1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/16/17 1:25am)
As Republicans in Congress move forward with tax reform legislation, administrators at Middlebury and at colleges across the country have expressed concerns about several provisions that could significantly alter the federal government’s role in higher education.
Most significant is a proposal to impose a 1.4 percent excise tax on the investment income of private schools with endowments worth over $250,000 per full-time student. Middlebury enrolls over 2,500 undergraduate students, with an endowment of $1.1 billion — or about $440,000 per student. It therefore ranks among the 60 to 70 colleges that would face new tax burdens if the legislation passes.
Republican leaders in the House introduced their tax reform bill on Nov. 2; the Senate rolled out its own version on Nov. 9. The endowment tax exists in both bills, along with other provisions that could impact alumni donations, student loans and tuition discounts for college employees.
“There’s a lot in this bill that attacks higher ed,” said David Provost, the college’s treasurer. “It’s clear that they’re coming after us.”
Bill Burger, the college’s spokesman, articulated the college’s opposition to the endowment tax.
“Middlebury’s endowment, like the endowments of other schools, sustain generous financial aid programs that make a high-quality education available to admitted students regardless of their ability to pay,” he said. “The perverse consequence of an endowment tax would be to shift the burden of the cost of higher education to the families that are least able to afford it.”
Provost estimates that a tax of 1.4 percent could have reduced the college’s investment income by up to $600,000 in the past year.
“Our average financial aid package is $45,000,” he said. “That’s 12 or 13 students where we wouldn’t have money to give financial aid.”
Beyond this immediate impact, the college is concerned that passing an endowment tax could embolden Congress to levy additional taxes against private colleges in the future, or to simply raise the endowment tax rate far above 1.4 percent.
“If it starts at 1.4 percent, what’s to say that they won’t make it 5 or 10 percent?” Provost said. “Once it’s in place, where does it stop?”
The endowment tax is not the only provision that has drawn the college’s attention. Both the House and Senate plans call for a significant increase in taxpayers’ standard deduction, which would reduce the incentive to make tax-deductible charitable contributions, such as donations to Middlebury.
“We have a high participation rate of alumni that give,” Provost said. While this provision would not severely harm the college’s finances, “in the context of keeping alumni engaged, it could sting.”
Next, the House bill would eliminate the student loan interest deduction, which currently allows student borrowers to reduce their yearly tax burden by up to $2,500. The Senate bill leaves this deduction intact.
Finally, the House bill would repeal tax breaks for employer-funded educational assistance. Currently, faculty and staff can receive tax-exempt tuition assistance from the college, helping them, or a dependent, take college classes or pursue a degree. This provision, like the student loan deductions, would not impact Middlebury as an institution, but could negatively impact college employees who benefit from the deduction.
Provost, who spent the past weekend at Swarthmore College discussing the tax plan with financial officers from other small liberal arts colleges, said that Middlebury’s senior administrators would meet this week to develop an official response to the legislation. Options could include releasing a joint statement of opposition alongside other selective liberal arts colleges.
Republicans in Congress, anxious for a legislative victory, hope to pass tax reform before the mid-December recess. The House could vote on its bill this week, and is expected to pass it; the Senate is still finalizing details on its own plan, which will likely encounter more opposition. If both bills pass, GOP leaders from both houses would then need to collaborate on a final bill to send to President Trump’s desk.
“I think it’s fair to say that higher education’s view of these tax proposals is well understood in the halls of Congress,” Burger said. “It’s sad that this issue has become so politicized. We hope that the Senate, in particular, will be a place where sound public policy can emerge on this issue.”
(11/16/17 12:52am)
Last Thursday, Nov. 9, hundreds of members of the Middlebury community gathered in Mead Chapel for a town hall meeting. The event was originally planned by Women of Color and the Black Student Union with support from SGA and was subsequently co-opted by the administration, who claimed it had been already planned. While it was presented as a “community conversation,” it was more of a Q&A for students who wanted answers from the administration.
The unstructured nature of the forum allowed for administrators to dodge questions posed by students. Instead of one answer for one question, the microphone was passed around among students. Every few questions, an administrator would answer selectively. This was in part from the stream of questions and the inability to answer due to legal reasons. Either way, there was common theme of answering the least inflammatory part of questions posed. (Please look to the News section of this paper for a selected transcription of the event.)
The town hall meeting was an example of students’ qualms with administration coming to fruition — the primary issue in question being defensiveness. While the event was intended to be a conversation, flyers handed out listed the accomplishments of the administration. In an event framed to have a primary goal of listening, we find it specious to bring a planned response and hand out a rap sheet at the door. If there was in fact transparency, there would be no need to set up a line of defense before the conversation began.
Administrators’ primary response to stories shared and questions asked were to express how hurt they were, rather than asking why students felt that way or how they reached conclusions. This response stopped the conversation, making it about administrators’ feelings, rather than the issue that presumably brought us all there.
This town hall meeting clearly demonstrated the need for more transparency on the part of administrators. One of the most common responses from administration was, “we’re working on it, but we can’t share.” This frustrates us as students, deterring us from working to move forward because we don’t know how much progress is being made.
The need for transparency is not new; students have been asking for it long before the Charles Murray fiasco. We understand there are some questions that cannot be answered due to legal reasons. At the same time, leaving us in the dark forces students to make uninformed demands or actions that could be more complete if there was a better understanding of situations. Students should not have to visit deep corners of the Middlebury website or come to town halls to ascertain how the school is improving.
The administration also needs to match the vulnerability of the students who share their stories. At the meeting, speakers noted that this issue goes beyond what happened to Addis Fouche-Channer. Many students have been vulnerable in public and private arenas, without much resolve from the administration. Administrators say they appreciate the vulnerability of students who routinely share their stories, but fail to give them the same courtesy.
These “community conversations” then become spaces where students retelling stories of hardship and silence are met with sighs and shaking heads. This is not to say administrators need to match students’ stories with their own, but preplanned answers to complex questions are certainly not the answer.
While the town hall brought light to issues students have been talking about for years, it did not leave its attendees with a concrete understanding of where to go. If anything, it was cathartic and allowed students to give an uncensored and unobstructed message to the administration. But the work is not done there, especially since the administration is notorious for listening to students share their thoughts and stories without doing anything to follow it, other than make a committee.
Other than a need for increased vulnerability and transparency on the part of administration, we have suggestions for moving forward.
Administrators should not look to students to do their jobs. Students have done the work to provide frustrations, reasons and ideas to the administration on multiple occasions. The task is now to listen. If students are not presenting reasonable ideas, tell them. If there is information that would make students’ ideas better, tell them.
Marginalized groups are putting down effort and showing why they’re uncomfortable, often with no return. Further, all members of the community should be informed of the feelings and sentiments that students at the town hall shared. We cannot move forward if some of us are ignorant of the problems a significant amount of our community face.
Whether we encourage cultural sensitivity training beyond the first year or invite students to bias training for faculty and staff, we need to all come to this conversation. We all need to continue to come because the work is not done. Instead of asking why people are sharing “negative” stories, ask why the stories exist. Ask what you can do to decrease the amount of stories or care for those who have been affected by oppression.
Everyone can see the administration is trying. We cannot call on the administration to fix racism. We can call on them to make concrete steps to combat institutional racism here, now, at Middlebury College. This is a difficult ask but not an unrealistic one, considering this is the work for which administrators are paid.
Students are paying and going into debt to be here. It is not the job of marginalized, or really any, students to fix the problems they did not cause. We’ve seen plenty of disingenuous promises and productive discourse; now let’s make some concrete plans.
(11/14/17 7:19pm)
College president Laurie Patton sent a school wide email on Wed., Nov. 8, inviting students, faculty and staff, to a town hall the following day, Nov. 9.
“It is clear to me and, I believe, to many of you, that the essential bond of trust and assumption of good intentions that should unite us is broken,” she wrote. You can access the email here.
Co-sponsored by the Black Student Union and the Student Government Association, the audience filled Wilson Hall to capacity, causing event organizers to move the event to Mead Chapel. At the event, which was monitored by SGA and BSU members, students had the opportunity to ask administrators direct questions.
Below is a full transcript of the meeting, which has been edited for clarity. Please look for further analysis of the event in our issue after Thanksgiving Break. This transcription was done by features editors Sarah Asch and James Finn. Editor-at-large Elizabeth Zhou and managing editor Will DiGravio helped edit.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AO6XMI8V1oI&t=1749s
Jin Sohn (’18, SGA President): "SGA would like to acknowledge the presence of everyone in this room, and to thank you for taking the time to join us, together, as a community for an imperative conversation on respect and inclusivity. Over the past week, members of the SGA student cabinet have been working to support the student body in light of the recent painful and alienating events and dialogues. Likewise, many cultural orgs including BSU and other student activists have been working overtime to support students. We want to recognize those efforts especially because they were led by students from marginalized backgrounds. Today's conversation is not a solution in itself. But it can and must lead to transformations on our campus. We are here today because, in whatever way, we care. We care about our friends, we care about our peers, we care about our community. Please let us join together in that shared core value in order to foster change on our campus. In order to make this discourse constructive, active, and supportive of everyone, we are requesting that all comments, observations, and questions be respectful. We would like to encourage individuals to acknowledge their own identities and privileges when speaking. Please acknowledge the role and position with which you inherently enter this conversation. Further, while this event is crucial in providing a voice for students who are affected by the actions of others on this campus, it is important to remember that active listening is meaningful and important to engage with others in this room. Please listen and wait until someone finishes speaking before wanting to speak so that we can be respectful of all that is being said. To encourage collaboration and abolish any hierarchies present today, we will be limiting questions and answers to two minutes each. Additionally, to be conscious of everyone's time, we will be ending this event promptly at 6 pm. Ultimately, for the SGA, the goal of this meeting today is both to facilitate learning and listening in our community and to work toward establishing active next steps that students, faculty, staff, and administrators can collaborate on and be held accountable for. This is not the first conversation. It likely will not be the last. The point is that we all, all of us, are trying, and by simply being here today are actively working to change. Thank you, and I will now hand over the mic to President Patton for her to speak on her hopes for this event and then Wengel Kifle will provide some background and context on the current campus climate. Once the floor has been opened for conversation, Ishrak Alam, the SGA chief of staff, Annie Cowan, the SGA deputy chief of staff, and Rae Aaron, the SGA speaker, will ensure that a single voice is heard at a time by distributing a microphone. Finally, we recognize that these are really difficult issues, and if anyone needs to step out of the room or take care of themselves, please do so."
Patton: "Thank you so much. I'm really, really pleased to see everyone here. Thank you for being here, thank you for hanging in and staying in the difficult conversation. I want, particularly, to thank student leadership, particularly BSU and SGA for hosting this event, and we really look forward to hearing the voices of the members of all of our communities. We are in new territory at Middlebury, where we need to begin building a new kind of community, one that includes voices that we either have not heard or only partially heard. There are so many ways that such communities need to be built and the first is to give voice to experience. We want to pay attention to structures that cannot give voice to that experience, the economic, social and status hierarchies that limit us. Because of acts of racial bias on this campus and in this town, many students, faculty and staff have called us to account and are hurting. And while we are in new territory of trying to build a new kind of community, we are also in very old, unacknowledged territory. Part of Middlebury's unspoken story includes our acting according to racial stereotypes, acting in ways that serve to alienate. We have not acknowledged that enough. I want to acknowledge that hurt. I am deeply sorry that members of our community are in pain, and that people feel they have not been heard by the administration. It is our job to make better structures and more equitable relationships where voices can be heard and where people feel that they belong. It is our job to make a more inclusive public square where not just individual acts of bias but structural racism can be addressed and challenged. Middlebury can and should be a challenging place where we experience intellectual discomfort, and part of that discomfort includes listening to unheard voices better. For students who live here at Middlebury for only four years, this can take on a particular sense of urgency. We are working on many ways to address this and look forward to sharing those with you, but most importantly, today we need your help and creativity and thoughts. We also look forward, as Jin said, to follow up conversations from this one, to continue to visit student groups in dining halls, commons houses and other meeting spaces such as AFC, and to continue to move forward with concrete actions and timelines where we can work together both what our community is and what our community means to us. Together, I do believe with all the hard work we can build a new Middlebury. Thank you for bringing your voices to help begin that task today."
Charles Rainey (’19): "Hello everyone, thank you guys so much for coming today. I really appreciate and it really warms my heart to see this many people in this building to come and talk about some of the hard issues that are affecting racial minorities, particularly black students, on our campus. My name is Charles Rainey. I serve as president of the BSU this year, and what we hope to create through this conversation is a way for black students and racial minorities and other marginalized groups to be able to voice concerns about things that have really been festering on this campus for a long time. A lot of students have been jaded and have been really, really scared, really frightened and upset and we hope that this space is allowed not only for solution oriented steps to prevent a lot of the things that have been happening on campus, but also to serve as a forum where people can express their truest and deepest feelings about a lot of those things as well. We want to center this conversation by bringing up Wengel Kifle, who has prepared some remarks to share with you guys today. Thank you.
Wengel Kifle (’20): "Thank you so much for coming. When we discuss the current state of our campus, it's important to keep in mind what happened this past spring. Many students voiced deep and urgent pleas to Middlebury concerning not only Charles Murray, but also the deeply ingrained institutional and social aspects of Middlebury that do not make it a welcoming and inclusive space for students of color. After the start of this semester, there have been more events that have made students of color feel uncomfortable and unsafe. These events include the racial profiling of Addis; violent and explicit images and messages on chalkboards in Munroe directed toward Addis, racial profiling of a black female professor, harassment of black women on campus, faculty and students alike, and daily incidents, big or small, that students have to deal with in and out of the classroom in such white spaces. Personally, this semester has taken an extreme toll on me and my mental health. I found it impossible to have the motivation to survive my schedule and everything else Middlebury threw my way. And the lack of action by the greater community and the school in general to say 'we see you and we will fight for you' was all the more crippling. And I couldn't help but ask myself: why am I expected to give my best to a school and a community that was clearly not giving me its best? I hope that after today, that people that share my narrative can go away with seeing that administration and this school is recognizing them and is finally going to address these issues. Thank you.
Ishrak Alam (’18): "Thank you, Wengel, for your comments. We are going to open it up now to everyone -- we're going to have two mics upstairs and one down here."
Sohn: "If everyone can just be respectful of the two-minute rule. And also, faculty, administrators, students, everyone in this community, please feel free to weigh in and speak. If you could raise your hand if you'd like the mic, we can come to you."
Madeleine Bazemore (’19): "Hi, my name is Madeleine Bazemore and I'm a junior at Middlebury. I was in a meeting yesterday with some students activists...members here of the SGA, President Patton and some other administrators. We talked a lot about moving forward on campus, and something really concerning happened in that meeting. Our Title IX coordinator said that she didn't believe that white supremacy existed, was in her office or in the decision that was made regarding Addis in racial profiling. And I think the refusal of this campus and this administration to admit that white supremacy is present is very concerning. And I think that -- I don't even know how to address that, to have to take the time to explain what white supremacy is to a white woman felt like such a waste of time. Like, why are we having this meeting if I have to explain something so basic? Now, I don't know how to move forward with that, with the refusal that white supremacy exists, and because of that refusal that Addis will not receive an apology for being racially profiled."
Patton: "Yeah, thank you, Maddie. I did say that white supremacy existed, so I just want to make sure that there is a correct narrative. I would say, the really important thing that is true, structural racism exists and it exists at Middlebury. White supremacy, a way of being in the world, where the heritage is that white people have built something where they are unconscious of their own perspectives and unconscious of the way that they take up space, those are absolutely present at Middlebury. So that's a really important thing that I want to make sure I say, and that I said yesterday. And the other thing, in terms of the question, if we mean conduct that is based on or motivated by someone's personal characteristic that creates a hostile work environment, Middlebury is absolutely a place where that happens. Racism exists at Middlebury. Structural racism exists at Middlebury, and we have to work together to move forward to change that. And in our system, there is that conduct...or any other violation of our non-discrimination policies, we will act upon it and we have acted upon it. And we have a well-developed system in place to deal with those situations. The hard part of this conversation is that we can't apologize based on a narrative that wasn't supported by an investigation. I myself as a president have no part of that investigation. I want to make sure that's clear to everybody. So I don't know.... I didn't know that this investigation was going on. The reason why that office is independent is because they could investigate me, and that's really important for everyone to know. I want to say very clearly here, we are moving towards restorative practices as a culture, particularly in student life. And I and other members, individual members of SLG, are willing to sit with anyone -- anyone -- in a restorative practices circle, with trained facilitators, that acknowledges harm. I will sit with anyone [for] as long as it takes, in as many restorative practice circles as it takes, to change this community. And I would welcome any request to do that."
Sohn: "This is a quick announcement. We're also aware that some people might not be comfortable speaking up on a microphone, so we're gonna pass around some index cards if you'd rather pose a question that way. And then one of the students here can help ask that question. Thanks."
Liz Dunn (’18): "Going along with the point that President Patton just made, if there is white supremacy and structural racism at Middlebury, and if that is present in the Title IX Office, and if the investigation found that there was no evidence that Addis was racially profiled, does that not draw into question the investigative practices that Middlebury uses, and the standards that are currently in place? And is there any direct way to address that and to change that?
Patton: "Is our Title IX person here? I think there are a couple of things that probably should get clarified. The first is — and thank you, Liz, for your question — the fact that we need to always think about structural racism that we have, that doesn't mean that we don't stand by the integrity of the work that we've done, and that's the hard piece of this. And I need, as a president, and I do, as a president, stand by the integrity of the work that was done... Again, standing in restorative practice circles is part of acknowledging all of the different impacts for all of us here. But it's really important that even if there is a constant need for us to look at making the systems better, we still have to abide by the integrity of the process that exists here now."
Sue Ritter, Title IX Coordinator: "So I'm in a difficult position here because I can't discuss much of what I did in terms of the investigation that we did. I also completely reject the characterization that was just given of my office, and will continue to reject that. I have spent since 2008 here working really hard to make sure that the investigations that we do are free of bias, that they're fair, that they are full and fair investigations done by trained experts. My job is to be the guardian of our anti-discrimination policy. If I thought that this operation that I'm overseeing was grounded in white supremacist principles, I wouldn't be here. So people are going to have their opinions. I understand that. And I know I'm going to get blasted for everything that I'm about to say, but I am very confident in the people that conducted this investigation and worked extremely hard to make sure that all of the evidence was being considered in a careful and thorough and fair way. I don't know what else to say about that. And to get the response that I'm getting, that I don't have an understanding of what white supremacy is, in this context, is insulting. I didn't speak in that meeting yesterday because I was too flabbergasted to speak. I understand that people are entitled to their opinions. I have offered and will continue to offer to talk to anyone about the language of our policy and the process that we follow and will always be open to suggestions about how we can make it better. I never want to exclude somebody from coming into my office and saying, 'hey, this is language I think you ought to include,' 'this is language that I think you should take out.' I welcome anyone to look at the anti-harassment policy at any time and tell me what they think and I'm probably over my time speaking. But it's hard for me to stand here and speak without looking defensive, but I'm very confident in the work that we do, the work that we've been doing for ten years and the office that we've built. And that's all I have to say."
Rainey: "Hi, I'm Charles Rainey. I have a question. Sue, thank you so much for the contribution to the conversation. I am personally curious about how many people of color were involved in the investigation process and making this determination that came out of your office. And I think that that's a very important question to get us to understand what influences and what overwhelming perspectives may be in the office that may impact what the perception of the reality of the situation is in this regard... and creating definitions of what racial profiling is when there are no people — racial minorities in the room. And that may not be the case, but I just want to know — specifically, the question is: how many people of color were involved with this determination?"
Ritter: "Charles, I just want to make sure I understand the question. Are you saying how many people of color were interviewed in connection with the investigation? Is that what you're asking?"
Rainey: "So I think my question is not necessarily interviewed -- in terms of the process, the members of the administration who made the decision on what the determination is, how many, if any, were people of color?"
Ritter: "I have two people that work for me; they're both white. Is that what you're asking me?"
Rainey: "Yes."
Ritter: "Yes, so one was the investigator and one was the adjudicator. Correct."
Rainey: "Right. And I don't want to go over my time and I don't want to take up too much space in this conversation -- but I think my point in making this is that -- you know, what effect does the overwhelming whiteness in terms of the people who were involved in the determination have on the conclusion? And do you think personally that that may have affected what is going on here in terms of what the determination is?"
Ritter: "If I personally thought that, we would be having a different conversation. So I don't think it had an effect, no."
Shatavia Knight (’20): "On the idea that there are three white people in the Title IX office, I want to talk about the idea of administration. And one thing that I learned in my high school is that you can't be what you can't see. And there are very, very few professors of color here on campus. And so as a black female here, it's very hard for me to be in an environment where everyone says 'you can go on, you can be successful, you can learn a lot from your Middlebury experience' when I don't have many examples of, you know, black professors here on campus. And I wanted to know what Middlebury is trying to do about that, because I know that if I was to go into academia, Middlebury wouldn't be one of the schools that was on my list to get hired to. And I want to know what the administration is doing about that, to get more professors of color here so that students like myself don't feel like they're learning about race from white professors, and they're not learning about problems in society that they probably haven't actually experienced themselves."
Miguel Fernández (Chief Diversity Officer): "Thank you, Shatavia. That's an excellent question. You're absolutely right. Our diversity efforts within the student body over the last 20 years have been quite successful. I was a student here in the early '80s and I look out across this room and I see lots of diversity present here, and that was definitely not the case in the '80s. Some people feel as though we have a long way to go, and I won't disagree with that, but there has been significant change in the student body. That process has not been nearly as quick in the faculty -- you're absolutely right. We have been working on that hard lately — let me explain a couple of things that we've been doing. Over the last two years, we've been working with outside consultants who have been coming in, and it's mandatory now for all the search committees that are searching to go through a series of four workshops to work on how to diversify their pool, how to learn about bias in the evaluation system, et cetera, how we are going to present ourselves in interviews, the kinds of questions we're asking and the kinds of signaling we're doing in our advertising, and working with all the departments in that way. We're producing data for the search committees and working very hard. This year was the first cohort that came from having worked with them, and it was possibly the most diverse entering class of faculty in recent memory that we've seen, and we hope that this will continue. One of the frustrations is that faculty turns over a lot slower than students and so it's a slower process, but we're really working hard there. Some of you are aware of the C3 program — that's the idea of bringing in post-docs. We're part of a consortium of liberal arts colleges. The diversity officers are working to bring post docs in, folks from underrepresented groups and first generation, and also working on different topics to bring some diversity to give them exposure to what a liberal arts college is like. We visit the research universities to talk to the the graduate students about what a career is like, because oftentimes advisors in grad school advise their advisees not to go to a liberal arts college. They have this misconception that it's only teaching, and they don't maintain their research. So we go to break those myths and try to get folks -- and we take colleagues from the faculty to go talk to them about what that experience is like, what it's like to teach at a liberal arts college to try to get them into the pipeline. So those are a couple of the efforts we're doing, a lot of efforts in that way to try to address that. But you're absolutely right."
Student, Unknown: "So I thought it was great that you talked about some of the training that certain administrators get, and I was wondering if that training — if the faculty, as well as the people in Title IX, also get that training?"
Fernández: "Yes, so that's a good question, too. So the search process — there isn't mandatory training right now, and that is something that we have been talking about that's been made very present. And I think that is something the discussions are going toward, to make it for faculty, staff, students and the administration. There is currently for staff and faculty a -- I would say a minor training... there's a bigger thing around sexual harassment and other things that also talks about bias and discrimination. And everybody has to go through that. It's not enough. And that's exactly the kinds of discussions we're in right now. What we've done is we've had a lot of opt-in types of things, and we also do sessions with the new faculty as they come in. But that is part of the ongoing conversation."
Jeff Holland (’19): "I have a question directed generally at the administration. I understand that there's a desire, even possibly a requirement, an obligation, to stand behind the integrity of the judicial process and also to maintain confidentiality about any processes that may be undergone. But also there has been a very blatant contradiction in the judicial process involving Addis that was pointed out in The Campus, which is the most widely read student-run media outlet we have. So I don't think that there's any way that it could be more widespread that there was a contradiction between the judicial officer who said there was no need to move the investigation further, and then later came the guilty verdict after that. And at the same time, that same article pointed out that there was an ample amount of evidence that Addis was not present at that event. So I'm just wondering -- I know you want to uphold the integrity of your judicial process, but at what point does that break down, when there's evidence in the most widely read student publication there is, pointing that there's been a contradiction and pointing out that there's evidence to the contrary of what the judicial officer said? Thanks."
Hannah Ross (General Counsel): "I am a lawyer and I am responsible for Middlebury's compliance with laws. We did a full, fair and thorough investigation over the summer in response to a student's complaint that an employee acted wrongly. We looked very seriously at the question of whether our employee had engaged in a violation of our anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policy. Commencing an investigation about employee misconduct does not start a student conduct case. There is no student conduct case that can be brought against a person who's not a student of Middlebury. The investigation came to a conclusion following our policy and our process. The facts, as we understand them, do not support the narrative. That's where we are. It's not a guilty verdict. There is no proceeding that remains pending, and as I said, there is no process that Middlebury engages in that relates to a student's behavior when that person is no longer enrolled at Middlebury. That doesn't happen."
Sam (’18): "My name is Sam and I'm a senior here. Uh, what if you were wrong? I didn't mean that in a rude way, but seriously, what if you were wrong? Because you're talking about this as if, since Addis doesn't go here anymore there's nothing more you can do, it's not your problem. But I don't think that's even the point of it because the public safety officer who racially profiled her is still here. That person is still here. People say that the same public safety officer racially profiled a professor on campus this fall, which is something that the administration has also not addressed in particular, except for some rhetoric. So my question is, where's the process -- is it in Title IX? Is it in the judicial office? Is it through legal counsel? -- that would actually seek to respond to the allegations made against that officer who's still employed."
Ross: "I certainly didn't mean my comments about the fact that there's no student conduct process that gets started against a person who's not enrolled as a student at Middlebury to suggest that because a student has graduated, we don't care about our alumni. That's not at all a reflection of what I said. What I was trying to say is, there is no action that Middlebury takes that can impose a guilty verdict on a person who's not a student of Middlebury. And the investigation's conclusion, as I assume a number of you have read in the statement that we posted on Monday in the newsroom, the investigation concluded based on a wide array of evidence, including 22 interviews of members of our community. That investigation concluded that our public safety officer told the truth and acted within our policies. That's where we are."
Zeke (’21): "I realize that as a white male coming from an upper-class background, I hope a different perspective in this conversation. But at the same time -- I haven't suffered any racial biases here and I don't mean to detract from the Addis conversation going on -- but in my short time here I've also noticed that there are some serious institutional barriers preventing diversity from growing on campus. I find that we've touted our Posse and First at Midd programs ant stuff like that, but those don't actually account for a great deal of diversity percentage-wise in the student body. So I have a question for the administration as a whole. How can we make this a safer and less homogenous environment for future students? Could we, say, make Middlebury test-optional in the admissions office or perhaps look at tuition prices, as we clearly need a certain percentage of the student body to pay full price to account for the financial aid that we offer to other students?"
Patton: "Thanks, Zeke. That's a great question. I should just say that I'm a white woman who comes from a privileged background. So, in terms of financial aid, financial aid is the number one priority for this administration, to create more financial aid for students of all backgrounds. And it really, really matters to me that we do that. The other part of the balance that we have to make all the time is around questions of — we are required by law to balance our budget, so we kind of have to do both things. We are now, in any given year, we are between 42 and 48 percent of students on financial aid. The average grant is about 45 or 46 thousand dollars. And so we are in the top 40 or 50 schools in terms of giving financial aid. That doesn't mean that we can't and should do better, which is why this past meeting of the trustees -- the number one thing we did on a retreat with the trustees is to say, we want in the next 10 years to get to a much, much higher percentage of students on financial aid. Just so you all are aware, it would take us raising 360 million dollars to get to 55 percentage of financial aid endowed so we could just give that to folks. We haven't set a goal yet. One of my first jobs is to push the trustees, my 36 bosses, to set a goal, and that's we are now pushing to do. The last campaign, in terms of raising money, was 500 million dollars, and it took about 10 years to raise that, and a lot of it went to different kinds of things. So there needs to be a real concerted effort. That's what it's going to take to do that, and that is my number priority. So that is where we want to go and I hope we can get there. I hope that -- one of the things that would be really great to hear from people about is thinking about this larger question of, how do we get the word out about where we are and who we are without folks feeling like all we're doing is PR or touting a rhetoric or that kind of stuff. If there's a more real way that we could communicate both where we've come but also how much farther we need to go, that would be greatly appreciated, because we need help on making sure that we communicate in a genuine way. I hope that answered your question. I would love your help in making this a reality over the next 10 years. Is Andi Lloyd here, by the way? Can you address the faculty issue that was raised?"
Andrea Lloyd (Vice President for Academic Affairs/Dean of Faculty): "About diversity?"
Patton: "No, about the faculty member."
Lloyd: "So there was an allegation of racial profiling made by a faculty member. That case was also investigated. There was a determination that there was not racial profiling in that case. Um, what else?
Sohn: So, we just want to be conscious of people who don't feel comfortable speaking up on the mic, so we have collected some notecards. If we can just read one, so that we can be fair in that way, that would be great. So, one of the questions, is: isn't it important to address specific incidents of racism on campus quickly? What do you mean by inclusivity? Oh, so those are two questions. Just a blanket statement to avoid talking specifics of people's experiences."
Karla Nuez (’19): "My question was, in the email sent out to students regarding this event, it was stated that the community was broken. My question is why is there a constant need to describe the Middlebury community as a homogenous one, when that in turn avoids that there are people on this campus that struggle. By calling it homogenous, you're completely disregarding those struggles. And I feel like that makes it seem like the administration doesn't know the students that can pay the 60k-plus to attend this college. And when I was at the board of trustees meeting dinner, I told the chair about the racial profiling cases, and she looked at me, baffled. I think that is a clear indication that the administration and the board of trustees do not know their students, do not know what is happening on campus, and if their job is to protect us I feel like they're not doing the greatest job."
Weston Uram (’18): "I grew up at Kenyon College, where my mother is a faculty member, and one of the things I admire most about Kenyon is the president. Shawn Decatur, also known as D-Cat among the students, is a fun, approachable president who loves to talk with the students about any topic they bring up. One of his best qualities is his ability to find an autonomous voice. He was never afraid to say what he thought even if it differed from the public stance of the college. I hope to ask a few questions that Laurie, as the person and not as the institution, could answer. I want to know if you think Addis was at the Charles Murray talk. I'm not asking what the college has said or what they have not said. I want to know what you believe. I want to know what you believe because I want to know why you call Addis a friend. I want to know why you and your administration would take the time to mail a framed photo of you and Addis together to her personal residence, but don't seem to take the time to acknowledge the pain and suffering you have caused her. I want to know why the administration has refused to mention Addis's name in relation to the racial profiling or in response to the violent imagery found on the chalkboards in Munroe. I want to know why a photo of Addis walking at commencement, cane in hand, is repeatedly being used as promotional material for graduation. And I want to know when the administration will stop using black bodies as simply props and advertisements, and when they will recognize them as real people who have real feelings, who have real struggles, and who deserve real apologies."
Toni Cross (’18): "I have a mic up here, but I would love to hear President Patton's response to those questions."
Patton: "So, first of all, the comment about Middlebury communities, I absolutely agree. And I think that we should be continuing to talk about different communities. And if we haven't done so enough, I apologize for that. It's really important that we think through those questions of acknowledging different communities and acknowledging specifics about pain that you all have felt. One of the things that I really, really want to hear about, and I know we want to continue to think about, is particularly in classroom environments where people of color are not feeling that they can speak up. Or that they feel if they do speak up, that they will be misunderstood. Those are an incredibly important place for us, and I hope that as faculty and staff we can work together to change those experiences. So I think that that's absolutely right and that's really important to do. I also want to say that what Dean Loyd was talking about, I actually sat with that professor and apologized for her experience. And it's a very important thing that she was in pain, and that was acknowledged. So I think it's an unfair characterization of me to say that acknowledgement doesn't happen. It was important to reach out and engage. When I -- I don't know what the images are that are being used. I think it's really important in a conversation that we're all trying to do better, that we're all doing a lot of work every day to raise inclusivity where it's really hard. If we could find a way -- I don't know, I can't supervise every single thing that goes out. If that image that goes out is there, I'm sure that that was painful for people to see. I am willing to sit with anyone in the community in a restorative practices circle, including Addis, to hear the pain that she has experienced. I will do that with anyone in this community. And I think it's really important that we continue to think about those specific experiences. And that's why restorative practices matters. Part of what is hard in presidential speech, and I wish I could answer you as a person -- I can't right now, I'm here as a president. And so, I would be happy to walk with you and talk with you, but my role at this moment is to uphold all of the hardworking people. And so -- I do spend a lot of time with students and tell them what I think all the time in the luncheon halls, I'm in classrooms, I'm walking throughout the campus every day. And so, I'm more than happy to sit and talk to you. I'm sure the president of Kenyon also wouldn't be able to speak about a case in this way, but I will say again, those images were very, very disturbing. And perhaps, yes, we should have used Addis's name. I will sit with Addis, I will sit with any of you in restorative practices and talk about harm any time. That is me both as a person and as a president. I hope that answers your question, and let's go for a walk."
Jasmine Crane (’18): "It really hurt my heart to hear Wengel's struggle, because her struggle is my struggle and as a black women in science, there's only one black female teacher in all of BiHall. And I really look up to her. She's a shinning example for me who contemplates going far and taking the extra mile, but when I'm with some of my colleagues I don't feel like I'm very far, I don't feel like I'm their colleague. I just feel like I am a black face here. And I feel like as a black, African-American woman here, I feel like community which is being thrown around so carelessly I feel it's just a word it's not a feeling. I feel like it's just a structure like a church. We come in here and do we really do anything pertinent? I don't seem to feel that. I feel that I see Latinos coming together, from different countries, I see South Asian, East Asian people coming together, and I feel like they have to do that on their own because there is no place even for them. And especially for black Americans here, I feel like that's a diaspora, there is no place for us on this campus. I feel like African's stick together, that's great to hear, but I feel like as an American black woman I have no place here. No voice. And I don't know how to change this, honestly, because it doesn't start with the people of color. We have to start all together as one body, as Middlebury. We have created this iconic self-image of being woke, of being liberal, of knowing more than ourselves. But do we even really know ourselves? And so I ask not only students to look in their heart and think about oppression. But I want the administration to look at themselves and how they conduct themselves in their everyday lives. And how they treat not only the students but each other.
Cross: "I just had a couple of questions: is there a timeline for fixing this broken Middlebury community? I know when I visited here for preview days in 2014 at least six people told me: do not come to this school, it will crush you and I don't know that I could in good conscious tell a black senior in high school to come here. It's been four years. Is there a timeline for making it better. And also I would like to ask the administration who have spoken here today how they would grade themselves in presentation and the image that they are giving to us? With the defensiveness that we constantly see, with the willingness to label actions, or to call themselves victims or point out unfairness towards themselves but not necessarily extend that same courtesy to the students. So I'm asking how would you grade yourselves? What kind of message do you think you're putting forward?
Treasure Brooks (’21): "I haven't been here very long but earlier Charles mentioned the overwhelming whiteness at this school and I just want to bring attention to the overwhelming blackness that doesn't come in the form of bodies. I live in Battel and I can't walk to the bathroom or back to my room without hearing trap music. And there is an overwhelming amount of black culture here but it's not represented in the population, in the student body. We've had CupcakKe come here last week, we're having Elle Varner come, and before that we had Noname Gypsy, she came here as well. And I think that how can we allow for the student body to be consuming black culture at such an alarming rate when we don't even value the black women that are walking around on this campus? I think that is remarkably grotesque, honestly, and if you really want to show support, if you want to show a greater cultural sensitivity towards black students then maybe we should make those events exclusive until we can show a general respect for all of the black diaspora, all of the black faculty, of the black students, and not just black culture. And additionally, to respond to something you said, President Patton, I would hope that you did not see your presidency and personhood as mutually exclusive because in the event that you do I think there needs to be a greater consideration for what leadership is."
James Sanchez (Assistant Professor of Writing): "I want to say a couple of things. I haven't heard anyone from faculty speak yet and I don't want to absolve us from any of these issues because this is just as important for students and administrators as it is for faculty. A couple of things I want to mention is one I feel like faculty needs to do a better job of modeling anti-racist behavior for our students in the classroom. I say that because when I did my interview here I spoke with a Latina student and this was before Charles Murray and she was telling me with issues that she had with white professors in the classroom and how as a Latina student she often felt that racist, bigoted viewpoints were held on equal playing field as anti-racist viewpoints and I think that's something that I challenge all faculty to really consider when having classroom discussions. I also want to say that faculty have a lot of agency in creating change on campus environments and that's something we all need to remember as faculty members when conducting our classes, creating new courses, interactions with students, we have agency in creating change. So I really want to challenge my colleagues here to on campus to really consider that in the future.
Sha (’19): "This is more a clarifying question. I understand a lot of time when it comes to the judicial process there's need for privacy but I also I feel there has been a lack of transparency with a lot of things that go on at this college. And I would like to be informed or educated in possible: is a student assumed guilty until proven otherwise? Or is a student assumed innocent until proven guilty? Why is it that when there is a sexual assault case reported, the victim is often the one asked to prove that there was actually assault, when in this case a student was accused and she was actually asked to find evidence to prove that she was not there?"
Ross: "Under all our policies individuals going through any kind of discipline are innocent until proven guilty. And the obligation is not on them to provide evidence. That's why we employ people and pay their salaries to gather evidence but people are free to offer evidence if they chose to offer evidence. If you want to learn more about how our policies work or want to learn more about our processes Dean Baishaki Taylor has solicited volunteers to serve on a policy advisory group. I'll be working with that policy advisory group to get feedback from students on policies that are of importance to you. We welcome other folks joining that committee
Júlia Athayde: (’19): "I want to raise attention to something that I found very troubling last semester and that was the fact that Bill Burger, who is the vice president of communications here, was personally involved in the Charles Murray incident and also very involved in writing all the articles and the communication that is written to alumni, articles in the New York Times, in the aftermath of the incident. First something I wanted to say, I work for the Office of Investment so after Charles Murray I actually had to talk to alumni and explain to them what was happening on campus so I'm very sympathetic to the fact that it was a very hard conversation and I know how difficult it was for administrators to deal with all of that. Since then, I've been thinking about the fact that [Burger] was personally involved and I'm not sure if he's here or not, this is not a personal attack, I just wanted to raise awareness for that. He was there, and he was also writing the communication for the college. And this latest article in the newsroom talking about racial profiling, I was wondering if that was the first time that we addressed that to the outer community and our alumni? And who wrote that article, because there was actually no author? And the last paragraph of that article actually talks about his involvement and that he was found not guilty. And I was wondering if that process involved the same kind of investigation that Addis had to go through? Why was he found not guilty, and why was that written in an article in the newsroom this week?"
Ross: "I was one of the folks who helped write that statement and the final paragraph addresses the fact that there were two separate investigations about what went on March 2. One was the Middlebury Police Department Investigation. The Middlebury Police are of course responsible for investigating criminal behavior, driving a car dangerously would be criminal behavior. The police did not find any evidence that caused them to have concern about that. They did not investigate that, they did not bring charges. The independent investigators concluded based on unanimous testimony from all the witnesses to the event that Mr. Burger drove carefully. Those are the facts in that case found by two different investigations."
Esteban Arenas-Pino (’18): “I would like the administration to expand on their stance on activism on campus. It feels like after last spring activism has become a dirty word and is often vilified. Is the administration willing and ready to accept activism as a part of the campus culture, and is the administration willing to foster this as a value? After many years witnessing activism especially by women of color on this campus I would like to see this fermented as a stronger value? We will leave Middlebury to be organizers and activists in our communities. Shouldn't Middlebury foster these skills?”
Sedge Lucas (’19): "I have a quick question for President Patton. I saw online that you and Professor Stanger are going to be having a talk this coming February titled "Campus Speech: when protest turned violent" at the Cronkite School of Journalism in Arizona. Can you explain what the goal of this talk is? What do you think other schools or academia as a whole can learn about how Middlebury handled the situation last spring?
Patton: "Thanks for the question. Lots of different thoughts there. There are so many ways in which we could have done better. We have been slow to respond to graffiti incidents. I would just ask people to understand that we are living in the world where immediate response and the fact that we have to get the facts right is we want to make sure we get the facts right before we actually make a statement and so sometimes if we can't do it in 12 hours it's because we're wanting to make sure we have all the facts right. That being said it's really important that that slowness of response is something that we can do better on. And we want to do better on. Secondly, the things that I have learned as a leader and a person here at Middlebury, number one, I was hoping that all the work that we've done in the last two years about inclusivity and scholarships raised and C3 developed and AIM, and the alliance on disability, the bias response team, the more funds raised for financial aid, the restorative practices, all of these are things that have happened since 2015, since I got here. My mistake was in thinking that all those things and inviting everyone to do more of those things and invite us into those conversations would heal the hurt and it didn't. I did not understand the degree of hurt in this community and again I want to say how deeply sorry I am for that. So in response to that, part of what I push on in everywhere that I go is that inclusivity has to be part of any conversation around freedom of expression but we have to do both in the 21st century. And that we do not become more free unless we focus on inclusivity and all the ways that we've been talking about. And we do not become more inclusive if we can't have that freedom of expression as the basis of who we are. And so that is a very powerful message that we want to send in as many different places as possible. So I hope that gives you as sense of both what I have learned personally as well as the kind of push I want to make on creating both inclusivity and freedom of expression as a balance, as well as the only way we can become more free in the 21st century is to become more inclusive. I also want to say that in our conversation yesterday, Liz [Dunn] said something really powerful. And I want to make sure that we say that and say something about that and talk more about it. And that is "What do you need and how can we help?" was a question that one of her common's deans asked her and how powerful that was. And I think that even as we have to uphold policies and procedures, I think that having student advisory groups as well as the faculty motion that was really fantastic that I publicly endorsed and was thrilled to publicly endorse last week, where we are going to be doing an external review of our diversity practices. Again the big learning that I had last semester is clearly all the stuff that we've done since 2015 is not enough, and it's not effective enough, and that's really powerful so we are developing an advisory group on diversity for faculty and for building faculty I have been really powerfully advocating and only faculty can build a black studies program but we are really excited because faculty are moving to create that and I want to say here how important it is that we create that black studies program. So, lot's more to say, and I know I need to hand over the mic.
Hannah Pustejovksy (’18): "I wanted to bring it back a little bit to the point about financial aid. So I am a white student, I'm also on almost full financial aid, and I am pretty lucky being a student who is white having had a lot family who have gone to college and have dealt with this system. But if having difficulty with the financial aid system here I cannot even imagine what other students, of color, are having on this campus because I have been here for four years and I have yet to understand what happens in the financial aid office. I was incredibly hurt by an email that came out last week or the week before encourage students to consider if they actually could take on the loans that they were being given because I have no choice. I don't know what I'm supposed to do if I can't personally take those loans on, am I just supposed to drop out? I also think that financial aid is one of the most important things to making sure that students here also feel welcome because we do have only 48 percent of students here on campus who have financial aid and if students of color are on campus and we are not making it easy for them to be here including the huge financial responsibility we are putting on them, how are we even supposed to start and feel like equals? Every day I am aware that I have so much less money than people here. And how is the financial aid office going to make that easier?"
Nia Robinson (’19): "I don't really have a question, more so a comment. Looking around this room most of the people in here are people I expected to be here. There are some surprises, like good surprises but nonetheless a surprise. And I think that it's really important when we're talking about community we claim who we are talking about. Because for example, the people who have called me the n-word are not found in this room. And I understand that people have commitments, I understand that people have other things going on, but everyone in this room ahs something else going on and so I think we need to make at who is making sacrifices for global community. A lot of people in this room are part of my community and I respect and love them a lot. But I think there are people who are not found in this room who have no stake in building a community and that's okay whereas if I take a step back then suddenly it's a problem. So that's not really question, just more so a call for everyone in here to talk to your friends, talk to your commons, talk to your professors, because if we are building a community we need to make sure we're reaching everyone and not just the people who self select to be here."
Kifle: "To touch upon the faculty member who spoke about faculty responsibility and accountability as well as Nia's comment about community, and also Treasury's comment. So we do consume a lot of black culture here and it's amazing how much we consume it and then don't acknowledge black people. I'm also in the classroom I'm so sick for having to stand up for something problematic that arises. If my professor is here, I'm sorry, I meant to have a private conversation with you, but this going to happen. So here we are talking about [solar] power in Africa and then the professor says 'There's 40 countries in Africa" and I said, 'no.' And then my art history professor was talking about Western Art and then mentioned Egyptian art and I questioned why that is because it's African art. The thing that surprised me is not the fact that it happened but in both of those classes where there's a huge amount of people in there I was the only one that had a problem with this and I was the only one that was expected to speak out, and of course I did because nobody else was doing it. But I'm so tired of taking on that mental labor. If you call yourself an ally, if you say you care about us, this movement, please speak up because I am tired. I am so tired and if you say you support this community and if you say you support these conversations and whatever Midd needs to progress on then take your part. And it's not just on the administration and it's not just on the faculty, it's on students as well. Show us that you care."
Sandra Luo (’18): "I really want to appreciate all of you for offering to have conversations with us but we're really tired of just talking. When is the administration going to show that they care beyond just sitting in a circle and talking and continuing to exploit the vulnerability and emotions of students? When are we going to see some sort of tangible, concrete action that comes from these conversations. And if you want to talk about helping us maybe address the list of demands here that we've been passing out. Apologize to Addis and provide reparations for all the trauma the school put her through, actually investigate Bill Burger and take anonymous sources seriously because that's the way of providing safety for people who are willing to come forward and share their experiences, fix the judicial system instead of just telling us that it's flawed but that's just how it's always going to be. And I want to recommend that a lot of people have been talking for years and a lot of work has been put towards inclusivity and diversity for years, long before March 2. It would be great if they could do something more than just conversations. It's one thing to acknowledge pain and flaws it's another to actually address the flaws so that current and future students won't continue to experience pain. I know a lot of people around me really want to listen to answers from the administration so I'm just going to hold on to this mic until we get an answer from the administration. I really want to hear about a concrete action plan that is something beyond a conversation."
Fernández: "Where to start. So in regards to the demands that you referenced, I think you heard in regards to the judicial piece I think Hannah made the invitation to serve on a policy committee there. That's a very direct way of impacting judicial change. The second one is about the mandatory training for everyone and I hope I addressed that earlier but that's in the process. It's not going to happen tomorrow but there are things in process and more to come, can't be more specific about that because that part to come is still being worked on and I don't have the details. I did share details for things that are ongoing. More things that are happening that are on the ground that we are doing: I did mention that we're working hard at diversifying the faculty, I think we had a good example and make some comments and probably just fill his spring courses. The bias incident thing was a new effort by the community bias response team, I will grant you it is imperfect, and if you will continue to work on it it's been an effort to try to address a lot of the issues we've been talking about. It is imperfect, it is new, we're going through that rocky start that many things do. I expect communications to improve and we will continue to work on that. Concrete things that are going on other things, more things we've been working on: we've been trying to work a lot around the support o DACA and undocumented students, putting a lot of effort on resources there, supporting them in many different ways. The first generation programs, those kinds of things. Opportunities to engage, one of the things a lot of folks have been talking about today is the administration, how it acts and why it doesn't change and one of the things we heard yesterday and I think this is valid is more student input in decision making, and that's been heard. And the SGA has had a proposal to create student advisory boards that will meet with the different VPs, so there you've got advisory boards that will meet with different folks to learn about the process how decisions get made how does the process work and to have a direct influence on that so for instance with finance, with a lot of the different areas. There's much to talk about, but there's a lot more to do, too."
Rainey: "I have a really quick question. There's been a lot of talk about this in the black community and many other communities especially in the after math of Charles Murray. We all know how many of us feel the complete community embarrassment of how interrogating and punishing students for protesting on campus. And as we more forward in terms of restorative practices from the administration, going back to what Toni and others have said providing a timeline with that but also after we put in these new restorative practices and these new restorative justice measures, are they going to be retroactively implemented and have retroactive application regarding people who have gone through unfair processes in the past and students who have gone through extremely unsettling and unfair disciplinary procedures here at Middlebury, for case by case basis? If anyone in the administration could speak to that?"
Katie Smith Abbott (Vice President of Student Affairs): "I have been charged with leading our exploration of how to bring restorative practice to Middlebury. We are partnering with a firm called the Consortium for Equity and Inclusion and the two anchors for that are a woman named Stacy Miller who is the associate provost of inclusivity at Valparaiso and Dennis DePaul who is from the Dean of Students Office at UVM which has had real success for a very long period of time with restorative practices, grounded in Residential Life at UVM. So they came to explain the basic concepts of what is referred to as RP to the SLG in June, the Senior Leadership Group which is the Presidents and all the Vice Presidents. They came back for a subsequent training because we didn't fit everything in, they came back in September, they have met for an introductory session with a broad range of faculty and staff who work in student life. And they're coming back for a three-day training December 18, 19, and 20 and if there are folks in this room who want to participate in that training I'd be happy to talk to you. The only requirements are that you're able to fully commit for the three full days. It's 8:30-5, it's three full days, and you're willing to be part of the ongoing implementation conversations. It is not a fast process to implement but we're fully committed to it. The other thing I would just note is that restorative justice and restorative practices are kind of getting used interchangeably, and I do want to be honest about the fact that I'm learning, this is not something I knew about before I started on this journey working with Stacy and Dennis, being part of a group that's being doing some deep diving into this work. But what I will offer is that they have explained to us very clearly that restorative justice is a small subsection of restorative practices, and the reason we're drawn to restorative practices is because they can be used proactively not just reactively so that a moment like this one wouldn't be appropriate for a restorative circle, like President Patton was referencing earlier, but something called a conference that's very intentionally facilitated. Although I've got to say that I think the student leaders of this session are doing a pretty amazing job. So that's the timeline, we're moving into this training in December with an eye towards hopefully grounding it in student life and residential life by next fall."
Vee Duong (’19): "I had a question: so something kind of disturbing that I have been noticing this year being involved in more cultural orgs is that a lot of students say "Oh wow I didn't know that existed, when do y'all have meetings?" And then we're like oh well we had a booth at activities and we have a mailing list that's been open, we operate out of the AFC which is always open, and to have these open discussions that we have been having about race, to have people who do not identify as that come into that space, that is acceptable and that's fine and we encourage you to do that but to have people come in and not be aware of the space they're taking up is very frustrating. So this is a point for faculty and staff and/or administrators, in that what are you all doing to provide real educational resources for students, incoming students especially, so that the burden doesn't fall on cultural orgs where we are already working really hard to provide a space to take care of our members mentally and emotionally to support each other so we don't have to take on the additional burden of educating people because all the educational resources I have seen have been put together laboriously through hours of our personal time.
Baishakhi Taylor (Dean of Students): "Vee I hear your question and I agree that we also need to do more. We have added sessions during the MiddView. President Patton has now made JusTalks mandatory for the entire class. We have also added more training in our reslife program and among colleagues who are in the reslife group and that's obviously not adequate so on top of having all these sessions that introduce with the incoming class this year we'll continue to build on that and I also acknowledge that having those sessions only during MiddView and JusTalks is not sufficient so we need to build on it throughout the year so the responsibility is not on the Anderson Freeman Center and thank you for doing the work that you're doing and raising the question."
Anonymous question (read by Rainey): "It seems like both Alison Stanger and Laurie Patton have been taking a lot of public, national opportunities to speak about the events of the spring, including at a congressional hearing on C-SPAN, the Free Speech Conference Laurie spoke at. For the purpose of transparency, are President Patton or Alison Stanger being financially compensated for these talks? Are they profiting off the terrible situation the administration has put us in?"
Patton: "I was not paid to go to the University of Chicago and I have no interest in profiting any situation that happened at Middlebury. I am very clear that any conversation that's part of the national discourse where Middlebury is mentioned we need to create balance so at the Chicago conference part of what we pushed on with many, many people there is where is our inclusivity? Where are our inclusivity efforts? We've always got to balance those two things no matter what happens. I had no intentions of profiting in any way my intent is to work on moving a national conversation where people who are constantly talking about free speech also talk about inclusivity. So both of those things are balanced and fair and appropriate, so that's the very direct answer. I had a couple more responses to questions I didn’t get a chance to answer but if there’s time later [I’ll answer].”
Victor Filpo (admissions counselor, class of '16): "I hope I really speaking for myself here rather than any hat of student, alumn, or staff member here on campus. Something that is frustrating, honestly, about this conversation is that we've really been centering around the case that happened with Addis or the case that happened with the professor. And that's completely legitimate because they are people who've been struggling a lot and they've been carrying a lot of the heaviness of what's going on. But I would like to say that the reality is that a lot of people of color deal with this. It is not surprising. We are tokenizing them right now by only brining up those instances. When I was freshman, when I was walking with my Posse member in Battell, a public safety office stopped us and told us, 'I haven't seen you on campus can you show us your IDs?' When we were first years here at Middlebury. He still works here. I have also gotten accused by other Public Safety officers for other things. It turns out completely fine because my dean loves me, obviously. And all the deans here do an amazing job at really caring for their students and really trying to look out emotionally for everyone. But this continues happening on the daily. Just this last summer I was crossing with two other students, and I'm glad this stuff happens to me when I'm with other people because I would not be able to believe that it happens to me on this level, weekly or biweekly, it's insane. Crossing the street, people start accelerating and then they stop and they yell the n-word at you. You are walking to your house or walking to your dorm and someone stops in a car and just yells at you, 'that looks stolen,' yells a rap lyric at you, choses another slur. It really does baffle me that this happens so often and I was just here as a senior two years ago and we had the same conversation about a sombrero right here. And every year we will continue to have this conversation right here. And yet I still have to walk home and have this experience all over again. And the only time I will be taken seriously isn't even when I'm with another person of color but rather when I have the kind, woke, white lady who is willing to represent me and say whoa he's going through some pain let's do something about it. I don't want someone to have a voice for me. I want to be able to talk for myself to be able to talk for myself, to be believed, for something to happen when I ask for it. When a person of color is going through a lot they don't have means to be able to express it. Do we really understand the amount of people of color who haven't said anything about their experiences. And when you sit with someone and they say, 'that baffles me,' does it really? Does it really? It shouldn't because it honestly happens on such a daily level. And you yourself you're all very smart people. We know that this happens. We ignore it. We choose to ignore it because it makes us feel comfortable. And I wonder when we're going to stop with this comfort because we just sit here every single year and have this conversation all over again in this comfort and I hope that in future instances when the next one comes up it's not Shatavia, it's not Victor, it's not the professor. It's a collective group of people who are going through a lot."
Student, unknown: "You said something about conversation and us being free and all that. There's a lot of dark forces in general on this campus and beyond this campus and a lot of what was just talked about were references to instances where students are facing racism from other white students on this campus that I'm sure a lot of people don't know about. If we look we have Donald Trump as our president and there's just crazy things going on while we're sitting here having restorative conversations, there's evil things going on and this stuff that we're talking about is just a small sample of something that's going on. It comes to a point where people have to decide whether they're going to actually be on the side of what's right or what's wrong and everyone has to make their own choice. I hope that especially the white people here will make that choice and not hide behind good sounding rhetoric or kind words, because those things are good and genuine kindness is good but a lot of people here feel like unless the school addresses the issues that are going on at the institutional level how are we going to be able to talk about what's going on in the world?"
Patton: "I wanted to mention that we're working with public safety, public safety has gone through a mandatory de-escalation training as well as diversity training this fall and will continue to do so. Concrete action. Concrete action: we created a seizing the opportunity fund for any student at Middlebury who wants to and needs to do something different, whether they need their parents to come here, or whether they need to go to MiddCore, whether they need more money for something they need more access to at Middlebury. We have raised that money so that every student has access to all educational opportunities. We started that last year, it's available, talk to Katy Smith Abbott, another concrete action. Third, one of the things we're really excited about is, I really appreciate what you said about facing racism and acknowledging and the everyday racism that happens on this campus that I acknowledged in the beginning. I think that if we could create an archive to create news stories of what is happening to people that would make it even more powerful for us so we need to get those kinds of stories on the books. We need to do a lot more mandatory training, that concrete action is happening in the next year, and in the back there are about 15 more concrete actions, none of them are enough. We need your advice on how to make it more effective and again I want to acknowledge the hurt that people are feeling and we are going to create a lot of student advisory committees to be better and more effective. And I am so proud of this community for being here tonight. Thank you very much."
Sohn: "We also know that tonight not all of your questions have been answered and we want to thank everyone for raising those question."
Anonymous notecard (read by Sohn): "Hoping on Wengel and Mia's point on allyship, please understand that these may be very sensitive times for POCs, QTPOCs on campus and on that note if you find yourself going to the AFC I hope you take the responsibility to learn about what it means to the POC/QTPOC community. You could speak to the directors and student staff in the space, and it's very central to understand what it means to take up space in times as sensitive as this one. On that note please come feel free to come learn more about the positive impact the AFC is making on this institution."
(11/09/17 1:03am)
College faculty met for over three hours in a plenary meeting on Nov. 3 in which they passed a motion declaring their commitment to promoting diversity and discussed the investigative procedures resulting from allegations of racial profiling by Public Safety.
Diversity Practices Motion
The motion, formally entitled, “Moving Forward on Diversity Practices” passed with 113 yes votes, 8 no votes and 1 abstention. Faculty voted anonymously by paper ballot.
Professors Gloria González, Darién Davis and Michael Sheridan of the spanish, history and anthropology departments, respectively, presented the motion on behalf of Middlebury Faculty for an Inclusive Community, a caucus that formed in the wake of the Charles Murray protests last spring. The motion cited the college’s inability to address issues of racism without estranging members of the community as justification for the suggestions.
The motion suggests four measures aimed at making the college more inclusive: conducting an external review on diversity policies and practices; creating a standing faculty diversity committee that would work with the administration, board of trustees and other faculty bodies; establishing a protocol for recording, reporting and responding to harassment and racism; and hiring an external facilitator to lead discussions aimed at fostering diversity within the community.
“As we continue to debate issues, create committees, and hold executive sessions, many of us are feeling more alienated and perplexed by the inappropriate actions and words of some of our colleagues, and the racist atmosphere that has affected our health and well-being,” reads the motion.
“We believe that we need a clear institutional policy for how to respond to such acts and how to change the social environment in a productive and respectful manner ... the college, on its own, is not prepared to guide us through difficult conversations without alienating many colleagues.”
The passing of a motion does not result in an immediate policy creation or change. The motion will go to the faculty council and the chief diversity officer, Miguel Fernández, for consideration and potential implementation.
“What we’re doing here is making an expression of our collective will. We leave it to the administration to decide what steps to do and what timing,” Sheridan explained.
“I think this is an urgent thing to do, especially given what we read in The Campus newspaper about issues of racial profiling,” said Patricia Saldarriaga, a Spanish professor. “In spite of everything that we’re doing that sounds very, very efficient, I think we need to make some changes. And those changes in my opinion, when there are students and faculty suffering, I think we need to do something now.”
Davis views the motion as a way to demonstrate the college’s commitment to progress and improvement.
“This could help us create new narratives of continually getting some place where we want to [be.] This sort of gives us a sense, not just for PR, but for PR, that we are, as a Middlebury community, not what is said on C-SPAN or in The New York Times. That we as a faculty agree that this is something important and that we’re moving as educators to try to become wiser,” he said.
Fernández voiced his office’s support for the motion, informing the room that he had discussed both an external review and standing faculty committee prior to the meeting. He said he supports hiring an external facilitator, and has already sought out recommendations from chief diversity officers at other schools.
College president Laurie L. Patton echoed similar sentiments of support.
“I think the time for us to do it is now,” Patton said. “We have put a lot of things in place...over the last couple of years but they’re clearly not effective enough and we need to think about how to make them all better...so I see all four of these, particularly the committee, as a way of our being able, as an administration, to check in.”
Investigative Procedures
The college’s General Counsel Hannah Ross and Title IX Coordinator Sue Ritter provided information and answered questions relating to the college’s investigative and disciplinary processes. Ross referred to Addis Fouche-Channer’s ’17 allegations of racial profiling with veiled language, emphasizing that she was prohibited from discussing most of the details of the case, due to federal and state law.
Ross emphasized that the investigation into Fouche-Channer’s involvement in the events of Mar. 2 resulted in a finding of “no determination,” rather than a finding of guilt or innocence.
Fouche-Channer did not undergo a judiciary hearing last spring following the conclusion of the investigation.
“A judicial affairs officer makes a decision at a particular moment in time about whether or not to proceed to a hearing before the community judicial board. No hearing before the judicial board occurred,” Ross said.
Ross stressed that when Fouche-Channer brought a complaint of discrimination to the college over the summer, the resulting investigation focused solely on the employee accused of discrimination and not on Fouche-Channer’s conduct.
“The student made a complaint that she had been discriminated against in violation of our anti-harassment policy. This is a claim of misconduct by an employee, which doesn’t start a conduct investigation about a student’s behavior, it starts an investigation about whether one of our employees violated our anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policy,” Ross said.
Ross added that the investigation found the student’s claim of discrimination to be unsubstantiated, which indicated that the employee did not violate the anti-discrimination policy. She cited newly acquired evidence, specifically eyewitness identifications, as the corroborating evidence for the officer’s testimony.
“Other evidence that came to light through the painstaking investigation that Sue’s office conducted corroborated that the testimony of the public safety officer was accurate and truthful. The other evidence included eyewitness identifications...There was no evidence that he had acted based on race,” Ross said.
“That’s not a violation of our anti-harassment and anti-discrimination policy, to accurately and truthfully identify someone. A belief that someone acted based on race or any other protected personal characteristic, as sincere as it may be, is not enough under this process, we need to find evidence of that,” Ross continued.
Sujata Moorti, a Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies professor, raised concerns over the use of eyewitness identifications that Ross mentioned.
“Is that the only basis on which you decided that there was no discrimination, there was no violation of the college policy? Because there’s tons of scholarly evidence saying that eyewitness accounts and eyewitness testimony is really unreliable,” Moorti said.
“I don’t feel that I can go into detail and summarize all of the evidence...Our investigators and adjudicators...are sensitive to the fact that memory is flawed and that there are eyewitness accounts that are not credible. There are eyewitness accounts that are credible, for a variety of reasons,” Ross said.
“I would just say that we need to be particularly careful when we have evidence from students where students of color are mistakenly identified on an ongoing basis,” Moorti replied.
Ross agreed. Ritter also addressed Moorti’s question, explaining the ways that investigators assess credibility.
“We evaluate factors like the clarity of their observations, their ability to recall events accurately, the consistency of the witness’ claims, the witnesses’ demeanor during the interview, the witness’s potential interest or bias in the outcome, whether the witness’ statement was consistent or inconsistent with other evidence, and the existence of corroborative evidence. we are always looking for... the reasonableness or unreasonableness of a witness’ claims,” Ritter said.
Patricia Saldarriaga asked whether a case is treated differently if an accused party has been accused of acts of discrimination in the past.
“In talking about patterns, I wonder whether you have considered in this particular case, hypothetically speaking, let’s put it that way, when somebody who is accused...of racial profiling, has other cases where he’s also been accused of racial profiling...how would that affect the reliability of that testimony from an officer?” Saldarriaga asked.
Ross replied that she wasn’t sure the question was entirely within the realm of the hypothetical, and said she could not be more precise, but that they do look for information in order to construct and consider a pattern of behavior. Ritter emphasized that this pattern has to be “substantiated.”
“There has to be evidence that other than just a report,” Ritter said.
Student Government Association (SGA) Chief of Staff Ishrak Alam ’18 asked whether Ross or Ritter could provide information pertaining to the allegations that a professor was racially profiled by a public safety officer.
“It’s been resolved,” Ross said.
Peter Johnson, a computer science professor, proceeded to question the policy of confidentiality with regard to the case of alleged racial profiling of the professor. Johnson expressed frustration with the way his colleagues have been affected by the lack of information.
“I understand that there are confidentiality issues...I think there’s a conflict though, because in some cases where the resolution is not disclosed, then other members of the community are adversely affected,” he said. “Even if it’s resolved from the administrative standpoint, other members of the community may be scared. If they don’t know that someone who may have done something is, say, still employed by the college, then these friends of ours, these colleagues, may be walking around uncertain if this is a person they may have to face in a law enforcement-ish circumstance.”
“I would guess that the reason for confidentiality after the resolution is to protect the person who may or may not have been disciplined. But on the other hand that’s affecting our friends. So basically what this boils down to is my friends are scared and I don’t like it,” Johnson added.
In response, Ross emphasized the importance of confidentiality in the investigative process.
“Middlebury didn’t dream this up on its own. Every other institution, every other employer I know of has confidentiality provisions in these exact same policies that look exactly like this, and they are there to get people to bring complaints forward, because it is very, very common that when people want to report they have concerns about confidentiality...They’re concerned about retaliation against them, they’re concerned about retaliation against the people who may be called to testify as witnesses,” Ross said.
Michael Olinick, a math professor, who wrote the aforementioned letter to the editor detailing the alleged racial profiling, further questioned the practice of investigating patterns of behavior, wondering how reports of benign interactions with Public Safety officers would be obtained, since they would presumably not be reported.
“I understand racial profiling to mean that a person treats someone of color differently than they would treat a white person. So let’s take a hypothetical case, that I am leaving my office late at night which I often do, walking towards my car and a campus security officer comes up to me and demands me to stop, raise my hands, explain what I’m doing here. And I’m a person of color and believe that that was racial profiling. And I talk to some of my colleagues who say they do this all the time, they leave their buildings at night quite late and they often see campus security people who just wave at them. In an investigation of racial profiling, would you attempt, do you normally attempt to investigate how that person who’s been charged with profiling, has behaved in similar situations with a white person?” Olinick asked.
Ross responded that yes, they look at patterns of behavior. She then went on to reflect on the use and meaning of the term “racial profiling.”
“Racial profiling is a label that is loaded and that is about a particular set of police practices in law enforcement,” Ross said. “The choice of saying this is a racial profiling case I understand is to get at the feeling that that decision should not be made based on race. And I agree with that. We shouldn’t be making decisions based on race about speaking to someone who’s leaving a building and presuming that the color of their skin means they don’t belong there. No question.”
Ross then explained that certain instances that appear to be discriminatory might not meet the legal standard required to result in a guilty finding.
“In order to comply with the law, it has to rise to the level of harassment or discrimination. And we have a challenge in our culture at this moment where we talk about things as harassing or discriminatory and we use that in a broader sense than the law does. The law has a standard of severe and pervasive and an ongoing basis, and we have to apply the legal standard,” Ross answered.
Olinick inquired again about whether investigations look into patterns of behavior.
“I’ve heard a lot about persistence of behavior where you can say well, there are a number of cases where this particular person acted in an inappropriate way toward persons of color. But this could be a single incident where there are many instances where this person has exhibited a pattern of behaving in a non-hostile, friendly way toward white people. And you’re telling me that part of the investigator’s responsibility is to seek out instances of parallel actions that involve--”
“Yeah, so in the law we talk about this as ‘are similarly situated people treated the same?’ And ‘are dissimilarly situated people treated differently?’...Our investigators ask for and get information to allow them to evaluate that,” Ross replied.
“Okay and how would they go about doing that. Is that up to the person bringing the complaint to suggest specific individuals to talk to or?” Olinick asked.
“If the individual bringing the complaint has information they can give that information to the investigator,” Ross answered.
“Yeah, but if they don’t?” Olinick asked.
“The investigator can get information from any Middlebury office that will help them resolve the investigation. So they can ask for information from relevant offices about that person’s interactions with other people. They get that information they evaluate whether it shows us patterns,” Ross explained.
“There isn’t going to be much of a record of innocent transactions between people...If a public safety officer behaves toward me in a friendly way or just ignores me, I’m not going to report that. So there isn’t going to be a record of how that person is treating people who’ve been in the majority up to this point,” Olinick said.
Ross responded by listing alternative ways that investigators can obtain information that allows them to construct an understanding of an employee’s past performance.
“There could be information from people who’ve worked with an employee for a number of years who’s witnessed a number of interactions that that employee has had on our campus. There could be information about an employee’s past performance from the way that they’ve been performance managed...we look for that information every way we can,” Ross said.
By 6:05 p.m., the three remaining participants scheduled on the meeting’s agenda had left the room. Michael Roy, dean of the library, and associate professor of Chinese Hang Du had been scheduled to provide information reports. President Laurie L. Patton had been scheduled to make closing remarks, but had left the building. As a result of their absences and consequent unavailability to speak, the meeting was adjourned.
(11/09/17 12:18am)
Middlebury College is a truly strange and absurd place when it comes to campus politics. To the outside world — including potential students abroad, first-year and transfer students — Middlebury is marketed as this progressive, liberal, environmentally-friendly, socially-aware place. And once you get here, it is very easy to continue to believe in this image — to just get wrapped up in school and the beautiful surroundings and ignore everything else that is going on around you. I had heard people say that Middlebury College is a bubble, and yes, it truly is.
Obviously, the college and its administration don’t exactly make it easy to engage with politics on campus. My first weeks here were pure, ignorant bliss; the Early Arrival Orientation and the Exchange/Transfer MiddView were completely apolitical. I had heard about the Charles Murray protests back home but I did not understand what they actually meant for the college community. I came here and no one told me much; it was just a “thing” that happened last spring, talked about like Voldemort is talked about by wizards in the Harry Potter universe.
And in the past few weeks it has become even more evident to me that students cannot rely on the college to address issues and to mobilize against racism. Cryptic emails are being sent out days after things actually happen — and can only be decoded when you read the Campus or the WRMC blog. The college is incredibly good at hiding everything under a mantle of rural-environmentally-friendly-progressive-granola-bliss and makes it very easy for students not to engage.
However, there must be something seriously wrong with a community if several blatantly racist incidents transpire on and around campus and new students still don’t know what is happening, are just going on with their lives, and are not aware or not willing to engage. I just don’t understand why more people are not angry and shocked, and why it is so easy for the white majority of this campus not to care or not to know. When you choose to study at a college like Middlebury for four years, shouldn’t you be aware that it is your responsibility to care and engage?
We were literally walking by huge posters titled WANTED: ADDIS FOR THE CRIME OF BEING BLACK AT MIDDLEBURY for several days in the dining hall. The Campus is full of articles and opinion pieces about racial profiling and other racist incidents. And yet, I don’t hear anyone talking about it in the dining halls. And when several buildings were sprayed with graffiti, my exchange student friends were still surprised that there are people here who are so unhappy, frustrated and angry that they would do something like that.
The fact, though, is that not everyone is privileged enough to not know. If you experience racism, classism and discrimination, it is impossible to continue living in happy ignorance and shy away from subjects that make you uncomfortable. It must be so frustrating to go to this college for four years, continuously surrounded by people who are just not willing to pop their own bubble of bliss.
As one of my friends said, some people will leave this institution as educated liberals without having had to engage with racism and their own privilege even once because this campus is so white and so apolitical. I chose Middlebury for my exchange because I wanted to go to a university that leads progressive political discourses and because I wanted a “Stückchen heile Welt” — a small piece of an intact world for a year. It didn’t occur to me that I couldn’t really have both at the same time. People, who have chosen to go to this college to receive a liberal education, should realize this too.
(11/08/17 5:44pm)
In Middlebury, Vermont, two men, a team of horses and a carriage are reversing the trend of globalization currently overtaking the country.
The Draft Trash Company was founded in 1997 by Patrick Palmer of Bristol, Vermont. Operating like any other private trash removal company, Draft Trash is individually contracted by its customers to remove trash from the ends of their driveways. The trash is carried away in a long, low trailer pulled by a team of gray-and-white Percheron horses. In Bristol, the idea gained popularity, and nearly 20 years later, Palmer and his horses now service more than 200 customers.
“He got the idea 20 years ago from a magazine article about a guy who used horses for a trash route in Washington,” said Nick Hammond, Palmer’s partner in Draft Trash’s Middlebury operations, which began in 2015.
About three years ago, changes in Vermont recycling codes prompted Middlebury to drop its contract with Casella, a local trash hauler who had been hired to service residents of the town. “I saw this as an opportunity,” Palmer said. This was his chance to expand business into Middlebury’s larger and busier market. After going door-to-door for several Saturdays to publicize the business, Palmer felt confident that there would be sufficient demand from the Middlebury area, and he made the decision to officially begin operations. He partnered up with Hammond, a carpenter and farmer from a few miles outside of town, and together they started Draft Trash Middlebury, which now services nearly 200 customers in the Middlebury area.
The company has each customer pay $6 for a sticker sold at the Otter Creek Bakery or Martin’s Hardware & Building Supply and put the sticker on a trash bag at the end of their driveway. The horse and carriage pick up the trash on Monday or Tuesday, depending on where one lives in town.
“We divide the town in half by Route 7 ... [and] do a Monday and a Tuesday morning every other week in Middlebury. [The] first day we picked up like 20 bags of trash. Now we’re up to ... about, oh, 75 or 80 bags of trash a day. ... It works out to be about 1800 pounds of trash a day,” Hammond said.
The growth and success of Draft Trash Middlebury in the last three years is due in large part to the popularity of the animals. The substitution of a couple of Percheron horses for garbage trucks, which are often noisy, often draws appreciation from locals and visitors alike. “We always stop for all the kids to come out and pet the horses,” Palmer said. “We’ve never done [a route] without somebody taking a picture someplace.”
The business also represents an environmentally friendly approach to an often environmentally costly business. Compared to a garbage truck’s average 2.8 miles per gallon, the horse-drawn operations have considerably less impact on the environment over their 25-mile route.
Given the environmental advantages of the business, Palmer also approached the college as a potential customer.
“When I first started in Middlebury I tried to get into Middlebury College because I thought that because they’re really environmentally conscious, they’d be willing to do it, ... [but] they felt that their way was efficient, and they didn’t want to [make] any changes,” he said.
Although the economic and environmental gains of the business are valuable, Hammond explained that his enthusiasm for his job is based on his love for the animals as much as anything else.
“I think it’s great because it is an environmental thing and it kind of saves fuel and is cool, but also it allows me to use the horses because I love them. ... I try to find as many ways as possible to use them,” he said.
The consistent work and engagement is beneficial for the horses. “[The horses] weigh close to 2,000 pounds, and they’re designed to be using their muscles for a long time. … If they don’t, they start to break down,” he said. “The trash wagon, when it’s full, weighs close to 8,000 pounds, and the two horses pull like it’s nothing. We’re some of the very few who use them on a consistent basis to do what they’re designed to do.”
Palmer, now 70, plans to leave Draft Trash Middlebury’s operations fully in the hands of Hammond as soon as he can find a full-time replacement for himself. Palmer will then continue on for another five years, focusing on Bristol, before retiring from the business after 25 years.
In and around Middlebury, Hammond hopes to continue operations as long as he can. “I think it adds to the town,” he said. “It’s a good reminder to people not how things used to be, but of a different pace of life.”
(11/03/17 8:01pm)
It's hard to believe that the month of October is already behind us. As I enter my third November as a member of this paper (my first as managing editor), I've come to realize just how easy it is to forget all the great work produced by our staff. Between classes, personal commitments, extracurriculars, and putting out The Campus every Thursday, we don't often take the time to reflect on some of the great reporting and commentary that appears on our pages each week. That's why I've decided that on the first Friday of each month, I will publish a selection of what I consider to be our paper's best and most important work from the previous month. It is my hope that our readership 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 be 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, as is the case this month. In those instances, I will have already reached out to another editor(s) to confirm that it belongs. If you disagree, also feel free to email me or comment!
Now, please enjoy some fabulous work, in no particular order, by our team:
NEWS:
Late-Night Alarm Jolts Atwater Residents From Saturday Slumber
By Elizabeth Sawyer
Students, Admin Confer at Open Forum
By Nick Garber and Dom Tanoh
Campus Is Vandalized, With College Labeled Racist
By Will DiGravio
Patton to Attend Free Speech Conference
By Ethan Brady
Barney Frank, John Sununu Discuss Campus Free Speech, Political Climate
By Nick Garber and Will DiGravio
Students Talk Study-Abroad During Trump Era
By Bochu Ding
Discussing Free Speech, Attorney General Implicates Middlebury
By Nick Garber
LOCAL:
Student Teachers Connect College and Community
By Rebecca Walker
He's 13 Years Old and He's Running For Governor
By Bridget Colliton
Pennies for WomenSafe
By Ally Murphy
OPINION:
Letter: Racial Profiling By Public Safety
By Michael Olinick
Racism and Responsibility
By Laurie Patton
Student Reflects on Surviving Sexual Assault
By David Vargas
For the Culture: Savage
By Josh Claxton
Sharp Left: When the ‘Common Ground’ Is a Swamp
By Tevan Goldberg
I Cover the Waterfront: On the Alt-Weekly
By Will DiGravio
ARTS & SCIENCES:
Women Safe Presents “I Rise”
By Sarah Boyle
Cocoon Storytellers Share Pain and Love
By April Qian
Teach-In Examines Recent Hurricanes
By Asher Lantz
Professor Researches Acid Mine Runoff
By Caroline Jaschke
FEATURES:
Students Navigate Misconceptions and Challenges of Veganism
By Elizabeth Zhou
Professor Delivers Talk on Trauma and (Post)memory
By Benjy Renton
AFC Hosts Dinner in Honor of Hispanic Heritage Month
By Haoyang Yu
Annual Security Report Shows Increases in Crime, Sexual Assault
By Sarah Asch
Student Spreads Joy Through Nonprofit Organization
By Eric Masinter
SPORTS:
Activism in the NFL: Two Takes on One Issue
By Rob Erickson
Field Hockey Forges Ahead
By Claire Messersmith
Men’s and Women’s Tennis Holds Own in Cambridge
By Nick Nonnenmacher
Men’s Soccer Sinks Trinity
By Riley Smith
A (Re)Defining Moment for the Quidditch Club
By Emily Bustard
(11/01/17 11:08pm)
On a sunny Saturday afternoon, a group gathered inside Mead Chapel to celebrate the life of Juana Gamero de Coca, a Spanish professor, who passed away suddenly on Oct. 6. The room was full of photographs and colorful flowers that the attendees brought with them and placed in vases. Juana’s family and friends spoke in three languages about a woman full of love, life, and passion. To celebrate Juana, The Campus has gathered excerpts of those eulogies and statements from Juana’s students, published with permission. Some of the passages have been edited for length.
I used to always complain that you weren’t a normal mom. You wore a lot of black. You never once made me chocolate chip cookies. Or meatloaf. You always kissed me a lot. And I mean a lot. On my cheeks. My arm. You really liked to kiss my knee. You had an accent that made it sound like you were saying “bitch” instead of “beach”. The first time you took me on a vacation, you chose Peru instead of the Florida Keys. You didn’t live in a big home, with a picket fence and a photogenic dog. You smoked cigarettes. You cried a lot. You laughed a lot. You yelled a lot. You weren’t the mom that hid your feelings from your kids. Or pretended that because you were a mom you had life figured out. You told Carmen and I to feel the weight of this world. To let our emotions in and let them blanket us from all sides. You never told us to pick ourselves up. We were allowed to feel the comfort of staying fallen. To take a break from the exhausting demands of being eye-level with everyone else.
Why can’t you just be normal? I used to say. Why do you always have to embarrass me? I would say. Now, what I long to say most is that I loved the way you were. I understand that this world weighed down on you. It was hard on your body. Tough on your heart. I don’t blame you for leaving so early. For wanting to escape Trump America and leave while Cataluña is still a part of Spain. The last few years, I met you in a new capacity. You opened up to me about your heartaches and troubles. You showed me what happens behind your bold red lipstick. That there are times when you feel fragile, too. Sometimes when you woke up in the morning, you would ask me if I thought you were pretty. When your relationship was stung by conflict, you lay paralyzed for days. When your sickness took you to different hospital beds, you asked to borrow my hand to be fed. And when you realized life isn’t always as happy as in the books, you asked Carmen and I to be happy for you. It was hard for my self-absorbed college student self to understand the gift of being able to take care of my mother. I’m sorry I didn’t offer more, but thank you for letting me in.
I stay up now thinking about the stories I never heard. About the memories that never had the chance to become memories. But just like you used to say to me. We are more than the same blood and bone. We are mother and daughter. Carmen and I will carry on for you. We will travel the world, go to India, have your grandchildren, and fall in love.
The last time I talked to you was the night that you passed away. I told you I was having a sad day. I had broken up with my boyfriend and I felt lonely. You called me and again, for the millionth time, told me that it was okay to feel sad. You said that hard things happen and I shouldn’t expect to get over them. Instead, sometimes you just have to leave sadness in a little pocket nearby. Life will carry on but the sadness will stay to help you remember and to help you grow. I’ve put you in a brand new pocket that I made out of silk and cashmere. You’ll stay there forever. And I’ll never mix you up because you were not a normal mom. You were special. And as my sister already said, you are the most beautiful woman we will ever meet.
by Izzy Fleming ’17, Juana’s Daughter
...
Mi mama era la mujer mas hermosa que conocí en toda mi vida. Y no lo digo por como se veía físicamente porque eso es obvio. Lo digo por su forma de pensar, su manera de bailar, su pasión para la justicia y la importancia que daba en asegurar que todos los demás estaban bien. Ella lucho mucho con ella misma durante su vida y creo que eso la hizo querer mas para los demás que para ella.
She taught Izzy and I to be aware of the world and what was happening to people everywhere. She taught us to be proud of being different. She taught us to speak our minds. And she was successful, because she taught me to really, really speak my mind, which meant that when I grew up we had similar ways of arguing and discussing issues. When we discussed issues of social justice and politics we would start calmly and then without fail begin to yell at each other for 10 minutes until we realized we were agreeing with each other and just saying the same thing in different words. We used to scare my sister Izzy and my friends because they would think we were fighting but really she just taught me to be passionate like her about what I believed.
When my mom came to the U.S. her father told her that he had lost her and she would never go back. She told him he was crazy and that she was just going to work as a nanny and take English classes and would be back soon. She met my father and everything about her life changed and her father was right, she stayed.
The other day our dad said that he was always so impressed and so proud of her for what she accomplished, coming to the US without speaking English and making it to where she did. Izzy and I are so lucky that we had our mother and father as parents, who unlike other divorced parents always truly cared so deeply for each other that we all remained a very close knit family.
Mi mama fue alguien con quien todo el mundo se enamoraba con solo conocerla. Hizo sentir a todos que eran importantes y felices. En su presencia todos se reían y bailaban y reían y bailaban. Creo que mi mama es la persona mas hermosa que todos aquí hemos conocido y somos todos mas hermosas con solo haberla conocido.
My mom was someone that everyone fell in love with after meeting her. She made everyone feel important and happy. In her company everyone laughed and danced and laughed and danced. I think my mom is the most beautiful person that everyone here has ever met and we are all more beautiful just from having met her.
by Carmen Fleming ’10, Juana’s Daughter
...
Lo que viví toda esta semana no tiene nombre ni palabras. Por eso fue tan difícil tejer el manto delgadisimo y frágil que quise venir a compartir hoy con todos porque a todos nosotros pertenece. La red de protección que es el amor de los otros por mí, por ti, por ustedes, por ellos, hasta convertírsenos en amor de nosotros por nosotros.
Gracias de todo corazón... Roto.
Finalmente para dar remate a la más tierna ceremonia que los vivos pueden hacer por los muertos - recordarlos que significa literalmente “volverlos a pasar por el corazón”- subieron Isabel y Carmen, la verdadera sangre viva de Juana, su verdadera mirada y su verdadera sonrisa hecha dos seres humanos. Subieron a decirnos con muchas historias y pocas palabras que son ella, que ellas son su madre - la más amada, la más admirada, la mejor del mundo- y que en ellas perdura nuestra Janita, aquella bendecida por todos los dones y todas las virtudes que hoy perduran porque Juana es Isabel y Juana es Carmen, e Isabel y Carmen están salvando siempre a su madre por ellas y por nosotros.
Y así llegó a su final lo que será el principio de nuestra vida. Nuestro “sin ti” , que es el larguísimo porvenir, pero “con nosotros”, que es el presente y que ya está aquí.
Qué puedo decirte, Jana mía. Voy a ser tú, voy a intentar ser tú, yo, como tus hijas, voy a emprender la increíble e imposible tarea de multiplicarte.
by Visting Lecturer Ricardo Chávez Castañeda, Juana’s Partner
...
No le puedo escribir cartas
porque en la muerte no hay dirección.
Ayer para clase (como si hoy
o mañana nos importaran las clases)
leí una flor amarilla. Los árboles
eran chispas bajo la lluvia y hoy
lloramos por ella.
Juana nunca volverá a verse
en autobús, sudando, la línea 95.
Todos somos inmortales pero
ella fue mortal. We’re never too grown
to stop growing but what if we just
stop.
No creo en el cielo y de hecho
prefiero imaginarla en la biblioteca
de Babel (Borges, sé que por el velo
me puedes escuchar). En el laberinto
en las estanterías infinitas
se sienta tranquilamente en un sillón.
Sabe que un día vendrá la locura
para comernos crudos, salados,
más lindos que lo rojo en una capilla.
Yo soy joven y torpe y no sé
que tipo de flores llevan al velorio.
Pensaba rosas pero ahora
girasoles que brillan hasta morir.
by Hayley Jones ’18.5, Juana’s Student
...
Eso que acabas de leer es una juanería.
Juanerías. Juanerías extremendas. Juana es de Extremadura. Extremeña. Y bien sabemos, es tremenda. Extremenda.
Gestos excéntricos, salados, brillantes.
Bailar vestida de rojo, con la mano en alto, curveando la muñeca, su cuerpo esbelto y grácil. Sonreír como nadie.
Llenar de flores la casa de la amiga que sufre por sus seres queridos. Repartir abanicos a las chicas guapas.
Saber la importancia del contacto. Aplicarlo sin hacer cuentas. A alumnos, a colegas, a amigos. Sea políticamente correcto o no.
Insistir en cuidarnos, y bueno, por desgracia, no siempre cuidarse muy bien.
Defender a quienes lo necesitan, arriesgue lo que se arriesgue. Hace meses en Crossroads café, rodeada de estudiantes que habían protestado racismo e injusticia. Estudiantes investigados porque le habían gritado al racista. Ante la noción de que gritar es peor que cuestionar la humanidad de alguien, qué hizo Juana? Gritar. Es una juanería.
Qué es la ética, sino abrazar al débil, ver su dolor, la injusticia, y nombrarlos en voz alta? En voz muy alta.
Cariño: Manejar horas y horas al hospital Dana Farber, tomar la mano de nuestra amiga Ana. Hacerla reír con chismes y gracias mientras le metían la quimio en el sillón de los venenos.
Subirse a un estrado como éste—es decir, a este estrado, y dirigirse a un público como éste que lloraba a nuestra Ana, la primera chica guapa que se fue. Con su vestido rojo y unos tacones tan altos que Ricardo le dio el brazo, no fuera que tropezara al bajar.
Saben que Juana era ombudsman del profesorado? Ahora no tenemos ombudsman.
Juanerías. Juana es todo eso. No es una santa. Es una persona que iba y venía por el mundo, repartiendo abrazos ante el dolor, el dolor que terco la rondaba. Repartiendo el antídoto: besos y abrazos y cariños.
Juana dio y dio y dio. Intuía que la vida no podía durar mucho viviéndola de juanería en juanería. Que la vida se va gastando al vivirla. le decíamos que no, que claro que no. que mientras más das más tienes.
Aquí estamos. ¿Y tú, extremenda?
Pues no sé a dónde huyes, ni sé a dónde voy,
¡tú que lo supiste!
by Professor of Spanish Gloria Estela González Zenteno
(11/01/17 8:59pm)
As Middlebury’s board of trustees convened inside Old Chapel on Thursday, Oct. 19, members of the college community rallied outside to renew a years-long call for the college to divest from fossil fuels.
The event, described as a teach-in, was organized by the student group Divest Middlebury. Scheduled to coincide with the trustees’ annual fall meeting, the event featured speeches by three students and three community members.
“The place we love is not behaving in the way that we need it to behave,” said Bill McKibben, an environmental activist and scholar at the college, who headlined the event. “It’s not a very hard thing that we’re asking.”
Divest Middlebury calls for the college’s board of trustees to withdraw all investments that the college holds in any of the top 200 fossil fuel corporations—a ranking maintained by the environmental advocacy group Fossil Free. The college’s endowment, managed by the firm Investure, currently invests $60 million in corporations on that list.
The Divest Middlebury campaign began in 2012, and the board of trustees voted against divestment that same year. A resolution supporting divestment was passed by the Student Government Association (SGA) in 2013, and a 2017 SGA survey showed that 67% of the student body supports divestment.
Alec Fleischer ’20.5 delivered the first student speech, providing an overview of the divestment movement and its goals. Fleischer then led the crowd in a chant of “Stand up, fight back,” intending to be heard by the trustees inside Old Chapel.
Esteban Arenas-Pino ’18 spoke next, focusing on Middlebury’s history of student protest.
“In May 1969, 250 students staged a sit-in in Coltrane to demand the faculty take a position on the role of ROTC on campus and the dissolution of the department of military science,” he said. “Clearly, since then, the campus legacy has been one of activism.”
Arenas-Pino framed divestment as a matter of social justice, calling for the end of “carbon colonialism and the modern climate apartheid that renders those in the global south the most vulnerable to climate injustices caused by global warming.”
Emma Ronai-Durning ’18.5 voiced similar sentiments. “Divestment has called attention to the essential connections between capitalism and racism in creating climate destruction,” she said.
“[The trustees] missed an opportunity to be leaders in environmental justice, climate justice and what they claim they stand for,” she said. “Today, as the board continues to hide behind its guise of neutrality, students haven’t taken no for an answer. We see that there is only one answer: that’s organizing.”
Non-student speakers focused on the impacts of climate change already being felt in Addison County. “It poured rain for three months here,” said Fran Putnam, a Weybridge resident. “The farmers who normally plant their corn the middle of May, they planted their corn on July 6.”
McKibben discussed the trustees’ past failure to divest, and the movement’s continued importance.
“I had high hopes so that Middlebury could be the first place to divest, and we really had it lined up. It was great, everybody here talking” he said. “Sadly, Middlebury whiffed. The trustees weren’t quite up to it then, couldn’t bring themselves to do it.”
McKibben emphasized that the growing renewable energy sector, in conjunction with an unstable fossil fuel industry, makes divestment an economically sound choice. “We’re moving away from fossil fuels. That’s the past, not the future,” he said.
“It behooves, in this place in particular, the board of trustees to pay some attention to the moral authority of the people who will have to live through the crises that we are now creating,” he said, invoking the elder generations of which he and many trustees are a part. “We’re going to be dead before climate change hits at its absolute worst.”
The crowd at the protest matched the leaves on the trees, wearing the orange that has come to symbolize the divest movement. Despite the blustery weather, attendance exceeded one hundred students.
Bea Lee ’20.5 was one of them. “I want to do more than wear a piece of orange felt on my backpack,” she said.
(11/01/17 6:34pm)
In the quarterfinal round of the 2017 Nescac Championship this past Saturday, October 28, the Middlebury women’s soccer team fell to the Hamilton Continentals in a hard-fought 1–0 defensive battle. The Panthers came into the first-round game as the number three seed in the tournament, the Continentals as the number six; earlier in the season on September 17, the two teams had played out a 1–1 double-overtime tie. However, Hamilton’s victory this time around bounced the Panthers from the tournament, leaving them to wait until next Monday, Nov. 6 to hear if they’ll receive an at-large bid for the NCAA tournament.
Head coach Peter Kim gave credit where credit was due in assessing the match. “On Saturday we played against a strong defensive team,” he said. “Going down a goal early in the game meant that we had to chase the game for 87 minutes, but we did create a enough chances to at least tie the game. However, we didn’t capitalize on the clear-cut opportunities to score, and turned the ball over unnecessarily throughout the match.”
As Kim alluded, the Continentals took advantage of a misplayed ball in the Middlebury penalty area to score just 2:28 into the first period. The rest of the half was relatively evenly matched as both teams did their best to create scoring chances, the Panthers firing off seven more shots to Hamilton’s four. In the 32nd minute, midfielder Virginia Charman ’20 had a well-placed shot on goal from about 15 yards out that the Continental keeper managed to knock away with a diving save.
Eager to make up ground, Middlebury came out on the attack in the second period, and the record showed it: their ten shot attempts to the Continentals’ four in the half was a good indicator of their control in terms of possession. Charman had another good scoring opportunity that she just barely failed to convert, her header caught by the Hamilton goalie. Later, as the clock wound down, the Panthers had one last scoring opportunity when Clare Robinson ’19 sent a header just right of the goal on a set piece. At the final buzzer, the score still stood at 1–0 in Hamilton’s favor.
This game was an especially tough one for the Panthers, especially in comparison to their stunning victory over Williams the week prior. The Ephs had come into that contest ranked third in the nation; the Panthers, coming off a 5-0 drubbing of Bates just a few days before, couldn’t have cared less as they secured a 1–0 victory.
“We actually should have scored two against Williams,” said Kim, “as we were inexplicably denied a penalty kick after Ellie [Greenberg ’20] was hauled down in the box while on a breakaway. Our possession wasn’t great in that game, but that was partly due to the crazy weather conditions.
“On Saturday [against Hamilton], however, turnovers and failure to capitalize on goal-scoring opportunities ultimately led to our demise.”
Moving forward, Middlebury will hope for an at-large bid to the 64-team NCAA national championship tournament, to be decided by the selection committee next Monday; in the meantime, they’ll remain at home while the Nescac tournament wraps up next weekend in Williamstown, Mass.
That’s not to say that the Panthers will just be sitting around, though. Captain Alissa Huntington ’18 explained that Middlebury will prepare with every expectation of being included in the NCAA tourney. “We’ll continue to train in hopes of seeing the results we want,” she said. “We’re really hopeful, and right now all that we can do is keep the mentality that our season will continue and try to fix the issues that hurt us in the Nescac tournament.
“If we get a second chance, I think the most important part is taking on each game of the tournament knowing it could be the last of our season, or for the seniors, our college careers.”
(10/19/17 1:05am)
Last week, former Congressman Barney Frank (D-MA) and former Governor John Sununu (R-NH) and chief of staff to President George H.W. Bush, came to campus for a conversation entitled, “Finding Common Ground for Economic Opportunity in the Trump Era.” (For coverage of the event, click here). Following the event, Frank and Sununu sat down with The Campus for an interview, which has been lightly edited for clarity.
Middlebury Campus (MC): Last March, in the room we were just in, students here protested a speech by Charles Murray, preventing him from speaking. This is something we've seen around the country—what are your general thoughts on college campuses shutting down speakers?
John Sununu (JS): The biggest problem in America today.
Barney Frank (BF): I don’t think it’s the biggest problem in America, but it’s outrageous. First, from a standpoint of individual rights and civil liberties, it’s wrong, morally wrong—that’s not the way you want a democracy. Secondly, it is particularly disturbing because it intrudes on the function of a university, which should be where people learn. Third, it bothers me politically. I don’t want to make that an important reason, because it’s wrong whether it’s helpful [politically] or not, but it’s totally counterproductive. These are people on the left who could not be giving the right a bigger gift; they could not be doing more to empower right-wingers.
This is an argument I’ve been having with a lot of people for 50 years. In the ‘60s when there was excessive violence in African-American communities and in Vietnam, Richard Nixon and Spiro Agnew made great hay off of that, so it’s politically counterproductive in that sense. Finally, it’s very shortsighted for people who are members of vulnerable minorities. Yeah, on campus the pro-LGBT position and the pro-African American position might be in the majority. But in the broader society that isn’t always gonna be the case. For LGBT people in particular, to reaffirm the principle that if a conversation upsets people you shouldn’t have it, is an attitude I’ve been fighting all my life about my rights.
JS: The reason I think it’s the biggest problem, or one of the biggest problems, is because it’s producing a generation of young people who are on campus and who will be leaving campus who, in my opinion, are being encouraged by a lot of faculty members to feel that the First Amendment is not an appropriate right in this country. To me, none of the other rights work without First Amendment rights.
MC: What might be the causes of this phenomenon? Is it reflected in our political climate, as exhibited in Congress?
BF: I don’t know. Some of it is because of economic disadvantage, but that’s not the case here—these are not people, on the whole, who are economically disadvantaged. I’m skeptical of my ability to explain why it happened, because if I knew why it happened, maybe I would’ve known it was gonna happen. But I suppose there is one argument that I’ve heard that I totally reject—I’ve heard it from those Antifa people, who are especially obnoxious and who are themselves dangerous—that there is a danger that fascism is gonna take over. That isn’t remotely the case and even if it was, the [proper] targets are not the ones they deal with. So I do not know why we have this outbreak.
JS: I’m not sure I understand it either. Some of it is related to the point I tried to make [during the event]: that technology has permitted people to isolate themselves with others that are completely in accord with them, and give them a feeling that they don’t have to hand shouldn’t exchange ideas with other. We’ll have to see how far this thing does, but I would really urge conservatives, liberals, progressives, everybody of every philosophy, to understand the point the congressman made upstairs: that constructive discourse is necessary in a democracy.
BF: It bothers me too, because I want to make change. I want people to go out and vote and throw out the bad people and put in better people and then put pressure on them to do the right thing. The problem in part is people think, having done that, that they’ve done something for the cause. “Hey, I made America better for LGBT people by shouting down a bigot!” That doesn’t do me a goddamn bit of good. It’s an easy way out. If you really don’t like these people, get out there. Write letters, call talk shows, get on social media and make your arguments with people.
MC: This is a very liberal institution, and a lot of people here come from very liberal places. When you come to an institution that reaffirms the beliefs you’ve held all your life, how do you go about challenging yourself? How do you, as lifelong members of one political party, keep challenging yourself?
JS: Read, read, read. There’s some great authors out there. Read both sides.
BF: Find some people, go listen to them speaking, even if it’s not on campus. I wouldn’t recommend watching TV—with rare exceptions, TV people promote fighting and squabbling.
MC: Here at the college, many folks with conservative views feel silenced, as though if they express their viewpoints, other students will attack them. What would your advice be to young conservative students?
BF: Get over it. Do people still say, “Sticks and stones may break my bones but names will never hurt me?” Call me a name, so what? Sununu and I have been getting called names for a living for a very long time. I would say just don’t take it to heart, don’t take these people seriously.
JS: It’s hard to do that, especially if you’re afraid of retribution from faculty. But Barney’s right—either believe in what you believe in enough to not hide it, or go somewhere else. If enough go somewhere else, maybe the institution will learn something’s wrong. Institutions have a responsibility, and in a constructive way, [students should] urge more of the kind of stuff we had tonight.
MC: Congressman Frank, during the talk, you referenced the lack of political participation in the U.S., especially in primaries. This plagues the Democratic Party in particular. Aside from reminding people of the value of voting, what kind of role does the party have in maximizing turnout?
BF: [The party] can’t take sides, but what it can do and has done is fight very hard against voter suppression. There’s a task force headed by Eric Holder, to fight at the local level against restrictive rules.
JS: Obviously I don’t agree with the congressman on that. To answer your question about what the party can do: it’s hard for the party in primaries because it doesn’t want to be perceived as favoring somebody and it doesn’t take much of a nuance or slip for that to happen. But there are ways it can fund phonebooks saying to go out and vote; door-knocking, dropping off literature about every candidate in the party. That’s what the party can do. But in primaries it’s really up to the candidates—they’re the ones receiving the contributions, they’re the ones urging people to get out, and it’s up to them to get support.
BF: You can have much more influence with your peers than we can, when you’re of that age. There are advocacy groups—part of their work is to make a list of everyone and tell them to go vote. People should not exaggerate the role of the parties. I’ve had people complain to me that “The Democratic National Committee rigged the nomination for Hillary Clinton.” My answer is, the Democratic National Committee couldn’t put out a fire in a bathtub. They just don’t have that kind of power.
MC: You talked about the role of the party; do you think there’s a need for a 3rd, 4th, 5th party?
BF: You know that story, there’s a guy next to a girl, he has his hands around her, and he says, “I wish I was an octopus so I could put 8 arms around you.” And she says, “You ain’t using the two you got!” You’re not doing what you want with what you have! The parties are not monoliths.
JS: You don’t want to get European, where you give leverage to some group that—
BF: And why would you want to start a new party? If you have enough votes to win in a new party, go vote in primaries and take over an existing one. The parties are not monoliths. And a third party, what would it be for?
MC: Well, thinking of the divide between Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton—
BF: So you think it would be better to have two parties? In terms of what is achievable in the U.S. Congress in the foreseeable future, there’s no practical difference. Neither one of them could give you all of what you want; people are fighting about unrealism. So let me put it this way: if people want to start a third party to the left, the Republicans would be delighted; if the Republicans wanted to start one to the right, the Democrats would be delighted.
JS: I just think a two-party system serves the country well. You may think it’s broke, but it ain’t broke.
(10/18/17 11:48pm)
MIDDLEBURY — Gun control in Vermont has always existed as an anomaly of legislation in comparison to the state’s otherwise progressive stance. During the 2016 presidential election, in a survey by The New York Times, Vermont was the only state where the majority of gun owners voted for the Democratic candidate. Indeed, the confluence of a rural landscape and progressive ideals has led state politicians to hold a distinctively centrist position when it comes to gun reform.
The mass shooting at the country music festival in Las Vegas on Oct. 1 has again ignited the debate around gun control in Vermont. A Vermont native, 35-year-old Sandra Casey of Dorset, was among the 58 victims killed in Las Vegas. In Washington, lawmakers are focusing on a deadly gun accessory known as the bump stock, which was used in the Las Vegas massacre. And once again, the Vermont legislature has taken up the thorny issue of the state’s gun laws.
Unknown to many at the college, students are allowed to bring their own personal firearms onto campus. Students need to register their guns with the Department of Public Safety, where they are kept under lock and key. But students can check out their weapons for hunting and other related activities whenever they wish.
Vermont law does not require a permit for shotguns, handguns or rifles, and therefore there are no additional proofs of permit required by Public Safety to keep a firearm of this nature on campus. Similar to the dualism present in the state, Middlebury’s crunchy campus also has a group of students who value having access to their firearms while at school.
“There are a small number of students, fewer than, 20, who store a weapon to participate in hunting or related activities,” Dan Gaiotti, associate director of Public Safety, said. According to article C.6. in the College Handbook, weapons are prohibited on campus. However, students are allowed to check out their guns from Public Safety for the activities listed above.
Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders has engaged in the debate surrounding gun control before, often taking an uncharacteristically conservative stance. After the Sandy Hook massacre, he argued in a statement, “If you passed the strongest gun control legislation tomorrow, I don’t think it will have a profound effect on the tragedies we have seen.”
The difference in the Las Vegas shooting is a firearm accessory that has become a flashpoint in the debate on Capitol Hill over the last few weeks. The “fire bump stock,” or bump stock, is an add-on for semi-automatic weapons to enable them to more closely resemble a fully automatic firearm. A dozen were found in the hotel room of the Las Vegas shooter.
Both Republican and Democratic Congressmen have proposed bills that would ban the production and distribution of bump stocks. Although the National Rifle Association initially backed such a ban, the organization announced on Oct. 13 that it did not support the proposed bills. The N.R.A. cited ripple effect on other firearm accessories for its about-face on a bump stock ban. The group also said it hoped that bump stocks could be addressed through regulation, instead of law, by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms (ATF).
Although the partisan divide remains, both sides are narrowing in on necessary reform. At a news conference on Oct. 4, Sanders stressed the need for immediate gun reform. “While it is too late for the victims in Las Vegas, and the victims in Newtown, and the victims in Charleston, and the other terrible shootings we have seen, it is not too late to prevent the next set of innocent Americans from becoming victims,” he said.
In contrast to other shootings, the emergence of the bump stock with the Las Vegas massacres has given representatives a tangible point of reform. The ATF does not see things as clearly. Bump stocks were approved by the agency prior to the mass shooting, and now legislators are scrambling to figure out how and why.
House Speaker Paul Ryan has asked the ATF to provide an explanation for the allowance of bump stocks. During a weekly news conference on Capitol Hill, Ryan called for a regulatory regulation of the automatic accessories, as opposed to a legislative one, enraging Representatives who believe a vote should be brought to the House.
“That’s really just a way of saying they don’t want to stand up and be counted on the question of whether bump stocks should be illegal,” Vermont Rep. Peter Welch (D) said in an interview for Vermont Public Radio. “And it mystifies me, really, because fully automatic weapons are appropriate in combat, [but] they’re illegal in civilian life, they’re illegal.”
The waning fervor surrounding gun reform, only weeks after Las Vegas’s mass shooting, has prompted states to take the debate of bump stocks upon themselves. Last Thursday, the state Senate in Massachusetts voted 33–0 to ban the sale and possession of bump stocks and other accessories that allow firearms to mimic the rapidity of automatic weapons. A day earlier, the Massachusetts House approved the bump stock ban 151–3, leaving the bill ready for the signature of Republican Gov. Charlie Baker. He had already agreed to approve the ban if it passed both the House and Senate.
Rep. Peter Welch (D-VT) has joined forces with Senators Patrick Leahy and Bernie Sanders to back comprehensive federal gun reform in the aftermath of Las Vegas. But at this point, it is unclear whether the elected officials will follow the sovereign route forged by Massachusetts, or will continue pressing Rep. Ryan in the House to allow a vote on the matter.
(10/18/17 11:42pm)
MIDDLEBURY — At a public hearing hosted by the Vermont Climate Action Commission in Brattleboro on Thursday, Oct. 5, Middlebury students joined community members to discuss solutions to reduce carbon emissions and fight climate change. Many solutions were proposed, including incentivizing renewables, divestment from fossil fuel companies and government subsidies of weatherization, with carbon pricing being the most popular.
“It really struck me to get to hear from Vermonters because you realize that all of these issues are impacting their lives and the things that they care about,” Oscar Psychas ’21 said about his experience at the hearing. “One thing I love about Vermont is that people are really civically engaged — they really care about making a positive difference in the government. I think it’s an exciting opportunity if Middlebury can be a part of that Vermont community and democratic spirit to take part in finding solutions to these important issues.”
For Vermont, a state reliant on agriculture, addressing these issues is all the more urgent. Following President Trump’s withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement, many institutions, states and countries have agreed to continue to try to meet carbon emission reduction goals.
Vermont is a part of these ranks. Governor Phil Scott (R) signed Executive Order No. 12-17 in July 2017, creating the Vermont Climate Action Commission (VCAC) as a part of his commitment to reduce the state’s carbon emissions. The VCAC aims to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in a way that will boost the economy and affect all Vermonters equally.
Although the carbon pricing initiative proved popular among residents, Gov. Scott has rejected the proposal. In a statement from September, Gov. Phil Scott said “I will veto a carbon tax if it comes to my desk because we cannot make Vermont more affordable by making it less affordable.” He also said that “real solutions will strengthen the economy and not add to the crisis of affordability many families and business are facing.”
Many agree with the governor that carbon pricing would negatively affect Vermont residents, citing higher gas prices as a concern.
Bennett Pienkowski ’20.5 explained another perspective: “Carbon pricing will be a net positive for the economy of Vermont because it is a potentially revenue-neutral campaign that will help us reduce emissions. The thought being that if you raise the price on carbon, we will spend less on carbon, and then less money will leave the state in the form of fossil fuel revenues. The money that doesn’t leave the state is going to be spent locally.”
Bennington College student Sabrina Melendez explained this idea further in an interview for VTDigger. “[Revenue-neutral] means taxing carbon emissions of fossil fuel companies at the extraction and distribution level and returning that money to the people of Vermont to make up for higher gas prices,” she said.
According to the Manchester Journal, although the ‘listening tour’ held by the Climate Action Commission has received praise, many are urging Gov. Scott to take the next step and uphold his commitment to the reduction of carbon emissions by supporting a carbon tax in Vermont.
At the Snow Bowl Family Bash on Saturday, Oct. 14, students hosted an educational booth in order to spread the word about the carbon pricing initiative at Middlebury. Leif Taranta ’20.5, a student who worked at the booth, shared some thoughts about the effort.
“We must live in occurrence with the values that we put forth. Middlebury is proud to have a carbon neutral campus and to model environmental sustainability, yet we still have harmful carbon emissions. There are many ways to take responsibility including divestment from fossil fuel companies and investment in renewables, but carbon pricing is one concrete, localized step we can take now, especially because we cannot count on the federal government to take action against climate change,” he said.
In addition to supporting the initiative on a state level, students at the Snow Bowl advocated for localized carbon pricing within Middlebury College.
“For the rest of the semester we’re going to be collecting signatures and getting people excited about supporting a carbon price on campus so that we’re upholding our own commitment to sustainability,” said Psychas. “That carbon price is not going to be coming out of the pockets of students, faculty or staff of the college.” President Laurie Patton has agreed to endorse the petition if enough signatures from the student body are collected, he said.
“We’re a leading education institution, maybe the leading educational institution in the state, and so I think when we take action, especially in such a small state, it sets a tone,” Pienkowski said. “And so if we institute our own carbon charge and get President Laurie Patton to support it, that says a lot.”
The Sunday Night Group, a group that focuses on environmental problems and awareness on campus, particularly climate activism, will be hosting more events in the coming weeks. On Thursday, Oct. 19, at 4:30 p.m. in front of Old Chapel, they will be teaching about divestment, another important step that Middlebury can take towards combating climate change and protecting the environment.
(10/18/17 11:23pm)
Former House of Representative member Barney Frank (D–MA) sat down with former New Hampshire governor John Sununu (R) last Wednesday to discuss the status of economic opportunity in the Trump era. Gail Chaddock, the former political editor for the Christian Science Monitor, moderated their discussion.
Sponsored by the Common Ground Committee and the Christian Science Monitor, the discussion was part of a series called “Critical Conversations,” an initiative started the college in response to the political events that occurred last spring. Its mission is to emphasize Middlebury’s commitment to free expression and inclusivity while promoting better arguments with greater respect.
The conversation, titled “Find Common Ground for Economic Opportunity in the Trump Era,” focused on four main topics: jobs and growth, economic opportunity and the social safety net, taxes and regulations, and immigration. Throughout the discussion, the two politicians emphasized the importance of maintaining civility during a time of increasing political polarization.
“The process of arguing and disagreeing is essential to democracy and to finding the right answer,” Frank said.
Both politicians blamed the proliferation of technology and the wide-spread use of social media for causing the current political climate.
“Because of today’s technology, people only talk to others whom they know have the same political beliefs. This promotes a cluster of sameness and creates a climate in this country that dissuades confrontation,” Sununu said.
Both men used this conversation to criticize the media — saying the media only covers the negative aspects of government and ignores the positives. Frank said this focus on negativity makes bipartisan cooperation increasingly difficult.
“When you compromise, you are the traitor,” Frank said. Both politicians emphasized a need for the media to find a balance between holding the government accountable and praising their successes.
In terms of economic policy, the two did not disagree on specific issues but instead they emphasized different aspects of the economy they deemed most important. Sununu highlighted the need to encourage capital investment on U.S. soil.
“The government needs to create incentives for companies to repatriate jobs here,” he said. “Democrats and Republicans need to come together for tax bill that has incentives while protecting the middle class.”
He added a need for the tax reform bill to include a way for the three to five trillion dollars in companies overseas to come back the U.S. economy.
Although Frank praised trade and capital investment, he put more emphasis on the need for equity.
“We make money by selling things to other countries. It’s a mistake we’ve made a push for trade yet we fail to compensate those people who are hurt by trade,” Frank said. “Trade does not offset the benefits between winners and losers. It multiplies the benefits for the winners, and the losers are the same.”
Both men condemned what they saw as President Trump’s inability to produce a coherent agenda — Frank going as far as to refer to Trump as “the insulter-and-chief,” but also they praised him for starting a dialogue about the need for countries who participate in NATO to pay their fair share.
Their discussion turned to Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), which allows undocumented immigrants who arrived in the U.S. as children to apply to remain in the country. Both criticized President Trump unfavorable view of the policy.
“People whom were brought here without being asked should be allowed to live here and become citizens,” Frank said.
Sununu added that DACA was a potential cornerstone of cooperation for Congress, saying that this policy was the perfect opportunity for the two parties to reach across the aisle and begin compromising.
The conversation ended with both men emphasizing the most effective way for students to bring about change in the government was trust in the political system.
“It’s important to participate in the process and stay with it even if things don’t happen quickly,” Sununu said. “Keep participating and don’t get frustrated. The system was designed to be hard to change major policy.”
Frank stressed the need to vote against obstructionist politicians in order for more legislation to be passed.
“Primary elections have more of an effect on politics than final elections. Refusing to vote in the primary perpetuates extremists in politics,” he said.
The audience had mixed opinions on the discussion.
“I appreciated their perspective and their history having both worked in Congress for so long and how, as representatives of two different parties, they were able to forge compromises and have substantive discussions” said Margie Harris, a visitor from Portland, Oregon, in town to see the leaves change colors.
Jackie McMakin, a local resident of Middlebury, said, “It’s enlightening and refreshing to hear a Democrat and a Republican spark each other to go deeper and to create value for the country.”
But to some of the students in attendance the conversations centered too much on the importance of respectful dialogue during confrontation, which some students felt ultimately detracted from the over all content of the debate.
“They were too focused on civility so they ended up not having any substantive debate over policy,” Avery Dyer ’21 said.
David Rigas ’21 agreed with Dyer. “They emphasized the importance of disagreement, but it kind of seemed like they agreed on everything,” he said.
The next event in the Critical Conversations series will take place on Thursday, Oct. 26, at 7 p.m. in Wilson Hall. It is titled “How I Shed My Skin: Unlearning the Racist Lessons of a Southern Childhood.”
(10/18/17 11:08pm)
Millennials. Everyone hates us.
Our propensity for arrogance and merciless decimation knows no bounds. Industries, products and practices we’ve “killed” — according to the internet — include: beer, Buffalo Wild Wings, Applebee’s, golf, cars, home ownership, Harley Davidson, the 9 to 5 workweek, focus groups, dinner dates, cruises, department stores, Home Depot, relationships, “the running trend,” wine, McDonalds, crowdfunding, credit, J. Crew, love, diamonds, bar soap, lunch, vacations, the Toyota Scion, fabric softener, Canadian tourism, light yogurt, hotels, marmalade, cereal, The American Dream, loyalty programs, loyalty, and napkins.
If you type “Why are millennials . . .” into Google search, here are the top 7 autofill (aka, most commonly searched) results:
Why are millennials lazy
Why are millennials so liberal
Why are millennials hated
Why are millennials so depressed
Why are millennials so poor
Why are millennials leaving the church
Why are millennials so stressed
If you type “Why are millennials so…” into Google search, the autofill results are, well, even worse:
Why are millennials so liberal
Why are millennials so depressed
Why are millennials so poor
Why are millennials so stressed
Why are millennials so broke
Why are millennials so rude
Why are millennials so sensitive
Why are millennials so weird
Why are millennials so anxious
Why are millennials so stupid
If you’re a millennial and you’re reading this, you’ve probably heard at least one older person bash our generation. I’m particularly curious about the effect this has on a college campus. Our professors chose to work with young adults; they are surrounded by roughly 2,400 millennials daily. Over the next few weeks, I will interview professors in various departments about their impressions of millennials. Will they admit that they hate us? That they like us? Either way, why?
Which, I think, leads to an even more important question about millennial-bashing: is this sh*t okay? What are the consequences of generalizing, infantilizing and demonizing young people at every turn? What contrasts are other generations trying to create by framing their actions in opposition to ours?
I’ll hold off on telling you what I think. You’ll have to wait until I’m on the brink of graduation for that — plus, can’t you guess? Tune in next week for my first interview. I’ll try not to kill anything in the meantime.
Sara Hodgkins is an Opinion editor of this paper.
(10/11/17 10:56pm)
The Student Government Association (SGA) and Director of Food Services Dan Detora have continued to collaborate on changes to the dining halls in response to student feedback to the SGA’s dining survey. Though the survey left them sifting through widespread criticism of the new swipe system, SGA senators and Detora have immediately addressed other concerns through the introduction of several new offerings in the dining halls.
The SGA sent students a survey via email on Sept. 20, seeking opinions about the changes to the dining system implemented at the start of this semester. SGA senators Maryam Mahboob ’18 and Hannah Pustejovsky ’18 shared the survey results with the Campus. Respondents heavily criticized the swipe system, per these few examples.
“Make it faster! It's the 21st century, iIPhones are recognizing faces now, but we can't get this system to work faster?,” one respondent wrote.
In addition to the speed of the swiping sensors, students criticized the system’s effects on the logistics of leaving and re-entering the dining halls.
“It makes leaving and re-entering (even to return dishes) inconvenient. I am concerned that guests no longer have access to a main social space on campus,” another wrote.
Other students demonstrated concern for the system’s potential influence on campus culture and identity.
“Having open dining halls was an intrinsic part of the school's identity. It is something that was advertised to us as prospective students as an essential part of the Middlebury community,” one student wrote.
Mahboob and Pustejovsky sent the survey to students before a meeting between members of the SGA and Detora on Sept. 22. Mahboob and Pustejovsky next sent a school-wide email on Oct. 1, describing the main takeaways of the the survey results, their meeting with Detora and their plans to address students’ concerns.
“The dining survey that we sent out two weeks ago might have been the highest answered survey that we have ever sent, with over 1,100 answers,” the senators wrote. “Based on your responses, the main Dining suggestions are: 1) abolish the swipe system, 2) faster swipe system and shorter lines, 3) bring back to-go cups and 4) less allergens/dietary restrictions in food.”
The email explicitly stated that the swipe system will remain indefinitely.
“After our meeting with Head of Dining Dan Detora and VP of Finance David Provost, it became clear that the swipe system is here to stay,” Pustejovsky and Mahboob wrote.
The senators are looking into adjustments to help combat long lines. Members of the SGA met with Detora to strategize ways to improve line flow, but Pustejovsky cited the layout of the dining halls as an obstacle.
“I met with Dan Detora to do a walk through of both dining halls, and although we made minor superficial changes to the placement of things like the silverware, the buildings are simply poorly designed for this new system. I have a meeting with David Provost this upcoming Tuesday to hopefully discuss what the budget looks like in terms of future remodeling and other space usage on campus,” she said.
The fact that students have similar class and eating schedules also limits what the SGA and dining services can do.
“We are also looking at perhaps meeting with the Registrar’s office to discuss changes in the class schedule. As of the past few weeks, we feed 1,400 people on Tuesday/Thursday at 12:15, which is pretty unsustainable in terms of the size of our dining halls and the lines,” she said.
Despite widespread criticism of the swipe system among students, Mahboob and Pustejovsky maintain the importance of the system’s role in cutting costs and combatting food waste. The senators said that data regarding cost and waste will be available and shared with The Campus around the middle of the semester.
The removal of to-go cups was a temporary concern of survey participants, as the cups have already been reintroduced. However, a different type of to-go cup may be offered in the future.
“To-go cups were taken away because they do not compost well and pose a significant disposable waste issue for the college. Dining wants students to use their own cups to help prevent waste, but they may also consider a new type of cup,” the senators wrote.
Concrete efforts have already been made to meet demands for more options for students with allergies and dietary restrictions.
“Dining is thinking about a way to section off a part of the kitchen to accommodate a nut-free panini machine. It will have to be sectioned off, in order to prevent students from using it with nut products, so only students who really need to use it have access. I think we need to prioritize accommodating students with allergies and dietary restrictions, religious or otherwise,” Mahboob said.
The senators are excited about the arrival of several new items, and see these additions as part of a long term effort to provide better and more accommodating dining options.
“We are collaborating with the dining hall to introduce new delicacies on campus, such as Nutella,” the senators wrote.
“It's a process, and step by step we are making progress,” Mahboob said.
“Besides Nutella, you may have noticed that Dining has introduced vegan ice cream! Ross has gained a spice rack, and I believe both Ross and Proctor have added a greater variety of nuts and seeds, such as pumpkin seeds,” Mahboob said. The senators also announced that the three dining halls will be stocked with the same set of spices and condiments.
Mahboob and Pustejovsky addressed other immediate concerns mentioned in the survey, noting that skim milk should be available in every dining hall. If it is not in the milk dispenser, it should be stocked in the small fridges. After a hiatus, the waffle machines have been reintroduced, and the dining halls are currently in the process of offering three distinct menus as well.
“There will be no overnight fixes, but we are committed to working with the administration until we are able to obtain the best results we can for the Middlebury community,” the senators said.
(10/11/17 10:06pm)
There is nothing more celebrated at Middlebury College than a student-led business venture. Middlebury dedicates an enormous amount of its financial and human resources to entrepreneurship. This meticulously animated video perfectly demonstrates the way our school tries to attract prospective students with its focus on business. About two years ago, Middlebury lauded the emergence of another one of these student-led entrepreneurship projects: Fiasco (then, Late Night Fiasco).
It’s hard to miss the blatant cultural appropriation that characterized this project. In “J-term Gourmet,” another well produced video on Middlebury College’s official Vimeo account, the business’ founder discusses the inspiration and history of Late Night Fiasco — “an after-hours kitchen” serving “globally-influenced street foods”— as he and a friend (also a cis white man) roll up to the Middlebury Food Co-Op in a Subaru SUV where they source their ingredients for an array of dishes “inspired” by cultures from around the world. Since its inception, Fiasco’s menu has included items such as butternut squash pupusas, kimchi pork fried rice burritos, steamed pork buns, grilled avocado tacos, sweet potato tacos and cochinita pibil tacos.
To cite a very relevant article written by Rachel Kuo at Everyday Feminism, “One of the questions that both chefs and diners should ask themselves is, who is laboring and profiting? Where are these recipes from? Who is this cuisine profiting off, but not supporting – a group that is historically and currently oppressed?”
I should not and cannot claim that all students who identify with Salvadoran culture, for example, were similarly outraged at seeing pupusas on Fiasco’s menu (corrected from initial spelling: “papusas”), or that folks who identify with Mexican and/or Korean culture viewed Fiasco’s “kimchi pork fried rice burritos” with similar disdain. What I can attest to, however, is that Fiasco’s culinary colonialism is not at all exceptional. It represents a widespread phenomenon that is particularly visible in many gentrifying cities across the U.S. Monied white people, and particularly white men, have been emerging as pioneers in an increasingly inaccessible industry of gourmet eateries which liberally take culinary traditions from cultures around the world, the territories of which have been colonized or at least occupied by European and/or U.S. powers over the course of history. Similar to the process of colonialism that extracted labor and raw materials from occupied territories, culinary colonialism is largely driven by men. It seems important to emphasize how this problem is gendered because cooking has been consistently devalued over the course of human history when women have been relegated to domestic work. (Of course most domestic work today is still undervalued and made invisible). I would argue that this fusion food is also being grossly overvalued, in part because cis white men are in the kitchen, which, to a white supremacist patriarchal society, seems really exceptional.
Again, I want to return to Rachel Kuo: “Enjoying food from another culture is perfectly fine. But, food is appropriated when people from the dominant culture — in the case of the U.S., white folks — start to fetishize or commercialize it, and when they hoard access to that particular food. When a dominant culture reduces another community to its cuisine, subsumes histories and stories into menu items — when people think culture can seemingly be understood with a bite of food, that’s where it gets problematic.”
The issue of culinary colonialism takes on even more meaning in the context of Middlebury College, an institution which has largely served the interests of white people and of capitalism since its foundation. Most of Middlebury’s student body is white and wealthy. Maybe Fiasco and its success on our campus foreshadows the ways we (particularly white people with class privilege) go out into the “real world” to become gentrifiers. Throughout my time here, I have seen friends and peers leave this campus to settle in cities across the country, which have become sites of displacement on a massive scale for working class people of color.
I think we, particularly people like me who will be leaving this institution with white privilege and class privilege in addition to a powerful diploma, need to be asking ourselves some critical and difficult questions about life after Midd: Is my presence and my money contributing to the displacement of city residents? How can I see myself as an agent in a process that seems much bigger than myself and the decisions I make? Does my comfort come at the expense of other people’s safety? How can I support working POC’s struggle to resist gentrification without stepping on the toes of those most directly impacted?
This article originally appeared on Beyond the Green.
(10/05/17 12:06am)
Students and faculty gathered to listen to the dialogue between Katha Pollitt and Janell Hobson in an event titled “What Can Feminism Speak To?” in Wilson Hall on Wednesday, Sept. 27. The lecture presented the topic of intersectional feminism and the realm of womanhood throughout all aspects of life.
The event, which included a lunch with Pollitt and several students the following day, was sponsored by the president’s office, the feminist studies department and the Chellis House.
Pollitt is a feminist critic and writer of the column “Subject to Debate” for The Nation. Hobson is an associate professor of sexuality at the University of Albany, State University of New York. The talk was hosted and moderated by Middlebury professor Laurie Essig. Throughout the talk, the women touched on intersectional feminism, the 2016 election and feminist celebrities.
Pollitt began the dialogue talking about how essentially everything affects women because women exist in every sphere of life. She mentioned that when she asked women what their preoccupations were, they gave answers such as race, health care, cyber security, Silicon Valley, LGBTQ rights, trans issues and reproductive justice.
On reproductive justice specifically, Pollitt stressed that choice is important, but not enough. She said that women need resources in order to raise children, and that therefore reproductive rights extend beyond pregnancy into motherhood.
“This aspect is not mentioned enough,” Pollitt said, adding that class is often a factor. “Choice is hampered if a woman is poor.” She also pointed out the inherent imbalance in who is responsible for family planning. “Why is it women’s jobs to fix everything?” she said. “I’m still waiting for that big march where men march for birth control for men.”
Hobson agreed with Pollitt that most aspects of life have a gender component. However, she added that feminism should speak to the most marginalized, not just the mainstream. Feminism has traditionally focused on white, middle-class, straight women, making it an exclusive, and therefore hypocritical, advocacy for equality. Hobson added that this focus on white women has created a false competition between white women and men of color, which leaves women of color entirely out of the picture.
“If we start with women at the bottom, think of how all other women are implicated,” Hobson said. “When black women get free, every woman gets free.”
Hobson also talked about women and sexism in politics, touching on the fact that Huma Abedin, vice chair of Clinton’s 2016 campaign, blamed herself for Clinton’s loss because of a sexting scandal involving her now ex-husband, Anthony Wiener. Hobson related this incident to the public’s reaction to the Bill Clinton scandal, for which Hillary was criticized throughout her campaign, and for which Hillary is often still blamed.
Pollitt also expressed the importance of supporting Hillary in the election’s aftermath while the public, including President Trump, continues to attack her.
“I don’t even look at the question ‘if Hillary were a man would she have won?’” Pollitt said. Instead, she says she asks, “If Trump were a woman would he have won? If Trump were a black man would he have gotten anywhere? If Trump were anything but a white man?”
This liberal sentiment won cheers and applause from the audience. But one student, who identified as a woman and a Democrat, expressed a concern that Republican women were excluded from feminism in the current political climate that labels Trump supporters as sexist and misogynist.
“You have to be able to overlook a lot of what Donald Trump said about women in order to vote for him,” Pollitt said in response.
Commenting on the 53 percent of white women voters who voted for Trump, Hobson also discussed the distrust many women of color had of Hillary. “I need to think of what it means to distrust the white woman,” she said. “When we talk about power and privilege, we don’t expect Trump to support [women of color], but we don’t expect white women to, either.”
The two speakers also addressed pornography, sexism related to technology and celebrity feminism, speaking briefly of celebrities who shun feminism and those who embrace it. Hobson discussed Beyoncé, about whom she wrote a cover story about for Ms. Magazine in 2013. Hobson described her impression of Beyoncé’s feminism to be an evolution.
“When I wrote that piece, I was still unclear about how feminist she was,” she said. “But I didn’t have to defend her because six months later she released flawless.”
Students who attended to talk enjoyed the different perspectives on stage. “I liked that, despite their differing viewpoints on some issues, Janell and Katha were able to agree on the key ideals of feminism and why it’s so necessary,” said Taite Shomo ’20.5, who attended both the talk and lunch. “I think that it’s important given the current political climate to be talking about feminism and especially intersectional feminism, and that Janell Hobson’s point about helping out the most marginalized people really spoke to that.”
President Laurie L. Patton made a similar point in a school-wide email sent before the event.
“Katha Pollitt and Janell Hobson are leading feminist voices of their generations, but also write from different points of view,” Patton wrote.
The Office of the President will be sponsoring more critical conversations throughout the year in the hope of opening up discussion to various academic perspectives.
(10/05/17 12:03am)
In the early hours of Oct. 1, a carbon monoxide alarm went off in the Atwater A building, forcing students to vacate their beds and wait outside the building for two hours.
Lisa Burchard, director of Public Safety and associate dean of the college, described what happened that morning in an email to The Campus.
“At 1:11 a.m. Public Safety received a carbon monoxide (CO) alarm from the alarm monitoring system,” she said. “The telecommunicator dispatched officers and the Middlebury Fire Department (MFD) to the location of the alarm at Atwater Hall A. By 1:30 a.m., Facilities Services was notified of the CO alarm and informed that MFD was responding.”
Despite the alarm, there was no danger. A faulty carbon monoxide detector had triggered the alarm.
“MFD arrived and cleared the building as is our policy,” Burchard said. “They determined there was no CO leak in the building. At 2:30 a.m., Facilities Services determined that a CO detector in the building had failed, replaced it, and reset the control panel.”
Charlotte Frankel ’18.5 lives in the Atwater suite that housed the defective alarm.
“We left the building around 12:50 a.m., I think,” Frankel said. “Public Safety was there immediately, and they said the fire department had to come before the alarm could be shut off. I spoke with one of the Public Safety officers, who informed me that it was the carbon monoxide alarm and although it was probably a false alarm, the fire department needed to come and do a full sweep to be safe.”
Another resident of Atwater A, Margaret Pollack ’18, shared a similar experience.
“Morale was desperately low,” Pollack said. “Plus, the keypads aren’t working in the A building, so I’ve heard of peers and neighbors of mine who were then locked out because they had forgotten to grab their physical key when they tried to return after the alarm went off.”
“I went over to the other side and slept on a couch in my friends’ suite but I don’t know what people did if they didn’t have other friends in Atwater B,” Pollack said.
After the alarm had been going off for some time, a Public Safety officer found Ryan Rudolph ’18 in his room in Atwater A.
“I woke up to a firefighter and Public Safety tapping me to wake up. They told me I needed to go outside. I was very confused since nobody was outside, and it felt like I was late to the party,” Rudolph said.
According to the college handbook, a student who fails to leave a building during a fire alarm will be fined $200.
“I was informed that I had slept through the alarm for 40 minutes. [The officer] claimed that nobody sleeps through that alarm, and said I was going to be getting a fine. He made it seem as if I was trying to evade the alarm, but my explanation was that I wasn’t trying to die of carbon monoxide and I was just in a heavy sleep. I proceeded to go to the other Atwater building and sleep on the floor,” Rudolph said.
Meanwhile, Frankel passed the time with friends as the alarm continued to ring. Eventually residents were allowed to reenter the building, and an electrician arrived to inspect the alarm.
“The alarm remained on for this entire time — I went to a friend’s room and then to the Atwater A lounge, where many of us were congregated. We went back into the building around 2:40 a.m. Michael the electrician came up to our suite pretty soon after we returned and let me know that one of our three carbon monoxide alarms wasn’t working,” Frankel said.
She was finally able to rest after Michael finished his work.
“He was incredibly nice and conscientious of the lateness, answering all of my questions and doing his best to fix the alarm with as little light and noise as possible,” Frankel said. “He replaced the alarm with a new one and then I passed out.”
While the duration of the alarm may have been unusual, Burchard says the response was typical for the situation.
“I’ve spoken with Facilities and they describe the above as a normal business process and typical response to an event of this kind. The first priority was the safety of the students in Atwater,” she said.
(10/04/17 11:55pm)
On Sunday, Oct. 1, the Town Hall Theater hosted “I Rise,” a performance fundraising-awareness event for WomenSafe in collaboration with MiddSafe and the college Department of Theater and Dance. The goal of the event was to raise money and awareness about the struggles of domestic violence within Addison County and demonstrate the work that WomenSafe does for the community. For members of WomenSafe this event was powerful because it “gave voice to survivors” of domestic abuse.
The topic of domestic abuse hits close to home for many people. Sadly, it is a common occurrence in our society that many have direct or indirect connections with its horrors. For this reason, each performance brought the audience closer to the message, allowing them to think of their own personal experiences with domestic abuse or the experiences of those dear to them.
The program started with “Behind the Wall” a performance art and dance piece that demonstrated through jagged, physical, and suffocating movements the atrocities that happen in abusive households behind closed doors. The dancers, students from the dance department, moved with pain in a way that removed themselves from the audience and from their fellow dancers, a feeling that rings true for many people who have been abused and feel alone in the world. The music rang out in the background, a poetic voice lamenting the difficulties of understanding how to help those who are being hurt in their own homes. The narrative continued to tell how police often do not want to interfere with affairs between a man and his wife, demonstrating how in an abusive situation a woman may not be perceived as an independent person but rather the property of a man. The dancers’ hurried movements and sounds of suffocation left the audience feeling helpless to the pain that they were visualizing.
To inform the audience about broad qualifications and demographics of sexual violence, four MiddSafe volunteers came on to the stage to perform “Why,” a performance art piece that used the dancers’ bodies and relation to each other on the stage to display the statistics of who will become victims of sexual violence in their lifetime. This piece was especially harrowing because it sought to bring faces to those statistics of who will experience domestic violence.
After every statistic was read, the dancers would step out to represent within their group who would be the ones to fall victim to sexual violence. What was so moving about this piece was that after every fact was read and each girl stepped out as a representation of victims of domestic abuse, the other girls would in some way reach out to the one affected, displaying an act of female solidarity and recognition of pain.
The most personal of all the performances was “It Will Look Like a Sunset,” written by Kelly Sundberg and performed by members of the theater department. Several girls came out on stage to tell the story of one abusive relationship from beginning to end, each telling different parts that ranged from past to present, interweaving the narrative of this complicated love story. This shed light onto the multidimensional aspects of abusive relationships — it not only detailed the woman hiding under the bed in fear of her husband, but also told stories of the couple emailing each other funny videos at work and laying in bed with their son between them.
The detail of their story explained how complicated it can be to leave an abusive relationship, because often there is real love between the couple. Having several performers tell the same story allowed the audience to see that this happens to many women in the world and that no one should ever feel that they are alone in their suffering.
Following was a poem that brought the audience through the various points in a woman’s life where she feels sexualized or abused, starting from a young age when boys hit girls “because they like them.” This piece titled “Things I (Shouldn’t) Have to Tell My Daughters” written by Mary Heather Noble and read by Lindsay Pontius, details the vicious cycle of domestic abuse that stems from the relationships that men and women experience starting from youth. Each part of the poem demonstrated that violence in romantic relationships is not just a problem that occurs later in life, but one that also has its roots in childhood and teenage years.
Members of the dance department returned to the stage in “Still, I Rise,” using powerful dance motions and the words of Maya Angelou to display the strength that lies in every person who experiences sexual or domestic abuse. This ended the performance with a relatively upbeat tone and left the audience hopeful that people are strong and resilient and can overcome the atrocities of domestic abuse.
College president Laurie Patton came on to the stage to present the final poem of the event, titled “To Stop the Violence Against Woman,” written by Alice Walker. The poem served as a strong call to action for all women to end domestic violence, encouraging women to stand up against the abuse that has been so normalized in our society. Her inspiring demand for support and solidarity among women and men embodies the mission of WomenSafe.
The proceeds of the event went to support WomenSafe’s new fundraising goal of $1.2 million to help the organization continue to fight domestic abuse in Addison County and to provide support for families who have been affected by domestic violence. Through their hotline services, support groups, community outreach and education and supervised visits for children with abusive parents, WomenSafe is working to end domestic abuse in our area.
They are in the process of converting their old offices into transitional housing for people who are leaving abusive households. Hopefully with more events like “I Rise” and donations and volunteers from our local community, WomenSafe can reach their goal of raising 1.2 million dollars to better serve and protect our community.
If you wish to donate to WomenSafe, volunteer or learn more about their programs visit http://www.womensafe.net.
