22 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(05/08/13 8:52pm)
Facing a diminished membership, low community participation and the absence of members willing to serve as co-chairs for next year’s organization, the leadership of the Middlebury Open Queer Alliance (MOQA) has announced its intention to pursue the formal disbandment of the College’s only student-run lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) group.
On Monday May 6, Emma Ashby ’13, Petr Knor ’15 and Ada Santiago ’14, the three MOQA co-chairs, sent an email to members of the LGBTQ student organization informing all that the group would be disbanded. The decision came following a vote during the organization’s weekly Sunday meeting, which drew a crowd of only five students — the organization’s three co-chairs and two group members.
“We have been talking about this on and off all year,” said Ashby, explaining that the leadership decided to finally disband in the face of “very sparing” participation and attendance at the organization’s Gaypril events.
“We brought an amazing speaker, Lesléa Newman, who has been a part of LGBTQ history — and which cost the school $1,500 — and only six people attended.” Ashby also pointed to low participation at the organization’s “Queer European” panel, a presentation on “downlow culture,” a workshop on HIV/AIDS as well as one of the group’s social events, an afternoon “BBQueer”.
“In addition,” she continued, “no one has stepped up to serve as the co-president of the organization for next fall. We just haven’t gotten enough support … Things have gotten really ridiculous.”
While sympathetic to student frustration, Dean of the College Shirley Collado expressed apprehension about the organization’s decision.
“I completely respect the decision that these students feel that they have to make, but I am concerned that we would not have a student organization to support incoming students,” she said.
Collado also wondered whether students had pursued all available channels before making the decision to disband.
“If they were open to engaging in a critical conversation with members of the queer community to get at how to alleviate some of the issues or answer the questions, then that might be a step before saying that they’re giving up,” she said.
As the College’s only student LGBTQ organization, MOQA is a group that seeks to fulfill the social, academic and political desires of students across all four years. For many underclassmen, the group serves as a safe space for conversation of identity and sexuality. Yet for others, a wholly different sort of space, one that is more social, academic or political is desired.
In March, the organization’s co-chairs asked their membership to complete a survey ranking in order of preference the types of events that they would like to see facilitated by the co-chairs. Of the survey’s 24 respondents, members were nearly evenly split across all activities — parties, performances, academic talks, panels and activism.
Though uncertain as to the cause of the low turnout for events and diminished member participation, Ashby offered a number of hypotheses.
“It’s sort of hard to get people to organize unless they are either very strongly for or very strongly against something. Of course, there is homophobia in pockets on the community, but for the most part people are very liberal. It’s hard because there aren’t really tangible things to organize against,” she said, alluding to the difference between generating enthusiasm for MOQA and a group like Divest for Our Future.
Ashby also suggested that MOQA faces a unique challenge in developing community around a sexual identity. “Many people just organize their own things because their friends are queer, and they don’t use MOQA as a conduit.
“But MOQA has the resources to provide funding for parties, lectures and speakers. It would be nice if MOQA could funnel a lot of different directives.”
Though sensitive to such explanations, Tony Huynh ’13, MOQA co-president from 2010-2011 offered an alternate diagnosis.
“I think that everyone is at fault, but I don’t think that meetings have been very well run this year,” he said, suggesting that MOQA has seen diminished member participation in part as a result of the group’s leadership.
Huynh suggested that this year’s group planned fewer social events than in past years, organized a reduced number of discussions during the group’s Sunday night meetings and also failed to adequately advertise programming.
In response to such critiques, Santiago, the one current co-chair who had committed to serve in the same position next fall, instead cited an institutional failure, describing the challenge that co-chairs face in seeking to provide programming for the diverse membership of the LGBTQ community without staff support.
“As co-chairs, we’re forced to focus on ourselves as students while simultaneously fostering safe spaces for an entire community of students, creating LGBTQ-related programming and events and addressing all the needs (social, political and academic) of students. Some of this should be provided for by a staff member,” she wrote in an email.
Santiago noted that Middlebury is “one of the only” NESCAC schools without an LGBTQ resource center or staff coordinator. Though the College has a Queer Studies House and Chellis House, the former is an academic interest house for queer exploration, and the latter, the Women and Gender Studies Resource Center, is independent from queer identification.
Ashby contended that students seeking non-academic LGBTQ support have only two options: MOQA or the Center for Counseling.
“So you can either get psychological help, or you could go to MOQA.”
Yet, Collado pushed back against this assessment, explaining that students seeking LGBTQ support can turn to a variety of staff and faculty, including Dean of Students J.J. Boggs, Special Assistant to the Dean of the College and Senior Advisor for Diversity Jennifer Herrera, all five of the Commons Deans, the staff of Chellis House and the faculty of the women and gender studies department.
“I hesitate to silo affinity groups by area of specialization,” she said. “I welcome the opportunity to engage in this conversation, but I want to make sure that we’re being very intentional about the way that we define the roles of our staff.”
Kevin Moss, the Jean Thompson Fulton professor of modern languages and literature, presently serves as one of MOQA’s two faculty liaisons. When informed of the news of the decision to disband the organization, he suggested that he did not think that such a move was an appropriate one, but hoped that it might spur conversation.
“I don’t think MOQA should disband, but if this gets people seriously engaging the question of how it can be better in the future, I’m all for it,” he wrote in an email.
“I also think it shows that we really need an LGBTQ coordinator to take responsibility for organizing things. Staff, faculty or students will burn out.”
Though official steps have not yet been taken to disband MOQA formally, Monday’s email explained that henceforth MOQA will “no longer function” as a student organization. Co-chairs hope that this step will cause the community to think more deeply about the role of an LGBTQ student group on campus.
“As a result of whole-community discussion, it is our hope that a conclusion can be reached as to the way forward for MOQA or a similar organization,” they wrote.
(04/17/13 4:24pm)
On April 16, the 50th anniversary of the day that Martin Luther King Jr. first began writing his famed “Letter from a Birmingham Jail,” 26 students, staff and faculty took turns reading King’s letter to an engaged audience on the steps of the Gifford Amphitheatre.
The memorial was just one of hundreds in a “Worldwide Celebration,” which saw readings of King’s letter in countries across all seven continents. The Birmingham Public Library organized the international celebration and encouraged groups to perform demonstrations wherever King’s words would reach the largest audience — in museums, schools, public parks and coffee shops.
“We know that freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor, it must be demanded by the oppressed,” read student participant Molly Stuart ’15.5 from King’s letter, as audience members repeated the words back to her.
“From the start, we saw this as street theater – an event that would be large and loud enough to attract an audience,” wrote Dana Yeaton, visiting assistant professor of theater in an email. Yeaton directed the demonstration. “I wanted the spirit of a rally, which made me think of Occupy Wall Street, and their human megaphone technique.”
To host the event, Yeaton worked with Kya Adetoro ’13, Visiting Assistant Professor of Religion Mary Kay Schueneman, Associate Professor of History William Hart and Special Assistant to the Dean of the College- Jennifer Herrera.
Students, staff and faculty were visibly moved by King’s words and the energy generated by the public demonstration.
“I am very happy I participated,” wrote Chris De La Cruz ’13 in an email. “I think what affected me the most was just the variety of voices that participated from students of all different years to faculty and staff as well.
“As small as it was, I honestly have never seen an event with so much participation from different areas on campus,” he added. “I guess it shows how much King’s words really do unite people.”
For Yeaton, the spirit of collaboration amongst participants was most inspiring.
“Seeing the passion for justice in each of those speakers, their admiration for King’s ideals and his courage, all that reminds me of our desperate need to come together. To hear each other. Especially today, with the events of Patriot’s Day so heavy in the air.”
(03/13/13 5:16pm)
This week, I had a hard time writing my story for the news section. On Monday evening around 6 p.m., just as we were about to begin layout for the newspaper, we received word that four students had been arrested while attending a protest at the TransCanada northeast U.S. office in Massachusetts. The students had handcuffed themselves together outside of the TransCanada offices in protest of the Keystone XL pipeline.
“Why couldn’t they have gotten arrested a few days ago?” I mused, knowing that the story would usurp the better part of the next 24-hours, as I worked to fact-check, get quotes for and copy-edit the piece.
From the Wordpress site of the protest’s organizers, I learned that 21 other students had also been arrested by police — individuals from Green Mountain College, Tufts University, Brandeis University and Brown University. The students were joined by 80-or-so others at the demonstration, and used a tactic that indicated a “sharp escalation” in the New England-based protests.
As I began to type, I turned to Kelsey Collins, a co-editor of the news section. “Other than the students themselves, who else should I get a quote from about this?” I asked. “Maybe a professor? Is it a big deal that they’re missing school to get arrested?”
Throughout the evening, I worked to piece the story together. As I wrote, I thought about a protest that I had attended over the summer, a similarly public display of displeasure for a government-led climate policy. I had been working for a local news organization in Toronto at the time, and had learned of the “national day of protest” online. Seeking to “break” the story for the publication I was working for, I pitched it to my editor. Sensing my excitement, he obliged, but warned that the story wouldn’t run if the protest didn’t turn into a national story.
When I arrived “on scene” that afternoon, 40 or 50 protestors carried a coffin — a visual representation of the symbolic “death” of our future that would result if the government’s climate policy passed. I listened, took a few photographs and did interviews before my sister came to pick me up. She had driven across the city earlier that evening to join my mother and me for dinner to celebrate my birthday.
Arriving home, I headed straight into the den and began work on the story. Heart pounding, I added details, increased the saturation of the color photographs and spiced up the story as much as I could. “Just three more minutes,” I called, as my mother brought the curry to the table. A few minutes after, my family began eating; I hit send, and passed the story along to my editor. Triumphantly, I slid into a seat at the table beside my mother, proud to have helped add the voices of Canadian protesters into the public discourse.
When I got into the office the following morning, I realized that the story never ran. National news outlets hadn’t picked it up. The number of protestors “wasn’t large enough,” my editor said.
On Monday evening, as I typed about the 100-person protest in Massachusetts, I felt a growing sense of apathy. “This is kind of cool, but won’t make any difference,” I thought, “What is a few more students’ getting arrested going to do?”
Around 11:30 p.m. on Monday night, having finished layout with the other editors, I packed up my books and prepared to leave the Campus’s office. With one strap of my backpack over my shoulder, my phone rang. It was Anna Shireman-Grabowski ’15.5, a friend, and one of the students who had been arrested. She and the three other students called from their hotel room in Massachusetts where they would stay until their hearing on Wednesday.
Grabbing my recorder, I headed for the back office and began to interview the four students over the phone. It was then, and only then — when I was three hours deep into the story — that I remembered what it had felt like to be at the protest that summer. It was only in that instant that I realized why the students’ actions were important, why the voices of all of those who protest misguided government policies matter.
“Over 40 percent of all the communities that the pipeline would go through are African-American communities and Native American communities,” said Sam Koplinka-Loehr ’13, a friend, and one of the other students who had been arrested. “The U.S. population for Native folks is less than one percent, and is approximately 13 percent for African Americans.” It’s environmental racism,” he said.
Typing this op-ed while playing the recording of last night’s interview, I’m close to tears.
Unlike the four students, the tears I shed are not for the frontline communities, for I struggle to emote with such depth for those whom I do not know. Instead, they are a reaction to the actions of four students who decided that there was something more important than class on Monday. They are tears of hope, compassion and frustration. Tears, because using their voices and their bodies, these students forced me to let myself feel their passion and to experience, with a portion of the intensity that they carry regularly, why these actions matter.
On Monday, 26 students were jailed for “trespassing” and “disorderly conduct,” for a protest on the private property of a company that seeks to lay an 875-mile pipeline from Alberta to the Gulf Coast — a company that intends to drive an oil-fuelled stake through indigenous territory, harming communities, contributing to the destruction of the planet and encouraging global climate apathy in the process.
If that isn’t representative of a backward judicial system, then I don’t know what is.
To the four students: Thank you for making me feel. To President Obama and Prime Minister Stephen Harper: Stop Keystone XL. And to the Middlebury College Board of Trustees: Make this College proud. Do the right thing on divestment.
(03/13/13 4:30pm)
Four students were arrested by police on Monday, March 11 at the northeast U.S. office of the TransCanada Corporation in Westborough, MA during a protest of the Keystone XL tar sands pipeline.
The students — Anna Shireman-Grabowski ’15.5, Jay Saper ’12.5, Sam Koplinka-Loehr ’13 and Lucy Whipps ’14 — had handcuffed themselves together with 21 other young people, who refused to leave the office when asked by police. All 25 were arrested. The youth group acted as part of a broader protest that included some 75 others.
“We’re here in solidarity with front line communities who are facing the health effects of the past, present and future as a result of the extraction, transportation and refinement of tar sands oil,” said Koplinka-Loehr in a telephone interview on Monday evening.
“We stand in solidarity with them, but are also here recognizing that all of our futures are affected by the tar sands when it comes to climate change,” he added. “And climate change knows no borders.”
Shawn Howard, a spokesperson for TransCanada Corporation, pushed back by email.
“This really isn’t really about Keystone XL, diluted bitumen, emissions or a substance that is in a particular blend of oil,” wrote Howard. “It’s about a group that wants to end the use of fossil fuels entirely.
“This publicity stunt will not provide an American construction worker with a job to provide for their family and their needs. It will not reduce global emissions or the continued need for fossil fuels in the United States. It will not improve the safety of moving a critical product to market,” he continued.
Howard suggested that TransCanada “agrees” with the President that a move to a less carbon intense economy is necessary, but suggested that it will “take decades” for this transition to occur. He noted that TransCanada has invested billions in wind, solar, hydro and nuclear facilities.
“TransCanada knows what these technologies can do today (and what their current limitations are), because we have invested billions of dollars in emission-less energy production,” he said.
At Monday’s protest, Shireman-Grabowski, Saper, Koplinka-Loehr and Whipps were joined by students from Green Mountain College, Tufts University, Brandeis University and Brown University as well as members of the Massachusetts Methodist clergy and community members. According to Shireman-Grabowski, the protest represented a “sharp escalation” in the non-violent tactics of the protesters.
At approximately 11 a.m. on Monday morning, the 100-member group walked up to the third floor of the northeast U.S office of the TransCanada Corporation. They carried a fake coffin featuring the words “our future” — a symbolic representation of the impact of the proposed pipeline. The group sang a eulogy, carried flowers and walked in procession.
Approximately one hour later, the group of 25 youth, who had refused to leave the building, were arrested and transported to a local jail. They waited in a communal cell before being released on $0 bail at approximately 8 p.m.
At that time, the students were informed that they would be arraigned in court in Massachusetts on Wednesday, where they would face charges of trespassing and disorderly conduct.
Though student arrests are not commonplace, the four are not the first to receive attention for controversial environmental activism in recent memory. As a member of the Youth Climate Delegation at UN climate talks in Durban, South Africa in 2011, Abigail Borah ’13 interrupted the international proceedings to express her displeasure with “obstructionist congress” and the inaction of President Obama on climate change.
Borah received a significant amount of press for the demonstration, including an interview with the New York Times.
“Something I’ve learned through my time at Middlebury is that people have all sorts of ideas of what activism ‘should be’ and what produces ‘change,’” said Borah. “Whether we agree with one another or not, it’s hard to argue that the courage it takes to stand up for what you believe in isn’t admirable. As young people, it’s our job to push the envelope and rally for the urgency and ambition that is required to achieve social justice.”
The arrest of the four students in Massachusetts came on the same day as the New York Times published an editorial calling on President Barack Obama to “say no” to the Keystone XL pipeline — a commercial venture that would see 830,000 barrels a day of crude oil shipped along an 875-mile pipeline from Alberta tar sands to refineries on the Gulf Coast.
“A president who has repeatedly identified climate change as one of humanity’s most pressing dangers cannot in good conscience approve a project that — even by the State Department’s most cautious calculations — can only add to the problem,” the editorial read.
While the students expressed a similar motivation, they took a different tone.
“This is environmental racism,” said Koplinka-Loehr. “Poor people and people of color are disproportionately affected by fossil extraction and refinement, creating generational health problems and death.”
Focusing on the College community, Koplinka-Loehr elaborated, “We need to talk about environmental racism at Middlebury, and it needs to be driving the way in which we think about our endowment. [We need to think about] who is actually impacted by our stocks the most. Why is that not a part of the conversation?”
Saper was critical of the study of environmental justice by the College’s environmental studies department.
“We’ve talked more about environmental racism today — just today — than we have at a place where there is the longest standing environmental studies program in history in America,” said Saper.
On the national stage, the group’s action joins a much larger chorus of dissent against the Keystone XL Pipeline.
In February, approximately 50 members of the College community attended the “Forward on Climate” rally in Washington, D.C. where they were met by approximately 50,000 other protestors. The event was the largest climate rally in American history.
To date, over 50,000 have signed a petition to resist the Keystone XL pipeline and thousands more have joined the Tar Sands Blockade in East Texas. Protestors there include landowners, climate activists, members of frontline communities and Native American peoples.
According to the blog “Funeral For our Future,” which provided information about Monday’s protest, March 16 - 24 will serve as a “week of solidarity” with Tar Sands Blockade protestors, during which groups across the country will target the offices of TransCanada and its investors.
(03/06/13 5:00am)
In the midst of a heavy snowfall on Monday, March 4, over 125 students marched from Proctor terrace to the College’s administrative center in Old Chapel, carrying signs, chanting and wearing orange squares, during what organizers called “a national day of action” for divestment.
The event was one of over 20 such demonstrations that took place on college campuses on the same day across the country according to student organizer Jenny Marks ’14. While national events differed in form, all student groups had a similar demand — the divestment of college and university endowment funds from fossil fuel manufacturing companies in the fight for climate justice.
At Middlebury, student organizers presented the same request as seven students voiced on Feb. 16 when they presented to the Board of Trustees. “By March 15,” organizer Laura Berry ’16 explained, “we want the Board of Trustees to make a public statement that by 2016 the College will divest fully from fossil fuel and arms manufacturing companies.”
Berry was just one of the many students responsible for generating enthusiasm for Monday’s event, a rally organized by a coalition of pro-divestment student groups, including Divest for Our Future and the Socially Responsible Investment Club.
During the march, the mass of students wound around snow-covered paths, chanting, “Money for students’ education, not for climate devastation. Money for homes and education, not for war and exploitation.”
Inside Old Chapel, Tim Spears, vice president for academic affairs, was one of the few senior-level administrators present at the time of the demonstration.
“I think it’s an admirable display of political spirit and commitment on a snowy March day,” he said from his office, as students marched around the front of the building.
Down below, students voiced a variety of perspectives on the event and on the divestment movement at large.
Steven Kasparek ’16, a student with no prior involvement with the divestment movement on campus, was visibly impressed.
“I’m really glad that I came,” he said. “I feel like this is a really powerful group that we have out here right now, and the fact that there are students who are passionate about this type of thing is something new to me, because normally students aren’t so concerned about the future and about preserving it for generations to come.”
Drew Vollmer ’13, a student who passed by the march but did not attend the demonstration, aired an alternative perspective.
“At Middlebury, environmental groups can mobilize lots of supporters and there are no opposition groups,” he said. “Student rallies like the divestment march are, to me, largely a product of one group’s passion about the issue and not necessarily a result of reasoned and well-considered arguments.”
Vollmer was critical of the movement, explaining that he believed divestment to be an “ineffective gesture” in the campaign against climate change. “Advocates seem to argue that oil money in politics is the sole factor stopping climate action and that divestment would remove oil’s legitimacy and pave the way for a carbon tax, but I think this is a horrible oversimplification. […] Climate action is necessary, but efforts are much more productive elsewhere.”
Yet student organizers disagreed, likely buoyed in part by the enthusiasm exhibited by other pro-divestment student groups on the national stage.
“Today’s events around the country were an incredible indicator of the potential for the American students’ movement of our generation,” said Marks. “The rhetoric is clear: divestment is a tactic, climate justice is the goal.”
In mid-February, Marks was joined by Molly Stuart ’15.5 and Teddy Smyth ’15, two other student organizers, at the Power Up! Divestment Convergence at Swarthmore College. The event, hosted by Swarthmore Mountain Justice, brought together student representatives from 75 colleges and universities to discuss divestment and other tactics associated with the climate justice movement.
At the convergence, students attended panels, participated in discussions and built upon the idea for the march fo(u)rth event, playing off of the syntactic momentum imbedded within the date.
During the week following the convergence, student organizers from schools across the nation collaborated over email and by conference call, coordinating photos and videos to be captured during the events, which organizers plan to use as they move forward.
Students from Harvard University, Mount Holyoke College and Locust Valley High School also created a Facebook page to promote the event, which by midnight on Monday night displayed photos of March Fo(u)rth demonstrations that had occurred at Smith College, Bowdoin College, Stanford University and Brown University, as well as at Middlebury College.
Following Monday’s demonstration, Marks described her motivation.
“These endowments belong to us and exist for us — colleges and universities must be educational institutions first and corporations second,” she wrote in an email.
“If the students demand divestment from destructive industries, it is ultimately our money, our school, our power that will ensure that this happens — it’s our future and the lives of folks around the world that we are fighting for.”
(02/20/13 5:48pm)
Facing a spring housing shortage, lounges in Gifford Hall, Hadley Hall and Milliken Hall were converted into to dorm rooms in order to provide an additional 14 beds for students, a change that permitted students to have greater flexibility in their late-January decisions about whether to return to campus, but has angered some as a result of the decrease in social spaces within the dorms.
During winter term, Residential Systems Coordinator Karen Hall-Kolts advised Facilities Services to convert one double in Gifford Hall and one double in Hepburn Hall into student housing. Before the spring term began, a similar process occurred, only this time 10 further spaces were created — four single rooms in Milliken Hall, four singles in Hadley Hall and one double in Gifford Hall — in order to accommodate students.
The changes, according to Hall-Kolts, were the result of a confluence of three main factors.
“Our pattern as of late has been to accept a higher number of students, and that has built up over the years,” she said. “We are also seeing fewer students who fail out of school ... [and] we have fewer students choosing to study off campus.”
Hall-Kolts also explained that recently, the College has sought to be more flexible with students in their late-semester requests to return to campus. This spring, in order to accommodate the increased numbers, it was necessary to convert lounges into dorm rooms. While many students who live within the rooms have adapted to their new spaces with little difficulty — many of the rooms are actually larger than their non-lounge counterparts — others within the residence halls have lamented the loss of the communal spaces.
“We got pretty upset when we found out that we were going to lose the lounge,” said Afi Yellow-Duke ’15, a student who lives next door to one lounge-turned-dorm in Gifford. “It was a study space and a social space. That was where a lot of our friends came to hang out with us. It’s really changed how I socialize in Gifford. It’s hard to find spaces now.”
Yellow-Duke explained that the recent conversion has left only one lounge in Gifford as a social space in the dorm. She noted that while the Gifford annex provides a large space for organic gatherings, it is also a room that is often used by many non-Gifford residents for improv and theatre practices.
Stanis Moody-Roberts ’11, the commons residential advisor for Wonnacott Commons, elaborated on the challenges posed by the conversion.
“There are a lot of groups that use the Gifford annex lounge as a meeting space,” he said. “We’ve had a lot of complaints because it is meant to be a study and recreation lounge. Students are having a hard time finding a space to do those things now.”
In an email about the changes to Jonathan Miller-Lane, Wonnacott Commons head and associate professor of education studies, Moody-Roberts further described his concerns.
“Lounge space is an essential piece to community-building in a residential dorm — it is where people get together, make connections, interact and get to know each other,” he wrote.
“It is also an inclusive and neutral space, open to everyone,” continued Moody-Roberts. “A lounge is essential to building a more cohesive and less cliquey community, and to building a sense of hall identity.”
Moody-Roberts provided Painter Hall and Starr Hall as examples of dorms with less lively communities as a result of the lack of lounge spaces.
“It is impossible to express how much good it does to a hall to have a lounge — you really do go from a “dead” hall of small cliques and private circles … to a much more open and lively hall, where people hang out together as a whole, where everyone knows one another and talk to each other regardless of their social status/identity, where there develops a real sense of pride and identity around living in that hall and among that group of neighbors.”
The most recent conversions bring the total number of former-lounge bedrooms in residence halls to 34, with other spaces having been converted in recent years in Coffrin Hall and Hepburn Hall in addition to Gifford, Milliken and Hadley Halls. The only commons not affected by the lounge conversions has been Cook Commons.
In addition to these changes, in 2010 the College also added residential spaces by converting Munford and Meeker Halls from offices into dorms.
While the increase in student numbers has created greater difficulty for the housing coordination staff, Hall-Kolts emphasized that student housing is not a simple calculation of finding spaces for all enrolled students.
“A bed is not always a bed,” she explained. “We have our first-year beds, sophomore beds, super block beds and social interest house beds, among others.”
Hall-Kolts explained that housing students is not merely a numbers question but a matter of seeking to find residential communities that best meet student needs.
“It becomes a real balancing act of whose interests are most important,” she said.
(02/16/13 1:32pm)
At 8 a.m. on Saturday, Feb. 16 approximately 50 students gathered outside of Old Chapel, welcoming members of the Board of Trustees to their morning meetings. Several members of the Board spoke with students and accepted orange squares, the "new color" of the divestment movement, according to students. The rally came just before seven students, Teddy Smyth ’15, Jeannie Bartlett ’15, Laura Berry ’16, Nathan Arnosti ’13, Craig Thompson ’13.5, Fernando Jimenez Sandoval ’14 and Kristina Johansson ’14 presented to the Board of Trustees in Old Chapel on the topic of divestment.
(02/13/13 10:41pm)
Following student protests, an expert panel attended by hundreds, and countless letters from current students and alumni, seven students will present on the “moral imperative of divestment” to the Board of Trustees at Board’s tri-annual on-campus meeting on Saturday, Feb. 16.
The students will ask for a public commitment to divestment by the spring. Their proposed commitment stipulates that the College would freeze acquisitions of any substantial new holdings in fossil fuel companies and would fully divest from fossil fuel and arms manufacturing companies by 2016.
The students who will be presenting, Teddy Smyth ’15, Jeannie Bartlett ’15, Laura Berry ’16, Nathan Arnosti ’13, Craig Thompson ’13.5, Fernando Jimenez Sandoval ’14 and Kristina Johansson ’14, are all members of student groups pushing for divestment, including Divest for Our Future, Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) and the student group that has worked most closely with the administration, the Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing (ACSRI).
According to Smyth, member of Divest for our Future, the students will discuss the financial feasibility of divestment, the student and alumni support for the measure as well as the moral and ethical arguments surrounding divesting the College’s endowment.
One of the most prominent points of leverage for these students will be statistics from a recent Student Government Association (SGA) survey, in which 60.69 percent of the 1,295 student respondents favored some form of divestment — either from the top-200 fossil fuel companies, from arms manufacturing companies or both.
“We’re going to leverage the amount of press divestment has already gotten, and emphasize what a positive response the College has received for the other sustainability initiatives,” said Smyth.
Dean of Environmental Affairs Nan Jenks-Jay drew a parallel between the current collaboration between students and administrators on divestment and prior initiatives.
In 2006, following seven months of analysis, student presentations and three board meetings, the Board of Trustees committed to the goal of carbon neutrality by 2016. In 2010, following a similarly lengthy discussion, a decision was also made to allow students to participate in the Solar Decathlon.
In an email, Jenks-Jay emphasized the administration’s willingness to work with students.
“Middlebury students are in a unique position [of] having access to the senior administration of the College, the president, board chairperson and trustees,” she said.
“Middlebury is a place that engages students thinking at all levels, that embraces change and that is capable of moving forward with clearly understood, well calculated risk for the College … which is why the upcoming student panel should be well prepared for the divestment discussion with the Board of Trustees.”
“We want it to be clear that we’re willing to work with the trustees to make divestment a reality any way we can, and emphasize the opportunity for continued exploration and growth moving forward into the spring,” said Smyth.
(01/24/13 2:47am)
Over the course of two evenings, the College community saw its leaders “do the math” on divestment in two radically different ways.
On Sunday evening, Schumann Distinguished Scholar Bill McKibben and others spoke to over 150 college and local community members at Mead Chapel in the last stop on McKibben’s “Do the Math” nation-wide tour — their main objective: to illustrate the direct link between divestment and the prevention of climate change. During the event, McKibben and others called on the College to “lead the way” on divestment, encouraging the administration to evaluate its decision based on alternative metrics to those normally considered: the currencies of “movements, passion, experience and creativity.”
Two days later, at the College-sponsored panel on divestment that filled most of the 400 seats in the McCullough Social Space, the tone was decidedly different.
During the two-hour event, the heated discussion centered largely upon the price of divestment for the College — how would it affect the strength of the endowment for the future? How much would it cost to restructure the College’s current co-mingled investment structure? And what other possible options might be open to the College in seeking to curb climate change?
At Sunday’s event McKibben, leading environmental activist and co-founder of 350.org was joined onstage by strong proponents of divestment, Professor of Economics and Chair of the Environmental Science Department Jon Isham, and Professor Emeritus John Elder. The event also included pre-recorded video messages from Archbishop Desmond Tutu, Canadian indigenous activist Clayton Thomas-Muller, environmental advocate Van Jones and renowned author and activist Naomi Klein.
In her remarks, Klein challenged the college community to take action: “We need you to provide a strong, coherent message,” she said, “There is no doubt in my mind that others will follow.”
Tuesday’s panel, in contrast, was composed of speakers whose professional experience lay primarily in the fields of economics and investment.
On the panel, McKibben was joined by Ralphe Earle III, a renewables-focused venture investor; Alice Handy, founder and president of Investure, LLC — the firm that manages the College’s endowment; Mark Kritzman, adjunct professor of finance at MIT; and Patrick Norton, vice president for finance and treasurer. Student Government Association (SGA) President, Charlie Arnowitz ’13 was a last-minute addition to the panel’s roster, and provided the lone student voice on the panel.
The moderator for the panel was David Salem ’78, managing partner of the investment advisory firm Windhorse Capital Management, and former founding president of The Investment Fund for Foundations (TIFF).
Each of the six panelists was accorded approximately seven minutes to speak, responding to a series of questions provided by Salem.
Norton spoke first, explaining the College’s fiduciary duty to manage the endowment both for current and future students by observing the principal of “generational equity.”
Investure Founder Handy then spoke of her desire to continue to work “as a part of the Middlebury team,” citing her firm’s mission statement to “[remain] open to change, [embrace] continuous improvement and [serve] with integrity and transparency.”
Handy remarked that she would “absolutely” work with students to better understand the endowment, but explained that Investure would require a buy-in by “100 percent” of the firm’s 13 clients in order to embrace a divestment policy — a requirement necessitated by the firm’s co-mingled investment strategy.
Following Handy’s remarks, MIT professor Kritzman summarized the results of his recent study on the potential costs of divestment for the College. He explained that at best, the decision to divest from fossil fuels and arms manufacturing companies would result in a loss for the College of $17 million over five years — at worst, he explained, the study found that divestment would cost the College $420 million over 20 years.
During the question and answer segment McKibben flatly disputed this hypothesis, providing counterfactual data that suggests divestment would elicit a neutral, or slightly positive return.
The exchange between the two became heated at times, illustrating two of the central conflicting views in the room.
“I apologize for trying to interject some science and rationality into the conversation,” Kritzman quipped at one point, in response to a student question.
During his opportunity to speak, Arnowitz thanked the administration for including a student on the panel, before summarizing the preliminary results of a recent SGA survey.
According to the responses of over 1,000 students, Arnowitz explained, 63 percent believe the College should apply the principles of socially responsible investing to its endowment, 14 percent of students were opposed and 23 percent had no opinion.
“[While] for many students this issue takes a backseat,” he said, “the plurality of students support some kind of action on divestment.”
Later in the discussion, Earle, a lifelong environmental advocate and investor, spoke of his significant concerns about the effects of climate change in his opening statement, but suggested that he did not believe divestment was the correct strategy.
“I think climate change is the most critical issue we face as a society today,” Earle began. “However … I don’t think that divestiture from fossil fuel stocks will be effective in reducing climate change,” he continued.
In supporting his argument, he provided the examples of the “unsuccessful” divestment campaigns from both tobacco manufacturers in the ’80s and from companies supporting the genocide in Darfur during the last decade.
Earle suggested that in lieu of divestment, the College should retain its proxy voting privilege to affect the choices of major fossil fuel companies. He also called on students to live out their vision of a greener future by purchasing eco-friendly cars, and switching from coal to gas as an energy source.
McKibben rejected these suggestions. As at Sunday’s “Do The Math” event McKibben explained that such initiatives were not enough, recognizing that fossil fuel companies now hold reserves that if burned, will release five times the “safe” amount of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, if not prevented by a dramatic change.
Responding to the criticism of audience members and other panelists, McKibben suggested that the goal of divestment was not to “bankrupt Exxon” but rather to use colleges, universities, religious organizations and others to “peel away” the sense of legitimacy of the largest fossil fuel companies — something politicians have “failed to do” over the past 30 years in Washington.
McKibben cited Norton’s reference to “inter-generational equity” from the early moments of the panel, explaining his view that it is “morally wrong” to invest in companies whose missions “ensure that students will not have a planet” to inherit. He asked that the College commit to invest no new money in fossil fuel companies during the spring, and to taper their investments in fossil fuel and arms manufacturing companies to zero over the next five years.
McKibben’s remarks were met by a standing ovation from many audience members.
Following the panel, President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz provided his initial reaction to the event.
“I think there was a tension in the room and on the panel that reflected how difficult an issue [divestment] is — that [the issue] still [involves] a lot more emotion than delving into facts,” he said. “But that doesn’t take away from the evening. I thought it was a very good start. I think it’s a longer process than one panel.”
One of the many students in attendance, Socially Responsible Investment club member Laura Berry ’16 explained that she was “frustrated” that the audience did not have more time to pose questions to the panelists, but explained that she felt as though individuals “learned a lot from the panelists.”
“I think we gained a great deal of knowledge about the specific details of the endowment and how it relates to other colleges in the consortium,” she said. “I expect we can move from here pretty well.”
In closing the panel, Salem directed community members toward the College’s website to continue the divestment discussion, reiterating that future panels will be held in order to further analyze critical issues.
(12/22/12 3:55pm)
In the wake of a high-profile student protest and amid a growing university movement to combat climate change, Middlebury College announced in early December that it would initiate steps to address the feasibility of divesting its endowment from the fossil fuel industry.
In a campus-wide email, College President Ronald Liebowitz expressed his willingness to “engage the community on an issue of great interest and import to the College and its many constituents”—a commitment to expand dialogue on concerns previously only discussed seriously in activist forums. He explained that Middlebury would host a series of panels on divestment with representatives from the College’s endowment management firm, Scholar-in-Residence Bill McKibben, and veteran investors. “A look at divestment,” he continued, “must include the consequences, both pro and con, of such a direction, including how likely it will be to achieve the hoped-for results and what the implications might be for the College, for faculty, staff, and individual students.”
In an unusual and impressive demonstration of transparency regarding the College’s finances, Liebowitz also disclosed the percentage of the institution’s $900 million endowment currently invested in fossil fuel companies: roughly 3.6% or $32 million. The statement provided a degree of openness that many say has been missing since 2005 when the College began outsourcing the investment of its endowment to Investure, LLC, an investment management company with an aggregate portfolio of approximately $9.1 billion.
Liebowitz’s announcement was met with enthusiasm from McKibben, the founder of grassroots sustainability organization 350.org and chief spokesman for the organization’s Do The Math tour, a national campaign encouraging colleges, churches and pension funds to divest their endowments from the world’s top 200 fossil fuel companies.
“President Liebowitz used just the right tone and took precisely the right step,” said McKibben in statement released by 350.org. “It won't be easy to divest, but I have no doubt that Middlebury—home of the first environmental studies department in the nation—will do the right thing in the right way.”
On the rural Vermont campus, some students were more tempered in their reaction to the statement. Why wasn’t the College considering more definitive steps, committing to fossil fuel divestment like Unity College in Maine, or pledging to invest in sustainable and socially responsible companies, like Hampshire College in Massachusetts?
“We want to see change happen faster,” said Sam Koplinka-Loehr, a senior environmental justice major. “Panels and discussions are not new,” he explained, “they have been happening since before I arrived on campus.” Koplinka-Loehr was one of five students disciplined by the college for the dissemination of a fake press release in November—a prank designed to raise awareness about divestment and encourage the college to take action.
Other students wondered how the College’s practice of outsourcing its endowment management to Investure—which pools Middlebury’s funds with the endowments of twelve other institutions or foundations—might impact the viability of divestment. The President’s email included a disclaimer noting that the financial information provided was not based on a comprehensive review of Middlebury’s holdings, but rather “the underlying long positions of the Investure Funds of which Investure has actual knowledge from third-party managers.” While this model permits greater efficiency and economies of scale, the many steps of remove limit transparency and could complicate the divestment process.
Members of the student group Divest for Our Future, however, argue that Investure’s co-mingled endowment structure opens up potential for collaboration. They have been in contact with similar student groups at Investure-managed schools such as Smith College, Barnard College and Trinity College in an effort to coordinate initiatives, hoping that acting in unison might encourage Investure to alter its investment policies across the board.
This type of joint effort has a history of success. In 2010, Middlebury students teamed up with representatives from Dickinson College and the Rockefeller Brothers Fund—both of which have endowments managed by Investure—to establish the Sustainable Investments Initiative, an Investure-managed portfolio dedicated to environmentally responsible investment. With $4 million from Middlebury, $1 million from Dickinson, and $70 million from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund, the portfolio has yielded high returns, says Ben Chute, co-leader of the Socially Responsible Investment Club at Middlebury.
Outside of the logistical debate on feasibility, divestment as an effective strategy to strike a blow at the fossil fuel industry has faced criticism. Nation contributing editor Christian Parenti has questioned the effectiveness of using coordinated divestment as a tool to affect the bottom line of fossil fuel companies, suggesting that if universities were to sell their shares, someone else would likely scoop them up.
Jon Isham, an economics professor and director of Middlebury’s environmental studies program, thinks that while the direct effects of divestment on fossil fuel stock prices may be negligible, the move—if widely adopted—could significantly damage the industry and encourage investment in sustainable energy. “It’s wrong to say that divestment in and of itself is going to effect change solely based on the implications for stock prices,” said Isham. “But it might still make fossil fuel companies worry—it could mean that stock is viewed as something nobody should hold, which happened in tobacco. Divestment is an attempt to give the industry a black eye.”
The divestment movement “is something college students can latch on to,” explains Isham. “They understand their campus, they’re on their campus, and they are very keen on making a difference in the world, not only around climate change, but also around poverty and human rights. This is a way they can make change on campus.”
Indeed, Middlebury students have pushed for the upcoming panel discussions to incorporate representatives from student organizations such as Divest for Our Future and the Socially Responsible Investment Club. “If there is true intent to listen to student voices, the administration should provide avenues for students to engage in these issues,” said Koplinka-Loehr. “We need the opportunity to engage in critical dialogue on equal footing with the administration if we are to be successful.”
KELSEY COLLINS contributed to this report. The article was originally posted to the Extra Credit blog in the Nation.
(11/17/12 5:17pm)
Amidst a growing conversation about ethical investing at the College, several students demonstrated at a talk given by Olav Ljosne, senior manager for international operations for Shell Oil, at an event co-sponsored by the Vermont Council on World Affairs (VCWA) and the Rohatyn Center of Global Affairs on Thursday afternoon.
The talk was the second in a local series co-sponsored by the VCWA, which brings hundreds of international speakers to the green mountain state every year.
The first of the two events was a panel discussion held on Wednesday Nov. 14 at the University of Vermont. While the event was well attended, a group of protestors repeatedly interrupted the speakers, forcing the organizers to cancel the panel shortly after it began.
The group of nine who protested at Wednesday’s talk, reportedly affiliated with the Rising Tide Vermont (a Burlington-based activist group), read letters which had allegedly been written by Nigerians who have been affected by Shell’s operations in the Niger Delta, according to the Burlington Free Press.
At the College, Ljosne was permitted to speak unimpeded for approximately thirty minutes, but had his remarks bookended by the protests of several students.
Dr. Gail Stevenson, executive director of VCWA, initially introduced Ljosne, noting the speaker’s 20-year career with Shell and diplomatic service with the Norwegian Embassy in Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Shortly thereafter, two students — Anna Shireman-Grabowski ’15 and Jay Saper ’13 — approached the podium and presented the Shell executive with a fake honorary degree “of Humane Letters” from the college.
The two students satirically praised Ljosne for “greenwashing” Shell’s corporate activities in a manner “consistent with the practices of Middlebury College.” In their comments they voiced a critique on the College’s own “greenwashing” activities, referencing specifically the College’s management of its $881 million endowment.
“The global community has seen how effective you have been in justifying human rights violations such as using deadly force to repress a growing movement in protest of Shell,” they said, referring to the oft-criticized record of the Dutch petroleum company in the Niger Delta.
“Middlebury has recently been accused of investing unethically — in companies like Shell — so we look to you now, more than ever, as we try to restore our reputation without actually changing our practices,” they said.
The two students were dressed in graduation gowns and made their remarks as “Pomp and Circumstance March” played in the background, having been switched on by another student at the side of the room.
Director of Rohatyn Center of Global Affairs, Tamar Mayer permitted the students to finish, before re-inviting Ljosne to the microphone.
“Thank you for welcoming me here, it’s been a very good day, a very interesting day,” Ljosne said.
“I also must say thank you for a very special welcome,” he said, referencing the two students who had taken their seats, “but I must say that the premise is something that I don’t accept.
During his presentation, Ljsone spoke of Shell’s positions on transparency, sustainable development and the “nexus between water, food and energy.”
“We need to reduce the CO2 emissions,” he said, “At the same time … we need to cover demand globally.”
Audience Members Push for Answers
In the question and answer session, students and faculty asked Ljsone pointed questions, referencing Shell’s human rights record, current Supreme Court case and corporate responsibility, before demonstrations occurred again.
During the session, the tone of the room shifted back and forth between students for and against the demonstrations.
Janet Bering ’13 prefaced a question on arctic drilling by stating that she was pleased that the executive had visited the college, knowing that, “many students were excited to come and to ask questions respectfully.”
Visiting Assistant Professor of Geography, Kasy McKinney, then asked Ljsone to reflect upon his personal experience working in Nigeria for five years as part of his 20-year career with Shell. She called the contemporary situation in the Niger Delta, a “tragic situation, in which Shell has played a major role.”
“Nigeria is an extremely complex society,” Ljsone responded. “It’s underdeveloped, [in a] tragically underdeveloped area of the world … the history of Nigeria is a complex one, and a very violent one.”
In his answer, Ljsone spoke of government corruption and conflicts between communities, and stated that he believed that oil companies are “losing between $5-8 billion per year” in products that are stolen and illegally channeled into markets.
“Do you think that Shell is able to take any responsibility for what has happened [in the Niger Delta]?” McKinney pressed.
“Shell is not taking responsibility for what is happening in Nigeria,” Ljsone said. “We take responsibility for what we are doing, what Shell is doing.”
Shortly thereafter, Amitai Ben-Abba ’15.5 and Sam Koplinka-Loehr ’13.5, two of the students of the self-titled Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee, a group of students who served as the respondents in the recent public hearing for violations to the College Handbook, came to the center of the room to interrupt the question and answer session.
“Everything being said here is a lie,” said Ben-Abba. “We are surrounded by this deception … We are lying to ourselves … This person is whitewashing corporate war crimes against humanity. Are you hearing this noise?”
Scott Rowland ’12, a student member of the audience, then interrupted Ben-Abba.
“You’re the one making noise, and you’re an embarrassment to this college,” he said. “This is ridiculous.” To this, several students clapped.
Both Ben-Abba and Koplinka-Loehr fell to the floor in a visual representation of the deaths of the Nigerian people.
The question and answer session came to a close with an inquiry by one student about the hypothetical impact of colleges and universities divesting from fossil fuel companies.
“I don’t know if the campuses around the world are invested in shell or in any of the other oil companies,” Ljsone said. “The impact is very difficult for me to say anything about.”
Discussion Continues Following Lecture
Following the conclusion of the event, reactions were as polarized as the perspectives of the many who had participated in the dialogue.
Bree Baccaglini ’15, a student in McKinney’s “Geographic Perspectives on International Development” class, reflected on the event.
“The thrust of what we learned [in our class] was that Shell has destroyed Nigeria and its people,” she said, “and that there is a whole lot of rhetoric, which we just heard about, that kind of covers a lot of this up as sustainable development, and as the Niger Delta’s problem. That’s what we read and that’s what I buy into more than the corporate ‘throw your hands in the air’ kind of approach.”
“I thought that [the corporate rhetoric] would speak for itself … I agree with what [the student protestors] were saying but I wouldn’t want to lend my voice in a circumstance like that,” added Baccaglini.
Baccaglini concluded that, “Perhaps for people who didn’t know about this, it was instructive to have the opposite side, but I think that people who have any sort of background or any previous interest [would have known what Ljsone was going to say].
Rowland, the student who interrupted the student demonstrators, was much more critical of the protest.
“Unfortunately for the protestors, their behavior drew our focus away from the content of Mr. Ljones’s presentation, and onto themselves. Today we are debating the student’s actions and not the content of Mr. Ljsones speech,” said Rowland.
“Apparently the value of learning from someone with an alternative viewpoint is lost on some of my peers,” he said.
Bering, the student who had thanked Ljsone for coming to speak at the College, echoed Rowland’s remarks.
“I thought the student’s actions were really frustrating and inappropriate because it is rare on the Middlebury campus that we get to hear the perspective of an oil executive, and that perspective is not taught in our classes,” she said.
“By protesting him, [those students] didn’t allow for students who were genuinely interested in global energy issues to have a genuine conversation about more than just Nigeria,” added Bering.
Ashley Sandy ’11, director of international visitors at VCWA, explained that she was nervous before the event, having just witnessed the first of two discussions shut down at UVM, but was pleased the majority of students “listened respectfully” and that Ljsone was able to speak.
"At Middlebury it was clear that students had done their homework.There were a number of students with varying perspectives and many of them asked valuable questions of Mr. Ljsone. I think that they definitely benefitted from being able to discuss their issues with him. I was disappointed that a similar discussion wasn't able to take place at UVM because of the behavior of the audience," said Sandy.
“The students did their research. A few students might have called him a liar but they allowed him to speak, which is the only way to have constructive dialogue,” she said.
“As a VCWA representative I was nervous that Mr. Ljsone might not be able to speak," said Sandy, "As a Midd alum at the end of it, I was very proud.”
According to Tamar Mayer, Director of the Rohatyn Center of Global Affairs the talk had been planned for eight months, and was scheduled with the intent of continuing to bring speakers with a diverse array of perspectives to campus.
“This is a place where everyone can speak,” she said.
(11/07/12 10:44pm)
For six hours, the members of the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee (DLWC) sat on the stage of Dana Auditorium facing charges of handbook violations and defending their highly visible call for divestment from arms and fossil fuels. For the first time in recent memory, the inner-workings of the Community Judicial Board were on display before a crowd of hundreds of students, staff and faculty. The open hearing and the DLWC's actions have prompted widespread debate over the nature of activism on campus, the role of a Middlebury education and the prospect of divestment at institutions of higher learning across the US.
Additional reporting and design by IAN STEWART
Judicial Process in the Spotlight (by Bronwyn Oatley)
As the first open judicial proceeding in recent memory, Thursday’s hearing served as an opportunity for 272 community members to get a glimpse at one of the most highly confidential procedures on campus.
While the College’s Academic Judicial Board (AJB) and the Community Judicial Board (CJB) are active throughout the academic calendar (hearing an average approximately 5 cases per year respectively), the vast majority of these hearings are conducted behind closed doors. Desiring privacy in cases related to allegations of plagiarism or honor code violations, most opt for a closed proceeding.
When the five students of the DLWC exercised their right to a public hearing however, the College’s judicial process was thrust into the spotlight.
In the days following the hearing, community members have asked: How are board members selected? Are board members permitted to ask ‘leading questions’? Why is the standard of ‘preponderance of guilt’ used? And finally, was the process “fundamentally fair” for all involved?
In interviews with the Campus current board members, as well as those present in the audience, provided their take on the judicial procedure.
“I think it pretty much went as best as it could,” said AJB member, Ian Thomas ’13 who was present in the audience for Thursday’s hearing.
“No perfect process exists, but it’s a lot better than many of the other alternatives that people think about,” he said.
According to Thomas, such care is largely the result of the highly selective judicial board application process. In recent years, 50-70 applicants apply for the twelve student spots available, according to Karen Guttentag, associate dean of judicial affairs and student life.
Upon selection, all board members undergo a two-day training session before school begins, during which members become familiar with the College handbook, discuss the concept of “fundamental fairness,” and are led through a presentation on memory by Matt Kimble, associate professor of psychology.
According to Kate Hamilton ’15.5, another AJB member, “board members do the best that they can” in seeking to ask neutral questions given the challenging nature of the process.
During the judicial training board members are taught the difference between a loaded or leading question, and a neutral question.
“The example that they give us was ‘were you feeling really frustrated at that point?’ rather than ‘how were you feeling at that point?’” she said, emphasizing the variance in the responses that could be given as a result of questioning tactics.
Despite such training, some audience members were critical of the way in which questions were posed by certain board members.
“I thought some of the members of the board were at times unnecessarily aggressive in their questioning, but overall I think they did a really good job,” explained Ryan Urquidi ’13.
“It’s a challenging process for everyone involved,” he said.
Molly Stuart ’15.5, one of the students sanctioned by the College also provided her reaction to the process.
“While no grudge whatsoever is held against any individual board member, we found it difficult to break the boundaries of a bureaucracy that is tilted in favor of the administration,” she wrote in an email.
“It was a struggle to bring to light the main issue — and that is the issue of our endowment funding the destruction of human beings and earth. However, we felt that by the end of the six hour marathon, everyone in the room was receptive to our message.”
Guttentag explained that the College uses the “preponderance of evidence” standard in all hearings, meaning it must be determined that it is “more likely than not” that the student has violated policy.
Although the evidentiary standard is low, at least seven of the eight members of the CJB or six of the seven members of the AJB, must decide that it has been met in order for a finding of guilt.
To a certain degree, Guttentag explained, such a standard is used because of the limitations in the investigative capacity of the College.
“We are an educational institution, we’re not CSI. There is no fingerprinting. There is no DNA. We ask people to be honest with us, but we don’t have the same consequences as a legal process does for people who perjure themselves, so we have to work within the limitations of our community.”
“Essentially, it’s a community problem solving process.”
While no procedural changes are expected as a result of Friday’s open hearing, Guttentag explained that the judicial process will undergo a review this year, and might prompt changes to the academic judicial board procedure.
Faculty Weigh In On Activism (by Michelle Smoler)
Last Thursday’s hearing has bolstered discussion on the ways in which students and faculty can engage in the practical concerns associated with a liberal arts education.
In an op-ed in the Campus, a group of faculty members conveyed their perspective of the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee’s form of activism as a clear example of the practical outcome of a Middlebury education.
The op-ed reads, “[The DLWC’s] action occurred … because Middlebury is incredibly good at producing critically engaged citizens.” While these faculty members voiced their approval of the DLWC’s actions and lauded this behavior as the pinnacle of the liberal arts, other faculty members expressed a varying range of opinion as to how activism fits in a liberal education.
“Activism [has] two problems with it,” said Charles A. Dana Professor of Political Science Murray Dry. “It deflects us from the deepest possible inquiry into not just what are the right objects of action, but what’s good policy, practical wisdom. We’re missing, I would say, the richest opportunity to engage our rational faculties.”
However, Professor of Geography and Director of the Rohatyn Center Tamar Mayer views activism as a necessary part of the development of engaged citizens.
“I think it’s really important for students to be activists — period,” said Mayer.
Faculty members were more unified however when it came to the role of faculty in educating students in responsible activism, viewing themselves as educators in critical thinking, rather than actors obliged to pass judgment on good and bad activism.
“For me it’s about helping people to educate themselves about how social change happens and it doesn’t always happen through the channels that are deemed responsible and acceptable at any given time,” said Assistant Professor of Sociology and Anthropology Jamie McCallum.
“You’re teaching to adults its not an elementary school, its not a high school,” said Kawashima Professor of Japanese Studies Stephen Snyder. “The people who are in these classes considering these ideas are adults and how they implement them is to a large extent up to them and hopefully you can inculcate the idea that responsibility is the first obligation.”
Groups Continue Divestment Push (by Kelsey Collins)
Calls for action surrounding divesting from the College’s endowment from fossil fuels and war-related industries have been renewed in the wake of last Thursday’s hearing.
Student groups on campus that have been campaigning for divestment —in addition to the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee (DLWC) — are looking to take advantage of the conversation and momentum that has been set in motion in the aftermath of the public trial.
“I think its going to be a multidimensional approach, and I think that will be most effective in terms of getting the most amount of people engaged and provide a variety of levels of engagement to keep the energy that the trial generated,” said Molly Stuart ’15.5, DLWC member of the group’s approach to divestment going forward.
“We’re trying to keep a creative focus, because we noticed that in order to break through the noise of campus activism, being creative is very essential for keeping the message alive,” Stuart added.
Greta Neubauer ’14.5, a member of Divest for our Future, a group that is part of a national movement on college campuses which seeks to divest endowments from fossil fuels by 2016, also saw the hearing as a conversation-starter on campus.
“We’ve seen that there are different voices and individuals across campus who are interested in these issues, and so we’re hoping that moving forward we can continue to have constructive dialogue surrounding divestment, ” said Neubauer.
Jeannie Bartlett, co-chair of the Socially Responsible Investing club and member of Divest for Our Future added, “As students here, we see this movement as one of the most strategic ways of moving fiscal and intellectual capital in the paradigm shift away from fossil fuels.”
Ben Chute, ’13.5, SRI co-chair, agreed that the hearing brought new life to the conversation surrounding the College’s investments.
“While we wouldn’t endorse [the DLWC’s] tactics, in the end it’s a positive thing. It got the issue on many people’s radar, and they eloquently stated the ideas behind divestment.”
“The administration has a timetable of persistent delay and inaction, but there is an urgency of now. …We don’t have that kind of time, because we know that today there is devastation,” said Jay Saper ’13, another DLWC member. “We are going to continue with this fierce urgency of now. We don’t have the luxury of cooling off.”
Students React to CJB Sanction (by Kathryn DeSutter)
Student audience members at last Thursday’s hearing came out of the experience with strong impressions of the hearing process and the issue of divestment.
Jia Jun Lee ’15, who was still present when the hearing finally concluded just after 9 p.m., felt that the public setting added to the energy around the topic.
“Regardless of what people think of the action, it’s been just a great dialogue and conversation starter on campus,” said Lee.
“This has probably been one of the best educational experiences I’ve had. This what college should be about,” said Lee of the hearing.
Like many students, Dunja Jovicic ’13 valued the hearing as an opportunity to observe the CJB.
“I think the board did as well as they could, as they said, to keep their questions fair and impartial,” said Jovicic.
“I think that the personalities on the board really balanced each other out,” she added. “There were some [members] who were a little bit more reserved in their question-asking and ones who really wanted to get to the bottom of a certain case or certain question.”
Bree Baccaglini ’15 is a member of the Academic Judicial Board, and attended the first two hours of the hearing as an audience member. Baccaglini explained that the CJB’s decision demonstrated their status as an independent body.
“I believed that [the respondents] would get a much stricter punishment … but the fact that these proceedings allowed that kind of result I thought was very affirming for community members to look at the board and say that this is fair and impartial,” said Baccaglini.
Both Baccaglini and Jovicic expressed a desire for the administration to voice its view of the feasibility of divestment.
“Someone on the board [of trustees] could speak on it, perhaps,” said Jovicic.
“I was left questioning, what is the institution’s responsibility to respond to transparency and divestment? And I don’t mean ‘respond’ as in do it, I mean ‘respond’ as in say something more than, ‘you’ve violated the handbook,’” added Baccaglini.
(11/07/12 10:17pm)
Just past 1 a.m. on Thursday morning, the five students that stood before the Community Judicial Board (CJB) were found guilty of two violations to the College Handbook, and sanctioned with an unofficial reprimand. The hearing — the first open CJB proceeding in over five years — drew a capacity crowd to the College’s largest auditorium, and lasted over six hours.
The students — Molly Stuart ’15.5, Jay Saper ’13, Sam Koplinka-Loehr ’13, Amitai Ben-Abba ’15.5 and Jenny Marks ’14.5 — were brought before the board for their involvement in the dissemination of a mock press release to students, faculty and local media outlets on Oct. 12.
Marks, who is currently volunteering in New Orleans, was present for the proceedings via Skype.
The College was represented by Michael Roy, L. Douglas and Laura J. Meredith dean of LIS and chief information officer, and Shirley Collado, dean of the College.
Sue Levine, assistant director of alumni and parent programs, served as the chair of the judicial board for the hearing. The CJB was represented by an eight-member body that included students, staff and faculty.
The proceedings opened with opening remarks from Collado in which she sought to limit the discussion of the hearing to the actions taken by the students and the alleged policy violations to the College Handbook.
Collado touched on the notion of an “all-student” email, as well as the potential harm that the mock press release might have caused to staff, students, faculty and the reputation of the College.
The Dean’s remarks were followed by impassioned speeches from the five members of the self-titled Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee (DLWC), in which the students read sections of a collectively written statement.
They maintained that the message of the mock press release could not be separated from their method — an assertion the representatives from the College repeatedly challenged throughout the hearing.
The students called for immediate action from the College in divesting its endowment from the destruction of “planet and earth.” Hampshire College was cited as an example of a College that has proven that “divestment is possible.”
Throughout the proceedings, the students were aided by four faculty advisors: Tara Affolter, visiting assistant professor of education studies, Laurie Essig, associate professor of sociology and women’s and gender studies, Mike Olenick, professor of mathematics and Sujata Moorti, professor of women’s and gender studies. Three of four of these advisors were members of a group of 17 professors who signed a letter supporting the actions of the five students, which was published in the Campus and on MiddNotes.
Following extensive questioning by the CJB, and back and forth questioning between the five students and the two representatives of the College, four witnesses were called to testify before the board.
Barrett Smith ’13, student co-chair of community council, and Anna Shireman-Grabowski ’15, Student Government Association (SGA) Feb Senator were called to respond to questions regarding the reactions of student members of the college community.
Sarah Ray, director of public affairs, was also called as a witness. Ray explained that the mock press release had made her job significantly more difficult during a weekend that was especially hectic for the College, as a result of His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s visit to campus.
Peter Hamlin, Christian A. Johnson professor of music, was also called to testify before the CJB. As a former broadcaster, Hamlin spoke to the believability of the press release, explaining that trained journalists would not have been fooled by the students’ action.
Hamlin elaborated that the students’ press release did not use the typical “corporate style” of institutionally sanctioned releases, and that the contact name used by the students — Tim Schornack — sounded much like the fictitious names of the Mad Magazine characters that he used to read about when he was a teenager.
Hamlin described the administration’s response to the students’ press release as a “baffling kind of overreaction,” and warned that a harsh response from the College might further stifle conversation and free expression on campus.
Following the culmination of the questioning of the witnesses, Karen Guttentag, associate dean for judicial affairs and student life and moderator for the hearing, then read five statements submitted by college community members, which served as character witnesses for the students.
The letters were written by two former students as well as three faculty members. In his letter, Nial Rele, Commons Residential Advisor of Brainerd Commons, spoke of Koplinka-Loehr’s compassion in his service as a First-Year Counselor and Residential Advisor.
Olivia Grugan ’12, writing from Palestine, wrote of Ben-Abba’s commitment to speak for the oppressed.
Senior Lecturer in Education Studies Gregg Humphrey defended the dedication and energy of his former student, Marks.
Andrea Olsen, professor of dance and John C. Elder professor of environmental studies, wrote of the high quality work and strong personal convictions of Stuart.
Finally, Amy McGlashan, special assistant to the director in Education In Action, spoke expansively of Saper’s commitment to community building and service.
In their closing statements, the two college officials asked the board to consider a few central themes of the case. First, Roy explained that the CJB would be forced to make the distinction between “political satire” and “deception.” Second, he asked the board to consider, “when do the ends justify the means?” Roy then posited that this case could hold the potential to set a precedent for students in the future.
In their closing, the respondents explained that their action was in response to a campus environment that had inhibited dialogue. Citing the words of Desmond Tutu, Ben-Abba maintained remaining neutral in this case represented taking the side of the oppressor. Ben-Abba called on the administration to hold themselves accountable to their values.
The students were found guilty of violating two sections of the College Handbook, “communicating with honesty and integrity” under the general conduct section of the text, as well as “ethical and law-abiding behavior” under the responsible use of computing and network facilities sub-section.
The five were found not guilty on alleged violations to sections of the same LIS-based policies focused on “conservation of our common resources” and “respect for others.”
After four hours of deliberation, the CBJ called the five students back to Dana Auditorium and informed them that they would receive an unofficial sanction — the College’s least severe sanction under applicable handbook policy.
In light of the sanction, if asked whether or not they have ever received official college discipline, the students will be able to reply, “no.”
(11/02/12 4:19pm)
UPDATE: Just past 1 a.m. — over 10 hours after the beginning of the proceedings — the students were found guilty by the Community Judicial Board and given a reprimand. They will not be subject to any official College discipline.
----------
At 3 p.m. a capacity crowd was in attendance in Dana Auditorium to bear witness to the first public Community Judicial Board (CJB) hearing in over five years, a proceeding that saw five students stand before the board and defend themselves against alleged violations to two sections of the College Handbook.
The students — Molly Stuart ’15.5, Jay Saper ’13, Sam Koplinka-Loehr ’13, Amitai Ben-Abba ’15.5 and Jenny Marks ’14.5 — were brought before the board for their involvement in the dissemination of a mock press release to students, faculty and local media outlets on Oct. 12. Marks, who is currently volunteering in New Orleans, was present for the proceedings via Skype.
The College was represented by Michael Roy, L. Douglas and Laura J. Meredith dean of LIS and chief information officer, and Shirley Collado, dean of the College.
Sue Levine, assistant director of alumni and parent programs, served as the chair of the judicial board for the hearing. The CJB was represented by an eight-member body that included students, staff and faculty.
The proceedings opened with impassioned speeches from the five members of the self-titled Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee (DLWC), in which the students read sections of a collectively written statement. They maintained that the message of the mock press release could not be separated from their method — an assertion the representatives from the College repeatedly challenged throughout the hearing.
The students called for immediate action from the College in divesting its endowment from the destruction of “planet and earth.” The example of Hampshire College was cited, as the students argued that “divestment is possible.”
The College sought to limit the discussion to the actions taken by the students and the alleged policy violations to the College Handbook.
Collado and Roy discussed the definition of an “all-student” email, the nature of an act that might be considered a public “nuisance,” as well as the potential harm that the mock press release might have caused to staff, students, faculty and the reputation of the College.
Throughout the proceedings, the students were aided by four faculty advisors: Tara Affolter, visiting assistant professor of education studies, Laurie Essig, associate professor of sociology and women's and gender studies, Mike Olenick, professor of mathematics and Sujata Moorti, professor of women’s and gender studies. Three of four of these advisors were members of a group of 17 professors who signed a letter supporting the actions of the five students, which was published in the Campus and on MiddNotes.
Following extensive questioning by the CJB, and back and forth questioning between the five students and the two representatives of the College, four witnesses were called to testify before the board.
Barrett Smith ’13, co-chair of community council, and Anna Shireman-Grabowski ’15, Student Government Association (SGA) Feb Senator were called to respond to questions regarding the reactions of student members of the college community.
Sarah Ray, director of public affairs, was also called as a witness. Ray explained that the mock press release had made her job significantly more difficult during a weekend that was especially hectic for the College, as a result of His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s visit to campus.
Peter Hamlin, Christian A. Johnson professor of music, was also called to testify before the CJB. As a former broadcaster, Hamlin spoke to believability of the press release, explaining that trained journalists would not have been fooled by the students’ action. Hamlin elaborated that the students’ press release did not use the typical “corporate style” of institutionally sanctioned releases, and that the contact name used by the students —Tim Schornack — sounded much like the fictitious names of the Mad Magazine characters that he used to read about when he was a teenager.
Hamlin described the administration’s response to the students’ press release as a “baffling overreaction,” and warned of a harsh response that would further stifle conversation and free expression on campus.
Following the culmination of the questioning of the witnesses, Karen Guttentag, associate dean for judicial affairs and student life and moderator for the hearing, then read five statements submitted by College community members, which served in the place of character witnesses.
The letters were written by two former students as well as three faculty members. In his letter, Nial Rele, Commons Residential Advisor of Brainerd Commons, spoke of Koplinka-Loehr’s compassion in his service as a First-Year Counselor and Residential Advisor.
Olivia Grugan ’12, writing from Palestine, wrote of Ben-Abba’s commitment to speak for the oppressed.
Senior Lecturer in Education Studies Gregg Humphrey defended the dedication and energy of his former student, Marks.
Andrea Olsen, professor of dance and John C. Elder professor of environmental studies, wrote of the high quality work and strong personal convictions of Stuart.
Finally, Amy McGlashan, special assistant to the director in Education In Action, spoke expansively of Saper’s commitment to community building and service.
In their closing statements, the two College officials asked the board to consider a few central themes of the case. First, Roy explained that the CJB would be forced make the distinction between “political satire” and “deception.” Second, he asked the board to consider, “when do the ends justify the means?” Roy then posited that this case could hold the potential to set a precedent for students in the future.
In their closing, the respondents explained that their action was in response to a campus environment that had inhibited dialogue. Citing the words of Desmond Tutu, Ben-Abba maintained remaining neutral in this case represented taking the side of the oppressor. Ben-Abba called on the administration to hold themselves accountable to their values.
Just after 9 p.m. the hearing concluded, and the five students — and also the thirty or so community members who were still in attendance — were permitted to leave the auditorium.
(11/02/12 4:30am)
UPDATE: Just past 1 a.m. — over 10 hours after the beginning of the proceedings — the students were found guilty by the Community Judicial Board and given a reprimand. They will not be subject to any official College discipline.
----------
At 3 p.m. a capacity crowd was in attendance in Dana Auditorium to bear witness to the first public Community Judicial Board (CJB) hearing in over five years, a proceeding that saw five students stand before the board and defend themselves against alleged violations to two sections of the College Handbook.
The students — Molly Stuart ’15.5, Jay Saper ’13, Sam Koplinka-Loehr ’13, Amitai Ben-Abba ’15.5 and Jenny Marks ’14.5 — were brought before the board for their involvement in the dissemination of a mock press release to students, faculty and local media outlets on Oct. 12. Marks, who is currently volunteering in New Orleans, was present for the proceedings via Skype.
The College was represented by Michael Roy, L. Douglas and Laura J. Meredith dean of LIS and chief information officer, and Shirley Collado, dean of the College.
Sue Levine, assistant director of alumni and parent programs, served as the chair of the judicial board for the hearing. The CJB was represented by an eight-member body that included students, staff and faculty.
The proceedings opened with impassioned speeches from the five members of the self-titled Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee (DLWC), in which the students read sections of a collectively written statement. They maintained that the message of the mock press release could not be separated from their method — an assertion the representatives from the College repeatedly challenged throughout the hearing.
The students called for immediate action from the College in divesting its endowment from the destruction of “planet and earth.” The example of Hampshire College was cited, as the students argued that “divestment is possible.”
The College sought to limit the discussion to the actions taken by the students and the alleged policy violations to the College Handbook.
Collado and Roy discussed the definition of an “all-student” email, the nature of an act that might be considered a public “nuisance,” as well as the potential harm that the mock press release might have caused to staff, students, faculty and the reputation of the College.
Throughout the proceedings, the students were aided by four faculty advisors: Tara Affolter, visiting assistant professor of education studies, Laurie Essig, associate professor of sociology and women's and gender studies, Mike Olenick, professor of mathematics and Sujata Moorti, professor of women’s and gender studies. Three of four of these advisors were members of a group of 17 professors who signed a letter supporting the actions of the five students, which was published in the Campus and on MiddNotes.
Following extensive questioning by the CJB, and back and forth questioning between the five students and the two representatives of the College, four witnesses were called to testify before the board.
Barrett Smith ’13, co-chair of community council, and Anna Shireman-Grabowski ’15, Student Government Association (SGA) Feb Senator were called to respond to questions regarding the reactions of student members of the college community.
Sarah Ray, director of public affairs, was also called as a witness. Ray explained that the mock press release had made her job significantly more difficult during a weekend that was especially hectic for the College, as a result of His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s visit to campus.
Peter Hamlin, Christian A. Johnson professor of music, was also called to testify before the CJB. As a former broadcaster, Hamlin spoke to believability of the press release, explaining that trained journalists would not have been fooled by the students’ action. Hamlin elaborated that the students’ press release did not use the typical “corporate style” of institutionally sanctioned releases, and that the contact name used by the students —Tim Schornack — sounded much like the fictitious names of the Mad Magazine characters that he used to read about when he was a teenager.
Hamlin described the administration’s response to the students’ press release as a “baffling overreaction,” and warned of a harsh response that would further stifle conversation and free expression on campus.
Following the culmination of the questioning of the witnesses, Karen Guttentag, associate dean for judicial affairs and student life and moderator for the hearing, then read five statements submitted by College community members, which served in the place of character witnesses.
The letters were written by two former students as well as three faculty members. In his letter, Nial Rele, Commons Residential Advisor of Brainerd Commons, spoke of Koplinka-Loehr’s compassion in his service as a First-Year Counselor and Residential Advisor.
Olivia Grugan ’12, writing from Palestine, wrote of Ben-Abba’s commitment to speak for the oppressed.
Senior Lecturer in Education Studies Gregg Humphrey defended the dedication and energy of his former student, Marks.
Andrea Olsen, professor of dance and John C. Elder professor of environmental studies, wrote of the high quality work and strong personal convictions of Stuart.
Finally, Amy McGlashan, special assistant to the director in Education In Action, spoke expansively of Saper’s commitment to community building and service.
In their closing statements, the two College officials asked the board to consider a few central themes of the case. First, Roy explained that the CJB would be forced make the distinction between “political satire” and “deception.” Second, he asked the board to consider, “when do the ends justify the means?” Roy then posited that this case could hold the potential to set a precedent for students in the future.
In their closing, the respondents explained that their action was in response to a campus environment that had inhibited dialogue. Citing the words of Desmond Tutu, Ben-Abba maintained remaining neutral in this case represented taking the side of the oppressor. Ben-Abba called on the administration to hold themselves accountable to their values.
Just after 9 p.m. the hearing concluded, and the five students — and also the thirty or so community members who were still in attendance — were permitted to leave the auditorium.
(11/01/12 12:59am)
On Thurs. Nov. 1 at 3 p.m. in Dana Auditorium, the five students charged by the College for their involvement in the distribution of a mock press release on Oct. 12 will go before the community judicial board — the College’s first public hearing in over five years.
Four of the students, Molly Stuart ’15.5, Jay Saper ’13, Sam Koplinka-Loehr ’13 and Amitai Ben-Abba ’15.5, will be present at the hearing. Jenny Marks ’14.5, who is currently volunteering at an urban farm in New Orleans, will participate in the hearing via telephone.
The five students are charged with violations to the College Handbook for their respective roles in the dissemination of a mock press release. Sent to hundreds of students, faculty and staff and a selection of local press, they claimed that the College had decided to divest from arms and fossil fuels in honor of His Holiness the Dalai Lama’s visit to campus nearly one month ago.
The students of the self-titled “Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee” (DLWC) face charges for alleged violations to two separate sections of the College’s Handbook policy: “communicating with honesty and integrity” under the General Conduct section of Student Life Policies and “ethical and law abiding behavior” and “respect for others” under the Responsible Use of Computing Resources and Network Infrastructure policy.
The hearing will occur in Dana Auditorium — the College’s largest auditorium on campus, containing 272 seats.
According to Karen Guttentag, associate dean for judicial affairs and student life, the space was selected in order to balance two essential ingredients.
“In planning an open hearing my consideration is how can we honor the intention of the policy to allow a reasonable number of people to be in the audience and observe, while still having a space that allows the board not to be unduly distracted by the audience,” she said.
The five students will go before the eight-member Community Judicial Board (CJB), comprised of one commons dean, one staff member, two faculty members and four students. The chair of the board will either be Sue Levine, assistant director of alumni and parent programs, or Hudson Cavanagh ’14.
Students React
In an interview with the Campus, the five students explained that they hope many members of the college community would attend the hearing.
“This is a public issue. It’s important to remember that this is a political hearing,” said Ben-Abba. “It’s not about us, it’s about a bigger issue — and that’s the issue of Middlebury’s endowment being invested in the destruction of people and the earth.”
“Since we have nothing to hide, we want as many people to come and be affected by the hearing, and have a Middlebury community that stands up to its values,” he said.
Not all community members viewed the student’s action in the same way.
In lengthy debates in the Student Government Association (SGA) meetings, senators have been divided on their support for the students’ actions.
“During our last two meetings, the SGA Senate have rendered what amounts to a split decision on this issue,” SGA President Charlie Arnowitz explained in an email.
“On the one hand, we almost unanimously agreed that it is important to us, as representatives of the student body, that [the College’s] endowment be invested in a manner consistent with our community values.”
“At the same time, most members also agreed that the methods used in this case may not have been the most effective ones to achieve that result, and in a sense may have been counterproductive,” added Arnowitz.
Stuart and Saper explained that part of the intention behind their action was to generate interest and energy on campus.
“We feel like there is great energy to change … It is out of our respect for this institution — respect for its values and its mission — and our respect for one another, that we can use a form of satire to engage people critically in dialogue, [encouraging them] to really live up to our college’s vision of what we can be,” said Saper.
The Procedure
While waiting for the CJB to convene, the four students of the DLWC in attendance at the hearing will wait together in a room separated from the convening crowd in Dana Auditorium.
Upon entering the auditorium, each member of the CJB will receive a packet of materials containing evidence collected during the College’s investigation into the students’ actions.
Under normal circumstances, the members of the CJB know very little about the case, as the College makes every effort to be discreet in the event of private hearings. In this case however, CJB members will likely be aware of some of the details of the case, as a result of the press the issue has received from local media outlets Vermont Digger, VPR and Seven Days.
At 3 p.m. Karen Guttentag, serving as the judicial affairs officer, will convene the hearing.
The five students will be invited to give opening statements that are unrestricted in content of length. Members of the board are then permitted to ask questions of the student respondents.
Following the initial questioning, witnesses will be called to testify and answer questions posed both by members of the board and the student respondents. Each of the student respondents will then be permitted to call upon a character witness. The proceedings come to a close with final statements by each of the students.
In this hearing, it may be also important to highlight a clause within the Handbook related to the cordiality of the proceedings. The policy explains that if the hearing is interrupted by audience members, “the judicial body may close the meeting to the general community.”
While uncommon, such an incident occurred at the last open judicial hearing, requiring the CJB to conclude the proceedings behind closed doors.
In the event of such an incident, the student respondents and the complainant (in this case, representatives of the College) may each select two members of the audience as observers.
Staff and Faculty Response
During the hearing, the students will be joined by faculty advisors Tara Affolter, visiting assistant professor of education studies, Laurie Essig, associate professor of sociology and women's and gender studies and Mike Olenick, professor of mathematics.
Essig and Olenick were members of a group of 17 faculty who publicly declared their support for the students last week in an open letter to the College community that was posted on the Campus’ website and on MiddNotes.
“We the undersigned would like to publicly share our support with the students for pushing all of us to put our money where our mouths and our values are,” they wrote in the letter.
“We also want to applaud them for highlighting the power of a liberal arts education in producing critically engaged citizens.”
Mirroring the division amongst members of the student body, some staff members have voiced concerns about the action taken by the students.
In a General Assembly held by the DLWC on Oct. 26, in which the students sought to provide a space for community discussion, the one staff member in attendance explained that some of her colleagues were “turned off” by the student’s tactic, though they were broadly supportive of the divestment movement.
Relaying the sentiments of one her colleagues, yet speaking solely as concerned member of the community, Brenda Ellis, research and Instruction librarian, explained, “If you want to question how our endowment is invested because you don’t think it reflects our values, then you can’t use tactics that break our values.”
In expressing her personal opinion, Ellis stated, “I won't support something, however good intentioned, if the tactics go against my values, even though I believe in trying to change our endowment and respect and admire what the students were trying to accomplish.”
Sentencing
Following the conclusion of the hearing, the members of the board will deliberate behind closed doors.
If all eight members of the CJB are present in the deliberations (as should be the case, unless extenuating circumstances intervene) a quorum of at least seven members of the board must find the students to be guilty “based on a preponderance of the evidence” in order for a sentence to be passed.
If the respondents are found guilty, the CJB will then decide upon a sanction.
According to the handbook, “Sanctions for non-academic conduct violations are assigned to meet any of several goals: to deter conduct that is harmful; to cultivate an awareness of responsibility and accountability to self and others; to make amends to harmed parties as appropriate; and to encourage education and growth.”
In nonacademic cases, sanctions can include fines, warnings (verbal or written), letters of reprimand, probationary status, suspension or expulsion.
Suspensions can be imposed for any length of time, but are normally not given for longer than one and a half academic years.
If, however, a suspension is handed down for longer than a four week period, students are required for apply for readmission to the College through the Administration Committee, and must “demonstrate a willingness to return to Middlebury,” according to the handbook.
In the event that the students are sentenced to a term that would prevent them from being able to complete their semester, they would not be refunded their comprehensive fee.
If the students are found not guilty, then all record of the charges and the hearing will be wiped from their permanent files.
Given the novelty of the public hearing and the utilization of Dana Auditorium to conduct the proceedings, students and administrators alike expect a substantial community turnout.
(10/24/12 5:41pm)
On Oct. 19 the College charged five students with violations of College Handbook policies, related to their involvement in the co-authorship of a mock press release that was sent to hundreds of students, faculty and staff and a number of local media outlets on Oct. 12.
The students, Molly Stuart ’15.5, Jay Saper ’13, Jenny Marks ’14.5, Sam Koplinka-Loehr ’13 and Amitai Ben-Abba ’15.5, have indicated that they will choose to defend themselves against the charges at an open Judicial Board hearing — the first public hearing in recent memory.
The hearing is slated to occur at 3 p.m. on Nov. 1 at a yet to be determined location, and will be overseen by the Community Judicial Board (CJB), comprised of trained students, faculty and staff, as is outlined by the College Handbook policies.
If the students are convicted, the CJB will decide upon individual sanctions for the group members. Possible repercussions for nonacademic violations to College Handbook policy, as are alleged in this case, range from verbal or written reprimands to expulsion from the College.
The charges issued to the students relate to alleged violations of Middlebury’s Community Standards policy and alleged breaches to the Responsible Use of Computing and Network Services and Facilities policy.
Over the past week, local media outlets including Seven Days, Vermont Digger and Vermont Public Radio have all covered the press release incident.
Sequence of Events
The charges facing the five students stem from their co-authorship of a self-described “satirical” press release.
Over the span of a few hours, hundreds of students, staff and faculty members, as well as a selection of local media outlets received an email from a Gmail account associated with the sender name “Office of Communications,” with the subject line “Middlebury College Divests from War in Honor of Dalai Lama Visit.”
The mock release stated that “Tim Schornak” of the “Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee” was to be contacted for further details on the announcement — a fictitious official from a non-existent committee. A telephone number was also provided where the official could allegedly be reached. When called, the number led to an official phone company recording, indicating a non-working number.
Throughout the evening, community members reacted to the news — many erroneously believing that the communiqué was an official release sent from Middlebury’s actual “College Communications” office.
On Oct. 14, in response to the mock press release, Vice President for Academic Affairs Timothy Spears sent an email to all students, staff and faculty explaining that the “message was a hoax, and that neither the email nor the press release it contained came from Middlebury College or its Communications Office.”
On Oct. 16, the five students posted a “coming clean” letter at various locations across the campus and online at go/compassion, identifying themselves by name and class year as the co-authors of the press release.
They co-signed the letter as the “Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee,” a self-described “group of students who are concerned that the College embraces practices inconsistent with its own proclaimed values.” In the letter, the five students called for greater endowment transparency and urged the College to divest from arms manufacturers, military contractors and fossil fuel companies.
Though many have interpreted the group’s two actions as separate acts — or have interpreted the “coming clean” letter as a response to the pressure exerted by the administration following the press release — the group explained that they crafted both letters simultaneously, and believe the two communiqués to be two separate parts of one whole action.
Stating Their Beliefs
In their open letter to the community, the students stated that they believed that the school’s investment structure was inconsistent with the College’s values and mission statement.
“Our intent was to bring attention to the unsettling reality that Middlebury has millions of dollars invested in industries of violence, while we appear to stand for universal compassion and peace,” they wrote.
The group also cited the College’s lackluster grades on endowment transparency as reported by the College Sustainability Report Card, published by the Sustainable Endowments Institute, as another motivating factor for their action.
In the six report cards since the inception of the sustainability ranking system in 2008, the College has received no better than a C grade with respect to transparency. While some other institutions have similarly struggled in this category in recent years (including Bates College and Williams College) other institutions, including Amherst College and Brown University, have received As and Bs for endowment transparency.
A Call for Transparency
Chair of the Board of Trustees Marna Wittington explained that board members were “disappointed” by the group’s actions.
“I think that one of our values is integrity, and integrity in communication,” she said. “I think we have a lot of tolerance for disagreement, but I don’t think we have a lot of tolerance for misrepresenting yourself, and taking someone else’s identity and using it as your own.”
The Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee members, however, reject the notion that they are guilty of impersonation.
“We are the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee. We sent the letter as the College Office of Communications for the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee … some students accused us of identity theft, but that’s preposterous. We didn’t violate anything according to United States law,” said Ben-Abba.
Koplinka-Loehr explained that the group did not use the College’s seal or letterhead. He also stated that the group repeatedly referenced the College Handbook, seeking to avoid any action that could be considered a violation of College policy. Dean of the College Shirley Collado and Associate Dean of Judicial Affairs and Student Life Karen Guttentag spoke to the Campus for this article, but could not comment on the specifics of the case, as it is an open investigation being pursued by the College.
Socially Responsible Investment Club Reacts
The Socially Responsible Investment club (SRI) is recognized by the College community as another on-campus group seeking greater endowment transparency.
Current SRI Co-President, Ben Chute ’13.5, explained that while his group was broadly supportive of the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee’s message, some SRI members were critical of the action taken by the five students.
“Initially, SRI was pretty shocked [by the email.] Many members were not happy about it. I think it is not consistent with the strategy that we have been pursuing, which has been to educate people and have a thoughtful, reasonable, straight-forward and honest conversation about the ethics of our endowment and how we can make it better,” Chute said.
“The principles that were expressed by this group are things that many of us largely identify with, and support and sympathize with … While I would have done it another way, I can’t take anything away from what they’ve done,” he said.
The SRI president explained that the action came at a difficult time for the group, who had seen a number of “big wins” in their collaborative efforts with the administration to bring greater fiscal transparency.
Chute described that just weeks before, the College had, for the first time in the school’s history, decided that they would allow a student liaison from the Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investing (ACSRI) to act as a liaison for all Board of Trustee’s Investment Committee meetings “in the foreseeable future”.
Last weekend, Chute served as the first ever ACSRI liaison to a Board Finance Committee meeting. Chute was limited in his capacity to participate in the meeting, serving as a non-voting member with no speaking privileges, (save for a five-minute presentation at the end of the meeting), yet seemed enthusiastic about the creation of the position.
“The Board seems open to hearing suggestions from the student body,” he said.
While the five members of the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee believe that the recent steps taken by the administration are positive, they saw significant limitations in the scope of the measures.
“We see the benefit of using many different tactics, and doing autonomous actions,” said Stuart, “as long as it’s not undermining the work of other groups, which we don’t believe that it was in this case.”
Managing the Endowment
As of June 2012, Middlebury’s endowment was officially estimated at $881 million. The vast majority of this sum is managed by Investure, a company that manages the investments of 12 other organizations — five colleges and seven foundations — with an aggregate portfolio of approximately $8 billion.
By using Investure, Middlebury is endowed with a team of professionals who provide access to investment possibilities comparable to the opportunities available to institutions with larger endowments.
Yet, by using an outsourced investment company, the College loses a level of transparency offered by the in-house management process. While the Middlebury Investment Committee and Board remain actively involved with the decision making process regarding asset allocation, guidelines and strategic changes to the College’s endowments, they are unable to instantly access the records that indicate the companies in which the College invests.
Under this model, it is difficult to accurately screen for investment in arms manufacturers, military contractors or fossil fuel companies.
Koplinka-Loehr believes that it is nearly certain that the College is invested in such companies.
“There is not only the possibility that we are invested in military contractors, there is the certainty that we are invested in military contractors,” he said. “Without screens — because they are the most profitable companies on the market … it is without doubt that we are invested in them,” he said.
Examining the Possibility of Divestment
The student’s press release has led some to question whether divestment is possible given the College’s current investment model. According to Vice President for Finance and Treasurer Patrick Norton, forms of divestment have occurred in the past.
In April 2006, in response to violence in Darfur, the President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz announced in a press release that the Investment Committee, Board of Trustees and the College’s external investment consultant had all reviewed the College’s direct holdings to identify and cease all investment in “any multinational companies that may provide the many factions that constitute the Sudanese Government with substantial financial resources.”
While symbolically significant, no divestment occurred as a result of the initiative, as the College was not invested in any such companies in their direct holdings portfolio.
At the time the College also took steps to try to compel Investure to encourage its managers to employ similar screens when investing the pooled funds.
Norton explained in an email, “The College sent a letter to Investure with a list of companies that Middlebury has identified as prohibited investments.”
Yet, the College Treasurer acknowledged the limitations of the College’s influence over the direct management of the aggregate funds.
“As an investor in comingled funds for which Investure has full management discretion, we recognized that we couldn’t direct specific investment activities of the funds. However, we strongly encouraged Investure to divest securities of any type in these companies that may be part of our portfolio, and to avoid them in the future,” he wrote.
Norton explained that the College has instructed Investure’s financial managers to follow the institution’s Environmental and Social Responsibility Principles, which were adopted last spring. Within this framework Investure seeks to maximize returns while managing risk, according to the Treasurer.
“It is the financial sustainability of the companies in which we are invested that must remain a focus. It is our endowment that funds 20 percent of the operating costs of Middlebury College,” he said.
Students Invite Discussion
SRI will host a discussion in conjunction with the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee and the Divestment Committee (another student group working directly on the issue of endowment transparency) this evening at 8 p.m. in Axinn 219. The Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee and the “growing contingent” of supporters on campus will also hold a general assembly at 4:00 p.m. on Friday in Warner Hemicycle. Both meetings are open to all community members.
The Community Judicial Board hearing for the five accused students is planned for Thursday, Nov. 1 at 3 PM in Dana Auditorium.
(10/15/12 12:55pm)
On Saturday Oct. 13, His Holiness the Dalai Lama spoke to the College community on the topic of “Finding Common Ground: Ethics for a Whole World”. The Dalai Lama spoke for nearly thirty minutes — on peace, cooperation and morality in the 21st century — before taking pre-composed written questions from community members.
During the question period, queries from students and townspeople alike challenged the Tibetan spiritual leader, asking for his comments on the American political system, China–Tibet relations and the righteousness of the use of morphine at the end of life.
The event was the second of two talks given by the spiritual leader, and represented the third time that Dalai Lama has visited the College.
President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz spoke first, greeting community members and welcoming U.S Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. to the stage. Leahy was highly complimentary of the Tibetan leader, explaining that he couldn’t possibly provide an adequate introduction from the Dalai Lama.
“I have admired his Holiness for so many years,” he said, “… He is a man of remarkable ability and patience and perseverance … He is the face of Tibet throughout the world.”
Following the introduction, the Dalai Lama was greeted to a standing ovation by the crowd of 2,800 in the College’s Nelson Arena.
After his opening remarks the Tibetan leader spoke of "oneness" and the similarities between all people, before expressing his belief that the level of violence of the 21st century was “on a different scale,” than the century prior. He called for a reduction of military forces, and for a greater emphasis on dialogue.
“We need genuine cooperation … based on friendship, openness and trust,” he said. “The destruction of your enemy is actually the destruction of yourself.”
Throughout the presentation the Tibetan spiritual leader demonstrated his typical charisma, citing pointed moral truths in an accessible manner for the crowd. Sporadic tense moments were broken easily through the use of the Dalai Lama’s infectious laughter.
When asked of his view on the ideological bipartisanship in the United States, the Dalai Lama shrugged and responded that there are “… not much differences … whether Democratic party or Republican party. When they actually deeply [face] a problem, I think [they are] more or less the same.” The comment was met by much laughter from the audience.
His Holiness expressed his desire for a reduction in the economic gap between the rich and the poor.
“As far as socio-economic theory is concerned, I am Marxist … but that does not mean I accept the totalitarian system; I am totally against it,” he said.
His Holiness also suggested the positive benefits of the capitalist system, such as the promotion of innovation and creativity.
On the topic of Tibet—China relations the audience was silent as His Holiness reiterated the importance dialogue between the two groups. He encouraged Tibetans to travel to China to further mutual cultural understanding.
The Dalai Lama spoke in English, occasionally turning to his translator, Thupten Jinpa, for clarification. One such instance occurred when the Buddhist leader was asked of the appropriateness of the use of morphine during hospice care.
“That, I think, is case to case,” he said. “… difficult to generalize.”
In his response, the Dalai Lama suggested that for those who have spiritual experience and connection, it might be important to keep a "clear mind." He concluded that in other cases, where individuals have no such interest, such a decision might be best left to medical professionals.
One of the final questions came from a woman who asked: “You always show a smile that radiates from the heart, how is that possible? Do you know a secret that makes you smile?”
“If there is some secret thing there, that I should keep as a secret,” the Dalai Lama responded, to much laughter.
Such radiance was also evident backstage, according to Jennie Kim ’13, one of the five College students who were asked to play music during the introduction of the talk. Following the conclusion of the Dalai Lama’s remarks, Kim had the opportunity to shake hands with the spiritual leader.
“He was very delightful. Backstage he was very much like your typical grandpa,” she said, smiling.
“I think his talk was enlightening. [He spoke of many things] that were common sense — like that we need to trust people and be open minded — but it just reaffirmed that we really need to think about these things. Sometimes we need that reminder,” she said.
(10/03/12 4:50pm)
In a blog post on Sept. 25 Dean of the College Shirley Collado announced the establishment of the College’s anti-stalking policy as well as an enhanced sexual misconduct policy, which notably expands the definitions of consent and substantial impairment. College officials hope that the changes will encourage more victims to report sexual misconduct and harassment amidst concern that many incidents go unreported.
Over the summer, Human Relations Officer Sue Ritter worked with Associate Dean for Judicial Affairs and Student Life Karen Guttentag to draft the anti-stalking policy. Administrators explained that the policy was not created in response to any significant increase in the reported cases of stalking on campus, but rather as a preemptive initiative designed to give students further protection from behavior that has become increasingly prevalent nation-wide.
“Nationally, stalking and cyber-stalking — including bullying — has become an important issue,” said Collado. “We wanted to be at the cutting edge of what’s happening nationally, [and be] proactive. We wanted to have the type of policy that would support students when they would come to us with that type of concern.”
In selecting appropriate language and guidelines for the anti-stalking policy, the administrative team looked to examples provided by Vermont state law, and the policies of peer institutions such as Dartmouth College, Colby-Sawyer College and Tufts University.
According to the Middlebury College handbook, stalking is defined as follows: “Engaging in a course of conduct directed at a specific person which includes but is not limited to following, lying in wait, or harassment, and: serves no legitimate purpose; and would cause a reasonable person to fear for their safety or health or would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress.” (Italics added for emphasis).
Administrators were careful to include forms of non-verbal communication in their definition of stalking in recognition of the rapidly-changing technological landscape, such as “sending unwanted/unsolicited email or talk requests … installing spyware in the person’s computer … [or] using Global Positioning Systems (GPS) to monitor the person.”
“When we conduct investigations, particularly in the harassment context, technology is inevitably a part of that,” said Ritter. “In most cases, there will be text messages, Facebook messages and emails … We’re striving to undertake the most thorough investigation possible while still mindful of privacy concerns.”
In addition to the new anti-stalking policy, the College’s sexual misconduct policy was also expanded over the summer in order to provide greater protection and transparency for students. Administrators hope the revised policy will encourage greater levels of reporting and will prove to be a more useful guideline for the members of the Sexual Misconduct Review Panel, the committee that bears the responsibility of adjudicating student cases.
Among other alterations, the policy has been modified to address alcohol and drug use in cases of sexual assault.
The new policy determines that consent is not given when: “From the standpoint of a reasonable person, the respondent knew, or reasonably should have known, that the person’s judgment was substantially impaired as a result of alcohol or drugs, or the person was incapable of providing knowing or voluntary consent due to a physical or mental condition.” (Italics added for emphasis).
Ritter explained that in applying an appropriate standard for adjudication, the administration uses the “reasonable person” standard, which is an objective standard typically used in civil trials.
“In deciding these cases, standards need to be objective,” she said. “You also want to make sure that when you are judging someone’s conduct, you judge that person’s conduct in context.”
Ritter further explained the “reasonable person” standard, by providing a hypothetical scenario. “Even if I am drunk, and I can’t really ascertain whether or not the person I am with is giving consent, my conduct is going to be judged from the standpoint of a reasonable, unimpaired person standing in my shoes at the time,” said Ritter. “Intoxication is not a defense in a sexual assault case.”
President of Feminist Action at Middlebury Ashley Guzman ’13 was supportive of alterations to the sexual misconduct policy, but wondered whether or not students would understand the changes.
“I understand [the handbook] needs to be clear, and structured, but this [language] isn’t accessible. I don’t think students know the full range of events that can qualify as assault, and I’m not sure this will help,” she said.
Guzman suggested that it might be helpful for students if hypothetical scenarios were included in the handbook, similar to the example provided by Ritter.
The policy changes build upon significant alterations to the sexual misconduct judicial procedure that were initially implemented in 2011, when changes were made to the policy that allowed a complainant to proceed with an investigation without having to testify in front of a judicial board. The changes are a response to one of the most commonly cited criticisms of the old system.
Under the new procedure, the complainant, respondent and all witnesses are asked to give their testimony to an independent investigator, and both the complainant and respondent are allowed to respond to all claims by both parties before the investigator ever submits their recommended finding to the panel.
“You sit down, in a quiet, private room with a trained investigator, and explain what happened,” said Ritter. “If, after the interview, you want to come back and provide more information, you can do that. The complainant and the respondent will also see all of the evidence in the case before the investigator makes a recommended finding, and both of them will have a chance to respond to the evidence in a considered and deliberate way.”
While it is estimated that nationally one in five women will experience sexual assault or an attempted sexual assault during her time at college, many cases go unreported. College administrators are hopeful that the changes will promote higher rates of reporting of cases of sexual assault and sexual misconduct.
According to the College’s most recent Crime Report Statistics — which includes reports from 2008 to 2011 — there has been an average of four reported cases of forcible sexual offenses per year.
“This is a serious situation,” said Ritter. “We know that sexual assault is underreported. We’re hoping that this policy together with the resources we have on campus will encourage people to report.”
The College has not seen an increase in the number of reported cases of sexual assault since the policy was implemented last fall, though administrators expect that such changes will take time.
“At the end of the day we just want people to trust the process,” Ritter said. “And we want them to understand that for both sides, our goal is to treat them in a fair, unbiased and respectful manner. It’s an ordeal to have to relive the incident all over again in the course of an investigation, and we are very sensitive to that.”
“We want people to take their time, be as comfortable as possible and trust us,” she added.
(09/26/12 9:35pm)
On Tuesday, Sept. 25 the Student Government Association (SGA) announced the election of Barrett Smith ’13 to the position of Student Co-Chair of Community Council (SCOCC) by a margin of just six votes. Smith beat out Kathryn Benson ’13 for the position in a contest that garnered approximately 25 percent of student voter turnout.
The SGA announced the victory in an email to the student body at 1:31 p.m., just over one hour after the polls closed. Smith secured 336 to Benson’s 330 votes in the election.
In an interview with the Campus following the announcement, Smith was eager to begin work with the Community Council in the implementation of the objectives outlined in his platform.
“The social honor code is at the top of my agenda,” he said. “It will naturally bring students together to write and debate; I think that this general assembly-type model will get students involved.”
During the election, Smith campaigned on the idea of enacting a social honor code, an agreement drafted by students that would hold them accountable for their actions within the community.
Smith also promoted the idea of trying to encourage a more representative democracy with respect to student involvement in College decision-making procedures.
“I’m disappointed in the 25 percent voter turnout,” said Smith. Smith’s campaign emphasized the critical importance of the student body in institutional decision making.
“I’m just excited to get to work and start making things happen,” he added.
Following the election, Benson was supportive of Smith’s election.
“I am excited to see where the year goes and to see Barrett work for his goals,” wrote Benson in an email.
A total of 666 ballots were cast in the election, just slightly higher than the 622 votes cast in the SCOCC election in 2010.
Smith will join Dean of the College Shirley Collado and the other members of the Community Council in the organization’s first board meeting on Monday Oct. 1. The meetings are open to all students.
First-Year Senator election results were also announced on Tuesday. Graham Shaw ’16 and Hasher Nisar ’16 won the two open positions with 68 and 61 votes, respectively.
Shaw and Nisar beat opponents Roy Wang ’16 and J Whelan ’16 by a significant margin. Wang received 35 votes and Whelan finished with 30 votes.
The First-Year Senators will now attend all SGA meetings and represent the interests of the first-year class.