, many of these platforms stand against their party’s smothered philosophy, having been arbitrarily adopted to capture votes by providing an alternative to the other party’s stances. In 1981, Ronald Reagan asserted that the “government’s first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives,” and this principle applies to many Republican party platforms. Yet, while advocating decreased private-sector control and huge government spending cuts, Republicans champion social platforms aiming to control peoples’ decisions. The Democratic Party, meanwhile, compromises the integral American social and political value of freedom to establish politically manufactured equality through tax hikes for the wealthy, affirmative action and nationalized services.
The government shouldn’t pick winners and losers in our economy, and it shouldn’t judge marriage eligibility. Yet both the Democratic and Republican parties impinge on Americans’ freedoms and seek expanded control, whether fiscally or socially. Whether Obama or Romney wins this election, Congress will work to thwart the president’s attempts at political or social progress, military spending will increase, foreign entanglements in the Middle East will continue, climate change will remain unsolved, taxes will probably be raised on some sector of Americans and government power over the American citizenry will expand. We clearly need a pragmatic alternative.
While “our two-party political system is destroying America,” remains a popular declaration, Americans will largely ignore the half-dozen third-party presidential candidates come Election Day. It’s mostly psychological — we want to vote for the winning candidate; we don’t want our vote to be wasted — but the media and misinformation are also at fault. Last week, an obese dachshund named Obie received more national press than Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein. Seven in 10 Americans believe our government was designed as a two-party system, while political parties didn’t exist until the 1790s, and third parties have historically played major roles in influencing American politics.
While third parties may not elect candidates or rally widespread support, they can shape the political system by illuminating unrepresented political beliefs and prompting platform readjustments in the vote-thirsty, dominant parties.
Gary Johnson, a former Republican governor of New Mexico, advocates socially tolerant, fiscally conservative leadership stressing economic, diplomatic and foreign non-interventionism. Governor Johnson wants to abolish the corporate tax to encourage business, immediately end our costly military occupation of Afghanistan, repeal Obamacare, cut government spending, remove tax loopholes instead of raising taxes, end government subsidies, expand states’ control, legalize and tax marijuana, ensure government neutrality on social issues and encourage legal immigration rather than attack illegal immigration. These lofty goals aren’t pipe dreams — they rest on tried and true principles of non-interventionism and personal liberty advocated by our Founding Fathers. And in New Mexico, Gary Johnson’s libertarian leadership and budget slashing created one of the only state budget surpluses in the last four decades.
I know that Gary Johnson will not be elected, but my hope is that if he gains a substantial portion of the popular vote, libertarian views could reign in the fiscal liberalism of the left and convince the Republican Party that its social policies are isolating young people.
Voting for a third party is not wasting my vote when compromising my beliefs for a Republican or Democrat who leads based on polarized party stances rather than moral and economic pragmatism is the alternative. A vote for Gary Johnson challenges current political gridlock, voices frustration in the failed policies of both Democrats and Republicans and helps politicians recognize that their parties have lost touch with the values held by the majority of our socially tolerant, fiscally conservative nation. We can’t afford four more years of Obama, but Romney’s policies are not the alternatives we need. You don’t have to pick the lesser of two evils — vote libertarian with me and demand a change in our divided, stagnated political system.
(10/31/12 4:01pm)
Standing in front of a crowd of some 50 faculty, students and community members during lunch last Thursday, Oct. 25, Executive Director of Équiterre and Ashoka Fellow Sidney Ribaux explained how his organization, Équiterre, built the greenest building in Canada with no money, land or building experience.
The process began some 10 years after Équiterre’s inauguration. The organization was founded in 1993 by a young group of idealists infused with energy from the 1992 United Nations Conference on Environment and Development in Rio de Janeiro.
For the first 10 years of their existence, as they began to grow and establish themselves in Québec as one of the leading advocates for climate and energy solutions, environmental education, food system reform and policy change, the non-profit was based out of a decrepit building that leaked in heavy rains. They were focused on using their limited budget for their projects, as any office space would do.
But in 2002, Équiterre’s Board of Directors decided it was time for an upgrade.
“The board told me ‘You can’t go on working in these conditions,’” said Ribeaux. They gave me that mandate to move the organization to a new building. And then they added: ‘And you’re going to make this an educational project, and you’re going to make sure that your move is exemplary.’”
“We didn’t own land,” Ribeaux continued. “[We were] not a large non-profit, [nor] a large land-owner. I had no money. Our annual budget was a million dollars, but we weren’t accumulating anything. We had no loose money to invest, and had no idea how to go about building anything concrete really, apart from an educational campaign. The only thing we did have that helped was community. All we had, as a non-profit organization, was the ability to mobilize people and organizations — governments, non-profits and businesses.”
Ribaux spent the next 30 minutes explaining how Équiterre and its partner organizations went about building the greenest building in Canada, la Maison du Développement Durable — a building constructed to LEED Platinum standards — which opened its doors on Oct. 6, 2011.
Ribaux was invited to the College as a guest lecturer in the Howard E. Woodin Colloquium Series, a speaker series sponsored by the environmental studies program.
The series is named in honor of Professor Howard Woodin, one of the four founders of the College’s environmental studies program. The Colloquium’s purpose is to bring in people who are working on advanced or innovative projects in the environmental field and foster discussion and conversation around environmental problems and solutions.
“In some ways it’s the centerpiece of environmental studies and environmental affairs in the sense that every week its a gathering place for students, staff, faculty and community members to learn from each other,” said Director of Environmental Studies, Faculty Director of the Middlebury Center for Social Entrepreneurship and Professor of Economics Jon Isham.
“We have people from far away, people from the region, faculty and students themselves present; it’s a chance to talk about challenges and opportunities in the area of environmental studies and sustainability. We’re insanely proud of it. Everyone on this campus should know about this opportunity. Grab a lunch, come to Hillcrest from 12:30 to 1:30 on Thursday, and you’ll learn something.”
Virginia Wiltshire-Gordon ’16 has only missed one of the Woodin lectures this year and spoke enthusiastically of the series.
“I love going to the Hillcrest talks,” she said. “They’ve covered a broad range of environmental topics — a discussion about collaboration, the presentation of a river management study, conversations about public environmental education — the range really reflects the scope of the environmental studies program.”
Wiltshire-Gordon also noted that, in addition to the many interesting speakers, the series can help students connect with professors.
“It’s also a great time to get to know my professors outside of class,” she said. “I’ve seen both my biology and economics professors there and have been able to talk with them about what we heard. It’s great to see that they are so engaged in the community, [and it is] great to have the opportunity to learn alongside of them.”
Community engagement is an integral piece of the Woodin Colloquium, and it was a sentiment echoed by Ribaux as he wrapped up his presentation:
“We [built la Maison du Développement Durable] because of the partnerships that we created, because of the community that we mobilized.
We ended up with the building, but more importantly, we’ve ended up with a much stronger community, that’s now supporting everything we’re doing and helping us move forward.”
(10/24/12 11:13pm)
Since roughly January, unless you’ve been trapped at the bottom of the sea in a mid-ocean ridge somewhere, spent no less than all of your time out in the backcountry or have failed to leave Bicentennial Hall (entirely possible), you’ve hopefully figured out that the number by which we refer to this year is divisible by four. But more importantly there’s one of those election things coming up — the general election. And you know what that means: time for roadside signs to start multiplying like invasive species. On a more serious note, we vote for local, state and Congressional offices, along with that other one, the office of the president. Granted that the first two digits of 2012 are 2 and 0, respectively, and not, say, 1 and 4, or 0 and 8, or even 1 and 9, the environment should be a hot issue. But for some reason, even though we’re in the midst of a 21st century election, it isn’t.
During this election, oddly enough, the most surprising thing about either candidate’s position on the environment is that we haven’t really heard much about it. Four years ago, President of the United States Barack Obama told us he’d heal the planet. Governor Mitt Romney made a joke or two about those comments at the Republican National Convention, and mentions now and then that as soon as he steps into office, he’ll do away with the Environmental Protection Agency. Though there were some allusions made by the President during his speech at the Democratic National Committee to the seriousness of climate change and a plan to reduce carbon pollution, there’s been little talk of either since. The fact of the matter is that neither candidate has outlined a concrete plan for how he will tackle the issues facing our country.
Unfortunately, the environment right now is a non-issue. Yet things like energy independence, natural gas and drilling for oil are. Some people (myself included) would argue that these topics are, to the contrary, some of the most important issues in the environmental dialogue today, though they haven’t been perceived that way by the public. Both candidates, if elected, will probably approve construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Canada, and most people couldn’t care less about where our oil comes from or how much of it is left in the ground, so long as it’s cheap. Actually arguing publicly that oil prices now are far below market value and that maybe we should be using less petroleum after all would be nothing short of political suicide. So why aren’t presidential debates flooded with questions about managing the national parks and wilderness areas, creating a sustainable energy future or cap and trade programs for carbon emissions? A look at why the country hasn’t made any significant environmental developments in the last 20 years may shed some light on the topic and requires going beyond presidential politics.
Annual studies conducted by the League of Conservation Voters for the last 30 years have tracked voting records in the House and Senate on environmental issues and illustrate just how deep into gridlock we are. Over almost four decades, statistics have shown that both parties have become even more polarized in either direction, with bipartisan support on environmental issues becoming less and less common. The environmental legislation passed in the latter half of the previous century was largely the product of bipartisan cooperation. So, where did it go? Other studies have shown that the overwhelming majority of Americans like the environment and would be reasonably bitter if something awful happened to it. The sad truth is that these attitudes often fail to materialize as points of action and usually play second fiddle to hotter topics like job creation, tax policy and national security.
I’m not trying to downplay any of those aforementioned issues, but that environmental topics have gotten so little significant attention from either candidate is downright silly. Further, the New York Times has fact-checked Romney’s claim of cutting back the environmental regulatory structure in place and concluded that doing so is a pipe-dream at best. If there’s one thing that should ignite political interest in voters about the environment, it is that nature is a shared commodity. I’d hate to think that the only way for it to become salient as an issue is some kind of catastrophe, but the trends displayed don’t prove promising. To say that I’m less than enthused about the candidates’ showing on the issue would be an understatement. But, if there’s any way of making our own opinions heard, it’s out at the polls on Election Day.
(10/24/12 11:10pm)
There has been quite a bit of talk about divestment at Middlebury College in the past few weeks. For many students, this is their first exposure to the reality of our college’s endowment, which is invested with very limited, if any, screening for environmental and social criteria.
Others have heard about the endowment from the Socially Responsible Investment group for years, and some have grown tired of the word endowment, the petitions and the sometimes heated pre-Proctor lunch conversations.
Talking about the endowment is challenging. It is not particularly exciting or easy to understand.
However, it is important.
And it is our responsibility to think of this endowment as ours, as proud Middlebury students, as beneficiaries of the over $800 million.
It is our responsibility to make sure that when Middlebury goes carbon neutral, we aren’t building our solar panels with money from fracking in Appalachia, or from corporations who fund lobbying against climate change legislation.
A growing number of students at Middlebury have joined the national movement, now underway on more than 40 college and university campuses, in demanding that our schools divest from coal and fossil fuels. We recognize that in not acting, we are not neutral. We are supporting continued dependence on unsustainable practices that Middlebury’s commitment to environmental stewardship contradicts. As Schumann Distinguished Scholar Bill McKibben of 350.org says, our college degrees won’t be much good if we don’t have a livable planet on which to make use of them.
In 2004, the College’s Board of Trustees endorsed the Commitment to Carbon Reduction, which stated, “We join with the College’s administration, students, faculty, staff and alumni in the dedication of intellectual and fiscal capital to responsibly engage in this paradigm shift away from our fossil fuel dependency.” We are not trying to convince Middlebury that this community shouldn’t support coal and fossil fuel investment. Middlebury has already made this commitment. We are simply asking them to take the natural next step in fulfilling it.
Middlebury College Board of Trustees, we ask you to commit to dedicating our fiscal capital in the paradigm shift away from coal and fossil fuel dependency.
And Middlebury community, we ask that you not be neutral on this issue. We ask you to join with us in demanding Middlebury do better. Let’s ensure this place is one we can continue to be proud of.
Join us at 8:30 p.m. tonight in Axinn 219 for an introduction to divestment and the campaign co-sponsored by the Socially Responsible Investment group and the Divestment team.
Also, please join us for a Town Hall meeting tomorrow at 4 p.m. to bring together voices from across campus and from different coalitions to discuss divestment.
Check the calendar and public message boards for further information.
Written by GRETA NEUBAUER ’14.5 of Racine, Wisc.
