273 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(09/25/13 4:57pm)
At around 9:30 AM, my friend's mom arrived to pick him up from school. Fifteen minutes later, three moms and two dads came by to collect their children. By eleven, most seats in the classroom were empty. I asked my teacher, now for the seventh time, why everyone was leaving. My heart began to beat slightly faster. My pencil slipped onto the desk.
On the A train that morning, I saw a new ad with a photo of a flooded New York street. "Be prepared." I could not imagine how common these ads would become. No one could.
Around noon, my mother, brother, sister, and I began walking downtown. When we arrived at my uncle's apartment, my two-year-old cousin was napping so we had to be quiet. My aunt hugged us and then quickly walked into the other room to mute the television. My parents followed her, and I was told to remain in the hallway.
Walking down Lexington Avenue, and particularly when we crossed Park, I saw the smoke. It would have been hard to miss it on such a clear day. When, against my mother's orders, I peeked at the television, I saw the video clip. I could tell I'd see it again. Even though I didn't know what it meant.
Arriving home that evening, you could smell the smoke as it blew across the river. Charred papers drifted down like snow, landing on the street and in our backyard. I picked one up and read it.
The worst kind of fear is the kind you don't feel. I didn't know anyone who died. Not really anyway. There were some people I'd met — at least that's what I was told. I never could remember any of them.
Even now, it is hard to know what to think or feel. It was inevitable that the day, with all its associated images, would become political. For us — those who were too young to fully remember — the tragedy has become metaphor. The tenor has become the vehicle, so the tenor is lost. We struggle to replace it: what did the attacks mean? What do they say about us? What do they say about others?
When it happened, I assumed it was only a matter of time before someone explained it to me. Third graders expect things to be intelligible, at least by the adults. Now we are adults and we still don't understand. It feels as if after our parents picked us up, we never went back to school.
VIVIAN DARKBLOOM '16 is from New York, N.Y.
(09/19/13 12:12am)
Six weeks ago I stepped out of the airport with a suitcase, two backpacks and new passport stamp. Having overconfidently thought that I could survive the Argentine “winter” in sandals after spending two J-terms in Vermont, my toes immediately froze in the crisp breeze. I gazed with envy over at the Argentine girls fashionably sporting Ugg boots with their leather jackets and made a mental note to invest in some close-toed shoes. The heat and humidity of North Carolina hadn’t followed me to the southern hemisphere.
Living in Buenos Aires and thinking, living and breathing in Spanish 24/7 is simultaneously fun, challenging, rewarding and exhausting. To give my adjustment a little context: I’ve been hanging out with Vermont’s cows in the Organic Garden for the past two years and spent my childhood in a small southern town where the biggest event was the annual Labor Day BBQ Picnic. Needless to say, transitioning to life in South America’s second largest metropolis has been an adventure. For starters, I’ve given up on introducing myself as Sayre and have learned to love the name Sarita. It’s easier than explaining my name as “pronounced like slayer, but without the L.”
Learning how best to take advantage of the city’s public transportation has also been a tricky adjustment. Although I need to leave myself at least an hour to get anywhere in the city, I can arrive at nearly any destination by Subte (metro) or Colectivo (bus) for about 31 cents, and it gives me time to knock out a few pages of reading and get in some solid people watching. In spite of the ease of the Colectivo, I typically shell out a few extra pesos for night transportation and take taxis after 11 PM. While the park by my apartment is my go-to place to run during the day, transvestite hookers are known to strut their stuff and linger on street corners after sundown. But it’s all part of the experience, right?
Buenos Aires nightlife and dining have presented me with equally unique experiences in relation to college life in Vermont. My nighttime schedule is far different from a standard Saturday night quilombo (translation: hot mess) at Midd. My host family sits down for dinner and Malbec at around 10:30 p.m., which is already go-time by my American college student standards. While at Midd, I like to hit the sack by 3 a.m. at the latest. Here, however, I was laughed at by my platform tennis shoe-wearing Argentine friends for trying to sneak out of a birthday party at 4:30 a.m. I learned soon enough that rolling into bed as the sun starts to peek through the morning clouds and sleeping until empanada lunchtime is how the Argentines do nights out.
It’s strange to think that I won’t be waiting in line for the panini machines in Proctor or stealing a quick nap in the dangerously comfortable red and blue chairs in Bi Hall when classes start this week, but at the same time it’s incredible to reflect upon the relationships and experiences I’ve already had in the past month and a half. Whether it’s waking up in the middle of the night, ecstatic at the realization that I was dreaming in Spanglish, mustering up the courage to pose a question in class or the fact that I’m on a first name basis with the staff at my two favorite cafes, I have found that venturing outside of my comfort zone and outside of the Middlebury bubble can be immeasurably entertaining and rewarding. Suerte con el semestre and see you fools in Play-Term.
Written by SAYRE WEIR '15 from Buenos Aires, Argentina
(09/18/13 6:55pm)
As faculty members at Middlebury College, we were extremely saddened by the lack of civil debate following the removal of the American flags that comprised the 9/11 Memorial on campus.
Regardless of how you might feel about 9/11 and the use of American flags to represent those who died or about Abenaki burial grounds and the need not to desecrate them, we would hope that you would also believe that when we fundamentally disagree with one another, we should not be reduced to describing one another as “traitor” and “unpatriotic” nor “nationalistic settler” or “liberal fascists. “ More urgently, we should not be threatening physical harm or using words like “bitch” to describe one another.
We were heartened by President Liebowitz’s words that
“We live in an academic community that fosters and encourages debate and discussion of difficult issues. It is also a community that requires of all a degree of respect and civility…”
Sadly respect and civility are exactly what is not being shown in response to the protest. Instead of holding the protesters accountable for infringing on the right of others to express themselves, the protesters are being painted as completely evil and therefore inhuman and not possibly a part of the Middlebury community
Middlebury is excellent at producing critical thinkers who are engaged citizens. Sometimes we disagree on both our analysis of how the world works and how best to respond to it, but we surely all agree that thinking deeply and acting with conviction are values we hold dear.
The act may be universally condemned by the Middlebury community; the student should not be. She is busy learning and thinking about our world, how power operates in it, and what she can do as a citizen of this world. If her protest was a mistake (and many believe it was), then as every teacher knows, a mistake is always a teachable moment.
In this case, the lessons are clear: respect for difference of opinion, real dialogue between all interested parties, and a community in which we all assume that we are acting with good intentions.
The student who did not speak to the organizers of the 9/11 Memorial should learn this, but so should many members of the Middlebury community who have responded to her act with such vitriol. Rather than rejecting the student and the difference of opinion she represents, we should in fact do as President Liebowitz suggested and encourage civility and debate.
Submitted by TARA AFFOLTER, FEBE ARMANIOS, ERIK BLEICH, PENNY CAMPBELL, MAGGIE CLINTON, DARIEN DAVIS, JAMES C. DAVIS, DAVE DORMAN, LAURIE ESSIG, CHERYL FARAONE, JUANA GAMERO DE COCA, WILLIAM HART, SUJATA MOORTI, KEVIN MOSS, MIKE OLINICK, ELLEN OXFELD, ROBERT PRASCH, MAX WARD, DANA YEATON
(09/18/13 6:51pm)
Anna Shireman-Grabowski ’14.5 is a member of the Middlebury College community. She is our classmate, our co-worker and our friend. She has cared for us, taught us, learned with us and challenged us.
We acknowledge that Anna’s actions on Sept. 11 were deeply offensive and/or triggering for many (including several of the undersigned). Anna has taken responsibility for her actions, and has apologized for the suffering she has caused. She hopes to be held accountable to this community and we support her in her efforts.
We also want to recognize that it is not acceptable that there are members of our community who are making our campus – our shared home – unsafe for Anna. Anna does not deserve the cyberbullying, violent hate mail and personal threats that she has been receiving over the last week. Like any other member of this community, she has a right to due process and a right to safety.
This action and its responses have reminded us that we need to commit to creating a community where we challenge each other in safe, accountable ways. We should all feel secure here. We should also expect to feel uncomfortable as members of a liberal arts community that asks us to engage in difficult dialogue. Here at Middlebury we learn how to become comfortable with discomfort, to engage critically with information and to take action only after careful consideration.
We support Anna as a member of this community even as we disagree with her actions. We also support our broader community in coming together and moving forward after this incident. Grappling together with the issues of colonialism, patriotism, genocide and protest will continue to be challenging, but these sorts of discussions are at the heart of a liberal arts education. We have the tools to process this in a healing, constructive way. Let us use them.
Current Students:
Sara Bachman ’13.5
Cailey Cron ’13.5
Grace Donovan ’13.5
Anna Mack ’13.5
Hanna Mahon ’13.5
Adina Marx-Arpadi ’13.5
Jessica Munyon ’13.5
Molly Rose-Williams ’13.5
Ada Santiago ’13.5
Anna Stevens ’13.5
Allie Weinstein ’13.5
Luke Whelan ’13.5
Zoe Anderson ’14
Feliz Baca ’14
Luke Carroll Brown ’14
Maddie Dai ’14
Alex Jackman ’14
Kristina Johansson ’14
Jenny Marks ’14
Rachel Nuñez ’14
Ian Stewart ’14
Ben Anderson ’14.5
Hannah Bristol ’14.5
Katie Michels ’14.5
Hannah Rae Murphy ’14.5
Greta Neubauer ’14.5
Josh Swartz ’14.5
Sam Tolzmann ’14.5
Julia Welsh ’14.5
Olivia W. Allen ’15
Jeannie Bartlett ’15
Claudia Esteva ’15
Camila Fernandez ’15
Forest Jarvis ’15
Kate McCreary ’15
Priscilla Odinmah ’15
Alice Oshima ’15
Jackie Jaehee Park ’15
Krisztina Pjeczka ’15
Alex Strott ’15
Philip Williams ’15
Dave Yedid ’15
Afi Yellow-Duke ’15
Kate Hamilton ’15.5
Olivia Heffernan ’15.5
Luis Fernando Sandoval Jimenez ’15.5
Mara Moettus ’15.5
Molly Stuart ’15.5
Aashna Aggarwal ’16
Maya Doig-Acuna ’16
Adrian Leong ’16
Virginia Wiltshire-Gordon ’16
Anu Biswas ’16.5
Cassidy Campbell Mueller ’16.5
Rebecca Coates-Finke ’16.5
Adam Kelley ’16.5
Nellie Pierce ’16.5
Veronica Rodriguez ’16.5
Reem Rosenhaj ’16.5
Alumni:
Greg Dennis ’74
Toren Hardee ’11
Ben Blackshear ’12
Janet Gehrmann ’12
Alex Margarite ’12
Rhiya Trivedi ’12
Julia Deutsch ’13
Ashley Guzman ’13
Carllee James ’13
Sam Koplinka-Loehr ’13
Ari Lattanzi ’13
Nick Libbey ’13
Vanessa Neergheen ’13
Jay Saper ’13
Barrett Smith ’13
(09/18/13 6:41pm)
While students have been away for the summer, the citizens of Middlebury have been debating the merits of a College Town plan to move the town offices to the site of the Osborne House (77 Main Street, adjacent to the Ilsley Library). Opponents of the plan have criticized it for the lack of parking, the proposed conveyance of the current site of the Municipal Building, and, among other reasons, the process that the Middlebury Board of Selectmen chose to follow.
It is ironic that some people compare the open door process that led to the siting of the Cross Street Bridge with the closed-door process that resulted in the current plan to site the town offices on the Osborne House lot. One would do just as well to compare night and day.
In 2004, local resident Arch Tilford appeared before the Board of Selectmen and proposed that the town rebuild the Three Mile Bridge (located 3 miles from the center of town) which was destroyed by a fire in the early 1950’s, and thus relieve the notorious traffic congestion that plagued downtown Middlebury. The Board took his plea to heart. Recognizing that all good public works projects require planning and foresight, Chairperson John Tenny quickly formed a committee charged with determining the best site for a new bridge.
In the ensuing months, the Bridge Committee held numerous open door committee meetings, as well as public presentations and forums – all of which provided an opportunity for public comment. The Committee diligently sought information and advice from traffic engineering experts and others. Additionally, the Committee reported to the Board on a bi-monthly basis, each report affording yet another opportunity for public input. In October 2005, after examining the evidence, weighing public sentiment and researching the pros and cons of no less than six potential sites, the Committee recommended that a bridge should be constructed between Cross Street and Main Street. I was at many of those meetings, presentations, and forums, but, contrary to what some may say, I didn’t hear any “whining and moaning.” Instead, I heard citizens expressing their opinions in a respectful and thoughtful manner, just as we all should do. The public had ample opportunity to express their views before my colleagues on the Board and I unanimously endorsed the Cross Street Bridge concept.
I admit that initially I questioned the wisdom of the Cross Street site; others, including Middlebury College President Ronald D. Liebowitz, had concerns about the location as well. “’I know there were people quite dubious about the location, and I was one of those, to be honest,’ Liebowitz said.” Nevertheless, on Oct. 20, 2011, the Addison Independent ran a story with the headline, “One year later: Cross Street Bridge drawing good reviews.”
Most of those skeptics, President Liebowitz and myself included, were won over. It is likely that many were convinced, as I was, by the extensive research that formed the foundation of the Committee’s recommendation; others may have been influenced by the overwhelming public support evidenced by a 2007 Town Meeting Day vote of 695-203, which endorsed that concept.
Contrast the above with the closed-door process that led to the current proposal to move the town offices to the Osborne House site.
On April 5 this year, before consulting with the entire Board, members Dean George and Victor Nuovo approached college officials in private and asked if the College would be interested in participating in a town office project. At that luncheon meeting, college officials assured my colleagues that a proposal would be forthcoming. When later presented to the Board, the College’s proposal was much the same as was revealed to the public on June 11 of this year, a scant five weeks after the initial request. There was no opportunity for the public to express their concerns before the College proposed and a majority of the Board endorsed the Osborne House site as the location for our new town offices.
In addition to a lack of parking and the numerous other faults in the plan, which I have written about extensively elsewhere, this deeply flawed process is another compelling reason why the voters would be right to reject the Osborne House plan.
All citizens must have an opportunity to express their views before a public body makes a decision on a public project, especially when that decision is as significant as the location of our town offices for present and future generations.
CRAIG BINGHAM is a Middlebury Selectman
(09/18/13 6:36pm)
Yom Kippur is the holiest day of the year for me as a Jew. While fasting this past Saturday, I reflected on my own actions that have caused harm. I prayed for forgiveness and in the year to come better fulfill my highest obligation of tikkun olam – repairing the world.
During the afternoon break between services, I walked down the street from the synagogue to a demonstration for Marissa Alexander. It was her birthday and we wanted to make it her last behind bars.
Marissa, a black woman, had fired a warning shot while being subjected to abuse. She injured no one, yet received a 20 year sentence in the same state, under the same American flag, that let George Zimmerman run free.
At the demonstration, I talked with my friend Ramona Africa. She expressed tremendous concern about American commemorations that exploit a people’s loss to justify racist murder.
Ramona, part of the black liberation group MOVE, is the lone adult survivor of the American flag-approved bombing of her West Philadelphia home.
“Jay,” she asked, “where is the statue for the little children burning to their deaths?”
I do not know the answer to Ramona’s question. But I know that when we begin to remember lives we are taught to forget, we begin to feel uncomfortable.
I do not how to best grapple with histories of genocide and racism. But I know that attempting to do so, even as we make mistakes, is necessary if we are to truly honor each life.
I then returned to synagogue to begin the Yizkor, to commemorate those who have passsed. I remembered my dear friend Ian Cameron ’13.5, earnest and beloved member of our Middlebury community.
Perhaps selfishly, I am grateful Ian took time away from Middlebury. In that he entered a couple years before me, his research at Brown lengthened the time we were blessed to spend together on campus and provided fond memories he enjoyed sharing.
I was enticed by Brown’s effort to study its own involvement in slavery and begin a process of confronting its role in this injustice. It seems a powerful model for Middlebury to reference in working to address its occupation of Abenaki land.
The Rabbi consoled, “May his memory be for a blessing.”
We need to forever remember and honor the lives taken on Sept. 11, 2001. My religion teaches me that each life is an entire world over.
Swallowing the ocean would not prepare me to produce enough tears to express the pain I feel for all of the worlds lost that tragic day, nor all of the galaxies lost in the consequent wars waged under the American flag.
At another point in the service, we knelt all the way to ground to humbly honor that we alone cannot right all of the suffering and injustice in the world. We collectively stood up, committing to do our part.
I pray that we as a Middlebury community stand up together so that the memories of Ian, Trayvon, the MOVE children, those lost on Sept. 11, those lost in the wars of terror, those lost in slavery and those Abenaki buried on campus, that their memories may be for a blessing.
JAY SAPER '12.5 is from East Lansing, MI
(09/18/13 6:34pm)
One of Middlebury’s strengths is the drive with which students endeavor to make the world a better place. We don’t always agree on how to do this, and thus the College has recently witnessed impassioned debates on a number of important issues. Many, including myself, have been enriched by these discussions. Yet there are those who reject our community’s embrace of civil discourse in favor of so-called “activism.”
Whether out of egocentrism or simply blind passion, these people have alienated supporters and foes alike with their self-aggrandizing tactics and moral absolutism. They have broken the law and willfully disregarded College policies. So convinced are they of their own righteousness that they eschew the need to win over supporters through rational argument and compromise, preferring the familiar intellectual comfort of demagoguery.
I have very strong feelings about this issue. But these thoughts were far from my mind on the morning of Sept. 11, 2013. It was a bright, warm day, just as it was twelve years ago. It was not until that evening that I learned that group of individuals had uprooted thousands of American flags that students had carefully laid out in front of Mead Chapel as a memorial to those who died on that terrible day twelve years ago. A picture available online shows Anna Shireman-Grabowski ’14.5 shoving flags into a black trash bag.
To be honest, I’ve never been sure about how to feel about this annual memorial. On the one hand, I am proud that Middlebury students are still dedicated towards remembering the events of Sept. 11, 2001. On the other hand, I am uncomfortable with the implication that we need a display in order to remember the significance of the day — as if anyone could ever forget.
Yet that cluster of 2,977 flags has a deep symbolic meaning for many members of our community. Just as each and every one of us has our own unique tale of what we went through on Sept. 11, we each have our own ways of remembering our loss. The Middlebury community standards — to say nothing of common decency — demand that we respect everyone’s right to grieve as they see fit.
I had thought that this spirit of mutual respect was self-evident to all members of the Middlebury community. To my shock and dismay, it apparently is not.
Shireman-Grabowski and her co-conspirators have brought shame upon Middlebury and upon themselves. There can be no justification for their actions; they deliberately exploited a terrible tragedy to gain publicity. The Middlebury community welcomes constructive dialogue and collegial dissent, but it cannot and should not accept deliberately provocative action intended only to cause pain.
Shireman-Grabowski has attempted to cloak her petty vandalism in the veneer of moral righteousness. She claims that placing the flags in the earth constituted an offense towards the Abenaki people, and that this ostensible cause justifies the hurt she has caused. Leaving aside the fact that the Abenaki — with whom Shireman-Grabowski could not even be bothered to consult — reject her action, her own actions belie this rationalization as self-serving and dishonest.
There is in fact no evidence to support her bloviating claims; the Abenaki themselves are unaware of any burial sites in the area and the geology of the site seems to preclude its use as a burial grounds in any case. If Shireman-Grabowski truly cared about the rights of the Abenaki, she could have easily reached out to the organizers of the memorial ahead of time in order to share her concerns and work towards an appropriate compromise.
Indeed, organizer Ben Kinney ’15 proposed several such compromises to the five vandals even as they were the process of stealing the flags. But these people have no interest in compromise. After all, compromise doesn’t get your name published in the Huffington Post.
The College Community must now come to terms with these repugnant acts. We have already begun to do so. On the night of the vandalism, students united to re-create the memorial with flags they were able to recover. Other community members reached out to local and national media to make it clear that this heinous act does not represent Middlebury College. President Liebowitz has stated that the administration is beginning a disciplinary investigation. The other four individuals should be charged with theft and vandalism and banned from returning to Middlebury College. They have forfeited their right to meaningfully contribute to our community.
That leaves Shireman-Grabowski herself. After several days, she issued an online apology to members of the Middlebury community she harmed by her actions. The question now remains whether she and her cohorts will learn from their mistakes and accept our community standards embracing civil and collegial discourse or whether they will continue to gleefully defy our shared values in the future.
MAX KAGAN '14 is from Freeport, ME.
(09/18/13 6:31pm)
The action on Sept. 11, 2013 carries intense emotions for a few reasons. On the one hand, the 9/11: Never Forget Project plays on the heartbreak of the day year after year to maintain the emotion of being attacked. On the other, using the American flag carries a long legacy of American imperialism, colonization, and genocide on this land. The irony of the project is that it employs one symbol which can bring up emotions of American vulnerability and sadness for some people, while also reminding others of American aggression and violence around the globe. For a moment, let us try to put aside the rhetoric of Sept. 11 that has been so deeply ingrained in our minds and begin to listen to the other histories that occured in Middlebury, VT.
At Middlebury, we rarely talk about colonization and our college’s role in the genocide of the Abenaki people who still live in Vermont. Many of you who are reading this are probably sitting in Proctor dining hall. Our dining hall is named after Redfield Proctor, Jr., who was the 59th Governor of Vermont. Proctor directly advocated for the forced sterilization bill that passed in the Vermont House of Representatives in 1931. Under this racist and classist policy, the Abenaki people were targeted for forced sterilization. In order to protect themselves, many Abenaki families were forced to deny their heritage, their language, and their culture in order to “pass” as settlers here in Vermont. In doing so, the legacy of colonization continued.
Some Mi’kmaq people also recognize that our college is on native burial grounds. Last spring, a group of Middlebury students went in solidarity to an Idle No More protest in Montpelier, VT. There, we met Mi’kmaq folks who, when hearing of Middlebury College, told us that the college sits on native artifacts and burial grounds. When we returned to the College after the protest, we submitted a resolution to the Student Government Association to meet with Abenaki band councils to discuss this history and begin the process of reparations and repatriation. This resolution still needs support, and you can do so by continuing these conversations and working to build relationships with the Abenaki band councils in Vermont to learn about the College’s role in colonization and how we can begin to change.
I believe that as settlers on Turtle Island (North America), we should support the actions of indigenous people in beginning to decolonize. Anna Shireman-Grabowski ’14.5 was working with Amanda Lickers, a member of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy, in this action. Those who died on Sept. 11 certainly deserve a place in our memory and hearts. We must remember, however, that using the American flag as a symbol for their lives carries with it a long legacy of genocide and colonization on this land. At “The College on the Hill,” we have a particularly horrific history. Middlebury College has been complicit with the genocide of Abenaki people in Vermont. These are parts of our college history that need to be addressed by working with the Abenaki Band Councils to make reparations. The action on Sept. 11 should remind us that we have a duty to not only remember the 3,000 people who died 12 years ago, but also to address our history of colonization and the genocide of millions of indigenous people on this land we call “America.”
SAM KOPLINKA-LOEHR '13 is from Ithaca, NY
(09/18/13 6:28pm)
As a member of the Middlebury College alumni community, I feel compelled to share my reflections on the offensive and deeply saddening act that occurred on its campus on the twelfth anniversary of September 11, 2001.
I graduated from Middlebury College in 2012. This year, I spent the anniversary of Sept. 11 in Afghanistan, deployed as a U.S. Army lieutenant. I serve here alongside countless soldiers, airmen, sailors and marines who were motivated to join the U.S. military as a result of the tragic events that occurred on Sept. 11. Many deployed service members choose to honor the lives lost on that day and those that have followed in its aftermath in their own quiet, contemplative ways. Often, in a deployed environment, there isn’t time for commemorative ceremonies due to the high operational tempo. I was appalled to end the anniversary of Sept. 11 by reading about this incident. I sincerely hope that no service member has the ill fortune of coming across this event. If they do, I hope they contribute to this discussion and reveal why, on so many levels, what these five people did was inexcusably wrong.
I was particularly drawn to one of the comments by “Bob” in response to the Campus article covering the incident, which read, “I would love for Anna to be attached to a rucksack frame, brought into active combat and truly fight for her right to desecrate the one piece of symbolic fabric that ties us together as Americans, the Flag of the United States of America.” While I believe witnessing the efforts that American service members undertake to defend the freedoms of the United States would be an enlightening experience, it would be impossible for this student to do so because her actions suggest that she lacks the respect, honor and sense of selflessness that is required for a soldier to embody.
As a former Middlebury student, I am infuriated that one would destroy the work and public expression belonging to that of two political student groups that united together in order to honor the lives lost in the tragic events of 9/11. While freedom of expression is something every American is afforded, the disrespectful annihilation of another’s is intolerable, especially in a college setting where fostering intelligent discussion and debate is of the utmost priority. To my knowledge, this group of people, including at least one Middlebury College student, made no attempt to contact the owners of the flags and explain their questionable claim regarding Abenaki burial grounds before stuffing the flags in a trash bag. It appears that this act was carried out in an incredibly under-researched, selfish and disrespectful attempt to bring attention to oneself with absolutely zero regard for the 2,997 lives that were lost that day.
Five years ago, I remember hurriedly walking across the lawn in front of the library in uniform in order to make it to my Army ROTC class at UVM in time. As I approached the library, I saw the lawn covered in thousands of American flags and I couldn’t help but stop and reflect. I was aware that the flags stood for thousands of lives that were lost on that horrific day. At the same time, I was overcome with pride because I belonged to a community that took the initiative to honor those lives in a beautiful and visible way.
Despite the incredibly disrespectful actions of one student, I strongly believe that an organization should not be characterized by the actions of just one member. What happened is uncharacteristic of everything that I believe Middlebury to value and stand for. Just like in the face of any adversity, Middlebury will be characterized by how it responds and, I hope, by emerging stronger.
A large American flag hangs outside the banister of my living quarters here in Afghanistan. The day after I read about this incident, I hung my Middlebury College banner next to it. I still have the utmost confidence in Middlebury. I also strongly hope that its administration and leaders will respond with serious disciplinary action against any student involved in this unfathomable act. Thank you to all of those students who made the effort to honor the lives lost on 9/11 by emplacing the American flags.
EMILY NUNEZ '12 is writing from Afghanistan.
(09/12/13 1:01am)
What is this “divestment”?
To those of you new to Middlebury or just returning from abroad, I wish to say welcome and keep an eye out for us. The issue of divestment from fossil fuels and arms manufacturing has been a hot topic for the past year, and it will continue to be. Let me get you up to speed.
For years the Socially Responsible Investing Club has advocated for investing the college’s endowment with concern for its implications beyond financial returns. Those implications generally concern environmental, social, or corporate governance issues (ESG), and outcomes can be pursued through positive investment, community investment, shareholder engagement, and divestment. In the spring of 2012, the SRI club gathered over 1,000 student signatures in support of a more socially responsible endowment.
Last fall, Middlebury students joined a growing movement of college students asking their administrations to divest from fossil fuels and arms manufacturing. A diverse range of students pursued divestment using different tactics including, meeting with administrators, coordinating with other colleges, researching, and promoting discussion and awareness on our own campus. One group of students wrote a fake press release apparently from the college advertising its recent divestment from fossil fuels and arms in honor of the Dalai Lama’s visit. That tactic made divestment an even more visible and political issue, as the campus debated not only the goals but also the tactics of divestment advocates.
In December, President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz committed to hosting three discussion panels on divestment. He also announced that 3.6 percent of our endowment is invested in fossil fuels, and 0.6 percent in weapons manufacturers. In contrast, the college has 0.5 percent of our endowment in a dedicated Sustainable Investments Initiative.
In January the administration held its first panel on the endowment, Bill McKibben delivered his “Do The Math” event that had toured the country in the fall, and an SGA survey reported that 61 percent of Middlebury students supported divestment. At the winter meeting of the Middlebury College Board of Trustees, seven students presented to the full Board for an hour, ending with a reiteration of the previous request to commit to divestment by March 15 of that year. The commitment would be to the pursuit of divestment, with the understanding that a longer timeline would be necessary to accomplish that goal.
In March, more than 100 students rallied outside Old Chapel, and a group of about 20 crowded the Treasurer’s office to hear the announcement that the College would not commit to divestment at that time. Later that spring the administration hosted a student panel on divestment, though panelists in support of divestment were underrepresented compared to the proportion of the general student body.
At the May Board of Trustees meeting, which coincided with finals week, the Trustees discussed divestment at length while students outside, on the advice from one supportive trustee, rallied as noisily as possible. As Trustees exited the meeting supporters asked what they had decided and were disappointed to learn they had still not made a commitment to divestment.
In the final days of the school year, a small group of students comprising the Advisory Committee on Socially Responsible Investment had their final meeting with the Treasurer and learned of some exciting advances in responsible investing that the Trustees had decided to pursue in lieu of divesting at the moment. They included a dedicated pursuit of transparency and use of ESG criteria in the management of our endowment; heightened investment in on-campus ESG, and a greater allocation to the Sustainable Investments Initiative fraction of the endowment. A few weeks ago, the President communicated these initiatives to the college community, but without concrete numbers or a timeline for implementation. If these proposals are implemented on the scale alluded to by the Treasurer and in a timely manner, they could mark huge progress on the ethics of Middlebury’s endowment.
The President’s recent statement also included the three questions that are still preventing the Trustees from voting to divest. Last week, students responded with their own statement reiterating the urgency of divestment and offering answers to the President’s lingering questions.
As someone who has worked for SRI and divestment since my second semester at Middlebury, I see those questions as the ones that students and other organizers have been discussing and answering throughout the course of the past year.
The President’s questions make me wonder what the administration was researching last year if they feel those questions remain so completely unanswered. That said, they are certainly nuanced issues that will always benefit from further contemplation and research. I intend to continue gathering answers to these questions, and encouraging the administration and Trustees to find answers as well. Finally, I hope the administration will realize that great leaders have to take action without knowing all the answers.
For more information, including videos and transcripts of the events and letters referenced, please visit go/divestmidd (student-run) or go/endowment (admin-run), or contact jbartlett@middlebury.edu.
Jeannie Bartlett '15 is from Leyton, Mass.
(05/14/13 7:27pm)
This piece is in response to Michelle Smoler’s '13 “A Signed Professor Evaluation.” The professor to whom she refers advised our senior theses as well, but our experiences were so different that we felt compelled to respond to her evaluation.
At the beginning of the academic year, our adviser took on the task of advising both of us without ever having met us before. At that time, we spoke at length about our project proposals, and he set out clear expectations. Since he agreed to advise us, he has been a true partner throughout this intensive academic pursuit. He gave us significant latitude to set the direction of our projects, but was also able to provide immense guidance in areas where we were less comfortable. He provided structure throughout the process, directed us through the literature and methods of a more complex project than either of us had previously undertaken, and provided positive and constructive feedback.
While we agree that he is an outstanding academic, we dispute the characterization that he is not also an outstanding educator: his steadfast guidance, kind advice, and — above all — the incredible amount of work he put into his advisory role shaped both our theses and our learning experiences throughout the process. Each of us left our many meetings feeling both encouraged and optimistic, as well as with a sense of purpose and focus for our respective projects.
In our view, our adviser completely understood his role as educator, adviser, guide and supporter. Our experiences could not have differed more with the experience Michelle describes. Working with our thesis adviser was an unparalleled academic and personal experience for both of us.
Written by CHARLIE ARNOWITZ '13 and KAVEH WADDELL '13
(05/09/13 2:03am)
As Middlebury faculty and staff, we hope our trustees will commit to fossil-fuel divestment and a new kind of investment, investment that yields high returns and embodies the promise of this challenging age.
Health technologies designed to perform miracles; clean-energy electricity for the world’s poorest; new financial instruments for striving small businesses: let’s invest Middlebury’s money this way, not in the clutter and peril of fossil fuels.
We respect the trustees’ stewardship of our institution, an institution for which we have the highest aspirations. We suspect that most board members support a new approach to college investing, with one hesitation: it’s complicated. It might even mean changing Middlebury’s relationship with Investure.
To that we say: “Bring it on!” After all, the transition to a better global economy will be easy for no one. Let’s show the investment community, the academic community and the global community that it can be done. In so doing, we’ll be on the right side of history, embracing the best economics and displaying the values of our mission: “leadership in a rapidly changing global community.”
Divestment can mean a new kind of investment. Wouldn’t that be a celebration of the liberal arts in action?
Faculty and staff signatories:
Alfredo Ortiz, Alison Nurok, Allison Coyne Carroll, Amy Holbrook, Andrea Kerz-Murray, Andrea Olsen, Andrew Gardner, Anne Knowles, Annie Dolber, Antonia Losano, Ashar Nelson, Avery McNiff, Beth Thompson, Bill McKibben, Bob Cole, Brenda Ellis, Brett Millier, Carolyn Craven, Carrie Macfarlane, Catherine Ashcraft, Catherine Combelles, Chris McGrory Klyza, Christopher Shaw, Dan Brayton, David Haward Bain, David Stoll, Deborah Young, Diane Munroe, Elizabeth Karnes Keefe, Ellen Oxfeld, Erick Gong, Erin Sassin, Eva Gudbergsdottir, Francisca Drexel, Glenn Andres, Grace Spatafora, Hector Vila, Helen Young, Hilary Cunningham, Jack Byrne, Jane Kimble, Jason Scorse, Jay Parini, Jeff Munroe, John Elder (emeritus), John Emerson, John Huddleston, John Maluccio, Jon Cormier, Jon Isham, Judy Olinick, Kacy McKinney, Karin Hanta, Kemi Fuentes-George, Kent Glenzer, Kevin Moss, Kim Ammons, Kirsten Hoving, Kristina Simmons, Linus Owens, Marc Lapin, Michelle McCauley, Miguel Fernandez, Mike Sheridan, Molly Costanza-Robinson, Pamela Berenbaum, Peter Hans Matthews, Peter Nelson, Rebecca Kneale Gould, Rebekah Irwin, Richard Wolfson, Sallie Sheldon, Scott Barnicle, Shawna Shapiro, Sophie Esser Calvi, Stefano Mula, Supriti Jaya Ghosh, Susan DeSimone, Susan Kavanagh, Tracy Himmel Isham, Tsuneo Akaha, Yumna Siddiqi, Yuwei Shi
Alumni signatories:
Aliki Barnstone, Anika James, Bennett Konesni, Blair Bowie, Bonnie Carton, Cedar Attanasio, Christian Hicks, Christine Gould, Clare O’Reilly, Darlene Lake, Devi Glick, Eliza Todd Haselton, Emily (Nelson) Tyler, Esther Ouray, Gioia Kuss, Grace Hawkins, Gregory Blake Benson Jr., Gregory Dennis, Janet Halstead Franklin, Jeb Bennett, Joan Beal, Kristin Holsman-Francoeur, Lindsey Franklin, Macy Johnson, Marie Paquin, Mima Tipper, Mona Donderi Rogers , Retta Leaphart, Scott Menge, Stephanie Ellis, Susan Spilecki, Virginia Shannon, Xian Chiang-Waren
(05/08/13 11:22pm)
This weekend, the Middlebury College board of trustees may decide whether or not to divest our endowment of holdings in fossil fuels and arms manufacturing.
This community has engaged in conversations about divestment since September. Questions have been raised about the potential financial impact of divestment and whether it will be effective in addressing the challenges we face. These concerns are valid and these conversations have led to productive debate.
While I don’t like to make a habit of trying to scare others into action, we cannot continue having these conversations as though the issues we are discussing can be addressed on a “reasonable” timeline. If we continue working on our timeline we will end up with a planet that is incompatible with human life.
I have been away from Middlebury this semester. I spent a short amount of my time in Appalachia, where people’s struggle against the destruction of their land and communities due to mountain top removal, coal mining and hydraulic fracturing feels like a war. The West Virginians I met were fighting for the right to live their lives. This sounds like an exaggeration; it is not.
I also met individuals from First Nations communities and indigenous peoples whose rights continue to be disregarded in the interest of extracting and transporting fossil fuels. If studying history at Middlebury has taught me anything, it’s that the treatment of indigenous peoples in this country has been shameful. And if my time off has taught me anything, it’s that continuing to allow the fossil fuel industry free reign to “negotiate” over land rights with indigenous peoples is not going to end this systematic silencing and disenfranchisement.
I am sharing these stories because I believe what the board of trustees does here, now, at this week’s board meeting, will demonstrate whether or not Middlebury College is a leader. We are setting our priorities with the use of our resources. And we can choose to manage our endowment in a way that creates real change.
We do not know for sure that the divestment tactic will work as it did during South Africa’s apartheid regime, if it will diminish exploitative forces’ ability to harm people and the planet. However, from all of our conversations, we do know that on our end, the risk is limited.
And we know that leaders, those on the right side of history, act decisively in the name of justice, of what is right. This community has decided that the exploitation of peoples and the destruction of our planet are wrong. We believe a statement from the board that aligns our practices with our beliefs is right.
Middlebury College has stated its commitment to being a community and environmental leader. Board of trustees: it’s time to lead.
Join the Middlebury community for a board of trustees tailgate at 3 p.m. on Friday, with speakers and photos at 4:30 p.m. Visit http://divestforourfuture.tumblr.com for details.
GRETA NEUBAUER '14.5 is from Racine, Wisconsin
(05/08/13 11:20pm)
Student government at Middlebury is currently based on the principle of representative government; we elect a handful of senators with whom we entrust our decision-making power. Beyond voting every spring, the average Middlebury student does not participate at all in the process of student government. This idea of democratic representation is one of the most common forms of government in the world, so much so that when people today talk about “democracy” they are almost always referring to this representative system. For modern nation-states, this is essential; they are so large that traditional town hall or Greek city-state democracy would be impractical and impossible. But for the Middlebury student body, is this really the case? Are we really so large a community that participatory democracy would not work? Replacing the Student Government Association (SGA) with a government body made up of whoever wants to show up, debate and vote, overseen perhaps by an elected steering committee to provide structure, would not only be entirely possible at Middlebury, but would be beneficial.
In fact, after setting aside my biases of what modern “democracy” looks like, it is quite surprising to me that our student body does not have a directly participatory government. In general, Middlebury touts the degree to which students form an active and involved community, the administration makes an effort to get student input on an impressive range of issues and campus-wide movements like the divestment campaign demonstrate a genuine interest that many students have in affecting change at the College. What’s more, the community in which we live, the town of Middlebury, has a thriving form of participatory democracy. Like towns all across New England, Middlebury has regular town hall meetings where anybody can debate and vote on important local issues. If the town can do this, despite being more than three times our size, why can’t we?
But even if we can all agree it is possible, why do we need to change the SGA? In my opinion, the major flaw with our current system became obvious over our brief election season; there are people who want to participate in government, and who have unique and valuable ideas, who are needlessly turned away. What do we gain from this? If all the interested candidates were just all allowed to participate in government, without any election, would our student government all of a sudden become large, slow and ineffective? Of course not. Then why do we shut them out with our representative system? Even if every student who wanted could show up and be a member of the SGA, would it slow past the point of effectiveness? Probably not. So, what do we gain in shutting people out? Rather than truly representing the interests of the student body, all our current system does is pick a few winners whose views will be represented and ignores the rest. Why? Rather than having to compromise on one candidate’s basket of ideas, some of which we share some of which we don’t, couldn’t we just represent ourselves? I believe that a participatory system would allow our government to consider all viewpoints and, through open discussion and direct democracy, implement the best ideas that most accurately represent the interests of the student body.
It is important to consider, however, several drawbacks of direct democracy and how a new student government system could address these concerns. First, for the most controversial issues on campus, there is a risk of debate deteriorating into useless arguing if enough passionate people show up. This is the most compelling argument for representative government, even though such issues will most likely only come up once or twice a year. The rest of the time direct democracy faces the opposite issue: apathy. If our government is made up of whoever wants to show up, what do we do if no one wants to show up? Or, what about the issues that have only a few passionate supporters? These make direct democracy a vehicle for pet projects that are really not the business of the whole student body, and puts us at risk of having no one to handle the boring legislation that the SGA still needs to handle. However, both the issues of too much involvement and too much apathy have a simple solution: an elected steering committee and president to facilitate productive debate and ensure that at least a few people are accountable at all times. I believe that this solution offers the stability and consistency of our current system while still allowing everyone to participate in improving Middlebury. I hope that the new SGA takes this proposition seriously and takes time to consider why we have a representative system rather than letting students directly represent themselves.
CARTER MERENSTEIN '16 is from Ambler, Penn.
(05/08/13 11:17pm)
May 2012, I was elected to be a new Middlebury Open Queer Alliance (MOQA) President, or “President of the gays” as one of my exchange friends used to call me in her strong Russian accent. It was a very random decision of mine and I accepted the role with a lot of excitement; over the summer I designed the leaflets and planned some events for the upcoming year. In the fall, I managed to bring a drag performer from Germany and organized some parties. While the parties were certainly not the best, the stripping woman in Crossroads gained a lot of attention. I was pumped about the semester, but I should have seen the decay.
I am talking about the inherent problems of many student organizations on this campus: free-riding. MOQA has been facing decreasing membership activity for a long time. It was almost always about three student leaders organizing all the activities. Attendance at the meetings was the most obvious problem. We went from seniors checking out “fresh meat” in the beginning of the semester to maybe 10 active members and then to three co-chairs meeting with two or three other people. I talked to other student leaders; supposedly this problem is not MOQA-only. Do we then participate in some student orgs just to have something cool on our résumés? Probably not, but it is one of the factors. What then does membership mean? Being on an email list?
I saw the problem, so I created a survey for MOQA members. I mostly asked what they want to improve, what they dislike and what they like. We got 22 answers; some of them were creative, while some asked us to do more activism without explaining how to accomplish that. I guess that we should make everyone wear pink T-shirts to show their support for our poor group since this campus is so oppressive. I expected people to come to discuss what they wanted since we showed a will to change. But no, just the few loyal members showed up. Despite the disinterest, we organized more events during Gaypril than in the past few. We brought Leslea Newman for $1500 and advertised it. Four people showed up. We had a talk about HIV/AIDS. Three people showed up. No one showed up for our screenings. Nobody is running for our next elections.
After that, I just completely gave up. It is a waste of time to organize events for the less than 10 people who come to the meetings. Throughout the year a lot of my friends complained that we don’t organize any parties anymore or that we need more hang-outs. I told them to come to meetings and propose it, but nobody did. They claimed they felt too uncomfortable there. Man, I do too sometimes. You think we are overly academic? Me too. I feel unwanted, useless and upset, and I also got a shining rainbow sticker for being a MOQA co-chair.
Thus I would like to announce a disbandment of MOQA as a student organization. At our last meeting, the active members discussed the future of MOQA and unanimously voted in favor of disbanding it. I believe that it will be a merciful death to this organization that no longer seems to be wanted on campus. We submit to market forces; no demand shuts us down.
Hail to the first top liberal arts school without any LGBTQA group on campus, yet we have affirmative action! And we can only blame ourselves and our allies for this. Myself included.
PETR KNOR ’16 is from Prague, Czech Republic
(05/01/13 11:38pm)
On April 17, after America’s 113th Congress rejected a series of proposed gun-control measures, Barack Obama asked a teary-eyed, red faced crowd in the White House’s Rose Garden, “how can something have 90 percent support and yet not happen?”
Americans have debated the answer endlessly. The legislation’s advocates blame the NRA, convoluted Senate rules and political cowardice. Its opponents, like Director of Communications for Gun Owners of America Erich Pratt argued that “none of the policies [Obama] recently unveiled would have stopped Adam Lanza in Connecticut from killing his mother, stealing her weapons and carrying them onto school grounds to commit his despicable crimes.” A broken clock is right twice a day. Yet this statement’s technical validity does not make it a relevant or convincing argument against gun-control legislation.
Expanding background checks would not have prevented the Sandy Hook Massacre, but it might have saved some of 2,244 other individuals who have been killed by firearms since that day four months ago.
The Democrats have failed to articulate this point, framing these efforts as a mere gesture of condolence to Sandy Hook parents. Their failure to contextualize this dialogue into the larger picture of gun violence sealed its death wish. Representative Rand Paul’s argument that “none of the proposals would address the tragedy,” makes sense when the only tragedy discussed is Sandy Hook.
Vice President Joe Biden urged Americans to “think about how many of these children or teachers may be alive today had he had to reload three times as many times as he did.” This type of argument characterizes the failure of gun control. First off, Adam Lanza could probably replicate the killing capacity of his military-style firearm with an assortment of less deadly weapons. Second, inconveniencing mass murderers by simply forcing them to reload more frequently is far short of a victory for America. If I, a liberal who has never before fired a gun, can so easily rail against Biden’s claim, gun rights advocates must have had a field day.
Opponents of gun control would have faced a tougher challenge if forced to confront the overwhelming evidence that states with stricter gun laws experience fewer homicides. Paul and his fellow gun-rights advocates could not reasonably argue that expanded background checks would stop zero of America’s nearly 10,000 gun-related fatalities each year. Arguments by individuals like Charles E. Grassley, Republican senator from Iowa, that “criminals do not submit to background checks now ... they will not submit to expanded background checks” weaken in light of the fact that perpetrators of gun violence are not often “criminals” in the conventional sense. Sixty percent of gun-related murders are impulsive acts of rage against a friend or love, not premeditated attacks. Red-state Democrats who cowered to NRA threats might have felt a stronger moral duty to vote “yes” if they understood that this bill was not just a response to the 20 teachers and students who died on December 14, but also the lives of 34 Americans (80 if you count suicides) killed by guns daily on average.
Gun control advocates never forced their opponents to face these details, insisting that the killings at Sandy Hook take precedence in this dialogue.
Of course, there is a single obvious reason that Americans imbibed this event with such significance. The slaughter of schoolchildren invokes a lot more anger and motivation than a mere statistic or series of breaking news stories. It motivated certain gun rights advocates like Representative John Yarmouth to switch positions. Why the numerous other gun-related fatalities that occurred while he was in office did not prompt the same response is of little concern.
Symbolism is important. The Boston Marathon bombings caught the nation’s attention last week while a blast that killed 50 Iraqis the same day did not even make the front page of the New York Times. The former was perceived to symbolize a distinctly resilient Bostonian spirit and the unrelenting specter of terrorism, the latter just another grim dispatch from a war-torn country. But the power of symbolism is lost when we focus so much on the symbol itself and so little on what it is meant to symbolize. How can we understand the importance of Sandy Hook or Aurora or Virginia Tech when we forget the full story of American violence and mental illness that underlies these tragedies?
Legislators like Senators Joe Manchin III, Democrat of West Virginia and Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania seem poised to restart their efforts for expanded background checks. Yet recent polls indicate that support for gun control has waned after an initial surge post-Sandy Hook. It would be wise for gun control advocates to remind Americans what gun control is really about before it is too late.
Obama concluded his speech to the crowd of Sandy Hook and other mass shooting victims by saying “I believe we’re going to be able to get this done. Sooner or later, we are going to get this right. The memories of these children demand it.” Next time, he should mention the memories of more than just “these” children.
DAVID ULLMANN '16 is from Brookline, Mass.
(05/01/13 11:35pm)
Recently, an independent fact-finding mission of the United Nations (UN) presented a report about the Israeli settlement policy. The report confirms what was assumed for a while: the settlement project cannot be differentiated from the Apartheid system that was once applied in South Africa.
The assignment of the UN fact-finding mission was not to conclude, again, that the settlements are illegal. That much is clear. Settlements are a violation of article 49 of the Fourth Convention of Genève, punishable by article 8 of the Rome Statue of the International Criminal Court and are unanimously classified as violation of international law by the International Court verdict of 2004 regarding the Wall.
Rather, the assignment of the mission was to research the consequences of the settlements, especially with regards to the civil, political, social and cultural rights of the Palestinians in the occupied Palestinian territories.
Moreover, it is noteworthy that the report does not discuss Israel’s military settlement of the West Bank as such. It is bounded to the implications and consequences of the settlement policy. The conclusion that Israel applies some form of Apartheid in the West Bank and East Jerusalem is thus limited to the regime that the settlement policy has produced.
The three main characteristics of South African Apartheid were institutionalized discrimination, repression and forced migration. The fact-finding mission concludes that the settlement establishment is characterized by these three features.
On discrimination, the mission notes the following: (a) there are two judicial regimes in the occupied territories, one for the Palestinians, and the other for the colonialists; (b) colonialists have, compared to Palestinians, a preferential judicial status; (c) in the occupied territories there is a segregated judicial system, which “results in daily violations of a multitude of the human rights of the Palestinians in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including, incontrovertibly, violating their rights to non-discrimination, equality before the law and equal protection of the law.”
Secondly, the mission notes that Palestinians are subject to a broad spectrum of repressive measurements by the Israeli army and settler colonialists. There are restrictions on the freedom of movement (which resembles the pass-law system under Apartheid) and the freedom of expression and assembly. The last-mentioned restrictions, according to the report, have an aim of “ensuring that the daily life of Israeli settlers continues without interruption.” Furthermore, settlers use violence against Palestinians, their houses, schools and farmlands without restraint by the Israeli army (this form of violence was not a characteristic of Apartheid in South-Africa).
The mission concludes that there is “institutionalized discrimination against Palestinians.” It asserts that the violence and intimidation against Palestinians and their property serves to drive the local population away from their land and make settlement expansion possible.
Thirdly, the report describes a system of demolishing houses and displacing people from their homes, forcing migration elsewhere (normally to densely populated and walled-in cities) in order to serve the settlers. These interventions greatly resemble Apartheid in South Africa.
The mission does not use the term Apartheid to name the system that it describes in the report. However, its argument that the system, created by the presence of 520,000 settlers in 250 settlements and resulting in the seizure of 43 percent of Palestine, represents Apartheid is evident from the following conclusion:
“The settlements are established for the exclusive benefit of Israeli Jews, and are being maintained and developed through a system of total segregation between the settlers and the rest of the population living in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. This system of segregation is supported and facilitated by a strict military and law enforcement control to the detriment of the rights of the Palestinian population.”
A more accurate description of Apartheid (as applied in South Africa) does not exist. South Africans who visit the West Bank are immediately struck by the similarity between the repressive regime that discriminates in favor of the settlers and the Apartheid that existed in South Africa. It is therefore that Nelson Mandela reminds us, “Apartheid is a crime against humanity. Israel has deprived millions of Palestinians of their liberty and property.”
In this context, it becomes clear that without justice, a progress in peace is not possible. We can only call ourselves civilized when we also apply human rights and law to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Our endowment is also invested in companies that benefit from Israeli Apartheid. Isn’t it hypocritical to have a “Davis Peace Project” and invest in Apartheid?
Those who propagate human rights have a responsibility to this crisis; we should be ashamed to call ourselves followers of human rights when we allow this injustice to continue. Middlebury expects us to be “thoughtful and ethical leaders.” Let us therefore reach an ethical conclusion on this matter and divest from Israeli Apartheid today, just like we divested our endowment from South African Apartheid in the 80s. It is imperative that racist structures cease to exist. Occupation should not exist.
I hereby invite you to partake with the Justice For Palestine (JFP) meetings every Wednesday at 6 p.m. in Chellis House.
ALI NAIMI '16 is from Zoetermeer, Netherlands
(05/01/13 11:34pm)
In his recent op-ed about abortion, Kenneth Burchfiel ’13 claims to “support life.” He equates abortion with the Nazi genocide of Jews and other non-Aryan groups and he implies, with an infantile reference to Disney movies, that those who are involved in providing abortions and those who choose to have abortions only do so because they are somehow blissfully unaware that abortion is actually evil.
It is easy to invoke Nazism to generate an instinctive emotional revulsion and it is easy to apply the blanket label of “evil” to the practice of abortion. At best, the article suffers from a lack of intellectual rigor, and at worst it displays that particular brand of paternalistic misogyny so familiar to those who follow the abortion debate.
Nowhere is this more evident than when Burchfiel claims that the use of the words “women,” “choice” and “rights” are somehow linguistic manipulations designed to promote the practice of abortion. Let me be clear: no woman wants to find herself in a position where she must choose whether or not to terminate her pregnancy. It is an emotional agony.
Abortion is not good, but it is a necessity. Access to abortion gives women autonomy not just over their own bodies, but also over their own lives. The abortion debate is not black and white; it is not an either-or. Those who are pro-life often decry the “evils” of abortion as baby-killing. Let’s not be blunt — abortion is the termination of life. But what Kenneth Burchfiel and those who agree with him are saying is that the life of the child is worth more than the life of the mother. What they are really saying is that women who get pregnant are to blame, which is misogynistic. This worldview reduces women to the role of incubators and little else.
Additionally, this oversimplified argument ignores the sociocultural context of why women have abortions. Instead of categorizing abortion as evil, and thereby stigmatizing women who have abortions, we should be asking ourselves who gets abortions and why? According to statistics published by the Guttmacher Institute, of the women who had abortions in 2008, 42 percent were living on incomes below the federal poverty line and 50 percent were below the age of 25. Women who identified as non-white accounted for 61 percent of abortions. Instead of stigmatizing these women and claiming that they have abortions because of some inherent moral fallacy, we should be probing deeper about the factors that account for these statistics. Why is it that these demographics in particular are likely to find themselves in a situation where they choose abortion? What do these statistics say about our priorities as a society?
In fact, why do women choose abortion since they know, though Burchfiel assumes they don’t, that it is morally ambiguous territory? The most common reasons cited (again, by the Guttmacher Institute) are lack of financial and personal security. In short, many women weigh the personal and financial cost to themselves and their unborn child against the emotional toll of choosing an abortion and they settle for the latter. If abortion is made illegal, what support will be available for women who don’t feel financially or personally ready or able to raise a child? To those who claim to “support life,” in what ways are you working towards providing women with the support they would need to raise children they do not feel prepared to have?
It is perhaps because Burchfiel grew up in the 1990s watching Disney movies that he does not understand the extremes to which desperate women will go to ensure that neither they nor their potential children are subjected to the reduced quality of life that comes along with having children before one feels able to raise them properly. He does not understand that the Roe v. Wade decision was made at a time when illegal abortions caused countless unavoidable and violent deaths, and he does not understand that, if abortion becomes illegal, we will go back to that gruesome dark ages of women’s rights.
DANA WESTMORELAND '13 is from Middletown, Conn.
(05/01/13 11:31pm)
Last week’s op-ed by Kenneth Burchfiel ’13 regarding abortion has (unsurprisingly) already been met with vitriolic attacks on the Campus website, and will no doubt be the subject of even more criticism in this week’s issue. As someone who cares deeply about the issue, I’m glad Kenneth was willing to risk the predictably negative reactions of the college community and state his unpopular opinion. However, I think his article employed polarizing rhetoric at the expense of making the real, substantive arguments that do support his side of the debate. Let me make them here.
First, the pro-choice movement does not support abortion because they hate babies; they just legitimately do not believe that fetuses are human. The typical line of pro-choice advocates is that fetuses are “just a blob of cells,” and mothers have every right to choose whether or not to eliminate said blob. But this argument is simply silly. What are babies, other than slightly bigger, older, blobs of cells? The more substantive argument that the pro-choice movement makes is that at some point, these blobs of cells suddenly become human and have rights. But what should this point be? Conception? Probably too early. When the heart starts beating? That seems arbitrary. When the brain develops fully? That would imply that severely mentally handicapped children could be aborted at any time. At viability? Again, children with severe health impediments are not “viable,” but few people would argue they could therefore be aborted after birth.
The point is, the standard for what makes a fetus “human,” and therefore worthy of moral consideration is (I think inherently) arbitrary and uncertain. There is currently no universal scientific standard that can solve what is, in many ways, a philosophical question. Given this uncertainty, I would argue that we should always default to protecting the rights of the fetus. To do otherwise would be to risk being guilty of what Kenneth terms “evil,” should evidence emerge in the future that puts the standard for being human at an earlier stage than the currently accepted one.
One last argument that I want to preempt is the idea that anti-abortion advocates do not care about women’s rights. As someone who identifies as a feminist, I think this argument is both unproductive and simply false. I think that in cases where a mother’s life is definitely at risk, abortion might be acceptable since her humanity is absolutely certain, whereas the child’s is not. But in cases where the mother’s life is not at stake, if we accept the proposition that fetuses might be human, than the fetus’s right to life clearly outweighs a mother’s freedom of choice. That is not to devalue the latter, but simply to prioritize which rights come first.
But further, I think that pro-choice advocates generally fail to meaningfully engage with the implications of their agenda for the women’s rights movement as a whole. In a number of countries across the globe, abortion is a tool of male oppression, used to systematically select male children over female children. In such societies, the idea of male superiority is so embedded that women might actually choose to abort females until they have a male child. This is the woman’s “choice,” but does it really advance the cause of feminism? I don’t think so.
FRANK WYER '15 is from Arroyo Grande, Calif.
(05/01/13 11:30pm)
This op-ed goes out to everyone who is thinking about writing an opinion piece in a published medium that circles in a community (ie. newspapers, magazine, other public media).
Think before you write. Sharing your opinions and thoughts on a certain topic is necessary to varying degrees. It helps the process of resolution, personal piece of mind and opens new paths to conversations. However, it seems that many people take the privilege of being able to speak up and be heard as an opportunity to babble about personal plights without considering alternative views to a problem. Many opinion pieces in this newspaper fall into this category, and my only hope is that it will stop.
It is very important, as previously stated, to express your thoughts and opinions. Nevertheless, finding the appropriate means of communication is also very important. When writing to the Campus, ask yourself: “why do I want this particular piece of information to be published in this particular medium given its particular audience?” If your answer is: “I’m trying to be a published writer!” then just write a book or start a blog. If your answer is: “Can’t wait to see how many people talk about my controversial article on Thursday!” then just write a Facebook status about it. If the answer to your “why” is: “This is an important issue to the student body, and I believe I can contribute to its discussion in a constructive way.” Then please, SUBMIT SUBMIT SUBMIT!
Some of the characteristics of the latter can be described by the following: You allow your audience to think about the issue for themselves instead of trying to convince them of a particular point. This can be accomplished by: 1) stating factual information that allows for readers to decide whether or not they agree, 2) stating how your background may or may not give you a degree of entitlement or an unsubstantiated view of the problem, and 3) recognizing alternative views and clearly stating how your particular opinion is contrary to the ideas of that viewpoint.
Once you have checked these three boxes, you may realize that your opinion is very biased and that you are only writing the piece for personal reasons and not for the purpose of informing others. Or maybe you will edit your piece so much that you realize it’s all a manner of relativity — later deleting your email draft to the Campus. Or perhaps you will have crafted a well-written, unbiased article that will prove worthy of informing others in your community about a particular issue.
The Campus is a newspaper that most students and community members read. It is important for you to consider the impact your opinion piece will have on this community when you write to this media source. Don’t abuse your privilege of being able to inform others. Don’t trick yourself into believing your opinion piece reflects everyone else’s opinions. And lastly, if you haven’t checked all of the boxes above, don’t fool yourself into thinking that you are brave and powerful for sharing your opinion on a particular issue in this newspaper. Instead, write a status about it on Facebook or start a blog. I won’t read either. I’ve been at Middlebury for three years and read the Campus every week. I get upset every week when someone feels the need to write an opinion piece and decide to inform me about what I’m doing wrong with my life. That’s my bias.
MORRIS SWABY EBANKS '13 is from West Bay, Cayman Islands