1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/22/15 6:00pm)
Each year around this time, the Campus turns its focus to the upcoming Student Government Association presidential election. Unlike last year, there will be competition for the position and a field of strong, well-rounded candidates has emerged. Each one has come to the Campus office to present their platform and to take questions from our editorial board. Though each candidate brings much to the table, there is one who stands out above the rest: Caroline Walters.
A newcomer to the SGA but a veteran leader, Walters boasts an impressive resume. In 2011, Caroline co-founded International Energy Alliance, a non-profit organization that works with high schools in the U.S. and China to raise climate awareness. Over the past three years, she has organized conferences in China and has begun the process to team up with similar-minded organizations here at the College.
Her position with the IEA, her role as Vice President of Friends of the John Graham Shelter in town and her work in the mail center have all demanded much of her extracurricular attention during her time as a Middlebury student. Though these experiences all took place outside of the Crest Room, we believe that the analogous leadership, teamwork and management skills she has fostered on her way to the ballot make her more than qualified for the job of SGA President.
Although Walters has not participated in Middlebury’s SGA thus far, it is important to note that she is not entirely out of the SGA’s loop. She has attended a number of meetings in person and read the minutes for every meeting this year in preparation for this election. Nevertheless, some may point to her dearth of experience in the Senate as a drawback. We, however, see it as an advantage. Walters brings a fresh perspective and an undeniable enthusiasm to shake up the SGA.
Shaking up the SGA is sorely needed at the present moment. Nearly all of the candidates who visited the newsroom expressed their disappointment in the lack of leadership and results this year. The editorial board could not agree more. In the view of many students, this year’s SGA has accomplished less than any student administration in recent memory. Previous years have seen the creation of MiddCourses, progress on internships for credit, the launch of the We the Middkids petition site, the implementation of a Pass/D/Fail option, and the funding of orientation trips for first-years. This year? A Proctor printer is what most students would point to as the biggest accomplishment.
In light of this and a slew of uncontested races (including SGA President and Student Co-Chair of Community Council) last spring, the SGA is quickly becoming a running joke on campus. It makes sense, therefore, why several candidates have positioned themselves as “SGA outsiders” to combat the image that they will be a continuation of an SGA on cruise control.
In a time where the majority of students feel that their representatives are not living up to their title or are otherwise inaccessible, one of the things that impressed us most about Walters’s vision for next year is her strategy for student outreach. Although this week saw the first SGA Coffee Hour, the effort is too little, too late. In a refreshing change, Walters wants the student government to take an active interest in its various constituencies – going to club meetings, holding more frequent and flexible office hours and increasing visibility in places like the dining halls, sports games and large school events. In effect, she means to bring SGA to the students rather than making the students come to the Crest Room.
Another plus in her platform is a student-developed website, Midd Connect. Aiming to increase convenience when shopping for course textbooks and when coordinating ride-shares to major cities, Walters’ website will help students conserve two of their most precious resources: time and money.
Furthermore, Walters takes compassionate stances on some of the most difficult issues at the College today: sexual assault and mental health. She, like the other candidates, is aware of the present dissatisfaction with on-campus resources for these problems and has plans to bring about positive change for each one.
Here, however, the Campus would like to note that although we are endorsing Caroline Walters, it is imperative that whoever wins the race shall increase resources to survivors of sexual assault and those suffering from mental or emotional stress. That being said, we have faith in Walters’ abilities to tackle these issues; in particular, her willingness to work with others seems to be one of her strongest assets as a leader.
When looking for partners to accomplish goals that matter the most to our community, Walters’ running mates might just be the best place to start. Including Ilana Gratch and Josh Berlowitz would be a great way to bring their knowledge of the inner workings of the SGA to her team. The board believes both of these candidates to be outstanding individuals who would do well as SGA President. Nevertheless, change starts at the top and Walters’ go-getter attitude and new approaches are the best bet for revitalizing the SGA. At the same time, she can also rely on the experience of reelected Senators to fill in any gaps in her knowledge.
Additionally, we would like to endorse Durga Jayaraman in the race for Student Co-Chair of Community Council. The editorial board was impressed by Jayaraman’s enthusiasm and sense of duty to Middlebury’s student body; she explained to us how she decided to run for Community Council Co-Chair upon realizing that she was the person best-suited for the job. We believe this to be true.
Jayaraman has experience serving on Community Council and understands both the opportunities and limitations inherent in the role. She also brings a multifaceted perspective as Co-Chair. An international student, woman of color and member of many different campus organizations, Jayaraman can represent many aspects of the College’s community. Examples of her leadership and involvement also stand out: she is the president of Palmer, has led diversity initiatives through the SGA Institutional Diversity Committee and reviews sexual misconduct through the Sexual Assault Oversight Committee. Such a range of experiences will serve her well as the Co-Chair of Community Council, which deals with issues that cut across many sides of the campus community.
For all the reasons above, the Campus editorial board enthusiastically and confidently endorses Caroline Walters and Durga Jayaraman as the best candidates for SGA President and Student Co-Chair of Community Council.
(04/15/15 5:51pm)
Last week’s center spread of this newspaper focused on problematic spaces on campus. In this week’s editorial, we would like to add one more to the list. With all of the discussion on social life, one crucial part that has been largely missing from the discussion is hard to miss and sits near the very center of campus: McCullough Student Center, in the opinion of the Board, leaves much to be desired for a vibrant social life. The building’s offerings do not befit a school with an extracurricular atmosphere as active as Middlebury’s, and in the next few years the College ought to explore how to fundamentally change the student center as it stands now.
Part of the problem is the basic factors of the building’s architecture. An amalgam of administrative offices, College retail businesses, and Mail Center/Box Office, it is a Frankenstein’s monster built out of years of renovations and remodeling beginning before the First World War. The original marble structure was the school gymnasium, built in 1912 and later remodeled to tack on a pool in 1963. In the late 1980s, the space became a student center after the completion of the Field House. Silos on both ends of the building became offices for Student Activities and the Student Government and the retail options of the Grille and Crossroads Café made their debut on the upper and lower floors.
This series of renovations and re-purposing means that the building falls short architecturally. Half of the space seems to be winding corridors or stairwells rather than places where students can congregate and build community.
Additionally, contrast the building’s dungeon-like café and dining options with the student centers at other colleges or even the newer buildings on our campus. The Paresky Center at Williams College (completed in 2007) has large windows and is described as the campus “living room.” Atwater Dining Hall (completed in 2005) is ideal in this regard.
Another part of the problem with the space is its attempt to be everything to everyone. When you combine administrative offices, snack bars, a box office and mail center, something inevitably will get shortchanged. In this case, it seems to be a student ownership of the space that is conducive to hanging out.
In spite of these drawbacks, students have been doing admirable work with what the space provides. On Friday, April 3, in the Coat Rack (the area behind Crossroads Café) students organized a night where students 21 and older could socialize in a casual setting over Vermont brews. According to attendees and organizers, the event was a great success. The idea is fairly ingenious and a lot of credit is due to the organizers: the Coat Rack capitalizes on one of the many underused parts of the building. At the same time, think of the possibilities if there were spaces in the student center specifically designed for events like a pub night-style Coat Rack event.
Obviously, budgetary concerns remain. There are other priorities for the College. Providing financial aid to all who apply and maintaining the superior faculty and course offerings that are the heart of our reason for attending should always come first. These should precede new construction.
Nevertheless, the College should keep McCullough’s shortcomings in mind as a part of a long-term master plan for the campus. We are well aware of how it can be incongruous to run an editorial voicing support for expensive renovation to a student union alongside a plan to grant more need-based financial aid to international students. However, we ought to at least acknowledge that both represent concerns for students. There have been changes in the works for McCullough for a while: several offices of the Dean of Students staff will be moving to the current Student Services building this summer. This may be an opportunity to think creatively about how students can make the best use of newly-vacated spaces.
In January, this newspaper praised the College’s efforts on constructing new Ridgeline housing. However, there is plenty of work left to do, as the discussions this fall demonstrated. Residential spaces are only part of the areas needing improvement—changing the College’s Student Center should be at the top of the list.
(04/15/15 5:50pm)
Admitted students are visiting campus this week during Preview Days to explore all that Middlebury College has to offer; some of these students will be traveling from around the world to see our school. Concurrently, the Davis United World College (UWC) Scholars Program is celebrating its fifteenth anniversary today. Middlebury’s international identity is rightly regarded as one of the best aspects of the College. We offer 10 modern languages, send 60 percent of the student body to study abroad and over 10 percent of our student body is from outside the U.S. However, a little-known quirk of the admissions procedure leaves international applicants out of the College’s commitment to need-blind admissions.
Need-blind admissions means that the Admissions Office does not know a family’s finances when reading an application. The College, while practicing need-blind admissions for students applying from the U.S. and Canada, is not need-blind for all international applicants. The College, rather, is need-aware – taking into account an international student’s financial situation when making application decisions.
The College claims to maintain a need-aware policy for financial reasons. According to the SFS, “Middlebury follows a need-blind admissions policy to the extent that financial resources allow.” Yet the discrepancy between being need-blind for American and Canadian applicants but not those from other locales deserves consideration.
Should our admissions practices differentiate between the applications of American students and international applicants with regard to reading financial information? And why the two-tiered approach when the College is purportedly a place where students can receive a global education?
If the College truly desires a diverse and worldly student body, it ought to read applications of international students need-blind so that we find greater variation in socioeconomic backgrounds in both international and American students. Going need-blind for international students would hopefully allow for a greater socioeconomic range among admitted students, ensuring that we are not just admitting a portion of the international community but instead are welcoming a more varied and accurate sampling of all world citizens. Doing so will bring new perspectives to our courses, residence and dining halls, which enhances the College’s global education that we so often market in our admissions materials and press releases.
Fortunately, the Davis United World College Scholars Program assists the College in having a vibrant international student community. The program, the world’s largest international undergraduate scholarship program, supports students of the UWC schools around the globe to attend partner U.S. colleges and universities, including Middlebury. The program has been a significant part of the College’s effort to include international students from UWC schools in our student body. These need-based grants support the students financially. It has been an outstanding step in the right direction of fostering an international, inclusive community. Nevertheless, let us take the necessary next step and read all applications, international or not, without an eye to their ability to pay.
The College should join the ranks of the select group of other institutions that do not weigh international applicants’ need when evaluating candidates for admission. For example, Amherst College became need-blind for international students in 2008, at the height of the recession. Middlebury has weathered the worst of the economic downturn remarkably well and has since embarked on construction projects that were forestalled by budgetary concerns — why not follow Amherst’s lead?
The College takes a principled stance on offering admission to students based on merit, not their ability to pay. However, let us not allow this policy to stop at American students. The Campus encourages the College to extend the same practice to its international applicants. As Middlebury continues to market itself as a school where students receive a global education, transitioning to 100 percent need-blind ought to be a priority.
(04/08/15 11:02pm)
When the Middlebury community learned of the death of one of our own – Nathan Alexander ’17 – we were shocked and saddened. We at the Campus deeply felt this loss and decided that at this time no other subject was as important to the community as the death of one of our students. We cannot hope to fully express the impact that this loss will have on our community or on each of us individually. Yet, whether or not we knew Nathan personally, we grieve that Middlebury College is now suddenly and tragically one less.
In difficult times such as these, it is easy for us to feel isolated and to withdraw into ourselves. But despite this impulse, now is the time to reach out to our fellow students. Each time we reach out to one another – even for a brief check-in – we tighten the bonds that create this community. It is this care for each other that will keep us afloat in times of pain and confusion. As our President, all Commons Deans and Parton Health Center staff have rightly repeated: look after those around you, be they close friends or simply classmates. But as we reach out to one another, we must remember that each of us grieves in our own individual way, and it is important to respect each other’s processes. Those who were close to Nathan are in pain right now and we must be mindful of how our actions will affect them in particular.
While the shock of losing Nathan may eventually diminish, our memories of him will not fade. Many meetings, events and classes have begun with moments of silence in remembrance of his life. On Monday night, there was a candlelight vigil in his honor. Throughout the week, including tonight, Ross Commons is holding open hours from 9 p.m. to 10 p.m. in the Fireplace Lounge. This Sunday there will be a service in Mead Chapel at 11 a.m. The service is open to all members of the community and will be followed by a reception with Nathan’s family in Redfield-Proctor. We urge students to take advantage of these opportunities to celebrate Nathan’s life.
We also urge students to take advantage of the support resources offered by the Scott Center for Spiritual and Religious Life, Parton Center for Health and Wellness and the Commons teams. These resources are here to support us in this time of grief and pain. A drop-in grief support group will be held every Friday at 2 p.m. for the rest of the semester. Chaplains are available for appointments at (802) 443-5626, and individual counseling sessions at Parton Counseling can be scheduled at (802) 443-5141. When offices are closed, the Department of Public Safety at (802) 443-5911 can connect you to support staff. Counseling Services of Addison County is also available 24-hours-a-day at (802) 388-6741.
The outpouring of support from the College and fellow students in response to Nathan’s passing ought to give a clear message that we are a community – one that is built around neither Panther pride nor school spirit, but compassion and care for your peers. If we do not take care of one another, we have no community, let alone one to be proud of. Therefore, in these moments of mourning, it is more critical than ever that we live up to the meaning of this word, community. That we put our differences aside and recognize the unfathomable value of each other’s lives. That we make it clear that none of us ever, ever have to be alone while we are students at this school. Rest in peace, Nathan. You are dearly missed.
(04/08/15 10:15pm)
Dear Frank, I’m graduating in May and have realized that a lot of the people I’m hanging out with aren’t really people I want to be friends with in the long term.
I’m a little disappointed in myself for not finding better friends at college, but mostly I’m wondering how much or little I need to maintain these relationships, many of which have little to no value to me, both for the next two months and after graduation.
Well, you paint a rather bleak picture. We all have acquaintances who might not share our deepest desires or beliefs, and I personally like to keep them around — it’s good to never get too comfortable with what you think you know of the world.
On the other hand, I see no value in remaining friends with people who diverge from you ethically or have repeatedly demonstrated a lack of respect for you, your background or your beliefs. I’m certainly not advocating that you stop talking to everyone who falls into this category, but you should take ownership of your life.
The people you spend time with inform your opinions, your behavior, your decisions and how they evolve over time. One of the greatest advantages of a good friendship is the opportunity to learn from someone else, but you can just as easily be influenced by people who you initially had no intention of imitating.
These are good guidelines for making friends, but your question was about how to go about maintaining or breaking ties over the next few months.
A more mercenary columnist (or someone from the CCI) would point out that more connections might give you more opportunities over the next several years, especially in certain fields.
Even if you have the energy to maintain an acquaintance with people you don’t really like on the off chance they might give you a leg up in a few years, I’d recognize the possibility that they might realize your duplicity (or just not be nice people, which is why you’re asking this in the first place) and not help you anyway.
I would say that you should focus on maintaining the friendships that you do want to have over the next several years. People at Middlebury are notoriously nicer by themselves than in groups, so consider giving some people a second chance before planning to cut ties.
If you do stop spending time with certain people for your last two months here, take the time to seek out people who have always interested you, especially if you know you’ll be living in another city next year.
We have the great privilege of being on a campus with an extremely high density of pretty cool people — try to meet a few more of them before you go. To everyone else reading this who isn’t a senior, don’t wait until your last few months at Midd to start hanging out with people you actually like. Life’s way too short.
Dear Frank, I don’t really feel comfortable participating in the hookup culture, but that seems to be the only way to participant in any sort of relationship. Any advice?
I’d say that you have the power to change that! The hookup culture is absolutely dominant at Midd, but that’s not stopping you from asking someone out. People complain about nobody dating here … but they seem unwilling to take the plunge by taking someone to dinner or stargazing or to play mini golf.
I do have few thoughts to encourage you. If you ask someone in person, starting with a compliment, he or she, if single, is very unlikely to say no. I’d go with something like: “Hi ___. I think you’re smart, funny and kind of cute.
I’d like to go out for dinner (or whatever you want to do) sometime, if you’d be interested.”
Make sure you both have a graceful exit and an actual plan for a date—best to plan for all eventualities.
Finally, don’t be discouraged if you’re refused or if the date goes poorly. Dating is really just about finding someone you can have a good time being yourself with (at least at this point), so it’s statistically unlikely you’ll be successful right off the bat. As you get more comfortable, it all will seem less intimidating and more fun. Best of luck!
(03/18/15 11:59pm)
Recently, a series of incidents of vandalism brought unrest to the College community. Messages such as “Black Power Matters” and “If you win the rat race, you’re still a rat” have appeared, spray-painted or etched, on the walls of Ross Dining Hall, Warner Hall and McCardell Bicentennial Hall. Many students and faculty feel that these messages are violations of College property and infringements on community trust and accountability.
Having said this, the Campus believes that incredibly important activist messages underlie these incidences of vandalism. By marking College buildings, the activists are throwing the cold hard fact of racism right in our faces. On this predominantly white campus, many students are rarely forced to address issues of race and police brutality. This is not a luxury afforded to people of color, who have no choice but to deal with these issues in their daily lives. Thus, the medium of the artwork is integral to the content of the messages. The graffiti forces us to confront these national issues head-on and makes these often distant struggles highly personal. The vandalism undeniably starts a conversation, and we at the Campus recognize that the conversation it aims to start - about racism and privilege – is vitally important. We question, however whether this is the conversation the activists have actually created.
While the intrusiveness of graffiti definitely contributes to the message, it also has started a polarizing conversation, which has been primarily about vandalism, not race or privilege. Recently, Midd Unmasked was able to contribute to the sexual assault dialogue on campus through posters around campus and an accompanying video in which survivors share their experiences navigating the College’s sexual assault policies. This has been a very productive forum for open dialogue about a critical issue. Importantly, the video made waves without creating an unhelpful side conversation about the destruction of school property.
The limitation of such forums, however, is that they only reach people who actively choose to involve themselves in the conversation. While learning from graffiti may be more difficult than from a forum dedicated to education on the topic, we can still learn a lot from these spray-painted messages. We are witnessing first-hand the effects of confronting our student body with issues it might typically only think about in a classroom setting. The graffiti shows us the urgency and gravity of the issues that affect members of our community every day. It would be easy to write the graffiti off as nothing more than an incident of vandalism, but it is a result of much deeper societal problems that we need to wrestle with as a community.
That being said, an inexcusable side effect of the graffiti is that it has created additional work for our facilities staff members. We are an incredibly privileged academic community, but must recognize the many hours our staff members spent cleaning and repainting vandalized areas. The intention of the vandalism may be to start an important conversation, but ultimately it was disrespectful to staff members. While it may not have been the artists’ intention to create more work for our staff, that has been the unfortunate consequence.
For this reason, we feel that the activists writing these messages should find a less destructive (though hopefully equally effective) means of communicating their message. Even chalk graffiti or a spray-painted sheet would be easier to clean up and less damaging than spray painting buildings. These means of spreading the message would also avoid distractions from the subject matter; we could talk about the messages themselves instead of the vandalism.
We as a community might also want to consider creating a communal space that students could use in any artistic way they like and voice their opinions. Tufts has a statue of a cannon that community members can draw on, paint or otherwise use to express themselves. Perhaps Middlebury needs a similar free-form space solely for this purpose. Currently, we have two chalk walls in BiHall and the mail center, but these spaces are primarily used for advertising and students have not historically taken ownership of these spaces for communicating activist messages. We recognize that these spaces also feel sanitized, and cannot facilitated as strong an effect had the activists placed it there. We need a student-owned space where we can start authentic and meaningful campus-wide discussions.
While we agree with the importance of the issues addressed in the graffiti, we call on artists and activists to be mindful not to let their work come at the expense of other people’s time and hard work. Ultimately, a less destructive means of communicating the same ideas may steer the conversation away from the methods and more toward the subject matter. Furthermore, being at such an institution of higher learning, Middlebury students are well-equipped to initiate conversation in a more sophisticated fashion. While the Campus recognizes and appreciates the message the artists are trying to convey, we urge our peers to communicate the message in a way that better serves our community.
(03/11/15 11:10pm)
Over the past few years, many students and faculty have expressed their frustration over the efficacy – or lack thereof – of Middlebury College’s flagship moral doctrine, the Honor Code. Cheating has thrived while students’ willingness to report one another for such offenses seems rarer and rarer. The Honor Code needs fixing, and many in the College community know and want it to happen.
On Sunday, the SGA passed a bill to move ahead on amending the Honor Code’s Constitution (which requires a quota of 2/3 of the student body to vote, and 2/3 to vote in favor, in order to send the changes for ratification to the faculty) to include a biennial referendum on the system. The Campus commends the SGA for taking initiative to create a more serious dialogue of change. We believe however, that these referenda might do more to harm than to help the Middlebury Honor Code.
According to Bill S2015-SB2, starting in 2016 the student body would participate in a referendum every other spring that would include three options to determine the Honor Code’s fate: maintain, revise or eliminate it. Nothing would change under the first option. The second, however, would yield a two-week revising period in which all students could participate; at the end of this period, a new Honor Code would be voted on by the Senate and Faculty Council. The third option would eliminate the Code completely, so that it would no longer apply to any student in or outside of any classroom on this campus.
This last option has many of us at the Campus concerned. Though it is highly unlikely to occur, the possibility that students would be able to eliminate the Honor Code is enough to make us take a second look at the referendum and examine the value of including this option.
Not only would the choice to remove the Honor Code immediately destroy the trust between students and professors – the same trust that awards students the privilege of take-home or self-scheduled exams, might we add – but terminating the Honor Code even once might also prevent us from ever earning back that trust. Without a grounded understanding of the Honor Code’s benefits, future students might not see the same value in it that those who have experienced it do, making its revival unlikely.
That being said, even students currently under the Honor Code do not unanimously support it; there are therefore changes to be made. Indeed, disregard for the Honor Code has grown so egregious that last spring, the Economics department suspended it on exams in the major’s core courses so that professors could proctor them and provide a more aggressive line of defense against cheating.
The student body is aware of these holes in the Code’s application. In a survey conducted by the SGA in January, some 33 percent of students supported the Code in principle but believed its practice needs reform, while nearly 60 percent supported it as is. Given that many students support the Code, at least in principle, opening up the possibility of destructive reform to the entire student body on a biennial basis might be dangerous to the integrity of the Code.
There are some, however, who believe that it is not the Honor Code that has failed us, but it is we who have failed the Honor Code. Perhaps if the student body were to vote to dissolve it, we would be forced to confront the idea that we are not honorable enough to merit this code. We trumpet the Honor Code as both a triumph of moral intelligence and, thereby, a reflection of our own, yet too many of us shirk the responsibilities that it necessitates. It is a privilege to be treated as men and women of integrity, but it is our duty to behave as such. If we abandon the latter, the former goes with it.
Many of the top colleges in the United States boast honor codes. Currently, we are among them, but this bill could change that. While the bill gives students the right to affect what is perhaps the most important policy at our school on a regular basis, an empowerment that the Campus supports, the bill also poses a risk – losing the Honor Code – that does not exceed the reward of gaining the referendum. While we appreciate the opportunity the referendum presents, we fear the consequences of being able to choose the last option. We would like to encourage students to focus on a combination of the first and second options instead. It would be naive to suggest continuing with the Code as is after acknowledging the aforementioned problems in its application, but it is realistic and effective for Middlebury to amend the Code. Let’s revise, not reject, our school’s most important academic life policy to make sure that its practice achieves the goal of academic integrity.
Artwork by SARAH LAKE
(03/05/15 3:24am)
We at the Campus would like to extend our condolences to the five students who lost their house in the fire over the weekend. We are deeply relieved that all the students are safe but heavyhearted for the losses that they have sustained.
We are also profoundly grateful to the efforts of the Middlebury Volunteer Fire Department – which comprises the departments of six neighboring towns – who for eleven hours fought the fire into Sunday morning. Some of these brave volunteers even include Middlebury College students and staff. We want to take this opportunity to thank each and every one of them for their willingness to put themselves in harm’s way on Saturday night, and every other time the community might need them.
As an institution that places high importance on a tight-knit community, this is an opportunity for us to come together and embody that sentiment. It is our duty to support the five students who lost their home and all of their belongings. We must aid them in any way we can, whether that means helping them find new places to stay, donating spare clothing and supplies, or simply being kind souls in times of trouble.
Finally, this fire serves as an important reminder of the fickleness of fate. We as a community should take a moment to be thankful for all that we currently have, as it could be uprooted when we least expect it.
(03/05/15 3:22am)
An unprecedented number of Middlebury students are declaring economics majors. As featured in last week’s edition of the Campus, however, the College’s faculty supply is currently unable to meet this student demand. Between overenrolled classes and overworking professors, there are many problems facing Middlebury’s understaffed economics department. It is therefore clear to our editorial board that the College needs to address economics at Middlebury. Due to the department’s popularity, it is essential that a solution is found to ensure that economics majors are receiving as replete a liberal arts education as those with any other major.
One notable issue for the economics department to address is its staffing imbalance. Recently, Middlebury has come to recommend many experimental courses such as MiddCore and the Liberal Arts Plus curriculum, both of which cover material related to economics and as such pull from the department’s faculty. The Campus appreciates these opportunities to learn soft economics, but at the same time we must point out the repercussions they have on regular economics classes at Middlebury.
While the College boasts an overall nine to one student-faculty ratio, this claim does not apply to the economics department. Because there are not enough professors, there are not enough classes, and the quality of the existing ones suffers. In many of the popular classes that are required for the major, there are not enough desks for every student. To cover professors for all courses, some classes are even being split up and taught by multiple instructors. For example, five professors are teaching the course, the Economic Lens, this spring.
The problems that plague the economics department have a range of effects on the students, too. Recently, many students found themselves unable to get into classes that they need in order to be on track for their major and, more pressingly, to study abroad. With no other viable options, they are forced to sacrifice studying abroad for a full year, if not entirely.
As the overcrowded economics department poses these dilemmas, we feel it is important to reassess why so many Middlebury students aspire to become economics majors in the first place. For many, the major appears to be one of necessity rather than academic interest. The most common misconceptions around the major seem to be that it ensures job security, or that an economics major will prepare you to work in the real world in a way that art history never will.
As the editorial board for the newspaper of a liberal arts institution, we would like to challenge this notion. Middlebury does not have a pre-business program for a reason. The College offers its students the ability to develop analytical skills through departments like English, art history, and other social sciences. It encourages attendees to pursue a wide breadth of learning – to take classes in chemistry while at the same time learning Mandarin.
This well-rounded pursuit of academics and the cultivating of minds that can think, question and create is what the College has to offer. If one’s passion is for studying inflation, G.D.P., and other subject matter of the like, he or she should pursue a major in economics. If one just has a craving for greater knowledge, however, do not let the looming shadow of post-grad employment dictate one’s area of study.
But because the economics major is so popular at the current moment, we at the Campus find it imperative that the department change its ways. One potential solution could be to reintroduce the economics minor, which would siphon off those only looking to take a minimum number of economics classes and keep spots open for those interested in the major. Additionally, the College might consider allowing for additional joint majors beyond the environmental economics major. Distributing people along these more specific fields could better regulate numbers in classes.
While we recognize the hard work the economics department at Middlebury currently puts in, we urge those with power to consider making these necessary amendments. The current state of economics at the College is unsustainable, yet the field clearly continues to draw in more students. So long as students desire to learn economics, let us continue to meet a standard of academic excellence in our teaching of this subject. While Middlebury might currently be recognized as a superior college, there is still room to improve. And in this case, the solution just so happens to be making more room, along with other adjustments, in the economics department.
(02/26/15 1:42am)
After an article in the Campus last week revealed that students could view their admissions files under the Federal Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), the College Admissions Office has been flooded with student requests to view their files. On Wednesday, the first students to request access had their wishes granted. As is often the case with wishes, however, we may be getting ourselves into more than we realize.
The files students are requesting to view are, by nature, blunt and impersonal. For the sake of efficiency and candor, admissions officers will likely write concise and unfiltered commentary on students’ ability to thrive at the College. These files will include a numerical rating of students’ strength in academics, extracurriculars and personal quality. Comments may include notes about sensitive personal issues like racial or geographic diversity, athletics or other identifiers.
Understandably, students may feel tokenized by these comments. It is important to note, though, that admissions documents are seen only by admissions officers and that such notes simply reflect the Admissions Office’s goal to construct a diverse student body. This editorial board has promoted policies for increased diversity in the past, and these documents are what those policies look like in action.
The Admissions Office faces many concerns as they process these requests, foremost among them the possibility that students could sue the College over the contents of their files. The College has an interest in protecting itself and its processes from lawsuits, and could take steps to encode notes on admissions documents in such a way as to be indecipherable to students.
Additionally, we realize that the time and resources required to address these requests may take away from the primary purpose of the Admissions Office – to bring in qualified new students. This could occur in two ways. First, as less time is devoted to reviewing applications, the quality of evaluation might decrease and with that the quality of student admitted; second, knowing that students could view their files in the future could cause application readers to censor their honest dialogue about prospective students and hinder the review process. At the Campus, we view candid dialogue as essential for the Admissions team. It allows readers to honestly evaluate students without talking around sensitive issues, like diversity for example. It would be a loss to our community if the quality of our admits decreased due to an overload in paperwork or a fear of retribution for frank comments.
Nevertheless, our editorial board has often touted the merits of greater transparency throughout the College’s offices, and we stand by that opinion. As always, transparency is a step toward a more open and honest campus environment. In this case, however, the Campus advises students and the Admissions Office to keep in mind the potential repercussions of sudden transparency in this traditionally opaque process.
So long as students are able to view their admissions documents, we hope that the Admissions Office will be willing to maintain this positive trend of transparency by explaining any encoding in these files. We are pleased with the Admissions Office’s quick response to student requests thus far and hope its willingness to comply to the letter of the law is pursuant to the spirit of the law. It is not enough to just look at the files; in order to be given true access, the Admissions Office should assist students in whatever ways necessary for them to fully comprehend the contents of their files. We acknowledge the difficulties related to time, resources and the sensitivity of the information contained; still, we hope that the Admissions Office will not only comply to FERPA, but be helpful as well.
If both students and admissions officers are respectful and thoughtful throughout the process of reviewing admissions documents, this can be an opportunity for improved relations between students and a singularly insular administrative office on campus.
When discussing the pros and cons of allowing students to access these files, our editorial board was divided on many facets of the debate. Therefore, our two Notes from the Desks in this week’s edition are where several editors offer their take on the issue of Admissions files.
(02/25/15 7:04pm)
Give it To Me Straight is a new column in the Campus where I, Frank, will be answering questions from students about life at Middlebury, inside and out of the classroom. Quick disclaimer: I have no official qualifications, so you’re well within your rights to consider my advice with the same suspicion you would view that of a complete stranger. That said, I have spent almost four years here at Midd, and I’ve lived, studied and worked around the world with many different kinds of people. If you’ve been looking for some impartial guidance or just have a random question about life at Midd, then go/advice to make your anonymous submission.
Reader Submission: “My roommate has been having many emotional issues recently and always likes to talk to me about her problems. While I want to help her, her constant complaints, however, are making me feel unhappy and burdened. How do I balance helping my friend and protect my own emotional well-being?”
Frank: This is difficult to answer without a little more information. Is your friend complaining about ‘normal’ things, or does she have more sinister problems that are beyond your ability to resolve? Is your friend taking advantage of the kind and empathetic ear that you’ve been lending her? And an introspective one for you — are there things in your life that prevent you from supporting your friend?
Life at Middlebury is not easy on our mental health, and while projects like Resilience have helped to break the silence over issues like depression and anxiety, most people have difficulty discussing them. We all have different thresholds for the information we share and with whom we trust to share it, and you might be a lifeline for your roommate. If you’re noticing any signs of severe mood swings, appetite changes or anything else out of the ordinary, then talk to your dean, a trusted professor, your FYC, etc. They can help determine what further resources, if any, she needs. That said, this is a small campus, and there’s definitely a line between confirming your suspicions with a mutual best friend and spreading an unfounded rumor. Take care you don’t cross it.
At the other end of the spectrum, your friend may be abusing your generosity of time and spirit. The fact that you’re asking this question makes it quite clear that you genuinely care for your friend and her well-being, but you’re of no use to her, yourself, or anyone else if your empathy turns to resentment or melancholy. If you’re sure that nothing serious is wrong, then use your judgement to control the amount of time you spend together. Go to a different dining hall or study space, or encourage her to volunteer or join a club, which will get her out of your room and might give her some perspective on her emotional problems. Depending on your comfort with the relationship, you could also try unloading a barrage of your recent emotional problems and seeing how she reacts.
The best long-term solution for this dilemma is for the two of you to have a frank discussion regarding your mutual expectations for the relationship. For example, if she can complain ad nauseam to you, then the reciprocal ought to be true as well. This might seem intimidating, and it’s probably not worth doing if you’re not invested in having a long-term relationship with her. Ultimately, however, it will give both of you a far more satisfying and successful friendship.
(02/19/15 12:31am)
Last Tuesday, representatives from Kirchoff Campus Properties, the Dean of Students Office and Facilities Services unveiled new plans for a long-awaited housing project. The proposed Adirondack Apartments and new Ridgeline construction will be available in 2016’s upperclassmen housing lottery. These buildings, which will include townhouse-style apartments, will open up new beds for those students opting to live on campus. Overall, we at the Campus cautiously applaud this development.
The building project will replace the modular homes, which have served as housing long past their expiration date. The announcement of this new development arrives as the College comes to terms with a minor housing crisis. Increased enrollment has packed College dorms to the gills. And now, the overenrolled, 629-person sophomore class will enter the upperclassmen housing lottery this year, competing for a small number of housing units relative to their class size.
Without new housing options on campus, these students will be more likely to live off campus. This year, with an unusually large number of students living off campus, the College has already faced conflict with students’ neighbors. We saw a rift beginning to open between the College and the town. In an interview, President Liebowitz acknowledged that the College needed a solution to remedy the current housing situation, both on and off campus.
While we at the Campus recognize that there have been problems with off-campus living, we also feel that it has a certain value. Students who live away from the school learn how to navigate landlord relationships, how to be a part of a neighborhood and how to manage utility costs. In other words, they learn how to be independent and start to integrate themselves into life outside the college bubble. While some students struggle with these responsibilities, most thrive.
Furthermore, students who responsibly live off-campus help harmonize the town and the College. Students living alongside townspeople help to break down the psychosocial barriers between the two. We believe that if the College were to drastically lower the number of students living off campus, it would only serve to widen the divide.
The new housing, which was fast tracked during the most recent Board of Trustees meeting after having been postponed years ago due to prior budget constraints, is intended to entice older students living off campus to come back. This way the College can start to cut back on the distribution of off campus spots while at the same time more easily monitoring a greater number of students.
In doing this, however, the College risks losing a popular on-campus spot. Though the mods’ social scene has been less raucous in recent years, the memories of the quirky trailer park-esque neighborhood and their Modapalooza parties are strongly connected to the experiences of many Middlebury students. We at the Campus believe that the new on-campus housing should maintain a similar social sentiment. We hope that the Adirondack Apartments can fill the role that the the mods played in student life and continue to encourage community, unlike the Ross townhouses, which are similar in nature to the new housing plan, yet do not foster much of a neighb0rly attitude for their residents.
Ultimately, we at the Campus support these actions to remedy the housing situation. In fact, creating new housing around the Ridgeline area to bring seniors back on campus was one of the solutions we recommended to the College back in the fall. That being said, and building on our last editorial about the end of tuition increases calculated by CPI+1, the administration must be transparent about the origins of this new housing’s funding. While we commend the College for seeking student input on housing plans thus far, this pattern of transparency must continue, and it must be well-received by Middlebury students. All students, but particularly underclassmen who are likely to live in this new housing, should not pass up this opportunity to contribute to the plans and ensure that these townhouses will be made into homes.
(02/11/15 11:09pm)
Not long ago, Middlebury was one of the most expensive schools in the United States. We charged a higher comprehensive fee than any of our peers and, as a result, began to accrue a reputation of extreme wealth and financial exclusivity. Then, in 2009 the school adopted its CPI+1 policy. The program has restricted tuition increases over recent years to only one percent higher than inflation and has achieved significant success. However, President Liebowitz wrote in an email over break that the administration has recommended to the Board of Trustees to abandon our CPI+1 policy in order to significantly increase tuition, citing increasing faculty salaries and pressure from new federal compliance programs as the predominant additional costs that the College struggles to meet. The sight of a rising price tag is never appealing. As a result we as a board would like to highlight how we should not abandon CPI+1, or other measures intended to control costs, without a great deal of thought.
At the time of the program’s introduction, Middlebury College was the most expensive out of 21 of our peer schools. Now it sits in the eighteenth spot in terms of absolute cost. In other words, we are significantly less expensive than almost all comparable schools, demonstrating that the College has succeeded in both reining in the seemingly runaway increases in tuition price and, more importantly, in making affordability a priority. The effect of this effort can be seen in a gradual expansion of students on financial aid over the years and culminates in the class of 2018, of which an historic 48 percent receive some form of financial aid. We expect neither this progress to be undone nor this trend to change, provided that the College considers the following factors.
Given that the brunt of these increases will be borne by families who pay full tuition, the College ought to be mindful of those students stuck in the financial limbo of not being well-off enough to afford full tuition while still not qualifying for the school’s financial aid packages. The contrast between paying for something and not being able to afford it is perhaps most stark to families who are forced to pinch pennies and take risky loans to finance each semester of their children’s Middlebury education. Increasing tuition at a significantly higher rate will force more families into this precarious position and make it harder on those who are already there. The College will need to expand its financial aid to match this widening divide and ensure that they are not exacerbating an already crushing financial burden.
The College should also be wary that we will likely surpass the $60,000 mark. Even if it is only a nominal change for those who otherwise receive aid, we need to consider how potential applicants will see us and react to the sticker price. Many students, particularly first generation and those that do not come from academic families, are not familiar with Middlebury’s financial aid resources and immediately write off the school for its price tag. The College should prioritize marketing its financial aid programs to middle- and low-income applicants so that the rise in tuition does not cause an unintentional deterrence from the school.
Nevertheless, we understand that same increase in tuition could potentially increase accessibility to the College, especially considering President Liebowitz’s assurance that students on financial aid would remain unaffected. We understand the higher education is a tricky business and that a rise in tuition could provide the College with many benefits and opportunities. We also understand that money can be lost in administrative bloat and unnecessary regulations and expenses. What we want, therefore, is transparency. The College needs to tell us where this money is going and why. If it is paying for students on financial aid, we want to know that. If the financial aid budget will remain unchanged and it is going to faculty salaries, we want to know that, too. It should be the college’s responsibility to tell us exactly what their reasons for raising tuition are and how they plan to determine future years’ tuitions. As we said in our last editorial on tuition, this degree of transparency should be a given when the college decides to change its financial policies.
Finally, there is no reason why the College should buy into the collective higher education “arms race” and resign itself to the inexorable rise in tuition. We call on Old Chapel, and particularly incoming College President Laurie L. Patton, to take on this challenge in the months and years ahead. Are there opportunities to cut costs where needed and to fight administrative bloat? And can the College rely on the revenue from the language sources, schools abroad and any prospective online learning ventures to give families caught in the middle a reprieve?
President Liebowitz’s promise that the price spike will not affect students on aid appears to be a good start to a people-oriented approach to what may be an inevitable rise in tuition. In the absence of CPI+1 as a measure to control the comprehensive fee, the College needs to ensure that the change will make the college more accessible, and they need to convince us, the students, that that is what they are doing. Old Chapel could do this by showing us a projection of what the school will look like if tuition stays the same, if it rises by a certain amount, or if it fell by that amount. Transparency and a people-oriented approach will be necessary to make this price change work to improve our school.
(01/22/15 1:10am)
Of all the ways to divide a student body, Middlebury often finds itself separated into two camps: athletes and NARPs (non-athletic regular person). Student culture plays a large role in perpetuating this divide — often the Middlebury party scene falls along team lines — but administrative and monetary factors also play important roles. One manifestation of this is the costs associated with athletics, from PE credits to athletic facilities to the new field house. Everyone pays into these things, but only a few of us — athletes — benefit.
Students pay $60,000 to attend Middlebury College each year and, theoretically, these dollars pay for all the credits they will need to graduate. For our varsity teams, these dollars also pay the salaries of our extensive coaching staff. Yet PE credits, whose instructors should be paid with these same dollars, often have fees associated with them, thereby making many of those classes inaccessible to students who are already carrying undue financial burden. That the physical education options laid in front of a student look different depending on that student’s financial situation goes against the equality of opportunity Middlebury claims to stand for and further separates athletes and non-athletes.
The average cost of a PE class with an associated fee offered in Spring 2015 is $116. Moreover, the logic behind which PE courses have fees and which do not is unclear. Archery, a sport that requires equipment that can be damaged or lost, is free, whereas yoga, which theoretically requires no equipment at all, is $125. Which classes cost money and which don’t depends on whether the College has to hire an outside instructor, though it can seem random to people signing up for classes. On top of these fees, the current BannerWeb registration system of PE courses, with the costs often hidden several clicks into a course description, could cause a student to sign up for a course without realizing they would be paying a fee. Finally, if one misses the drop deadlines for a PE course by just a single day, the fee is still imposed.
Many non-athletes already feel alienated and unwelcome in athletic facilities which, in addition to being an unintelligible maze, feel like they are owned by athletes. We have the same fear for our multi-million dollar, world-class field house, which could easily acquire the same perceptions. Yet we all pay into the same fund and thus deserve equal access to resources.
This divide is not the fault of athletes themselves. Rather, a series of administrative and cultural habits have been passed down through each generation of Middlebury students. Some of these problems are hard to fix. Priority for space necessarily goes to athletes because they need to compete. Yet this makes it hard for students to use certain facilities, requiring them to check times that are always subject to change. The pool is one place that comes to mind, and the field house will likely have the same issue. Athletics should also do more to make the gym a shared space, and as the new field house has its grand opening next week, we should also be thinking about how to make it a facility that is available to everyone — athletes and non-athletes alike.
The PE class fee, however, is an easy place to start. In order to bridge the gap between these two sectors of the student population, the administration should start by paying for PE classes with tuition dollars, including those with outside instructors. Students here should not have to pay any more for what is already an extremely expensive education, particularly when PE credits are among those required to graduate. At the very least, the BannerWeb descriptions, along with the athletics webpage, should make it clear which courses have associated fees and why these courses require costs exceeding $100 a student. Furthermore, the administration decides what is and is not a physical education; it is important to recognize that people are active in a variety of ways and allow people to learn in those ways that come most naturally to them.
If the goal of the PE credit is, as stated on the website, “to contribute to the physical, social, mental, and emotional well-being of students, enriching their holistic learning experiences and building lifelong habits of good health,” access and enjoyment should be the two priorities of the program. Many students already view their PE credits as a chore, including athletes who must seek an additional credit outside of their sport, and concern about the price tag only adds to that dread. Intramural sports, YouPower and student yoga lower the cost barrier for participation in athletics and are good examples of how to allow students to enjoy their physical education. In revisiting the PE credit, we challenge the administration to think through how to make PE accessible, both financially and emotionally, for students to encourage fitness as a lifelong habit.
(01/15/15 3:01am)
Last Wednesday, students who opened up the Middlebury.edu webpage found themselves looking at a baffling new logo. With the start of the New Year, the College has rolled out a new visual icon and brand identity system for the College and its affiliate institutions. The new logo – a shield featuring icons of Old Chapel, the Green Mountains, a book and a globe – is designed to give thematic unity to the various entities that make up the College. This array of institutions includes the Middlebury Institute of International Studies at Monterey, the Middlebury C.V. Starr Schools Abroad, and the Middlebury School of the Environment. While it was undoubtedly a difficult task to unify all these schools under one icon, the new logo falls far short of what many students expected from a long term identity system.
Although there were a variety of meetings and forums held to discuss the visual icon as it was under development, the final product left many students and alumni confused and disappointed. An unscientific poll of the Campus’ Facebook and Twitter followers had nearly 80 percent of almost 200 respondents express disappointment with the logo. Many alumni, weighing in on social media, reminded others of the 2007 “maple leaf” logo for the College – a logo which was subsequently retracted after students and alumni expressed outrage at what they saw was the poor design and confusing imagery.
The most common critiques expressed by students have to do with the visual icon’s too-slick, corporate look and its use of the globe and book images. The Editorial Board agrees. After the logo’s rollout, some jokingly referenced how the globe and book call to mind the “emoji” images of a smartphone keyboard. Moreover, the globe is simply confusing; The World Bank and the World Wide Web both use a nearly identical “vortex” logo. As a result, some students expressed confusion as to whether the new image was a reference to international studies or technological innovation. The need to unify the College’s schools and programs is understandable, but the globe and book come across as simplistic and obvious. Middlebury is world-renowned for its strength in languages and international studies and the need to hammer home this strength with a globe image in the logo is perhaps misplaced.
Part of the blame has to be on us, the students. The numerous discussions and sessions outlining the plans for the new logo were opportunities for students to weigh in, and now that the end result is less than satisfactory, we have to acknowledge that perhaps we did not make our opinions known as much as we could have.
Nevertheless, overall the logo comes across as one lacking subtlety and not necessarily fit for the long-term. The Board would have liked to see a variety of options released to the public prior to the official launch to explore what the other possibilities were – a stylized “M”? A revamped College seal? Either of these would have been infinitely preferable to the final product that is theoretically here to stay. The Editorial Board hopes that we can reconsider the new visual icon; if not, we hope that the next visual icon is an improvement.
(01/15/15 2:58am)
It is only two weeks into Winter Term, and JusTalks has once again hit the ground running. Between their keynote speaker, Robin DiAngelo, and their main event, which drew over 100 first-years in its third year running, many members of the Middlebury community were able to dive headlong into important discussions around identity and community. Yet beyond the personal value these discussions had for students — which testimony shows is significant — there is also broader, less-talked-about value for the campus as a whole in having students reflect on how they want to engage with and better understand their peers.
We on the Editorial Board have written about numerous challenges we face as a campus community, including our lack of inclusivity, our at times damaging party culture, and our ongoing struggle against sexual assault, among others. What all of these challenges have in common is that they do not have rubber-stamped solutions. They require dialogue and student involvement — and not just among the 100 or so first-years who volunteer to participate. In order to make change we need everyone, and that is why we at the Campus believe that JusTalks should be mandatory — taking the form of an ongoing discussion that is woven into the first-year experience.
So what does that look like in practice? This fall, four First Year Seminars had required JusTalks discussion sections. Two trained JusTalks facilitators met once a week with each of these classes and created space for important conversations around identity and life at Middlebury. Professors counted attendance and engagement as part of the participation grade. Based on the success of this pilot and the third annual J-Term event, six of the seven seminars this spring for incoming Febs will have have a JusTalks discussion section. We applaud this progress and hope that professors and college administrators will consider including JusTalks in each of the 40 freshmen seminars in the fall of 2015.
JusTalks is an organization that focuses on engaging in dialogue about matters of identity, race, gender, sexual orientation, class, ability and religion. While events like Midd Uncensored during orientation focus on what we are bringing to Middlebury, JusTalks focuses on the Middlebury experience and how that intersects with the experiences we have had elsewhere in our lives. As we move through our first few months on on campus, it is important to intentionally take a step back, reflect and engage in conversations about the issues we have seen on campus and think about how we can work together to make Middlebury a stronger community that works for everyone.
Some students come into these conversations ready to roll. They have the language, are constantly thinking about their identities and they know the ropes — whether this is because they have wanted to engage with these issues or because some aspect of their identity has left them with no choice but to constantly engage. Others, however, may have come from communities that fit the Middlebury norm and that did not require them to engage with these questions. These students may not choose to come to the larger JusTalks event in J-Term, but by having mandatory discussions throughout their first semester, they would have an opportunity to learn, engage and embrace the discomfort that comes with these discussions in a safe space, setting the tone for more thoughtful community-building over the next three years.
The argument to expand JusTalks is not a new one. After its first year, key members of JusTalks have led multiple efforts to emphasize the importance of the program and its benefits for the college community. Yearly increases in attendance of the January event and the growing JusTalks affiliation with our First Year Seminars are clear signs that the College recognizes the value of the program. In an Op-Ed last February, outgoing Dean of the College Shirley Collado discussed whether the JusTalks event should be mandatory for students and whether a mandatory event changes the nature of the discussions. As a Board, we believe the benefits outweigh the costs of making JusTalks a mandatory part of the Middlebury for first-years. While there has been great attendance at the JusTalks discussions of the past several years, we ought to have students who might not necessarily engage on issues of race, privilege and identity of their own accord attend JusTalks, too. In fact, the impact of the discussions might be greatest on the students who have not yet thoroughly reflected on what it means to be a member of this community.
Some professors have identified challenges with making JusTalks a mandatory part of the first year experience; however, none are insurmountable, and we hope to address a few of them here. First, while it may seem like more work for professors, experience has shown that the JusTalks facilitators are more than capable of running their discussions independently. The degree to which a professors choose to engage with the program is entirely up to them.
Second is the issue of time. Many students complain about the punishing schedule of the semester, and adding another mandatory commitment is certainly not something we take lightly. Once again, however, the benefits of JusTalks outweigh the costs. Taking one hour each week to explore the complex issues of identity is well worth it and will pay off as a long-term investment for the community.
The third issue is related to the curriculum. Many liberal arts purists object to the program’s ostensible lack of academic merit, especially if they are required to factor students’ participation in JusTalks into their final grade. Instead of factoring into a student’s grade, we suggest that JusTalks attendance would be considered a non-academic requirement that is tied to one’s second PE credit — the credit would only be validated upon completion of the semester.
One further consideration is that there are students on this campus who are marginalized for non-traditional reasons that might feel unwelcome at JusTalks. It is no secret that students with religious or conservative viewpoints are often silenced on this campus. Many of these students would likely forgo participating in discussions on hot-button topics at the risk of being vilified. In order for JusTalks discussions to be a safe place for truly all voices within the Middlebury community, the programming be mindful of the diversity of opinions at all ends of the spectrum on this campus.
Having taken all of these factors into consideration, we as a Board support the JusTalks coordinators’ vision of a permanent, mandatory JusTalks union with the First Year Seminars. Years of successful programming and student initiative have proven that this concept has staying-power, especially as it continues to bring new and younger students into its leadership. It is a powerful and meaningful program that is run by students and for students — exactly the kind of initiative that the College should be supporting. This is a critical moment for JusTalks, and we call on the administration to take this opportunity and help amplify the already significant impact that this organization has had on our campus.
Artwork by VAASU TANEJA
(12/03/14 11:15pm)
In 20 years, our children may ask us where we were when Michael Brown was shot. When Darren Wilson’s non-indictment was handed down. When people took to the streets because they have had enough police brutality, dead children, distorted justice and militarization. Michael Brown’s death was a wake-up call to a nation that has long been deaf to the fact that one black man is killed every 28 hours by the police or vigilantes. Slavery and Jim Crow may be institutions of the past, but their structural legacy is still alive and well, and it will take far more than electing a black president to solve these problems.
At Middlebury, many students find it easy to be apathetic. I am waist-deep in finals, I was travelling for Thanksgiving, I am not a racist — insert any excuse to not engage here. Ferguson may be 1,100 miles away, but Ferguson could be any town. We may not have police shooting students on our campus, but we still face the same racial dynamics that created conditions in which unarmed black teenagers can be legally shot, be it Trayvon Martin, Michael Brown or any other member of this ever growing list of names.
As Tim Garcia ’14’s film, Abroad at Home: Accounts of the Invisible, illustrated last spring, the playing field is not equal on our campus. Students of color in the film discuss being confused for each other, being singled out in class and in social situations and feeling unwelcome on campus. Other student initiatives — MiddIncluded’s campaign to change the AAL requirement and the planned Intercultural Center, to name a couple — further show where Middlebury is failing to support our students. The dominant culture on this campus is very white, no matter how much we laud diversity as an institutional value.
Kiese Laymon, an English professor at Vassar, wrote a now-viral piece highlighting racist policing, both by campus security and by the Poughkeepsie police. He shares his own experiences being profiled as well as his experiences supporting black students and other young people in Poughkeepsie. When seeing such an incriminating piece from a peer school with a similar profile just a few hours away, we cannot think of ourselves as exempt from these problems.
We commend the organizers who have already worked hard to bring the conversations Ferguson ignited back to our campus. From the students who organized the March Against Police Brutality in October, to the students and professors who have hosted discussions, to the people who planned and participated in the walkout on Monday, we admire the action community members are taking to mark Ferguson’s events at the College.
Looking forward, we cannot let this issue drop after the media attention fades away. Despite our distance on campus, we have a role to play in the cultural shift required to see progress on issues around race in this country. Ferguson is a reminder that we do not in fact live in a “post-racial” society.
The first thing we can do is remember. Ferguson is only one example of history repeating itself in the country — we should not wait for another. Even as Ferguson fades out of the media spotlight, we cannot forget the people still on the ground and still fighting.
The second thing we can do is leverage our educational privilege for social good. When organizers in Ferguson reached out for help in the aftermath of the shooting, they called for experienced doctors, lawyers and other professions that require access to higher education. Whether one of these fields calls you or not, the Middlebury education provides you with a diverse toolbox of skills that you can directly apply to supporting folks on the front lines. Do more than being an educated person who posts on Facebook. Look for a career that puts you in the thick of it.
The final thing we can do is show up. Posting on social media and flooding newsfeeds has its place, but the most important thing we can do is follow organizers by using our peaceful presence as a form of power. We need to be allies that this movement can count on for the day-to-day needs of change-making. Meals will be served, bail posted, marches organized and vigils held — you can help make these things happen. Here on campus, go to the talk in Warner at 4:30 p.m. on Thursday, even if you feel uncomfortable or are not sure what you have to contribute — especially if you feel uncomfortable or are not sure what you have to contribute. Donate to the Legal Support Fund for Justice for Mike Brown. Join the Brown family in their call for all police to wear body cameras.
It should not fall on students of color to teach the rest of campus how to critically engage with these issues. Ferguson should be a wake-up call for every student on this campus to dig deep, to read, write and struggle to understand how they fit into this system and what they can do to prevent another senseless death or fix other cogs in the wheel that make this inequality commonplace. Do not be passive in this fight.
Artwork by NOLAN ELLSWORTH
(11/19/14 11:47pm)
After months of speculation, the College announced our 17th president on Tuesday — Dr. Laurie Patton, the current dean of the College of Arts & Sciences at Duke University. In last week’s editorial, we laid out the qualities we wished to see in our next president, and in all of these areas, Patton delivers.
In terms of academics, Patton’s extensive background with the liberal arts is her highest qualification. We called for a president who knows the importance of teaching and has experience with campus affairs at a residential college. Patton has both in spades. We also called for a president with fundraising experience. Patton has raised over $300 million for financial aid, student initiatives and professorships in her time at Duke. With this experience, she also demonstrated her commitment to socio-economic diversity. As our first female president in 214 years, she is a visible embodiment of diversity at the administrative level. Moreover, her responses to questions on diversity indicate that she is committed to tackling challenges around diversity at all levels on campus.
With the Middlebury brand in mind, Patton is also an excellent choice for her global orientation. As the College continues to expand its offerings abroad and refine its pitch on international studies and intercultural experiences, Patton will need to oversee the expanding programs and to emphasize our brand as it evolves. She brings impressive cultural competency to the table, and her knowledge of seven languages, background in translation, extensive travels and studies abroad make her ideally suited to the task at hand. Moreover, Patton will take the helm as the College continues to think through its structure in terms of our schools abroad and Monterey, and she seems to have the excitement and the savvy to do so.
The fact that Patton will be the College’s first female president cannot be understated. Patton is a visible example of Middlebury walking the walk — showing that our values around diversity and equality are more than just words. We commend the search committee not only for selecting such a highly qualified candidate, but also for moving the College forward in its commitment to diversity at the administrative level. Patton’s personal commitment to access and diversity of all types, and desire to move past empty gestures of inclusion, stand out, particularly in conjunction with her fundraising priorities and emphasis on need-blind admission.
In her introductory video, “On Working with Students,” Patton mentioned her desire to get to know students, be available on campus and hold regular, open forums. She also discussed student advisees she had at Duke who helped her keep the pulse on the student voice. We would love to see this practice continue at Middlebury next year. We at the Campus want to be the first to welcome Patton and are excited to start a student-president relationship based on communication and transparency.
We challenge Patton to take charge on a number of issues that will be pressing upon her arrival. The first area is the College’s town-gown relationship. Under President Liebowitz, the College made a number of strong commitments to the town — namely underwriting the construction of the Cross Street bridge, supporting local economic development and funding new municipal buildings. Recent off-campus parties have threatened this relationship, however, and it is clear that Patton will have a lot on her plate as the College considers how best to engage the broader Middlebury community.
On campus, the president needs to be an effective advocate for issues that the student body cares about deeply and push the faculty to be open to new ideas when defining a liberal arts education. Using the failed internships for credit bill as an example, we need a president who will mirror student interest in experiential learning opportunities and will bridge the gap between faculty and the administration.
Finally, in her opening speech, Patton referenced the College’s commitment to environmental stewardship. Given that Patton has less experience in this realm, we hope that Patton will get up to speed quickly and throw her support behind the College’s forthcoming sustainability initiatives. Environmental leadership, in addition to our global focus, is an essential part of what makes Middlebury unique.
There is much to be done in the coming years to help Middlebury evolve, and we look forward to working with Patton through this period of growth and transition. As the voice of the student body, we are excited to start the dialogue. We would like to extend a warm welcome to President-elect Patton and hope that she enjoys the Vermont winter as much as we do.
Artwork by EUNICE KIM
(11/12/14 7:10pm)
Ever since President Ronald D. Liebowitz announced he would step down at the end of the current school year, the Presidential Search Committee has been emailing the Middlebury Community updates as they search for his replacement. The most recent update, which was sent at the outset of the school year, stated that the Committee would begin evaluating candidates “whose background, experiences, and values align with our priorities.” But are “our priorities” the same as our priorities? That is to say, are we to think that the Presidential Search Committee, composed of nine trustees, six faculty members and two students share the priorities of the Middlebury community writ large? How can we know when the whole process is shrouded in confidentiality?
Given the secrecy of the process, we at the Campus have refrained from stepping in until now, unsure of how to best weigh in on the decision-making process. But now that it is more than likely that the Committee has narrowed down its field of candidates and may be close to choosing, here are our hopes for the next President.
As an Editorial Board, we would like to see more students involved in the search’s final stage. It is nearly impossible to represent the range of opinions and experiences that exist within the student body with only two students on the Committee. While confidentiality is undoubtedly a concern for those candidates who currently hold positions at other colleges or universities, there are ways in which more students could give input on the candidates who are finalists. Bring candidates on campus for an interview with a small group of 10-15 students under the condition that those students are sworn to confidentiality. There are routine lectures where candidates for faculty positions are evaluated by the College community. Let’s do the same with our candidates for president.
First and foremost, the president ought to have experience as an academic at a residential liberal arts college. Academics are the core of our years at Middlebury and we should hire a President who has previously served as a professor at a liberal arts college and who understands the environment and the importance of teaching. Additionally, an ideal candidate would be someone who has also served in an administrative role with a focus on student affairs, making them well-equipped to oversee a range of social life issues. Furthermore, the definition of liberal arts is evolving rapidly. With the inclusion of MiddCore and other experiential learning programs reshaping our perception of this academic tradition, we need a president who is willing to push the boundaries of what it means to get an education in the 21st century. From the Solar Decathalon to offering credit for summer internships, there are ways the next president should advocate for learning that happens outside of the classroom, too.
The President must also be an excellent fundraiser for the causes and programs that matter most. President Barry Mills of Bowdoin College wrote in a column addressing the role of a college president that a trustee once told him, “No matter how good a job you do, you won’t be a success unless you raise a lot of money.” The community would be well-served by recognizing that a large part of the President’s job is to raise funds for the College because those funds allow us to stay competitive, innovative and accessible as an institution. Our next president should have experience or at least interest in raising money for the areas that are traditionally more challenging: financial aid, new residential buildings and recruiting and retaining talented faculty.
That being said, we recognize that college presidents are frequently persons who have little to no fundraising experience. This is especially true of academics. President Liebowitz, for example, was a geography professor, Dean of the Faculty and Provost before becoming President. Yet over his tenure, Liebowitz has raised money for green initiatives, weathered the financial crisis while sustaining our commitment to need-blind financial aid and launched the largest fundraising campaign undertaken by a liberal arts college, among many other fiduciary achievements. Hiring a former faculty member and student affairs administrator as the next president can give weight to that president’s arguments about the importance of donating in order to hire diverse and talented faculty and to improve our ability to offer financial aid.
Outside of fundraising, the next President should make this campus and the people here their priority. Middlebury is a college in the liberal arts tradition, not a corporation, and what makes it so is its faculty and students. While we understand that the rebranding and restructuring of the Middlebury identity system may be good business, we are concerned that it may make for bad education. A president who gives undue attention to the auxiliary programs may detract from the attention required to keep the education offered by Middlebury College top-notch.
One way to convince us of their commitment to the College is to make a serious effort to be visible and available on campus. We commend President Liebowitz for his constant engagement with the student body. The forum on social life a few weeks back is a prime example of leadership that is willing to engage with an upset constituency head-on. Liebowitz’s successor should be willing and able to communicate with the student body in myriad constructive ways — sitting for interviews, holding open office hours and facilitating forums on relevant topics when the campus needs them most.
Another way to show commitment to this campus is by helping the College repair its relationship with the town. In light of the Town Hall conundrum and recent off-campus partying incidents, the relationship between the College and the town has been chilly lately. A President who is not sensitive to the relationship between a well-known college and a small rural town could do further harm to our already precarious predicament. Rather, we need somebody who will listen to what Middlebury residents need and commit to partnering them with students and faculty to help them achieve their goals.
Finally, we at the Campus believe that the next college president’s biggest priority should be to enroll students of diverse economic backgrounds. While we recognize that the student body has grown significantly more diverse under Liebowitz’s presidency, Middlebury, nevertheless, managed to place 51st in an economic diversity ranking conducted by The New York Times this September. We need to do more. Some colleges stopped including loans in financial aid packages, but Middlebury still “utilizes the student loans as part of need-based award.” Instead, we could turn to our peer institution Vassar College, which eliminated loans for low-income families seven years ago, for inspiration.
Our next president should ensure that every prospective Middlebury student — rich or poor — is met with an equal admissions opportunity, meaning that as a college in the rural state of Vermont, it is incumbent on us to do maximum outreach and make Middlebury accessible. We ask the Committee to select a president serious and ambitious enough to conceptualize a platform of strategies to enroll more low-income students as the University of Chicago has. Last month, UChicago eliminated all student loans for low and middle income students, ensured them paid summer internships, and will provide some students with tuition-free, pre-college orientation summer school.
We realize college presidents feel pressure to move the college up in rankings and raise money, but we also think that an elite college like Middlebury is an engine behind social mobility. Like it or not, the College is caught in the middle of a national dialogue about vast inequality and every move we make either bridges the wealth gap or widens it.
Middlebury has evolved considerably over the last few decades, and we think that a President who displays all the above characteristics would better represent the college Middlebury wants to be ten years from now, instead of what it was thirty years ago.
Artwork by SARAH LAKE
(11/06/14 2:24am)
The relationship between students and the administration is like any other: it needs constant communication to be healthy. Last Sunday, in recognition of a general discontentment in the student body, President Liebowitz held an open forum about social life on campus. That Liebowitz opened this discussion to students shows that he wants to see the student-administration relationship mended. He sat on the stage at the front of the room and engaged with students face-to-face, equitably splitting the forum between airing student concerns and explaining administrative responses. We at the Campus commend Liebowitz and the administration for their willingness to engage and their openness to student input. This is a starting place for initiating substantial change.
Something about the subject matter, perhaps the all-encompassing nature of the term “social life,” drew a surprisingly diverse cross-section of students. People were there to discuss everything from diversity, identity and inclusion to party life and college alcohol policies.
The stark contrast in student views on the most pressing social life issues was evident during the forum. Embittered by the administrative decision to limit social spaces such as ADP, some students asked why spaces like ADP that are inclusive spaces where “everyone was welcome” are shut down. This is far from true. We at the Campus would like to caution the recurring misuse of inclusive language: using “everyone” to really describe the “Middlebury majority.”
At one point, several students in attendance read a statement listing the other highly relevant concerns that go beyond alcohol and partying, such as preventing sexual assault and holding similar forums to discuss marginalized and intersecting identities on campus. After the statement was read, nearly the whole audience stood up in solidarity and we count ourselves among them. These social issues deserve attention in forums or discussions in their own right and should not be forgotten with increased attention being paid to drinking or partying.
Occasionally, the cracks in the student-administration relationship showed through with visible frustration on both sides. For example, one student commented that she did not know how to throw parties and that there needed to be a go/link explaining the process of registering a party, to which Dean of Students Katy Smith Abbott and other administrators responded, “There is. It’s go/party.”
Evidently, the information gap goes both ways. The administration needs to include us in important policy discussions, but, in return we need to intentionally find information and use it. It is not the administration’s job to make sure we have enjoyable parties to go to every weekend. That is on us. We ought to communicate with administrators and they ought to help, but we cannot expect (and probably do not want) them to preemptively involve themselves in our social lives.
We need to proactively seek out concrete solutions for our ailing social lives. For example, one thing students can do is to get to know Public Safety, both personally and in terms of their role on campus. As the Editorial Board, we would like to reiterate the importance of this topic which was discussed at the forum. It is easy to view them as the enemy — as the people who give citations, patrol hallways and knock ominously on closed doors. But the fact is, we are lucky to have them. At other schools, Public Safety is not patrolling — the police are; instead of getting citations, you get arrested. Students should take the extra couple of minutes to engage with our officers, learn their faces and realize that they are actual people. Maintaining a healthy relationship with Public Safety shows maturity on our part and benefits all parties.
At certain points during the meeting, it was suggested that there should be a working group of students to continue the discussion on the state of social life. We at the Campus would like to see this happen and for this group to be as effective as possible. Therefore, we call on SGA President Taylor Custer and Smith Abbott to bring together a diverse group of students from all walks of campus life to turn the words at Sunday’s forum into action with results that are visible by the end of the academic year. This task force needs to represent the many social spheres across campus and directly communicate with the community to detail the most pressing social issues on campus. The group will hopefully bridge this troubling information gap between the College and all its students.
Ensuring diverse perspectives on this task force is one of several key parts to this idea to make it effective. Additionally, the group should put forward six actionable ideas on improving social life. Three short-term items should be submitted to the SGA and Old Chapel by the end of Winter Term and three long-term items should be on the desks of administrators by the end of the academic year. As Sunday’s forum demonstrated, ideas on improving social life abound. Making these changes happen is on the students, and a dedicated team of us on this nascent task force is a good place to start.
Finally, we at the Campus recommend a mandatory orientation day for all students at the beginning of the fall semester where all this information is told to students in person. It is easy to ignore the deluge of emails we get in the first few weeks of school. An in-person training on party hosting, as well as issues like sexual assault prevention, safe drinking and other student life issues would be a needed refresher for many students. After first-year orientation, we have very little organized interaction with administrators where we can simply ask how to do something. And during orientation we were so overwhelmed and overstimulated by making friends, finding our dorm and all of the other basics that we do not have any context for many of the trainings and do not retain a lot of the material. A reorientation day would allow upperclassmen to learn how to function and engage better with the Middlebury community. There could be specific sessions geared for the new year as well. The sophomore orientation could be more basic whereas junior and senior orientations could focus on party hosting, off-campus living and study abroad. This day would be a way to help students interact intentionally and knowledgeably with our community here.
We recognize that change is difficult. However, if there is a fraction of the energy and ideas from the forum on this student social life task force, there will be positive results. Sunday’s forum was a good start, but for change to happen we need to turn words into action. Ultimately, we need to take responsibility and take the initiative, not just defer responsibility to the administration. A high academic workload will never be a valid excuse for ignorance or entitlement. It is not enough to sit back, throw your hands in the air and say that you do not know how to do something or that someone needs to do it for you. Though at the forum we repeatedly referred to ourselves as kids, that mindframe is toxic and it is time to change it. We are adults, and it is time to take responsibility for our own social scene.
Artwork by NOLAN ELLSWORTH