1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(05/09/19 9:51am)
As alumni of the Middlebury Chemistry Department and former students of Professor Byers, we are truly disheartened by the recent events that transpired as a result of an insensitive Chemistry exam question. Some of us worked closely with Professor Byers in his research group; others have been his students for multiple chemistry classes. We are of different races and ethnicities, different nationalities and from diverse backgrounds. In Jeff Byers, we saw nothing but a dedicated educator with compassion, a sense of humor and genuine care and concern for all of his students, whether you were performing research with him or simply taking chemistry courses.
While the exam question concerning HCN was insensitive and misguided, there was nothing in that question that suggests Professor Byers is anti-Semitic, racist, biased or discriminatory. Nonetheless, President Laurie Patton said in a statement, which is published in Newsweek, that “Middlebury has, and always will, condemn any actions that are anti-Semitic or racist in intent or effect, just as we will any other acts of bias or discrimination.” In the current political climate and the ease of news dissemination on social media and otherwise, the school was swift and harsh in its condemnation of Professor Byers in order to protect its image. The quick condemnation and categorization of the professor’s exam question as “anti-Semintic” was a knee-jerk reaction that does not serve the long-term interests of a college dedicated to respect, open dialogue and personal growth of all members of its community.
One must not underestimate the chilling effect the school’s “zero-tolerance” policy has on educators. Even though Middlebury prides itself on being a residential campus where faculty interact with students inside and outside the classroom (far beyond their call of duty), faculty are expected to have no lapse in judgment. Furthermore, all educational materials must be sanitized. Under such a policy, decades of dedication to students, recognized and appreciated by the students and alumni, are dismissed, despite Professor Byers having owned up to his mistake and apologized repeatedly. We have decided to come to Professor Byers’ defense - to speak out against political correctness at the expense of a faculty member’s lifelong dedication to the College and generations of students.
Professor Byers has paid dearly for his insensitivity – not only is he now on leave and being investigated for faculty misconduct, this incident is published in many major news outlets, in the U.S. and abroad. His name is forever tarnished because of a momentary lapse in judgment and the school’s overreaction. We urge the school to reinstate Professor Byers, so that students can continue to benefit from his teaching and the College can continue to be a venue for open, respectful exchange of political and social views.
In sum, by choosing the “safe” path, the administration is giving into fear of being “trampled” by the loud mob of the vehemently politically correct, who are so easily triggered by keywords and see all in black and white, without the ability to recognize nuances and context. Of all places, an educational institution should grant that to err is human and should thus unequivocally stand behind Professor Byers, who has owned up to his mistake, rather than behind a faceless ideology that shouts tolerance and sensitivity without a shred of either.
Signed,
David S. Shuman ’93
Maciej Ceglowski ’97
Bonnie Lee ’03
Adelina Voutchkova-Kostal ’04
Jakub Kostal ’04
Kyle S. Knight '88
Nathan R. Neale '98
(05/02/19 10:00am)
DINING HALL: OVERALL
The dining hall debate has long served as a campus identifier — are you a Proc person or a Ross person? — accompanied by silent judgement from both sides. In the end, more students favor Middlebury’s oldest, coziest dining hall, according to Zeitgeist results.
[infogram id="favorite-dining-hall-on-campus-by-race-1h7j4d9e0gyd2nr?live"]
With nearly 40% of the vote, Proctor Dining Hall was crowned the favorite among the student population, and Ross wasn’t even in second place. Atwater Dining Hall polled second with 33% favorability, while Ross lagged behind with approximately 27%.
So what is it about Proctor? Maybe not the food. Although it’s popular for its well-utilized panini presses and consistent fare, Ross menus are usually more expansive and students often quip that Atwater’s are “fancier.” Out of the three, Proctor is even ranked last on the college review site “Niche” in the category of Middlebury’s “best on-campus food options.” On the other hand, Proctor boasts the shortest lines, low ceilings and a diverse range of seating choices from the lounge to the booth room, giving it an intimacy that Ross and Atwater might lack. Proctor is the welcoming space you can walk into in pajamas after a night out. The meat of the matter is that Proctor simply doesn’t judge. (And it will be served with kettle chips.)
DINING HALL: ATHLETES VS NARPS
!function(e,t,s,i){var n="InfogramEmbeds",o=e.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],d=/^http:/.test(e.location)?"http:":"https:";if(/^\/{2}/.test(i)&&(i=d+i),window[n]&&window[n].initialized)window[n].process&&window[n].process();else if(!e.getElementById(s)){var r=e.createElement("script");r.async=1,r.id=s,r.src=i,o.parentNode.insertBefore(r,o)}}(document,0,"infogram-async","https://e.infogram.com/js/dist/embed-loader-min.js");
In contrast to results showing students’ overall preference for Proctor, varsity athletes opted for Atwater 40% of the time, They diverged from their non-athlete peers to rank Proctor second (and Ross last, again). Atwater, Middlebury’s newest dining hall, was constructed in conjunction with the notoriously sports team-populated Atwater suites, providing them with a convenient stop at perhaps the campus’ most upscale stop for breakfast and lunch. It also exclusively offers round tables that allow for larger groups.
DINING HALL: CLASSES
!function(e,t,s,i){var n="InfogramEmbeds",o=e.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],d=/^http:/.test(e.location)?"http:":"https:";if(/^\/{2}/.test(i)&&(i=d+i),window[n]&&window[n].initialized)window[n].process&&window[n].process();else if(!e.getElementById(s)){var r=e.createElement("script");r.async=1,r.id=s,r.src=i,o.parentNode.insertBefore(r,o)}}(document,0,"infogram-async","https://e.infogram.com/js/dist/embed-loader-min.js");
While first-years prefer Proctor slightly more than upperclassmen at 43% favorability, Middlebury’s oldest dining hall retains a remarkably consistent 38% of votes among sophomores, juniors and seniors. Ross Dining Hall loses favor as students grow older. Atwater picks up the loyalty that Ross loses. This leaves seniors as the only class that prefers Atwater. Ross tallies less than 20% of favorability amongst seniors. Ross Dining is often favored by those who conveniently live in the Ross dormitories, which contains less housing for seniors than for other classes. This may explain the eight-point drop between junior and senior Ross favorability, and why it’s most popular among first-years.
GRADES / SLEEP / SOCIAL LIFE
(function(){ function ac_add_to_head(el){ var head = document.getElementsByTagName('head')[0]; head.insertBefore(el,head.firstChild); } function ac_add_style(css){ var ac_style = document.createElement('style'); if (ac_style.styleSheet) ac_style.styleSheet.cssText = css; else ac_style.appendChild(document.createTextNode(css)); ac_add_to_head(ac_style); } ac_add_style(".anychart-embed-radar-charts-spiderweb-radar-chart-with-two-area-series{width:600px;height:450px;}"); })();
The “work hard, play hard” attitude is ingrained in Middlebury students before we even arrive on campus. As it turns out, it’s more than a stereotype — data tells us the same story. When asked to choose two of three options out of good grades, sleep and social life, Middlebury students chose good grades three quarters of the time, usually paired with social life. Although the overwhelming focus on good grades may reflect well on Middlebury students’ academic integrity, it’s troubling when paired with low prioritization of sleep. This high-stress, no-rest duo can easily jeopardize students’ mental and physical health, which is particularly concerning when accompanied by Middlebury’s “busy-ness” culture, documented below.
UNENJOYABLE CULTURES: GENERAL
!function(e,t,s,i){var n="InfogramEmbeds",o=e.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],d=/^http:/.test(e.location)?"http:":"https:";if(/^\/{2}/.test(i)&&(i=d+i),window[n]&&window[n].initialized)window[n].process&&window[n].process();else if(!e.getElementById(s)){var r=e.createElement("script");r.async=1,r.id=s,r.src=i,o.parentNode.insertBefore(r,o)}}(document,0,"infogram-async","https://e.infogram.com/js/dist/embed-loader-min.js");
The “busy-ness” game is one that’s all too familiar to Middlebury students. From loudly complaining about upcoming problem sets at lunch to half-bragging about hours logged at Davis, more than 40% of students reported participating in “busy-ness” culture, even though they don’t enjoy it. Defined as a competition to appear busy that often comes at the expense of mental or physical health, “busy-ness” pervades Middlebury and has the capacity to push students beyond their means in an effort to be perceived as productive. Middlebury’s infamous hook-up scene also tops the list, with 235 students, or 16%, participating despite not enjoying it. This culture is often paired with drinking, in which 15% of students report partaking despite disliking it. These statistics reflect a social pressure that informs choices that are meant to be personal, which has the potential to foster unhealthy or dangerous relationships to sex and alcohol.
UNENJOYABLE CULTURES: CLASS
!function(e,t,s,i){var n="InfogramEmbeds",o=e.getElementsByTagName("script")[0],d=/^http:/.test(e.location)?"http:":"https:";if(/^\/{2}/.test(i)&&(i=d+i),window[n]&&window[n].initialized)window[n].process&&window[n].process();else if(!e.getElementById(s)){var r=e.createElement("script");r.async=1,r.id=s,r.src=i,o.parentNode.insertBefore(r,o)}}(document,0,"infogram-async","https://e.infogram.com/js/dist/embed-loader-min.js");
“Busy-ness” culture is reported at above 40% even for first-years, but the bad news is that it doesn’t really get better. In fact, its prevalence steadily increases as students get older. The classes of 2019 and 2019.5 reported almost 50% participation, perhaps as a result of increased pressure to complete graduation requirements, boost resumes and find careers. On the bright side, participation in unwanted “brand-name apparel” culture steadily decreases in an ascent through the class years, tallying at 14% in the class of 2022 and 2022.5 and dropping to around 9% among seniors.
Drinking, drug and hook-up culture all remained relatively consistent across the grades, as did a pressure to appear “outdoorsy,” which consistently polled below 10%.
10 PAST TEXTS
In a question asking students to count how many of their past 10 texts were with someone of their own race, it was found that white students’ texting habits tended to be far more insular within their own race. More than 85% of white students reported that more than half of their past 10 texts were solely with other white people, with a majority reporting that eight, nine or all 10 texts were exchanged within their race. Non-white students, on the other hand, most commonly reported that zero, one or two of their past 10 texts were exchanged with people of their race. Middlebury’s student body, for reference, is approximately 64% white. These statistics are also useful in displaying how “othering” takes place at Middlebury, leading non-white students to feel removed from the mainstream campus community at a predominantly white school.
(05/02/19 9:57am)
This week, I am featuring one of my favorite hosiery items. As someone who loves wearing skirts and dresses, I spend a lot of time wearing tights, leggings and knee high socks, especially during the winter. My favorite, however, are my fishnet tights. As a young 20-year-old heading off into the professional business world after college, I have tried to use my remaining time at Middlebury as an opportunity to wear typically unorthodox clothing.While fishnets definitely do not keep me warm in the Vermont winters, I enjoy the sense of edge and empowerment I feel when I wear them. My time at Middlebury has been full of controversial events and personal growth. I have had journeys exploring my sense of self, my womanhood and my Blackness in the context of this institution. I am leaving this campus more empowered and strong. So wearing fishnet tights has felt like one small way to wear my rebellion. It’s been a subtle but bold means of self expression.
This past semester, there have been many events focused on body empowerment and celebration. I attended Behind the Vagina Monologues, Evolution and the BrASS Burlesque Show and each left me feeling reaffirmed within my body. Fishnets are typically associated with hypersexuality, promiscuity and deviance. I wanted to explore how nylons have managed to take on such a heavy connotation.
The origins of hosiery date back centuries. The earliest known pair were found in the tomb of a noble Egyptian women over two thousand years ago who more than likely used them for warmth. A stark contrast to when fishnets became a popular choice for women during the Victorian era as a display of nobility. They have been used for style but also warmth as they’ve been made from animal skin, hair, silk and nylon. And, as technology has evolved, so have hosiery. Knitting, looming and modern day manufacturing have lead to what we know and love today. Fishnets, in particular, have been a stylistic choice for many for the past several decades. Movie stars, celebrities and sex workers have all donned the nylon versions of the past. Fishnets are thought to have been popularized by Parisian performers in the early 1900s before coming to the U.S. and becoming a part of flapper and pin-up culture starting in the 1920s.
I think it is because of these more modern uses specifically that the hosiery has been sexualized and symbolic of rebellious femininity. So, throughout their journey, from flappers to punk rockers to urban streets to me in Middlebury, VT, the trend has persisted and stylistically evolved. When I put on my fishnet tights to go to class, I am reminded of their long history and every type of person who wore them in the past, for whatever occasion.
(04/25/19 9:53am)
Every year since 1981, the graduating senior class has honored its time at Middlebury by presenting a class gift to the college. This year, the Classes of 2019 and 2019.5 voted to use their funds raised through donations to endow the Fund for Staff Support. The reserve will go towards aiding staff members in need of emergency assistance or support.
“We wanted our fund to give back to the people who are at the heart of running Middlebury, and who have done so throughout our four years here, but will also still be here when we leave,” said Senior Committee Treasurer Tricia Nelsen ’19. “We wanted our legacy to have an impact on the staff who aren’t here temporarily, but continuously make this place function.”
The tradition of giving a senior gift began in an effort by the college for students to learn the importance of philanthropy and leaving a legacy behind when they graduate. As the tradition has developed over time, the college has begun soliciting donations to match the senior gift. This has enabled students to raise even more for their class gift, allowing them to choose more meaningful projects such as scholarships and environmental support.
Past gifts have included funding for nature trail maintenance and landscaping, benches and the clock outside of the McCullough Student Center, building the Solar Decathlon House, renovating the lounge in Proctor, buying an additional MiddRides van, purchasing new campus printers, and memorial scholarships honoring the memory of classmates.
This year, the five-person Senior Committee narrowed down the options for the class gift to five choices after an “overwhelming number of poll results.” In addition to funding for staff supports, other possible options included allocating the funding towards financial aid, the arts, sustainable energy, and internships and off-campus experiences. According to Nelsen, after a final vote, the majority voting seniors elected to fund staff support.
The Committee’s goal is to raise $10,000 in student gifts for the fund. They are suggesting seniors donate $20.19 in honor of their class year. Those who donate will receive an official class pint glass, designed by Jill Stauffer ’19. They are hoping to raise an additional $15,000 in gifts from alumni and parents and are soliciting donors to match funds raised by students.
The fund will be managed by the Chaplain’s Office and the Human Resources Office and distributed to Middlebury College staff members in times of need and emergency via an application. It will subsidize financial burdens such as emergency medical expenses, funerals, heating and other unexpected crises.
Beyond the monetary contribution to the project, the senior class gift is also a symbol of student support. It is the last opportunity as a student — and the first opportunity for a soon-to-be alumnus — to give back to the college and to be part of the greater Middlebury community.
“The staff should feel supported and appreciated by the student body,” said fellow Committee leader Angie McCarthy ’19. “The senior class gift is a way for seniors to show their appreciation for their time at Middlebury and those who made it happen.”
McCarthy suggested the gift will “hopefully strike a note with members of the entire community,” since everyone benefits from the services the college staff provides. McCarthy also noted that while the seniors are pleased the class gift will go towards staff aid, “students shouldn’t always have to be the last line of support.”
“I think this decision has a ton of benefits, primarily the ability to help staff when they need it, but I also think it helps show them how much we appreciate their hard work even though students can sometimes come off as unappreciative,” Nelsen noted. “It’s the least we can do.”
More information on the fund can be found at go.middlebury.edu/seniorfund.
(04/25/19 9:49am)
I urge anyone who has not seen Ellis Glickman’s April 18 letter “In Defense of Jeff Byers” to read it carefully. Glickman, a Jewish student and member of Prof. Jeffrey Byers’s CHEM 0103 class, agrees that the question about poison gas on a recent exam was offensive, but says, “To call the question harmful is more dangerous than the question itself could ever be.” I think this is the essence of the issue. The uproar over news of this now-infamous question is vastly out of proportion to its importance. The instructor certainly used poor judgment in including it, but there is no proof or even serious suggestion of hostile intent on his part. The campus will move on to new issues, but the injury to Prof. Byers may be very long-lasting.
For writing this question, Prof. Byers has been all but branded an anti-Semite and Holocaust trivializer and (it appears) forced to take a leave. He has been rebuked by the president in an all-campus email, something unprecedented in my time at the College. The story has made local public radio and is likely to go farther. As Glickman notes, the Holocaust was real and the gas was used. We must never forget that. But beyond causing understandable short-lived shock and discomfort, did the exam question do enough damage to justify the flood of condemnation? Exactly who was harmed, how and to what extent? We should demand specific, convincing answers before rejecting Prof. Byers’s prompt apology as insufficient and virtually expelling him from the community. If we retaliate so furiously for an ill-considered but non-malicious action, what would we do if a faculty member really were shown to be an anti-Semite, Holocaust trivializer, or a racist who has harmed a student in some more serious way?
The College as an institution and, probably, most faculty, staff and students highly value and work to promote diversity, inclusivity, sensitivity and a climate of safety, respect and support. Most of us are probably mindful of what we say and write, striving to recognize and overcome our own prejudices and trying to avoid gratuitously offending others. But the prevailing attitude that any slip-up, however unintentional, any presentation by an objectionable speaker, or any uncomfortable classroom experience threatens some students and indicates that they are unwelcome or not valued constrains the spirit of free inquiry, expression and debate which is vital to a rich academic life. Trying to shield students from any emotional distress--encouraging them to feel entitled to such protection—does not help them prepare for life in the less indulgent “outside world,” where they will not find constant personal support and where we hope they will focus outward on the myriad enormous problems facing our planet.
Human mistakes and shortcomings are inevitable. We should attempt to correct them without personal condemnation, without dwelling on them longer than necessary and with recognition of good intentions. Surely it would be better to cultivate our proclaimed values by good example, discussion and friendly persuasion than to enforce lip-service to them through constant suspicion, surveillance and denunciation.
(04/24/19 12:06am)
At least nine Student Government Association senators have threatened to resign en masse if college officials do not meet a list of 13 demands, a decision that would effectively dissolve the elected body for the remainder of the academic year.
The demands were outlined in a letter emailed Tuesday morning to senior college administrators, including President Laurie L. Patton, with all students copied. Demands in the letter are wide-ranging, and include: “structural changes” to college policy aimed at increasing administrative transparency; “improvements to existing programs” like Green Dot and bringing all buildings into Americans with Disabilities Act compliance; and “new initiatives,” including the creation of an LGBTQ+ Center and a Black Studies department.
In the letter, senators also asked Patton to appear before students at a town hall on Tuesday, April 30 in Mead Chapel. Senior Senator Travis Sanderson ’19 told The Campus that the resignations would occur sometime after then, depending on how and if administrators respond to their demands.
“We just received the SGA communication and are reviewing it. Many of the concerns are already being addressed,” Patton told The Campus Tuesday afternoon. “For others, we believe we can find a way forward to work together. We welcome an opportunity for engagement with SGA and have already reached out to its leaders. We will be providing a response, which we hope we can work on collaboratively, next week.”
While not every member of the SGA Senate has promised to resign, all members approved sending the letter to administration, Sanderson said. The resignation of at least nine of the 18 senators would mean the absence of a quorum at all future meetings, and thus the effective dissolution of the elected body for the remainder of the academic year. With the threat of resignation, senators hope to send a message about inadequate student representation in administrative decision-making.
“It has become evident that the connection between the administration and students has been reduced to a one-way street,” they wrote. “The administration has failed time and again to listen to the desires of its students.”
Their demands, titled “Thirteen Proposals for Community Healing,” are aimed to improve student representation and promote community healing on campus, including several proposals that had previously been brought to the administration but were either tabled or overlooked.
“There is a long history of SGA recommendations being ignored,” Sanderson said.
As it stands now, SGA resolutions are mostly symbolic recommendations to college officials — no real student check exists on administrative authority. But in the letter, the senators claim a right to participate in administrative decisions.
“Our tuition funds the college, and the college’s purpose is our education,” senators wrote. “Middlebury College is first and foremost a school, not a corporation. Why is it that decisions are often made with little to no consent or involvement from us in our own school?”
In an op-ed published by The Campus Tuesday afternoon, SGA President Nia Robinson ’19 supported the actions of senators regardless of where they stand and promised to keep advocating for students in her role.
“For the final weeks, I will continue to support those who come to me and offer advice to any students who will listen. I will continue to advocate for them whether in trustee or SLG meetings when I am the only student in the room,” Robinson wrote. “My sole goal is, and has always been, to help leave this campus in a better state than I found it.”
Reaching a Breaking Point
The letter enumerates instances of administrative neglect of student proposals, from the failure to make Middlebury a sanctuary campus in 2016 to the recent cancellation and fallout from the the controversial scholar and Polish politician Ryszard Legutko’s scheduled lecture, which also resulted in the cancellation of a peaceful, non-disruptive student protest scheduled to take place outside. In the letter, senators condemn the administration for waiting until Friday, April 19 to unequivocally say that the student protesters were not the security concern. That delay, they write, caused misinformation about the protest to spread in the national media.
Senior Senator Alexis Levato ’19 said that the SGA saw the period following the lecture cancellation as an opportune moment to act.
“I think we cared about these issues as individuals, and cared about them as SGA, but didn’t feel there was a possibility of actually doing anything until this happened,” she said. “Which I think speaks to the way the administration is structured, that it only really allows students to be activists in moments in which it’s blowing up in their faces.”
Varsha Vijayakumar ’20, a junior senator and the SGA president-elect, also saw the moment as a culmination of SGA and student activists’ frustrations.
“I personally reached a point where I feel like the administration has been taking advantage of our empathy, and I think that’s unfair to put a disproportionate burden on students to work hard to make this place more like a home for students,” she said. “We’re at a point where it’s not just the SGA, but also a lot of student activism and mobilization that is pushing for change. And we want to support that.”
The letter alleges that it was only when administrators heard that senators were discussing dissolution that they said, in an email sent by Provost Jeff Cason and Dean of the Faculty Andi Lloyd, and forwarded to students by Dean of Student Baishakhi Taylor, that “our assessment of the potential safety risks of Wednesday’s planned lecture did not reflect concerns about threats from student protesters or students attending the event. Rather, we were concerned about the safety of those participants.”
“We are extremely disappointed that only after hearing threat of SGA’s dissolution did an administrator publicly clear organizers of blame as the unnamed security threat that led to cancellation of the Ryszard Legutko event,” the letter reads.
No member of the SGA reached by The Campus would comment on the record about the alleged interaction with an administrator.
Vetting Speakers
After The Campus posted the letter online Tuesday, debate ensued over the senators’ third proposal, which calls for the creation of a due diligence form that includes questions aimed to determine whether a speaker’s views align with Middlebury’s community standards, “removing the burden of researching speakers from the student body.”
The proposal also asked for each academic department to create a student advisory board that would have access to a list of invited speakers one month in advance in order to provide feedback when necessary.
“This is absurd. Students should relish the chance to research speakers, to interact with speakers, to debate with speakers,” Rich Cochran ’91 wrote on The Campus Facebook page. “I am shocked that the SGA would publish this list of unilateral demands.”
Sanderson clarified to The Campus that the proposal would not bar speakers from campus. Instead, the answers to the form would be made public to inform the community in advance of the speaker’s arrival.
“If anything, this ensures a greater degree of informed free speech and assembly,” he said. “Critics are arguing that we want to keep speakers from campus, which is incorrect.”
The Process
Senators first began to discuss what would eventually become the letter on Wednesday afternoon in the wake of the Legutko cancellation. Over the weekend, they began to gather feedback from student leaders, including the heads of cultural organizations and leaders of the Legutko protest. Some senators spent most of Friday drafting the letter, which they then shared with all senators.
Vijayakumar was one of the students who spent the better part of the day working on the letter. She was also notified around midday that she had won the SGA presidency.
“I celebrated for maybe 20 minutes, but that was not my focus,” she said. “It’s the last thing I’m thinking about. Even on Friday, the entire day, I was working on these demands.”
On Sunday, April 21, senators went into executive session during and following their regularly scheduled meeting to discuss the draft. The session lasted one hour.
The following night, senators hosted a student-only town hall in Mead Chapel to gather feedback on the letter and demands. Robinson opened the forum by reading the demands and introduced the senators’ proposed plan to resign. Then, attendees divided into focus groups to discuss further. Each group parsed the drafted demands and suggested modifications to senators, who led the groups. Senators then met later that evening to finalize the letter based on student feedback. According to Vijayakumar, they discussed the suggestions made on every point, and identified major trends in feedback in an attempt to incorporate as many as possible.
In an interview with The Campus, Sanderson stressed the senators’ desire to involve other members of the community in the draft. He said the SGA is only one forum in which students have tried and failed to work with administrators to address the concerns of the student body. Specifically, he cited the title of the letter, which was recommended by members of the community. They also received emails with suggestions and ideas from students who could not attend the town hall.
When asked about the college’s recent work with students to divest from fossil fuels by 2028, Sanderson said that the administration did not adequately credit student activists in their announcement.
“In the case of divestment, it was a massive student campaign for a long time, but it was co-opted by the administration in the end,” he said. The letter addresses this concern: “Students who work on these initiatives alongside faculty must receive credit for their work, and will not be excluded from these initiatives once faculty begin working on them.”
When reached for comment, Community Council Co-Chair John Gosselin ’20 said he supported some of the senators’ demands and disagreed with others.
“I disagree with the general strategy of demands and dissolution because it has forced the student government to express opinions too quickly and without any nuance, reflection, or evidence of serious discussion, despite the best efforts of the SGA meeting on Sunday and the poorly attended student town hall on Monday,” he said.
History Repeats Itself
In 1967, members of the Student Association, then equivalent to the SGA, took a similar approach to addressing feelings of powerlessness vis-à-vis the administration. Members saw the body as a mouthpiece for administrative decisions and doubted its own ability to advocate for students, and voted to hold hold a campus-wide referendum on the body’s dissolution. The proposal passed overwhelmingly among students, who voted 407-70 in favor. Two years later, the current iteration of the SGA, newly-endowed with more representative and legislative capacities, formed.
Today’s SGA is drawing inspiration from its predecessors’ decision.
“When circumstances mirror those faced by student leaders half a century ago, we must consider options similar to the ones they faced,” senators wrote. “In the words of Brian Maier, the equivalent of an SGA senator at the time, ‘we must take power rather than ask for it.’”
But senators are also wary of the unintended consequences their predecessors’ actions had on the student body. Last time, dissolution of the Student Association left student organizations without funding. This time, the resignation of senators would leave the other components of the SGA intact, including the SGA President’s Cabinet and the SGA Finance Committee, which allocates the student activities budget.
“We don’t want to hurt students and nullify all the projects they’ve spent a full semester working on. That’s definitely not our intent,” Levato said. “I think we’re learning from that decision in order to make sure that students are only positively affected by this.”
Senators still think, though, that the threat is substantial enough to warrant a serious response from the administration. Vijayakumar believes the student body is on board.
“We do feel like this is the most productive way to enact change right now on this campus,” she said. “We wouldn’t be doing it if we didn’t think so.”
(04/23/19 9:17pm)
Editor's Note: Nia Robinson '19 is president of the Middlebury College Student Government Association.
In a conversation I had a few weeks ago, we talked about how grateful we were for a mild year, compared to the previous years. We made sure to knock on wood, so we didn’t jinx it. Perhaps the wood was fake or we didn’t knock loud enough. Maybe we were naïve for thinking knocking on wood would do anything in the first place.
So far, April has been one of the hardest months for our campus, for SGA, and for all of us personally. From the chemistry professor to the Legutko talk to campus life speeding up as it does every spring, our minds are spinning in millions of directions trying to process the environment around us. In classes, I hear people talk about whether or not they think Legutko should have spoken. In Proctor, I hear students planning protests and talking about how they are going to respond right before needing to run to class. Whether it is in the dorms or in Crossroads, the atmosphere on campus is heavy and exhausting.
I am sure you have all heard rumors about SGA and the plans to dissolve. I have spent the last week wrestling with where I stand on it and what responsibility I have to SGA, students, and the general Middlebury community and to myself. On one side, I think about how I talk to alums and hear about how they approached similar grievances marginalized students are currently facing. I share the frustration of the students around me who spend countless hours in Old Chapel feeling like their voices are not acknowledged. When I think about the Black Lives Matter flag that is still under my bed, when I console my peers who question why they’re doing all of this work for free, when there are students who are ambivalent and undisturbed in the face of their peers’ hardships—these are the moments where I too question the purpose of the work that we do.
On the other side, dissolving SGA would put more work on students who too are struggling with the same questions I asked above. How can I expect the “essential” operations of SGA — like the finance committee — to still function if I myself refuse to show up? Who is going to pick up the pieces if the same people part of SGA are taking them apart? As president, as a person who cares about this school, and as a member of this community, I have realized it is my job to weigh all aspects. When I talked to my cabinet to get their opinion, they all raised valuable points. Drew Platt '20.5, co-director of external affairs, said, “Governments that shut down are not the ones we want to emulate.” Later he asked, “Are we trying to make a statement or are we trying to make change?” When I heard these comments, I took a moment to consider the moment we’re in. Students are in a crucial moment where we can drastically help move this community in a positive direction. And in any moment like this one, there needs to be work done on all fronts.
Students didn’t elect me to tell them what they want to hear. They didn’t elect me to sit by and watch them make the same errors of those who came before us.
I believe in learning from history. I believe in the power of students. I believe in the student organizers and the students on SGA. I also believe in calculated risks and understanding a problem fully before making a decision. For the final weeks, I will continue to support those who come to me and offer advice to any students who will listen. I will continue to advocate for them whether in trustee or SLG meetings when I am the only student in the room. I will continue make strides to increase how many students are in the room. I will continue to work within (and sometimes outside) of my power to ensure students are involved in the decisions that affect the way they live, work, and exist on campus. My sole goal is, and has always been, to help leave this campus in a better state than I found it.
(04/18/19 10:34am)
Vermont has been ranked number one overall for 2019 in Bloomberg's annual report on gender equality. This is the third year in a row that Vermont has led the rankings in the yearly report. The state was also ranked number 6 for women in leadership, and received high scores in the report’s five categories -- pay ratio by gender, female labor force participation, college degree attainment, health coverage and women in poverty.
Rep. Linda Sullivan, D-Dorset, attributes this ranking to the priorities of the state legislature. “With a strong focus from the legislature on gender equality,” she said, “Vermont will be driven to be a leader in this area.”
According to the National Conference of State Legislatures, Vermont’s legislature is 39.4 percent female compared to 28.7 percent nationwide. Vermont boasts 71 female members to 109 male members. The legislature recently passed a bill requiring employers to pay sick leave, and is considering a bill allowing paternity leave -- two pieces of legislation that are aimed at increasing gender equality.
“The legislature is working on bills to provide higher livable wages,” said Sullivan, “as well as to work through issues of providing other benefits to families.”
Representative Mollie Burke from Brattleboro and other policymakers recently proposed a resolution which designates April 2, 2019 as Equal Pay Day, with a proclamation signed by Governor Scott that same day. Advocates for equal pay wore red during legislative sessions.
Sullivan also acknowledged that there are challenges in passing legislation to eliminate the gender-pay gap. “However, these bills need to be thoroughly vetted and weighed against the costs to provide the services,” she said, “so while there are projects in the works, the roadmap to getting there must be well thought-out so as not to create barriers for the very populations they are intended to assist.”
Closing the wage gap would have many benefits for Vermont as a whole. Equal pay reduces poverty, adds money to the overall economy and attracts families to Vermont.
According to a report issued by Change the Story (CTS), a Vermont-based organization working towards gender equality, Vermont does well in the categories considered by Bloomberg. Women have a pay ratio gap of 16 cents, compared to a 20 cent wage gap nationally. For labor force participation, 66 percent of women work in Vermont’s labor force, compared to 58 percent of women nationally.
“Education is a key area of focus,” claimed Sullivan. In terms of education, 33 percent of women earn a bachelor’s degree in Vermont, six points higher than the national average for women’s education.
One of the indicators in which Vermont does poorly is rate of women in poverty, in which Vermont is ranked 17 with a rate of 12 percent. The CTS also found that women are significantly more likely to live in poverty than men, and 3 percent of Vermont women who work full-time do not make enough to cover basic living expenses.
It’s also important to note that the Bloomberg report does not break down statistics in terms of race. For example, Vermont ranked well for the gender pay gap, yet this gap is much larger for women of color. As reported by the Vermont Commission on Women, there is a 46 percent gap for Hispanic and Latina women, a 42 percent gap for American Indian and Alaska Native women,a 40 percent gap for Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islander women, a 37 percent gap for African American women, and a 15 percent gap for Asian women.
The CTS found that in Vermont, 13.4 percent of all families with minor children live in poverty, and that this number increases to 37 percent if a women is the single head of the household. CTS also found that the wage gap of women with dependant children increases to 26 percent, as compared to the 30 percent for women nationally.
“Middlebury does well in gender equality, but there are always ways to improve,” said Ellie Broeren ’22, an active member of Feminist Action Middlebury (FAM). The college currently boasts a 48.2 to 51.8 male to female ratio for students, with a staff ration of 49.5 to 50.5 (male to female). Still, such statistics fail to account for some of Middlebury’s underlying problems.
“What comes to mind for me is the lack of transparency about contraception and sexual health on campus, as this is an issue that largely affects women,” said Boeren. To combat this, FAM has created a website at go/sexysources that provides information on sexual health and are currently trying to get Plan B available at Middlebury Express.
Despite the issues in gender equality that are still prevalent in Vermont and at Middlebury College, Sullivan reminds us to also celebrate our successes. “With a strong focus from the legislature on gender equality,” she says, “Vermont [has been] driven to be a leader in this area.”
(04/17/19 3:41pm)
Editor's Note: The below letter has been widely circulated among members of the Middlebury community. It has been reprinted here with permission. The sections in bold were done by the author.
Dear Middlebury Faculty,
Those of you who do not know me – my name is Thomas Gawel, I graduated from Middlebury last May. I majored in International Politics & Economics with Russian and minored in Film & Media. I was raised in rural Poland and had the opportunity to intern at the European Parliament two summers ago. Currently, I’m working towards my JD degree.
When I first saw that Mr. Legutko was invited to speak on campus, my reaction was not outrage. It was, quite honestly, a mere surprise. Perhaps Mr. Legutko is recognized in academia, but, in reality, he is one of the most unremarkable and boring political figures that Poland has ever produced. Why would he be worth flying into VT to give what is likely going to be a very boring self-promotion lecture, I do not know.
Leaving the issues that many students and some faculty rightfully raise aside, I want to point your attention to another one. What I personally find surprising about this event is that some of you fail to recognize that Mr. Legutko is a hypocrite. He represents Law & Justice, a party that works tirelessly to destroy what is left of Polish free media and rule of law. This party has fired virtually all journalists from public media, placed its former MP as the president of the largest Polish TV network, and daily feeds ruthless propaganda to millions of unaware Poles. They have illegally taken over the Constitutional Tribunal and the Supreme Court, for which there are procedures pending against the country at the European Commission. They did so to bypass the Constitution and transform young Polish democracy into a very dangerous hybrid of economic socialism and nationalism/xenophobia.
Yes, they won democratic elections. But they illegally reached for much more power than they had the mandate for, and, one day, they will be held accountable. Hundredths of thousands of Poles took to the streets over the past three years to protest this mockery of a government. This is a single best proof of how problematic Law & Justice is.
If you want to shake hands and take smiley pictures with Mr. Legutko while he promotes his book, go ahead. But, if you do so, at least acknowledge a whole part of his ‘legacy’ that shows his lack of basic integrity. Mr. Legutko is not an innocent scholar whose work is a prophecy; he is a ruthless politician that contributed to Poland's downfall. If you do not think that you owe this truth to all Middlebury students, you should at least realize that you owe it to me and other Polish students, past or future.
You cannot and should not separate Mr. Legutko’s scholarship from his words and actions as a career politician. Your open letter to students, Mr. Callanan, paints a very positive picture of this unfortunate guest. But it is a very incomplete picture. Students should be told that the man that will lecture them about drawbacks of liberal democracy is working tirelessly to destroy one, just across the ocean. I find it outrageous that you would leave such an important part of Mr. Legutko’s ‘legacy’ out of your letter.
My country is going through quite a turbulent time; by giving Mr. Legutko a platform to promote his book, you legitimize the destructive party and government that he is associated with. As a Middlebury alumnus from Poland, I am truly hurt that you showed such level of insensitivity and ignorance.
I am all for Middlebury inviting speakers that hold views different than those of the campus majority. But you could at least seek speakers who are not bigots and hypocrites.
Thomas Gawel graduated from Middlebury College in 2018.
(04/11/19 10:00am)
With the Spring Student Symposium happening tomorrow, all of us here at The Campus cordially encourage you to embrace your inner nerd. This sort of academic initiative can take many forms. Maybe you attend a friend’s symposium presentation and discuss their work over dinner afterward. Maybe you go to a professor’s office hours and finally ask them about their independent research. Maybe you grab a meal with that one kid who always makes profound comments in class. At the end of the day, virtually any type of extracurricular academic engagement will be intellectually stimulating and provide you with unique perspectives on topics you may never have encountered.
The symposium is one of the few occasions where we can directly observe our peers’ work. Symposium presentations are amazing opportunities to expand your intellectual horizons and learn about topics beyond your specific major or coursework. You may also come across other like-minded students who share your interests and would be more than happy to continue academic discussions beyond the symposium. So, rather than wasting the entire day off, why not attend a few presentations and learn something new?
While we certainly encourage you to wholeheartedly embrace the Spring Symposium, we do not believe extracurricular intellectualism should stop there. Many of us on the editorial board have found that some of our most memorable and interesting discussions at the college have occurred in non-academic settings, and we encourage students to actively foster such discussions on campus as often as possible.
[pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]Rather than wasting the entire day off, why not attend a few presentations and learn something new? [/pullquote]
We would thus like to propose a series of recommendations that may promote the academic spirit of the symposium throughout the school year. First, we believe the administration should revitalize the college’s tradition of professor-student lunches by allowing professors to get a select amount of meals with students for free. Talking with professors in non-academic settings not only enables students to solidify their understanding of in-class material, but also provides an opportunity to explore tangential subject matter that may have been overlooked by the course syllabus.
We also think more academic departments should hold additional coffee hours or lunches to foster scholarly discussions among students interested in similar topics. These events should be accessible to everyone regardless of individual majors to encourage a culture of academic curiosity where students willingly leave their intellectual comfort zones and engage with new material.
The pilot computer science language table is a great example of an academic department taking initiative to foster extracurricular discussions among interested students, and should thus act as an example for other departments moving forward. These extracurricular events could encompass everything from coffee hours to meeting up at a professor’s house for dinner, so long as they provide students with adequate platforms to engage in intellectual discussions.
Joining academic clubs on campus is yet another way to surround yourself with individuals who are more than willing to engage in intellectual discussion. These clubs are open to all students across all disciplines, and represent a perfect opportunity to embrace academic interests in low-stress extracurricular environments.
We also encourage students to reach out to classmates whom they may not know but who make interesting comments in class. If a fellow student shares an idea that surprises or intrigues you, ask them to lunch! Take advantage of the fact that you both share a similar academic interest and discuss subject matter related to your class; you may even make a new friend.
[pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]Tomorrow’s Spring Student Symposium represents an amazing opportunity for us all to engage our intellectualism beyond the classroom.[/pullquote]
We also advocate for more professors to prioritize student participation in their classes over lectures. Many members of the editorial board believe in-class discussions provide more incentive to complete coursework and assigned readings ahead of time as a means to participate. When the professor simply regurgitates the contents of an assigned reading during class, students may feel less motivated to actually complete the readings themselves and may lack personal investment in the subject material as a result. As such, we think more discussion-based courses should be accessible to the general student body (rather than just upperclassmen) to encourage as much intellectual investment as possible throughout students’ academic careers.
We would also like more students to pursue their own academic endeavors outside of class. Whether this means creating an independent short film with a few friends or conducting independent research based on a historical topic covered in class, we believe these projects present valuable opportunities for students to take more initiative in their academic development throughout college.
The college’s Divestment Movement is a perfect example of students becoming inspired from their academic coursework and taking initiative outside of class to make a difference on campus. While not all extracurricular ventures need to have large institutional impacts on the college, we can all still appreciate the intellectualism that catalyzed the Divestment Movement and channel similar sentiments towards our own academic passions outside of class.
Additionally, the college should host more opportunities for students to intellectually engage with members of the local community. While it’s great that much of the college’s extracurricular intellectualism coincides with the invitation of outside speakers to campus, we should maintain these conversations year-round with the dynamic people who reside here in Middlebury. The white supremacy teach-in last month was an excellent example of facilitating discussion among the members of our community that should be emulated through future events.
Tomorrow’s Spring Student Symposium represents an amazing opportunity for us all to engage our intellectualism beyond the classroom, but why stop there? Why not make the most of these four years and meet new people, leave your comfort zone and learn something new?
(04/11/19 10:00am)
UPDATE — Wednesday, April 10: Professor Jeff Byers will be taking an immediate leave of absence from his teaching duties, the Chemistry department announced in an email to Byers' students Wednesday afternoon.
——
Monday, April 8, 2019
A question posed on a chemistry midterm last month asked students to calculate “a lethal dose” of the gas “Nazi Germany used to horrific ends in the gas chambers during The Holocaust.” The test question was brought to public attention last Friday through an article in the student-run satirical newspaper The Local Noodle. The question has garnered widespread condemnation while The Noodle’s article has sparked controversy over the use of satire to respond to such incidents.
Chemistry Professor Jeff Byers, who has taught at Middlebury since 1986, posed the question in early March. Several students reported it to the administration the week before spring break. According to Dean of Faculty Andi Lloyd, the administration responded immediately by reaching out to Byers.
“My reaction was that the question was completely inappropriate and deeply problematic, and that follow-up was needed,” Lloyd said. “We’ve been focusing on the situation within the class itself, and that culminated in an apology to the class by Professor Byers last week.”
In an email to The Campus, Byers said he would not comment further on the incident, which he called an “unfortunate error on my part.”
Several students in the class said they were disturbed by the way the question was framed. One Jewish first-year, who asked to remain anonymous, said that the question was distressing to read, especially in the middle of a test.
“I was pretty rattled when I saw the question, as the Holocaust is not something to make light of, especially since I am Jewish and the problem involved us calculating how much poisonous gas you would need to kill people in a room,” she said.
Most students outside of the class did not know about the incident until The Noodle’s article was published online on April 5. The article, which circulated widely on social media, prompted the Community Bias Response Team (CBRT) — a group that responds to bias incidents involving students on campus — to send an all-school email on Sunday, April 7.
In its email, the CBRT condemned the test question, stating, “The use of this exam question failed to provide any critical engagement with the historical contexts and atrocities of the Holocaust. It asked students to engage in problem solving that mirrors calculations used to implement systematic genocide. Our students should never have been put in this position.”
[pullquote speaker="The Local Noodle staff" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]If administrative bodies can publicly shame student publications who bring to light things they’ve kept quiet, that sets a dangerous precedent for our campus.[/pullquote]
The email also criticized The Local Noodle article. “We are aware that The Local Noodle published a satirical article about this incident,” the email read. “While satire can be an effective form of social critique, the article’s light handed references to and engagement with the Holocaust have caused additional harm.”
According to Renee Wells, the director of education for equity and inclusion and a member of the CBRT, the team was not planning to send out an email until The Local Noodle article elicited a campus-wide reaction to both the test question and the satire piece.
“The incident occurred in a class, so the impact was on the students in the class. Thus, the focus of the response in this situation was to work to ensure the faculty member understood the harm done and addressed it with his students,” she said. “When we began receiving emails about the Noodle article and its impact, we realized that the scope of the incident had expanded to the entire campus community, so we sent out a campus-wide email.”
The CBRT did not reach out to members of The Local Noodle before the email was sent.
Some students and faculty expressed concern that the email equated the Noodle article with the original test question, including Maggie Clinton, an associate professor of History and a member of the Faculty for an Inclusive Middlebury working group.
“Whether one found the Noodle’s article humorous or not, and I personally didn’t, student satire is hardly the same as exam questions given by a professor with a powerful gatekeeping role,” Clinton said, referring to Byers’s additional responsibilities as a member of the college’s Health Professions Committee, which evaluates students’ medical school applications.
“It’s unfortunate that the CBRT didn’t acknowledge either the power differential or the political difference between highly unethical and frankly horrifying exam questions, and a satirical response intended to criticize the posing of such questions in the first place,” Clinton said.
In a statement to The Campus, the staff of The Local Noodle wrote that the response from CBRT felt more like a public relations decision than an attempt to engage the issue. They also took issue with the fact that nobody from the CBRT contacted them in advance of the email.
“To denounce a satirical publication in a school-wide email like this is a form of public shaming designed to close off a complex and sensitive issue to any meaningful discussion, which is what would actually be productive,” they said. “If administrative bodies can publicly shame student publications who bring to light things they’ve kept quiet, that sets a dangerous precedent for our campus.”
The Local Noodle responded to the email in a second article titled “Community Bias Response Team Gets Mad at Noodle For Making Them Do Their Job.”
Although The Local Noodle staff feel the CBRT mishandled the situation, many students found The Noodle’s article offensive. There has been active debate about the article in comments sections on Facebook, and several students have posted in the “Middlebury Memes for Crunchy Teens” Facebook page, both defending and criticizing The Noodle’s article and the CBRT’s response.
At the Student Government Association (SGA) meeting on Sunday night, a senator expressed interest in exploring the possibility of pulling The Noodle’s funding next year, but the idea was not further discussed. Senators also discussed the possibility of requiring the editors of all student publications to participate in mandatory bias training. As of press time, no official action has been taken on either front.
Senior Senator Travis Sanderson ’19 said that while he took issue with the article, he does not support revoking the club’s funding.
“The Noodle is a satirical magazine attempting to do its job,” he said. “It is The Noodle's right to engage in the type of humor that relies on trivializations of seriously traumatic and genocidal terms, like ‘the final solution,’ but I am nonetheless disturbed by The Noodle’s apparent total lack of empathy for the legitimate concern about such jokes' effect on community members.”
Talia Raisel, a Jewish first-year, was among those who found the Noodle piece hurtful. While she felt the original test question was “in bad taste,” her bigger concern was the headline of the Noodle article, which joked that the professor was “a real Nazi” about grading.
“Calling people Nazis who aren't literal Nazis has really trivialized the term,” she said. “Satire can be wonderful and effective when used properly, but there's still a line where satire loses its efficacy and just becomes a series of inappropriate puns, and I feel that this line has been majorly crossed.”
Jenny Moss ’20.5, the co-president of Middlebury Hillel, said that she was not offended by the Noodle article. Rather, she appreciated the way the piece highlighted the issue of bias and anti-Semitism in academic spaces and the lack of response from the school. She also feels the school should have addressed this issue publicly earlier, especially because in her experience many Jewish students heard about the incident before break.
“If I were to have written the Noodle article, I think that I might have dialed the rhetoric back and focussed more on the lack of apology from the teacher and the school,” she said.
In the wake of the controversy, Moss also invited students, faculty and staff to participate in upcoming events for Yom Hashoah, the Jewish day of Holocaust remembrance, to learn more about the history of oppression within the Jewish community. The events will take place in late April and early May.
Looking forward, the CBRT email noted that this event has highlighted the need for more training for faculty and staff to promote inclusivity in the classroom.
According to Wells, she will pilot this program starting in the fall and will offer workshops and facilitated dialogues to faculty and staff on a variety of topics.
“The program will provide a framework for faculty and staff to access resources, engage in critical conversations, practice inclusive strategies, and be part of a community working to integrate what they learn in the context of their everyday work,” she said. “It is important to create space to engage in open and honest conversations about our campus climate and to be thoughtful and intentional about ways we can make Middlebury a community that everyone feels included in and wants to be a part of.”
Wells invited faculty and staff to reach out if there are specific areas they would like to see addressed in the program.
(04/11/19 9:59am)
Professor Jeff Byers will be taking an immediate leave of absence from his teaching duties for the rest of the semester, the Chemistry department announced in an email to Byers’ students on Wednesday afternoon, following campus-wide outcry over an offensive question he posed on a midterm exam last month.
The email, from department chair Bob Cluss, did not specify whether Byers' courses will be taught by another professor. It promised that the department would update students "by the end of this week" on how their courses will be completed in the remaining four weeks of the semester.
The question, part of an exam for the Chemistry 103 course, asked students to calculate “a lethal dose” of the gas “Nazi Germany used to horrific ends in the gas chambers during The Holocaust.” Although students in the class reported feeling uncomfortable at the time, it was not brought to public attention until last Friday, through an article in the student-run satirical newspaper The Local Noodle.
In a separate email sent to the college community later Wednesday afternoon and also posted to the college's website, president Laurie L. Patton called Byers' question an "inexplicable failure of judgment," which "trivializes one of the most horrific events in world history, violates core institutional values, and simply has no place on our campus." The message includes a link to a written apology by Byers, in which he committed to "spend the coming months reflecting deeply on the choices I have made."
Patton's message also revealed that an inquiry into Byers' past exams uncovered "a second objectionable question," which made a gratuitous reference to the Ku Klux Klan.
This story will be updated.
(04/11/19 9:58am)
Following the departure of its only full-time professor, next year, the college’s Hebrew program will no longer offer upper-level Hebrew classes on campus and will instead require students to video conference into Middlebury-devised courses at other colleges. These changes have raised concerns about the program’s future among students who see it is as an invaluable focal point of both academic learning and Jewish life on campus.
The program’s current professor, Oz Aloni, will leave the college when his contract expires after this semester. In the last year, Hebrew Program Head Tamar Mayer — who teaches only geography at Middlebury — requested twice that a new Hebrew professor be hired. Mayer’s requests were denied both times.
According to Vice President for Academic Affairs Andrea Lloyd, the college denied Mayer’s request because the Hebrew program continually sustains a very low level of enrollment in its classes. Since 2013-14, there has been an average of three students per semester enrolled in one of the introductory Hebrew courses, which are offered in a three-course sequence.
Additionally, the college must maintain an equilibrium of 248 full-time equivalent (FTE) professors across departments at all times, and must decide each semester which new hire requests to approve to keep that number constant. Enrollment level is one of the factors that the Educational Affairs Committee considers when approving new hire requests.
Board members from Hillel, the college’s Jewish student life organization, voiced fear in a March 21 op-ed in The Campus that reductions in the program will ultimately result in the end of the Hebrew program entirely. The op-ed, entitled “We Need the Hebrew Department,” encouraged the college to hire more Hebrew professors and advocated the importance of Hebrew studies, both linguistically and culturally, for Jewish students on campus.
“Middlebury is an academic institution; this title implies a commitment to academic excellence above all else and a responsibility to make the campus inclusive to all students,” the board wrote. “Refusing to fill this position in the Hebrew Department would be a failure on both counts.”
But although the op-ed said the reductions would “effectively end the Hebrew Department on this campus,” the college insists that the program will continue through its beginner-level Hebrew course offerings taught by a teaching fellow, who is scheduled to leave after next year, and through indeterminate alternative advanced language studies and video conference classes.
The Hebrew program has always had one FTE with a three-year appointment, meaning that the sole Hebrew professor changes every three years. The other professors are fellows, not FTEs. Mayer believes that this lack of continuity has hurt the program.
Each semester, the Hebrew program offers one 100-level introductory Hebrew language course, taught by the teaching fellow, and one or two intermediate and advanced Hebrew language courses at the 300, 400 and 500 levels, taught by Aloni. It also offers cross-listed courses about Hebrew culture and history, taught in English by Israel Institute Teaching Fellow Zohar Gazit.
The teaching fellow will continue teaching the introductory courses next Fall. The higher-level Hebrew language courses are listed in the Fall 2019 catalogue, but the professors teaching the courses remain unlisted. As it currently stands, these classes will be taught online through the video conferencing software Zoom, through which students will video conference with professors at other colleges.
300 and 500-level courses will no longer be available.
“People wishing to take advanced Hebrew will need to be in the one 400 level course,” Mayer explained. “This means that some students will simply have to stop their Hebrew education.”
Currently, students can minor in Classical or Modern Hebrew, as well as Jewish Studies. They can also make Hebrew their primary or secondary language in an International and Global Studies (IGS) Middle East major, or can integrate the language into a Comparative Literature or Religion major.
The new cutbacks will make these courses of study more difficult. The Hillel op-ed expressed concern for students currently planning to minor in or study Hebrew and highlighted the importance of maintaining Hebrew as a language option in the IGS Middle East major. In the absence of Hebrew, the major will now require the study of Arabic, which Mayer believes limits the Middle Eastern perspective that the study of Hebrew offers. When IGS Middle Eastern Studies was created in 2004, it was conceived of as a track that would include both Arabic and Hebrew.
“It is difficult to think of Middle Eastern conflicts while exposing students to one language only, providing a limited opportunity, at best, for those who would like to get the Israeli perspective,” Mayer said. “A loss of Hebrew at the undergraduate college means a loss of perspective and a narrower education for our students.”
Earlier this year, the Middlebury study abroad school in Beer-Sheva, Israel was suspended, again for reasons related to low enrollment.
Advocates of the Hebrew program’s continuation argue that low enrollment in Hebrew classes is not enough of a reason for its shrinking, and emphasize the cultural and academic significance of the program.
“Our argument is that you can’t base the value of a class on the number of people enrolled, and that Hebrew is really important on this campus, not despite low numbers but separate from them,” said Rachel Horowitz-Benoit ’21, one of the authors of the op-ed and a Comparative Literature major with a focus in Hebrew Literature. Horowitz-Benoit and Mayer both argue that Hebrew is a uniquely valuable program because of its connection to Jewish cultural and religious life on campus.
Horowitz-Benoit also does not see lack of interest as the sole reason for the program’s low enrollment.
“The size of the program inhibits many people who want and plan to take Hebrew from doing so,” she said. “It’s not necessarily a lack of interest but a lack of availability.”
Since only one Hebrew class at any given level is offered in a semester and all of the upper-level classes are taught by one professor, students with an interest in taking Hebrew may not be able to because the single class time conflicts with another course. Additionally, students might not click with the teaching style of the single Hebrew professor teaching those courses.
Horowitz-Benoit and other Hillel Board members formed a committee to advocate for the program. They are collecting signatures in support of increased Hebrew programming and used the op-ed to publicize the situation. Over four weeks ago, the committee sent suggestions to President Laurie Patton, Dean of Faculty Andi Lloyd and Provost Jeff Cason. These suggestions included hiring a student employee to promote enrollment in Hebrew classes and creating a committee of students to assist in the hiring of a new faculty member so that the professor is well-suited to the students in the program. This week the committee received a response from administrators and, as of press time Tuesday, are planning to meet with Dean of Curriculum Suzanne Gurland soon to discuss their concerns.
In the meantime, administrators have suggested creative solutions to learning Hebrew at an advanced level without a professor: in addition to the integration of video conference classes, they have proposed that students attend the summer Hebrew language school.
Mayer takes issue with both of these propositions, especially the language school, which she sees as an insufficient replacement for courses, and a resource only accessible to the wealthy.
“The language schools are expensive and even if students are able to secure a full ride, they are unable to spend the summer making money that they need for the upcoming year,” she pointed out. “I see this as an opportunity only for rich kids and that is not okay.”
Mayer also finds the new virtual class plan problematic.
“Students do not want to pay such high tuition to just sit in front of their computers,” she said. During this past Winter Term, Aloni was ill for a week and students in his class video conferenced with a professor at another university. Some students reported to Mayer that they were not satisfied with the experience, and that video conferencing does not replicate the classroom language-learning environment that Middlebury is known for.
Molly Babbin ’22 was a student in the intro winter term Hebrew class. “I understood the importance of filling Professor Aloni’s brief absence with the video calls, but I probably would not be satisfied with it as a long-term solution. I found that I was less engaged, as I was not sitting in a classroom and was not speaking as much Hebrew to the other students,” Babbin said. “The class therefore lacked the social aspect that I have enjoyed in my in-person Hebrew classes. I understand that online classes can be effective, but it felt more difficult in a language class where I would prefer to have an immersive classroom experience.”
It is unclear precisely what will happen to students who are already pursuing Hebrew studies. In an email to The Campus, Lloyd said that these students “will be working with their advisors to address any issues that arise with respect to course offerings.”
According to Horowitz-Benoit, there are five students hoping to take above-300-level Hebrew next year, and several first-years who were planning to minor in the language.
For these students, the future is uncertain.
“I’d probably have to switch my major to English,” Horowitz-Benoit said. “I’ll graduate, but I’m in the Comparative Literature major, I’ve done the prerequisites for that, and this is really out of left field.”
(04/11/19 9:55am)
As you probably know, NCAA March Madness is officially over as Virginia beat Texas Tech 85-77 on Monday night. If you’re looking for a technical recap of the game, look elsewhere. We here on The Campus will leave the hard-hitting Division I reporting to the professionals because we know what our readers are really craving: the results of the 2019 MiddMadness school-wide bracket.
Coming in first with an incredibly strong showing was Abraham Beningson ’21, who will receive $150 in his declining balance. Beningson finished with 1710 points, a full 230 points ahead of the second place finisher. Beningson correctly predicted each team that made it to the Final Four and picked Virginia to win it all against Texas Tech, 67-61. He placed 164th overall among all NCAA March Madness brackets. When asked about his selection technique, Beningson said he did a little bit of research but mostly balanced realistic expectations with some personal bias. “I started out by picking a fair amount of upsets in the first round because those are fun to cheer for and fun to get right,” Beningson said. “These were generally due to a small amount of stat research: if the team had a good defense or shot a lot of 3s, I was inclined to pick them – or for bias, like with UVM. Ultimately though, I wanted to have a good chance at picking the winner because that’s worth the most points, so I went with Virginia. I couldn’t go with the complete fa- vorite in Duke because that would be boring.”
Last year, Beningson used the same strategy but placed in the middle of the college’s bracket, and he attributes this year’s success to chance. “There’s absolutely no question about
it: the only reason I did this well was by being totally lucky,” Beningson said. “The tournament is just so unpredictable that an infinite amount of knowledge about college basketball really isn’t that much better than no knowledge at all. I’m just concerned that I’ve used up all my good luck for the foreseeable future.”
Coming in 342nd place, in a tragic last place finish, was freshman Jake Gaughan. Despite following college basketball “fairly closely” throughout the year and doing “pretty average in his other brackets, Gaughan finished the MiddMadness bracket with only 210 points. Gaughan predicted Vermont would take it all the way, despite their first-round loss. He told The Campus, “I always pick the Catamounts. They have three brothers [Robin, Ernie and Everett Duncan] on the team, and if that isn’t enough to win a national championship, I don’t know what is.”
The Campus checked in with Ben Yamron, the bottom finisher in last year’s Roll Pants! bracket, to see how the sophomore fared this time around. This year, Yamron finished in 333rd place, nine places higher than last year, but said he used the same selection strategy. “It is just instinct, you know?” Yamron said. “You see two teams in the matchup, and a sign hits you and you just know. You gotta go with your gut. Last year, this worked out very poorly, but this year I improved, so if I keep going with the process and and keep my eye on the prize, by senior year I’ll have a bracket I can be proud of.”
By 2021, The Campus hopes to see Yamron crack the top 200.
(04/11/19 9:53am)
The earth is not to be taken for granted.
Last Thursday evening in Wilson Hall, 30 years after publishing the seminal climate change volume “The End of Nature,” Bill McKibben revisited the many lessons he has learned since the book’s publication. That was the first one.
McKibben, known for his work as a journalist and environmental activist, founded the international climate change organization 350.org in 2008. In 2010, McKibben was named Middlebury’s Schumann Distinguished Scholar. Since then he has regularly given talks on campus and appeared at college events, while continuing his work as an activist outside of Middlebury. During last week’s talk, entitled “What I Learned in the Last Three Decades: A First Glimpse of My New Book,” he shared eight lessons about the climate crisis and human nature along with excerpts from his newest book, “Falter: Has the Human Game Begun to Play Itself Out?”
The talk began with introductions by Professor of Economics Jon Isham, Dean of Environmental Affairs Nan Jenks-Jay, and College President Laurie L. Patton. Isham read a new poem written by the environmental poet Wendell Berry about McKibben, the first entry in a book of writings gathered from close colleagues and friends of McKibben’s. Jenks-Jay presented McKibben with the book. Patton read her own entry, thanking McKibben, whom she called “the world’s colleague and friend,” for his many contributions to the college over the last 18 years.
About two months ago, Jenks-Jay suggested giving McKibben an award in recognition of the 30th anniversary of the publication of “The End of Nature,” Isham told The Campus. This idea evolved into the book they presented to him at the talk, a collection of 39 contributions from people who have worked with him on the front lines of the fight against climate change.
Today’s climate movement did not exist fifteen years ago, McKibben wrote in an email to The Campus. “Whether it’s strong enough to match the fossil fuel industry I don’t know,” he wrote, “but it is very good to know that at least there will be a fight.”
The second lesson McKibben learned is that some people actually do their jobs. The price of solar panels has fallen by 90 percent in the last decade, he said, thanks to the work of engineers — and the “ex-hippies” who spent their time “down in the basement fussing with the lead-acid batteries.”
“The good story of the last thirty years is that we know, now, how we could solve a problem that in a certain way seemed insoluble in 1989,” McKibben wrote. In 1989, there was no clear alternative to coal, gas and oil. Now, as solar power has become more affordable, there is.
His third lesson: it’s possible to win the argument, but lose the fight. Despite winning the climate change argument, scientists lost the fight to the world’s fossil fuel elites who had enough money and power to inhibit change. Oil companies knew all the basic facts of climate change by the 1980s, but their willingness to spread “the most consequential lie in human history” produced a 30-year debate about whether climate change was real at all.
For the fossil fuel companies, that lie remains a success. “The President of the United States believes that climate change was a hoax invented by the Chinese, an idea so odd that if you were sitting on the ACTR bus next to someone muttering this, you would get up and change seats,” McKibben said.
After the release of “The End of Nature” in 1989, McKibben worked to grow the global climate movement and continued to write books. Just over a decade ago, he began dedicating more time to organizing, combating the massive amounts of money in the fossil fuel industry, moving away from book writing. But “Falter” felt necessary, especially considering how far McKibben has come since he wrote “The End of Nature.”
“‘The End of Nature’ was a good book, but written by a young man,” he wrote. “That has both advantages and disadvantages.”
The fourth thing McKibben learned is that large numbers of people will gather and do the work they are asked to do, “if they’re given a — even mildly plausible — reason to think it might be successful.” He brought up the then-upcoming Climate Solutions Walk held last weekend, a five-day march from Middlebury to Montpelier. He described a similar march in 2006, during which protesters walked from the Robert Frost Cabin in Ripton to Burlington.
In 2006, when they reached Burlington, he said, they were greeted by then Congressman and senatorial candidate Bernie Sanders, who praised them enthusiastically for their activism. Sanders then asked, “What is this about, again?”
McKibben’s primary takeaway from the 2006 march was that people respond better when they are asked to do more challenging things, because they are more likely to step up if they feel that their work means something. This is also seen in the unexpected global success 350.org saw in 2009, when they coordinated thousands of protests around the world on the same day.
In 2009, McKibben said, climate activism was an unfilled ecological niche. But while nobody focused primarily on climate change, many worried about closely related issues: women’s rights, war and peace, development, public health, hunger, and “all the problems you couldn’t address on a planet that was rapidly destabilizing.”
Lesson five, he said, is that it is sometimes necessary to go beyond education and confront the problems. The Keystone Pipeline protests show, regardless of their outcome, that it is possible to stand up to big oil. Divestment of money invested in fossil fuels has also been more successful than McKibben ever anticipated, with coal and oil companies now recognizing the financial losses as a serious threat.
The sixth lesson: “it’s possible we may not win this fight.”
Never take a snowstorm for granted, McKibben warned, because winter as it exists now will not last much longer. The evidence of climate-related losses is rapidly becoming ubiquitous. Coral reefs, “once the most enchanted corner of God’s brain,” he said, “are now just lobotomized and vacant.” He played a video he had filmed of a glacier disintegrating into the sea.
The seventh lesson is a little bit more optimistic: to have any chance of “winning”— of slowing and limiting climate change enough for human civilization to survive—people will need to stretch well beyond their comfort zones. After all, he said, the planet is way outside its comfort zone. And what people have done so far is clearly insufficient.
McKibben cited two mechanisms which have been enhanced over the last 30 years and serve as reasons for hope. One is the solar panel. The other is the evolution of nonviolent resistance. Activism by pioneers like Martin Luther King, Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi serve as the foundation of the climate movement protests.
“You shouldn’t have to go to jail to get people to listen to science,” McKibben said. But it works.
His eighth and final lesson is that the world is so beautiful, and so remarkable, that all of this is worth a try. Earlier that day, he said, as his flight to Middlebury passed over the Adirondacks, he found himself captivated by the view. And yet, while watching a recent SpaceX launch, he realized that the richest people on earth just want to leave this planet behind.
Moving forward, the next ten years are likely to be the most critical, McKibben said. “Can we make a decisive transition away from fossil fuels in that period? If not, I think the prospects for catching up with the physics of climate change become vanishingly small.”
“We are messy creatures, often selfish, prone to short-sightedness, susceptible to greed,” McKibben said at the end of the talk. “In a Trumpian moment, with racism and nationalism resurgent, you could argue that our disappearance would be no great loss. And yet most of us, most of the time, are pretty wonderful. Funny. Kind. Another name for human solidarity is love. And when I think about our world in its present form, that is what overwhelms me.”
(03/21/19 9:59am)
UPDATE: Thursday, March 21, 6:12 p.m.
Despite initial speculation that his proposals would not amount to action, President Trump signed an executive order Thursday instructing government agencies to ensure that universities uphold principles of “free inquiry.”
On Thursday and in his announcement earlier this month, Trump claimed the order would protect students with right-leaning views on college campuses, generating fears among experts about federal overreach in matters of speech. But the order seems much less intrusive than was originally anticipated, and remains vague about if and how it will monitor the protection of free speech on college campuses.
The seven-page order, obtained by The Chronicle of Higher Education, is entitled “Improving Free Inquiry, Transparency, and Accountability at Colleges and Universities.” The portion of the order regarding free speech states that its purpose is to encourage “free and open debate” and to avoid stifling competing perspectives on campuses.
“Free inquiry is an essential feature of our Nation’s democracy, and it promotes learning, scientific discovery, and economic prosperity,” it reads. “We must encourage institutions to appropriately account for this bedrock principle in their administration of student life.”
While the order is slightly more specific than Trump’s original proposal, it remains vague about logistics. The only details it provides regarding the order’s implementation is that agencies involved in distributing federal research funds to colleges, along with the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, will “take appropriate steps” to ensure that recipient institutions of federal research funds “promote free inquiry.” It also clarifies that the order will apply to federal research grants and certain education grants, but will not apply to federal financial aid used for student tuition.
An unnamed senior administration official told Politico Thursday that the order just reinstates what colleges are already supposed to do.
“While many schools — or all schools — are frankly supposed to follow this currently, it will ensure that grant dollars are associated through the grant-making process, and schools will have to certify that they’re following this condition," they said.
Trump described the order as "a clear message to the professors and power structures trying to suppress dissent and keep young Americans — and all Americans, not just young Americans … from challenging rigid, far-left ideology.
"If the university doesn't allow you to speak, we will not give them money — it's very simple," Trump said.
The other part of the order addresses university transparency with students and their families, and seeks to make information about alumni’s average earnings and loan repayment rates available to the public through College Scorecard so that prospective students can make more informed decisions about where they will attend. It also directs the Education Department to create a report examining policy options for risk sharing on student-loan debt.
In response to Thursday’s news, Vice President of Communications Bill Burger did not comment on the specifics of the order but reaffirmed the college’s commitment to free speech.
"Middlebury, as always, is committed to fostering a robust and inclusive public sphere in which diverse points of view can be heard, and where members of our community can participate fully,” he said.
------
March 14, 2019
Middlebury and other private universities could be targeted by an executive order that President Donald J. Trump proposed earlier this month, which would withhold federal funding from any institutions that do not uphold “free speech.”
The proposal serves as a response to longstanding complaints on the right that students at liberal universities are vilifying and stifling conservative viewpoints. But university administrators and educators around the country fear the ramifications of an attempt by the president to regulate campus speech.
In his address on the last day of the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) a four-day gathering of prominent right-wing thinkers, politicians and students in National Harbor, Md., the president avoided specifics but announced that he would sign the order “very soon.” The crowd responded with uproarious applause and chants of “USA! USA!”
Trump was joined onstage by Hayden Williams, a 26-year-old conservative activist who was punched last month while recruiting for a conservative organization and holding a pro-Trump sign at the University of California, Berkeley.
[pullquote speaker="Hayden Williams" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]If these socialist progressives had their way, they would put our Constitution through the paper shredder in a heartbeat.[/pullquote]
“There are so many conservative students around the country who are facing discrimination, harassment and worse if they dare to speak up on campus,” Williams said. “If these socialist progressives had their way, they would put our Constitution through the paper shredder in a heartbeat.”
Trump’s announcement comes two years after the Charles Murray protests at Middlebury, which conservative critics lampooned as an example of suppression of free speech and right-wing views. That same year, students at Claremont McKenna College, a private liberal arts school in California, blocked the door of an auditorium during a conservative writer’s speech. Students involved in both protests were disciplined in the aftermath.
Although Trump named neither college in his speech, both schools have figured into his administration’s recent crusade against suppression of right-wing views on college campuses. In the last two years, congressional Republicans held multiple hearings on campus free speech, and in recent months the Justice Department has filed statements in support of students who have sued their universities for violating their speech rights. Last March, the White House held a panel called “Crisis on College Campus” that identified suppression of free speech as one of the two gravest college dilemmas, alongside opioid addiction. One of the panelists referenced Middlebury as an example of protests turned violent.
Now, Trump’s order seeks to link its defense of free speech with the federal dollars that private colleges collect from the government for research projects. Middlebury received $4,987,440 in federally sponsored research funds in the 2018 fiscal year, more than $3 million of which went to the Institute of International Studies at Monterey. Even more may be at stake for the private research universities which receive billions annually, like John Hopkins University in Maryland, which led all universities with $2.6 billion spent on research during the 2017 Fiscal Year.
Higher Ed Braces Itself
In an email to The Campus, President Laurie L. Patton expressed opposition to Trump’s proposal, saying it “raises many legal and policy questions and would be deeply problematic for the country’s 4,000 institutions of higher education.
“Middlebury believes freedom of expression is essential in higher education and that it allows people who have less power in society to have an equal voice in the public square,” Patton wrote. “While I think the federal government could do many things to help higher education in this country, saddling colleges and universities with an obligation this vague, easily abused, and impossible to administer is not among them.”
[pullquote speaker="President Laurie L. Patton" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]Middlebury believes freedom of expression is essential in higher education and that it allows people who have less power in society to have an equal voice in the public square.[/pullquote]
Higher education experts and administrators appear united in their opposition to the proposal. Even those who have staunchly encouraged universities to protect free speech on their campuses, like University of Chicago President Robert Zimmer, have vocalized concerns about the motion.
Middlebury Professor of Political Science Murray Dry, who studies constitutional law and freedom of speech, thinks Trump should reconsider his statement and leave the decision making to the schools in question.
“The colleges and universities, such as Berkeley and Middlebury, are well aware of the problems and have taken steps to assure freedom of speech and to maintain security,” he said.
Private universities already comply with certain requirements to receive federal funding, such as ethical guidelines on research involving human subjects, but have typically enjoyed more leeway on matters of speech. Public universities, on the other hand, must follow certain rules regarding speech set forth by the government. For example, they must apply the same rules about inviting guest speakers to all student organizations, regardless of content, unless it can be proven that a speaker may incite or produce violence.
Trump’s order would most likely hold private universities to similar standards. What this means exactly is unclear, given the ambiguity of his speech. For now, experts can only speculate.
Dry and Matthew Dickinson, also a Political Science professor, both think that if it were implemented, the order would be overseen and implemented by the Department of Education, which would develop rules and procedures for holding universities accountable. But Dickinson wondered if the order will even get that far, suggesting it may be on shaky legal footing.
“It’s not clear to me that (the president) does have the authority to define free speech via an executive order,” Dickinson said. “If he does, and asks his administration to enforce it via withholding of funds, it almost certainly will be litigated in the courts.”
Deciding what is and what is not free speech historically has fallen outside the president’s purview. The courts usually set regulations on speech, and have previously upheld laws restricting what they deemed harmful or violent speech on campuses. Usually, the executive branch has only been involved in such matters during times of war to limit speech posing a “clear and present” danger to society.
In any case, the order has the potential to affect Middlebury and its peers negatively, Dickinson fears.
[pullquote speaker="Matthew Dickinson" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]Historically, whenever people in positions of authority try to regulate speech, they typically do so in ways that disproportionately affect politically marginalized groups.[/pullquote]
“Historically, whenever people in positions of authority try to regulate speech, they typically do so in ways that disproportionately affect politically marginalized groups,” he said. “We saw this in the fallout from the Charles Murray protest. The college reacted by clarifying their protest policies. Without passing judgment on the college’s effort, I will say that it is the predictable reaction by those in authority to the damage inflicted on free speech by that incident.
“I would worry that in their effort to protect free speech, the Trump administration may inadvertently weaken protections that are so vital if a liberal arts college is to engage in the free and unfettered exchange of ideas,” he added. “ It is far better, I think, to err on the side of protecting speech from regulation than to rely on the government to define it for us.”
Contradictions & Ambiguities
Others see the proposal as largely symbolic. Lata Nott, executive director of the First Amendment Center at the nonprofit Freedom Forum, told The Campus that she supports the idea of conservative and controversial figures speaking at universities, but sees Trump’s attempt to meddle in the affairs of private universities as an overreach.
Nott finds the proposal strange for a number of reasons. For one, the incident at UC Berkeley, which seemed to precipitate the announcement, involved two adults who were not affiliated with the university in question, which makes Nott wonder where the administration will draw the line.
“Would that mean that anyone who does anything on the university is held accountable?” Nott said. “At what point does the free speech penalty kick in?”
In his speech, Trump told Williams he should sue UC Berkeley for the incident. The public university was already the target of a 2018 lawsuit that alleged it discriminated against conservative speakers, which it settled. Part of the settlement required the school to adopt policies that would make it harder for students to shout down conservative speakers.
Nott also noted that sometimes, government efforts like this one end up injuring the very doctrines they aim to protect. Most recently, states with Republican-led legislatures, including Arizona, Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Georgia, have passed laws that would require universities to punish students for protesting on public college and university campuses, and other states are following suit.
But Nott argued that these laws are self-defeating because they they limit another manifestation of freedom of speech — the right to protest.
“I’m in support of speakers coming to campus, regardless of what their political stripe is or if they’re offensive,” Nott said. “But protest is also a First Amendment right. You can’t really pick and choose what you want.”
(03/21/19 9:56am)
Alongside drinking crappy beer and “finding yourself,” it is an American college tradition to be jaded about our country. I am no exception. I am a jaded, beer-drinking American college student trying to find himself. So, when it was time to go abroad, I was ready. I did not want to hear about the shutdown. I did not want to hear about an election still two years away. I escaped to Irkutsk, a medium-sized city deep in Russia’s Siberia.
It was the perfect to place to go. I am meeting a people that fearlessly battle frigid temperatures and possess warm personalities that blossom over a cup of tea. I am learning a beautifully complex language that has both amazed and humbled me. I recently saw the stunning, frozen expanse of Lake Baikal — a true natural wonder. But the most surprising part is how I am learning a lot about America, too. I am learning to appreciate it. This is what’s been in my head:
My car. Americans use cars for everything. Whether it be going to work, school, or Starbucks, there is almost always a car involved. In Irkutsk, public transportation reigns supreme, and it works well. Public busses and trams move tens of thousands of people everywhere around the city, every day. My personal favorite is the marshutka, which is a small van that weaves through traffic at dangerously high speeds, without seatbelts. Marshutkas during rush hour feel like Tavern parties on the first weekend of school, except everyone is completely silent. And if you want to get off, you must break the silence and yell out your stop. Awkward. But after a while, I began to miss my car. That feeling when you get to your car after a long day is irreplaceable. It is an “almost home” feeling that means “this is my metal box and I am safe inside of it.” Throw some friends into the backseat, roll down the windows and turn up the music and you have a distinctly American experience. I admittedly kinda miss my nerdy Honda CRV.
The American College experience. College in Russia is a world away. Most Russian students grow up and go to college in the same city they were born in. This brings a welcoming sense of comfort in a challenging time of life. Mom, dad, brother, sister, and the dog are not far away. Most students don’t live in dorms and go home after class instead, so the idea of college being more than just academics is almost nonexistent. For most Americans, it is the opposite. College is the capstone of our teenage angst. We get to leave high school and our hometown behind, so we can reinvent ourselves hundreds of miles away. This means our campus takes on a whole different meaning. Middlebury is more than just a school; it’s a place where we live, laugh, cry and fall in love. We celebrate life and learning together for four years and complain about to-go containers while we’re at it. A very American experience, indeed.
That quirky American spirit. It is well-known that Americans, especially young ones, are incredibly optimistic about their ability to shape their futures. Optimists say it is admirable. Pessimists say it is naive. My Russian friends don’t share the same mindset. They are very realistic and pragmatic about things. They often accept the status quo and work with it. They may not plan to change the world, but they will do what they can, given the constraints. I know I share a similar mindset. Maybe that’s why we get along. But that youthful American energy that wants to change the future is still something that I admire. And it is something I should pay more attention to. Just think about Middlebury. A dedicated commitment to tackling climate change by generations of Middkids is the reason why we are carbon neutral. It is why Middkids actively try to change their lifestyles to fight climate change. I always thought this American energy was naïve. But maybe I’ve changed my mind because it actually does deliver change.
There are plenty of reasons to be frustrated about America. And we should be. Being content with the status quo is not a part of that quirky American spirit that wants to change the world. But my time abroad has convinced me that there are many things to be thankful for. Living in a small campus community dedicated to learning both in and outside of the classroom is something you don’t see often outside of America. Blazing down the highway in a big SUV with the windows down, music up and the company of friends is a distinctly American experience. So, go study abroad and learn a new language and a completely different culture. You might learn something about America, too.
(03/21/19 9:54am)
At most colleges and universities, professional admissions officers deliver information sessions to prospective students and their families. Not so at Middlebury, where each year, eight seniors are tasked with serving as the face of the college to the more than 10,000 visitors that come to campus.
The senior fellows program, founded by Dean of Admissions Greg Buckles, was originally created to fill a staffing shortage created by traveling admissions officers.
“In a nutshell, the senior fellows are the group of seniors who basically are the main public relations agents at the college for the admissions office,” said Sam Prouty, associate director of admissions and the supervisor of the fellowship program. “The public can hear directly from someone who is about to get out of here who is an example of what Middlebury education might look like. It almost feels like they are living the life of a Middkid for a day.”
In addition to leading hour-long information sessions, senior fellows are responsible for working at open house events, performing administrative duties and assisting admissions with various programs and projects. They are given flexibility in the information they choose to share and represent a diverse cross-section of the student body — an intentional effort on the part of the Admissions Office.
“We want a group of people who, added up, represent as much of the college as possible,” Prouty said. “We don’t want them all to be neuroscience majors and we don’t want them all to be cross country runners.”
[pullquote speaker="Senior Fellow Kahari Blue ’19" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]I’m really honest about Midd in my sessions. I don’t sugarcoat things that don’t need to be sugar coated, and I don’t lie about some of the college’s more negative characteristics.[/pullquote]
“I’m really honest about Midd in my sessions,” said Senior Fellow Kahari Blue ’19. “I don’t sugarcoat things that don’t need to be sugar coated, and I don’t lie about some of the college’s more negative characteristics. But my audiences seem to love that.”
Separately, Blue worked with the Institutional Diversity Committee of the SGA to create a Student Ambassador program. The program allows students from underrepresented communities to give short information sessions at local high schools when they are home over breaks.
“I have met many wide-eyed, ambitious high school students who are so enthusiastic about joining this community, which makes me optimistic the student body will be in good hands when I leave in a couple of months,” Blue said.
Both Blue and Hollie Haigh ’19, also a fellow, said that participating in the fellowship improved their public speaking skills. They also enjoy helping to plan programs like Preview Days and Discover Middlebury, which allows high school seniors from traditionally under-represented groups to visit Middlebury.
“To have your say in how certain programs or events are going to work is cool because we are the current students and we are influencing what the next generation of students are going to be involved in or be interested in,” Haigh said. “It feels very genuine from our part.”
[pullquote speaker="Senior Fellow Hollie Haigh ’19" photo="" align="center" background="on" border="all" shadow="on"]To have your say in how certain programs or events are going to work is cool because we are the current students and we are influencing what the next generation of students are going to be involved in or be interested in.[/pullquote]
Last Friday, Haigh gave an information session to a school group of about 30 students and their teacher who drove 1,500 miles from Arkansas to tour various East Coast schools. Haigh said she enjoyed connecting with prospective students and sharing anecdotes from her time at Middlebury, including her misadventures from study abroad in Uruguay when she fell off a bus and hurt her ankle.
Teddy Gold ’16 said that the skills he learned as a Senior Fellow have been relevant in his career.
“The program ... stands out as some of the best program management I have experienced in the few jobs I’ve had out of college,” Gold wrote in an email to former supervisor Prouty, which was shared with The Campus. “For me, (it) was a year-long crash course in public speaking, narrative storytelling, and persuasive communication,”
The feedback from visitors has been positive.
“We have heard overwhelmingly that people enjoy connecting with students,” Prouty said. “I think it feels more topical and up to date to hear from somebody who is literally in the midst of a job search about where they are and what the CCI (Center for Careers and Internships) is doing to help them conduct that search.”
Members of the class of 2020 and 2020.5 who are interested in being a Senior Fellow can apply online at the Student Employment Office Website. The application is due this Sunday, March 24. Students can email Prouty with questions about the paid fellowship at sprouty@middlebury.edu.
(03/14/19 10:00am)
We would like to commend the Map Project created by It Happens Here (IHH) as a crucial step toward increased awareness of sexual assault and harassment on our campus. While the number of incidents represented on the map may come as no surprise to some students, the map is nonetheless an important call to rally the Middlebury community against rape culture. It also demonstrates a clear need for additional preventative measures to protect students from assault and harassment.
The concept for the Map Project is simple: an aerial view of Middlebury’s campus populated with a series of red dots, each one representing an instance of sexual assault or sexual harassment that has occurred on campus. To populate the map, students anonymously submitted data about instances of assault and harassment to IHH through a go-link posted last fall. By offering anonymity, IHH empowered survivors to share their experiences without losing their privacy or having to endure the process of formally reporting traumatic experiences.
The largest concentrations of red dots on the map appear in notoriously problematic buildings on campus, including Battell and Atwater Halls A and B, where athletic teams often host open parties. Since many parties on Middlebury’s campus are closed, Atwater parties are often the default social space for first-years who don’t have alternatives on weekend nights. It seems likely that the combination of an upperclassman living space and first-year partygoers contributes to a predatory sexual environment. Notably, the space with the second-largest number of red dots is Battell, a first-year dorm. This suggests that the online training intended to teach incoming students about consent and discourage them from committing sexual assault and harassment is not as successful as it ought to be in protecting first-years from assault and harassment by their peers.
Outside of residential and party spaces, even academic locations like Twilight and Axinn contain red dots, revealing just how pervasive sexual assault and harassment is at the college. If students are unable to occupy the spaces on campus that are explicitly devoted to education without fearing assault or harassment, then Middlebury is failing to fulfill its most basic purpose: to be an environment conducive to learning.
Currently, the majority of on-campus resources available to assault survivors are student-led, such as SPECS, MiddSafe, the SGA’s Sexual and Relationship Respect Committee (SRR) and IHH. While we commend these organizations for their work, we also recognize a clear need for additional administrative support to more effectively address the issue of campus-wide sexual misconduct.
We ask that the administration take the Map Project as evidence that the Green Dot sexual assault prevention program is limited in what it can accomplish. Although Green Dot’s bystander awareness training initiatives are an important first step, its organizers would likely be the first to admit that it does not change the culture at the heart of sexual assault and harassment. And the fact that the vast majority of the map’s dots appear in social spaces suggests that even when bystanders are present near instances of sexual assault, they do not reliably intervene. A real social shift needs to occur in order for cases of sexual assault and harassment to approach zero. Students may not always know which of their friends have sexually assaulted or harassed others, but many know which of their friends behave “badly” at parties or demonstrate unhealthy attitudes about sex and relationships behind closed doors. Those students are the ones most in need of productive conversations with their friends about consent and respect. Bystander intervention can help in potentially dangerous situations, but difficult conversations among friends — and the absolute social unacceptability of harassment and assault — will be required to end the minimization of consent and trivialization of assault and harassment that contribute to rape culture.
We recommend that the college implement a new anti-sexual assault training program that requires students to learn the nuances of sexual harassment and assault in-person rather than online. The current electronic educational program students undergo prior to their first year is too easy for a student to click through without internalizing its message.
As a more immediate measure, we also think the new program could place a greater emphasis on the punitive consequences of committing assault. Perhaps if more students understood and feared the disciplinary repercussions of sexual violations, the overall number of incidents would decrease, at least in the short term.
Of course, emphasizing the consequences of committing sexual assault or harassment will be meaningless if the college does not make the process of reporting less difficult. Some students who report their experiences of sexual assault become so overwhelmed or distraught during the process that they simply leave Middlebury. While we know there are no easy ways of changing this system, we know that the more intimidating this system is, the more difficult it will be for students to come forward.
We also recommend that the administration explore the option of updating the college’s weekend programming to provide students with additional options other than drinking. Middlebury’s isolated location means that weekend activities for students are quite limited, oftentimes encouraging a party culture based on binge drinking. Programs like the free Friday film are a good start, and we think additional programming on Friday and Saturday nights could give students alternatives to drinking heavily and heading to Atwater.
We would also like first-years to have more opportunities to host their own parties rather than constantly being shuffled into upperclassman environments. First-year students should have more room to party among themselves to properly acclimate to college rather than immediately jumping into older, potentially more dangerous settings.
The college has often prided itself on its relatively low number of sexual assault and harassment reports as documented in its annual safety reports. But these statistics are misleading — the majority of sexual assaults on this campus go entirely unreported, which means that even IHH’s Map Project is not a complete tally of on-campus sexual misconduct. We hope that IHH’s map has revealed the extent of on-campus misconduct to the Middlebury community, and that meaningful institutional and cultural progress follow as a result.
(03/14/19 9:59am)
Staff at the Middlebury Snow Bowl and Rikert Nordic Center just made skiing twice as affordable for students.
Administrators at both ski sites decided in late February to cut pass prices in half, according to an email sent to students on March 2. Under the new pricing plan, a season pass at the Snow Bowl now costs $97, down from $210, and season passes at Rikert go for $60 (previously $120). Prices for day passes were reduced as well, down to $20 from $50 at the Snow Bowl and $8.50 from $17 at Rikert. Per the terms of the Bowl’s annual March sale, those who purchase season passes between now and the end of the month will be able to use them for next year’s full ski season.
The reduced-price passes are available exclusively to Middlebury College students, a demographic staff hope to draw to the ski areas in greater numbers than have visited in recent years.
“If we have the same revenue with twice the amount of people on campus excited about what we’re doing, that’s a great thing,” said Mike Hussey, director at Rikert and the Snow Bowl. “That’s worth it for me to reduce the price to a more reasonable level.”
The price cuts have been already yielded positive results. Last year, Snow Bowl staff sold 40 season passes during its March sale, according to Hussey. They need to sell 90 March sale season passes this year for the price cut plan to be financially lucrative. As of March 11, they had already sold 70.
The decision to cut prices sprang from years of declining pass sales at the Bowl and a desire to reinvigorate student participation in the exclusively college-owned and operated ski area, one of only two of its kind in the northeastern U.S. alongside the Dartmouth Skiway. Season pass sales at the Bowl have plummeted steadily over the past decade-and-a-half, Hussey said. During the 2004-2005 ski season the Bowl sold 800 season passes; by the 2017-2018 year, that number had declined to 400.
That drop in sales over that period coincided with pricing trends at Sugarbush Resort, according to Hussey. For the past few years a season pass at Sugarbush went for the same price — around $210 — as passes at the Bowl. It made sense, Hussey realized, that Middlebury College students were spending their money on passes at the larger ski area.
But pass prices shouldn’t stand in the way of students skiing at their college’s mountain, administrators agreed.
“Students at Middlebury shouldn’t feel like they would get a better deal financially skiing somewhere else than at their own mountain,” said Ski Patrol director Sean Gryzb. “We want to populate the bowl with as many students as we can, and that’s worth the price reduction.”
Rather than setting the new Snow Bowl pass price at an even $100, Hussey, Gryzb and other administrators settled on $97 as a way to recognize next year’s winter carnival, which will be the 97th of its kind hosted at the Snow Bowl.
“That’ll tie in a little pride, hopefully,” Hussey said. “Winter carnival is one of these incredibly unique events that a lot of ski areas don’t have the way Middlebury does, and we want to recognize it.”
Philip Klinck ‘20, a member of the Bowl’s student ski patrol, conducted a survey along with fellow ski patroller Sam Scatchard ‘20 that asked students about barriers keeping them from skiing at the Bowl. The survey asked students to name their ideal Snow Bowl pass price, and the median response fell around $100, Klinck said. He and Scatchard presented the results of their survey to Hussey and Gryzb several days after the new price plan had been decided upon, confirming the upside of the new $97 price.
“Skiing is a sport with incredibly high barriers to entry,” Klinck wrote in an email to The Campus. “Ticket pricing makes up only a small portion of what keeps the majority of Middlebury students off the slopes, but it this change is definitely a step in the right direction and is in line with Middlebury’s larger commitment to making all aspects of campus accessible to all students.”
Other initiatives to make the Bowl more affordable include a scholarship program the Bowl launched this January to help subsidize costs for students learning to ski.
Ultimately, Gryzb and Hussey hope that students will take full advantage of the ski sites they have access to during their time at Middlebury. The Bowl’s staff is eager to attract students, skiers and non-skiers alike.
“We’re open and willing to work with all kinds of events and activities and recreation for year-round use of the Snow Bowl,” Gryzb said. “If students are interested in having specific events here, they should reach out to us directly and give us ideas. We actively want to attract and retain student patronage up here. Lay it on us.”
Hussey is saddened, he said, when he meets seniors visiting the Snow Bowl for the first time. Though he doesn’t expect every Middlebury student to leave the college a serious skier, he hope that all students at least learn to ski in the space that belongs to them.
“This is a mountain for the kids,” he said of the Snow Bowl. “This is a unique space, the college owns it, and we want to help students take full advantage of it.”
