8 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(10/17/19 9:58am)
This recurring column will feature updates from SLG. This week’s column comes from President Laurie Patton.
Greetings Middlebury! With this column, we are inaugurating the first “SLG Corner,” a project cooked up between The Campus, Senior Leadership Group (SLG) and the Student Government Association (SGA).
Every couple of weeks, we will be writing to you about what is on the SLG’s plate, the big issues we are thinking about and what we are hearing from the community.
As you might know, the Middlebury Board of Trustees meets this week from Thursday, Oct. 17 to Saturday, Oct. 19. We thought the best way to start this column was to share our thoughts as SLG and respond to some student-generated FAQs about the board. We hope they are helpful.
What is the Middlebury Board of Trustees?
The board is a group of volunteers who are responsible for the long-term well-being of Middlebury. They act as “fiduciaries” — people entrusted to ensure the financial health and good governance processes of the institution. Each trustee brings a mix of experience, talent, and resources to the table to ensure that this can happen.
What do the trustees do and what decisions does the board make?
Trustees are responsible for oversight, to make sure Middlebury is adhering to best practices in all of our offices. They are not responsible for the everyday management of Middlebury — that is SLG’s job. They typically discuss financial health, approve budgets, approve larger financial decisions (usually over $1 million), discuss overall financial, logistical and educational strategies for the future, vote on tuition costs (determined in collaboration with SLG), assess risks and opportunities that the institution should pay attention to, give final approval of tenure decisions, discuss new initiatives, review the progress of established programs, and review any legal issues that emerge. At every meeting, the board also connects formally and informally with students, staff, and faculty to discuss ongoing life on campus. All the ways that students can connect with the Board are listed below.
Who is on the board? How are members chosen?
You can find the members of the board at go/trustees. Board members are chosen through a long-term selection process by a sub-committee of the board, called “The Trusteeship and Governance Committee,” or T&G for short. We start thinking about candidates several years in advance, and we have several people from the board meet with potential candidates to find out if they have time, talent and interest to serve. Our criteria: first and foremost, a commitment and record of service to Middlebury; a capacity to understand higher education and help find ways to address the biggest challenges facing Middlebury today; an ability to talk collegially across difference; and a sense of long-term strategic vision for our community.
We try to develop a board from a wide variety of sectors. Our current board has representatives from education, finance, law, public service, architecture, technology, industry, medicine, entrepreneurship and the arts. Currently, there are 15 women and 17 men on the board. Seven are people of color. Two live outside the U.S.
We also have emeriti trustees. These are elected trustees who have contributed long-term service to the board. They often come to meetings but do not have a vote. They serve as advisors for Middlebury.
How often do board members convene?
Trustees meet three times a year, in fall, winter and spring. It meets usually on the Middlebury College campus, but every other year it also meets once on the Institute campus. In fall, the board has a retreat, and in winter, the board has a “professional development” session, during which it explores relevant issues in higher education. Examples of past retreat topics have been strategic planning, which contributed to Envisioning Middlebury; financial aid; and the admissions process.
What is the board structure for decision-making and how do trustees come to consensus?
The board does its work mostly through its committees. The strategy committee makes recommendations on how to plan for key issues of our day and create smart decisions for Middlebury’s future. The resources committee makes budgetary recommendations and ensures that we have the funds to keep Middlebury functioning at the highest level possible. The risk committee looks at both areas of vulnerability for our institution, such as cybersecurity, and ways to mitigate those risks. It also look at opportunities for growth, such as the Green Mountain Higher Education Consortium. The programs committee works with SLG to identify key opportunities for programmatic growth at Middlebury. It should be noted here that the Middlebury faculty are the primary authority for curricular decisions.
Over the past several years, individual board committees worked together on environmental leadership initiatives like Energy2028. Middlebury students, through the Environmental Council, Sunday Night Environmental Group, DivestMidd and several other groups, voiced their hopes and articulated a vision for Middlebury’s environmental leadership along with faculty and staff after we achieved carbon neutrality. As the board engaged with this community of concerned leaders, the outlines of Energy2028 emerged and were refined through work with the strategy committee. The resources committee did a deeper dive on what it would take to finance the various parts of Energy 2028’s initiatives; The programs committee initially discussed our plans for environmental leadership and reviewed the proposals for Energy 2028 over several meetings; The programs and resources committees then made a joint recommendation to the larger board of trustees to adopt the plan. We anticipate that as we implement Energy 2028, the risk committee will monitor our work to identify any institutional vulnerabilities or opportunities. Throughout the three-year process, the various individual committees met regularly with students, faculty, and staff. It was exhilarating and thorough work.
There are also smaller boards that provide oversight for the different units at Middlebury. There is a smaller board for the college, the various schools (Bread Loaf, the Language Schools, and the Schools Abroad), and the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey. Trustees also serve on those smaller boards, alongside faculty, staff and student members of the Middlebury community. Smaller boards also include members from outside the community, such as representatives from other institutions. For example, we have benefitted from the wisdom of people from the Addison Country School District, Yale University, Junior Achievement of Northern New England and the philanthropic community in the City of Monterey. These smaller boards also make recommendations to the full board of trustees.
Can the board’s decisions be overridden?
The board’s decisions are final. However, as the above example of Energy 2028 shows, by the time the board comes to a decision, it has held many previous meetings — usually several years’ worth of discussions and consultations with SLG, students, faculty and staff. The Middlebury board is conscientious and listens to what is on people’s minds.
How can students communicate with trustees?
Students can connect in four different ways. First, student representatives serve on the boards of the College, the Schools and the Institute, and the investment sub-committee of the resources committee. Second, students talk with trustees informally throughout the course of the meeting, when they attend lunches and dinners hosted by the board. Third, student groups always participate in the programming throughout the weekend. In spring 2019, for example, students from the “How We Live Together” project shared their thoughts with the board; students from DivestMidd gave their perspectives in fall 2018 as the board voted on divestment; students from residential life participated in the fall 2018 retreat, which led to the new student center becoming a priority in planning. Fourth, if students would like trustees to consider particular issues, they should contact the Associate Secretary to the Board Sue Ritter, who will work with students to share their thoughts through the right channels.
What are the top three things about the board of trustees that you would most like to communicate?
First, even though some of their work has to be confidential, trustees really want to connect. They are constantly looking for more ways to engage with folks on campus. Second, we sometimes hear that students worry that the board is mostly wealthy people who only care about the past, or about money. That is not the case. As the description of board members above shows, it is a diverse group from a wide variety of sectors, representing a wide variety of opinions. They disagree well. And they love Middlebury (a large majority of them were once MiddKids). Third, I trust the trustees completely; they always challenge me and the senior leadership team. They ask us tough questions (that’s their job), and make us better: “Can we really reach the goal we’ve set with the tools we’ve got?” “Are we fully prepared for the next economic downturn?” “What is the true cost of a specific part of our educational vision?” They also encourage me and my team to ask them tough questions, too, and we have. In this “strong challenge and strong support” environment, our partnership makes us stronger.
What is on the docket for this week?
We are excited about this meeting. We will focus this year on the faculty-student relationship. At the board retreat, we will hear from several groups of faculty and students whose work together in research, entrepreneurship, and community service has been transformative for all people involved. Trustees will give us feedback on how we can support this kind of collaborative learning even more energetically.
In addition, trustees will hear an update on the progress we are making in the “How We Live Together” initiative. They will also learn about and give us feedback on our new long-term building projects, such as the student center. We will plan for the next steps in our upcoming capital campaign — a long-term fundraising initiative that helps us support our vision for the future. We will also discuss patterns in enrollment at our graduate schools. On Friday night, students from the Environmental Council and the Sustainability Solutions Lab will share their research. It is going to be packed and we are looking forward to reporting back.
Thanks for these questions. And thanks to our representatives from the SGA and The Campus for getting us started.
— President Laurie Patton
(10/18/17 11:03pm)
In the last few weeks, administrators have heard numerous new reports, both on and off campus, of racism. Racism is present at Middlebury, and it will not be tolerated. We must come together as a community to address it. I argued in my inaugural address that inclusivity must be an everyday ethic — not a “problem” to be solved, but a form of excellence to be pursued.
Building this everyday ethic means addressing our own racism first. That task will look unlike anything we have seen before. All of us need to understand what people of color are experiencing, and we need to live with and respond to one another differently.
We also need a comprehensive approach to this problem, at all levels, beginning with the administration. We, as an administration, need to do better in leading this effort. Our offices must communicate more effectively with each other, and with faculty, staff and students. And we need the help of the community. We need your thoughts and ideas.
I have asked my senior leadership team to work with the community to develop a multi-pronged approach to these issues, which exist at all levels of our life together — in our classrooms, our dormitories and our surrounding environment. That approach will involve short, medium and long-term solutions. And we need everyone’s alliance and help to make sure that we stay true to the task.
We cannot be a complete community if there are people here who do not feel that they belong. Our responsibility is to welcome everyone equally. That welcome must look different than it ever has before. It cannot be the welcome of 2007, or 1997, but of 2017. The vitality of our community and the full participation of all of its members depends upon it.
(05/11/17 1:17am)
Editor’s note: This column is excerpted from remarks President Laurie L. Patton gave to the Middlebury College faculty in early April. It also appeared in a slightly different form in the spring issue of Middlebury Magazine.
The events of March 2 and the ensuing debate about the value of public discourse have not only made national news, but they have set the context for a Middlebury-wide debate over free expression and the values of our community. I am proud we are having this discussion. I see it as a sign of our vitality even as I recognize it has been divisive at times and the source of some difficult discussions. As we end the year, I believe it is important to share my own views on these issues.
A true commitment to education must embrace an uncompromising commitment to free and open dialogue that expands understanding, challenges our assumptions and ultimately creates a more inclusive public sphere.
Controversial speech, or speech by a controversial speaker, can be challenging in a time when the very idea of a public sphere seems fragile. Controversial speech is also more difficult in a time when issues that should be contested and addressed become exclusively owned by “the left” or “the right.” In our current state, deep educational commitments, such as exploring the history of oppression and freedom, may be difficult to share as common public goods. But they should be understood as such, and it is our responsibility to teach them and to discuss them with candor. That is the only way we can reach the truth.
There are many struggles playing themselves out on our college campuses: how does one acknowledge the discomfort that a true liberal education must entail, while at the same time recognizing and respecting the often difficult and unfair experiences of our students who have walked in the American margins? Acknowledging and honoring those margins as real spaces is essential. Honoring the study and articulation of those experiences is crucial to our well-being as a society. And in honoring those margins, we must pay attention to hurt, to offense, to accumulated injury. So, how do we relate these two fundamental values—the necessary discomfort of a liberal education and an honoring of the difficult experiences of our students who have walked in the margins? And how do we do so in the context of free speech debates?
Geoffrey Stone, a University of Chicago Law School professor and First Amendment scholar, has cautioned that if we are permitted to silence distasteful views, we risk becoming silenced ourselves. And once censorship becomes acceptable, those most likely to be silenced are our citizens who find themselves in the minority—be they religious, racial or political minorities.
With this in mind, I believe that if there ever was a time for Americans to take on arguments that offend us, it is now. If there ever was a time for us to challenge influential public views with better reason, better research, better logic and better data, it is now. If there ever was a time when we needed to risk being offended, to argue back even while we are feeling afraid, to declare ourselves committed to arguing for a better society, it is now.
The questions that we encounter strike at the very heart of who we are as an institution, and we should take our time to learn, to debate, to understand and to reflect.
In its tradition as an institution of excellence and of courageous engagement, Middlebury must find a way to connect the principles of free speech and the creation of a robust public sphere. I believe we all can agree that education is about exposing students to different ideas and giving them the skills and courage to choose between them. And I believe we all can agree that education should give students the skills and courage to make this a better world. These values are usually not in conflict. However, in our most painful moments, such as the one we experienced in early March, they were indeed conflicting.
In my view, the first of these commitments is a necessary precondition of the second. Education must be free enough to expose students to a wide range of conflicting and even disturbing ideas, for only then will we be able to give our students the wisdom, the resilience and the courage to make this a better world.
I will work tirelessly for both inclusivity and freedom of speech. There are no more important projects than these. But this is possible only if academic freedom and freedom of speech are defended on all sides. It is only through this principle that we will enable our students to reason, to discover new ideas, to argue effectively, to empower themselves and others and to achieve the work of making society more just. In this way, we will, in the long run, create a public sphere that is more inclusive, more vibrant and more engaging. That is, after all, what we are most fundamentally about.
(02/17/16 9:08pm)
I write at the start of a new semester to address an important and timely issue relating to diversity and inclusivity in higher education—one that is of great relevance for us here at Middlebury. Sometime before the end of June, the United States Supreme Court is likely to issue a decision in an important case now before it, Fisher vs. the University of Texas at Austin, which centers on the right of colleges and universities to include race as one factor in admissions decisions. Without question, the recent death of Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia, who consistently opposed the use of race as a factor in college admissions, has added to the uncertainly surrounding this case.
As it has in similar cases in the past, Middlebury joined other colleges and universities in filing an amicus curiae (“friend of the court”) brief in Fisher, spelling out our position that we “ have a compelling education interest in enrolling broadly diverse—including racially diverse—classes, and cannot do so without taking the diversity [we] strive for into account.” That compelling interest is about providing access for and welcoming students of color to our intellectual community.
In my inauguration address last fall, I spent some time exploring what it means to have a worthwhile argument. A worthwhile argument is an argument to establish a greater understanding and a better community. A worthwhile argument doesn’t undermine another person’s dignity and integrity. Middlebury’s participation in the Fisher case is just such an argument.
To understand Middlebury’s role, it’s important to understand the basic details of the Fisher case, as it’s commonly known. It’s the latest in a long line of civil lawsuits centering on affirmative action to reach the Supreme Court, stretching back to 1978’s Regents of the University of California vs. Bakke, in which the court barred the use of racial quotas. Fisher centers on the constitutionality of the University of Texas at Austin’s admission policies, which allow the consideration of race as one of several “plus” factors in a small percentage of admission decisions. A young white woman, Abigail Fisher, first filed the case in 2009 after she was denied entrance to UT Austin in favor, she says, of a student of color with a less qualified academic record. The Project on Fair Representation, a legal defense fund active in attempts to overturn race-based laws, assembled her legal team.
Fisher’s case moved through lower courts, which upheld the university’s admission policies. The Supreme Court first heard the case in 2012 and sent it back to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for further consideration. That court again ruled in favor of the University of Texas, and again, Fisher again appealed to the Supreme Court.
Many comments made in December in the argument of this case were deeply troubling not only to me personally but for institutions of higher learning as well. When Gregory Garre, the University of Texas’s lawyer, suggested that diversity would plummet if universities are not permitted to consider race in their admission decisions, Scalia invoked the highly disputed “mismatch theory,” suggesting that: “There are those who contend that it does not benefit African Americans to get them into the University of Texas where they do not do well, as opposed to having them go to a less advanced school, a . . . slower track school where they do well. I’m just not impressed by the fact that the University of Texas may have fewer. Maybe it ought to have fewer.”
Chief Justice John Roberts’ remarks were equally and sorrowfully disturbing. “What unique perspective does a black student bring to a class in physics?” he asked. (For a brilliant reply, I encourage you to read the open letter that thousands of scientists sent to the Supreme Court: https://www.inverse.com/article/9237-thousands-of-scientists-sent-this-open-letter-to-the-supreme-court-about-diversity)
Educator and leader W.E.B. DuBois wrote more than 100 years ago that “The function of the university is …to be the organ of that fine adjustment between real life and the growing knowledge of life, an adjustment which forms the secret of civilization.” It is distressing that, at the highest court in the land, we are still having an argument about the worth of students of color in the classroom and whether universities have the right to seek diversity in order to achieve the function that DuBois celebrates. Middlebury’s experience, like those of the other colleges and universities that signed the amicus curiae, is that inclusive practices create academic excellence. Beyond the intrinsic good of diversity, students of color have earned their place at Middlebury and other institutions and they are a crucial part of and vibrant contributors to our community.
Scalia’s death last week has further highlighted our fractured national political landscape. I won’t comment on Scalia’s legal philosophy or his place in history. That analysis is best left to others who study this field deeply. And, we do not know how the Fisher case will be decided—or even if it will be in the wake of Scalia’s death. It remains possible that the circuit court’s opinion in Fisher will be upheld, overturned, or the case will be reargued in the future. We hope that the Supreme Court will fully appreciate this worthwhile argument.
In the meantime, we are proud to be part of this national debate, and we will continue with our own efforts to make Middlebury a more inclusive community for those already here and who will join us in the future. I encourage you refer to my campus email of January 29, 2016, “Update On Our Inclusivity Efforts,” to see where we have traveled together so far in my presidency. I know that we will sometimes fall short of our own goals and intentions. But our commitment remains steadfast and energetic.
In that spirit, I took note of the concern students expressed about a need for more sensitivity and appropriate representation for the Martin Luther King Jr. event at Mead Chapel in January. In response, and after a constructive dialogue following the event, we will make changes in the design of such events in the future, so that students of color can lead if they choose to do so. We will continue to work hard to be watchful and listen carefully to each other in the hope that we will better see and hear all the issues that at stake in our community.
As we begin the spring semester, I eagerly anticipate more honest, compassionate, open and worthwhile arguments. Let us recommit ourselves to the spirit of understanding. In doing so, we will find ourselves in closer community, more committed to one another, not afraid to fail and not afraid to try.
(11/19/15 4:39am)
I will be writing at further length on these concerns in future issues, but I thank The Campus for the opportunity to comment now.
(11/05/15 3:56am)
The construction of a new residence hall—the first at Middlebury in more than a decade—has sparked an important discussion in our community over what standards we should set for ourselves regarding the accessibility of our campus. I’m sure we all wish this question had arisen last spring during the open meetings held on campus and before ground was broken on the project.
That said, I’m very glad to see the passion and interest this topic has engendered. And I believe it will lead to a better process moving forward so that we do not find ourselves in this situation again.
The conversation about inclusion of differently abled people is exactly a discussion worth having; as I mentioned in my inaugural address, it is an argument for the sake of the common good. In that spirit, I want to share with the entire community a straightforward and open assessment of the limitations and opportunities we have before us. They involve two goods.
The first good is our responsibility to spend within our budget so that we can work together to make Middlebury the best it can be. This includes addressing issues of academic excellence, global engagement, environmental stewardship, diversity, financial aid and other forms of student, faculty and staff support. The second good is increasing our ongoing commitment to accessibility on campus, and finding ways to spend the dollars that we have in a manner that will have the biggest impact for all students, faculty, staff, as well as visitors and families. Good non-profit management requires that we carefully pay attention to both of these goods; it also means we must make tradeoffs from time to time to strike a balance between them.
Given these two common goods, we have before us two decisions. Both are important. The first decision is one I hope all of us will embrace with enthusiasm, commitment, and intellectual engagement: to create a task force on Accessibility to begin the process of formulating a new set of accessibility standards for Middlebury. These standards should be rooted in our principles and must go beyond mere compliance. That principle is another I articulated in my inaugural address: diversity as an everyday ethic. We should have no illusions that this will be a simple process. Even when acting on principle, people will come to very different conclusions about what we should do. But these will be arguments worth having and we should embrace them. The task force will include faculty, staff, students and outside experts who have written, thought and advocated for more inclusive living and working spaces. This task force will hold open forums that bring to Middlebury leading thinkers and consultants who can advise how we should go about increasing accessibility. It will engage with students who are interested in pursuing this topic in their own design work. And it will lead us to think seriously about the massive challenge facing us to bring buildings on campus compliant with federal and state regulations—something our best estimates say would cost upwards of $50 million.
The second, more difficult decision is what we can and should do with the Ridgeline project. To recap the decision before us, the larger dormitory, containing 62 beds, is accessible and visitable on all floors. There are, in addition, three townhouse units that contain 96 beds. Those structures do not have elevators and so anyone with a mobility challenge will find it difficult to visit the lower and upper floors. (The middle floor, which is the ground floor when approached from Adirondack View, is accessible.)
This means that a mobility challenged student who drew into one of the townhouses could not move between floors in his or her own residence hall. It also means a parent with a mobility challenge could not visit his or her child’s room if it is on a lower or upper floor. Both of those scenarios (and there are more) are disheartening to consider.
However, the fact remains that the design of these buildings conforms to our current building guidelines, as well as to state and federal regulations on accessibility. And 94 of the 158 beds in the complex overall are visitable by everyone. Are these standards enough as we think about further building? In my view, no. I think we can and should hold ourselves to a higher standard as we move forward with new buildings during my time as president. Will it be a perfect standard given our budgetary limitations? No. Will it move us in the right direction and be better than we have now? Yes.
The other consideration is a financial one. At this point, adding full elevators to the townhouses would require major work and delay, beyond what we can realistically accept given our fundamental budgetary responsibilities. When we were asked about changing the buildings last week, we quickly began looking at what might be possible. Our research showed that we would have to do several major things: 1) pull out the foundations already in place; 2) redesign the structures and seek permits for the new designs; 3) renegotiate numerous binding contracts and; 4) pay significant penalties to do so. And finally, it is not a given that the site we have chosen could accommodate the larger buildings with elevators. Our best estimate is that stopping the project and redesigning the structures would add between $5 million and $8 million to the cost of the complex.
This large increase would occur at a time when we, like other institutions of higher learning, must exercise increased fiscal discipline to hold down rising costs. It also would come at a time when our investment in financial aid continues to increase and when we have many new and ongoing programs we want to provide to our students to further our academic mission. With great regret, given all the other educational obligations we have and our limited resources, I cannot see how we could justify such a large expense.
Nonetheless, we are committed to work toward making the townhouses more welcoming and visitable—even as construction continues. In doing this, we will be guided by the principle of “diversity as an everyday ethic,” even within our limited means. We are meeting with architects who are experts in accessible design to see what we can do within the current footprint of the building. We have and will continue to look for ways to make spaces in the greater Ridgeline complex easier to visit and live in for anyone with a mobility challenge. We must do so quickly, as every day we put more resources into the project. These improvements will come at a cost, but it will be one we can take on.
I realize that our decision not to spend the full $5 to 8 million to install elevators at this late stage of the project will disappoint some in our community.
Most important, following the long-term principle of diversity as an everyday ethic, I want to encourage all of us to raise the bar on this conversation going forward. Out of this, through an accessibility task force that will engage all members of the community who wish to participate, we will create a new standard that will guide us for years to come, and that will become a source of pride for all of us. For calling us to a higher standard, and encouraging us to act on such standards in the future, I am deeply grateful to everyone who has joined in this conversation, and I will make sure it continues.
(09/17/15 6:07pm)
I am delighted to watch the campus transform itself from summer to autumn rhythms as the students return. I have been eager to dive in to the everyday life of the College. Many of you were here over the summer, and brought bread and vegetables and many other gifts of welcome. Thank you!
And many of you have been doing other extraordinary things. Here’s a report from the summer: Middlebury students joined Middlebury professors and alumnae for the inaugural nature writing course in Alaska. Another group spent a month in Ethiopia examining both the theory and practice of international development. We celebrated the centennial of the founding of the Language Schools, with panels and keynote speakers from around the world. 134 students con- ducted original research with their mentors, including developing a prototype device for detecting dairy cow hoof lesions that will be tested in farms this fall and analyzing genetic predispositions to alcohol abuse in mice. Our women’s lacrosse team was named a member of the academic honor squad—embodying the scholar-athletes that Middlebury is known for. And the team at MiddCORE, our program in entrepreneurship held at Lake Tahoe, was featured in a Forbes article naming Middlebury as one of the top entrepreneurial colleges in the country.
I share with you the news I happened to pick up last week as students, faculty, and staff returned from the summer. And next week’s stories will be equally inspiring—not because of the individual accomplishments, but because of the unique collaboration that helped those individuals to thrive. You can dip into any week at Middlebury—and find these kinds of stories. They exemplify the principles of a 21st century higher education: integration, adaptation, and innovation. In- tegration is finding a place for our knowledge in the world, as the participants of MiddCORE did. Adaptation is being able to turn on a dime in response to our circumstances, as our nature writers in Alaska did. And innovation is discovering and finding applications for new laws of nature and society, but also, most importantly today, for new laws of big data and information, as our summer researchers did.
And here’s another story I’d like to tell as we begin: the story of resilience. Resilience is the ability to bounce back after adversity, and a much-needed skill for meeting life’s challenges. Although I wasn’t here, I know that last semester was a challenging one for many reasons. And Middlebury students asked: how do we strengthen our community, even in the midst of setbacks?
In the coming weeks, look for a number of different initiatives that help to develop resil- ience. We will focus on: 1) building traditions (something I hear students want!); 2) listening to students to create better frameworks for a diverse Middlebury; 3) developing better forms of peer-to-peer support, and deepening other kinds of supportive communities; and 4) working on practices of mindfulness for all different groups at Middlebury. To discuss these issues, I’ll be coming to meet with you in the dining halls, and starting my office hours in the coming weeks. I’m looking forward to hearing your ideas. So stay in touch!
(02/27/13 11:10pm)
Is it cheating to falsely claim to have completed an assignment on time? What about falsely claiming to have attended a class? Students at Middlebury aren’t always reading notes off the bottom of their shoes or copying test answers: cheating goes beyond that. Passing on problem sets, falsifying lab data, asking for an unnecessary extension, citing a fake source, peeking at Wikipedia during take-home exams or having a not-so-innocuous chat with a classmate during a routine quiz are, in my view, all forms of academic dishonesty. Our community should not tolerate cheating, and I think we all envision a Middlebury where we have more integrity than that.
Orientation week is exciting. You meet your roommate and catch a glimpse of your potential spouse, square dance, explore Breadloaf and take part in convocation. I have fond memories of orientation, but in 10 years, I doubt that I’ll recall signing the Honor Code.
During this week’s open SGA Senate meeting, Associate Dean of Students for Judicial Affairs and Student Life Karen Guttentag and the two student co-chairs of the Academic Judicial Board, Amy Schlueter ’13 and Jackie Yordan ’13, came in to discuss what the Honor Code means to students today. The Honor Code is reviewed every four years by a committee comprised mainly of students, who make recommendations about the best way to carry this tradition forward.
Most of us don’t think about the Honor Code on a daily basis. Professors have varying interpretations of the Honor Code, which can be confusing or conflicting. We all know that cheating is bad, but oftentimes it’s not abundantly clear exactly what cheating is, or what we’re supposed to do if we observe our peers cheating. So we go on day to day, blindly writing, “I have neither given nor received any unauthorized aid on this assignment” (or sometimes “I didn’t cheat,” or sometimes nothing at all) on the tops of our papers and take-home exams. But cheating still happens, and it seems to me like most of us aren’t ready to do anything about it.
Maybe this apathy stems from the lack of dialogue on the Honor Code after orientation. If the Honor Code is so important to culture at Middlebury, why aren’t we talking about it with the frequency it deserves? Based on a recommendation from the Honor Code Review Committee, the SGA will establish a group that will look at the critical question of what the Honor Code really means for students. In my vision, one of the key functions of this committee will be to force this conversation to continue not just beyond orientation but throughout the Middlebury experience as a key component of Middlebury’s culture. We need to be talking about the value of academic integrity. Ultimately, if students aren’t willing to hold up their end of the bargain when it comes to the Honor Code, it’s not unrealistic that it could someday disappear.
As a first step toward reigniting this dialogue on campus, SGA, Community Council and the Office of the Dean of the College will be hosting a Community Forum on March 11 at 7:30 p.m. to talk about the Honor Code. So come with your stories, your views and your personal experiences that you’d like to share with other members of the Middlebury Community. Let’s get this conversation started, and let’s not let it stop.