24 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(09/14/17 4:01am)
This week The Middlebury Campus sat down with Jin Sohn '18, the new Student Government Association (SGA) President. This interview has been lightly edited for clarity, and was conducted both in-person and via email.
Middlebury Campus (MC): What are your primary goals for this academic year?
Jin Sohn (JS): We just completed our SGA Fall Retreat where members of the SGA had the opportunity to learn more about the logistics and roles of the SGA, as well as interact and connect with different community members such as administrators, staff, and faculty. There are already exciting and innovative ideas and initiatives that SGA Cabinet Directors and SGA Senators are working on, and there will be more information on these initiatives in the coming weeks. At this retreat, a term was coined for the year: “student-centric." We want the SGA to become much more visible and accessible to students. One way we are aiming to do this is by starting an SGA Snapchat account, which will be going live soon. We hope to show students the actual work of the SGA and the faces of its members, so that the SGA is not just another institution but a student-driven body.
Along the lines of accessibility and transparency, I am personally hoping to revamp different existing resources on campus such as the WeTheMiddKids website. The website is a forum which students can use to put up an idea or some kind of complaint, then once those hits a certain amount of upvotes in the community, the SGA has to address it. The website is not that user friendly and the last time it was used was 2014, but the website is still there so we’re going to look at how we can revamp it and make it more accessible to students, and also try to include administrators in a more open dialogue.
I hope to offer different opportunities for students to have a more direct role in their SGA; this includes launching SGA workshops and information sessions, such as a bill writing workshop. I am also working towards increasing accessibility and inclusivity on campus by partnering with different offices and departments, including Student Financial Services and MiddRides, to improve and expand the services for students.
MC: What specific areas of the SGA do you hope to alter or improve this year and why?
JS: Within SGA there’s a senate, which is elected by the student body, and then there’s the cabinet made up of students that are nominated by myself, the SGA president, and then ratified by the SGA senate. One thing that we’re trying to do is bridge groups closer together, so essentially we have appointed SGA Senators to different Cabinet Committees. For example, the SGA Educational Affairs Committee will now have an SGA Senator who will be a committee member on the SGA Educational Affairs Committee. The hope is that this new system will allow for a better flow of communication, increased student engagement, and greater input into the actual initiatives and implementation of bills.
MC: Do you intend to approach the administration differently from
previous years?
JS: At the SGA Fall Retreat, the members of the SGA were able to speak with President Patton and have started working towards building a common agenda. This is in the hopes that the SGA and members of the administration will have more routine check-ins and less of a call and response form of communication. That way, the SGA and students can have a better understanding of what members of the administration are working on, and the administration will know what the SGA and students need.
Additionally, the SGA has currently partnered with the Center for Community Engagement, the Scott Center for Spiritual and Religious Life, and the Commons on relief efforts for natural disasters across the United States. There was an email sent out to students earlier this week regarding ways to get involved at go/middhelps, and ways to learn more about ongoing efforts at go/disasterrelief.
MC: How will you deal with the Charles Murray protests and their subsequent impacts within the SGA from last semester? Will the debate between free speech advocates and protesters continue?
JS: I think that there will still be many conversations in regards to his visit within the SGA this semester, especially in light of the bills that were drafted but not passed last year. I think one of the biggest things I will do in my role as SGA President will be to facilitate conversations, whether they are between students or student groups, and do it from as equal of a playing field as possible. We’re trying to keep things fair across different cabinets as well, for example with social life, we want to bring different student groups together either through formal conversations, casual parties, or other meeting areas.
For me, one of the most important things will be to facilitate and prepare for these important conversations by fostering as open of an environment as possible. Within SGA Senate, half of the senators are new, while the other half are returning; this gives us a wide variety of perspectives, so we need to find a way to move forward while still recognizing the events that did happen. It will be a tricky balance, but I think student initiatives will be crucial to hearing all sides. This is a question that many on our campus are reflecting on and seeking answers to. My hope the SGA this year is to help facilitate such conversations from, as much as possible, a supportive and equitable environment. Last year the SGA hosted discussions and panels for students to participate in, and we are hoping to initiate similar events this year.
(05/11/17 2:19am)
In the wake of the disciplinary proceedings relating to student protests of Charles Murray, administrators and students have renewed past discussions about implementing restorative justice and restorative practices at the College.
These two terms are often used interchangeably, and their difference can sometimes be ambiguous. However, restorative justice is often defined as consisting of community-building alternatives to punitive action after an incident, while restorative practices refer to broader efforts to cultivate relationships and prevent conflict.
When it comes to the use of such policies in response to the Murray incident, however, students and administrators have articulated differing understandings of restorative justice and whether or not it could be applied retroactively.
In a conversation with The Campus, Vice President for Student Affairs and Dean of the College Katy Smith Abbott focused largely on restorative practices, which she characterized as a holistic “culture shift” that would not necessarily impact the basic structure of the judicial process. Though Smith Abbott stressed that she, like others in the community, is still gaining a fuller understanding of restorative practices, she expressed a reluctance to apply them immediately to the Murray protests.
“We’re in a really tough moment now where many of us can say, ‘Oh, if we’d already had restorative practices on this campus we would’ve had different kinds of conversations, post-March 2, that could’ve potentially influenced the judicial process,’” Smith Abbott said. “We are not comfortable saying we’re going to implement [restorative practices] in a rush.” She cited the advice of experts in restorative practices, with whom administrators have consulted, as the reasoning for taking a slower approach to implementation.
Rather than changing existing judicial procedures, Smith Abbott expects these practices to provide additional avenues for dealing with conflict. “It’s expanding the menu considerably, so that we have different resources and competencies to be able to ensure that we care for individuals and communities,” she said.
Even if restorative practices were applied retroactively to Murray protesters, she noted, “It’s not to say that there would be no judicial sanction for a policy violation, but [only] that the conversation would be informed by this work.”
In recent weeks, however, student advocates have advanced their own interpretation. A flier distributed throughout campus, titled “No Discipline Without Justice,” demands that the College “immediately halt its official disciplinary process and reconsider all discipline leveled against Mar. 2 protesters.” The flier also calls for the implementation of restorative practices, which, it asserts, “can radically and progressively change the College’s culture.” Additionally, in solidarity with students facing discipline, organizers at the Chellis House distributed armbands and pins reading “RJ,” for restorative justice.
Travis Sanderson ’19, who has been involved in the student advocacy, discussed its importance in an email to the Campus. “Without restorative practices, there is no long-term institutional change that will last and address sufficiently the pain and harm currently felt among segments of our community,” he said.
“Fortunately, we are moving forward as a College with restorative practices,” he continued. “Just not quickly enough."
The administration’s consideration of these topics may have its origins in a December 2015 town hall discussion with President of Middlebury Laurie L. Patton. At that time, Patton raised the possibility of implementing restorative justice in the context of bias and cultural appropriation, noting that restorative justice “focuses less on the idea of legal violation and more on the ideas of community and repair.”
In the spring of 2016, a four-step plan was created for implementing these practices at Middlebury. According to that plan, restorative practices “seek to build relationships and a sense of community in order to prevent future wrongdoings or conflict.” In addition, they aim to “reduce, prevent, and improve harmful behavior, repair harm and restore relationships and resolve conflict and hold groups and individuals accountable.”
Ultimately, however, due to financial restrictions, the College was unable to move forward with the plan. Its $30,000 price tag was impractical as concerns surfaced College’s financial difficulties, and the timing of the proposal would have required that it receive discretionary funding rather than simply being included in the annual budget.
Thus, the College has yet to implement the proposed plan, which would take about a year to complete. “We would need to have at least fifty trained facilitators on campus to address any conflict or concern using restorative justice practices,” Dean of Students Baishakhi Taylor said in an email. “It would take about twelve to sixteen months to get this many colleagues trained and create appropriate scaffolding of support around the practice before implementing it.”
Student advocates have cited Patton’s 2015 words as evidence for the benefits of restorative practices. In response, while Smith Abbott acknowledged the “understandable desire to say that this thing that the president first named as restorative justice could be implemented right now,” she concluded, “I don’t see the things as antagonistic — restorative practices and an approach to college policy violations being adjudicated by a community board.”
Still, Smith Abbott left open the possibility that the implementation of restorative practices could change the course of future disciplinary processes. “In terms of how restorative practices would impact the outcome of policy violations, I think that’s very real,” she said. “I think that’s where the Judicial Affairs Officers and the Dean of Students, in conversation with me and probably several others, would determine how we balance a desire to uphold college policies ... with the primary goal of any disciplinary process, which is individual growth, education, community and the repair of any fissure that has occurred.”
(05/04/17 1:30am)
The April 23rd meeting of the Student Government Association (SGA) began with senatorial updates regarding constituent feedback. Senator Pustejovsky first outlined her constituents’ concern over the current laundry system and the limited amount of options available to students. Doug Adams, the Associate Dean of Students for Residential and Student Life, stated that the SGA could potentially work alongside business services and the laundry vendor to eventually establish an alternative system.
Kevin Benscheidt presented the SGA Finance Committee (SGAFC) end of year report, asserting that this year’s expenditure of around $1.1 million was slightly less than last year’s.
The April 30th meeting of the SGA began with a discussion of the new housing system and the glitches that occurred during the registration process. Doug Adams asserted that after the system reboot on Wednesday, rising juniors and seniors could complete their housing registration without issues. Sophomores’ subsequent registration issues were eventually resolved, and the single/double draw would resume on Monday May 1st.
Colin Mackintosh ’17 presented the Endowment Affairs Report, stating that the college’s endowment has largely recouped all of its prior losses. However, David Provost, Middlebury’s Vice President for Finance, wants the college to transition from its current state of running a deficit into a system where revenues equal costs. Provost hopes to work with the SGA to determine what is financially important to students and save as many funds as the college can.
Senator Aaron and Senator Goldfield presented their Academic Freedom and Diversity Bill alongside Ivan Valladares ’17. This bill strives to reaffirm Middlebury’s commitment to the preservation of freedom of speech by enabling speakers to come to campus without the threat of disruption while also enforcing students’ right to peaceful protests that do not interrupt a speaker with the intent to censor. The co-sponsors stressed that this legislation was targeted towards fostering an open and inclusive campus where opposing viewpoints may be properly discussed and debated without the need for violence or censorship.
Senator Pustejovsky was uncertain over the specific changes this bill would implement that were not already incorporated into Middlebury’s handbook, questioning the need to define language that would most likely be ignored anyway. Senator Aaron responded that students’ tendency to ignore language regarding free-speech is particularly problematic and requires the college to reaffirm its commitment to diverse viewpoints.
Senator Fleischer and Senator Duran questioned the timing of this bill regarding both the passage of the Protest Reform Bill on April 23rd and the multitude of students currently facing charges for protesting Charles Murray’s event. Senator Wright expressed the need to further define the right to free speech within an inclusive atmosphere. Valladares responded that this bill and students’ right to protest are not mutually-exclusive, and that this bill is a good starting point to begin constructive discussions regarding the freedom of speech.
Senator Pustejovsky suggested that the SGA pushes the bill onto next year’s Senate rather than voting on it after a single week. Matthew Lantin ’19.5 asserted that many students on campus agree with this bill, and that tabling it for next year might be interpreted as an aversion from properly discussing the freedom of speech. While the bill was ultimately tabled, its co-sponsors remained insistent that the SGA vote on the legislation the following week.
Senator McCarthy then presented the Student Advisory Bill that strived to create a reliable Student Advisory Committee for all departments that include informal advising for majors and classes. This bill also sought to make the contact information of students on the Committees more accessible online. The legislation was unanimously approved.
(04/27/17 1:40am)
At the April 11 meeting, Director of Financial Aid Operations Michael McLaughlin and Associate Vice President for Financial Services Operations David Provost discussed how outside financial aid impacts the college’s financial aid for students at Middlebury.
They explained that financial aid at Middlebury comes in three main categories: grant money, student work and loans. If a student qualifies as having full need, outside aid will first reduce student work requirements and student loans and then reduce grant money.
They also detailed the yearly financial aid review process, the consideration of special circumstances (like lost jobs or medical emergencies) within the year, and the role of non-custodial parents. The rest of the April 11 meeting was devoted to internal discussions about who within the committee will draft future recommendations.
At the April 18 meeting, a student spoke to the Community Council about how Financial Services considers non-custodial parents in financial aid decisions, and in this student’s case, required them to meet with their estranged parent. The student felt that the circumstances of this meeting “crossed several lines.”
Revision to the Handbook’s current protest policy was then discussed. Changes include the prevention of Public Safety’s use of violence, and the prevention of criminal prosecution in cases of nonviolent protest.
Conversation then shifted to a discussion of a recommendation that would review the names of foods in the dining halls. The recommendation suggests changing the names “African Peanut Soup” and “Asian Snap Pea Salad.” The recommendation was tabled.
At the April 25 meeting, Executive Director of Food Service Operations Dan Detora discussed recent dining hall changes. Besides the implementation of a swipe system, Detora also discussed how dining services is considering adding food in Wilson Hall and increasing the size of to-go boxes.
Co-Chair elect Kyle Wright ’19.5 discussed the SGA resolution regarding Middlebury’s protest policies. An important provision of this legislation recommends that the College reconsider disciplinary measures against those involved in protests against the Charles Murray talk.
Charles Rainey ’19 presented an official recommendation for removing potentially offensive names for food served in the dining halls, which passed unanimously.
After passing this recommendation, Charles Rainey ’19 and Maleka Stewart ’19 presented the recommendation on the non-custodial parent waiver form for financial aid. The current form requires students not to be in contact with their parents for 10 years in order to obtain the waiver, a time period which the recommendation would change to one year. It would also change the basis for non-custodial waivers to change from an ability to pay model to a willingness to pay model. Finally, the recommendation suggests a shift to a case-worker model where Financial Services employees communicate with students whenever a problem which could impede a student’s capacity to function at Middlebury arises.
After much discussion, Community Council decided to defer voting on this recommendation to a later meeting.