1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(08/04/17 8:19pm)
Katy Smith Abbott will leave her position as vice president for student affairs and dean of the college at the end of this year, President Laurie L. Patton announced today. She will continue teaching as a full-time professor in the art history department.
“I am both saddened at the thought of not having her as a member of the senior administration and pleased that she is remaining at Middlebury and following her academic and personal interests,” Patton said in an email to students.
Baishakhi Taylor, the current dean of students, will become interim vice president for student affairs on Jan. 1, 2018.
Smith Abbott declined to comment, opting instead to talk with The Campus at the start of the academic year.
In her email Patton praised Smith Abbott for her commitment to the college. She cited Smith Abbott’s work to expand MiddView Trips, provide stipends for J-term courses and summer internships, and her role in the creation of First@Midd, a program for incoming first-generation students.
“Over the years Katy has led and inspired numerous initiatives to improve the experience of our undergraduate student,” Patton wrote. “Through it all, Katy has worked to enrich the experience for all of our students.”
Smith Abbott first arrived at Middlebury in 1996. From 2002 to 2008 she and her husband, Steve Abbott, a math professor, served as faculty co-heads of Ross Commons. She was then appointed associate dean of the college and later, in 2011, dean of students. In 2014 then-president Ronald D. Liebowitz appointed Smith Abbott to her current position. She originally served on an interim basis but was formally named to the post later that year.
Taylor came to Middlebury in 2015 from Duke University, where she worked under Patton in Duke’s Trinity College of Arts and Sciences. Like Smith Abbott, Taylor may eventually be named the official dean of the college despite being an interim appointment, although Smith Abbott had been employed by the college for 18 years when she was promoted.
Ethan Brady contributed reporting.
(05/11/17 3:57am)
On April 20, 2017, Professor Bert Johnson wrote in to this paper with an apology. This doesn’t happen frequently; we were surprised and moved. Professor Johnson, chair of the Political Science Department, wrote that he regretted the manner in which department co-sponsorship was issued to Charles Murray’s speech on campus. “The short amount of time between when the event became public and when it occurred gave all of us scant opportunity to listen to and understand alternative points of view. Most importantly, and to my deep regret, it contributed to a feeling of voicelessness that many already experience on this campus, and it contributed to the very real pain that many people – particularly people of color – have felt as a result of this event.”
Professor Johnson’s apology is, in many ways, the impetus for this week’s editorial. As an editorial board, we would like to thank Professor Johnson for his honesty, candor and courage not in retracting his decision, but in showing vulnerability and conceding that his actions may have caused pain in others. Professor Johnson didn’t base his apology in upholding lofty abstract principles, but rather in the fact that he hurt people on this campus. He represents an admirable desire to resist the urge to over-intellectualize issues and instead choose to recognize the pain one can cause, particularly in our small Middlebury community.
Unfortunately, we aren’t always very good at doing that. Why should we be? Many members of the Middlebury community got here by succeeding; by sounding smart, by developing transcripts that supposedly “prove” we know things. We argue to win, not to listen. As students, we’re pretty collectively insecure about admitting when we don’t know things, and we don’t make room for others to make mistakes. There’s pressure in classrooms, in forums and even in dining hall conversations to prove not only our intellectualism but also that we are “woke” in a kind of verbal posturing that places excessive value on certain kinds of speech, and excludes those who don’t have the vocabulary to discuss issues of race, gender, class and so on.
For this, we commend Professor Johnson’s humility and his ability to see that offering an apology does not discredit him; rather, it reveals his willingness to put the weight of a reconsidered issue above ego. It reveals not only his humanity but his ability to recognize the humanity in others. In the wake of contentious events like the March 2 protest and the election of Donald Trump, we’ve seen members of our community go on the defensive and assume the worst in others. We leave little room for nuance, and group people in categories of right or wrong, with us or against us. We misread ignorance as coming from a place of malevolence rather than lack of experience, and create spaces where people of other opinions do not feel safe to express themselves, make mistakes and, most importantly, learn. March 2 happened as it did largely as a result of a specific culture we have developed on this campus. It was a symptom of various issues here, and it will not go away unless we, collectively as a Middlebury community, decide to change the way in which we navigate our differences.
Conversations about the intersections of identity and free speech will continue. Professors: you have a responsibility to create fair spaces in which to address these issues if they come up, ones in which one set of ideas (or a means of expressing those ideas) is not inherently privileged. If you don’t know how to do that, admit that you don’t know how. We as a student body need our professors to demonstrate to us that it is okay, inevitable and necessary to be confused and even wrong. By doing so, you can uphold the lofty ideals of academic institutions espoused throughout the Charles Murray debate as more than an intellectual value, but a pedagogical practice. You can show us that college is a place for the airing of all views that need to be challenged. Administrators: you have a responsibility to create an environment in which students and faculty are not incentivized to put ego and title above listening. You set the institutional example. You, too, can embody the idea that apologies are examples of strength, not weakness.
Many students on our editorial board recalled their professors expressing a sense of loss or confusion after the 2016 presidential election, an inability to manage discussion or even process what was happening, whether in a classroom setting or otherwise. That kind of honesty and vulnerability is what can make the wounds of this community heal. This is a small college. For students, it’s more than a place of learning; it’s a 24-hour home. We all feel a sense of responsibility for what happens here. We’re going to need to have some hard conversations in the near future, conversations that will take immense emotional labor and vulnerability. These conversations can’t and won’t happen unless we, as committed members of the Middlebury community, are ready to listen, empathize and learn.
(05/11/17 3:10am)
One of the largest and highest quality telescopes in Vermont and its surrounding areas is on the roof of McCardell Bicentennial Hall. Luckily for Middlebury students, the telescope is made publicly available to students multiple times a semester. Observatory Night is a time for students and community members alike to come view the night sky through the large 24-inch telescope, through one of three smaller telescopes (one 8-inch, two 11-inch) or with the naked eye. During the event, telescope specialist Jonathan Kemp and the students who work with him are there to guide viewers around the sky and answer questions.
The Campus spoke with Mr. Kemp to talk about what Observatory Night is and its place in the college community.
“We have a really nice site here in the Champlain Valley,” Kemp said. “It’s quite dark … There are light pollution issues to consider in almost any site, but here in the Champlain Valley we’re at a pretty good dark site, we get some lovely clear nights.”
The telescope is one-of-a-kind in its architectural incorporation into the greater BiHall, Kemp said.
“One of the great things about the observatory here at McCardell Bicentennial Hall is that, when it was built, the observatory was designed as part of the building. In many science buildings, you’ll often find that the observatory is on the roof of the building but it’s often been an afterthought long after initial construction.”
The telescope is cared for in many unexpected ways; for example, the temperature in the dome is prudently regulated.
“What we like to do with an observatory dome is keep the temperature of the air in the dome itself as close as possible to the exterior temperature,” Kemp said. “A lot was done at construction and perhaps more importantly just after construction to minimize those thermal issues so that when we look through the telescope up there we get excellent image quality compared to some of our peer institutions that have similar large telescopes.”
The telescope and its controls were completely renovated and modernized in the summer of 2015. “It is now performing as well as it ever has,” Kemp said.
The combination of excellent technology and location allows students at Observatory Night to view celestial objects with remarkable clarity. When asked what his favorite thing is to look at in the night sky, Kemp could not pick just one. He highlighted the Orion Nebula in the winter sky and the Great Globular Cluster of Hercules (M13) in the summer sky as two of his favorites. He mentioned that Saturn and Jupiter are popular with students; the rings of Saturn are clearly visible through any of the telescopes. Additionally, it is possible to see the disk on the surface of Jupiter and its orbiting moons. Kemp even mentioned seeing the shadow of a moon on Jupiter’s surface.
These incredible sights tied into Kemp’s answer to my next question, in which he was asked what about Observatory Night would draw in a non-science major.
“I think the observatory can reach people on a variety of levels,” he said. “We find that people respond kind of viscerally to the night sky. When they look at [the night sky], especially when [they] look through a telescope for the first time at an object that [they have] never seen, that can be a very compelling thing. I think most importantly it kind of gives people an idea of their place within the universe. It makes them intellectually curious about the night sky, and, by extension, the universe, and the place of Man and the place of Earth within the universe.”
Kemp also mentioned that the team of students he works with includes history, economics and geology majors as well as physics majors.
“While [the Observatory] has physics at its core, it has threads that go through so many different disciplines. For someone who might be non-science major, it might satisfy their interest in the night sky or their interest in science if they don’t want to pursue a more formal curricular way.”
There are also opportunities for students who might be interested in working with him.
“I am always interested in students who have an interest in the observatory. I would always encourage students that have an interest to come talk to me.”
In all, Observatory Night offers a unique experience that should be on every student’s graduation bucket list. Towards the end of the conversation, Kemp spoke to the accessibility of the observatory.
“Since I arrived a little more than three years ago, we’ve been able to make the facility more available in a variety of ways on a variety of levels,” he said. “It’s been fantastic to see the interest in the observatory here. Learning about the night sky is something that I think we can stimulate here at the observatory, but by no means does that process of being engaged with the universe end here. Enjoying the night sky does not require a telescope. That process can continue once you leave the observatory”
For more information on and photographs taken by the telescope, visit go/observatory.
(05/11/17 1:56am)
Every Wednesday, Hunter Graham ’20 drives to the University of Vermont to attend a Military Science class as part of the Reserve Officers Training Core (ROTC) of the Army. ROTC offers college students a path into military service, in addition to offering financial assistance to help pay for college.
According to the Army website, ROTC prides itself on being a leadership program and providing job opportunities to college graduates in Active Duty jobs as well as in the Army National Guard and Army Reserves. Graham has been a part of ROTC since the beginning of this semester.
“ROTC, and serving in general, were always things I considered in high school, but I think I was too afraid to try. Once I had more information, because I started talking to people at UVM and the other cadets, it became clear that this is something that I could really do,” Graham said. “It has added a whole other element of my college life, another really big friend group that can understand you better than people at Middlebury in some ways.”
Graham explained that when she attends class at UVM, the cadets in the program are split up by year. “The one’s have a relatively easy, introductory course,” she said. “The two’s course is a bit more challenging. The third year is the most important — it is the year that determines what branch of the Army they will go into.” Graham has also attended some labs to gain more experience. “Sometimes instead of or in addition to class there is a longer ‘lab’ that gives more hands on experience,” she said. “The only labs that I have been to are at a military base in Burlington called Camp Johnson.”
In addition to the educational aspect of the program, the cadets must complete an intensive training regiment. Since Graham and fellow Middlebury ROTC member Steve Bissainthe ’18 do not live in Burlington, they stay in shape by attending a work-out class at Middlebury called CATS twice a week.
According to Graham, she decided to pursue the program as a way to be involved in something important. “I became interested in it when I saw the life I could have if I was willing to make sacrifices and put in the work,” she said. “There are so many opportunities that only the military can give you, and not all of them put you on the front lines. I could graduate and take an educational leave to go to medical school, or go into military intelligence. I joined because I wanted to be a part of something bigger than myself. The military is about as big as you can get.”
Graham also has a unique perspective, as a woman in the male-dominated program. She says there are five women in her class of 25, and that half of the women are in the nursing program. “I do not feel any different as a girl in the program,” she said. “Women wear the same uniform and keep their hair in a low bun. The upperclassmen in the program that I look up to are all women, except for Steve, of course. There are two seniors in charge of the group each year, one per semester, and they usually choose a woman as one of the leaders. There are some really badass women in the program who will do amazing things.”
Graham says her favorite part of the experience so far has been the people. “It is nice to get off campus and be around a new group of people. Everyone I have met has been so welcoming and so real,” she said. “The UVM cadets are all amazing. The Green Mountain Battalion is one of the best in the country and I am lucky to be a part of the family.”
The program has been challenging for Graham. “It’s been hard to do something so out of the ordinary,” she said. “I’m excited and nervous to see what it will be like to wear the uniform on campus, something that will happen every Wednesday.” Graham also said it was hard to join part way through the year and catch up on the content in the science class.
Another challenge has been how disconnected ROTC is from her experience at Middlebury. Graham made the decision to join ROTC without talking to any college administrators. “I have spoken to no college administration or the registrar about this,” she said. “We don’t get a class credit for taking another class, that has as much work and a huge time commitment. There is no college support other than our friends and the different articles written about it.”
Despite the challenges, Graham has found her friends to be very supportive of her participation. “I’ve really appreciated all of the love and support my friends have shown in this. I think a lot of people are confused about what it is, or think that it’s something foreign and unusual, when it’s unusual that there’s no program at Middlebury.”
According to Graham, if all goes according to plan, she intends to continue with the program for the rest of her time in college.
(05/11/17 1:56am)
At 8 p.m. on Saturday, May 5, the lights in Wilson Hall dimmed abruptly, leaving only the iridescent light of hundreds of glow sticks and a few phones waving wildly in the air above the crowd. So the much-anticipated inaugural Korean Culture Show, a night of passionate singing and dancing, opened to a full house.
Lydia Kim ’17, one of the leaders of the show, was inspired particularly by a K-pop performance in last semester’s International Students’ Organization (ISO) yearly global culture show. After seeing the popularity of the K-pop act in the ISO show, she decided she wanted to create a show that focused solely on Korean Culture.
“I was both surprised and amazed to find out that 1) not a single dancer was Korean, 2) there were so many non-Koreans who knew about K-pop and 3) such a wild crowd reaction was given to a cultural experience that I thought was so distant from Middlebury,” Kim said.
Indeed, Middlebury students appear to be extremely excited about Korean culture. As early as half an hour before the show began, a line already formed outside the doors of Wilson Social Space. Once the show started, the auditorium rang with near constant screams of approval from the audience.
The show featured more than 60 singers and dancers, 15 percent of whom are ethnically Korean, performing instrumental, K-pop and norebang (a type of Korean karaoke) songs. It was important to the show’s leaders that the show present a range of different aspects of Korean culture.
“There was traditional music, we had a bunch of norebang pieces (which don’t categorize as K-pop), the MCs dressed up in hanbok (traditional dress)," Kim said.
There was also a speech about the Sewol ferry incident, in which high school students passed away in the sinking of the Sewol ferry due to the corruption of the South Korean government. According to Kim, understanding this incident is crucial to understanding contemporary South Korean society and culture.
“We all came up with a list of songs together, choosing the most iconic dances and the most fun songs, and we tried to keep in mind the different eras of Korean pop music,” Shannia Fu ’17, another leader of the show, said.
“Honestly, we started with a list of maybe 30 songs or bands, and we tried to narrow it down to around 10, on top of the traditional instrumental music and the noraebang style singing.”
Some highlights included a dance to the newly-debuted K-pop girl group BLACKPINK’s Boombayah with Carissa Lee ’19, Nathan Nguyen ’19, Emily Han ’20 and Lia Yeh ’20; “Unconditional,” a norebang love song performed by Michelle Hwang ’19; and “Lovers,” performed instrumentally by Fu on piano, Jingchen Jiang ’18 on guzheng and Subin Cho ’19 on haegeum.
The show was wildly successful, opening to a full house, and received “a ton of positive feedback,” Kim said. But she stressed that it was not at all easy to organize.
“We literally put on the show without having had any affiliation to an official organization. None of us had much of any experience putting on a show, and we didn’t even know where to begin,” she said. “We had to persuade our sponsors to trust us. We had to put in an insane amount of time and effort to organize 20 acts and 60+ people for an event we didn’t even know was going to attract attention. We had to put our faith in something that had no precedence at this school, and just go for it.”
The leadership board also had difficulty finding support for the show because there is currently no Korean department at Middlebury. Kim hopes that will change in the near future.
“There is no undergraduate Korean department at Middlebury, there are no faculty who teach Korea-related topics, we don’t have much student organization support and we only have a nascent Korean alumni community,” she said. “This event, and the people who organized it, literally had to spring out of nowhere.”
The show received support from the Middlebury School of Korean, the Department of Chinese, the Department of Japanese, the Department of Music and the Rohatyn Center for Global Affairs.
Kim and the rest of the show’s leadership board are very invested in widening the scope of influence of Korean culture on campus. The board is among those who recently initiated Korean language tables in Proctor, and they are hoping the college will start offering Korean classes. Fu hopes that the show has helped those efforts to bring more Korean influence onto campus.
“We want the Middlebury community to be aware of this culture that might not be as prevalent around campus,” Fu said. “A small but loud group has also been trying to get a Korean department installed here at Middlebury, so by having so many people show up and display interest in any kind of Korean culture, we wanted to show the administration that there is a genuine desire for a Korean language program.”
Though most of the leadership board for this year’s show will have graduated or will be abroad next year, Kim and Fu are confident the show will continue in the future, and perhaps become an annual event. Given the great success the show has enjoyed this year, it seems likely that interest for Korean culture will only continue to increase on campus.
Correction: an earlier version of this article mistakenly referred to the Sewol ferry incident as a Korean drama reference.
(05/11/17 1:13am)
On Saturday, May 6, Vermont residents gathered at busy intersections and the sides of railroad tracks in an effort to “green up” the state. The green trash bags doled out each year by the non-profit organization Green Up Vermont allowed communities to remove the trash that had accumulated in public spaces throughout the year.
Started in 1970 by former Governor Deane C. Davis, Green Up Day has evolved into a Vermont tradition. The annual initiative has grown to become a day when local businesses, families and school groups join together to clean up the creases of the state that silently fill up with unwanted trash.
In order to solidify Green Up Day’s place on the state’s calendar, former Governor Richard A. Snelling created a 501 (c)3 non-profit called Green Up Vermont to run and organize the event each year in 1979. The organization orchestrates the distribution of trash bags throughout the state, and the event is promoted on local television and radio shows.
“There’s something happening in every town — all 251,” Melinda Vieux, executive director of Green Up Vermont, said. “Bit by bit, Green Up Day has grown over the years, until in recent years; people in Vermont have started to call it a Vermont icon.”
In Middlebury, Charlotte Tate and Peg Martin serve as coordinators between Green Up Vermont and the town in facilitating the cleanup. In her final year as coordinator, Martin leaves behind a strong legacy. “A true force of nature,” Vieux said, referring to Martin, who has provided the spark for the town of Middlebury’s involvement since the 1970s.
Each year, Martin can be seen tending to her “pet spots,” including areas beneath the railroad overpass and along sections of Route 7, all while adorned in her staple Green Up Day regalia: a floppy straw hat decorated with flowers and trash.
Local businesses in Middlebury have encouraged residents to participate in Green Up Day and hosted cookouts for the event. This year, organizers of the Middlebury Maple Run have pledged discounts on the cost of participating in next year’s run for those who joined in Green Up Day. As proof, runners simply need to provide a photograph showing them with a green plastic bag filled with collected trash.
Tate, one of the town’s coordinators, said that she wished students from Middlebury College were more involved in Green Up Day. “I’ve tried to bring it up to students here at the College, but it’s a very busy time,” she said. “The easiest thing is for people to take responsibility for their own travel course. If everybody were to do that, it would make a big difference.”
Although the numbers are still being calculated from this year’s Green Up Day, about 22,000 people participated statewide last year.
“There’s all this emphasis on numbers, and that’s a huge challenge for us,” Vieux said. “That number came from town coordinators, and that 22,000 figure is conservative. Rather, it’s its aliveness that determines its success.”
In passing the baton to the next Green Up Day coordinator for Middlebury, Martin hopes that whoever succeeds her continues to encourage more individuals and groups to be involved.
“I think there’s the opportunity to get a lot more people organized,” she said. “If you get a group of people going, it goes pretty quickly. You can cover a lot of ground.”
(05/04/17 1:36am)
Last week we published an op-ed by Esme Valette ’16 illuminating “predatory pack behavior” on campus. She pointed to a “Hunters and Hunted Party” thrown by a group of senior boys in the spring of 2014 as an example of the perpetuation of a social culture on our campus that fosters predatory behavior. Similar behavior at other schools has recently received nationwide attention, such as when the Harvard men’s soccer team released “scouting reports” of the women’s soccer team, making sexual suggestions about players and rating their appearances.
Middlebury students who have not had direct experience with the negative effects of such a predatory environment might view the issue as existing only outside the Middlebury bubble. Yet events like It Happens Here, where students read aloud testimony about sexual violence on campus, remind us that our campus is not immune to the power imbalances implicit in our country’s culture.
In her op-ed, Valette shared an email written by a group of senior men inviting her to the “Hunters and Hunted” party. Lines include asking women attending to “leave their attitudes … and firm feminist ideals” at home, as well as explicit instructions that the women were to be the hunted while the men did the hunting. This gendered power dynamic is most obvious when a bunch of drunk students cram into crowded suites in search of a hookup, the love of their lives or just some great dancing. But it is also replicated in other aspects of campus life: the ways students talk about hooking up, the jokes students make and the judgements students pass on each other.
Valette’s example of Middlebury’s party culture is three years old — has Middlebury since become better at addressing this gendered power imbalance so prevalent in our campus party culture?
The Green Dot Violence Prevention Strategy program against power-based personal violence, which focuses on sexual and dating violence among students, has made some progress in teaching students how to combat predatory behavior. Their trainings, often targeted at athletes — members of teams where a pack mentality is inherent and can easily turn predatory, teach students how to proactively prevent dangerous situations. Many of the tools of Green Dot are simple and designed to have low social costs. One way a bystander can reduce the likelihood of violence is to check-in with someone who looks uncomfortable or too drunk to consent to a hookup, for example.
One challenge of the Green Dot trainings, however, as well as events like It Happens Here, is that attendees are likely to be those who already are aware of the sexism and predation present in the current social life on campus. Such trainings and events will be much more powerful if they can reach students who have been unaware or unthinking in their participation in this harmful culture. We highly recommend students attend a Green Dot training and the It Happens Here event — both groups also have Middlebury websites with informational material or stories you could read today.
The College’s faculty, coaches and administrative leaders can work on creating more systematic exposure to these issues, as they did by making basic Green Dot training mandatory for first-years during orientation two years ago. But the “adults” on campus do not have the power to change the norms of Middlebury’s social scene. Student leaders, especially upperclassmen and especially sports team captains and club leaders, must take that initiative. Some sports teams have organized team Green Dot trainings or have meetings at the beginning of the year about how they can create a healthy social environment within the team. If upperclassmen rejected the predatory norms assumed in party spaces on campus, it would set a powerful precedent for subsequent generations of Middkids. Let’s use the power of the pack to set a new, better standard for social interaction on campus.
The editorial represents the official opinion of the editorial board of The Middlebury Campus.
(05/04/17 1:33am)
A couple of weeks prior to Charles Murray’s much-discussed visit to Middlebury, I was asked to write a piece on student activism for a spread that the Campus had intended to put together on the topic. In the wake of Charles Murray’s visit, this plan — like many of our plans for the semester — went out the window. As I participated in hours upon hours of conversations last week about free speech, inclusivity and the “Phase 2” students’ ongoing disciplinary proceedings — a full two months after Murray’s visit — I couldn’t help but think that the broad conversations about campus-based activism that the Campus had intended to spark are more relevant now than ever.
Originally, I had planned to write about how I utilize engaged research as a principle part of my pedagogy, and the relationship of engaged research to activism. Students in my Gender, Sexuality, and Feminist Studies courses often ask: “What do we do with this theory? How do we talk about these complicated academic ideas with people who aren’t in this class?” My students find ways to answer these questions through engaged research and related creative projects. Last semester, students in my Politics of Reproduction and Queer Critique courses produced zines, podcasts and art exhibits, organized a 5k run/walk and created ongoing journalistic columns, alongside writing developed analytical papers. Finding ways to discuss the academic ideas from our classes in alternative formats and with people beyond our classrooms demands a level of analytical sophistication that goes beyond what is required for even the most complex in-class discussions.
I thought I would write about these everyday forms of student activism, about the pedagogical possibilities of engaged research projects, about how students already utilize academic theory in their activism and how they might do so otherwise.
And then Charles Murray came to campus.
It has since become impossible to imagine reflecting on student activism without centering the discussions and protests spurred by Murray’s visit. On the one hand, I resent that my imagination has been constricted by racist, classist and sexist right-wing ideologues. I resent that the narratives that stick to these big ostensibly news-worthy moments function to overwrite ongoing and everyday forms of student activism, those that neither begin nor end with expressing resistance to someone like Charles Murray. On the other hand, as a new member of the Middlebury community, I am hopeful that we might use this moment to advance prior conversations regarding student and scholarly engagement in the public sphere—at Middlebury and beyond.
Doing so will require many things:
Reflecting critically on how we frame “protest.” At Middlebury, students’ rights to protest have been repeatedly affirmed. Largely missing from the discussion of the Murray event are the values and benefits associated with students’ engagement in the public sphere. Let’s move beyond discussing protest as a legal right, which positions it as something the institution must allow, and instead approach non-violent protest as a social good.
Recognizing that social critique takes many forms, and that the effectiveness of each is spatially and temporally contingent. In addition to protesting, students challenged the racist, classist, sexist and xenophobic ideologies upon which Murray has built his career by creating and circulating flyers and pamphlets through which they addressed specific points made by Murray as well as the broader cultural ideas that inform Murray’s work. These components of the students’ protest have been largely ignored. Conservative political commentator Andrew Sullivan, for example, critiqued students not for protesting per se, but for failing to “challenge the data or the arguments of the book.” Such alternative facts ignore that students did challenge the arguments of the book and that this was a part of their reasoned protest. (We’ll leave aside the demand that one responds with reason to that which is inherently unreasonable.)
Articulating where, when and how the College effectively supports the development of skills and analytics to counter racism, sexism, classism, ableism and homophobia — and also where we fall short, individually and collectively.
For students to learn to engage the world, as Middlebury’s mission states, we must not only re-affirm a commitment to protest, we must be willing to support students as they grapple with how to draw effectively from their course material when engaging in the public sphere. Put otherwise, we might discuss how the institution can better support students as they learn to engage the world.
The events surrounding Charles Murray’s visit to campus continue to raise questions for our community to address. One of these is about the relationship of protest to other forms of student and scholarly engagement in the public sphere. As we proceed, let’s recognize that social engagement is crucial to the life of the university. Let’s approach students’ engagement in the social sphere as that which can extend the boundaries of our classrooms, as a site for the development of new epistemologies, aspirations, and ways of relating to one another and our world. Let’s refuse the simplistic protest vs. respectable resistance and theory vs. activism binaries that make their way into classroom and activist discussions alike. Let’s support students as they grapple with how to do the difficult intellectual work of refusing these binaries by utilizing theory in the public sphere. Doing so will allow us to better understand what we mean by “protest,” “engagement,” “theory” and “the public,” in the first place.
Carly Thomsen, Assistant Professor of Gender, Sexuality and Feminist Studies, writes in about the importance of social critique.
(04/27/17 3:39am)
Let me paint you a picture. The canvas is blank. The colors are pink, purple, yellow and black. The artist is in a particularly gay mood and has about an hour to paint butterflies, roses and all things good and happy.
It is the Midd Masti show, guys.
Last Saturday on April 22, Wilson Hall was caught up in a Bollywood song and dance bonanza as the hosts looked out to a packed audience and invited on the glittering stage the first performers of the night: Ayesha Ashgar ’19, Hamza Kiyani’19 and their Bhangra dance crew.
Dressed in black harem pants, tank tops and donning yellow “dupattas,” the dancers stepped onto the stage and flashed everyone the biggest smiles they could muster. They had hops, they had twirls and lots and lots of “thumkas.” They even had a (bearded) grandmother who seemed to be scolding them, before she joined in the dance and gave us a few “thumkas” herself.
This year’s show was titled “Baat-Cheet” (chit-chat) and a dialogue between the hosts preceded each performance. Each dialogue was based around the theme of identity and aspired to capture the spirit of the dance that followed. Many stories – most of which were happy, a few of which were sad – were shared by students who call both Vermont and the eclectic mix of colors that is the world of South Asia, home.
Over the last few years, Midd Masti has maintained a tradition of inviting guest performers for its annual showcase. This year saw INGOMA – Midd’s only African a capella group – took the stage. They sang two spiritual songs from Kenya and South Africa: “Kuliko Jana” (Swahili) and “Ndikhokele” (Xhosa). They were followed by the University of Vermont’s Bollywood dance group, JAZBA, who performed a fusion of pop, traditional Punjabi and Bollywood music. With a six-song medley and a substantial storyline, JAZBA’s performance was really a mini Bollywood musical, complete with love at first sight, a (not too) devastating heartbreak and eventual (ecstatic) union.
Varsha Vijayakumar ’20 wowed everyone with a vocal performance of classical Carnatic music, which the New Jersey first-year has been practicing since she was five years old. Her hymn to Lord Shiva, the Transformer and Destroyer, was both tremendously skillful and incredibly emotional.
Akhila Khanna ’17, who is bidding us all goodbye next month after four years of organizing the brilliant annual Midd Masti shows, choreographed on the magical rhythms of the iconic “Humma Song” for the senior piece. As she prepares to leave our College, she wants to leave her Midd Masti pals with a very special message.
“Keep spreading the energy joy and happiness that is so pure and inherent in your dance,” she said. “Always keep the Proc basement doors open for everyone and anyone and I am certain you will change lives like you have changed mine. Thank you for keeping me going, reminding me of home when Middlebury was not. I will miss you from the bottom of my heart.”
We will miss you too, Akhila. The “thumkas” won’t be the same without you.
The show ended with the performers taking their bows and heading over to Crossroads for the after-party, with more desi songs and many more “thumkas” in store.
(04/27/17 1:45am)
Donald Trump has proclaimed April as “National Sexual Assault Awareness and Prevention Month,” affirming his commitment to reducing and ultimately ending sexual violence in our Nation. Kind of ironic coming from the man who’s been accused of sexually assaulting more than fifteen women and caught on tape bragging about his right to “grab ‘em by the pussy.” While I do not support our country’s president, I am committed to raising awareness about sexual abuse and fighting against it. So in keeping with this month’s theme, let me tell you about some of the predatory pack behavior that I was privy to at Middlebury College.
(04/27/17 1:41am)
In “A Letter to the Well-Intentioned Liberal Professor” (April 12), Travis Sanderson states that Middlebury faculty whose “support of ‘free speech’ ... does not include protection of shut-downs and other methods of expression” are “on the wrong side of history.” Comparing us to the white moderate whom Dr. King chastised in “Letter from Birmingham Jail,” Sanderson concludes his letter with: “You are guilty.”
It’s a well-written letter, and Sanderson may be right. If shutdowns of selected speakers become the norm at Middlebury and other college campuses, the 114 faculty who signed the “Free Inquiry on Campus” statement will have been on the wrong side of history. And even if this is not the case — even if such shutdowns remain infrequent — Sanderson, along with many student, staff and faculty allies, may still say that we are guilty. Guilty, as he writes, of not “focusing on the actual concerns of marginalized students” and of doing “nothing to acknowledge the actual lived experiences that marginalized students articulated to argue for their free speech.”
Again, Sanderson may be right. It’s possible that we 114 Middlebury faculty (and faculty who signed a similar petition championed by Robert P. George and Cornel West) are not as focused as we should be on marginalized students. What’s in the hearts of professors Alvarez, Anzali, Gebarowski-Shafe, Kafumbe, Morsman and Yuen, just to list a few, who signed the statement? Are their actions on behalf of marginalized students enough?
More pointedly, can their actions ever be enough if they do not, as Sanderson insists they should, support the shutdown of some speakers? Is that the right criterion to judge the entirety of their commitment to social justice and marginalized students?
No one can say for sure. It’s possible that this particular stance — approving or disapproving of shutting down some speakers — is a perfect bellwether of such a commitment. But I hope that most members of our community will not come to this conclusion. For aren’t there many ways for us faculty to support students whom we admire with all of our hearts, even as we reserve the right to disagree with them on some contested issues? And can’t students challenge opinions of their faculty with vigor and insight, even as they honor their faculty’s lifelong (if imperfect) commitment to doing the right thing?
All told, let us hope that members of our community embrace the full spirit of Dr. King’s hallowed letter. For as angry as he was at his fellow clergymen in the spring of 1963, nowhere does he proclaim that they are “on the wrong side of history” or “guilty” of anything. Rather, he ends his letter with a call for faith and love, a sentiment that — following Sanderson’s effective lead — I modify here to address these trying times at Middlebury:
“I hope this letter finds you strong in the faith. I also hope that circumstances will soon make it possible for us to meet each other, not as a pro-free-speech or anti-free-speech person but as a fellow community member and an empathetic sister or brother. Let us all hope that the dark clouds of racial prejudice will soon pass away and the deep fog of misunderstanding will be lifted from our anger drenched community, and in some not too distant tomorrow the radiant stars of love and sisterhood and brotherhood will shine over our great college with all their scintillating beauty.”
Jon Isham, Professor of Economics, writes about free speech at Middlebury.
(04/21/17 5:13pm)
We have all been part of our own Putnam County Spelling Bee, though we may not have realized it until the weekend of April 13-15. We may not have spelled the words or participated in the mass hilarity of the show itself, but we certainly connected with the awkward, uncomfortable, spastic and ultimately beautiful moments that come with growing up.
“The 25th Annual Putnam County Spelling Bee” was put on by the Middlebury College Musical Players (MCMP) and was performed and directed entirely by Middlebury students. Olivia Christie ’19 directed, Ronnie Romano ’20 directed music, Sam Boudreau ’19 stage managed and Alex Williamson ’17 directed tech. It ran in the beautiful Town Hall Theatre in the heart of Middlebury. Unlike on-campus venues, Town Hall Theatre seemed to be far more accessible to members outside of the college community, and the audience was composed of a wonderful blend of people old and young.
The diversity of the crowd was also a mark of the power of the play to connect with everyone over the course of its two acts – we all grow up at some point, after all. The first act, which set the scene for the spelling bee and introduced us to the characters, unfolded like chaotic poetry with constant rhyme of humor. Each character revealed their own quirk, and in many scenes, all came together to sing beautiful songs with fluidly disjointed choreography. Much like the beginning of adolescence, the first act showed the characters to be incredibly awkward and passionate and, as many adults may forget, complex.
In fact, actress Emily Cipriani ’19.5, who played the adorable Leaf Coneybear, shrewdly noted that “the humor keeps the pace rolling and warms the audience up to the characters, making later, more serious themes more approachable.”
For example, the first act had songs like “My Friend the Dictionary,” “Pandemonium” and “I’m Not That Smart,” which, though humorous, served to highlight some of the more common trials of adulthood.
“Pandemonium,” which featured speller Chip Tolentino (Michael Koutelous ’20), focused on how life can be incredibly unfair. The cast performed the song twice, and in the reprise, Chip – a favorite to win the bee – spelled his word wrong, becoming the first contestant to get out. Though the song stimulated laughter and the choreography was endearing, for me – and I am sure for other audience members as well – the scene evoked memories of feeling that life could be unfair.
Leaf Coneybear’s “I’m Not That Smart” was easily relatable to anyone who has ever felt inadequately smart in comparison with those around them. According to Cipriani, the song was an example of how Leaf “did not believe in theirself.”
“My Friend the Dictionary,” sung by Olive Ostrovsky (Maria Bobbitt-Chertock ’20), was an ode to all the children who have ever felt alone in their lives. It was a sweet song, featuring disconnected rhymes and simple lines. Yet it held within it the power to leave smiles on our mouths and sadness in our eyes.
The show also featured various adult characters, such as Rona Lisa Peretti (Madeline Ciocci ’20), Doug Panch (David Fine ’17) and comfort counselor Mitch Mahoney (Tim Hansen ’18). Though adult, these characters were no less awkward than the spellers and had their own problems. There was also an appearance from Jesus (Amy Conaway ’20), who remarked that “gender is a social construct.”
When the curtains opened again for the second act, the lines between humor and intelligent reflection blurred to the point of invisibility. Koutelous sang about his “Unfortunate Erection” and we laughed heartily, but our hearts felt for him. What is more awkward than an erection in the very public setting of a spelling bee?
“It’s a funny show, but that doesn’t mean that these kids don’t deal with very real and very deep issues that make them so relatable,” said Jess Garner ’19.5 who played Logainne SchwarzandGrubiere. “Olive’s depression and loneliness, Marcy and Logainne’s controlling parents and extreme pressure to succeed, Logainne’s anxiety, Chip’s veneer of confidence, Leaf’s misunderstanding family and ostracization and Barfee’s frustrations with being talked down to are all aspects which really help to make a comedy a more layered and resounding show.”
When Sabine Poux ’20, who played the genius Marcy Park, sang about how she speaks six languages, we saw a smart girl reveal the layers of insecurity and doubts that any hard-working child has thought about at some point: Does everyone think I am boring? Do people think of me as anything more than a smarty-pants?
When Bobbit-Chertock, Miranda Seixas ’20, and Tim Hansen ’18 combined forces to sing “The I Love You Song,” we sat in rapture as the tangled emotions and expectations of family love were simplified into three notes harmonized perfectly into one. No family dynamic is the same, but the song found the right key to express the importance of those dynamics, touching every one of us listening.
When Logainne SchwarzandGrubiere had a meltdown because of the constant pressure put upon her by her two fathers (Christian Schmitt ’19 and Austin Kenny ’19), we remembered the pressure we endure from our parents and life. Hell, I was reminded of the pressures I was going through that day.
However, just like the first act, the emotional scenes were clothed in humor, and for this they were far more enjoyable for us than the scenes we experienced ourselves in years past.
By the end of the play, it was clear that the motley crew of lovable characters had all grown up in a way. Leaf discovered that they were pretty damn smart. William Barfee, played by the hysterical Sean Meagher ’20, discovered that he could be his weird self, spell words without his magic foot and find friendship and love with people as quirky as him. Logainne found her own confidence and blossomed outside of her fathers’ stern instruction. Marcy realized she could lose if she wanted to, even though she could have easily won. Finally, Olive finally found a friend in Barfee, as well as kindness in the form of Panch, who had been rather mean to the kids throughout the bee.
Within the chaos of “Spelling Bee,” the one constant was a smile on the faces of everyone in the audience. Though there were scenes that made us sad, the play’s consistent humor, wonderful acting and beautiful songs never once let us get down on the scenes or the lives they portrayed.
I think it was the ability to keep us all in good spirits that made this show as magical as it was. It reminded us of how hard adolescence could be, but it forced us into realizing just how damn beautiful and fun it was too.
Upon interviewing the cast, it seemed that another reason there was such joy in watching the show was that the cast and crew gelled so well.
“What was great about this show was that the cast just clicked, creatively and emotionally,” said Bobbitt-Chertock. “Everyone helped foster this welcoming, supportive environment, which is a real gem in theatre – an art form that infamously entails a lot of diva-tantrum-throwing.”
“The best thing about this play was the people involved,” Ciocci agreed.
Fine added that the dedication of the directors was crucial to the show’s success.
“Our cast and crew had no weak links at all, and Olivia and Ronnie did absolutely superb jobs as director and music director,” he said. “It was a privilege, and I am very proud of our performances.”
The glowing review from the cast illuminated the final, wonderful point to take from “Spelling Bee”: no matter who we are we all grow up with others, and it is with their unwavering support and presence that we all can find our way safely into adulthoo
(04/21/17 12:42am)
The Center for Community Engagement is hiring for two AmeriCorps VISTA positions, a Poverty Initiatives Coordinator, and a Youth and Mentoring Programs Coordinator, to serve a one-year term starting in August 2017. Emma McDonald ’16 and Katie Carpenter, who are currently serving in these roles, share about their experience so far this year and what drew them to these positions.
Emma (Poverty Initiatives Coordinator):
With graduation just a month away last spring, I wasn’t sure what I would do next. I thought first about far-away options and exciting, new places, as Middlebury students often do. But as I reflected on my experiences at Middlebury and all the opportunities I didn’t have time for (or didn’t make time for), the idea of sticking around for another year became more and more attractive.
It took me a while as a student to get outside the Middlebury “bubble.” By the time I realized how much there was to learn from the Middlebury community beyond the College, it was time to graduate. Many students figure this out before I did, but for me, another year here let me make up for lost time. Without academic responsibilities, I have had time this year to think deeply about Collegecommunity connections, to better understand the nuances in these relationships, the complexities of a liberal arts institution and what it means for Middlebury to be “the town’s college.” There is so much going on in Middlebury that many students don’t see – and adding a year of awareness to my narrow student perspective has impressed upon me how much there is to learn at Middlebury outside of the classroom.
I have learned about the complexities and sensitivities of community and higher education work. I understand better the challenges Vermont faces, and the efforts of different organizations to combat issues like hunger, homelessness and racial discrimination with skill and nuance. I have gotten to know community members working in government agencies, schools, and nonprofits, and I have seen how community meetings like the Addison County Hunger Council enhance their collaboration on important issues. I have observed staff and faculty facilitate students connecting theories from their coursework to local contexts and narratives through the Privilege & Poverty Academic Cluster, the program I help to coordinate.
I came to Middlebury for the classes, but I stayed for the community. I’ll leave knowing that I am grateful to Middlebury for both of these things. To students preparing to graduate: there is value and merit in moving on from Middlebury, but there is also promise in staying put.
Katie (Youth and Mentoring Programs Coordinator):
Unlike Emma, I didn’t go to Middlebury, so moving to the area was a new experience for me. I primarily chose to do a service year because I liked that AmeriCorps, rather than running a top-down service year program, places its members directly with agencies that plan out what the AmeriCorps member will be doing. I felt that this approach would allow me to do service that was well integrated into the organization and communities I was living and working in. I haven’t been disappointed, and through my role supporting youth and mentoring programs, I have gotten the opportunity to live in Addison County and learn about the area schools and organizations that form a network of support for children and youth. Similarly to Emma, I feel that being at meetings where organizations come together and discuss shared challenges has been a valuable learning experience for me, and has given me a sense of what a wellfunctioning professional network can look like.
Most of all, I have really loved my service year so far because of the work I’ve gotten to do. This VISTA role acts as a youth and mentoring programs coordinator for CCE-advised student organizations (like DREAM, MiddCAM,and Community Friends) and promotes College Positive Volunteerism. College Positive Volunteerism is the idea that children and youth who spend time with college students, hang out on college campuses, or talk about college with an adult role model will more easily envision themselves attending a postsecondary institution. To this end, I get to work with students who are connecting with children and teens in the area by leading after school programs, building one-to-one mentoring relationships, participating in group mentoring, running healthy food taste tests or supporting youth through their college application process. These programs give children and young people space to feel seen and heard by a caring, non-family adult, and encourage them to pursue their interests and practice decision-making. I also support these programs by connecting with professional school staff such as guidance counselors and afterschool program coordinators. Helping to facilitate these relationships being built by Middlebury College students and young people has been a deeply rewarding experience that has given me a greater sense of clarity and purpose about what I want from my professional life going forward.
To find out more about these positions and how to apply, please visit go/ middVISTA
(03/23/17 7:35pm)
On Thursday, March 16, Edward Snowden, a former National Security Agency (NSA) contractor who leaked classified information in an effort to expose widespread government surveillance, spoke over videoconference to Middlebury College community members in Wilson Hall as the Middlebury College Activities Board (MCAB) Spring Speaker. This was the first time that students gathered in Wilson Hall to hear a speaker after Charles Murray visited on
Snowden fled the United States in May 2013, and was later charged by the U.S. government with espionage and theft of government property. He currently resides at an undisclosed location in Russia, where he received renewed asylum in January 2017 for an additional three years.
Allison Stanger, Russell Leng ’60 Professor of International Politics and Economics, introduced Snowden and moderated the event. Stanger began by describing the effect Snowden has had on her upcoming book, Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Leaks: The Story of Whistleblowing in America, which was near completion when Snowden’s story broke. “He forced me, more or less, back to square one,” she said, “but it will be a better book, I hope, for the extra effort.”
In his own opening remarks, Snowden said that the problem at hand involves more than the NSA’s activity. “The problem is that this has become easy for anyone with a certain amount of resources,” he said. While government surveillance programs were once costly and cumbersome, Snowden shared that contemporary programs have grown far more efficient. “One guy can track, with precision, an unimaginably large number of people. And that was me,” he said, referring to his work at the NSA.
Snowden criticized the government for participating in surveillance programs that “are not only unlawful, but have always been unconstitutional.” Moreover, he argued that the government misrepresents its justification for the very existence of the programs. “These programs do not and have not saved lives… These programs were never about terrorism,” he said. “[Surveillance] is useful for disrupting social movements, in being able to discredit people whose politics we disagree with... [These programs] are about economic espionage, diplomatic manipulation, and social control.”
Lamenting a lack of effective mechanisms for constitutional oversight, Snowden cited the press and a vigilant public as vehicles that could bring about greater government transparency. “My argument is that we are at this point forced to rely on our press... If we only knew what governments or corporations wanted us to know, we wouldn’t know much at all.” He continued, “If we didn’t have investigative journalism, we wouldn’t be talking about [this].”
Throughout his talk, Snowden articulated a message of empowerment, imploring the audience to remember that “Saying something matters…the reality is one voice can change the world.” He warned against the notion that freedom of privacy is not important if one has nothing to hide, arguing that “Privacy is the foundation of all other rights… if we lose that, we’re losing more than a right; we’re losing ourselves.”
Snowden also stressed the importance of recognizing the relationship between rights and privilege. “Rights don’t mean much to the powerful and the privileged,” he said. “Rights matter to those who are different, to those who stand out… If you say surveillance is okay as long as its not monitoring me, this is selfish and short sighted.
Snowden was careful to explain that he never personally published any documents in his 2013 reveal. Rather, he gave the information to professional journalists, and requested that they contact the U.S. government in advance of publication to ensure that each leak would not put anyone in danger. To Snowden’s knowledge, that process was followed in every case, and “they have never shown any evidence that anyone has come to harm as a result of these disclosures.” Instead, his actions “changed our laws, changed the thinking of the president, [and] won the Pulitzer Prize for public service. I believe that we live in a freer and fairer world because of it,” he said.
Emma Dunlap ’18 and Jocelyn Zemach ’18, co-chairs of the MCAB Speakers Committee, worked with an agent to secure Snowden as Spring Speaker. “We generally use an agent for our larger speakers,” Dunlap wrote in an email. “Our committee unanimously decided to ‘bring’ Edward Snowden to Middlebury believing that he would start an interesting conversation on campus, especially given the current political climate in America, U.S.-Russian relations, and cyber security concerns in general.”
According to Dunlap, “The event reached over 500 viewers on the live stream. I’ve received positive feedback from many attendees and I hope that the Middlebury community continues to discuss the ideas and opinions that Snowden brought.”
Rebecca Simon ’19 had a somewhat different opinion after leaving Wilson Hall, questioning whether Snowden came to Middlebury to push an agenda rather than engage in a discussion. “Though most of what he had to say was rather inspiring for young people to hear, it all seemed like an elaborate plan or a previously constructed lecture on why his position was correct,” she said. “I am so happy I waited 90 minutes in the cold to see him interact with Professor Stanger and students…I just thought that the discussion was going to be a discussion and not a lecture.”
(03/10/17 3:34am)
On Feb. 22, the Middlebury College American Enterprise Institute Club published a group op-ed in The Campus that extended an “invitation” to the Middlebury College community “to encourage robust discussion and expose the Middlebury Community to diverse thoughts, opinions and understandings on the important topics of today,” according to the authors. The event was a lecture by political scientist and American Enterprise Institute (AEI) WH Brady Scholar, Charles Murray.
Soon after the announcement of Murray’s talk, both students and faculty began organizing in opposition. The reasons why Charles Murray sparked such passionate resistance and controversy are complicated and diverse, and motivations among those opposed to him were varied. Murray is considered one of the leading libertarian academics in the United States and has had significant influence on both political science and policymaking; for example, his work influenced the welfare debate during the 1990s.
Although he was invited to the College to speak on his most recent book, Coming Apart, which attempts to track and explain a growing divide between white “intellectual elite” and white working class people, Murray is best known for his work, “The Bell Curve.” This book has been fiercely debated since its publication in 1994, as it posits links between intelligence and race based on differences in average IQ scores between races.
Parts of his methodology have been challenged, especially his use of certain data to arrive at more general conclusions on the nature versus nurture debate. “The Bell Curve” and some of Murray’s later comments have resulted in his classification as a “white nationalist” by many, including the Southern Poverty Law Center, a nonprofit legal advocacy organization “dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry,” as stated on their website.
An Invitation to Speak
Murray has spoken at Middlebury before, once in April 2007, on “The Bell Curve.” The event sparked controversy but not to the same extent of last Thursday; it was not covered in The Campus. Last semester, the College chapter of AEI gathered to discuss an invitation for an expert from the organization to deliver a guest lecture. They made a list of academics associated with AEI and submitted it to the national organization.
AEI told the College chapter that Murray had accepted the invitation partly because of his close relationship with the College: he is the parent of a Middlebury graduate. The College chapter was provided funding by the national organization to host Murray and facilitate the talk. “Our goal … was to create a discussion on campus. We thought that his work on “Coming Apart” was really prescient,” AEI Vice President Alexander Khan ’17 said.
In the AEI chapter on campus, the executive board — which made the final decision to bring Murray to campus — disagreed on the best format for his planned lecture. Violet Low-Beinart ’19, a member of the board and a democrat, floated the possibility of treating this event differently than other academic lectures and offered the idea of a moderated panel format.
“We are a diverse group who hold a range of opinions and political ideologies,” she said of the board’s final decision not to pursue a panel format.
Addressing the internal debate, Phil Hoxie ’17.5, president and chair of the AEI executive council, determined that disagreement among board members was due to expectations of social ramifications. “I think the concerns were more of how this would be perceived [by] other people and not wanting to deal with what we’re dealing with right now,” he said.
Organizing Resistance
By evening on Feb. 24, several months after the AEI had scheduled Murray’s talk, the decision to bring Murray to the College had escalated into a campus-wide controversy. Over the weekend of Feb. 25-26, Middlebury Resistance, College Democrats, Wonderbread, other clubs and ad-hoc organizations were already beginning substantive organization efforts. Some of the first goals that emerged were to get the Department of Political Science to rescind its co-sponsorship in the event, to urge President of Middlebury Laurie L. Patton to not appear at the event and to pressure either the College or AEI to retract the invitation altogether.
On Monday, Feb. 27. Professors and students together led organizing efforts, which soon divided into two different groups: those who wished to carry out non-disruptive protests, and those who wished to shut down the event and prevent Murray from speaking.
Arianna Reyes ’18 and Sami Lamont ’17 helped solidify and structure the protests. Both students saw the event as an opportunity to take action and support values they care deeply about. “I was thinking a lot about what’s been going on in the world and how I’ve been really passive before right now in terms of actually organizing,” Reyes said.
Lamont explained that she took a de facto leadership role in the opposition when she realized the opposition energy could use additional direction and structure.
“It was seeing all the ideas floating around just on Facebook and then realizing that we needed a place to consolidate that if anything was going to happen,” she said, commenting on her decision to get involved.
However, both Reyes and Lamont quickly recognized that the protest efforts could never be completely uniform. Reyes focused on the group of students who wished to disrupt the speech, while Lamont instead helped run meetings that brainstormed non-disruptive methods of resistance.
“I was always definitely supportive of a diversity of tactics,” Reyes said. “I wasn’t trying to go against anyone and what they were doing.”
On Wednesday, March 1, the political science department held a community meeting for the purpose of providing a forum to ask questions about the department’s cosponsorship and to discuss the event more generally. In the course of the meeting, political science faculty also revealed internal divisions. Department Chair and Associate Professor of Political Science Bertram Johnson had previously sent an email around that provided insight into the department’s own debate over the sponsorship.
Associate Professor of Political Science Sarah Stroup offered an opening statement that presented her own mixed feelings about the lecture, as well as her thoughts on what made this event so unusual for the department.
“I think that it’s a trope in higher education that we are supposed to make [students] uncomfortable, and I will be honest that most of the time, we do not join you as faculty in that endeavor,” she said. “This is different because we are uncomfortable. Because I am uncomfortable. Because we are asked to be with you and think about what our responsibilities are when we navigate between the free exchange of ideas and our commitment to the community.”
Over an hour, the political science department offered different viewpoints of the controversy, from steadfast defenses of the decision to invite him to campus, to expressions of revulsion at Murray’s views and to encouragements of protest.
A Contentious Afternoon
On March 2, the day of the event, organizers made final efforts to assemble their response with signs, emails and brochures. The Middlebury AEI and the College Republicans clubs, which have partly shared leadership, called for members to arrive at the event as early as possible.
“This has become, for Alexander [Khan] and I, a battle for free speech and liberalism. We do not believe that Dr. Murray is what others claim him to be,” Hoxie wrote in an email.
More than an hour before the talk was penned to begin at 4:30 p.m., students, faculty and community members began lining up outside of McCullough Student Center.
The earliest arrivals were predominantly protesters. Many held signs with declarations like “Respect Resistance,” “F*ck White Supremacy,” “F*ck Eugenics,” and “Charles Murray Is Fake News.” On the lawn nearby, non-student activists gathered, and the flag of the Anti-Fascist movement flapped in the breeze. These activists, and anyone else not part of the college community, were not allowed inside the event.
Finally, the doors to the lecture opened and students went inside — but, due to capacity issues, only a fraction of those outside got seats.
Vice President for Communications and Chief Marketing Officer Bill Burger took the stage and stated the Middlebury guidelines on guest speakers, protests and demonstrations. His short speech incited several responses from the protesters.
“Middlebury College does not allow disruptive behavior at a community event or on campus. Disruptions may include purposefully blocking the view of others,” Burger said. To this, an unidentified student in the crowd said, “And inviting white supremacists.”
Burger continued, “Banners or items that block the audience’s view,” and the crowd immediately raised their signs high in response.
“You’re going to love this next part,” he said. “Noise or action that disrupts the ability of the audience to hear.” At that, the audience burst into cheers, drowning out the rest of Burger’s sentence.
Crowd outbursts and jeers continued through the opening speeches of Khan and Middlebury AEI Executive Council Member Ivan Valladares ’17. When President Patton took stage, she was met with a combination of boos and applause. However, after delivering her remarks, the crowd responded only with applause.
“We are an intellectual community, and part of a job of an intellectual community is to argue. If there ever was a time for Americans to take on arguments that affect us, it is now,” she said.
Murray finally walked on stage, and the crowd erupted into boos and chants. “This is going to be a real anti-climax,” he said. At that point, protesters stood up, turned around and together began reciting a pre-written speech.
“This is not respectful discourse or a debate about free speech,” they said. “These are not ideas that can be fairly debated. It is not ‘representative’ of the other side to give a platform to such dangerous ideologies. There is not a potential for an equal exchange of ideas.”
The speech then transformed into chants. These included: “Who is the enemy? White supremacy!” “Your message is hatred; we cannot tolerate it!” “Charles Murray, go away; Middlebury says ‘no way!’”
After ten minutes, Burger walked on stage again to announce that the format of the talk would transform into an interactive, livestreamed discussion between Murray and moderator Allison Stanger, the Russell J. Leng ’60 professor of international politics and economics. The two moved to an undisclosed location to film their conversation, a backup prepared in advance.
Over the course of Murray and Stanger’s discussion that lasted more than an hour (now available on the Middlebury News Room) some members in the crowd dispersed. But many protesters remained in the auditorium and continued chanting. The protests continued outside, as well, where some spoke into megaphones and sounded off sirens and drums. They had discovered the location of the live stream and made noise outside its window — in the video, their efforts can be heard clearly.
Back inside the auditorium, as administrators attempted to get the livestream projected onto the screen, tensions between protesters and attendees escalated. Students yelled at each other across Wilson Hall. “Respect free speech!” was shouted to some protesters. One protester yelled, “F*ck white supremacy!” to a group of students attempting to view the livestream. In response, one of those viewers shouted, “F*ck censorship!” The altercation ended when the protester yelled back, “F*ck free speech!”
Protesters and attendees alike dispersed as time went on, but a sizeable group of around 20 students continued to chant over Murray’s talk. Many students left to view the speech elsewhere. Outside the McCullough Student Center, a majority of protesters had left by 6 p.m.
About 15 protesters remained standing one entrance to McCullough, still yelling at the window of the room in which Murray was speaking. Among this group were non-student activists. Some protesters wore face masks to conceal their identities. Two masked protesters unfurled a banner that read, “Choke on your silver spoon, you f*cking Nazi.”
As Murray’s talk neared its end, the protesters dispersed around McCullough to cover all the entrances, waiting for his exit.
The events that followed caused the protests to draw attention from national news outlets, but the details and nuances of that day remain uncertain. What is agreed upon by Burger’s statements to the media, Stanger’s public Facebook post, Murray’s statement on AEI’s website and President Patton’s statements to the community is the following claim: When Murray exited the building, escorted by Burger and Stanger, the group was approached by protesters, several with their faces covered and some of whom were non-students. As Stanger and Murray attempted to get inside a car, protesters allegedly placed themselves in their path.
Murray was not physically harmed in the ensuing confrontation, but Stanger suffered from a neck injury following a physical altercation that transpired after she attempted to shield Murray and usher him to their vehicle. Stanger experienced whiplash that evening. On the following Sunday, she was diagnosed with a concussion. She was taken to Porter Hospital on both days.
Beyond this series of events, the nature of the confrontation and its many facets remain disputed. An article on the student-run blog Middbeat, unaffiliated with the administration, shared the perspective of anonymous students who claimed to be present at the conflict. Other recollections have provided contradictory details and viewpoints, and the questions of what happened, who initiated what and who exactly is at fault have ignited widespread and contentious debate, both on and off campus.
Following the day’s events, two seperate investigations are being launched; one an independent investigation by the College, the other an investigation into the confrontation that took place outside of McCullough to be done by the Middlebury Police Department, said President Patton in an email to the community last Monday.
“There is hard work ahead for all of us,” Patton wrote in her email. “Learning to be accountable to one another, and learning to stand in community with one another.”
Community Response
By Friday, March 3, Murray had departed, and students, faculty and staff awoke to a world suddenly focused on their college. The first reports of Stanger’s injury appeared in VTDigger and the Addison Independent, but national news outlets soon began running the story.
Within the College community, many have been asking, “What do these events mean?” In an email sent on Friday, Patton spoke of the event as a disappointing display of a deep divide in College culture.
“Last night we failed to live up to our core values,” she said in the message. “But I remain hopeful.”
“This was the saddest day of my life,” Stanger posted publicly to Facebook on Saturday, March 4. “We have got to do better by those who feel and are marginalized ... We must all realize the precious inheritance we have as fellow Americans and defend the Constitution against all its enemies, both foreign and domestic.”
For Khan and Hoxie, the disruptions and confrontation took them by surprise and seemed to confirm their fears about the state of freedom of speech on campus.
“If we’re not willing to listen to each other and we’re not willing to listen to what we have to say because we feel that that person might say something that we find offensive, or even hateful, we’re going to be in real trouble,” Hoxie said. “I firmly believe that freedom is one generation away from being extinct. We’re going to vote it away.”
Many students who participated in the protests expressed disappointment at the violent conclusion to events, but they also felt some satisfaction with the effectiveness of the protests within Wilson Hall and a determination to continue pushing these issues in the future.
“[The initial protest] was incredibly successful because we coordinated all of these people to turn around and that was a really powerful statement,” Reyes said. “It was successful because we did get [Murray and Professor Stanger] to leave Wilson Hall.”
Lamont and Reyes do not view the division as one that pits proponents of free speech against those who are willing to restrict free speech in pursuit of some other goal.
“That’s one thing [President Patton] mentions a lot in [her statements on] rhetorical resilience — confidence in debate — and I think one big reason why we were not into talking to Murray is that he’s shown that he’s pretty confident in his ideas and he’s not really about talking to them and engaging and reconsidering,” Lamont said.
For other students, however, the disruption of Murray’s talk and subsequent violence brought to the forefront a significant problem engrained in the community.
“The manner in which he was shut down lacked civility and, in my opinion, did not respect the rights of those students (many who disagree with him ideologically) but who, nevertheless, wanted to hear him speak and/or engage with him at an intellectual level,” said Abdi Mohamed ’18.5.
As of this writing, it is unclear exactly how the community will respond to these events. As Johnson said, “I think one of the more powerful things we can say in this moment is ‘I don’t know’. I don’t really know what’s next.”
Many see the events as having unleashed a deep and possibly irreconcilable gulf between students, while others see them as a way to come together, hash out differences and determine a path to progress. According to Lamont, preperations are already being made for meetings and discussions in the coming weeks.
Khan viewed the events as an opportunity for the community to reassess its values and culture, and to push back against attempts to stifle opposing views. “I don’t want the moral of this story to be that Middlebury couldn’t handle a viewpoint that wasn’t consistent with their own. I think that it’s so necessary and important that we try to change the culture on campus and create one of intellectual diversity.”
In an email sent out on Monday, March 6, President Patton reinforced this call for community building and discussion.
“This week, we will mark the beginning of opportunities for reflection and engagement,” she said. “We have much to discuss — our differences on the question of free speech and on the role of protest being two of the most pressing examples. In addition, I am extending an invitation to everyone to submit community-building ideas for consideration.”
“I’m committed to working on whatever’s next, and I’m grateful for those people on various sides of this who have reached out to have conversations,” Johnson said. “That’s how we’re going to proceed — through having conversations.”
Additional reporting by Christian Jambora and Will DiGravio.
(03/10/17 1:40am)
On behalf of President Donald J. Trump, I would like to thank the protesters who prevented other people from hearing Charles Murray’s last week. The Trump administration is under siege by investigators and subpoenas. But you provided a welcome distraction. From Steve Bannon’s point of view, it couldn’t have turned out better. As for myself, I would really like to hear how different protest groups and options interacted up to the critical moment, around 4:45 p.m. on Thursday March 2, when a bunch of you decided not to walk out. If this group included newcomers pushing for a fight, and if this was still the Nixon administration, my next question would be, any chance they work for the FBI? Nowadays, the next question would be, any chance they work for an Alt-Right sting that persuaded you to do stupid things on camera?
However this happened, the shut-it-downers acted out the inhumanity you say you oppose. Shut-it-downers preempted other strategies, that would respect a speaker’s right to be heard and make the protest look good, so that you could rhythmically stomp on free speech. The rest of us do not understand how, in the name of fighting hate-speech, you could hate-speech a speaker for two hours, then attack him and his escort as they tried to leave. But there’s a possible explanation for why you could do this with a clear conscience — is it because of how you think about race?
The reason I ask is that you used race to justify your actions. Racial epithets played all too well in this liberal enclave. The Southern Poverty Law Center uses pull-quotes to accuse Charles Murray of racist pseudoscience and white nationalism, which you escalated by calling him a white supremacist. Now I’m hearing protesters defend their actions by saying it’s okay to punch Nazis. So Charles Murray is equivalent to a Nazi? Rhetorical escalation often backfires; if it sends you into a rage, your opponent will look more reasonable than you do. That’s certainly how Murray looked, standing patiently at the podium for half an hour, as the halo of free speech descended upon his brow.
Calling Murray a white supremacist is like calling an abortionist a baby-killer. Eighth- month abortions kill viable infants. But if you label abortion providers as baby-killers, you make a false generalization and dehumanize them. This is to be avoided if you want to avoid violence. In the case of Murray, his use of psychometrics to characterize broad populations has made him popular with Republicans who feel that government handouts encourage anti-social behavior among low-income Americans. This puts him on a slippery slope that can quickly lead to white supremacy; it is possible that Murray enjoys being on this slippery slope; but neither this nor white nationalism nor scientific racism are positions that he articulates. Murray is better defined as a bio-determinist or genetic fatalist, the limitations of which are easy to explain.
Those of you who race-baited Murray as a white supremacist put yourselves on your own slippery slope. You dehumanized him, which made it easy to justify violence against him, which is exactly what happened. You are also on a second slippery slope, which I care about just as much because I do not want to see Donald Trump win a second term in the White House. If having conservative attitudes about poverty is tantamount to racism, are you now going to label all the American voters who think this way as racists?
Cultural conservatives, whose attitudes strike liberals as backward, include tens of millions of Democratic voters in the last election, and they are not all white. You can accuse as many people as you want of being racists, but don’t expect them to vote for you in the next election. Of course, maybe you’ve stopped caring about elections. Look how badly the last one turned out. If American elections are inextricably linked to white privilege, what do they matter? If free speech is inextricably linked to white privilege, what does that matter either?
About ten years ago, Charles Murray came here to talk about the controversy over “The Bell Curve”. There was no campaign to disinvite him and faculty members held a debrief the next day, to ensure that any interested parties understood the weak points of his argument. What has changed to make him so unacceptable now? Is the difference Donald Trump in the White House? Certainly Trump’s use of invective has inflamed the atmosphere, but how about our own local production of racial classification?
Ever since the Nazis fed anthropology texts into their bonfires, my profession has argued that race is a cultural fiction with no more basis in genetics than being French or Morrocan. There are no genes that make the behavior of a black race differ from the behavior of a white race. Far more important in shaping behavior and outcomes are cultural programming and social conditioning. And so as far as anthropologists are concerned, race is little more than a fetish or disguise for social class, ethnic or cultural differences.
Our arguments won over many American liberals, but we were not as successful with American conservatives. One conservative rejoinder was … what? What do you mean there’s no such thing as race? As far as they can see, racial determination of behavior and outcomes is common sense. For evidence they still appeal to the IQ scores that Charles Murray and his co- author deployed in their 1994 book. A second conservative rejoinder also became popular … you’re saying race is fictional? Wonderful! Now that we’ve outlawed discrimination, let’s treat everyone equally, so we can stop worrying about race.
This second conservative rejoinder put liberals in an awkward position. Our only possible response was … wait, wait, wait! We can’t stop thinking about race because racist attitudes are still strong. Think about all the inherited inequalities — structural racism. And so the same liberals who argued that race is a cultural fiction now also had to argue that race is the hidden reality behind other forms of injustice. And so we learned to sing a complicated tune about race — or perhaps we sing two different tunes at the same time. Some of us (including myself) stress that any form of racial classification is a way of misleading ourselves. Others of us (including many who study race for a living) focus instead on uncovering its insidious impact in many realms of life.
At elite colleges like Middlebury, the challenge of making underrepresented minorities feel welcome has prompted many initiatives organized around the concept of race. This includes hiring faculty who, quite understandably, interpret their mandate to include identifying hidden racial agendas in a prevailing white environment. Judging from what some of our students now publish regularly on the oped pages of The Campus, race saturates every issue at Middlebury College. But does it really?
Long ago in 2001, in “Race Experts: How Racial Etiquette, Sensititivity Training and New Age Therapy Hijacked the Civil Rights Revolution,” Elisabeth Lasch-Quinn pointed out that race activists increasingly perceive “a world of endless slights. Here racist crimes and social faux pas are one and the same — all inspired by a monolithic, unabated white racial hatred. All whites must confess to their inherent racism, or they are, in the words of the recovery movement, ‘in denial.’” Yet if racial classification is a cultural fiction, if it is always a disguise for what’s really going on, can anti-racism scholars and activists fall into the trap of propagating it rather than undermining it?
That they indeed can is argued by the sociologist Frank Furedi in “What’s Happened to the University?” Interestingly, campus episodes that Americans might attribute to our penchant for racial divides, lawsuits and psycho-babble are, according to Furedi, also very common in Canada, Australia and Britain. What’s shared by universities in each of these countries is the rapid spread of the “vulnerable groups” concept. This leads to what Furedi calls “the weaponization of emotions,” that is, the public display of fragility and anger as political bargaining chips. Becoming offended has become an irrefutable rationale for ending discussion, which makes it a claim to entitlement. What’s being demanded is administrative paternalism, Furedi concludes, which guarantees further cycles of infantilization.
Could a spiral of dependency and anger explain how, on our campus, the demand for inclusion and safe space has become a demand for intolerance? Is this why our anti-racism activists last week were hurling racial invective? I heard racial insults, not just against Charles Murray, but against white women, white liberals and students of color whom shut-it-downers accused of racial disloyalty. Racialism is what I think I was hearing. Racialism is the insistence that one’s primary loyalty should be to one’s own racial group. If this is really what you think, white supremacists agree with you.
(03/10/17 1:34am)
I wore a suit to protest Charles Murray.
I now need to explain that choice, for the record, for anyone who thinks it's a neutral fashion statement, and more importantly for the friends whose trust I fractured with the decision.
Background: AEI was hosting a dinner after the event during which people could engage in a formal conversation with our esteemed guest. I’m not a member of AEI, but asked them to attend that dinner so I could ask Murray pointed questions that made him uncomfortable and in that way celebrate a tiny victory over my own white supremacist ancestors. They OK’d my attendance, told me to wear a coat and tie and walk to the Abernethy room with them after the “talk" (presumably in step with Murray). I notified the Wonderbread email list and suggested they send me any questions they wanted asked. I decided to opt out of shutting him down, assured that I could defend my anger against Murray and simultaneously claim exemption from protesting because my energy was focused elsewhere.
So here's what wearing the suit communicated, given my abstention from protesting:
I support the College's decision to bring Charles Murray here.
My own intellectual curiosity is more important than the lives of those targeted by discriminatory pseudoscience.
Regardless of this de facto endorsement, I get a free "woke" badge for feebly challenging a white supremacist.
I ultimately decided to join in protesting anyway, at the last minute, because I had friends involved and wanted to support them. Once there, I got loud and found an anger I hadn’t known before. It wasn’t just the mob mentality talking. It felt good to shout down white supremacy. But I still felt compelled to go to the dinner. In the chaotic aftermath of Murray’s flight to the Student Activities Office, I nonchalantly alternated between joining my friends in continued protest and talking with some acquaintances of mine from AEI, both to ask them if the dinner was still happening and to discuss their feelings about the protest. I assured them that I would still be civil when I attended the event, and chatted confidently and calmly while my friends kept chanting their voices hoarse.
In short, I actively protested and supported Charles Murray at the same time, to nearly the maximum degree possible in either direction, considering the limitations of my student role. Side note: I also jumped the line to get in. Yeah, I’m that low.
At this point it should be evident to anyone reading that this isn’t really about the suit. Full disclosure: part of my decision had to do with the fact that I look fly in a suit and will not pass up an opportunity to wear one. I encourage everyone to wear whatever clothing you like, whenever you like. But the fact that I chose to wear a suit on this particular day, in the face of intense emotional turmoil and naked disciplinary threats toward my fellow protesters from the school many of us call home, and pretended everything was cool with the students who brought Charles Murray here, says something bigger about me.
Ultimately, my decisions meant:
The organizers' efforts are less important than my own, because I get to disproportionately reap the benefits of our efforts without the associated psychological and physical stress.
My contributions to this event are important and I get free social capital. And friends from AEI.
Even in anti-racist activism — no, especially in anti-racist activism — white supremacy and its cultural manifestations must remain intact. The suit is more important than my friends’ humanity.
Overall, it means I cannot be trusted. I am an enemy in this fight for justice, and a sinister one: I remain dormant in the ranks and then I waltz in, co-opt the movement and actively undermine its strength. I may be the most insidious agent of white supremacy this campus has ever seen. How’s that for a badge?
For those who are still confused, or think I’m being too hard on myself, let me be clear about something: I wanted to attend that dinner. Deep down, I respect Charles Murray, regardless of his views. He’s an old, white, male intellectual, which is all I ever wanted to be growing up. It sounds silly, but I’m completely serious. That’s who got respect and reverence in my culture. White patriarchs with money run the country, and I was raised on promises that if I worked hard enough, I could do that too. And send my kids to college, and retire in Florida with a sizable pension. And golf. In my universe, oppression ended with the Civil Rights Movement, and poor people never existed except in movies and brief snapshots of unusually clean city streets, so it didn’t matter what kind of corporate greed was financing my parents. All I needed to do was study hard, and ignore my feelings. And smile. Oh, and holding differently colored hands helps you earn moral brownie points. I learned that from Elementary School textbooks.
Academia is my drug, and Middlebury College is an intellectual opium den for young rich assholes and social media progressives. (These are not mutually exclusive categories; I am living proof of that). The size of our endowment doesn’t concern me; nor does the emotional state of those without my unearned wealth. I have very, very important things to learn here. Because I need a degree. Because I need a well-paying job. Because…
To my friends, and to anyone who helped organize or protest: last week, I betrayed you. I am ashamed and deeply sorry. I don’t expect you’ll forgive me. I just want you to know that I'll work three times as hard to make sure your professors and other members of the “Middlebury College community" never unwittingly buy into white supremacy again. It’s too deeply woven into our minds to ignore anymore; it always has been. But you know that. Regardless of how this all plays out, I won’t look back on my life in 30 years and recall fondly that I spent most of my time peacefully studying, gleefully building social connections and consistently getting smashed. Sorry, Middlebury, I’m not sorry.
Students with an upbringing at all similar to mine (you know who you are), I need you to hear this: you can’t have your cake and eat it too. I leave you with a quotation from the famous Apartheid-era archbishop Desmond Tutu: “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.”
You may have heard this line before, but let it sink in for a second. “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor."
What we seem to forget is that country has never not been in a situation of injustice. It’s past time that we stop pretending that neutrality is possible. That goes for all of us, especially President Patton. Let her and your professors know.
(I encourage anyone, and I mean anyone, who is curious or angry about any of this to talk about it. I am here for that if you need it. If you specifically want to yell at me for being the worst ally in history, I am also receptive to that idea. I hope this helps you think through your own life, if even a little bit. Please reach out, whenever, at tmcdowell@middlebury.edu.)
(03/03/17 1:37am)
Student-led protests prevented Dr. Charles Murray, a W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), from delivering a lecture scheduled to take place at 4:30 PM at Wilson Hall in the McCullough Student Center. The college's AEI Club invited Murray to speak about his 2012 book "Coming Apart,: and to engage in a conversation with Russell J. Leng '60 Professor of International Politics and Economics Allison Stanger.
Opening remarks were delivered by the college's Vice President for Communications and Chief Marketing Officer Bill Burger, AEI Executive Board Member Ivan Valladares 17 and Middlebury President Laurie L. Patton. AEI Co-President Alexander Khan d17 introduced Murray. After Murray arrived at the podium, students began to protest.
Approximately twenty minutes after the protest began, the college canceled the live event in Wilson Hall and decided to live stream a private conversation between Murray and Stanger. That live event will be made available through the college news room.
UPDATE March 3, 2017
In the time that that has passed since this article went live, new developments have emerged. As reported by the Addison County Independent, protestors injured Professor Allison Stanger as she escorted Charles Murray off campus following the conclusion of their live streamed conversation.
“During this confrontation outside McCullough, one of the demonstrators pulled Prof. Stanger’s hair and twisted her neck,” the Colleges Vice President for Communications and Chief Marketing Officer Bill Burger said.
“The protestors then violently set upon the car, rocking it, pounding on it, jumping on and try to prevent it from leaving campus,” he said. “At one point a large traffic sign was thrown in front of the car. Public Safety officers were able, finally, to clear the way to allow the vehicle to leave campus."
According to Burger, she was attended to at Porter Hospital later and is wearing a neck brace.
More information will be provided in next weeks issue of The Campus.
For videos and pictures of the event, please see below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6EASuhefeI&t=26s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_B-DssohgY
(10/27/16 3:30pm)
The Middlebury College department of International Politics and Economics (IPE) will host its fifth annual symposium, “The Global Illicit Drug Trade: Confronting Challenges and Exploring Solutions” on Friday, Oct. 28.
The event, slated to take place in the Robert A. Jones House Conference Room, will mainly consist of three lectures delivered by guest speakers with expertise in drug policy; the fourth will be given by Rebecca Tiger, a professor of sociology at the College.
In the lead-up to the symposium, the Campus spoke with Professors Mark Williams and Sebnem Gumuscu (Political Science) and William Pyle (Economics), who have served as the primary organizers of the event. All three highlighted the symposium’s pragmatic, policy-oriented focus, as well as the increasing pertinence of drug policy both at home and overseas.
“There were a number of things that led to this topic,” said Williams.
Perhaps the biggest motivator, he said, was a United Nations General Assembly session convened in April which focused on the world drug problem.
“Countries were trying to rethink the international law that deals with drug trafficking,” he explained. “We wanted to time the topic to coincide with that, to build off whatever momentum may have come out of that session.”
A central theme of the symposium, the professors said, will be an analysis of the perceived failures of global drug policy, and what steps nations may take to forge a better future.
“The standard pathway for a long time has been prohibition of drug production and drug consumption—selling and so forth —and punishment for those that are involved in any of those processes,” Williams said. “For many countries, there’s been a growing consensus that this sort of standard approach hasn’t worked. Not only hasn’t it worked, but it’s created more problems without even solving the problems of the drug trade itself.”
Moreover, Williams highlighted that the subject has increasing relevance at home. “I think that over time, there’s been a growing perception that something is not right with the way that we’ve been approaching illicit drugs,” he said. “You can see that, not only in the number of people that are incarcerated but in the return of some drugs that had been on the decline, like heroin.”
Pyle concurred, noting that the issue has particular resonance “if we think about something like marijuana policy, which is changing on a state-by-state basis. We have policy experiments in Washington state, Colorado—it’s something that’s directly relevant to Vermont state politics, it’s part of the governor’s race right now and the state legislature dealt with marijuana legalization in just the past year […]. So it’s something that’s international in scope but it also resonates nicely with issues that hit closer to home.”
Gumuscu elaborated on the significance of drug policy from a geopolitical standpoint. “I study and teach comparative politics, and we talk a lot about state building and state failure,” she said. “Interestingly, drug trade is a very important part of that process in very different parts of the world, especially the developing world.”
She explained that insurgent groups—sometimes known as terrorist groups, “depending on the point of view”—often depend heavily upon the drug market. “[These groups] gather substantial financial income and resources from this trade,” she said. “And they can thus finance their operations in many of these developing countries […]. So there are multiple dimensions to it, from state-building and state failure to insurgencies, terrorist organizations and transnational terrorist organizations and networks.”
Each of the day’s speakers, the professors said, would highlight some aspect of these issues. The first is Peter Reuter, a professor at the University of Maryland who Pyle described as “an expert on the international policy regime.” His lecture, “The International Drug Policy Reform Agenda: Why It Misses the Major Problems and Opportunities,” will be a critical examination of the drug policies undertaken by nations around the world.
The second speaker will be Beau Kilmer, a researcher at the RAND Drug Policy Research Center. His talk, “Marijuana Legalization 2016: Assessing the International Policy Landscape and Implementation Issues,” will analyze differing approaches to marijuana legalization.
Kilmer will be followed by Alejandro Madrazo Lajous, a researcher from Mexico City whose lecture, “The Constitutional Costs of the War on Drugs,” will compare drug policies in Colombia, Mexico and the United States, as well as how those policies affect the civil liberties and constitutional commitments that governments grant to their citizens.
The final speaker, Rebecca Tiger, will deliver a lecture titled “(Re) Imagining Drugs and Addiction: The Past, Present and Possible Future of Drug Policy,” focusing on the sociological implications of drug addiction.
“While we were putting together the program, we wanted to make sure that we covered a lot of ground, and as many different factors and dimensions as possible,” said Gumuscu. “So from Europe to North America, South America and even developing countries in general, that was the goal: to look at this particular topic from a very comprehensive perspective.”
Above all, the professors hope that attendees leave the symposium with a greater understanding of a highly complicated issue.
“One of the important takeaways that I personally want to emphasize would be the complexity of the issue and how multidimensional it is, and how hard it is to find easy solutions to this problem,” Gumuscu said.
“With an issue as complicated as drug trafficking and the other externalities that it creates, it’s unlikely that you’ll come up with a policy that will solve all problems,” agreed Williams. “So the issue would be, can we use the past, and other countries’ policy experiments and experiences, to minimize the risks that we would take as we try to reform policy? And can we actually maximize benefits from adopting some reforms while avoiding unnecessary costs?”
“We hope that the folks who attend come away with a better appreciation for the sorts of policy experiments that are being discussed currently and the costs of the current enforcement regime, whether it’s in terms of violence or incarceration or resources spent on policing,” Pyle concluded. “And a consequence that we could hope for is that the people walk out better-informed, able to be better citizens and better voters on issues relating to drug policy. If we can push the ball forward in that respect, then we’ll have done something very valuable.”
(10/13/16 3:26pm)
Two student leaders of InterVarsity Christian Fellowship, a national evangelical Christian organization that has a chapter at Middlebury College, were asked to resign their leadership posts by other members in the chapter in January 2015 because of their sexuality. The two students chose not to speak about the incident until now.
The students, Jonathan O’Dell ’18 and Josiah Stork ’15, were approached several times in 2014 by another student board member, who has since graduated. According to Stork, the student told the two that Intervarsity (IVCF) had a national policy against openly gay student leaders, meaning O’Dell and Stork would have to step down.
The board member who asked the two to step down declined multiple requests for comment, and instead directed The Campus to Chris Nichols, the IVCF’s regional director for New England.
Nichols denied that such a national policy against gay student leaders ever existed.
“There is (and has been) no national policy in place in InterVarsity that bars student leaders from serving if they are openly gay,” said Nichols in an email to The Campus on Oct. 4.
Nichols did say that the IVCF expects its leaders “to affirm our doctrinal basis and to share a common approach to faith with the group.” According to IVCF’s website, the doctrinal basis is “the basic Biblical truths of Christianity.”
Interpreting Scripture
While IVCF does not explicitly prohibit gay students from serving as leaders, the student who asked them to step down was interpreting the IVCF policy as Biblical tenet, O’Dell and Stork said.
As much of this was going on, the College IVCF chapter organized a speaker series during Winter Term 2015. The series featured regional directors from IVCF leading discussions based on “close scripture reading.” The series explicitly marketed gender and sexuality as its main theme.
Nichols was one of the speakers at the series and spoke about passages from Romans 1:1-32.
The chapter describes “sinful” acts of humanity that provoke God’s wrath.
“Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own persons the due penalty for their error,” the passage reads (Romans 1:27).
Later, it continues, “They know God’s decree, that those who practice such things deserve to die — yet they not only do them but even applaud others who practice them” (Romans 1:32).
According to Stork, Nichols’ speech affirmed a traditional homophobic interpretation of these passages, which have been interpreted in many other ways within the religion.
O’Dell and Stork reported their concerns to the College Chaplain’s Office in January 2015. Throughout that spring, O’Dell and Stork met with the Chaplain of the College Laurie Jordan and the other MIVCF leaders during what O’Dell called “negotiations.” A member of the Chaplain’s Office served as a moderator during these meetings, O’Dell said.
“We intentionally did not involve the Judicial Board or the Dean of Students in the process,” Stork said. “We didn’t want to cast a negative light on the religion as a whole because of the actions of a few bigots.”
By notifying only the Chaplain’s Office about the College chapter’s requests, no administrator was made aware of potential violations of the College’s non-discrimination policy. The Chaplain’s Office is a strictly confidential resource, and so it could not relay any information about the incident to proper disciplinary channels.
“In our roles as Chaplains we welcome students to speak with us in a safe, private and confidential environment, and we hold that trust dearly,” said Chaplain Jordan. “Of course, in any given situation, students may speak for themselves, but we will always honor our commitment to confidentiality.”
Revising Policies
Beginning in April 2015, MIVCF’s leaders began revising their constitution at the request of Stork and O’Dell. All student organizations need to have a constitution in order to be officially recognized by the College, and thus eligible for funding from the SGA, said Ellen McKay, a staff member at the Scott Center for Religious Life who directs the Religious Life Council.
The amendments included a provision that allows the entire membership to call new elections by a majority vote. A description of the proposal said it would make leadership changes a formal matter, rather than dependent on informal conversations among the leaders. On May 12, 2015, a quorum of members voted in favor of adopting the proposed amendments.
The membership clause of the constitution has always included the Middlebury non-discrimination statement. However, the statement only ensures non-discrimination in membership and does not specify a policy on leadership positions. According to Stork, this was a point of contention.
“MIVCF shall not discriminate in its membership or activities on the basis of race, creed, color, place of birth, ancestry, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, age, or marital status,” it reads.
MIVCF’s funding is granted by the Religious Life Council, which receives a lump sum and then distributes it to all religious student organizations. The SGA Finance Committee oversees the Religious Life Council, but the council has broad leeway in determining exactly how their funding is allocated.
“As stewards of the student activity fee, we make it our priority to fund organizations equitably,” said Kevin Benscheidt ’17, chair of the SGA Finance Committee. “This news raises interesting questions about the role of the SGA in regards to censorship. However, I can assure you we were never made aware of any discriminatory practices.”
Student organizations are required to undergo a review process every three years, in which they submit reports of their activity to the SGA Constitution Committee. The committee last reviewed MIVCF in Jan. 2015 and approved the MIVCF’s status as a registered organization. The committee will conduct its next review of MIVCF in Jan. 2018.
“Potentially discriminatory practices are definitely taken into account when reviewing a student organization,” said Nick Delehanty ’17, chair of the SGA Constitution Committee. “Notice of an organization failing to comply with College policy would definitely call into question a student organization’s status as an officially recognized organization during the review process.”
National Conversation
The conversation surrounding IVCF’s beliefs on human sexuality is happening at the national level as well.
On Oct. 7, TIME reported that Intervarsity Christian Fellowship USA, the national office, told its 1,300 staff members that “they will be fired if they personally support gay marriage or otherwise disagree with its newly detailed positions on sexuality,” effective November 11, 2016, reads the TIME article.
According to the article, the national office called the decision a process of “involuntary termination” for any staff member who comes forward and disagrees with its positions on human sexuality. Staffers are being asked to come forward voluntarily if they disagree with the theological position. TIME called it a “theological purge.”
In a response statement made the same day, IVCF claimed that the TIME report was not true. “No InterVarsity employee will be fired for their views on gay marriage,” it states.
TIME reported that the decision was the outcome of a four-year internal review on what the Bible teaches about human sexuality.
IVCF confirmed that it had been re-examining its position on human sexuality through a four-year process in which “we reiterated our beliefs on human sexuality and invited our staff to study and to reflect on how our beliefs about Scripture and our hermeneutic approaches to Scripture lead us to those conclusions,” said Greg Jao, InterVarsity vice president and director of campus engagement in the IVCF statement.
It continues, “InterVarsity’s process invited all employees to take 18 months to work through a nine-part curricula, read a variety of resources, and study the relevant biblical texts to conclude whether they were in agreement with InterVarsity’s unchanged position.”
“It’s clear that InterVarsity has their conception of what they believe but that they’re not really being tolerant of a lot of other beliefs that are still within the framework of Christianity,” said Stork. “I think InterVarsity’s by-line has often been, ‘come and see what you believe, figure out who you think Jesus Christ is.’ But, assuming the TIME piece is right, asking people who disagree with their belief patterns to leave is narrowing the score of what they can direct students to, and what they can really claim as far as letting people explore belief.”
