273 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/24/12 11:15pm)
Lately professors all over the country and here at Middlebury have been trying to answer the question, “Why liberal arts?” Although the answer is complex, it’s also quite simple. A good liberal arts education produces critically engaged citizens. In other words, people who can get information, analyze it and yes, think about it. As civically engaged citizens, students of the liberal arts are then very often moved to action.
This is exactly what happened last week when a group of Middlebury students decided to push the College to think about how we make our money. The students did this by sending out a fake press release stating that in conjunction with the Dalai Lama’s visit, Middlebury would be divesting itself from all companies that make a profit from war.
The press release was not a joke, but a protest. It pointed out the contradiction of saying we support peaceful solutions and simultaneously taking money from weapons’ manufacturers. It also points out the contradiction between being “carbon neutral” and getting dividends from Big Oil.
This action occurred not because Middlebury is more hypocritical than other institutions. It’s not. But because Middlebury is incredibly good at producing critically engaged citizens.
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. We also want to applaud them for highlighting the power of a liberal arts education in producing critically engaged citizens.
Submitted by ROBERT COHEN, Professor of English and American Literatures; LAURIE ESSIG, Associate Professor of Sociology and Women’s and Gender Studies; PETER HAMLIN, Christian A. Johnson Professor of Music; PETER MATTHEWS, James B. Jermain Professor of Political Economy; SUJATA MOORTI, Professor of Women’s and Gender Studies; KEVIN MOSS, Jean Thompson Fulton Professor of Modern Language and Literature; MARGARET NELSON, A. Barton Hepburn Professor of Sociology; MIKE OLINICK, Professor of Mathematics; LINUS OWENS, Associate Professor of Sociology; ELLEN OXFELD, Gordon Schuster Professor of Anthropology; JAY PARINI, D.E. Axinn Professor of English and Creative Writing; DAVID STOLL, Professor of Anthropology; YUMNA SIDDIQI, Associate Professor of English and American Literatures; STEVE SNYDER, Kawashima Professor of Japanese Studies; HECTOR VILA, Assistant Professor of Writing; GREG VITERCIK, Professor of Music.
(10/24/12 11:14pm)
My passion lies in the heartbeat of the Earth. With its warming hands and nurturing care, the Earth provides me with everything I need. There is nothing more that I wish for than to protect the place that gives me life. When I heard about Middlebury, I thought I found the perfect school for me. Now that I’ve just visited it, the confirmation is to be made. I have walked the paths of Middlebury and met people with the same concerns as me, and as I visit, I thrive and my spirit seems to be free. The school represents a beacon of hope for the Earth, but as I walked through Middlebury’s land, I heard of the kinds of investments Middlebury was making. Middlebury’s support of fossil fuel companies and its funding of arms manufacturing and military contracting, due to lack of screens, greatly concerns me. Before I attended Discover Middlebury, I did some research on the College. What I found is that Middlebury is greatly concerned about environmental issues, but now that I am hearing about the funding that Middlebury is providing towards the destruction of the Earth, I am dumbfounded. My desire to attend Middlebury is high — I believe it is the place for me. Yet, as a prospective student, I want this place to be true to its morals. I would like to attend a school that I know has a good foundation and truly stands up for justice and what is right.
Written by KEENIA SHINAGAWA, a Prospective Student
We, as a part of Discover Middlebury, have discovered how great this school is, but also that it has much room to improve. We would love to come to Middlebury as a school that stands up to its values. We love to see the student involvement here, and appreciate the warm welcome since we were able to be involved.
Written by Prospective Students PERLA SIBAJA of Los Angeles, Calif.; FELIX RUANO of Los Angeles, Calif.; CARLOS AGUILAR of Los Angeles, Calif.; BIANCA GONZALEZ of Taos, N.M.; CHRISTINA CHYR of Miami, Fla.; URIEL ULLOA of Los Angeles, Calif.
(10/24/12 11:12pm)
“I think attorneys are so busy. You know, they’re always taught to argue everything, and always weigh everything and weigh both sides and they’re always, you know, they’re always devil’s advocating this and bifurcating this and bifurcating that. You know all that stuff. But, I think it is maybe time. What do you think for maybe a businessman? How about that?”
To preface: the above quotation is attributed to Clint Eastwood at the Republican National Convention. Admittedly, the statement was directed to a chair. Nonetheless, I think it bears consideration (I hope, for the sake of western civilization, that I never need issue that justification again.) Furthermore, I should mention that my political orientation is most adequately described as “distressed” — I’ll leave it to the reader to decide where that falls with respect to “center”.
Clint’s words are rather unsettling because they point to an under-analyzed borough of the American ethos. Namely: we’ve come to revere the “businessman” as the pinnacle of success. This comes as no surprise to any casual observer of American attitudes — America is a nation that values ingenuity, innovation, individuality and perhaps less admirably, material abundance. I’m not talking about the white-picket, vinyl-sided, three-bedroom modesty that the conservative wing of America seems so desperate to yank back from American magazine ads. I’m talking MTV rich — Scrooge McDuck rich. I can say with renewed confidence that this fascination with he-who-can-get-paid-the-most has, to some extent, made its way across the Atlantic. Here in Ireland they still have some of that Steve Jobs fervor that swept the nation a year ago. Remember that?
I don’t mean to speak ill of the dead, but what exactly was so respectable about Steve Jobs? Why did our nation wade half-delirious in a sea of sentimental reverence for the death of a man whose greatest contribution to civilization is used more often to play “Fruit Ninja” than for anything that could rightly be called productive? Few Apple products offer any real novelty — the click-mouse often said to be invented by Jobs was almost assuredly borrowed from Xerox, and you could play a game of Jenga with all the tablets that preceded the iPad. Jobs wasn’t half as generous financially as some of his counterparts. And what about those creepy Chinese factories/boarding houses? True, Apple’s products possess a certain tastefulness: they are stylish, simple and easy to use. And they can run a hell of an ad campaign. Apple inspires a kind of shiny aluminum cult in its patrons. And from start to finish, advertisement is a manipulative process. It’s how we are convinced to wait overnight in cold expectation for something we previously never knew existed. Should we really be falling in posthumous love for the guy who successfully convinced America that she is inherently un-cool?
The businessman, or the venture capitalist, is hardly worthy of this first-rate reverence either. Respect, sure. Envy, if you’d like. But why, if we value innovation and ingenuity, do we not admire the inventors of the Internet (under government contract, incidentally) as much as we do Steve Jobs? Why should we think higher of men and women primarily concerned with the accumulation of personal wealth than of social workers and academics — people concerned with the advancement and betterment of our society? And why-oh-why should we think good businessmen make good presidents?
I’m not saying attorneys make the ideal president, and I won’t insult you by offering an explanation as to why running a profitable business and running a federal government are not the same — or why macroeconomics and public policy are not readily learned in the private sector. But, more importantly, democracy and patriotism is about self-sacrifice for the common good: the recognition that our society can’t exist in its present form without collective action. My point, merely: a president should demonstrate more than leadership and work-ethic. In an age where political success generally means a big pay-off, he or she should demonstrate an unswerving concern for society, community, humanity and the understanding of all three — not just a commitment to his own advancement and financial success. A president should “argue everything” and “weigh both sides” because his decisions don’t simply affect a third-quarter profit margin, but the wellbeing of an entire nation. He must feel accountable (and, ideally, he is) to the people put out of work by his actions — a concept regrettably foreign to the world of corporate management.
Mohan Fitzgerald '14
(10/24/12 11:10pm)
There has been quite a bit of talk about divestment at Middlebury College in the past few weeks. For many students, this is their first exposure to the reality of our college’s endowment, which is invested with very limited, if any, screening for environmental and social criteria.
Others have heard about the endowment from the Socially Responsible Investment group for years, and some have grown tired of the word endowment, the petitions and the sometimes heated pre-Proctor lunch conversations.
Talking about the endowment is challenging. It is not particularly exciting or easy to understand.
However, it is important.
And it is our responsibility to think of this endowment as ours, as proud Middlebury students, as beneficiaries of the over $800 million.
It is our responsibility to make sure that when Middlebury goes carbon neutral, we aren’t building our solar panels with money from fracking in Appalachia, or from corporations who fund lobbying against climate change legislation.
A growing number of students at Middlebury have joined the national movement, now underway on more than 40 college and university campuses, in demanding that our schools divest from coal and fossil fuels. We recognize that in not acting, we are not neutral. We are supporting continued dependence on unsustainable practices that Middlebury’s commitment to environmental stewardship contradicts. As Schumann Distinguished Scholar Bill McKibben of 350.org says, our college degrees won’t be much good if we don’t have a livable planet on which to make use of them.
In 2004, the College’s Board of Trustees endorsed the Commitment to Carbon Reduction, which stated, “We join with the College’s administration, students, faculty, staff and alumni in the dedication of intellectual and fiscal capital to responsibly engage in this paradigm shift away from our fossil fuel dependency.” We are not trying to convince Middlebury that this community shouldn’t support coal and fossil fuel investment. Middlebury has already made this commitment. We are simply asking them to take the natural next step in fulfilling it.
Middlebury College Board of Trustees, we ask you to commit to dedicating our fiscal capital in the paradigm shift away from coal and fossil fuel dependency.
And Middlebury community, we ask that you not be neutral on this issue. We ask you to join with us in demanding Middlebury do better. Let’s ensure this place is one we can continue to be proud of.
Join us at 8:30 p.m. tonight in Axinn 219 for an introduction to divestment and the campaign co-sponsored by the Socially Responsible Investment group and the Divestment team.
Also, please join us for a Town Hall meeting tomorrow at 4 p.m. to bring together voices from across campus and from different coalitions to discuss divestment.
Check the calendar and public message boards for further information.
Written by GRETA NEUBAUER ’14.5 of Racine, Wisc.
(10/24/12 11:09pm)
On Friday, Oct. 12, Middlebury College welcomed His Holiness the Dalai Lama to campus. An announcement was made that in honor of the visit from the 1989 Nobel Peace Prize recipient, the College had chosen to demonstrate ethical leadership in divesting its endowment from war and environmental destruction.
In reality, the satirical notice about Middlebury’s divestment was written by us, a group of students concerned that the College embraces practices inconsistent with its own proclaimed values. We apologize for creating an excitement that is not yet warranted, and call on the college community to take action.
His Holiness the Dalai Lama told the College, “Education is supposed to reduce the gap between appearance and reality.” 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.
Middlebury College has not received better than a “C” on endowment transparency from the College Sustainability Report Card. While the specific companies in which the endowment is invested have never been disclosed to the student body, Investure — the firm that manages Middlebury’s endowment — confirmed last spring that they do not screen for arms manufacturing, military contractors or fossil fuel companies.
Given that these are among the most profitable industries in existence, it is safe to say that they are included in our portfolio. Our complicity has on-the-ground implications: U.S.-made weapons fueling the drug wars in Mexico, drone attacks killing civilians in Pakistan and the Keystone XL pipeline threatening communities from Canada to the Gulf. Our choice to value monetary gain over human life epitomizes the declaration of His Holiness that “we have become slaves of money. We put too much emphasis on money, facilities, fame.”
In the classrooms, we continue to learn about how to best be global citizens and address the challenges of today, but the chairs in our rooms, the books in our libraries and the paychecks of our professors are funded by returns from corporations and organizations that are fueling war and environmental degradation.
While the benefits reaped from these returns maintain comfort and complacency, the only way to assuage our ethical dissonance is to act now and divest.
There is a long history of academic institutions divesting to demonstrate their values. In the 1980s, for instance, over 150 colleges, including Middlebury, divested from South African companies to oppose apartheid. Today, a new call to divest is being heard around the nation: last Saturday, Bill McKibben — founder of 350.org and Middlebury College Schumann distinguished scholar in residence — kicked off the national “Do the Math” campaign, urging universities to divest from fossil fuels. According to the campaign, “It just doesn’t make sense for universities to invest in a system that will leave their students no livable planet to use their degrees on.”
We have divested in the past; why doesn’t Middlebury embrace divesting from war and fossil fuels today?
The Dalai Lama stated in his final lecture at the College that “peace will come through our active action.” While our endowment funds the dropping of bombs thousands of miles away, their reverberations echo through the halls of our campus. We have no luxury of delay. We must take responsibility now, and contribute towards making the 21st century, as the Dalai Lama insisted, “the century of peace.”
Please join us for a general assembly on Friday at 4 p.m. in the Warner Hemicycle to discuss these concerns. Contribute your voice and stay informed at go/compassion.
Tim Schornak, Director of the College Office of Communications of the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee, AKA: Molly Stuart 15.5 (Santa Cruz, Calif.), Jay Saper ‘13 (East Lansing, Mich.), Jenny Marks ‘14.5 (Bedford, N.Y.), Sam Koplinka-Loehr ‘13 (Ithaca, N.Y.), Amitai Ben-Abba ‘15.5 (Jerusalem), and a growing contingent (across the globe).
Please note: Tim Schornak is not affiliated with any formal student organization.
Written by the DALAI LAMA WELCOMING COMMITTEE
(10/24/12 11:08pm)
In the aftermath of the Dalai Lama’s visit, students received an email claiming that Middlebury College was divesting from war in order to “align its money with its mission.” While we later discovered that this email was a fake press release sent by concerned students, their call for transparency and their accusation of hypocrisy has not been lost.
This same week, an overwhelmingly powerful account of one woman’s experience with sexual assault at Amherst College went viral. The most shocking part of Angie Epifano’s brave account is not the fact that she was sexually assaulted, nor is it the emotional trauma that resulted. Rather, we find it outrageous that the administration of Amherst not only failed to help Angie heal, but also directly prevented her from doing so. Angie’s counselors advised; “that [she] had to forgive him, that [she] was crazy for being scared on campus and that there’s nothing that could be done.” Epifano was discouraged from pressing charges both by her counselors and by the nature of the hearing process itself. The campus sexual assault counselor wouldn’t let her change dorms in order to live in a separate building from her rapist. While Angie was deterred from studying abroad, writing a thesis and taking the classes she desired, her rapist graduated with honors. The structural injustice of sexual assault at Amherst is best depicted through Angie’s own words: “Rapists are given less punishment than students caught stealing. Survivors are often forced to take time off, while rapists are allowed to stay on campus. If a rapist is about to graduate, their punishment is often that they receive their diploma two years late.”
More than one Middlebury student has expressed doubt that such unjust administrative treatment could happen here. Not here. Not at Middlebury. In recent years, the Sexual Assault Oversight Committee has revised its policy on sexual assault in order to give survivors more confidentiality and dignity. Survivors no longer need to be present at judicial hearings and the investigation of sexual assault is now the responsibility of an outside investigator. Last spring, at the “It Happens Here” event, hundreds of students crowded into the McCullough auditorium to hear personal narratives about our own peers’ experiences with sexual assault. We would like to think that Middlebury provides a kinder atmosphere for survivors. But does it really? If national statistics suggests that one in four college women will be sexually assaulted, why were there only five on-campus incidents reported at Middlebury in 2011?
It would certainly be easier for us to look at this brave account and consider such mistreatment of a sexual assault survivor to be a shamefully unique problem to Amherst. But, that would be naïve. In order to understand how an event like this could happen anywhere — even at Middlebury — we must first accept a difficult truth: the ethical lessons taught at a liberal arts school are not always consistent with the political, economic and social structures that define the school itself.
By sending the hoax email, Middlebury students illuminated the irony of welcoming a world leader who symbolizes peace and compassion to a campus that likely invests money in the most unethical of places. By reading this hoax email, students became aware of the structures of injustice embedded within our administration. This revelation gives us the ability to, as Michel Foucault says, “criticize the workings of institutes which appear to be both neutral and independent; to criticize them in such a manner that the political violence which has always exercised itself obscurely will be unmasked so one can fight them.” Students have been talking nonstop about Middlebury’s “divestment from war” so the success of this method cannot be denied. We have taken the bait. We have accepted the challenge.
In Angie’s story, she repeatedly highlights a particular phrase spoken by another survivor — “Silence has the rusty taste of shame.” Middlebury prides itself on teaching students about the importance of social justice. So, as a student body, we feel great about identifying and articulating our problems with the investment decisions of the administration. The mere thought of silence towards such a topic is shameful. Angie Epifano’s experience with sexual assault provides us with another opportunity to take the bait and accept the challenge. We can speak up, we can ask questions and we can collectively work to uncover what remains hidden.
“When politicians cover up affairs or scandals the masses often rise up in angry protestations and call for a more transparent government. What is the difference between a government and the Amherst College campus? Why should we be quiet about sexual assault?”
We ask the same thing as Epifano.
“Silence has the rusty taste of shame.”
Let’s talk.
Submit your experiences at go/IHH, answer the SAOC surveys sent out this week and find new ways to challenge the structures that perpetuate violence and shame.
Written by EMILY PEDOWITZ ’13 of Briarcliff, N.Y. and CAITLIN WATERS ’13 of Rumson, N.J.
(10/24/12 11:00pm)
During my junior year of high school, I hit heads with another player during a soccer game, resulting in my first concussion. Two weeks later, I was watching a game when a ball from another field hit me in the back of head. Concussions, I had previously thought, were not a big deal. Fight through the pain; get back on the field. Ignore that part of you saying that something isn’t right. I completely understood this mentality; just the year before I had finished the season on a torn ACL. But I soon realized that concussions were different — that they are a big deal. You may not be able to see a concussion the way you see a cast or a brace, but the injury can be even more serious.
Over the past few years, largely thanks to the National Football and Hockey Leagues, awareness about brain injuries has exploded. Athletes like Chris Nowinski, Dave Duerson and Jim McMahon show us the tragic long-term effects of multiple concussions, and Javhid Best of the Detroit Lions has become an example of how long it takes to return to play. But we know that concussions don’t just happen to professional athletes. According to the Center of Disease Control, sports and recreation related traumatic brain injuries in children and adolescents have increased by 61 percent over the past decade; football, soccer, cycling and basketball are the biggest contributors.
With 27 percent of the student body participating in varsity athletics, and many more playing club and intramural sports, we at Middlebury must continue to be cognizant of the effects — physical, psychological and emotional — of brain injuries. Concussions can be isolating, both by the nature of the injury and the public’s perception of it. With this in mind, Emma Kitchen ’14.5, founded Concussions Speak, an outreach and awareness program designed for people with concussions to share their stories.
At Concussions Speak, we gather stories from people with concussions to let those suffering in silence know that they are not alone. We talk about how concussions physically affect different people, the emotional and social strain they cause and the psychological recovery they necessitate. Because having a concussion is much more than a physical injury, it can be hard for our uninjured peers to know how to sympathize. There have been times when people thought that I was “moping” or gave me skeptical looks when I received extensions in class. With the community created by Concussions Speak, those working through their recoveries have the support of people going through the same process.
The culture surrounding concussions also has to change. Opening up about concussions will hopefully spur further discussion and prevent multiple concussions. Athletes wanting to return to athletics may pretend that they are feeling better to start playing again, leaving them vulnerable. Detroit Lions wide receiver Calvin Johnson said about getting a concussion, “It’s part of football, you get concussed, you gotta keep on playing. You can’t get afraid to go across the middle any more than you were at the beginning.” This attitude is expressed too often. It is too dangerous for it to continue.
If you are recovering from a concussion, you don’t have to go through the process alone. Reach out to your dean and faculty heads, speak with your adviser and coach and communicate with your professors. There are accommodations in place to aid the healing. What the Middlebury community wants for its family is for it to be well.
It has been four years since I’ve played soccer, and I doubt I’ll ever play again. Even if my brain fully recovers, it wouldn’t be the right choice. I would give almost anything to get back on the field, but I hope I know better. Protect your brain, and don’t underestimate how much a concussion can affect your life. It takes a lot to recognize that you are not okay. But 20 years from now, you’ll be glad you did.
If you have a story you would like to share, please feel free to contact me at sierra@concussionsspeak.com.
Written by SIERRA STITES ’14 of Kansas City, Miss.
(10/24/12 10:50pm)
In exchange for my willingness to do any miscellaneous tasks necessary for Scott Center Administrative Program Coordinator Ellen McKay and College Chaplain Laurie Jordan, I was given an all-access pass and permitted to join the organizers at every stage of the Dalai Lama’s third visit to Middlebury. Of all the unforgettable moments from the weekend, I was most profoundly shocked by how much the Dalai Lama reminded me of my grandparents. The first time he shook my hand, the marginal part of my mind that wasn’t being overwhelmed by the intensity of physical contact and the swarm of security guards and photographers was ripped back by sensory memory to one of the last times I held my late paternal grandfather’s hand. In the same way the smell your living room reminds you of home, everything about this grasp — from the weight of his hand to the velvet plush of his palm to his half-open mouth, vaguely pinched at the corners into a smile — evoked my “halabogi.”
Onstage, His Holiness morphed in likeness to maternal grandparents, as he spoke with their exact cadence, body language and humor; even his accent bore a strong resemblance. If my maternal grandparents merged into one form (mom?!), inhabited the body of my dad’s dad, spoke better English and had a marvelous translator at their/his side, we would have been the Dalai Lama. For example, His Holiness shared that his greatest regret was not studying harder when he was young, only wanting to play with his toy trains. Over lunch this past summer, my grandfather shared the exact sentiment. He lamented how he had spent too much of his twenties out late with his friends, drinking and carousing when he could have been establishing his career.
In another moment reminiscent of my grandparents, His Holiness didn’t ask, but rather commanded Senator Patrick Leahy to sign a photo that the latter was gifting him backstage before their speeches on Saturday morning. Senator Leahy exclaimed, “My signature? I want your signature!” The Dalai Lama shook his head and explicated in a deep and rationalizing voice with the help of a waving arm and a pointed finger, “No. You give me the pitchuh, so you put signachuh.” Then he laughed, presumably at how obvious this process should be, and Senator Leahy had to oblige to the pure sensibility. My grandmother would have acted the same — un-intimidated and armed with the truth.
The Dalai Lama echoed years of my grandparents’ and parents’ advice with his perspectives on spirituality, compassion, work ethic, happiness and so forth. What His Holiness says is true: his wisdom is everywhere and all education starts at home. I’ve seen the Dalai Lama speak a thousand times, just only from the mouth of my mother. Watching him this past weekend deepened my appreciation for the wisdom that I have been wrapped in, and sometimes beat over the head with, by my own kin. Even more, I realize how much there might be to learn from anyone, if I’m willing to open up a little bit. Ginsberg writes in the footnote to Howl: “The bum’s as holy as the seraphim, the madman’s as holy as you my soul are holy.” During his Saturday lecture, His Holiness proclaimed, “My blood is your blood. My bones are your bones.” And in just the same way, my grandma is the Dalai Lama.
Written by RYAN KIM ’14
(10/24/12 5:01pm)
Welcome to the first edition of the Student Government Association’s (SGA) bi-weekly column, From the President’s Desk with SGA President Charlie Arnowitz ’13. In this column, we will be discussing issues of importance to the SGA and the student body. This week I am joined by SGA Treasurer and Finance Committee Chair Peter Mattson ’14 to talk about the Student Activities Fee, our financial situation and funding for student organizations.
The SGA is responsible for allocating money to the nearly 175 organizations on campus, from the African American Alliance to the Youthful Alliance for Merrymaking, in the form of annual budgets, new money requests and loans. Generally, student organizations have enjoyed tremendous financial support from the SGA. In addition to funding student organizations, we also fund our own initiatives that serve the student body. Last year, the SGA passed a series of exciting initiatives that made a significant impact on the College’s student life, including a dramatic expansion of the MiddView and the YouPower bike room.
All of this good work is funded by the Student Activity Fee, the $380 that every student pays in addition to the Comprehensive Fee. Collectively, the sum of these fees makes up the SGA budget. The SGA Finance Committee budgets all of these funds to student organizations each spring. If student organizations do not spend the entirety of their budgets, those funds come back to the SGA as reserves. If the SGA chooses, these reserves can be spent on projects like the ones mentioned above.
As a result of the SGA’s allocation of generous budgets to student organizations and legislative agendas over the past two years, the Student Government Reserve Fund fell from $413,000 in the fall of 2011 to $121,000 today. Demand for funding is booming like never before and this year will likely bring a further drop in the reserves.
These reserve levels are problematically low. Good financial practices dictate that we keep a small amount of liquid capital on hand for emergencies, and in such cases the SGA is committed to ensuring we can adequately serve student organizations.
We have a new financial situation and therefore ask for your patience. Student organizations should keep a few guiding principles in mind when they approach financial planning for the coming year. Plan ahead — programs planned far in advance that attract students will likely receive more funding. Spend responsibly, and keep your spending focused on the mission of your organization. Collaborate with other clubs to take advantage of shared resources. If the College Democrats and Republicans can plan a successful election night at the Grille together, then we know valuable collaboration between other groups on this campus is also possible.
Planning well, spending responsibly and collaborating are key ways to help program effectively for the year, but it’s also important to realize that funding will be tight. Nonetheless, we are fully dedicated to ensuring that student organizations have adequate resources to fund creative and effective student ideas, initiatives and programming.
If learning more about the SGA interests you, come to our open Senate meetings at 7 p.m. on Sundays in the Crest Room, and check us out at go/sga, on Facebook and on Twitter.
(10/24/12 4:53pm)
I am addressing you from Buenos Aires, the Paris of South America, a gorgeous city where wine is cheaper than water, the dead get the best real estate and the national dance is sexy as hell. I could be speaking from anywhere, though. It does not matter where I am so much as that I am there.
A few weeks ago, some friends and I decided to go skydiving. Some of you may have that classic motherly reaction, that “oh-you-are-crazy-I-would-never!” grimace of envious appreciation. Others may nod and give a “right on;” perhaps you have experienced the rush of the dive or similarly seek adrenaline highs.
For those of you who have not skydived, let me tell you a little about it. First, you sit there and decide whether or not it is worth it to you to jump out of an airplane with a stranger strapped to your back who is solely responsible for making sure that you do not die. That is the hardest part. Resolved, though, you forge onward, and you arrive at a small airfield somewhere in the great wide world. You strap on a goofy suit, it squeezes you in weird places, you get in a tiny plane and you fly, up, up, up, leaving everything behind, contemplating a lot of what-ifs, but mostly enjoying an unparalleled freedom, the freedom to live, the freedom to die.
And then, with the world below reduced to a mere mosaic of farms and lakes and lives, you jump. Absolute sensory overload, louder than a thousand freight trains, 35 seconds during which nothing matters, or has ever mattered, other than your own enjoyment of and appreciation for life. The cold air refreshes your soul, and before you have time to process the fact that the plane you were just in is a tiny speck thousands of feet above your head, the parachute opens and the world becomes silently still, purely peaceful, and you float to the land below. Your senses and your understanding rush back into your body like a deluge, and you are happy, truly happy. The person who comes down is never the same as the person who goes up.
If you have never been skydiving, maybe this description has inspired you to start scrambling together a way to pitch this idea to Mom and Dad. Maybe you have a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach and vertigo at the mere thought of it. Either way, think about it. No, not about skydiving. I am not here to persuade. Really think about it.
Hopefully you will discover what I discovered when my two feet touched the ground that sunny afternoon in La Tierra del Vino y Sol. That was the first time I skydived, but it was not the first time I hurled myself out of a plane into the great unknown. That is what all this is; college, growing up, studying abroad. Life is a series of skydives.
Studying abroad is a risk, just like any. The kid who goes to Buenos Aires and the kid who comes back are never the same. You never know if your language is good enough, or if your independence is strong enough, but you try. You never know if your parachute will open, either. But you jump. Never be afraid to take the leap of faith, to try something that scares you, to jump into the cold water.
Maybe you should give skydiving a shot. You will discover that the only thing worse than making a splat is being hot, anxious, cooped up and hovering over your future self from 10,000 feet.
Written by NATHAN LABARBA ’14 from Buenos Aires, Argentina
(10/10/12 10:51pm)
We are the co-chairs of the Middlebury Open Queer Alliance, each affected personally and practically by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) bans enforced at American Red Cross blood drives. The accounts below are our personal reflections.
Petr Knor ’15:
Each of us has approximately five liters of blood. I am sorry to those who don’t understand liters, but in a country where the Red Cross places Oman, Nigeria and the U.K. into the same group, nobody cares about distinction. Most of us need those five liters to wake up in the mornings. Nobody has found a substitute for this magical liquid, so we rely on blood from others.
In the U.S., the Food and Drug Administration defines who can donate blood. Have you had gay sex? Or had sex with a man who did? Gotten a tattoo in the past year? Lived in the U.K. and just in London? You are too dangerous. It doesn’t matter that all blood gets screened, that only eight million Americans donate, that most are over 50 and that the demand for blood increases annually by six percent. There are big blood shortages. The FDA still follows a policy from the 1980s when HIV testing almost didn’t exist. It doesn’t matter that HIV testing is almost 99.9 percent accurate. But there is some hope. In June 2012, 64 U.S. legislators sent a letter to the Department of Health and Human Services. For me, it is not just about morals and discrimination. It’s about being rational. We need gay men to donate blood — they would bring some 89,000 donations annually. I bet you would rather live with some gay blood in your body than sleep forever. We need gay men because we fear needles.
Emma Ashby ’13:
Middlebury has a commitment to international students, as we students are many times reminded: “Sixty percent of Middlebury students study abroad;” “We are a globally-minded school;” “we have civilization requirements.” Then what are we saying to those who have lived in one of the eight Sub-Saharan countries that the Red Cross refuses blood from? We promote the on-campus activities of those who put a blanket ban on donations from those who have traveled to or are “immigrating from … areas with a risk of malaria,” as well as stepped foot into a country that has ever fried a mad-cow burger. What right does the Red Cross have to lump together England, Northern Ireland, Gibraltar, Oman, Turkey and European countries, as if they were all the same size or had the same characteristics? And, what right do we have to bring in an activity promoted as a moral responsibility of college students, but that shuns all those who took seriously Middlebury’s urging to see the world?
The call for blood does not fall under “recruitment,” and instead is put into a grey category under Middlebury’s handbook, which forbids discrimination. Certainly, no one could argue that blood donation is not a worthwhile cause. But we, as a community, need to seriously consider how the Red Cross defines “good” versus “unworthy” blood donors. Is it fair to bring onto our campus, a place we have worked so hard to make into a haven of equal opportunity, this sort of inherently hierarchical system?
An Anonymous Member of MOQA:
I am a blood donor. I am also a gay man. When I or any out gay man walks into a blood drive, all our friends, co-workers, professors and acquaintances present immediately know one of two potential truths about us: either we are lying to the American Red Cross in order to donate, or our sex lives are very … solitary. I cannot help but look around McCullough and wonder what people are thinking about me while I donate. I see students in similar positions to myself — gay men, international students from banned countries and others. What assumptions are being made about them? Thanks to the FDA ban on donations from these large swaths of the Middlebury community, the decision to donate becomes one of opting out of helping people in need or revealing your personal history to all present who know you.
In my four years at Middlebury, administrators and the Commons Councils who organize blood drives have never once to my knowledge publicly addressed the discriminatory nature of the FDA ban. While our non-discrimination statement only applies to extracurricular activities and on-campus recruiters, I challenge anyone to argue that Middlebury is not breaking with an expressed set of values every time the American Red Cross truck pulls onto campus. I am not advocating that we ban blood drives — this punishes people who need donations. But our community needs to acknowledge the decision to overrule its respect for diversity for the sake of donating blood. We owe it to every potential donor barred by the FDA.
Written by members of the MIDDLEBURY OPEN QUEER ALLIANCE
(10/10/12 10:43pm)
Last Wednesday, Atwater Commons hosted its annual American Red Cross blood drive in McCullough Social Space. While waiting to donate, I encountered a friend who was indefinitely deferred from donating blood — not because of anemia or traveling abroad — but because of his sexual behavior. His deferral is based on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s clause that excludes homosexual men who have had sexual contact with another homosexual male since the year 1977 from donating blood. The deferral sheet he received attributed the grounds for deferral to “high-risk sexual behavior.”
The FDA’s clause aimed to control the HIV/AIDS breakout, which occurred largely among gay men in the 1980’s. Prior to the 1990’s, the FDA did not screen blood donors, causing many patients who received blood transfusions to become infected with hepatitis and HIV/AIDS. To cover its own legal and medical bases, the FDA continues to use this policy.
Today, this clause is scientifically irrelevant, outdated and unfair. It implies that homosexual intercourse is somehow more risky than heterosexual intercourse, assuming that a gay man in a monogamous relationship engages in “riskier behavior” than a heterosexual woman having unprotected sex with multiple partners. This notion cannot be tolerated.
As a homosexual male who has had sexual contact with another man since 1977, I still choose to donate blood. I recognize that the clause against gay men is antiquated and inappropriate, but I still believe blood donation is important. Of the 37 percent of the population eligible to donate blood, only 10 percent chooses to do so. In addition, 4.5 million people need donated blood each year, one in seven hospital patients require blood transfusions, and each donated pint can save up to three lives, according to America’s Blood Center. Last summer was the Red Cross’s record low of blood donation, further highlighting their need to include groups such as healthy homosexual men.
While donating, I felt a little morally … jumbled. On one hand, I knew I was doing something necessary and right, but on the other, I felt uneasy about lying, the exclusion of my friend and donating to an organization that views my blood as unclean. I spoke with one of the American Red Cross employees, whom I had met last year, about the gay male clause and what happened to my friend. He was very sympathetic, and said that he too is frustrated by it; he has written letters to the FDA encouraging them to remove the clause and mentioned that some of the employees at the drive were homosexual. The most backward part, he said, was that if you are a woman who has had sexual contact with a gay male since 1977, you are only deferred from donating for one year, rather than indefinitely. “It’s the federal government, you know?” he told me. “If you want any change to happen, whether it be concerning the environment, or gender and sexuality issues, it’s going to take years before anything happens.” He further pointed out that the screening surveys are hetero-normative, providing options on sexual-preference questions such as “I am female” or “I am male,” to skip a question, effectively ignoring LGBTQ, gender-variant and transsexual people.
It is unfair for the FDA to exclude healthy and eligible donors on the basis of sexual orientation and expression. There are many avenues of action and response. I choose to lie and donate, knowing my blood will go to someone in need. Some choose to go into drives and get officially deferred, some self-defer and others, like a friend from home, shout while walking past Red Cross tables “Sorry I can’t donate … I just had really hot sex with my boyfriend this morning!” We must respect any of these avenues, but must not ignore the need to take action. I have written letters to the FDA and the Red Cross promoting homosexual eligibility to donate blood.
I must also recognize the important activism of Jay Saper ’13 and Melian Radu ’13, who staged a “Blood Dump” in which they asked students to dump fake blood deemed unfit for donation. Sam Koplinka-Loehr ’13, in solidarity with Saper and Radu, donated blood dressed in drag. These three students met with President of the College Ronald D. Leibowitz, presented the “Blood Dump” visual and encouraged him to write a letter to the FDA Commissioner expressing his disapproval for such a clause and stressing the importance of its removal. I encourage President Leibowitz to follow through with this letter in order to promote the advancement of practices that are relevant to current societal context.
As members of an institution with a policy of nondiscrimination based on “sex, sexual orientation and gender identity or expression,” we must be aware of this paradox. By labeling certain bodies as “impure”, a different group is simultaneously labeled as “pure.” This binary is dangerous — it reinforces stereotypes that are the basis for homophobia, hate-crimes and societal intolerance. The Middlebury community is known to be extremely informed, intelligent and globally minded. We must use our voices to express the need for change when an organization comes onto our campus but does not reflect the values of our community. If we seek to achieve social justice and equality in our community and beyond, we cannot be blind to this shameful injustice.
Written by DAVID YEDID ’15, from Port Washington, N.Y.
(10/10/12 10:38pm)
While we appreciate your inclusion of our initiative in the Campus this past week, we were perturbed by the narrative that was constructed about JusTalks in the article, well-intentioned as it may have been.
In Hudson’s interview, he used neither the adjective “generic” nor “pedantic” to describe his feelings about JusTalks. He did, however, express concerns that the event would be misunderstood, as we fear it may have been from the article published in the Campus.
Let us first explain what JusTalks is by describing what it is not: JusTalks is not an exercise in political correctness and platitudes about identity or privilege; it’s not a day for social justice activists to pat themselves on the back; it’s not what is going to diversify the Middlebury community. Rather, JusTalks is premised on the idea that we, individually and collectively, benefit from communal self-reflection.
JusTalks was founded on the notion that nobody should graduate from Middlebury without having the opportunity to explore and reflect on societal and personal identity issues. It’s a way to prepare students to “participate fully in a vibrant and diverse academic community” and to “learn to engage the world,” as Middlebury’s mission statement affirms.
JusTalks is growing from your ideas. Feedback collected from students all over campus — from clubs, sports teams, social houses and freshman halls — defines what JusTalks is and will be.
We are proud to say that for years to come, this event — intended to bring our community together by shattering the preconceptions that divide us — will be a requisite part of the Middlebury education for all incoming first-years. Many of us wish we could have gone through it when we arrived. Perhaps some of us would have been more comfortable saying, “I belong here.”
Remember Midd Uncensored? Entire personal histories of hardship (“I have lost a family member”), of opportunity (“I am the first person in my family to go to college”) and of hidden identities (“I am grounded in my faith”) were shared in an instant by standing or raising a hand. Admit it, there was some point when you got chills. That wasn’t corny. That was real.
So what is JusTalks? It’s 200+ people getting together to talk about the things that keep us up at night or get us through the day. Starting this January, the event is open to students from any year. Come check it out: you’re invited.
Written by the JUSTALKS TEAM
(10/10/12 10:34pm)
At the conclusion of last Wednesday night’s presidential debate, the media consensus was clear — Governor Romney had won the debate. President Obama underperformed. The race for president was going down to the wire.
Yet, beneath both the outpouring of elation among Republicans and the head-banging of Democrats, did Romney REALLY win the debate?
Sure, Romney was stylistically confident, prepared and aggressive. But a closer look at what he said, as opposed to how he said it, reveals that Romney did what he has been doing all along: providing few substantive details of what he would do as president and not being completely truthful with the facts.
For example, Romney emphatically rebutted Obama’s claim that the Republican nominee would enact a five trillion dollar tax cut. Yet, he did not tell us exactly what his tax plan would entail. His generalizations about giving deficit-neutral tax cuts ignored the fact that an extension of the Bush tax cuts for the wealthy, which Romney supports, would cost over one trillion in the next decade.
On deficit reduction, Romney’s quip about cutting Big Bird and the subsidy to PBS ignited a firestorm of jokes and memes on social media. But at the end of the day, these cuts would erase less than 0.01 percent of the entire federal budget. Beyond repealing Obamacare, which would actually add to the deficit, Romney offered no specific details.
Romney also criticized President Obama for doubling the deficit in his first term. Yet this fiscal year, the projected deficit of $1.2 trillion is actually slightly smaller than the $1.4 trillion deficit posted in 2009. Romney also claimed that U.S. government spending is now as high as that of Spain. But a look at the facts show that current U.S. government spending is approximately 35 percent of GDP, less than the 42 percent Romney cited and only a few points higher than it was during Reagan’s presidency.
Romney’s troubles with arithmetic extended into the discussion on energy. He claimed that half of the green businesses Obama has invested in have gone out of business when truthfully only three of 36 have.
When pushed on his plans for Medicare, Romney criticized the president on cutting $716 billion but promptly proceeded to advocate more private choice, giving even less security to seniors who depend on the program.
As the debate discussion wound its way to health care, education and Wall Street reform, Romney continued to offer vague and fuzzy generalizations instead of a real substantive vision. What would he replace Obamacare with? He wouldn’t say. What would he replace Dodd-Frank with? He wouldn’t say. How would he help students like us afford college? He wouldn’t say.
After the debate, pundits and laymen alike observed that Obama was underprepared, fatigued or apathetic. Yet, we College Democrats believe that he told Americans what they needed to hear, not what was politically convenient. Yes, Governor Romney’s performance made the debate an exciting one to watch, but did he really offer any truthful substance to the American people? We think not.
Written by the COLLEGE DEMOCRATS
(10/10/12 10:31pm)
Don’t carry your groceries all the way from Shaw’s up the hill back to campus. There’s a FREE bus every half hour from town to campus. Public transportation within Middlebury is available FREE and travels from campus to town and back. As a daily Addison County Transit Resources (ACTR) rider since 1997, I know this form of transportation is an easy way to reduce one’s carbon footprint.
If you’re headed to Shaw’s, take the College/Weybridge bus from campus. After arriving at the Middlebury town green, that same bus heads directly to Shaw’s to swing back through the parking lot ten minutes later and then returns to campus. And don’t hesitate to tell the driver to keep an eye out for you on the return trip. If you need to shop a little longer, the cycle is a half-hour.
If you need a ride only from downtown to campus, an Addison County Transit Resources (ACTR) bus leaves the town green every 30 minutes on the hour and on the half-hour. Both the College/Hospital bus and the College/Weybridge bus travel from the green to ADK Circle — the Porter Hospital route then extends via Old Chapel Road toward the Athletic Complex/CFA.
From downtown, the Weybridge bus route goes past Sama’s, whereas the Hospital route travels Storrs Avenue past Davis Library. Keep that in mind because you can flag it down anywhere along the route.
If TJ’s or Hannaford is your destination, take the Route 7 South bus from those locations back to the town green, then catch one of the aforementioned routes back to campus.
The ACTR System receives financial support through United Way in addition to, as was recently written in the Campus, the College and other supporters.
Written by IRENE BARNA, administrative assistant to Executives-in-Residence and President's Office Support Staff
(10/10/12 10:29pm)
Many thanks to the staff of the Campus for its coverage of the Project on Creativity and Innovation, including the accompanying editorial, “Expanding Your Liberal Arts Education.”
As a faculty member, I am encouraged when all members of our community engage in lively, even contentious back-and-forth on the meaning and goals of a liberal arts education. So while I don’t always agree with the perspectives of [Associate Professor of Mathematics] John Schmitt and [Assistant Professor of Philosophy] Kareem Khalifa, who were quoted in your coverage, I always learn from them and from our exchanges.
And as is often true when one discusses issues that matter, I have discovered, when we engage, we find more common ground than might have first been evident. In conversations with Schmitt, for example, I have learned how highly we both value the two words on the Middlebury seal, “Scientia et Virtus.” With Khalifa, I have discovered how strongly we both feel that fundamental questions at the heart of philosophy — “What is the meaning of my life? What is the right thing to do?” — should ground the liberal arts experience.
Airing our differences, in other words, reveals common values. As your articles illustrate, the Campus is an excellent venue for sharing varied perspectives found at Middlebury about the liberal arts.
Written by JOHN ISHAM, professor of economics and faculty director of MCSE
(10/10/12 10:27pm)
Speaking on behalf of colleagues at the Project on Creativity and Innovation (PCI), many thanks to the Campus for running the series of articles last week about the opportunities that PCI has assembled for students. Alongside all educators at Middlebury — faculty and staff alike, on the Vermont campus and beyond — we are honored to do our part in helping to implement President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz’s vision for the 21st-century liberal arts. Yet while PCI’s programs received the attention in your special section, your readers should know how many colleagues have helped to make the PCI, in its current incarnation, a reality. They include (here we go!) Mary Stanley, Thad Stowe, Norm Cushman, Pam Norton, Tom Corbin, Lyn DeGraff, Mary Reed, Tammy Grant, Jennifer Pottinger, Maria Farnsworth, Corinna Noelke, Jenna Bronson, Maggie Paine, Pam Fogg, Bob Cluss, Sue Levine, Kris Williams, Blair Kloman, Meghan Williamson, Dave Donahue, Shirley Collado, Patrick Norton, Dave Kloepfer, Adella Langrock, Dianne Munroe, Missy Foote, Mike Morgan, Stever Bartlett, Matt Jennings, Public Safety, Tim Etchells, Kelly Rizzo, Susan Baldridge, Danielle Madison, Valerie Costello, Nate Burt, Tim Spears, Pieter Broucke, Matt Biette, Tiffany Sargent, Media Services, Mike Pixley, Ashley Calkins and Tracy Himmel Isham, among many others, as well as Ron and Jessica Liebowitz and whoever we have inevitably forgotten! At PCI, we take seriously the motto, “How can we help?” In part we do so because so many colleagues over the years have helped us shape the vision and execution of PCI, on behalf of current and future Middlebury students. Down at 118 South Main Street (come visit!), we are very thankful for the leadership, collaboration and support of so many.
Written by ELIZABETH ROBINSON ’84, director of the Project on Creativity and Innovation
(10/10/12 9:11pm)
I’ll admit, when I arrived in Stockholm, Sweden, a little over a month ago, I had big expectations. Visions of an eco promised land where everyone used shopping bags made of recycled water bottles, biked to work and picked out produce at Middlebury Co-op-inspired grocery stores danced through my head as I packed my bags for the dark, snowy Scandinavian climate.
As an environmental studies: nonfiction major and self-proclaimed tree-hugger, I was seduced by Stockholm’s title as the 2010 Green Capital of Europe and its reputation for innovative environmental design, architecture and policy. Surely I would return home for winter term flush with Swedish insights about all things eco and, armed with this wisdom, help transform the U.S. into an equally eco-conscious nation of the future! (I told you, big expectations.)
In reality, I discovered that, alas, plastic grocery bags do still exist in this land of the Midnight Sun, bikes are more for afternoon excursions in the park than for transportation to work and grocery stores are sorely lacking in apples of the Middlebury Co-op caliber.
I was ready to concede that Stockholm wasn’t quite the beacon of (green) light I expected it to be until this past week, when I started to truly notice and appreciate the subtle — and more realistic — eco habits that permeate life in the city.
Composting, for example, is the norm in my neighborhood, as is recycling. Along with a trash can, my roommate and I were given a composting bin, which we periodically dump for collection in a communal bin at the end of the street. Recycling bins are also common in Stockholm stores and on street corners, so even when on the run, it’s relatively easy to go green.
The public transportation system here is equally efficient, easy and pervasive. Swedes may not bike to work, but they can choose from an array of other low-carbon options like the commuter train, subway, trolley or bus.
Coffee culture is prominent in Stockholm, but rather than take their coffees to go, Swedes prefer to sit down and enjoy a cup of joe with a cinnamon bun (a tradition known as “fika” that we American students have embraced with glee). Unlike Starbucks, Swedish coffee shops serve drinks in glasses and mugs, which reduces paper waste.
Not only are these habits less blaring than I expected, but Swedes accept them as commonplace, blurring the line between eco-friendly and normal. Swedes don’t consider themselves particularly eco-conscious, even though they seem to be by our American standards. Being “eco-friendly” has become obsolete here, because in a sense, everyone already is.
One month into my time abroad, Stockholm has in fact proven to be the promised land of eco-neutrality that I had hoped to find, though in much more subtle and exciting ways than I had initially expected.
If I have any eco Swedish insight to bring back with me, it is this: we can move toward a mindset where “eco-friendly” becomes obsolete; and each day, Stockholm proves that effective environmental policy depends on our community’s ability to do just that!
Written by OLIVIA FRENCH ’14 from Stockholm, Sweden
(10/03/12 10:39pm)
Imagine a completely rational society. People behave in a consistent, predictable manner based on the information available to them. They make decisions that promote the common values and well-being of their interdependent society. Community members work together in a cost-effective, altruistic way to achieve the greatest positive outcomes for the largest number of people.
Though this hypothetical assumption is a precursor to many social and economic theories attempting to model and predict human behavior, unfortunately, it does not exist. According to contemporary neuroscientists, humans are conscious of only about five percent of our cognitive function, which leaves the other 95 percent open to unconscious irrationality.
Rational consumer behavior assumes that people not only exhibit control over their behavior, but also that they make decisions using conscious, rational thought — a function very few brain structures are capable of doing. For example, the limbic system plays a key role in reacting to various stimuli and determining our behavior, especially in social situations. This reptilian brain function has two concerns: to seek pain and avoid pleasure, regardless of the consequences. This 300 million year old cerebral system developed about 105 million years before our more mammalian conscious minds. Given that our species has spent less than one percent of its evolution in civilized society, it’s no mystery as to why we aren’t fully equipped to always make rational decisions for the greater good.
Science is saturated with examples of irrational human behavior. One study found that simply doubling the size of a container of snack food prompts most people to eat 30 to 45 percent more food. Another study found that people tend to stop sharing during times of limited resources and even increase their personal consumption at the expense of others. Yet another experiment discovered that describing a meal using vivid adjectives led most people to rate that food as better tasting in comparison to the exact same ingredients under a more generic label; apparently “seared and savory sirloin adorned with velvety mashed potatoes” tastes better than “steak and potatoes.” Clearly the subconscious mind is frequently confused and responds with irrationality, yet it is primarily responsible for registering our experiences that can only be perceived consciously in hindsight.
It makes sense that humans are inherently self-serving and competitive. After all, it’s difficult (if not impossible) to ascend to the apex of the animal kingdom while putting the needs of others first. Although humans now live in societies that benefit greatly from cooperation and mutual coadaptation, our reptilian brains still strive to fulfill our basic needs (or at least what our unconscious minds perceive those needs to be in a strange new environment).
For an example of irrational behavior with a global impact, we need look no further than the stock market crash of 2008. Essentially, American mortgage lenders were (irrationally) extending easy credit to un-creditworthy Americans. Millions of people were loaned money they had little chance of repaying. Why? The short answer is greed. A more comprehensive answer is that large investment banks gave worthless mortgage bonds high ratings by inventing “collateralized debt obligations.” They could report the difference between the high and real values as earnings, while providing a credit laundering service for lower- class Americans.
Why would people making inordinately large amounts of money create complex and obscure financial loopholes to make more at the expense of people with less? It’s the same reason that Jennifer Keltner, a social psychologist at UC Berkeley, found a negative correlation between wealth and compassion. The wealthier we get, the more competitive and self-engaged we tend to become in a race for more. Our subconscious conveniently forgets other, less fortunate people.
In Charles Darwin’s culminating work outlining his theory of evolution, On The Origin of Species, he mentions that, “In social animals, it [natural selection] will adapt the structure of each individual for the benefit of the community.” In other words, if irrationally selfish behavior continues to widen our nation’s inequality gap, our communities will suffer and America as a whole will underachieve.
If we can’t predict human behavior on a large scale, how can we better understand our species? The answer may be, by coincidence, what Darwin believed to be “the most noble attribute of man:” compassion. While our instincts may predispose us to greedy and selfish behavior, there is at least one action we have control over. It begins with keeping others in mind when making decisions and continues with further adapting to life in a civilized, interdependent society. Who knows, it might help save the species.
GRANT NISHIOKA ’13 is from Wayland, Mass.
(10/03/12 4:01pm)
In between classes and exploring the city, I often stop at the View Himalayan Restaurant and Terrace, one of ten or more rooftop cafes overlooking the Stupa in Boudha, Nepal — one of the holiest sites in all of Kathmandu. In the distance to my right I can make out the green hills of Kathmandu valley through a pollution-induced haze; yet, in three weeks of frequenting the Boudha cafes, a glimpse of the Himalayas beyond still eludes me.
The forty-foot Boudha Stupa looms large beyond me, draped in prayer flags. In Buddhist culture, the Stupa is an important site where many come to pray. The large dome structure is believed to contain remains of the Buddha, as well as religious relics from many centuries ago.
The recently restored blue, red, white and black eyes of Kasyapa Buddha, the “primordial Buddha,” stare at me with surprising hostility from the top of the monumental structure. The Buddha is surrounded by gold tiles, white marble, and is rich in religious and cultural significance. The Tibetan exile community in Nepal grew around this sacred Buddhist spot, and hundreds of practitioners vie for prime circumambulation space each morning and evening.
The View Himalayan’s menu includes organic coffee, along with momos (Tibetan dumplings), chicken curry, and vegetable chow mein. Like all of the stupa cafes, it caters to a largely foreign clientele. Prices are a bit steeper than other establishments, but a beer still costs three dollars. I stop in often for the free wifi, spectacular view, and endless people watching. Yet here, where I am so removed from the dirt noise action life of the streets below, I wonder whether I am experiencing the “real” Nepal?
I live with a real Tibetan family, study real Tibetan language, religion and politics and interact each day with a real Tibetan community, but I am not, after all, in Tibet. From where I sit, I can watch real Tibetans making real prostrations and turning real prayer wheels, but mixed in I spot a few shaved white heads. Westerners masquerading as monks: an outrage! Yet they too represent a real part of the Boudha community. I believe that studying Tibetan culture in Nepal, alongside thousands of other like-minded foreigners is as “real” as any other experience.
Next door, a woman sells prayer beads and “traditional Tibetan handicrafts.” A few shops farther, Tibetan carpets made by Nepalis with wool from New Zealand hang on display; the Tibetan carpet factory owner most likely lives in Switzerland. Locals and tourists frequent these stores; neither group seems overly concerned with who produces the goods or with what materials.
Visitors to Nepal and other Buddhist countries, especially those interested in Buddhist philosophy, sometimes complain about the way the religion is practiced. They are so superstitious. They don’t know anything about Buddhism. They are not real Buddhists. The monks have cell phones and listen to music; they are not real monks. Alex, a Russian trekker who sat down at my table for a few minutes, offered his opinion of the Boudha Stupa: “Too many people go around, produce too much energy. It is not good.” He referred, of course, to those same practitioners I described, who arrive in droves before and after work to circumambulate and “make merit” for themselves and reverse the karmic cycle.
Ultimately, I don’t care if the View Himalayan Restaurant and Terrace is genuinely Nepali. For that matter, I am not too worried about discovering any definitively authentic Tibetan, Nepali or Buddhist culture. Considering such a thing does not exist, it would prove a pointless use of my time. Instead, I focus on engaging with the people, places and practices surrounding me in as authentic a manner as possible. I think the Tibetan monk who just sat at the table next to mine would approve.
Written by TOBY ISRAEL ’14 from Kathmandu, Nepal