1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/26/18 8:51pm)
The same police sirens blare out into the air. The same, yellow crime tape is placed around the scene, marking yet another tragedy in American society. The media picks up the same stories.
But that is often where the similarities end.
Police officers seem to have preconceived notions as black and brown people are villainized in the media. Their lives are expendable. My life, in a sense, seems less important than my white counterparts. Here’s how…
On February 14th — Valentine’s day, an international day of love and affection — a school in Florida was the target of a gruesome, deadly and senseless attack.
It was a safe haven for students, a place to master the disciplines of science and math, English and history; a place they came to develop relationships and one day, hopefully, go to college.
17 students were not going to college; 15 were wounded, left with physical and physiological scars. A community destroyed in a matter of minutes by the hailing bullets of Nikolas Cruz’s AR-15.
The details trickled out.
The FBI received a tip last year about a YouTube comment that could have linked suspicious activity to Nikolas Cruz. No actions were taken.
The security guard, trained and armed to respond to this kind of attack, never entered the building to stop the massacre. Instead, he sought cover outside as young teenagers lost their lives.
After leaving a trail of blood and bodies, Cruz discarded his rifle, camouflaging with fleeing students and got away. After escaping, he walked to Walmart, bought a drink at Subway and even stopped at a McDonalds.
He was arrested at 3:41pm, an hour and thirty minutes after his mass murder — one of the deadliest in American history.
Two seconds is how long police officers took to fire on Tamir Rice, a 12-year playing with a toy gun, when they arrived on the scene.
The officer who shot Laquan McDonald 14 times was on the scene less than 30 seconds before opening fire on the young teenger.
After Parkland, the President of the United States said he would work with the nation’s governor, tweeting he would “Help secure our schools and [tackle] the difficult issue of mental health…” He made no mention of gun violence.
The same President sits in his oval office twitter fingers twitching, screaming to his followers after a raid on his personal lawyer’s office:
“It’s a disgrace. It’s, frankly, a real disgrace. It’s an attack on our country, in a true sense. It’s an attack on what we all stand for.”
Mr. President, what the actual f*** are you talking about?
Where was your denunciation of Nikolas Cruz and his disgraceful attack against his fellow classmates with an AR-15 that left 17 dead?
Here’s another scenario.
Three years ago Dylan Roof opened fire on a historical all-black church in South Carolina. He killed nine in cold-blood. At 9:30pm on June 17th, he walked away from the massacre.
He told authorities that he “had to do it. You rape our women and you’re taking over our country and you have to go.” He wanted to start a race war. After killing the black church-goers, he calmly walks from the scene.
He was arrested by authorities at a stop light at 10:44 am on June 18th, 245 miles from the scene. No shots were fired. A .45 caliber was found in the car. He was given a bulletproof vest, for his safety. According to several sources, an officer bought him a hamburger because he was hungry.
Looking at these scenarios, I can’t help but think of all the black men and women who have died at the hands of police, many of them in custody, while these two criminals continue to live. While they are behind bars, they have the luxury of breathing, eating and sleeping.
If either one of these men were black, Muslim or Latino, they would have been killed instantly. Arresting him “nicely?” That option would never exist. If they were hungry, officers would most certainly not buy them a cheeseburger.
They would be labeled thugs and criminals. Rapists. Bad hombres. Terrorists unfit for American society.
But why?
Well, it’s simple.
The treatment of the white body in custody is astonishingly lenient, and in comparison to the treatment of the black of body in custody, it is treated royally. They are two bodies in the same space, with totally different treatment.
If Dylan Roof had been black, he’d probably be gunned down on sight. If Nikolas Cruz was a shade darker, the security guard may have shot him right away. Neither would have been spared, I guarantee you that — police officers have proved my hypothesis correct.
On March 18th, Stephon Clark was not spared.
Calls went out to the Sacramento Police department that someone was breaking windows in the Meadowview neighborhood. Clark, a 22-year old African American man stood in his grandmother’s backyard, heading home to his daughters.
Officers emerged unannounced from the depths of darkness. Clark started running. Maybe out of fear.
Police chased him. He turned, hands outstretched. Fearing for their safety, police opened fire. They had been on the scene for less than 20 seconds.
They shot him twenty times.
Twenty Times.
A 21st century execution.
No CPR was administered. For five minutes, he lay on the ground bleeding from eight gunshots wounds. As the life seeped out of him, officers screamed to see his hands. They eventually handcuffed him.
He probably had a weapon on him right?
He did not.
His only “weapon,”a cell phone.
Why couldn’t they use a taser? What if they fired once? How about warning shots?
These officers should try to learn from their European counterparts. Most officers across The Pond carry out their duties without a gun. They rely on things that can still subdue a suspect — mace, batons and the occupational Tasers. I even read at times they will throw heavy fishing nets to overpower suspects. Can America’s police force control its trigger fingers?
When it comes to black and brown people in America, police officers shoot to kill.
Dylan Roof, who had killed nine people out of hatred and Nikolas Cruz, who opened fire on his classmates, killing 17, were not fired upon once. Both are white.
If he was white, Stephon Clark would likely still be alive. Officers would have asked to see his hands, “slowly get on the ground.” If he was white, his daughters would wake up to see him. Instead they are attending his funeral.
If Tamir Rice was white, the police officers would have coaxed the toy gun from his tiny 12-year old hands as he played with it on that wintry, Cleveland day.
If Philando Castile, who was exercising his Second Amendment right, was white, the officer would have respected his right to carry. Castile, explicitly said, “I have a firearm in the glove compartment,” and was shot anyways. His girlfriend and her daughter were witnesses of his murder.
If Laquan McDonald was white he almost surely would have been subdued by police officers carefully. Not a single round would have been fired. They’d calmly ask him to the concrete sidewalk. Instead he was shot sixteen times, several bullets penetrating his body as he lay on the ground, the life seeping out of him.
Freddie Gray in 2015 was arrested and placed into custody on a Baltimore street corner. So of course he was treated the same as Dylan Roof and Nikolas Cruz, right?
No. Instead of a safety vest, Freddie Gray was given a broken spinal cord on the way to the police station. He fell into a coma and later died from his injuries.
This piece originally appeared in the online publication Blurring Boundaries.
(04/26/18 1:00am)
MIDDLEBURY — Standing between the exposed brick walls and raw wooden beams of his office, Evan Deutsch ’12.5 began describing his path from graduation to where he now works, at a design agency he co-founded with fellow Middlebury alum Jon Portman ’13 four years ago. His story— turning down a consulting job in Boston to work for the College’s Center for Creativity, Innovation and Social Entrepreneurship before starting his own company—typified the independent, purpose-driven spirit so entrenched in Vermont culture. And over 2,100 Middlebury alumni share this same spirit, living and working in the state today.
Vermont seems to have it all. The landscape is captivating, with snow-peaked mountains rising behind stretches of gentle, rolling hills. For the most part, the people are friendly, down to earth. The pace of life appears manageable, far from the rat-race of New York City or Los Angeles.
But more and more people are leaving, looking for opportunities in bigger cities in different states. Over the past several years, an average of only 35 students from each of Middlebury’s graduating classes have stayed.
For most, the choice is simple. Vermont has few opportunities and high costs of living. Large cities, while expensive, bring jobs that pay more and provide clearer possibilities for the future.
And because the decision to stay in Vermont can be difficult, it attracts a certain type of person— community minded, with a strong sense of purpose. More than 500 Middlebury graduates in Vermont surveyed by the CCI work in the education industry, from teachers in rural towns to administrators in more urban districts. Even business owners are mission-driven, running companies that contribute to the community in addition to increasing their profits.
When Oxbow, Deutsch’s design agency, began to grow, he directed the company towards fulfilling an agenda of positive social impact. “Okay, we’re founding this business, it’s becoming successful,” he said. “How can we use this as a force for good, that amplifies our impact more than as individuals?”
Other alums say the same. “The amazing thing about doing business in Vermont is that social responsibility is part of the genetic code of the way businesses operate. That’s just not the case in other states,” said Benjy Adler ’03.5, founder and owner of The Skinny Pancake franchise.
Principles, like the commitment to local food, are not secondary to Adler’s business. Instead, he sees them as essential to making his restaurant successful. “The rest of the country looks to Vermont on how we are pushing the envelope,” he said. “To be here and to work on local food means that we are at the center of innovation.”
But for all the excitement surrounding Vermont and its culture of authenticity, there are still challenges. Business owners are often deterred by the perception of high taxes and high regulations.
“The community is amazing, but then when it comes down to filing your taxes, you feel like you’re getting screwed a little bit,” said Deutsch. “But it’s a trade-off. We can be in Delaware and not have the community that we have.”
Others struggle with high costs of living, and the lack of job mobility and opportunity. With few high-paying positions in Vermont, even people who may not have thought of becoming entrepreneurs find that Vermont forces them to be creative.
“Looking back on it, I’ve opted to create my own job more often than not. A lot of that is due to my personality, but there are also fewer job options,” said Chris Howell ’04, founder of a local food tour company. “It was tough making it work in the beginning— I held other jobs ranging from produce delivery driver to supporting developmentally disabled teens.”
Students, perceiving these difficulties, increasingly move away from Vermont, contributing to an outward migration of college graduates and exacerbating the trends of an aging population and stagnant workforce.
To make matters worse, many Vermonters now leave the state after high school. Despite the opportunity of going to schools like UVM, the Vermont State Colleges or Middlebury, over 45% of high school graduates leave the state— and many don’t return. While most states depend on their colleges and universities to increase the number of young workers they can attract and retain, Vermont has to invest in other measures.
“We have to try to encourage young people to become part of our community,” explains Jim Douglas ’72, the former governor of Vermont. Since his time in office, various agencies in the state government have regularly developed incentives to increase the workforce. The current administration, for example, will soon begin a program called “Stay to Stay”, setting up vacation weekends that include visits with businesses and realtors.
Colleges, including Middlebury, are also hoping to show students that there are opportunities in Vermont. “Too many students think that there’s no jobs. But there are,” said Peggy Burns, director of the CCI. “We want to facilitate a path for students to make informed decisions, and I think that Middlebury graduates can contribute to a more vibrant and robust culture here.”
At the end of the day, Vermont provides an opportunity unlike any other for those willing to stay.
As Adler explained, “The cold honest truth is, Vermont needs good people. That’s not a reason for anyone to choose to stay here, but the companies that are hiring are hungry. There’s a shortage, and I certainly appreciate it every time someone chooses to stay in Vermont.”
(04/19/18 1:10am)
MIDDLEBURY — Located fifteen minutes north of Middlebury’s campus is a small farm called Treleven, where many Middlebury students have spent long nights. Why? For a process called lambing.
Annually, each night during a multi-week-long stretch, students leave the College and make their way to the farm, returning early the next morning in dirty shoes, fatigued, smelling and exhilarated. They spend the hours in the Treleven barn, keeping the farm’s flock of sheep company, watching the pregnant ewes—female sheep—and assisting when one goes into labor.
However, the story begins much earlier. Just over five decades ago, two Swarthmore College students headed West, stopping only when they reached the Haight-Ashbury district in San Francisco. It was 1967 and Cheryl and Don Mitchell were chasing the Summer of Love. They were avid readers of the Whole Earth Catalog, a counterculture magazine preaching what Cheryl describes bluntly as, “that ultra purity” lifestyle. While at Swarthmore, Don was set on becoming a writer, Cheryl a high school English teacher, and they were growing up in a place where people experienced nature by “riding around and mowing the lawn and having a small yard.”
Despite this, and against all odds, hippies on the West Coast swept them up with the Back-to-the-Land Movement—a campaign to reinvigorate appreciation of nature and rejection of rampant consumerism—inspiring them to move back to the opposite coast and buy a farm. That farm is known today as Treleven.
Recruiting students to assist with lambing was Don’s idea, or as Cheryl described it, “Don’s wonderful gift to all of us.” When the couple moved to Vermont, they were young and without any farming experience. “We [were] not your prototypical family farm,” Cheryl said. “We had to work off the farm.”
Participating in the dairy industry is how many Vermont farms profit, but the Mitchells explained, “We knew we would never have the capital or wisdom to be dairy farmers.” They bought two sheep instead. The following year they expanded their flock to ten. They would shear the animals, drive the wool to Maine and have it spun into yarn for sale. However, this was not enough. “It’s very, very difficult to make a living with just the farm,” the Mitchells said.
So in 1984, Don got a job. He became a Middlebury professor and taught the class now known as “Contested Grounds”. Don found that discussion in this class always circled back to grappling with the construct of the idyllic family farm lifestyle, so eventually he decided to add a component to the syllabus: a night at Treleven during lambing season. He hoped the hands on experience would allow his students to complicate this myth themselves.
Though Don retired as a professor in 2009, the Mitchells have continued the annual lambing process with Middlebury students for the past nine years. Since Don first conceived of the idea, nearly a thousand students have spent a night in the barn. It was ironic; the mantra of the Back-to-the-Land Movement that led him to Vermont in the first place was something he was now, in a way, a tempting to deconstruct for new generations.
Indeed, the couple brought a young lamb to the lambing orientation they hold in Weybridge House, and over oohs and ahs of on-looking students, Cheryl provided a disclaimer: “It may happen. A lamb might die while you’re there. And that’s okay.”
Life at Treleven isn’t perfect, they insist, but it’s natural. Some of the young are even sold for meat. That doesn’t mean the farmers don’t connect with the animals. “I still don’t do it very well,” Cheryl admitted of her ability to cope with the death of a newborn. She explains that other aspects of her life, the non-farm related parts, have helped her along in this—and vice-versa.
Cheryl was a founder of the local Addison County Parent-Child Center, an organization dedicated to providing support for families. While there, she focused on a program that worked with children with serious disabilities of all sorts. Gradually, her two professions began seeping together.
“We would do everything we could to keep a lamb alive, that the mother knew wouldn’t make it,” she explained. Later, her parents moved onto the farm, and she was there as they passed away. It was after this loss that she began to see the lambing process—even when the lamb didn’t make it—as part of a larger process of life and nature, “something that’s bigger.”
Whether it was this revelation, Treleven’s roots in the wider Back-to-Land Movement or something else, the Mitchells approach their life and work through a holistic lens. On their fridge is a flyer titled: “Actions for the Earth.” Next to their front door is a white board with musings and deliberations. The farm is not merely a place for cultivation of all sorts. The Mitchells host camps for young children to learn about the environment, they welcome artists for retreats and residencies and they hire a summer intern through Middlebury College.
Cheryl and Don are uncertain whether they will continue lambing next year. While they do not want to end the tradition, they are aware that continuing to run it on such a scale could become too taxing. In the barn, alongside sheep and hay, is a shelf with a stack of journals dating back to before 1998. Each is filled with entries written by students, late at night or early in the morning, some before, and others after, ewes had given birth. Even if the Mitchells decide to move on from the job, it certainly won’t be forgotten.
(04/18/18 11:21pm)
This weekend, Hepburn Zoo was transformed into the entrancing set of Goblin Market for Ashley Fink’s ’18.5 Senior 700 work presentation. The 65-minute production ran evening performances on April 12 and 13 and one matinee on April 14.
This piece was originally a narrative poem published in 1862 by Christina Rossetti. It was then adapted into a musical by Peggy Harmon and Polly Pen in 1987.
Goblin Market tells a story of two proper Victorian sisters, Laura (Fink ’18.5) and Lizzie (Katz ’21). The show is framed as a flashback. The two sisters, now grown women, return to their childhood nursery where they relive disturbing memories of their youth. The nursey transforms into a haunted glen where goblins seduce the sisters with luscious fruits and treats, employing clear allusions to Adam and Eve, forbidden fruit, and temptation.
The play explores how the women reconcile their adolescent sexually-charged fantasies with the world they now inhabit. Though many interpretations exist, it is generally accepted that this piece is commentary on the repression of female sexuality during the Victorian era.
The dialogue and lyrics in the show all come from the original poem. The show skillfully blends the enchanting imagery of the text into eerily beautiful melodies that form an abstract yet enticing storyline.
One of the most impressive parts about this production is that it is a two-woman show. Ashley Fink ’18.5 Charlotte Katz ’21 do not leave the stage for the show’s entire duration. The two actresses demonstrated remarkable stamina in their flawless vocal delivery and passion-driven performance.
Though there were only two actresses seen on stage, this production had a large team behind it. In addition to Fink and Katz, the production team also comprised a director (Connor Pisano ’18), musical director (Gareth Cordery ’20), costume designer (Merri McMahon ’18.5), lighting designer (Stephen Chen ’19.5), technical director (Ke Yu ’18), and sound designer (Caroline Harrison ’19.5). The show also featured three student musicians who provided accompaniment with piano (Gareth Cordery ’20), cello (Emily Han ’20), and viola (Jack DeBouter ’20). Fink and Pisano received college credit for their work.
After this weekend’s performances, I sat down with Charlotte Katz ’21 who plays Lizzie.
Q: “Can you tell me a little bit about the preparation process for this show?”
“We spent a lot of time working through the text. There are so many different ways that you can interpret it. So, first we had to create a backstory first to justify all this weird stuff that was happening in the show. That probably took most of our time, creating a cohesive idea that supported our motives within the show. That was one of our toughest challenges, being clear and making specific moments” Katz said.
Q: “What was it like participating in an all student-run production?”
“At first it was a little intimidating. This was such a difficult piece to approach because it dealt with such abstract concepts. To do it all on our own was kind of hard and I think we had a little bit of trouble at first creating and solidifying a vision for what we wanted. But once we got the ball rolling it was really a cool experience to see us all grow and develop in our respective roles.”
“It was really cool doing this caliber of work my first year. It gave me a taste of what I’m gonna be faced with my senior year, whether that be in an acting thesis or independent project. To think what Ashley and Connor have accomplished, I was really impressed. It’s a super ambitious thing to take on. I feel like I’m spoiled now because I got to such a challenging but beautiful piece my first year” Katz said.
Congratulations to the entire team of Goblin Market on three polished and striking performances. Several other seniors are also presenting their thesis work in the upcoming weekends. The Middlebury College Department of Theatre and Dance is home to dedicated students who have worked tirelessly assembling their art. Be sure to go and support these awesome, completely student-run, productions.
(04/18/18 11:20pm)
As the semester draws to a close, so do the three temporary exhibits at the Middlebury College Museum of Art. One of these three, titled “Ten Years: The Cameron Print Project,” chronicles a decade of collaboration in different forms of printmaking between Middlebury students and contemporary artists, including Mark Dion, Tomas Vu, Kati Heck and Rona Yefman.
The Cameron Print Project is overseen by professor Hedya Klein, who teaches silkscreen and intaglio printing in the Studio Arts Program. The format of the program stems from an ancient pedagogical system that trained artists from the Greek Bronze Age to 1648. Each year, Professor Klein makes regular trips to New York and Vienna to view galleries, museums and art fairs to the work of contemporary artists.
“The first thing I look at is the artists’ work,” she said, when explaining her process of inviting artists to Middlebury. “During my last leave when I attended a residency near Paris, I had an opportunity to visit Christy Gast during the installation of her exhibition at the Kadist Foundation. Her work had always interested me but her silkscreened soft sculptures at Locust Projects in Miami and the cyanotypes she made in Paris piqued my interest and prompted me to invite her to Middlebury.”
The exhibit carries a remarkable array of different artistic styles, mediums and themes. Artists such as Michael Jordan and Kati Heck employ styles that drew upon graphic novels, Nicola López displays a permanently constructing and deconstructing urban landscape in multi-layered architectural drawings, Tomas Vu uses abstract combinations of fantastical cityscapes to explore the post-industrial advances of humankind.
“Invited artists work in various media.” Professor Klein said. “Often these artists [who have not used prints as their primary medium] bring a fresh perspective to the print project. Some artists, such as Tomas Vu, exemplify the collaborative and interdisciplinary approach to art-making more directly. Tomas brought a plethora of laser cut elements that students hand glued onto his edition.”
Other artistic media at the exhibit include video animations with original music and laser engraved wood block prints.
For Mark Dion, this year’s visiting artist, the studio chose to make photo transfer intaglio print editions, which would make them look as close to pencil drawings as possible. Dion’s work questions the way in which dominant ideologies and public institutions such as museums shape our understanding of the world around us.
In a lecture on April 12 in Twilight Hall, Dion described himself as someone who has “one foot in science, one foot in magic.”
Much of his work is inspired by the tradition of the Wunderkammer, or cabinet of curiosities, which he said is the “infancy of science and magical thinking.” Past projects have included “The Amateur Ornithologist Clubhouse” equipped with field guides and extensive equipment for birdwatchers in Essen, Germany, “Den,” a massive sculpture of a sleeping bear hibernating on top of a hill of human material relics from ancient times to the present, and “Oceanomania: Souvenirs of Mysterious Seas,” an exhibit for the Oceanographic Museum in Monaco, of which drawings for the Cameron Print Project are based.
“The lines of a silkscreen print are flat whereas photo transfer intaglio retains the crumbly nature of his pencil line,” Professor Klein said of the intaglio print technique. “This printmaking technique reveals moments where the line is fully visible and moments where it’s not – just like the line of a pencil pressed with a certain amount of pressure on a piece of paper. One may think he or she is looking at an original drawing if it weren’t for the embossed edge and the penciled-in edition size on the bottom right hand corner.”
The process of intaglio printmaking can be difficult and unforgiving for a beginner. Designs are etched onto a copper plate, which are then processed through a printing press that inks the design onto a piece of acid-free paper. Scattered throughout this relatively straightforward-sounding process are various highly specialized steps that prepare the paper, plate and ink to allow for optimal printing conditions. The studio produced an estimated 200-300 test prints and dozens of test plates this year.
At times, said Jay Silverstein ’19, who worked on the Project this spring, the studio has held more than twenty people working together on different elements of the printing process.
“The shop is really alive,” he said. Depending on the number of people in the studio, the environment can be “hyper-calm or wildly active.”
“Using Intaglio as a means of creating one’s work is no different than any other tool available to artists. Drawing, painting, and sculpture have also been around for a long time,” Klein said. “What matters is how one uses the material. What is the final outcome?”
The time-consuming process of printing an edition of the artists’ work occurs over a period of approximately four weeks, during which students may voluntarily spend up to 12 hours per week in the studio, helping with preparation and final printing, an informal presentation and open studio demo, and the packing and shipping of the finished portfolio.
“Each print is different,” said Silverstein. “As you become more involved in the [printing] process, your eyes become more keen to when things go awry. This is perfect for people who get obsessed over process…. [The project] takes your drafting and drawing levels to the peak.”
“You fall into it,” he said of learning to print, which he said is similar to the process of learning to ride a bicycle. “You wake up one day and you’re like: I know how to make a print.”
“Students’ focus and ambition triple after these projects,” Klein said. “Because students work closely with a master printer and professional artists they learn the ins and outs of how to create a professional print portfolio. They have the chance to speak directly with these artists in an intimate classroom environment. They work on a team which creates an artistic community, an important part of being an artist.”
“We talked about his work while doing the work,” Silverstein, who is double majoring in biology and studio art, said of his interaction with visiting artist Mark Dion. “He approaches art from a scientific lens, which I appreciate a lot.”
According to Klein, some past student participants in this project have gone on to graduate programs or careers as professional printmakers and artists.
“That’s the dream,” said Silverstein. “What I make, that’s small potatoes compared to the other work that I see come out of Johnson.”
For young artists, the importance of exposure to contemporary work cannot be neglected.
“I want to show our students what the scope of the art world looks like,” Klein said on the website of previous visiting artist Christy Gast, “and to introduce them to artists they may not have read about in an art history book.”
An exhibit of works by students in Klein’s intaglio class is on view in the Mezzanine of Johnson Memorial Building until April 24.
(04/18/18 10:45pm)
Dear Middkidds,
With less than five weeks left, the SGA Cabinet and Senate are continuing to work hard on ongoing and new initiatives. Be sure to voice your thoughts by reaching out to your student class and commons representatives!
SGA Cabinet:
1. Each cabinet committee is working on impactful projects, including a website for Middlebury social nightlife, a divestment referendum, staff appreciation day, Panther pride, late night student access to academic buildings, 10 o’clock Ross and more! Be sure to look out for emails from SGA with more information on these initiatives.
SGA Senate:
1. Topic(s) of the Week: This week the SGA has decided to focus student engagement and opinions on three topics: a) meal plans b) resources for international students and c) public art in spaces at Middlebury. Please reach out to your student class and commons representatives to share your opinions on these topics.
2. “An Act to Correct the Club Sports Bill 2.0”: After months of working on club sports related concerns, the Senate passed a bill to eliminate the tier system and create two clusters, Competitive Club Sports and Recreational Club Sports. Competitive Club Sports are structured intercollegiate sport programs without a Varsity counterpart and more structured than the intramural program. Competitive club sports attend regular competitions against other college and universities. Club sports that fall under this cluster are Crew, Cycling, Equestrian, Quidditch, Rugby and Sailing. Recreational Club Sports are sports with a limited travel season of only two competitions per year. Club sports that fall under this cluster are Badminton, Figure Skating, MiddRuns, SKIGA and Tennis. New Recreational Club Sports will receive minimum discretionary funds of $200, an email address and an index code like other organizations on campus, and will follow club sport policies and procedures. All relevant club sports have been contacted about this change. These new clusters will allow the SGA to be more fiscally responsible long-term and provide better organization and avenues for forming new recreational club sports. This bill will immediately go into effect for spring budgeting. Sponsors of this bill were Co-Chair Tina Brook, Senior Senator Hannah Pustejovsky, and President Jin Sohn.
3. “Terms of Commons Senators”: Originally proposed last week, this bylaws amendment was passed in Senate this week. The bill converts Commons Senator positions into semester terms. Specifically, it extends eligibility for the Commons Senator position to include students that may have study abroad plans or off-campus medical leaves. Students that are not studying abroad during the academic year, however, are required to run for both fall and spring semesters. This is based off the Community Co-Chair semester terms model. Essentially, this bill takes into account one of Middlebury’s largest student academic interests, study abroad, in order to make SGA more accessible. This will go into effect for the next election cycle of 2019-2020. Sponsors of this bill were Sophomore Senator Varsha Vijayakumar and Wonnacott Senator Anthony Salas.
4. “Academic Credit for Summer Unpaid Internships”: This bill, originally discussed last week, was passed this week in Senate. The only change to the bill since then is a clarification to include academic credit for internships tied to academic and/or professional interests. This bill will now be handed to relevant offices as a recommendation to implement. The sponsor of this bill was Junior Senator Kailash Raj Pandey.
5. “Proposal for Increase of Student Wellbeing”: This bill was discussed and proposed in Senate this week. Junior Senator Kailash Raj Pandey presented findings from a student survey on ways to increase student wellbeing at Middlebury. The results manifested as bill proposing new relaxation spaces in BiHall and Davis, installing fitdesk recumbent bikes at both libraries, Dining Committee transparency, dining food options, and offerings to match what is offered in the summer, including sauté stations and more fruit and nut offerings. The Senate will continue to discuss the bill next week. What are your thoughts on these proposals? For more information, the main contact for this initiative is SGA Junior Senator Kailash Pandey.
6. “Swipe System & Meal Plans in Dining”: The Senate is discussing the pros and cons of implementing meal plans. Through conversations with Dan Detora, Executive Director of Food Service Operations, if meal plans were to be instituted, they would all be the same price, but would allow for greater student flexibility. For example, perhaps a student who skips breakfast would prefer 14 meals per week in the dining hall and a higher declining balance to spend at retail locations on campus (and possibly even around town). Maybe a student who has a kitchen in their living space and cooks their own meals would prefer seven dining hall meals per week with a far greater declining balance. Please note that the unlimited meal option would still exist and would be the same price as the other options. The Senate is only just beginning to discuss this idea, and will continue to do so next week. Would you want meal plans at Middlebury? For more information, the main contact for this initiative is SGA Sophomore Senator Jack Goldfield.
Upcoming Events to Keep in Mind:
1. We are in the midst of SGA elections season, and voting has begun! Polls and a student-wide referendum on divestment will be open from noon on Thursday (4/19) until noon on Friday (4/20). Don’t forget to vote; every vote counts!
2. Staff Appreciation Day is 4/30! Keep submitting those thank you video submissions and get involved at go/thankyoustaff. And remember to thank staff everyday, not just on Staff Appreciation Day; they do so much for us.
As always, all past and current bills (even the ones mentioned above) are accessible at go/sga under Weekly Updates and/or Archives. Please continue to reach out to your respective Senators or to SGA with any questions, concerns or comments.
Enjoy these last few weeks of the school year!
Jin Sohn is SGA President.
(04/18/18 4:35pm)
Hannah Ross, Middlebury’s general counsel, and Dave Donahue ’91, special assistant to the president, delivered a presentation on the college’s governance structure last Thursday evening to an audience of seven. The talk was part of the “How Midd Works” initiative led by the Student Government Association and President Laurie L. Patton’s senior leadership group (SLG).
Donahue has worked at the college since 1997, serving as associate dean for library and information services, associate vice president of operations in college advancement and dean in student affairs before becoming special assistant to the president. Ross came to Middlebury in 2003 after representing Princeton University in litigation.
The presentation covered a variety of topics including the college’s position as a non-profit, the role of the Board of Trustees, college finances and future projects. The seven students who attended the talk included Community Council co-chair candidate Lynn Travnikova ’20 and SGA Chief of Staff Ish Alam ’18.
Thursday’s event was one of several action items in the “How Midd Works” initiative within the SGA’s and SLG’s Common Agenda. The Common Agenda was developed in an effort to improve the communications and relationship between students and the administration by giving students a better sense of how the college operates and by giving the administration a better sense of student needs.
Due to the small nature of the crowd, the session was uncommonly interactive, with Ross and Donahue taking questions from the students in attendance throughout the presentation.
After a student asked whether the college was building a dam, Ross and Donahue discussed a potential hydroelectric power project. The potential hydro power generator would be at the falls on Otter Creek.
“We are not building a dam,” responded Donahue, “We are exploring with an energy development company the possibility of a hydro project. The idea of taking advantage of a natural resource to have hydro be part of our energy footprint is pretty cool.”
“And fish friendly, that’s what’s very exciting,” Ross said.
Donahue then turned to the new temporary academic building that will be constructed behind Johnson Memorial Building.
“The building probably has a 35 to 50 year useful life. In the end, what got approved by the town is a permanent building,” Donahue said.
“If it works well and we’re all happy with how it’s functioning, it could be there for that long. It could also be moved and repurposed,” he said, explaining that most buildings are built with an intended lifespan of 100 years when they are part of the master plan, which this building is not.
“This building allows us to do a bunch of those projects,” Donahue said, referring to renovations of Warner, Munroe and Johnson, with the new building serving as an “academic swing space” for people to leave those buildings while they are renovated.
Ross and Donahue also provided an overview of the college’s management structure as a non-profit.
“It doesn’t have any kind of owners, shareholders, or investors. It’s not formed for some private interest and it can’t benefit private interest,” Ross said.
The President and Fellows of Middlebury College, the official name of all the Middlebury entities, is a 501(c)3 non-profit, meaning it is a public charity. “It’s a non-profit because it delivers a public benefit or a public service” Ross said, the public benefit or service in this case being higher education.
“Non-profit organizations have a mission that goes towards public benefit or public service,” she continued, adding that “any extra money goes back into that mission.”
Donahue explained that though the college cannot substantially support political causes due to its non-profit designation, “that doesn’t mean we don’t ever take interest in legislation or stake out a position,” he said.
The presentation then shifted to the role that trustees have in managing the college. Though there can be up to 35 trustees, there are only 33 at the moment. Trustees are chosen by a committee made up of 6 trustees, and can serve up to three five year terms. Trustee emeriti are trustees that have served for 15 years and are lifetime trustees, but do not have voting powers.
Being a trustee is a volunteer position, as trustees receive no compensation. The college president is the exception to this rule, and Donahue explained that Patton, as the president, is a voting member of the board.
Ross explained that trustees hold the “ultimate legal and fiduciary responsibilities,” meaning that they are required to act in the interest of others, which in this case means in the interest of Middlebury. “They have to be acting for the benefit of the students of Middlebury.”
This question of what is benefitting students has been raised recently in discussions around divestment.
“They [the trustees] need to make good decisions so that the non-profit can last a long time,” Ross said. “We have an endowment that is intended to allow us to do that forever.”
Ross went on to discuss how tax structure affects the College. “We are tax-exempt, which is an important form of government support, and we also get grants,” Ross said.
Donahue and Ross then addressed a student question: “How is the Middlebury operating budget affected by the recent tax bill that was passed? I know there was some discussion regarding taxation of endowments.”
“We just barely squeaked under that one,” said Ross. “We are still, along with other colleges, advocating that they reconsider this.” Ross said, however, that it is likely that “they will change the wording and increase the tax, and someday it will catch us.”
Donahue and Ross went on to describe Middlebury’s operating budget, which comes from three sources: tuition and fees, donations and the endowment, and government support.
Of the $270 million annual budget, Ross estimated that $50 million came from the endowment, $40 to 45 million from donations, and most of the remainder from tuition and fees.
“We model our budget on a six percent return on the endowment and a five percent spend,” Donahue said, “with the remaining one percent being spent as part of the operating budget.”
(04/11/18 9:54pm)
Editor’s note: The author is an at-will employee of Middlebury College who requested anonymity for fear of retribution. The request was granted because of the essay’s pertinence to the campus debate, and because it otherwise met our editorial standards.
I would first like to address why I asked to keep this opinion anonymous. Executive pay is a sensitive topic where staff and other at-will employees of the college do not have much latitude with which to express their frustration with leadership decisions. We exist in a small enough community where criticism of this nature might come at a cost that many of us are not willing to expend. I wish to express these frustrations because I care about the financial health of the college and want to encourage us toward prudent stewardship.
At three meetings last week, staff and faculty were invited by interim provost Jeff Cason and treasurer David Provost to participate in a conversation about executive pay. Limited information about executive pay is made public every year in the filing of a Form 990. While professor Graham’s op-ed highlighted some of these issues and sparked this important conversation, I am writing in order to further elucidate some fiscal practices and pose some yet unanswered questions.
The idea of stay bonuses represent a part of the frustration from faculty, staff and students. While the college does not hand out “bonuses” per se, these payments work fundamentally just like a bonus. They accrue over several years and are paid out to high-level employees who are deemed to be so indispensable, they receive several hundreds of thousand dollars in addition to their base and other pay for simply staying in their jobs. If they were to leave Middlebury before the end of the stay bonus agreement (typically a three or four years period), they would not be paid that amount.
We know the details in only a couple of the cases in which stay bonuses have been utilized, such as one stay bonus put in place when a high-level employee was interviewing for a presidency at another institution. For the majority of these stay bonuses, though, the 2015 Middlebury College presidential transition was used as the justification. These stay bonuses have totalled several million dollars paid to 14 people in the last few years.
I understand the value in retaining high-level employees. Unfortunately, the manner in which stay bonuses have been used has been too many, too excessive, and in the context of the college’s other employees, unequitable. Philosophically, one might even question an employee’s dedication to the institution and its mission if they have to be enticed to stay here to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.
In contrast, faculty and staff are often told, even if they have another job offer in hand, that salaries are not negotiable and that they are welcome to leave and take the better offer elsewhere. The merit pay increase structure for staff consists of modest pay increases distributed from a singular pool for all the college staff. The size of the pool and the manner in which it is allocated mean that pay increases between staff who have far exceeded expectations and those who meet expectations can often differ by just a few hundred dollars.
Senior leadership at the college do not seem to fall under the same restraints. Even putting aside the stay bonuses, the base pay for senior leadership seems to have grown each year at a rate outstripping that received by staff or faculty. For example, while already being one of the college’s most highly paid employees, in the span of just 2 years, our previous treasurer went from making a base salary of $252,489 to $270,857 (an increase of 7.3 percent). While a staff member has a top end of the pay range for their specific role, senior leadership do not seem to have any such pay ranges, let only top ends.
Additionally, we have by far the largest senior leadership team of our NESCAC peers — 17 people, followed by Amherst and Tufts at 12. While Middlebury has seven members our senior leadership team in academic roles, our NESCAC peers have one or two cabinet-level staff fulfilling these functions. Granted, three of these individuals run Monterey, our Language Schools, and the international programs respectively — facets to the college which are fairly distinctive to Middlebury. But, it does seems excessive that we have a dean of faculty, interim provost, a provost on leave and a vice president for academic development all currently drawing sizable salaries. Further, we seem to be the only school in the group that has two advancement officers serving in the senior leadership team — a vice president for advancement as well as a chief philanthropic advisor.
David Provost highlighted at the meeting last week that the average pay for our top ten highest paid employees was about 14 percentage points above the mean of a select group of our peer colleges. I am curious about how our total executive pay compares to our peers considering our bench is far deeper.
[pullquote speaker="" photo="" align="right" background="on" border="all" shadow="on" ]One might even question an employee’s dedication to Middlebury if they have to be enticed to stay here to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars.[/pullquote]
In terms of other excesses, why is the enrollment dean at Monterey one of our highest paid employees if we haven’t met enrollment goals at Monterey? Why was the head of the Hebrew Language School one of top paid employees in 2015? There might be excellent reasons for these decisions, but the lack of transparency around these high costly salaries is alarming.
Further, while the numbers around his departure are still murky, former President Liebowitz seems to have received very sizable additional and deferred pay at the time of his departure. While President Liebowitz was ranked lower in college president pay compared to our peers, I imagine we will be learning within the next 990 that he left Middlebury with an heartily exorbitant goodbye.
I bring all this up with the backdrop of the college facing a painful $20+ million operating deficit. Faculty and staff have been asked to take on the heavy burden of bringing the college’s finances back on track. While we have an interim provost and a provost on leave both drawing salaries, we have a 90-day hiring freeze for all other new staff. This is one of my examples where policies and approaches for staff and faculty misalign with those for senior leadership.
It is possible that a certain evaluation of mine is off or a critique is unfounded. I have done my best to study and verify the information here. All this information has been pieced together from the very limited sources that we can access. We need more transparency.
We need to have the same streamlined approach in leadership as has been requested of the rest of the organization. The executive salary structure is set by the board and its compensation committee upon the recommendation of the president. Protecting these pay practices has unfortunately become a coordinated effort. Talking points were distributed to senior leadership in order to talk about the executive pay strategy with one voice. The defensive “us versus them” posture is not going to move us forward.
Commendably, I believe that President Patton has placed a temporary freeze in base pay to staff who make above $200,000 a year. But the stay bonus practices still continue, and we need to go further.
I wish that President Patton would convene a group of staff, faculty, and students to discuss and make recommendations to the compensation committee of the board as well as senior leadership concerning (a) equity in pay and pay practices across the college, (b) transparency around pay practices, (c) policies around salary negotiation, (d) the attitude of indispensability of a select few, (e) budget oversight and sustainability, (f) the alignment in how we treat our staff, faculty and senior staff, and (g) our labor ethics as an institution.
I hope that we learn from the mistakes of the past and pick a direction that places the college on a financially sustainable path. We also have heard a fair amount of deflecting responsibility to the previous treasurer and the previous president (now the chief operating officer at Tulane and the president of Brandeis University, respectively) for our current predicament. But there is much that we can and must do to address our current and inherited practices. At the end of the day, this is not about the individual people. It does not matter who was at fault because now, we all must be accountable.
(04/11/18 3:44pm)
The Patton administration faced widespread outrage from professors regarding salary practices for top officials at a faculty meeting on April 6. The faculty railed against bonuses and mismanagement, as well as payouts during the Liebowitz administration, which ended in 2015.
President Laurie L. Patton discussed executive pay during her routine report to the faculty and emphasized that she is committed to using fewer stay bonuses of smaller amounts. Stay bonuses were a main point of criticism in physics professor Noah Graham’s op-ed, “Executive Pay and Why It Matters,” published in the March 15 issue of The Campus.
“I’m still interested in maintaining a very modest use of these bonuses because they are used in higher ed to prevent a kind of constant searching and turning over,” Patton said. “But as you saw from the data, my interest and commitment to them is very modest. They are one tool among many, and I am committed to moving to most of those other tools before we do that.”
Though Patton was unable to stay after concluding her presentation, Provost gave a more in-depth presentation on the subject later in the meeting. Provost provided specifics regarding previously-issued retention bonuses.
“Since 2009, there were 11 different retention bonuses involving seven different administrators, ranging in annual amounts from $50,000 to $100,000. Those yielded pay outs anywhere from $100,000 to $500,000,” Provost said.
“Today there are three retention bonuses that range in the $40,000 to $50,000 range, with total expected payouts of $150,000 to $250,000” he added.
Cason, who presented alongside Provost, told the faculty that he was one of the three remaining employees with a retention bonus.
“This was offered to me in Laurie’s first year when I was interviewing for another presidency,” Cason said. “I’m just putting that out there, that’s just a fact. If I had understood how this was going to go on, I might have asked for a different kind of compensation at the time. I didn’t ask for [a stay bonus], so I’ll say that.”
Provost argued that stay bonuses are effective, given that they have resulted in faculty recipients remaining at the college for the duration of their bonus’ payout. Faculty had additional questions regarding the purpose of stay bonuses, however.
“Any of the previous 11 that were put in place in all cases achieved their anniversary date,” Provost said. “Yes, they worked from the standpoint of keeping that person here.”
Jason Mittell, a film professor, argued that some of the faculty who remained at Middlebury due to stay bonuses actually harmed the college.
“People were highly compensated at the exact same time that they were making financially irresponsible decisions at the college, which then they had left for Laurie and David to correct,” Mittell said. “What type of accountability has the board of trustees talked about for this? It’s the fault of people who made a lot of money from us while spending a lot of our money and mortgaging our future. . . . How do we make sure most importantly, that this never happens again?”
Erik Bleich, professor of political science, argued that stay bonuses actually encourage administrators to leave once they receive their full bonus.
“If I put myself in the position of someone who’s about to get a $500,000 pay out and then look the next year at the measly salary of $240,000, it’s an incentive to leave, an incentive to leverage that moment to exit,” Bleich said.
Earlier in his presentation, Provost stated that he had in fact been the recipient of a retention bonus at Champlain College, where he worked before coming to Middlebury.
“I had one previously at Champlain during the last presidential transition,” Provost said. “I had played a very active role in the transformation of Champlain, so they tied my hands for four years knowing they wanted me there. That had expired this past June, so when I started a conversation with Laurie, that wasn’t hanging over my head.”
In outlining potential reforms to the current executive pay system, Patton said that she and Provost were open to the idea of formulating stay bonuses in accordance with employees’ individual performance. She also said she was committed to maintaining the costs of and reducing the size of the Senior Leadership Group (SLG), citing that the costs of the SLG were already $30,000 less than they were last year.
Patton said that the college had decided not to award any employee making over $200,000 a raise last year, and shared information regarding her own salary, emphasizing that her take home pay is even less than that listed on the 990 tax form where the college reports executive pay.
“I do not have a retention bonus and my salary is $575,000,” Patton said. “I tied in scholarships and in fact I just finished my taxes, and with all the other charitable deductions I actually make about three-fifths of that. I am happy to share anything more about my own finances if you’d like to talk.”
Patton also reiterated her commitment to paying administrators in accordance with a “market rate.”
“To ask anyone to do these really tough jobs, tougher than they’ve ever been, and not pay market rate for folks to do these jobs doesn’t seem fair to either the candidates or to Middlebury,” Patton said.
Provost explained that the college decides on executive compensation by reviewing market information and by analyzing peer institutions. Patton then recommends executive compensation to the compensation committee, which is made up of the board chair, vice chair, resource committee chair and one additional board member. The compensation committee then approves the President’s recommendations.
Provost’s presentation compared peer institutions’ executive pay to Middlebury’s. The college’s total executive pay of $4.1 million dollars was higher than the $3.6 million average of its peer institutions.
Rick Bunt, a chemistry professor, argued that this gap of 14 percent between the peer group average suggested that the compensation committee did not actually base executive pay off of a “market value.”
“These institutions, Williams, Amherst, all have endowments at least twice our size,” Bunt said. “So our compensation for our top executives is supposed to be market driven, but its 14 percent above average.”
Bunt argued that this is unfair to faculty and staff, given their comparative wages.
“I’m pretty sure our faculty compensation is not 14 percent above average, and I’m really, really sure that our staff compensation is not 14 percent above average,” Bunt said. “We’re committed to paying market rate for our executives for running the school, why shouldn’t we pay market rate to the staff and faculty who actually do the hard work of educating the students?”
Provost explained that the stay bonuses, which will apparently continue to decline in number and value, were responsible for this 14 percent difference.
While Provost revealed that the college does not review staff compensation in the context of a such a “market rate” every year, he said that he and Patton hope to establish faculty compensation at an above average rate compared to their peers. He also said that most college staff actually earn above average wages.
“Laurie is not trying to pay the executives here differently than the faculty or the staff. That is not a goal,” Provost said. “It is our intention to pay our faculty at above market median. On the staff compensation, we are for the most part above the median, there are a few exceptions. We’ve been working with human resources to conduct a compensation study that will address that.”
Provost said that he hoped sharing the 990 tax forms with faculty sooner would help increase transparency.
“I don’t want to speak especially for the past board,” Provost said. “The folks on the resource committee are in that way of thinking, of saying if we see a 990 two years after the fact, that’s not prevention, that’s not awareness of what’s going on, so why aren’t we communicating these in real time when that’s happening? And you heard Laurie say she’s open to that conversation. So if that was in place that would help prevent it before it’s old news.”
Provost also announced that former President Ronald Liebowitz received a sizeable payout, the quantity of which will be released in early May with the disclosure of the FY ’17 990.
In their questions for Provost, faculty members criticized the conduct of past and present administrators, as well as some of the potential methods they feared the college would take to save money in the future.
Susan Burch, a professor of American studies, said that Provost and Cason brought up adjusting healthcare plans in their meeting with faculty earlier in the week.
“I’m very concerned to hear that [health care] might be leveraged. Please don’t do that,” she said.
While Provost said that he believes the college spends too much on healthcare, he clarified that they have delayed the decision on changing healthcare another year at the earliest due to employee concerns.
“Our existing health benefits at $25,000 a family, it’s too much, we’re going to spend $422,000 this year on massage therapy,” Provost said. “You as faculty have to come to the table and say this isn’t about destroying people’s healthcare. I couldn’t agree with you more. My concern is we can’t even have the conversation because that is what is inferred. I don’t like that we’re paying $25,000 per family, it’s probably not worth it, but I hope we can find common ground on some things we should talk about.”
Though Provost had no control over the order of the meeting agenda, history professor Rebecca Bennette expressed frustration that Provost’s presentation was the final one in a nearly four-hour long meeting.
“I’m deeply disturbed that you basically waited us out until almost everyone left and Laurie’s not even here to be here for this conversation. This should have been first,” Bennette said.
John Schmitt, a professor of mathematics, defended Provost and encouraged faculty to view him as an ally.
“I’ve been working with David since September and we have an opportunity here that didn’t exist under the previous administration,” Schmitt said. “David is looking to empower us to make good decisions about our future. We’re not going to get Ron’s payment back. And I’m hopeful that we see David as an ally.”
However, faculty continued to voice criticisms. Tamar Mayer, a geography professor, suggested selling the Middlebury Institute at Monterey in order to save money, to which several faculty voiced support.
Provost replied that though this might not be off-limits, it is not a simple fix to the college’s financial problems, and there are reasons to keep the Institute.
“The spirit of my approach is that I want everything on the table,” Provost said. “But if we’re serious about a conversation about things we want to explore, for me we’re the only one of those peer institutions up there that has a physical campus in the backyard of Silicon Valley. We have not leveraged a resource that we decided to invest in and it sits out there.”
Erik Bleich, professor of political science, issued Provost a warning.
“The decisions that have been made in the past, and some of the current administrators were involved in those decisions, were a disaster,” Bleich said. “I want you all on warning. Don’t let this happen again.”
Bennette argued that the current administration should begin to take more responsibility for the financial state of the college.
“We’re three years into this presidency now. And I’m not saying this was the greatest inheritance to come in to as a president. But you can play a hand of cards good or you can play it poorly, and I think a lot of people think it was not played that well.”
Provost urged faculty to view the college’s financial problems as more complex than a simple issue of executive overcompensation, and to recognize some of the positive conditions at the college.
“If we think Middlebury’s financial difficulties are caused by executive compensation, we won’t solve our problems,” Provost said. “Is there some responsibility there? Absolutely. But we are a very privileged organization. We have a lot of employees. We pay people well. Our benefits are off the charts. And if we aren’t willing to put everything on the table, we aren’t going to solve these problems.”
(04/04/18 8:33pm)
As Richard Sander spoke at the Kirk Alumni Center on Tuesday, dissenting students held a counter-event in the McCullough Student Center. They sat in a circle in the middle of Crossroads Café, eating pizza and snacks, and using their shared displeasure with Sander’s presence on campus as a platform to discuss the future of alternative protests at Middlebury.
Sander is a law professor at UCLA known for his criticism of affirmative action programs, and specifically his stance that affirmative action leaves minority students unprepared for overly-competitive college environments.
“I’m tired of student groups inviting speakers who consistently dehumanize members of our community,” said organizer Eliza Renner ’18.
“We said we should do something,” added Madeline Bazemore ’19.
The students who coordinated the counter-event were inspired by recent campus discussion about the influence of white supremacy, including the Feb. 26 teach-in Wilson Hall. At the teach-in, Renner recalled, professor of American studies Rachael Joo discussed Stanford University students’ reactions to Charles Murray’s Feb. 22 visit to the school. Instead of protesting at the talk itself, students held an alternate event in support of communities of color.
Renner hoped to create a similar event by hosting “Teatime” in Crossroads during the Sander talk. She described the informal meeting as “a very neutral event in terms of making people feel community.”
Counter-event participants immediately began drawing comparisons between Sander’s talk and Charles Murray’s visit to Middlebury last March. Many believed it was a poor and incendiary choice for the College Republicans to invite Sander given his views on minorities’ presence on college campuses.
Most students who came to the event were frustrated not only by Sander’s presence, but by how little publicity his talk received. They had only learned about it two weeks earlier, right before spring break, which they said left them with almost no time to prepare.
Some believed speakers like Murray and Sanders were using academia as an excuse to promote racist ideas. They questioned whether Sander would see colleges’ recruitment processes and special consideration of legacies as equally harmful as affirmative action.
“Choices academics make are never neutral,” said Victoria Pipas ’18, adding that the right way to look at issues is to make sure “you still have your moral compass on.”
“People like to surround themselves with yes-men,” added Hanna Abdelaal ’21. “It’s a human thing to do, we all do it.”
“It can be challenging to be vulnerable enough to have a difficult conversation,” said Renner. She acknowledged that both being called out and calling others out are uncomfortable and terrifying in the moment, and that receiving feedback in a non-defensive way can be tough, but said all of those things are necessary if we want to grow as a community and create a better Middlebury.
(04/04/18 9:00am)
Last week the baseball team headed west to Southern California for their annual spring break trip, and finished 5–4, the first time since 2012 the Panthers finished over .500 on the trip.
Middlebury also started its Nescac schedule with a bang, taking the first two games of its series with Williams, including a 20–1 shellacking in the first game, before falling in the final game. The Panthers return to Vermont with a 2–1 record in the conference.
The Panthers kicked it off with a matchup against Chapman University of Orange, California on Saturday, March 24. Though it ended with a tough 5–3 loss, Middlebury showed great resilience in the fourth inning after a difficult start left them facing a five run deficit.
Junior captain Colby Morris ’19 pitched the whole game and, while he struggled at times and let up five runs overall, he managed to rally and strike out five. Getting back on track to finish strong was easy for the Panthers’ ace.
“Physically it was a small adjustment, I just had to throw my changeup down in the zone and not leave it up,” explains Morris, who found that the bigger challenge was the mental side. “Mentally it was more challenging. I’m from San Diego so I had a lot of family at the game rooting for me and in past years I might’ve folded but I’ve been playing for them recently and more for my teammates. They definitely helped me flush that bad pitch and move on to the next few innings and give us a chance to win even though we couldn’t pull it out.”
Hayden Smith ’20, Justin Han ’20 and Sam Graf ’19 each crossed the plate for the Panthers, pushed across by RBIs off the bats of Kevin Woodring ’20, Alan Guild ’20 and Han.
Next up, Middlebury faced both the Claremont McKenna Stags and the Pomona-Pitzer Sagehens on Sunday, March 25. The Panthers started the day with a 10–8 win against the Stags, getting an early lead with a sacrifice fly out from Han to bring Brooks Carroll ’20 home in the first inning, followed by a run from Jack Miller ’21 off a hit from Han in the third.
Middlebury continued to get runs across to rack up their run total in the fourth inning with a critical home run from Phil Bernstein ’19, driving in Grant Elgarten ’20 and Graf to make it 5–0. This was Bernstein’s first home run at the college level, a feat made all-the-more special by hitting it in his hometown.
“It was awesome,” said an excited Bernstein. “My parents were there and it made it that much more special. I knew I hit it well but didn’t realize how far I hit it. I remember seeing the umpire giving the ‘homerun’ sign rounding first base and just having an insane rush of adrenaline. My teammates showed me lots of love coming back into the dugout. It felt great.”
Following Bernstein’s hit, the game took an interesting turn in the eighth inning when the Stags made a comeback to tie it up at six, but ultimately the Panthers pulled through to put four more on the board with scores from Han, Woodring, Smith and Henry Strmecki ’21.
Will Oppenheim ’21 proved his skills on the mound, pitching for five innings for the Panthers, only giving up three hits while striking out six. Also notable was the performance of Han, who went 3-for-4 in the game with three RBIs.
Sunday ended in a tough loss against the Pomona-Pitzer Sagehens. Neither team scored until the eighth when Pomona got four runs on four hits.
Middlebury stayed in the game, scoring two runs in the ninth, but it wasn’t enough and the game ended in a 4–2 loss.
However, Middlebury was not without success against the Sagehens. Colin Waters ’19 threw seven scoreless innings in which he gave up only three hits and two walks, striking out four.. Additionally, Han and Strmecki each finished with a 2-for-3 performance at the plate.
Furthermore, Middlebury proved not to be held down by these losses and went on to win their next two games against Whittier College and Caltech.
The Panthers needed 10 innings to dispatch the Whittier Poets on Monday, March 26. After three scoreless innings, Middlebury managed to get a run on the board in the fourth. After Han reached on a fielder’s choice which moved Smith to third, the Panthers executed perfectly a first-and-third situation, confusing the Poets’ defense as Han stole second and Smith scored on a double steal.
In the following inning, the Panthers scored three runs on four hits for a 4–0 advantage. Whittier answered in the fifth, however, with two-run homer to make it a 4–2 game and ultimately tying it up 4–4 in the eighth. Staying at 4–4 throughout the ninth, the teams were pushed into an exciting extra inning.
Carroll started the tenth inning off with a bang, hitting a solo homer -- his first of the season, but likely not his last, considering he hit three home runs last season and has already tallied five RBIs and thirteen hits to account for a .277 batting average and .379 on-base percentage so far this year. Throughout the obvious early success, he has remained humble. “My personal goal is to continue contributing to the team’s success both on and off the field,” says Carroll.
Han went on to seal the deal, taking advantage of a fielding error to get home. The Poets failed to answer, resulting in a 6-4 victory for the Panthers.
Smith’s batting skills were highlighted as he went 3-for-5 at the plate with two RBI and two runs score. Middlebury’s depth was on display against Whittier, as six other players had hits as well.
Middlebury went on to beat the Caltech Beavers 8–5 on Tuesday, March 27th in a back-and-forth game. Caltech scored four runs in the first two innings to Middlebury’s zero, but the Panthers answered with three runs on three hits in the third, making it a 4–3 game. Han had a single to bring home Senior Captain Sebastian Sanchez ‘18 and Carroll, while Graf singled to drive in Han. Hamilton Evans ‘20 belted a two-out homer — also his first home run at the collegiate level — to left center in the fourth to tie the game at 4–4. Caltech managed to get another run in in the bottom of the inning on an RBI single, but Middlebury regained the lead with a run from Smith. The Panthers scored three more with runs from Carroll, Han and Elgarten in the seventh inning to give them an 8–5 lead. Caltech was contained offensively for the last two innings, resulting in a strong win for the Panthers.
Of note is Han, who went 2-for-4 with two runs scored and two RBI against Caltech, and again the team’s depth was easily displayed, as seven other Panthers had one or more hits.
Though pulling off wins against Whittier and Caltech, the Panthers suffered a loss against the then 10th NCAA ranked Redlands bulldogs on Wednesday, Mar. 28. Middlebury had the first run of the game in the third inning when Andrew Hennings ‘20 scored on a sacrifice fly to left field from Carroll. The Bulldogs responded strongly with two runs in the bottom of the inning and then two more in the fifth, leaving the final score at 4-1.
Pitcher Justin Legowski ‘19 took a tough loss on the mound, allowing four runs and five hits over five innings of work. Legowski acknowledged this, saying “We made a few mistakes which good teams like Redlands will make you pay for. If you leave the ball up in the zone to good hitters, they will will hit it.” Yet, he knew what changes needed to be made and saw the Redlands matchup as an opportunity to grow and come back stronger. “Moving forward, and in order to bounce back, we have to keep the ball down in the zone from a pitching standpoint,” says Legowski. “We use this to motivate us, and we enjoy the challenge of competing with these more experienced teams to begin our season. We gain confidence as we work through the early-season rust to compete with, and beat, some very strong teams,” an experience he feels will be invaluable looking ahead to more division matchups.
Like Legowski, the team is overall proud of their performance against these tough out-of-conference competitors, despite the mixed bag of results.
“The California teams are obviously going to be more polished than teams like us because they start playing the first week of February. That being said, they’re very good teams, and opening our season with stiff competition challenged us from the get-go. It was a great way to see who on our team is a true competitor,” Smith commented.
After a well-deserved day off, the rejuvenated Panthers came back from their loss on Wednesday ready to take on their first Nescac opponents of the season: Williams.
Middlebury pulled off a season-high of 20 runs in the first game of three against the Ephs. They also limited their opponents to just one score. The last time the Panthers pulled of 20 runs was in their victory against Hamilton, which ended 20-8 in 2010. Furthermore, the Panthers scored in seven different innings and collected a season-best 19 hits.
Their success started early, scoring six runs in the bottom of the first inning with the help of key plays from Woodring, Carroll, Bernstein and Elgarten. Williams’ only run came during the top of the second inning. Many of the Panthers had the chance to show their stuff, as Hennings, Graf, Smith, Han, Andrew Corcoran ’18, and Strmecki, among others, all played vital roles in Middlebury’s offensive success.
On the mound, Morris improved to 2–2 on the season, giving up only one run on four hits in seven innings. Andrew Martinson ‘20 and Evan Stewart ‘21 stepped up to the plate as well as relief pitchers, both throwing scoreless innings.
Saturday, March 31, took a different turn for the team in their double-header against Williams, ending the day with a split.
The Panthers began the day with a 6–1 win over the Ephs. Williams quickly scored the first run of the game in the top of the first inning until Middlebury was able to hold them and take the lead in the fourth inning with a pair of runs by Smith and Guild with two outs. The Panthers tacked on four more runs in the bottom of the sixth inning to put their total for the game at six. Graf went 2-for-2 with two RBIs and Han had two hits with a run scored.
Defensively, Will Oppenheim ‘21 picked up his first collegiate victoring, throwing 5.1 innings during which he allowed only one run on five hits with four strikeouts. Additionally, George Goldstein ‘21 retired all five batters he faced for his second showing on the mound.
Legowski praises the performance of the team’s first-years.
“Our first-year guys did an awesome job all week,” Legowski said. “Coming in as first-year guy, and trying to understand your role and where you fit into the puzzle can be challenging. However, they were more than prepared and were a big reason as to why we won the series.”
Game two of the double header, however, ended on a different note as the Panthers suffered an unexpected loss against Williams. Though Middlebury first took the lead, scoring three runs in the first two innings, Williams answered with three runs in the third inning to tie the game. The score remained 3–3 until the seventh inning, when the Ephs added on two more, bringing the game to its final score of 5–3.
The dramatic shift in the final scores from the first game to the last was certainly on the Panthers’ minds coming out of the series. “I think that we got a bit complacent after winning the first two games,” says Carroll. “We came out flat which allowed them to stay in the game and come out on top.”
Despite this, Carroll remains optimistic.
“We won the series against Williams two games to one and that puts us in a great position as we head into our second series of conference games against Wesleyan this weekend. We showed in California that we are ready to compete for a playoff spot and I really like where we stand in relation to other Nescac teams.”
This positivity is certainly echoed by fellow teammates. “We feel very confident going into our conference matchups,” says Smith. “We have some freshmen stepping into key roles, and our bats our hot. I’m very excited about our potential in these upcoming conference games.”
The Panthers will next face Wesleyan in a three game conference series tomorrow and Saturday, April 6 and 7, followed by a game this Sunday, April 8, against Trinity.
(03/22/18 1:42am)
MIDDLEBURY — Last Wednesday morning in New York City, students laid down in the streets. In Washington, D.C., they congregated on Capitol Hill. In Middlebury, high schoolers from Middlebury Union High School (MUHS) braved the snow on the Cross Street Bridge to protest gun violence alongside thousands of their peers from across the country. The MUHS students, joined on the bridge by teachers, community members, faculty and students from the college, stood in silence for 17 minutes to honor the 17 people who were murdered at Marjory Stoneman Douglas (MSD) High School in Parkland, Fl. last month.
The organizers of the event, which took place on March 14, sought to both commemorate the lives lost in Parkland and demand stricter gun control laws from state and national legislators. Theo Wells-Spackman, a sophomore at MUHS, spoke to the dual nature of the protest at the event.
“Those 17 minutes of silence were to remember the lives lost in Parkland, and to all the families who lost students there, our hearts are with you,” he said into a megaphone. “But we’re also here to demand change. Something has to happen in government. What is there right now is not enough.”
While high schoolers elsewhere walked out of their classes to protest gun violence, students at MUHS woke up Wednesday morning to a snow day. Although the weather made it difficult for some students to attend the event, both sides of the bridge were almost completely covered with protesters by 10 a.m. Many carried signs and chanted slogans such as “We want change” and “No more silence, end gun violence.”
Although there was no physical walkout at the March 14 protest, over 100 student demonstrators, determined to practice their acts of civil disobedience, stepped out of their classes and observed 17 minutes of silence the following Monday, March 19. After the moments of silence, 17 students read short bios for each of the victims.
“Just getting up and leaving class is typically something we would never do, at least I would never do, and it just shows how serious I am about it” said MUHS junior Marina Herren-Lage, who helped organize the protest. “I think to a lot of the teachers at our school recognize that the students who are participating in this are typically very good students, so if we’re leaving and we’re showing them that this matters enough to us, than I think that will just get our message across in a more powerful way.”
The protests in Middlebury and around the U.S. were organized in response to the Feb. 14 shooting in Parkland, in which a former student shot and killed 14 students and three staff members and injured 17 others using an AR-15 style rifle. This type of rifle has been used in five of the six deadliest mass shootings of the past six years.
In the wake of the shooting, around 20 students from MSD, the Florida high school, formed a gun control advocacy organization called Never Again MSD. The group has lobbied U.S. lawmakers to take tougher stances on gun control measures and has publicly criticized high-profile legislators, like Florida senator Marco Rubio, who have accepted donations from the National Rifle Association (NRA).
MUHS sophomore Sabina Ward, who helped plan the protest, said that she drew inspiration from the Parkland survivors.
“I think the fact that the Parkland students haven’t let people forget about them and are really really fighting and pushing has completely changed the game, because it’s obviously inspired students across the country and really taught us that we can use our voices and we can make change if we’re dedicated enough,” she said.
Ward also noted that she was influenced by the 2016 Pulse massacre in Orlando, in which a shooter opened fire in a gay nightclub and killed 49 people.
“I was in middle school when that happened and had just come out to my family and friends,” she said. “To have that happen just days after, that is the moment when I realized that I might not be safe being who I am as a person, and now I’m not safe being who I am as a student.”
On March 7, MUHS principal William D. Lawson emailed students expressing his support for the protests.
“I write to let you know that I share and support the goals of the many students and others who are voicing their urgent concern with school safety and the unfortunate incidents of gun-related violence that have plagued our schools across the country,” he wrote, adding that students would not face consequences for missing class for the walkout but would require parental permission for the march to the bridge.
“Immediately after the Florida school shooting, students in school were sharing/voicing their anxiety around the issue of school violence and safety,” Lawson said in an interview with The Campus. “I felt that it was important for them to give voice to their concerns and to take some reasonable actions that might serve to improve the current conditions. Psychologists tell us that these actions will help students re-balance their anxiety by giving them a sense of control.”
Ward said that the email got mixed responses at MUHS.
“We were really hoping to make a statement with leaving class, without permission,” she said. “A lot of us thought sure, it would be nice to not get detention, but at the same time, the civil disobedience part of it has kind of been taken away from our hands.”
The email came nearly two weeks after Vermont Secretary of Education Rebecca Holcombe sent out a memorandum asking superintendents not to encourage protests that would disrupt classes or pose safety threats to students leaving school without permission. Lawson noted that he coordinated with local police officers to ensure students’ security for the protest in town.
The assemblage of college students and faculty that joined the high schoolers on the bridge was in part led by Julian Gerson ’18, co-founder and president of Middlebury Students Against Gun Violence (MSAGV). Gerson and Cooper Babbitt ’18.5 founded MSAGV after the Parkland shooting and have been holding weekly meetings since.
Gerson created a Facebook event to advertise the protest and was aided by the SGA, which sent out a school-wide email about the event the day prior. Gerson also gratefully noted that there was support for the protest from many professors, who permitted and encouraged their students to miss class to attend.
Gerson said it was important to him to show solidarity with the MUHS protestors.
“I think it takes a lot of bravery and a lot of vulnerability to be a 17 year old organizing this big thing and I just wanted to make sure they had people there, supporting them, and that they knew this was a cause that a lot of people had their backs on,” he said.
“It was so powerful to see all of the college students there,” said Herren-Lage. “It was really wonderful to be able to combine forces and do it as one group because I think that’s really the point of this movement.”
Going forward, MSAGV will focus its efforts mainly on carrying out on-campus advocacy work and influencing gun control legislation.
Despite the impressive turnout and support from the school, MUHS senior and protest organizer Andrea Boe noted that the event was not unanimously supported.
“We have a pretty split community where there are a lot of very liberal people, but there’s also a big enough community who are very protective of their gun rights and the second amendment,” she said. “So I think we definitely had a huge community that was for the protests but also a smaller and slightly quieter community that was not.”
Vermont has a complicated history with gun control. Although a blue state in many respects, it has some of the laxest gun laws in the country. The dangers of these weak laws became apparent when last month, just days after the Parkland shooting, officials from Rutland County thwarted the plans of an 18-year-old from Poultney, Vt. who intended to shoot up Fair Haven Union High School in Fair Haven, Vt. The boy was preparing to buy a 9 mm Glock and an AR-15, both which he would have legally been able to purchase. He had planned to carry out the shooting Mar. 14.
The obstructed Fair Haven shooting proved influential within Vermont politics. Vt. Governor Phil Scott, a Republican and once-fervent opponent to gun control laws, has begun pursuing limitations on gun ownership as a result.
“I have thought for quite some time that Vermont was immune to this type of thing,” Scott said in Montpelier the week after the shooting.
Herren-Lage, whose father worked at Fair Haven high school until this year, talked of a similar feeling of immunity.
“I have friends that have always said, ‘Oh, it will never happen to us,’ but we really can never say that,” she said. “It’s genuinely terrifying to walk into school everyday and see all my friends and not necessarily know if I’m going to see them again.”
Lawson echoed her sentiments. “I have to say that there is not a morning that I don’t get up thinking about the bad possibilities that could happen to my students, colleagues or frankly to myself,” he said.
(03/21/18 10:43pm)
In an op-ed published in last week’s edition of The Campus, Professor Noah Graham discussed the massive paychecks allotted to top administrators at the college. During the 2015–2016 fiscal year, these included numbers like $482,773 for the Monterey President/Special Advisor for Initiatives and $458,932 for the Vice President for Finance and Treasurer. A commenter on Graham’s op-ed wrote that they were “embarrassed, infuriated, and pained by this information. Everyone knows that Middlebury College is not a beacon of equity and inclusion, but I did not realize that the situation was this dire — that our own administrators were perpetuating the income gap that I am sure they speak frequently of closing.” Truly appalling, however, is the stark contrast posed by a comparison of these paychecks to those on a spreadsheet of Middlebury staff pay ranges, where some yearly salaries amount to as little as $22,165.00. (It should be acknowledged that some staff work part time, thereby lowering this number.) Such inequality, while extremely pronounced, is not surprising; income inequality exists across the U.S., and the Middlebury College community is no exception. At the same time, Middlebury compares itself to 21 institutions — NESCAC and other liberal arts colleges — and finds itself among the upper echelon for exempt (salaried) workers, but just above the median for non-exempt (hourly) workers.
The workers who belong to the latter category form the vanguard of day-to-day staff interaction with students at Middlebury College, and wage inequality is just one injustice they face: we are all aware that the students with whom the dining hall and custodial staff interact on a daily basis behave disrespectfully and embarrassingly towards these workers. As a board, we would like to call for the improved treatment of Middlebury’s wage-earning staff on the part of both the administration and the student body. The administration, on its part, should increase non-exempt workers’ abysmally low wages. We as students can, and must, elevate our behavior in dining halls, dorms and other campus spaces from that of children to that of the college-age adults we are.
A recent example of student misconduct came last week when the SGA sent out an email announcing the suspension of 10 o’clock Ross. The email identified issues with “cleanliness, including ice cream spills, dirty dishes, and general disarray.” The email went on to point out how “the Ross Dining Hall Staff trusts the student body by allowing us to enjoy late-night snacks in the dining hall after hours and we have failed to step up to the task.” This is not the first cancellation of 10 o’clock Ross: last year, the discovery of beer bottles and other uncleanliness led to a similar suspension.
Students’ behavior indicates a severe lack of consideration for our staff, which manifests weeknight after weeknight. We are better than this; dining hall staff should under no circumstances be called upon to clean up childlike messes made by adult students. It’s hard to blame Ross Dining Hall for a suspension that seems so fitting; students are acting like elementary school kids, and as a result are having their ice cream and sugared cereal privileges taken away.
A similar pattern of thoughtlessness occurs in dorms. The custodial staff routinely has to deal with problems beyond what should be reasonably expected of them. Among these are dirty dishes, left out in the hallway by students too lazy to return them to their rightful dining hall. An email to residents of Coffrin Hall called for improved student behavior in light of beer cans being left in hallways, signs being ripped off of doors and vomit in bathrooms. On a floor in Milliken Hall, a custodial staff member has taken to leaving notes, often humorous in nature, in an attempt to make students realize that their actions have tangible consequences. “My mother works with disabled elementary school kids,” reads a note above the hall garbage cans, “and even they know how to recycle.” This indicates that the normal systems of response — which consists largely of hall-wide emails sent out by RAs — are not enough to keep students mindful of staff. Whether it be food fights in Ross, people drunkenly leaving behind their plates on St. Patrick’s Day or students leaving dirty dishes in hallways, students constantly act in ways that make the lives of staff members more unpleasant.
Another example of this lack of respect has arisen with the new swipe system implemented in dining halls. Students interact with dining hall workers every time they get a meal, swiping in inches away from a seated staff member. “If people forget their card, they get pretty upset with me,” says a worker at Ross who is responsible for overseeing the new swipe system. “I don’t make the rules, I’m just following them.”
Overall, the significance of students’ lack of consideration for staff cannot be overstated. Staff are working diligently to perform duties beyond the scope of their responsibilities while receiving inadequate compensation for the duties within their job descriptions. We are not arguing that paying non-exempt workers more would justify current student treatment towards them — regardless of income level, this treatment is unacceptable. Paying them more would, however, demonstrate that the Middlebury community values them and their jobs.
The President of Kentucky State University set a glowing precedent in 2014, taking a $90,000 pay cut and distributing it among the university’s lowest income employees. As a result, 24 employees salaries raised from $7.25 to $10.25 per hour, representing a huge increase in yearly earnings. “This is not a gift,” said President Burse, “it’s an investment.” We are not asking for anyone at Middlebury to take a pay cut, as such band-aid action does not challenge or alter systemic issues at the root of wage inequality. However, the ethos of Burse’s action applies; by treating staff with financial respect and care, we invest in the school the same way we do when paying out large “stay bonuses” to various administrators. Middlebury’s administration should apply this same ethos in considering future pay rates for non-exempt employees.
While profound disparities in Middlebury’s pay scale staff are beyond students’ ability to change, treatment of staff remains very much within student control. This means recycling, so that custodial staff do not have to do it for us. This means returning our own dirty dishes to the dining hall when we’ve finished our most recent unlimited meal. And it means recognizing that the staff are not in charge of systems like swipe-ins, however personally irritating we might find them. We as students may not be able to increase paychecks, but we can at least try to account for the difference in basic human decency.
(03/16/18 4:35pm)
Spring Break is almost here! To celebrate, here's the best work produced by our paper during February 2018!
P.S. If you read our paper regularly, you will have noticed this note by Ethan Brady, our editor in chief, announcing a change to both the Features and Opinion sections. Please read it. Also, our Cartoons section is now online, check our their work!
Disclaimer: It is my hope that our readers will use this monthly post to both rediscover old stories and find new ones they may have missed. Of course, most months I will probably leave out a piece that should have been included. It is important to note that I will be selecting stories more or less from memory, so I apologize in advance if I leave anyone out! I’m open to suggestions both before and after the post is published. Feel free to comment or email me at wdigravio@middlebury.edu. Also, there may be times when stories by me appear in this post. In those instances, I will have already reached out to another editor(s) to confirm that they belong. If you disagree, also feel free to email me or comment! Also, the selection of a piece does not constitute an endorsement.
News
Applicant Pool Reaches Record High Despite Murray Controversy - By Bochu Ding
Applicants Have Right to Protest, College Says - By Elaine Velie
Interview with President Patton by Ethan Brady, Amelia Pollard, and Elizabeth Zhou:
Edited Transcript
Article By Ethan Brady
Marijuana Policy Unchanged Despite New Vermont Law - By Elizabeth Sawyer
College Disciplines Dunn - By Catherine Pollack
Local
Vermont Furthers Equal Pay Act - By Joel Lyons
Career Center Hosts Maker’s Faire - By Sadie Housberg
UVM Students Protest Racism, Demanding President's Resignation - By Ally Murphy
Opinion
Why You Should Pick Up That Copy of New England Review Lying Around the Library - By Ellie Eberlee
Let’s Talk About Sex, Baby & You Are Not Alone - By Ivey Noojin
The Mammies of Middlebury - By Treasure Brooks
Study Abroad: The Hardest Four Months of My Life - By Laura Dillon
Gun Violence Is a Product of Social Illness, Not Mental Illness - By Elizabeth Zhou
Administrators Should Follow His Lead - By The Editorial Board
Redefining ‘Inclusivity’ as ‘Freedoms’ - By Shawna Shapiro and Michael Sheridan
Why Hate Crime Laws Shouldn't Exist - By Brendan Philbin
In Defense of Our Hate Crime Laws - By Kai Wiggins
We Need to Confront Civil War Falsehoods - By Joey Lyons
Arts & Sciences
Grace Kelly Charms - By Monique Santoso
The Big Sip Laps up Success - By Nate Obbard
Alum Talks Changing Environmental Markets - By Sarah Holmes
Feminism, Science Commingle - By Caroline Jaschke
Cabaret Captivates Campus - By David Gossens
Sports
Eagles Fans at Middlebury Rejoice - By Rob Erickson
Cavs GM Altman ’05 Tries to Save Sinking Ship - By Andrew Rigas
Women’s Swimming & Diving Takes Seventh at NESCACs - Lauren Boyd
Women Finish Third, Martinez Wins 400 - By Jordan Howell
Women's Squash Takes Down Amherst, Finishes 15th at Nationals - By Emily Bian
Men’s Basketball Earns NCAA Bid, Readies for Regionals - By Andrew Rigas
Men’s Lacrosse Committed to Overcoming Playoff Heartbreak - By Imran Ganda
Features
A Change to Features - By Ethan Brady
Professor Provides Local and Global Context to #MeToo - By Emma Patch
Dining Hall Staff Innovates with Dairy-Free Ice Cream - By James Finn
Speaker Defends Sandusky, Discussing Malleability of Memory - By Nicole Pollack
Professor Teaches Winter Term Class at Local Correctional Facility - By Kacey Hertan
MAlt Trips Culminate with Reflection Dinner and Presentations - By Benjy Renton
(03/15/18 2:46pm)
In case you don’t know me, I’m that guy at our financial meetings — the one who’s always asking questions (but not necessarily getting answers) about Middlebury’s executive pay. The data I’m talking about, the total compensation of our top administrators as listed in Middlebury’s IRS-mandated Form 990 filings for 2014–15 and 2015–16 (the most recent available), are shown in the accompanying chart.
I suspect that many students, faculty and staff will find the sheer magnitude of these numbers infuriating, especially at a time when tuition increases are significantly exceeding and average faculty and staff salary increases are lagging behind the rate of inflation. But I would argue that it is even more important to scrutinize executive compensation for the same reason we need to pay top executives well in the first place: because incentives matter.
According to the administration, a major contribution to these total compensation numbers has been a program of “stay bonuses.” Nominally associated with the presidential transition in 2015, these payments have been justified by the administration as a necessary tool to prevent senior executives from leaving for other institutions. According to our available Form 990 filings, top administrators accrued these bonuses regularly over several years (at least six in some cases). However, because these bonuses are paid out as lump sums, we account for them as one-time expenses, meaning that they are taken directly from the endowment rather than falling within the constraints of the operating budget. In other words, they are funded by dipping into our long-term savings — an approach that is often suggested, and rightly rejected, to address budget gaps in other areas.
While the administration has pointed out that our compensation committee sets executive pay to be competitive with peer institutions, it has also acknowledged that this comparison does not take these bonuses into account. And although this bonus program originated before she arrived, President Patton reported to Faculty Council in February 2017 that she has continued it and added additional bonuses for current administrators. At that meeting she also reported that former President Liebowitz is due a bonus that has not yet been disclosed in the available filings.
Since the right incentives can easily pay for themselves through the institution’s overall success, evaluating this approach requires us to reflect on Middlebury’s financial performance over the corresponding time period. Despite a strong economy, we swung to eight-figure deficits that peaked in 2015–16 at more than $22 million, roughly triple our worst shortfall during the 2007 financial crisis. Our credit outlook was downgraded, our auditors found “material weaknesses” in our financial statements, and we recognized that our accounting had underestimated depreciation costs for our facilities compared to generally accepted accounting principles. We added a new $46 million field house featuring a $7.8 million squash facility, a new office in Washington, D.C., and new off-site summer programs at the same time as we did little to address the college’s academic space needs, so that we are now scrambling to build a temporary building to accommodate growth in science enrollments and create swing space for overdue renovations. A New York Times report on family income of domestic college students listed us as the #9 college in the country for the highest ratio of the top one percent compared to the bottom 60 percent.
These outcomes have followed alongside growth in spending. We entered into an agreement to lease a spacious new townhouse dormitory, trading upfront building costs for ongoing rent payments. We committed to pay $14 million over 20 years to the town for a new municipal building and recreation facility, enabling us to establish a park entrance to campus on the site of the former town hall. We added new layers to the administration and created many new administrative positions. We brought in gifts and grants through new initiatives, centers and facilities, but now face the costs of continuing programs past the “fiscal cliffs” when their initial funding expires, along with the ongoing expenses associated with administration and maintenance. The Monterey merger and other ventures that were justified on the grounds that they would generate positive net income, or at least break even, have instead required millions of dollars in subsidies to cover their deficits, indirect costs, opportunity costs and assumed debt.
While faculty do not have access to the detailed financial numbers behind these trends, one data point from our Form 990 filing is that we spent $69.7 million on management and fundraising in 2015–16, compared to the $89.1 million we spent on instruction. It is taking nothing away from the dedicated individuals working hard at the jobs they were hired to do to question whether this allocation of resources reflects the core values and goals of a nonprofit educational institution.
One can argue that the value of these efforts justifies their costs, and that hindsight is 20/20; we should be willing to take risks, not all of which will succeed. But the structure of our executive compensation casts significant doubt on those arguments: Highly compensated administrators with one foot out the door might naturally be expected to focus more on short-term, externally visible benefits and correspondingly less on long-term costs and planning.
In this light, it is also natural to ask how these incentives interact with our decision-making, either explicitly or implicitly. To what extent did the opportunity for administrators to increase the scope of their responsibilities, and therefore their compensation, enter into their decisions to merge with the Monterey Institute, to embark on our now-terminated Middlebury Interactive Languages joint venture, or to expand administrative programs and staff? As we used to say when I worked in the software industry, maybe it’s not a bug, it’s a feature.
It is particularly dangerous, as became clear after the dot-com bubble, to judge executives by the revenue they bring in without paying corresponding attention to the associated costs. But that is essentially what happens if the administration is evaluated by its ability to hit fundraising targets. Doing so creates a powerful incentive to solicit donor support in the areas that will yield the largest gifts, rather than focusing on the most lasting and cost-effective contributions to our highest educational priorities.
None of this is to suggest that anyone actively plotted to undermine the institution’s long-term well-being. As biology teaches us, systems will evolve in response to selection pressure alone, without the need for an overarching design; if one set of practices leads to growth and rewards, it will become dominant. Unlike the natural world, however, in our ecosystem these incentives are within our control because they are created within the institution itself.
Success in higher education is, fundamentally, a long-term proposition. While it’s easier to quantify quarterly fundraising revenue, it takes time to separate true progress from window dressing. As a result, our compensation practices should establish incentives that reflect long-term educational outcomes. They should be applied proportionally across the institution rather than to a select few, and should reward effective deployment of resources over mere expansion. Creating such a system is easier said than done, but facing up to and learning from our past experience is a good place to start.
Noah Graham is a professor of physics.
(03/15/18 12:51am)
Update: Since the publication of this story, the plaintiff withdrew her claims against Kevin Mahaney from the lawsuit.
A prominent alumnus of Middlebury College has been tied to a sexual assault case in the New York supreme court. In a civil lawsuit filed in January, Kevin Mahaney ’84, a major benefactor of the college and the namesake of its Center for the Arts, was accused of helping to “cover-up” and “emotionally manipulate” a 20-year-old woman after she had been allegedly raped and tortured in a Manhattan penthouse in 2015.
The allegation is the fourth sexual assault lawsuit brought against Howard Rubin, 62, a wealthy Wall Street investment manager. Although Mahaney denies any personal relationship with Rubin, Mahaney was named in the lawsuit after having a long-term “friendship” with the young woman.
The emergence of Mahaney in the suit — which alleges that he paid for the woman’s college tuition and rent in Los Angeles after the alleged rape, urging her not to report it to the police or seek medical treatment — comes a full two years after the initial alleged assault by Rubin.
The woman, who was allowed to proceed in the courts under a pseudonym, Julie Parker, met Mahaney, 55, at the Polo Lounge in Los Angeles in 2015. She was 20 at the time of their meeting, and according to the lawsuit, the two quickly became friends despite their age difference.
Shortly after, Mahaney flew the woman to New York, where their “friendship,” as referred to in the lawsuit, evolved into a relationship in which Mahaney “encouraged [Parker] to treat him as a ‘mentor’ and ‘confidant.’ ” The two never had sexual intercourse, but their relationship remained ambiguous — they sometimes “cuddled and kissed,” according to the lawsuit.
After spending time together, Parker told Mahaney that she hoped to attend college, but that her financial situation made the goal elusive. Mahaney, according to the lawsuit, put Parker in touch with a third party, Nicole Minton, who he claimed would connect Parker with a “wealthy guy willing to pay for having lunch and drinks together.” The client was Rubin and he offered the plaintiff $2,000 in exchange for lunch.
According to the lawsuit, the victim met Rubin in the Russian Tea Room in Manhattan on Nov. 5, 2015, where he provided her caviar and alcohol. After several rounds of tequila and other drinks, the suit stated, Rubin’s assistant supposedly arrived at the midtown establishment mid-meal, clutching a non-disclosure agreement. The agreement claimed that any disclosure of the interactions between Rubin and the plaintiff would leave her vulnerable to being sued for up to $1 million.
Allegedly, the victim asked Mr. Rubin and his assistant why she had to sign a non-disclosure agreement. He responded that it was to protect his marriage and children, as well as his business, the suit said, and so Parker signed it. “Hindsight is 20/20,” the lawsuit says. “It was an intoxicated, impromptu decision made by the plaintiff without legal counsel or even the thought that something horrible was about to transpire.”
The complaint said that Parker was then escorted by Rubin to his apartment tower next door.
The lawsuit details a violent attack involving electrocuting devices, clamps and other instruments in what Rubin called his “toy room,” a 200- to 300-square-foot space that other victims dubbed the “dungeon.” The suit further states that Rubin used a date rape drug on Parker and tied her wrists in order to immobilize her. He then punched and slapped her before sodomizing her with a dildo and later raping her himself. After assaulting her, he supposedly “thanked her for a pleasurable experience” before leaving to meet his wife and children for dinner.
Rubin’s lawyer declined to comment on the allegations.
On Monday, a spokesperson for Mahaney dismissed any notion of a cover-up. “As we have said all along, Kevin Mahaney did not introduce the plaintiff to Howard Rubin and does not know him, so Mahaney’s alleged participation in this incident is not just implausible, but impossible,” the spokesperson said.
After the alleged rape, the plaintiff immediately telephoned a friend and the two went back to Mahaney’s condominium, where the plaintiff had been allegedly staying at the time. Parker claims that Mahaney asked the friend to leave the room before she delved into the “details” of what had just occurred. The lawsuit said that Mahaney discouraged her from seeking legal or medical attention, telling her that Rubin could destroy her with his wealth and power, as well as the non-disclosure agreement.
“Ms. Parker’s claims are authentic and injuries genuinely real,” said a spokesperson for the plaintiff who requested anonymity. “Her privacy and well-being is of the utmost concern. Please consult the Complaint and public filing for further reference on all things related to Ms. Parker’s suit.”
Mahaney’s lawyers filed a motion to dismiss the case on Monday, arguing that the lawsuit’s claims were not substantiated. In the claim, Mahaney does not deny that Parker returned to his apartment following the meeting with Rubin. But his lawyers assert that any claim that he dissuaded her from going to the police was false. Further, the motion addresses the lawsuit’s assertion that Mahaney laid out the consequences of reporting the encounter, saying that the advice, “whether good or bad, is certainly not actionable.”
Mahaney’s motion to have the case dismissed also said: “These claims are belied by lack of even a single allegation that Mr. Mahaney knew or had any relationship with Mr. Rubin whatsoever, either before or after the alleged assault.”
“We continue to vehemently deny these preposterous allegations and are confident that when the Court reviews our motion to dismiss, the truth will prevail,” Mahaney’s spokesperson said Monday.
Parker’s primary cause of action against Mahaney cites “aiding and abetting fraud,” which indicates he is “criminally liable for the conduct of Defendant Rubin.” After the alleged assault, Mahaney confirms in his motion that he enabled her to attend college in Los Angeles to pursue stage and theatrical makeup design, by covering her tuition and rent payments in full.
But Parker and Mahaney provide very different contexts for his acts of generosity. Parker’s lawsuit indicates that the financial support stemmed from a desire by Mahaney to control the young woman, and enabled him to wield power in their relationship. It is unclear whether, after the alleged attack by Rubin, Mahaney and Parker continued to engage in the romantic ambiguity of “kissing” and “cuddling” that they had prior.
As Parker began suffering from panic attacks and depression, the lawsuit said, Mahaney would fly out to Los Angeles and “remind her of the terrible things that could happen if [she] told anyone” about the attack by Rubin, and that “if anything was reported, that Mahaney would no longer be there to ‘protect’ her, or pay for her apartment or college.”
Although Mahaney insists in his motion for dismissal that he in no way knew Rubin, it is unclear whether he can still be legally liable for his supposed knowledge of or involvement in Parker’s case after the alleged rape. According to Parker’s allegation, however, she appeared at his doorstep with visible “injuries that she had sustained from the rape.”
Mahaney won a silver medal for sailing at the 1992 Olympics and is now the CEO of Olympia Companies, a real estate firm based in Portland, Maine.
According to Colleen Fitzpatrick, Middlebury’s vice president for advancement, the college does not release giving information from donors. Although Fitzpatrick did not divulge the exact amount of Mahaney’s donations to Middlebury, he is a significant donor to the arts program. The college renamed the Center for the Arts after him in 2007 on the occasion of the building’s 15th anniversary.
After a Campus inquiry last week about Middlebury’s response to the allegations, the college released a statement on its website, saying that “Middlebury is committed to fairness for every person, which includes ensuring that people have the opportunity as a matter of due process to respond to allegations made against them.” The statement continued: “Middlebury strives to reduce sexual violence within its community, and responds to all allegations made under its policies. Middlebury will continue to monitor this case closely.”
Parker is seeking $17 million in damages, plus legal fees, against both Rubin and Mahaney. The plaintiff is expected to file an opposition to Mahaney’s motion to dismiss within the next 20 days.
(03/15/18 12:48am)
In the year since students protested a planned lecture by Charles Murray last March, political science professor Allison Stanger has emerged as a prominent public figure in the national debate over issues of speech and protest on college campuses.
In the immediate wake of the protests, Stanger wrote multiple op-eds, including two for The New York Times. Last October, she spoke about the protest on C-SPAN’s “Q&A” with Brian Lamb. Days later, she testified before a U.S. Senate committee in a hearing entitled “Exploring Free Speech on College Campuses.” She has also spoken publicly at a number of panels and conferences, including those at Yale University, Elmhurst College in Chicago and the American Council of Trustees and Alumni.
Last month, Stanger spoke at Arizona State University (ASU) in a talk entitled “Speech on Campus: When Protests Turn Extreme.” The event also featured Lucía Martínez Valdivia, a professor at Reed College whose introductory humanities class was protested last year for featuring works that students deemed “white supremacist” and “anti-black.”
President Laurie L. Patton was also scheduled to speak at the event, but withdrew two months before the talk. The Campus requested comment from Patton, but Bill Burger, the college’s spokesman, said she was unavailable for comment due to traveling.
Both Stanger and Valdivia pointed to the current political climate as an aggravator for protests like those at Middlebury and Reed and spoke to the importance of harnessing reason and engaging in difficult conversations for the betterment of these institutions.
“From my perspective as a professor of political science, if we can’t have someone like Charles Murray on campus, who’s an influential voice in the Republican Party, well we can’t be a department of political science, we become a department of indoctrination if we can only allow Democrats to speak on campus,” Stanger said. “So for me on principle it’s extremely important that he be allowed to speak and I be allowed to engage him, along with my students.”
She also called upon administrators to stand up for the university’s core mission, which she deemed the “pursuit of truth.”
Stanger additionally spoke of her frustration that there is a sentiment emerging at Middlebury that freedom of speech and inclusivity are mutually exclusive ideas.
“I myself would like to do away with the terms ‘inclusivity’ and ‘diversity’ and instead talk about pluralism, and that freedom of speech is actually a means to greater inclusivity, greater diversity, and if we respect pluralism, the idea that there can be a multiplicity of views, and it’s interesting to contend with them,” she said, adding that this practice of pluralism is conducive to civil discourse both within and outside of academic institutions.
The Campus requested comment from Stanger with a series of questions, to which she replied from her office at the Santa Fe Institute with the following:
“I have been out and speaking about the larger issues that the Murray incident raises, which have to do with the challenges to American constitutional democracy,” she said. “Audiences have been receptive, and I have received wonderful support from Middlebury students.”
Stanger was scheduled to moderate a Q&A session after Murray’s lecture. Due to the protests, the lecture never took place, and the two instead engaged in a Q&A which was broadcasted to the college via live stream. When the two left the venue, Stanger suffered a concussion and neck injury. She began a two-year sabbatical in fall 2017, and is currently a scholar in residence at the New America Foundation in Washington D.C.
The purpose of the sabbatical program, according to the faculty handbook, is “to enhance the scholarly and teaching capacity of the individual faculty member and to promote the general interest of the college.” The handbook says that sabbaticals can be either a half year or a full year, but does does not discuss the possibility of a two-year leave.
Even before she moderated the Murray talk, Stanger was a high-profile scholar. She testified before three different Congressional committees in 2010 and was a guest on “The Daily Show with Jon Stewart” in 2011. Today, Stanger continues to deliver talks about her work around the country.
Still, many of Stanger’s public appearances within the last year have centered on Middlebury and its place in the greater national debate about free speech on college campuses, and these appearances have not come without contention. During her Congressional testimony last October, Stanger criticized the actions of her colleagues in the Sociology/Anthropology (SOAN) department in the weeks preceding Murray’s visit. This comment instigated a back-and-forth in the opinion pages of The Campus among various professors and Paul Carrese ’89, who introduced the ASU event.
The first piece, published Nov. 29 and written by the SOAN department, disputed Stanger’s accusations toward the department and emphasized that the department did not release any collective statements about the event. Stanger responded with a Dec. 1 letter of her own, in which she specifically faulted Michael Sheridan, chair of the SOAN department, for criticizing the political science department for co-sponsoring the talk.
Another Dec. 1 letter, by Russian professor Kevin Moss, replied to Stanger’s letter and called for a correction to the description of the then-upcoming ASU talk.
Referencing Murray’s talk, the ASU website claimed that “Professor Stanger was there to verbally challenge the speaker. She never got the chance, and the invited speaker never spoke.”
Moss claimed the school’s description of the Murray protests distorted the story and played into “the dominant narrative used to defame [Middlebury].” He argued that Stanger did have a chance to challenge Murray and that he was able to speak, referencing the live streamed Q&A. He also said that Stanger did not challenge Murray. Moss asked the university to correct its description.
Laurie Essig, director of the college’s gender, sexuality and feminist studies program, also reached out to Carrese via email to ask that he revise the statements.
“I would like all of these factual errors corrected as soon as possible,” Essig wrote. “I appreciate your attention to this since what you are doing is in fact spreading false information about a series of complicated events.”
In a letter to the editor published on Dec. 6 in this paper, Carrese denied that the information on the website was false.
While intra-faculty discord is not usually so apparent to students, statements like the feuding op-eds published post-Murray have made tensions more overt.
Political science professor Matthew Dickinson expressed dissatisfaction about the back-and-forth nature of the debate.
“It is clear that, for anyone seeking the truth, there are more than enough sources to understand what happened during the Murray incident. The facts are not in dispute,” he said. “In this regard, it is unfortunate that the debate has veered away from discussing the links between speech, toleration, diversity of ideas, and a liberal arts education, and toward a story about who said what to whom.”
On “Q&A,” Stanger condemned the actions of her fellow faculty more broadly.
“What disturbed me about what happened at Middlebury was that I think students were actively encouraged by some members of the faculty to do things that were not in their interest. And that upsets me,” she said when Lamb asked why she did not want to see student protesters punished. “So 18- to 21-year-olds are still developing and need to be advised in the right ways. But I think I’ll just — I’ll just leave it at that to say that I would fault some faculty more than the students for what happened [at] Middlebury.”
Moss and other faculty have said they find it problematic that Stanger’s remarks have been those which have most prominently defined the national story surrounding the Murray protests.
“The press comes and pays attention to the part where students appear to be overreacting to something, and that’s kind of the narrative that they prefer to give,” Moss said in an interview with The Campus. “And then the press moves on, and what tends to happen at the colleges is that they have a community discussion that can go on for several days and come to very interesting moments of reconciliation among themselves, and the students always tend to be much more articulate than the press makes them out to be, in part by just not quoting them.”
He acknowledged that while The New York Times quoted student perspectives in its March 7 article, “Discord at Middlebury: Students on the Anti-Murray Protests,” these perspectives remained eclipsed by the story Stanger promoted.
Sheridan, whom Stanger criticized in her Dec. 1 op-ed, expressed similar concerns.
“I think that the story of what happened last year has cohered into a single dominant narrative, but overall I think there are other stories of what happened too and a lot of those other perspectives have not gotten into that dominant narrative, precisely because they’re small, they’re local, they’re personal, they’re not amplified on the national stage,” Sheridan said.
Moss also pointed out that the narrative of Stanger being a liberal professor added fuel to the fire.
“The average person who is out there and doesn’t know what really happened will think, ‘Oh, well the students they don’t even support somebody who’s liberal and leftist, they’re so far off the scale that they’re attacking even this person,’” he said.
Other professors think that Stanger’s injury was not focus enough within the conversation about the Murray protests.
“In general, I think there is lack of empathy with Professor Stanger, actually,” said Ata Anzali, professor of religion. “Even though I might not agree completely with her position, for example I don’t think the portrayal of our differences along departmental lines like political science versus SOAN is accurate, I think it is unfair to think about her contributions without first taking a deep and long look at what we, as a community, did that resulted in her injury.”
Anzali said that although the nuances of arguments might be lost on the national media stage, he understands why a colleague would want to use such a platform to insert his or her voice into the national debate.
“I personally don’t make that choice, but I think people have justification to do that,” he said.
Keegan Callanan, a political science professor, also called attention to Stanger’s trauma from the protests.
“I think she has downplayed the heroic character of her own actions before, during, and after the event and assault,” he said, adding that he did not find her story one-sided. “She is a model for us all in her commitment to protecting freedom of inquiry within a scholarly community and freedom of speech for those with whom we disagree. She has demonstrated moral and intellectual courage of the first order.”
In many of her public appearances, Stanger has expressed worry that the media attention to the protests will fail to take into account the complexities of the situation.
“I wouldn’t want to downplay the anguish that was expressed through those protests and through the shutdown because it’s real, the emotions are real. They have to be validated,” Stanger said on C-SPAN. “But to me, the most important part is thinking about, O.K., you feel that way, what do we need to do about it so that it’s different? How can we move the needle forward and make this a better place for you?”
“I guess the main message I would want to give to your audience is that there’s a variety of views in Middlebury,” she said. “It’s not this monolithic, extremist place. It’s just that a certain small segment of the population’s voice was amplified in a variety of ways and you can draw all kinds of erroneous conclusions from that about Middlebury students.”
As the Murray story continues to cycle through the media and academia, the college community is left to come to terms with what the incident means for Middlebury going forward.
At the ASU talk, Stanger acknowledged these divisions and called for a mutual understanding between faculty.
“I really think we need to uphold a Treaty of Westphalia between different groups and departments on campus where you just respect the right of another group to put forward what they think is important to engage with, even if you are absolutely convinced that is totally worthless,” she said. “Let them do that, because the reciprocal principle that you will be allowed to do the same.”
Moss expressed worry that the media attention the college has received post-Murray has hindered reconciliation efforts.
“I think we’re starting to heal on campus, but I don’t think that things like the ASU event make that easier,” he said. “At the same time it’s provoked a lot of people to come out to address racism at the college in ways that they hadn’t before. But I’m not sure whether events like the one at Arizona necessarily make the divisions that were created at Middlebury any better.”
Though he is in agreement with the principles she has spoken to, Anzali noted that Stanger’s absence on the Middlebury campus might make it difficult for her to see the impacts of her appearances.
“My ultimate goal, and my main concern, remains our own small community. And that is why I am only interested in a kind of rhetoric that can move our small community forward,” he said. “That is why I would take some issue with the tone in some of professor Stanger’s public appearances. I think the larger goal for all of us has to be do we heal this community, how do we build this community, and I think when you are way from Middlebury like Professor Stanger is, it is really difficult to calibrate your rhetoric precisely.”
“But again, when I look at this in the context of what happened to her, and the lack of any meaningful response from our community to that, I am not sure if I would have reacted differently,” Anzali added.
Other faculty are optimistic that professors are rebuilding trust between one another.
“I have great friends all around this campus who have lots of different points of view, and even if we disagree I think we can agree to be a community and to be a faculty that respects each other. So I hope there hasn’t been fracturing that has damaged that truth,” said Bertram Johnson, chair of the political science department.
Sheridan, who was partly inspired by post-Murray discussions to have students in his “Trust: Social and Cultural Capital” class write reports on the status of trust at the college, also said that while the campus is still on the mend, he no longer sees rifts between the faculty.
“We’re not done healing, we’re not done getting over that feeling of conflict, but I think we’ve definitely turned the corner on that,” he said. “Do we trust each other? That is harder, that’s a longer term thing.”
(03/01/18 1:24am)
Over February Break, six Middlebury Alternative Break (MAlt) trips departed for destinations from Atlanta to Haiti and other places in between. MAlt aims to provide affordable, service-oriented alternatives to traditional February break activities. Student leaders and participants convened in Atwater Dining Hall on Wednesday, February 21 for a reflection dinner, during which each group presented about its trips and had the opportunity to answer questions asked by attendees and Center for Community Engagement (CCE) staff members. Co-presidents of MAlt Ana Sanchez Chico ’18 and Prasanna Vankina ’18 introduced the evening’s program. “We hope you understand the impact of your trips by bringing these connections back to campus,” Vankina said.
MAlt Appalachia explored the mechanisms of rural poverty through engaging with communities in West Virginia. Participants assisted low-income families through home repair and maintenance, tearing down one home that had been in place since 1970. “Obviously, we as a group of college students had very limited construction experience,” said Yuchen Zhu ’18, one of the trip’s leaders. Helping at a food bank, attending a church service and learning about West Virginia’s coal industry were also major parts of the trip. “It was a truly transforming trip, and I’m very lucky to have been with the people I was with,” said Gloria Breck ’18.
Learning about biodiversity and environmental conservation, MAlt Costa Rica partnered with Osa Conservation, a sustainable farm and nonprofit on the Osa Peninsula. The region holds 2.5 percent of the world’s diversity, which provided the participants with many opportunities to observe and engage with organisms such as birds, sea turtles, orchids and corn. The trip’s main activities fell into three greater projects: reforestation, sustainable agriculture and conservation. “One thing we learned [about] at Osa was the intersections with the environment,” said trip co-leader Ravi Patel ’19.
MAlt La Push lived and worked with members of the Quileute nation, a tribe based in northwest Washington State. This trip partnered with Xperitas, an organization invested in cultural immersion and building a global community. This was not a typical service trip, as intercultural learning was a key part of the experience. “Our trip was not meant to teach anyone. It was instead us learning how we live in the community,” said co-leader Valeriia Vakhitova ’20. The group participated in drumming circles, joi1ned a women’s domestic violence support group for lunch, helped the community’s elders and cleaned out transitional homes. “We were really honored to participate in those traditions,” commented trip participant Rebecca Strull ’20.5.
Focusing on food justice in urban environments and sustainable urban agriculture, students on MAlt Atlanta worked with Metro Atlanta Urban Farm in College Park, Georgia. Over the course of four days on the farm, they planted new seeds, cleaned out old sheds and met the other farm volunteers. Other activities included raking leaves at the community garden and visiting the Center for Civil and Human Rights and the King Center in downtown Atlanta. Participants also noticed a contrast between rural and urban areas and segregation in the American South. “Atlanta is actually the second-most-segregated city in the U.S., and by taking the MARTA [Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority] it was really evident. … We were lucky to not just [experience] the agriculture piece but [to] also interact with the city,” said trip co-leader Claudia Huerta ’18.
MAlt Haiti was based in Anseà-Pitres, and participants flew into Santo Domingo, Dominican Republic, and crossed the border by bus. “Considering today’s political climate, that was ... really special,” commented Georgia Grace Edwards ’18. The trip spent most of the time at École Anandamarga, a community day school and orphanage dedicated to raising women and children out of poverty through self-sustaining methods such as education and microfinance. Painting a mural and assisting at the school, trip members explored development and the role of international aid in a Haitian context. In addition, much of the trip took place without cell-phone service, which was a welcome part of the experience. “None of us really had our phones. We didn’t want to keep them out around the kids,” said trip co-leader Katherine Kulp ’20.
Partnering with the Life of Freedom Center, MAlt Miami engaged in conversations about sexual exploitation and human trafficking in the Miami area. Students participated in workshops and talked to a survivor of sex trafficking who managed to escape. One of the most striking aspects of the trip was a van tour during which a local contact pointed out sex-trafficking “hotspots” in restaurants and hotels. “It showed us how pervasive sex trafficking is,” Varsha Vijayakumar ’20 said. The average age of entry into the commercial sex industry is 12 years old, and participants brought pictures of missing girls to their work on the streets. MAlt’s reflection dinner was the culmination of over three months of careful planning, as participants for trips are selected in October. “People think of [MAlt] as a week, and it actually goes much longer than that,” said CCE program director Ashley Laux. In addition, unlike many peer institutions’ travel programs, MAlt is almost entirely student-organized. “MAlt is really unique in that students design trips, find community partners, fundraise and go on trips,” Laux added.
(03/01/18 12:47am)
Middlebury students received an email from the Parton student health center on Monday, Feb. 19 regarding an outbreak of the viral illness mumps at the University of Vermont and St. Michael’s College. A small number of students at these institutions had been affected so far, and there had been no cases reported among faculty or staff. The email assured Middlebury students that there had been no reported cases at the college.
Mumps is a viral illness most present in communities where people live in close quarters, like a college campus. For individuals who are immunized and in good health, mumps is usually mild and relatively non-dangerous. Middlebury College is considered a highly vaccinated community, with 99 percent of the student body immunized, according to the email from Parton.
But mumps is much more serious for those who are not immunized or have compromised immune systems due to other medical conditions. The virus is spread through sharing drinks or eating utensils, kissing, coughing and sneezing. Symptoms of mumps include tenderness and high swelling of the parotid gland, located between the jaw and ear, fever, headache, muscle aches, tiredness and loss of appetite.
“High vaccination coverage helps limit the size, duration, and spread of mumps outbreaks,” Parton medical director Dr. Mark Peluso said. Since the mumps vaccination program started in 1967, the number of reported mumps cases in the United States has decreased by 99 percent, proving the effectiveness of the program.
But the program has not completely prevented mumps. One dose of the vaccination is 78 percent effective while two doses is 88 percent effective.
Under Vermont state law, all Middlebury students must receive two doses of the MMR (measles, mumps and rubella) vaccine before coming to campus. A student may only be exempt from this law if the vaccine is detrimental to their health or if they have a religious exemption.
According to the health center’s email, the college is directly contacting students who have not been adequately vaccinated, and these students will be able to receive the necessary immunization.
The last time there were reported cases of mumps at Middlebury was in 2008, when a few cases were reported. Since then, there have been a few suspected cases, but no outbreaks. In 2016 and 2017, Bates, Bowdoin and Colby Colleges saw small outbreaks of mumps on their campuses.
The number of mumps cases reported each year in the United States has varied greatly. In 2009, there were 229 reported cases. In 2016, there were 6,366 reported cases.
Peluso also noted the challenge of diagnosing mumps in a highly vaccinated community.
“Vaccinated individuals may shed virus for a shorter period and might shed smaller amounts of virus,” he said, “thus degradation of the sample has greater consequences for successful detection of virus.”
Other viruses, such as the flu virus and the virus that causes mononucleosis, can also result in parotid swelling, making mumps challenging to diagnose and confirm.
If a student is suspected of having mumps, Parton will socially isolate the student for five days to prevent the spread of the virus. If three or more students are suspected to have mumps, or the college receives directions from the Department of Health, the school will encourage students without the vaccination to leave campus.
Peluso encouraged students to get eight hours of sleep a night, drink two to three liters of water every day, eat a well-balanced diet and avoid sharing saliva in order to avoid mumps.
(02/28/18 11:56pm)
Editor's note: The author of this op-ed has since asked her name be removed from this piece. The Campus has a strict policy that it does not retroactively remove names from stories, but given extenuating circumstances has agreed to do so for this piece.
CW: Sexual assault
Why is it so important for me to hear? Why do I need to be told that I am not the only survivor of sexual violence? Obviously I would not wish what happened to me on anyone. I still need those four words, though. You are not alone.
Growing up, I would listen to the news, hear stories about women in college I had some vague connection to, and watch “Law and Order: SVU.” I thought I understood what sexual assault was. I thought it would never happen to me. I thought that, if it did, I would go straight to the police.
Sexual violence is so much more complicated than that. It is more complicated than paying attention to your drink at a party. It is more complicated than having any signs of physical aggression documented by a hospital. It is more complicated than Olivia Benson slapping handcuffs on the wrists of a perpetrator.
It is my life, and it is the life of everyone else who has experienced sexual violence.
It is very hard for others to understand why it takes so long for survivors to come forward, if at all. People often ask, why did you let it happen to you? Why did you not scream or fight? Then, when the survivor does come forward and say something, they ask, why did you keep it a secret for so long?
I cannot answer these questions on behalf of every survivor, but I can give anyone who is reading this now a glimpse of understanding.
The first time was in the middle of May. I told him not to come over; he did anyway. The second time was in the middle of September. I wanted to go back to sleep after having been woken up by him banging on my door; he did not let me. The third time was Oct. 6th. I said stop; he did not.
Each time I knew something was wrong. Each time I felt gross afterward. Each time I regretted it. I thought everything was my fault. I was the one who must have done something wrong. I was the one who must be weird because I could not get pleasure from sex. I was the one who must have the issues because I did not want him to touch me. I blamed myself for everything.
Would you tell anyone something like that? Something that brings you shame. Something that sexualizes you. Something that can label you for the rest of your life.
It is very common for survivors to not understand what is happening in the moment and then gain a clearer comprehension with the distance of time. Why do you think it takes so long for people to tell their story? Maybe they did not even realize they had one. I sure didn’t.
As time went by, I began to realize how problematic everything that had happened between him and me was. At that time it was my normal. Now I know it should not be.
To this day, I continue to discover more and more violence that existed throughout my “relationship” with him, and that is okay. I do not have to figure out everything all at once, and neither do you. It is a process. The only thing I can do is be patient with myself, and I hope you do the same.
I have realized that a part of my healing process is being vocal. I have to tell people my story because then he loses power. He loses bits of his presence in my being.
However, today he is still here in my soul. Trying to take control. Crawling up toward my throat to choke the words before they even leave my mouth.
I still walk around campus, searching for him. I still ask who is knocking at my door. I still scream when someone unexpectedly touches me. He is always with me, even if not physically.
Using my words to describe my experience is the only way to loosen his grip. Today is not the day when he lets go; tomorrow will not be either. I do not know how long it will take, but I cannot wait for the day when I can look at him, holding on for dear life, and finally say: I am not scared.
Until that day comes, the only thing that brings me comfort is four simple words: you are not alone.
You are not alone.
