1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(11/06/13 8:17pm)
In a classroom packed with people sitting on the windowsills, students, faculty and administrators gathered on Monday to engage in an honest dialogue unpacking the controversy surrounding Chance the Rapper’s performance Saturday night.
This discussion, which has dominated campus debate for the past few weeks, provided a space to voice many issues we face here, from racism and homophobia to censorship and the administration’s role. These concerns were broader than just the presence of Chance the Rapper. They reflected building frustration on a myriad of events that have occurred since the beginning of the school year and throughout people’s time at Middlebury.
For the dozen Campus editors who attended the forum provided an opportunity to listen and reflect as others spoke of their experiences and concerns that proved invaluable in broadening our understanding of the different social issues at play. Nevertheless, many of the people in the room were the usual crowd, the people who have these conversations time and time again. This trend in such spaces leads students to feel like they are trapped in a silo. Their opinions circle around, but never leave a confined space.
A good turnout to this forum still left the majority of voices unheard and ears untouched. This absence shows a need on campus for deeper listening. Part of the value of the liberal arts education, and a point emphasized heavily on Monday, is the need to confront discomfort. Discussions of privilege are particularly challenging, and we must push ourselves to embrace that discomfort and think deeply about what our fellow classmates are saying.
Even within the dialogue, people sometimes failed to truly listen, constantly focusing on their own feelings on the issue without responding to the points of others. Because the tension on these issues has been building for so long, people rushed to assert their ideas without full critical engagement with others. Provocative questions were posed only to be greeted by, “this is unrelated to that point, but…”
A truly productive dialogue necessitates thought and weighted response. We must hear out the opinions of others, for they are deeply routed in their experiences and identities. This is the responsibility not only of the students present at the forum, but also the students who were not able to attend. Though we are unable to do full justice to the diverse range of opinions expressed, some key questions arose that could help open the silo:
How do we listen to and support students of marginalized identities without placing undue burden on them to represent the minority? How can students in positions of privilege support marginalized students without tokenizing them?
How do we work towards a community where students of all identities feel safe? How do we support students struggling with multiple marginalized identities who often feel conflicted in discussions like this forum?
Where can we embrace the intersection of different identities to build a cohesive and inclusive campus?
What is the difference between our community standards and our standards as individuals?
Why did this conversation spark when a black male rapper came to campus, while we stay quiet when other speakers or performers whose words threaten members of our community come? Why do we use racially loaded language when describing the debate about Chance and how can we acknowledge and combat this?
What makes some art free from censorship, even when it includes offensive material, while rap sparks outrage? What role does the social acceptability of certain art forms play in this?
How does the administration react to controversy on campus? Why was the 9/11 incident so strongly condemned by President Liebowitz while the threatening homophobic note saw delayed action? What is the administration’s role in fostering the proactive dialogue necessary to move the campus forward?
If you don’t know that these questions are being asked, then you are out of touch with the issues that are relevant to our college at the moment. If you don’t care about any of these questions, you don’t care about Middlebury. It is your responsibility as a member of this community to listen deeply and think critically to the voices of others on this campus. It is easy to hear but not listen, letting the words of others flow in one ear and out the other as you think of what to say next. Actively listening to what someone says is hard takes practice.
But this kind of listening is the first step towards building a safe community where people are not afraid to be fully and unabashedly who they are. And while this listening is critical, just listening is not enough. We cannot just pat ourselves on the back for having attended a forum and for planning to attend the next one. We must spur this engagement into action. It is easy to push responsibility for such tasks onto groups like Queers and Allies (Q&A) or the African-American Alliance (AAA), but the majority identities have a duty to respect and protect other members of this community. Do away with the phrase “that’s not my issue” and realize that none of us are truly safe until every marginalized group feels their views are listened to and respected.
We as an editorial board have tried vigorously to make our editorials this year solution-based. Complaining about an issue is no use to our community if we can’t provide viable alternatives or recommendations for change. But there is no easy answer or quick fix to making marginalized groups feel safe here. Chance did not create these issues, and they didn’t leave on his tour bus. It’s time to push back the comforts of privilege and actively listen to the concerns of our peers.
(10/30/13 6:07pm)
Earlier this semester, a Middlebury student found a note threatening violence and sexual assault against her on the basis of her sexual orientation taped to her door. Now, just weeks later, the College prepares to welcome Chance the Rapper, a musical artist who refers to himself as a “slap-happy faggot slapper” in one of his songs. As a community that strives to create a safe and inclusive space for people of all sexual identities, it is unacceptable to give a stage and a microphone to a person who delivers this type of violent and intolerant message.
It is true that Chance’s lyrics contain but a brief homophobic slur. This is not a theme present throughout all of his music, but the line in question is sufficiently problematic that it does not matter whether he has agreed to exclude that language from his performance this weekend. Enough attention has been brought to the performance that students will be well aware of what they did not hear.
To pass a microphone to a speaker who boasts – however casually – of violence against homosexuals while using a derogatory name sends a powerful message to our community. It says to those concerned about violence due to their sexual orientation that their fears are not important. It tells those who make homophobic comments and jokes that their views are acceptable. It shows the gay couple afraid to hold hands in public that they should not speak out about their experience; that they should just lighten up and hide their true selves. It takes a serious issue and trivializes it.
We would not tolerate a professor who advocates violence against women, a speaker who professes a fondness for hitting Jews or a comedian who jokes about beating up people of color. A student who sent another student a note with the exact slap-happy line delivered by Chance would presumably face disciplinary action. The music that we bring to campus should not get a free pass from the standards to which we hold our community.
As journalists, as writers and as artists, we are painfully aware of the dangers that come with censoring expression. Advocating or glorifying violence against a group that already faces daily persecution – both on this campus and beyond – crosses the line between protected speech and hate speech. Taunts against such a group clearly violate the College Anti-Harassment policy. While we feel uncomfortable creating a blanket rule for excluding speakers and performances from coming to Middlebury, the selection of these acts demand extra research, and the groups responsible must keep in mind the safety and comfort of the entire community. The controversy over Chance’s performance could easily have been avoided by a thorough review of his lyrics and a more diverse membership on the Middlebury College Activities Board Concert Committee.
There is also an important distinction between the freedom of expression that we guarantee as an institution of learning and the expression that we choose to pay for as members of the Middlebury community. Middlebury is not a concert venue, where the cost of a concert is covered solely by those who choose to purchase a ticket and those uncomfortable with the content of the performance can stay home and save their money. When the Concert Committee elects to bring a performer to campus, the cost is heavily subsidized by the Activities Fee to which all students must contribute. It is insulting to all students who feel disrespected by Chance’s taunts that their money be spent to put him on stage and heard over speakers.
We recognize that by imposing additional qualifications on the musical acts brought to campus, we make the Concert Committee’s difficult job even harder. But it is all too easy to forget that people in this country and in this community still face assault and worse for their sexual orientation. In 2011 alone, United States law enforcement agencies reported over twelve hundred instances of harassment, assault, rape and murder based on this factor. Violent language is a concern that we must take seriously, and for this reason we believe that the MCAB Concert Committee should have more seriously considered the potential concerns of all community members before inviting Chance to perform at Middlebury.
(10/17/13 3:48am)
We owe much of what we enjoy here to the decisions and guidance of the Board of Trustees. But considering how much this group impacts us every day, how well do we really understand the board?
While some student groups engage directly with the trustees through positions like the Student Liaison to the Middlebury College Board of Trustees Investment Committee, to most students, the Trustees are nameless figures seen floating in and out of Old Chapel from afar three times a year, making crucial decisions on how the College runs and how our budget is spent. Few students truly understand the people who comprise the board and the process through which they operate, and often our existing conceptions are not accurate.
This disconnect exists on both sides of the aisle. Students often do not understand the board’s long-term responsibilities, and Trustees struggle to take the pulse of the student body. Nevertheless, the Trustees’ goals fundamentally align with the goal of many students on campus. We all desire to make Middlebury the best school possible.
The creation of an avenue to foster dialogue between Trustees and students would therefore benefit both parties. Students could view their own work on campus in the context of a larger picture, and Trustees could ground their long-term decisions in the current student experience. By aligning goals and cutting down on miscommunication, we can maximize our efforts to create positive change on campus.
Though some streams of communication between the students and the Trustees already exist through President of the College Ron Liebowitz and Special Assistant to the Board of Directors Stephanie Neil, the nuances of opinions and issues that concern students on campus cannot adequately be conveyed through a second-hand summary. Personalized discussions between students and Trustees would help both sides see eye-to-eye. While many Trustees are either alumni or parents of past or current students, the student body is dynamic and salient issues change with time. The board’s understanding of student issues should adapt with these changes, while still keeping track of the broader goals of the College and their fiduciary responsibilities. As Carolyn Ramos, a Trustee who sits on the Student Affairs Committee, said in an interview with The Campus last week, “Our core group — our client, if you will — is the students.” While her committee is especially responsible for keeping tabs on the student body, we encourage other committees to check the temperature at the ground level as well.
Because such discourse is outside of the established roles of Trustees and their physical time on campus is short, students must take the initiative to forge relationships with board members, be it for their expertise in a certain field or for their focus in a certain field of College functions. We, therefore, propose a streamlined liaison program in which student organizations or a group of students could reach out to a specific Trustee based on his or her personal background and role within the board. Trustees could then select one or two groups which whom they would meet if they so choose. The student groups that meet with Trustees during any given board meeting would vary depending on which groups feel moved to solicit the Trustees depending on the climate on campus. This process should be formalized so that Trustees are not overwhelmed by student emails, but should also not be intimidating for students who may be more hesitant to voice their opinions.
Take The Campus for example. Several Trustees have backgrounds in media, both purely in journalism and on the legal side. These Trustees would have a better understanding of the issues that concern us as an organization. Through this process, we would be able to research these Trustees and put together a proposal through Stephanie Neil in the hopes of sitting down and learning from each other.
To be sure, the liaison program is not for every Trustee, nor should it be a requirement. But for interested Trustees, the program would give them the chance to develop a meaningful relationship with groups of students that share their interests.
While we appreciate that the Trustees already time and money to the College, we also hope the love for Middlebury that compelled them to join the board in the first place will compel them to engage with the student body and get a taste of what the student experience is like today. Addressing the disconnect between students and Trustees would provide a productive outlet for concerns on both ends where opinions can be constructively communicated rather than indirectly conveyed through protest.
So, Trustees, as you meet and discuss big decisions on this campus, consider sitting down to lunch with us. We’d love to get to know you.
(10/09/13 4:05pm)
Middlebury College likes to drink. Not all of us, certainly, but it is no secret that the collective BAC of this campus rises substantially when Friday night rolls around. We are not unique in this regard – drinking is an endemic part of college culture nationwide. But in the interest of community safety, alcohol must be controlled and policies must be enforced. Therefore, it should come as no surprise that a number of students are recommended for disciplinary action every year for alcohol-related incidents as booze and trouble have always gone hand-in-hand. What is surprising, however, is the rate at which these incidents are increasing.
According to the College’s Annual Security Report and Crime Statistics, liquor law violations at this school have increased 500 percent from 30 incidents reported in 2010 to 150 reported in 2012. Whether this surge in violations indicates a change in drinking behavior, a change in enforcement strategy or both, the results are alarming and merit an immediate response.
The administration has done just this. In a recent email released by Dean of the College Shirley Collado and Dean of Students Katy Smith Abbott, the two deans describe how the College has streamlined party registration and taken a nebulously tough stance on hard alcohol in what it believes to be the right steps towards an alcohol policy that makes it safer and easier for students 21 and older to enjoy their libations.
However, the of-age students are not the ones going to the hospital. The 2012 report from the College’s Task Force on Alcohol and Social Life states that first-year students have a disproportionately high likelihood of needing professional or amateur assistance as a result of overconsumption. Of the 50 students mandated a sober friend -— a policy that mandates a public safety officer to place an intoxicated student in the care of a fellow, sober student — between September 2010 and January 2011, 39 were underclassmen. 22 of the 25 sent to the emergency room during the same time period were also underclassmen. The updated Alcohol Policy outline by Dean Collado and Dean Smith Abbott is a good start, but we need to continue bolstering support for the gravest of alcohol-related problems that the College faces: chronic alcohol abuse, particularly among underage students.
The focus of the College’s drinking policies is placed largely on acute, physical symptoms of alcohol abuse instead of treating the underlying psychological conditions that lead students to adopt these destructive drinking habits in the first place. In other words, the administration is essentially passing legislation that is concentrated on making bigger buckets instead of patching the leak.
Therefore, we suggest that the College adapt an additional strategy in its defense against alcohol abuse whereby certain underage students identified as “at-risk” are paired with an upperclassman, who will have gone through extensive prior training, to talk with them about the realities of drinking, the culture surrounding the act and the extent of his or her participation in it. Students may be considered “at-risk” if they have contributed to the statistics mentioned above — transfers to sober friend and emergency room visits — or if they have received multiple citations in which the citing officer has made a special note of the student’s level of intoxication.
The program is based on an anti-violence initiative started by American epidemiologist, Dr. Gary Slutkin, to combat gang violence in South Chicago. Though the social pressures in Chicago are much different than those at the College, we believe Dr. Slutkin’s message applies nonetheless: that alcohol abuse is a public health issue which can be thwarted through the reshaping of societal norms. We would assemble a dedicated team of highly trained upperclassmen students and pair each one with an underclassman with whom they will remain as an informal mentor. Instead of random pairings, we would assign each at-risk student to a mentor of similar background, geographic region or interests. The school should furthermore incentivize groups in which drinking is likely to occur to have a member of their organization go through this training. Sports teams, social houses and the like are a good place to start.
This addition to the College’s Alcohol Policy that we are recommending is not and should not be perceived as a substitute for the support system already in place. One meeting or a series of meetings with even the most qualified upperclassman cannot replace a session with a licensed counselor. The intended effect of this program is to attack the issue from another angle: giving help to the students who need it from a voice that they can identify with more than any dean or counselor, forging a support network from within the beating heart of our community because we believe it to be more effective than any top-down mandate. To allow alcohol abuse’s germination on our campus is a repudiation of everything it means to be a member of the College community. We must help out our own.
(10/03/13 12:21am)
We often discuss the need for more community engagement as a student body. We’ve devoted barrels of ink and hours of our time to panels, papers, and symposia. Yet all of that leaves us with little more than a general agreement that something needs to be done differently. We would like to suggest a concrete solution to this problem: the implementation of a Community Education (C.E.) credit to be completed by every student before graduation.
The Weigh the Waste initiative launched by Molly Shane ’13.5 and Cailey Cron ’13.5 this year takes a look at the food waste produced in our dining halls by getting volunteers to scrape the extra food from student plates before putting them on the conveyer belt to the dish room. That this is not a step performed by students themselves on a daily basis speaks volumes about life here at Middlebury. In this community, we are divorced from much – if not all – of the work that keeps our lives comfortable. When we put food on our plates, we don’t consider the work required to cook it. When we finish eating, our dishes become somebody else’s problem. We don’t cut the grass outside our houses or trim the trees along our paths. Staff members mop up after our parties and take away the beer cans overflowing from every receptacle. Breaking a glass in the dining hall is met with mocking applause and a blue-uniformed staff member rushing to sweep up the shards while the student who dropped it continues on to their meal. At Middlebury, the only responsibility that many students have is their classes and their laundry, and some don’t even do the latter themselves.
We do not intend to ignore the many students who do have campus jobs, but few of those fall into the category of maintenance, grounds work, or cleaning. This should feel strange to us. This should feel uncomfortable. At home, we play a part in these essential tasks, and we will once again find ourselves thrust into them after graduation. That labor is what gives us ownership in our living space and pride – or shame – in its state of repair. That labor is the difference between a home and a hotel.
Although for students, Middlebury is a transitory space, it should feel like a home for our short time here. The implementation of a C.E. credit that would replace the second required Physical Education credit would endow students with an extra appreciation for this campus. While physical fitness is an important life skill – and one at which Middlebury students excel – it is no less important than an awareness of the work that goes into maintaining a habitable space. If golf, tennis or sailing are pastimes that can last a lifetime, the tasks performed by Middlebury staff members are no less critically important and often more physically demanding.
The C.E. credit would allow students to participate in one of these many tasks, whether gardening, scraping plates, or changing light bulbs. Like the P.E. credit that it would replace, it would require a minimum of eight hours of commitment – hardly a crippling burden to a chronically overcommitted student body. Seven colleges around the country currently form a consortium of institutions that require students to work at least ten to 15 hours per week, regardless of financial need. While a change to the working college model would be drastic, a lighter work requirement would serve to increase student ownership in their living space and to allow them to gain an appreciation for the hard work done by our many staff members without threatening their jobs.
A C.E. credit would also help to abate many of the challenges that we often blame on a lack of respect by the student body. A sense of ownership provides a better incentive to preventing vandalism than offers of free pizza. Students tasked with trimming the trees could watch them climb upwards over four years and feel the same anger as Landscape Horticulturist Tim Parsons when their branches are stripped in careless drunken shenanigans. Students who roll up their sleeves and wash dishes in Proctor might better appreciate the pressure created by cups that disappear faster than they can be returned to use. Students who help mop the floors of Atwater suites on Sunday mornings would feel disgust and contempt at the messes left by their peers.
These problems will never be fixed by abstract calls for dialogue and community without investment. Ownership creates respect, and respect creates change. We call on the SGA to petition the administration to implement a Community Education credit requirement that would help to create a community that feels like home rather than a well-manicured holding tank. This requirement would represent a major leap forward to a Middlebury College that truly integrates students into their community.
[audio mp3="http://middleburycampus.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/Zach-Editorial-Podcast.mp3"][/audio]
Listen to Opinions Editor ZACH DRENNEN read this editorial.
(09/26/13 2:38am)
In this week's spread, "Get Out While You Can: A Guide to Exploring Vermont in the Fall/Live it Up in the Fall Foliage," editors JESSICA CHEUNG, ISABELLE STILLMAN and OLIVIA ALLEN help you decide how and where to explore around Middlebury, Addison County, and Vermont.
(09/26/13 1:04am)
We’ve all been there. You’re sitting in class, and someone in front of you is watching the soccer game on his computer or browsing New York Times headlines. Despite your best efforts to focus on the professor, you find your eyes drift as you wonder about the New Jersey Senate race or why Paul Krugman used the word “hipster” in a headline.
Some professors know this phenomenon, too, with more and more deciding to ban computers in the classroom. The rationale is that students hurt not only themselves, but also those around them who are distracted by their computer screens while in class. Choosing to browse BuzzFeed instead of paying attention in class may be a personal decision, but this apathy is contagious, spreading from one student to others. By disengaging in class or in the community, you not only deny yourself the opportunity to find your voice, but you are denying others the opportunity to be exposed to new ideas.
Of course, this is not a one-sided contract. Professors should create dynamic engaging discussions in class, taking advantage of that small average class size about which tour guides love to brag. They should draw current events, both on campus and in the world, into the classroom to push us to apply our education to our surroundings. In any given class, the student make-up provides a perfect forum to discuss timely issues.
We use our small size as an excuse to maintain “civility.” But sometimes this “civility” is no more than passivity, a fear of engaging wholly and passionately with the issues that matter to us most because we might have to share a Panini press the next day with those with whom we disagree. At Middlebury, we pride ourselves on our diversity of opinions, and yet, when we are given a platform to hold an open discourse and present these opinions, we choose instead to hide behind our computer screens or congregate in small factions to feed like mindsets instead of engaging others because it is safe and easy. But that is nothing more than cowardice masquerading as politeness. We must not back down.
This is not to say that we should engage in ad hominem-like arguments; we are fighting issues, not each other. Being a great debater is like being a great athlete. An athlete must be able to withstand the throes of battle within his or her arena – giving all and sacrificing none – but when the final whistle blows, you drop all the hard feelings pent up during the heat of battle, shake your opponents’ hand and move on. Any unsportsmanlike conduct is childish and detrimental to the participants as well as to the integrity of the game itself. Middlebury is our arena. Debate of important issues is our sport, not a bloodsport, but a gentleman’s game. It is a disservice to all, participants and spectators alike, not only if we break the code of sportsmanship, but also if we do not perform to the fullest of our capabilities. We can maintain the “air of civility and respect” that President Leibowitz called for in his letter when discussing the Sept. 11 incident while still bringing our passions and intensity into play. So tear down that wall that exists between you and your peers and push to expand beyond ideologically similar friends. This challenge can become one of the biggest benefits of a small, liberal arts college.This requires being proactive. Sit next to someone new in class and engage with them. Close your computer and be present. Stop writing on Middlebury Confessional and go talk to your Proctor crush. In a world of online engagement, it is easy to be passive in person and emboldened online. Nevertheless, embracing the discomfort of an in-person debate ultimately makes us stronger as individuals and as a community.
(09/18/13 6:22pm)
As a close-knit liberal arts college tucked gently away in the bucolic Vermont countryside, it becomes easy to think of our actions and the scope of our influence as contained within a bubble. But in truth, our actions on campus reverberate far beyond our small community.
The insulation between Middlebury and everywhere else affords students certain liberties in their quest for knowledge that they would not have elsewhere: students can spend their entire four years challenging societal norms while knowing for certain that every day they will have access to three healthy meals, every night they will have a bed and every hour in between they will be surrounded by open-minded, intelligent persons who share the same goals of peace and knowledge. The College is a truth seeker’s haven, and activism is an integral component of this identity. It is a powerful tool of discourse that, when conducted properly, pushes issues much further and harder than mere words can do. Like all forms of power, however, it is prone to abuse when carried out without careful consideration and proper critical engagement.
The theft of American flags commemorating lives lost in the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks by Anna Shireman-Grabowski ’14.5 and four others on Sept. 11, 2013, exemplifies the dangers of rash action and ill-considered activism. While the theft itself may have been petty, the emotional response and consequences that it triggered were astronomical. The entire incident brought intense, negative scrutiny to the student body, the administration, and the College at large.
But no action of protest justifies threats of bodily harm and death. The threats that came from both within and outside the community, especially those targeting Shireman-Grabowski and her family members were not acceptable in any circumstance. This incident angered many because it brought to the surface powerful feelings about a horrible day in American history, but precisely because we honor that history, we should not stoop to witch-hunts and mob justice.
Though Sept. 11 was a tragic day for Americans, it also exemplified the human ability to come together and show strength and support in the face of adversity. Honoring the victims and heroes of Sept. 11 involves both remembering their memory and our country’s resilience. As a campus, we too should honor this by not letting our anger cloud our dedication to due process. The email sent by President Liebowitz the day following the incident called for respect and civility, which we as a community should strive to uphold throughout this process of healing and justice.
As we move forward, the parties involved must receive due process in due time. We must trade pain for hope and division for unity. We’ve already seen the beginning of the healing process in the students who came together to reconstruct the memorial as best they could.
Although the effects of the event extend farther than the Middlebury Bubble, we cannot allow Shireman-Grabowski to be tried by the voices of the internet nor can those deciding her fate make their decision while being torn apart by armchair vigilantes hiding behind the easy anonymity of the internet. Justice will be served not by online fear mongers, alumni or disgruntled members of the college but through the proper channels, and the disciplinary process and decision should be fair and proportionate to the offense. Let us honor the strength of this community and of the victims and survivors of Sept. 11 by moving forward with dignity as we heal.
[audio mp3="http://middleburycampus.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/09/CampusEdit.mp3"][/audio]
Listen to the editorial board discuss their process in writing this piece.
(09/12/13 12:56am)
Student newspapers, especially at a place like Middlebury, face many challenges when it comes to our coverage of difficult stories. We exist within a small, transitory and tight-knit community. Middlebury College is a unique space to try and report the news, where the subjects of each story come into contact every day. Campus editors and reporters go about the business of reporting the news not as their primary obligation or as a paid activity, but as an extra-curricular on top of coursework. And after a four-year period, both the reporters and their subjects go on to other lives in other places.
These factors do not change our dual responsibilities to our readers and to the absolute truth. But they do affect our responsibility to balance hard-hitting journalism with an acute sensitivity to our role on campus. Our end goal is to inform and ultimately improve the community. Our responsibility isn’t to the administration, to burnish the brand of the college, or to boost the reputation of the people here. Nor is our obligation to our own bottom line.
A prime example of the challenges in reporting here at Middlebury is the sexual assault case working its way through the Addison County Superior Court. Dong Yub “Don” Song, a Middlebury College senior at the time, was accused last spring of sexual assault in an incident that took place on May 12. Although the victim’s name was redacted to protect her privacy, Song’s name was made public through a graphic seven-page affidavit in the case. Both the Addison Independent and middbeat published his name. As a student-run publication, middbeat drew criticism for their publication of that information. We may receive the same criticism for our news coverage of the issue. But Song is an adult accused of a felony, and his name was in the public record. Publishing that name is consistent with journalistic practices and the public interest. A news organization that avoided doing so would be shirking its responsibilities to the truth and to its readers.
At the same time, we have an obligation to balance that need against the principles of the criminal justice system. Song is innocent until proven guilty, and the personal information of the parties involved – from the alleged victim to the witnesses in the case – deserves a level of protection. The victim’s name was redacted from the affidavit, and publishing her name or even looking into her identity would have amounted to cruel and unusual journalistic practice. In the case of Song, public interest requires the publication of his name but not that we drag his life through the mud before the case has been decided. For this reason, we have decided not to publish either the affidavit or the graphic details contained within. Those details have little value other than to shock and to sadden.
Sexual assault is a tragically common issue on this and many college campuses. Groups like It Happens Here have made an effort to raise awareness of the problem over the last couple of years. Their work helps to provide us with both a framework to discuss these issues and support for the victims. We believe that students have a need to know that sexual assault happens in their community. Many times there is no news coverage of it because the victims elect to deal with it outside of the criminal justice system. This decision is made for a slew of personal reasons worthy of respect, but that makes the cases that do reach the public sphere all the more important. According to national data, 1 in 4 women are sexually assaulted at one point in their life. 1 in 6 men will face the same problem. As the primary news outlet on campus, it is our responsibility to raise awareness of these sobering facts.
Different sections within the paper have different roles within this framework. On the front page every week you can find straightforward reporting on what happens at this school on a weekly basis. On the back page, you can find the same approach taken to sports coverage. Between those pages lives a blend of other types of coverage, including an opinion section that aims to provide a forum for informed and impassioned discussion of the issues addressed within our other sections. Last year, opinions hosted ongoing debates over Divestment, Israel and Palestine, abortion, and the culture of this institution. Our goal is not to shy away from these controversies, but to welcome them. We expect those debates to continue into this academic year, and we invite you to submit your thoughts and join the discussion.
(05/17/13 4:49pm)
CLICK HERE to download the PDF of There's Only One
[gallery columns="5" type="slideshow" ids="21209,21210,21212,21211,21208,21213"]
CLICK HERE to download the PDF of There's Only One
Welcome to the inaugural edition of There’s Only One Middlebury Sports Magazine, created by the editors of the Middlebury Campus. Free from the usual slate of weekly coverage, There’s Only One hopes to capture a different side of Middlebury athletics, simultaneously delving into the annals of the College’s history while further exploring the current state of sports at Middlebury.
From a never-to-be-broken rebounding record established in 1956 to a record-setting two-sport athlete in 2013, Middlebury has consistently fostered tremendous athletic achievement. Over that time certain programs have mobilized significant change at the national level while others have formed equally important relationships within the town itself. And during it all, Middlebury has seen the rise of sport-specific training and its effect on the fitness level and health of its athletes.
But while the athletes — and the venues in which they compete — have changed over time, the role of athletics in society has remained constant. Between the whistles, athletic competition strives to be organic, unscripted drama. As fans we are trained to focus our collective attention for this period of time, committing moments, plays and statistics to memory.
Beyond the box score, however, the sports that we love have the unique ability to create common ground where there otherwise might not be any. Our shared love for athletics can be a powerful agent of change by cutting through greater cultural differences, though it can also have the effect of reinforcing those differences. As journalists, therefore, our responsibility is to place the game, in all its detail, within this greater context.
As students, that context is Middlebury. While our experiences are confined to a four-year window, There’s Only One attempts to capture the vast landscape of Middlebury athletics, past and present, spanning from the Green Mountains in one direction to the Adirondacks in the other.
Finally, we would like to thank those people who made this production, which has been a goal of ours for more than a year, a success. Specifically we would like to recognize Kathryn DeSutter ’13, Michelle Smoller ’13, Olivia Allen ’15, Marea Hatheway ’15 and Quinn Proffer ’13, all of whom went out of their way to help us create something we are immensely proud of.
We hope you enjoy reading There’s Only One as much as we have enjoyed writing it. Middlebury has a storied history of athletic achievement — one documented by an equally impressive tradition of journalistic and literary excellence. To this we add our contribution.
With excitement and gratitude,
ALEX EDEL ’14, DAMON HATHEY ’13.5, FRITZ PARKER ’15 and OWEN TEACH ’13.5
CLICK HERE to download the PDF of There's Only One
(05/09/13 3:25am)
From the cross country course to the lacrosse field, Middlebury athletes have accomplished a lot this year. During the fall, the field hockey team put together a historically dominant season and, while they fell in the NCAA tournament, the team racked up gaudy numbers all year. Men’s basketball went dancing in Salem this winter, and women’s hockey played darkhorse in the NCAA tournament by knocking off perennial favorites Norwich and Plattsburgh en route to a national runner-up finish. That momentum has carried over into the spring, with women’s lacrosse and both men’s and women’s tennis headed into NCAA play looking for top finishes. As sports editors, we have enjoyed being there to cover these teams all along the way.
But there is another side to athletics at Middlebury, one which is not necessarily reflected in the results that we cover each week. This side is made up of the countless stories and personalities – past and present – which go a long way towards making Middlebury athletics what it is today, and it is, with this side in mind, that we present to you the first edition of There’s Only One Middlebury Sports Magazine.
You will find a range of stories in the Middlebury Sports Magazine – from a closer look into the relationship between the men’s hockey team and the town of Middlebury to an oral history of the men’s basketball program – but they are all stories that you won’t find in a typical edition of the Campus. With the more malleable format of the magazine, we have been able to explore our own interests and to delve further into stories that would otherwise have been swept up in the whirlwind of our weekly coverage. Deep in the fabric of the athletic program, we have uncovered stories that capture the spirit of Middlebury athletics in a way that our weekly coverage simply can’t. We hope you enjoy reading the Magazine as much as we have enjoyed writing it.
So pick up a copy of the Middlebury Sports Magazine when it’s released in the coming days, give it a read and let us know what you think. The College has a tradition of sports journalism going back nearly as far as the athletics program itself, and we hope that this magazine can both honor and continue that tradition.
FRITZ PARKER '15, ALEX EDEL '14, DAMON HATHEWAY '13.5 and OWEN TEACH '13.5 are sports editors for the Campus.
(05/08/13 11:05pm)
Each academic year at Middlebury is slightly different from the previous one. While the College could not run without the hard work of faculty, staff and administrators, it is the student body that ultimately sets the agenda and tone for each year. In other words, students define Middlebury.
At liberal arts institutions like ours, students have the unique opportunity to influence the content and style of their learning experience by expressing their interests both inside and outside of the classroom. Over the course of this year, we have seen student initiative shape the discourse on campus to a meaningful degree.
When used responsibly, the power of students can be a strong and beneficial force for the community, as was often the case this year. For example, it is thanks to the hard and persistent work of many students that conversations surrounding divestment have become much more informed over the course of the year. In the past eight months, we have seen divestment transform from a small movement pushed forward by self-proclaimed activists in a manner that has, at times, detracted from the message to an issue that has been discussed widely and constructively and, according to the SGA survey, is now supported by the majority of the student body. Whether you are in support of divestment or not, it is clear that the issue has remained in the forefront of dialogue throughout the year, due in large part to overwhelming student initiative.
Another issue that students have pushed to the forefront of the agenda this year is local food. Programs like Eat Real have worked hard to ensure that this remains on the minds of both students and administrators.
Other students have used their agenda-setting power to highlight some harsh realities that are important to address on campus. The organizers of this year’s It Happens Here event, for example, worked tirelessly to ensure that addressing sexual assault remains a priority for the college community. In a similar vein, Student Wellness Leaders worked tirelessly to ensure students’ wellbeing was not forgotten in the absence of an administrative health and wellness director.
It is clear that many students have set a positive tone for this year by exercising their power responsibly. However, we have also seen instances when such power has been used in the wrong way — when it is taken for granted as a privilege.
Some of these cases can be considered as forms of “negative activism,” in which students make choices that negatively affect campus life. For example, recent weeks have seen a renewed attention to a form of destruction that has plagued our campus for years — tree vandalism. And it is not just trees that are being vandalized. Although students are given four years of high-quality housing, dorm damage remains a large problem on campus. Community Council recommended Delta’s disbandment due to the thousands of dollars worth of damage Prescott House incurred.
The damage was compounded by Delta’s stubborn refusal to work within the system to repair damage and train their members. At Middlebury, we are also lucky to have a flexible dining plan that allows students much freedom. Students are even allowed to take dishes out of the dining halls. However, students often take this privilege for granted. Dishes are left in dorm rooms and classrooms. They can even be found in the trash.
Actions such as these demonstrate that we still have work to do in terms of respecting our surroundings and holding ourselves accountable. We have the power to define the school and to influence what students learn here, but we must ensure that we are doing so in a positive way.
As the school year comes to a close, we must look to the future. How will Middlebury students characterize the 2013-2014 academic year? Will we continue working to engage the student body on issues that matter to us, as so many students have done this year? Or will next year be defined by exorbitant amounts of dorm damage, dining halls without dishes and an increasing number of honor code violations? Ultimately, the answer lies with us — it is up to the students to decide.
(05/01/13 11:14pm)
The current debate about the potential expansion of a natural gas pipeline through Vermont to Ticonderoga, N.Y. highlights a seemingly rare instance of conflict between the surrounding community and the College. While the state of Vermont has banned fracking and public opposition to the construction of the pipeline — which would bring fracked natural gas through the state from Canada — continues to build, the College maintains its support for the project. Its main reason for doing so is that the pipeline would help ensure completion of its pledge to become 100 percent carbon neutral by 2016. Thus, this debate raises important questions about the responsibilities of the College, not only as an educational institution, but also as an integral part of a larger Middlebury community and a representative of the state of Vermont.
On a variety of issues, including those involving environmental sustainability, the College, the town of Middlebury and the state of Vermont have taken similar positions. Both have worked hard in recent years to expand access to local foods, for example, and to strengthen the connection between local farms and the College’s dining services. Indeed, in many ways, those inside and outside of Vermont view the College as representative of these shared values. With historical ties dating back to our founding in 1800, the College has always been — and will continue to be — connected to the surrounding community in meaningful ways.
Although there has been clear overlap in the general interests and values among these entities, the proposed pipeline represents a significant break in this pattern, one that may force the school to defend a position that is economically convenient but environmentally and ethically problematic.
Underlying this conflict are important differences that distinguish the town and the College. Perhaps most obvious is the fact that while students are here for a mere four years, many community members are life-long residents of Middlebury and are more affected in the long-term by projects such as the pipeline. Certainly, with over 60 percent of Middlebury students participating in some form of community service, it is hard to argue that students do not give back to the surrounding area in positive ways. Yet it is apparent that they do not face the same concerns as local residents when it comes to the pipeline, which would deliver natural gas to residents in Middlebury and Vergennes. For example, some community members opposing construction for environmental reasons cite potential detrimental effects on local farmland and residential properties. A less vocal group that supports the pipeline points to the fact that natural gas is a cleaner-burning, lower-emitting fuel compared to home heating oil; additionally, they tout the potential economic benefits of a cheaper energy alternative. Still, others may be removed from the debate entirely, predicting that the pipeline’s construction would have little impact on their lives or that their opinions have little impact on the construction.
Like Middlebury residents, the College itself is affected by the pipeline’s construction in the long term. While the College may be conscious of the concerns of local residents and public sentiment across the state, it has its own interests distinct from those of Vermonters. Most notably, the College is under pressure to meet its goal of carbon neutrality by 2016 and the pipeline represents a unique opportunity to do so. In brief, the natural gas pipeline would help the College meet its goal by allowing it to purchase climate-benefitting fuel from a local farm. The proposal involves construction of an on-farm methane digestor, a system which would feed methane produced naturally by animal waste into the pipeline, which the College would then purchase as heating fuel through Vermont Gas. Such a method, however, has produced a great deal of controversy among environmentalists on campus and in the surrounding community.
Completing our pledge to become 100 percent carbon neutral by 2016 by supporting the construction of a multi-million dollar fracked natural gas pipeline, one opposed by many Vermonters on environmental grounds, is problematic. Meeting our goal in this way suggests that despite the genuine efforts of students seeking to translate the College’s commitment to the environment into meaningful action, carbon neutrality has become a marketing tool. Some may rightly argue that to value the stated 2016 deadline over the sanctity of the process itself is to prioritize ends over means. Would it not be better to delay the deadline and meet our goal in more environmentally sound ways? What is the value of reaching the goal if its path is riddled with shortcuts?
At the same time, being a relatively new, self-defined concept, carbon neutrality constitutes a somewhat grey area. As a leader on this front, the College faces the challenge of setting and meeting its goal in seemingly unchartered territory, as has been evident since the declaration of this goal. For example, the College currently does not include athletic travel in its calculations of carbon emissions. The College should be granted some flexibility to alter and improve its methods as the field continues to evolve.
At the end of the day, we must remember that the only people truly holding the administration accountable to its pledged commitment to carbon neutrality are members of the college community. We define this notion on our own terms and owe it to ourselves to ensure that the process aligns with our values. We hope that the College will continue to examine this topic, considering the arguments on all sides of the issue and recognizing the effects of its actions on others. Ultimately, the pipeline presents an opportunity to ask ourselves not merely what carbon neutrality means in a technical sense, but what it means in relation to our ethical commitments as an institution of higher learning and our long-standing relationship with the town of Middlebury and state of Vermont.
(05/01/13 7:52pm)
The Middlebury men’s golf team was unable to defend its 2012 NESCAC title last weekend, finishing in a tie for third place in the four-team championship tournament at Shuttle Meadow Country Club in Kensington, Conn. Williams captured the team title with a final score of 592, narrowly edging runner-up Trinity’s 594. Middlebury and Hamilton both followed with scores of 605.
Rob Donahoe ’14 led the way for the Panthers, finishing tied for third place overall behind Williams’ Cody Semmelrock and Hamilton’s Greg Scott. Donahoe shot 74 on Saturday and then an impressive par-71 on Sunday to finish with 145. Eric Laorr ’15 was consistent, shooting 74 each day and finishing in sixth place overall.
Billy Prince ’13, a medalist last year, finished with 156. Chris Atwood ’14 was right behind him with 158, improving by eight strokes from Saturday to Sunday. Andrew Emerson ’14 rounded out the Panthers squad with a score of 166.
Middlebury found itself in last after Saturday, but was able to make up three strokes on Hamilton to earn a share of third place. It was somewhat of a disappointing result for the Panthers, who had won the tournament the past two years and four of the previous six.
The men will bring back almost every golfer next fall, as Prince is the lone senior on this year’s squad.
The Middlebury women’s golf team finished their regular season in second at the 2013 Williams Spring Invitational in Williamstown, Mass. on April 27 and 28. Williams won their home event with a combined total of 644, followed by the Panthers (672), Amherst (697) and Vassar (700). The Panthers now wait to hear if they will earn an at-large selection to the NCAA Tournament.
Conditions were difficult for the entire field.
“The course was set pretty tough,” explained Keely Levins ’13. “There were some pin placements out there that the whole field struggled with. [There were] rumors that a girl on another team had a ten putt on a hole.”
“We hung in there and put together a solid [performance],” Levins concluded.
The Ephs’ Georgia Salant won with a two-day total of 154. This was Salant’s third win this season. Not far behind was Middlebury’s Levins, who turned in a strong performance totaling 157 strokes over the two days, and finishing second overall.
Michelle Peng ’15 demonstrated the team’s depth, finishing in third place with a two-day total of 160. The remaining Panther golfers also had strong showings. Jordan Glatt ’15 settled for 16th, Monica Chow ’16 finished 24th and Caroline Kenter ’14 placed 29th.
Levins looks back on this short season explaining,
“The spring is tough because there are only three tournaments,” said Levins, reflecting on the team’s season. “It’s hard to come into the spring tournaments feeling prepared when we really have not been playing outside for very long.”
“The short season demands that we come in sharp, there really isn’t time for big mistakes,” Levins continued. “Our team has handled the pressure well with each player having some of their best two-round totals of the year. We’ve had a season that we are all proud of. Now we are all waiting and hoping for an NCAA bid.”
The Panthers reached the NCAA tournament last season, where Flora Weeks ’12 tied for 14th place.
MEN'S COVERAGE BY KEVIN YOCHIM; WOMEN'S COVERAGE BY CHRISTINE SCHOZER
(04/25/13 2:43am)
The Middlebury Campus got a chance to talk with Paula Bogutyn ’14, director and producer, as well as Jordan Ashleigh Jones ’13, costume designer, of The Igloo Settlement, a student-produced play written by Daniel Sauermilch ’13. Inspired by the Occupy movement, the play explored notions of American identity and class warfare. The play was a semi-finalist for the 2012 Princess Grace Foundation Playwriting Grant and was recently developed at the Kennedy Center’s MFA Playwrights’ Workshop. Bogutyn and Jones push back the curtains to reveal the ups and downs of the production.
The Middlebury Campus: What did you seek to do in producing The Igloo Settlement?
Paula Bogutyn: I was interested in it because of the strong resonance of social and political issues The Igloo Settlement includes, such as the idea of an occupational movement and the issues of social class. To me, this play is very much about class warfare. I am also a political science major and writing my senior work precisely about contemporary social movements and concepts surrounding them. I think that through a lens of uncensored and healthy non-PC humor Igloo shines a light on contemporary social issues that have grown even stronger, particularly due to the haunting consequences of the financial crisis.
Jordan Ashleigh Jones: I set out to create costumes that spoke honestly to each character’s story and to illuminate the play to both the actors and the audience, to help guide and inform the experience of the story through those costumes — I felt as though I arrived there but more importantly, I hope that the actors and audiences did too.
MC: What was it like working with so many characters and bodies?
PB: It was different than my previous works where there have consistently been less characters. It was very interesting but, especially at the beginning, required a lot of organization in the rehearsal room and making sure that everyone stays focused. Igloo has eight very different characters, each deeply ingrained in a particular type, so making connections at the beginning felt like approaching a huge piece of work, extending so far that its ends are invisible. But soon it became much more human and “graspable”.
JJ: It was very exciting, because, often, student shows have tiny casts and as a costume designer I particularly enjoyed the challenge of having so many characters — and characters coming from such different backgrounds — to costume and explore.
MC: What does being a real American mean to you? How does it compare to what the U.S. stands for now?
PB: Well, I am not American, so it’s hard to [address American identity] without being accused of self-righteousness and critical. I am uncomfortable with the level of consumption and the strong social hypocrisy that exists in the United States — hypocrisy that deals with class, ethnicity and gender. Americans don’t like to perceive these labels as divisions of different social groups, while in reality this is exactly what they are. I believe that differences should be celebrated and pretending we are the same serves no purpose. The ideas of land, ownership and the right to possession are also largely discussed concepts in The Igloo Settlement, as they are huge foundations of an American consciousness. In scene one, we hear Brenda say that “there is little land left for good people.” Completely not true, given how huge this country is. But the idea of private property is as essential to this nation as founded by its fathers.
MC: What was the biggest challenge in directing the play?
PB: Other than having a birth on stage, a burning house and a Ukrainian strapped to a tree — all of that in a blizzard and five feet of snow? It was a piece of cake.
JJ: For me personally, the biggest challenge was making sure that the costumes immediately and dramatically showed the differences in class and status among the various characters. It was difficult to place them in the narrative and provide the audience with a clear understanding of the situation in the play from the get-go.
MC: What the most exciting part of production?
PB: All of it, especially the challenges! One thing I am in a way most proud of is having created what I could call a true theatre ensemble. I wanted for everyone to enjoy working on this production and I really think that I succeeded. Other than that, making a good piece of theatre! I had a great cast and production team to work with, and that really made a big part of our success.
MC: What did you learn from the process?
JJ: I learned a lot of practical realities about how to manage time, budget and stock as a designer in order to make a vision come to life. But I imagine the nitty-gritty would be pretty boring to someone who isn’t a designer.
MC: How has your vision of The Igloo Settlement changed from the start?
JJ: My vision has remained remarkably constant since I first read Daniel’s script but I certainly found some of the humor in the play again once we finally had audiences in the space with us. Somewhere in the middle of the process it’s really easy to lose sight of what’s funny and enjoyable and wonderful about a script and our week of shows brought that back to me.
(04/24/13 4:37pm)
In mid-March, the Student Government Association (SGA) launched We the Middkids, an online petition site designed to breakdown the barriers between students and their elected leaders. After a month, the program received mixed reviews.
“One of our goals for this semester is to really increase the transparency of the SGA to student concerns and needs,” said SGA President Charlie Arnowitz ’13 in a video posted on YouTube and attached to an all-campus email on March 18.
According to Arnowitz’s Chief of Staff Anna Esten ’13, the site received “over 2,400” visits in its first month.
“Its use at this point is not as widespread as we would hope,” she wrote in an email. But Esten and First-Year Atwater Senator Hasher Nisar ’16, both champions of the program, were hopeful that site visits would increase.
The program allows students to create petitions after establishing an account with their college email. Every student has 10 votes which can be distributed between petitions. After voting closes, students get their votes returned to them.
In the all-student email announcing the platform, Arnowitz pledged that if a petition received 50 votes, it would automatically be brought before the SGA. If it got 100 votes, Arnowitz said he would personally record a video response to the petition.
Matt Jerrehian ’15 started a petition on the site to open the windows in Proctor to help cool the dining hall.
“Unlocking more windows in Proctor would be so easy and so harmless,” he wrote in an email. “I think that this petition is a good test of the efficacy of the new system.”
But Jerrehian cautioned that every petition shouldn’t be implemented just because it gets a lot of votes.
“For communication with our representatives to be effective, not every popular petition has to be implemented,” he wrote.
Other petitions on the site have ranged from Tupperware use in the dining halls, to creating an outdoor graffiti location and adding a printing station in Hillcrest and Proctor.
At the time of publication, the petition “Get a printing station in Hillcrest or Proctor” had received 117 votes and was labeled “under review” on the site.
The SGA will continue to monitor and respond to petitions on the site througout the spring.
(04/24/13 4:29pm)
With the elections for SGA president approaching, the Campus met last Sunday with this year’s trio of candidates, Rachel Liddell ’15, Killian Naylor ’14 and Nathan LaBarba ’14. More so than perhaps any year in recent memory, all three are superbly qualified and, unsurprisingly, all of the candidates shared an impressive agenda for the upcoming year. Each has served as a member of the SGA Senate, and this is LaBarba’s second time running for the office. Despite the qualifications of all parties, one candidate stood out above the rest in her preparedness and passion. For that reason the Campus has chosen to endorse Liddell as the next SGA president.
One of Liddell’s distinguishing traits is her relative youth as a rising junior. Rather than a liability, we see this as an asset. Many presidents of social houses and other campus organizations are often members of the junior class, as they continue to hold a stake in the future of the organization following the end of their term of office. In addition, any of the recent SGA presidents will attest that the job is very demanding and clashes with the many pressures students face in their final year at the College. However, should Liddell win the election, we urge her to hedge this relative inexperience by drawing on some of the best suggestions presented by the other candidates. LaBarba stressed the importance of a smooth transition so that the next president might fully take advantage of his or her short term in office. Naylor hopes to draw on the experience of a broad range of students by appointing a diverse cabinet. Liddell could also take this approach, bucking the longstanding trend of bringing on only close friends, while simultaneously sidestepping the difficulties her youth might present in connecting with the whole of the student body and administration. Any of the candidates would bring unique attributes to the job and we firmly believe the eventual winner should encourage his or her opponents to serve in the new cabinet.
Liddell has accomplished a lot in her short time at Middlebury. As Cook Commons senator, she’s gained insight into the workings of the SGA. As a host of the Moth, she understands the type of showmanship necessary in one of the most visible student leadership positions on campus. As a tour guide director, she understands the complex task of running a system composed of many working parts. As a member of the College’s budgetary advisory committee, she has an understanding of the expenditures at play and the relative leverage of the SGA. She bills herself first of all as a listener and a leader. We agree.
Year after year it seems as though campaign platforms feature the same types of issues. Candidates promise better printers, better food and better parties, and inevitably find they are unable to accomplish these lofty changes. Liddell’s platform features some fresh new goals. She stressed the importance of securing credit for summer internships — an issue that an older candidate might neglect — as well as working with existing student groups to increase the amount of local food in the dining halls. She also aims to revitalize 51 Main, overhaul the distribution requirements system and provide more equitable access to the athletic trainers here on campus.
Although it was neither a component of our discussion nor a factor in our decision, more than a decade has passed since a female student last held this office. Liddell would bring a fresh perspective and approachable personality to the face of the student body. For these aforementioned reasons, the Campus editorial board endorses Liddell as the best candidate to fill the SGA presidency.
(04/17/13 10:30pm)
Two weeks ago, the National Association of Scholars (NAS) released a 359-page report criticizing the academics and identity politics of Bowdoin College. The report, commissioned and funded by a potential donor named Thomas Klingenstein, was a scathing attack on Bowdoin’s left-leaning tendencies. One of the report’s many criticisms was that the college places too much emphasis on racial diversity instead of fostering ideological diversity.
It is important to consider some of the underlying factors that likely influenced some of the report’s findings. First of all, Klingenstein himself funded the approximately $300,000 cost of the report. It is not entirely surprising then, that its findings were largely in line with its commissioner’s preexisting opinions. Secondly, Klingenstein is neither a Bowdoin student nor an alumnus of the college. Finally — and perhaps most importantly — while the report’s main criticism of the Bowdoin community was of its uniformity of ideology and opinion, the report itself is similarly guilty of one-sidedness. Throughout the report, conservative ideology stands in place of real neutrality. Overall, the integrity of the report’s findings should be subject to scrutiny.
However, regardless of whether or not we agree with the report’s findings and its overall validity, one thing is clear: the criticisms waged against Bowdoin by Klingenstein and the NAS could have just as easily been directed toward Middlebury or any of our peer institutions. Klingenstein scoffs at Bowdoin’s course offerings, focusing on classes with names like “Queer Gardens.” Upon glancing at a Middlebury course catalog, we wonder how would he characterize the classes offered here — “White People” or “Body and Earth,” for example? In this way, the report reads like an attack on a liberal arts education in general. Klingenstein overlooks a core facet of the liberal arts education: the importance of seeing issues from multiple perspectives. By doing so, he fails to practice the open-mindedness that he preaches.
If Middlebury had been the subject of such an attack, how would we react? Would we denounce Klingenstein simply as a spiteful guy who — by the way — happened to graduate from Williams? Would we question the validity of the report’s findings? Most likely we would, and with good reason. However, results aside, the main question raised by the report — what does diversity on a college campus really mean? — is an important one.
Klingenstein’s primary criticism of diversity at Bowdoin is that it focuses too much on racial and ethnic differences and — by virtue of the College’s overwhelmingly liberal student body and faculty — overlooks diversity of opinion and ideology. One could point to a similar situation at Middlebury. The Admissions Office is quick to tout the fact that the College has seen an increasing number of applications from students of color. In doing so, the College is responding to market demands for diversity, albeit a specific type of diversity. Racial diversity can serve as a tangible selling point for a college, whereas diversity of thought is less quantifiable and is, therefore, less marketable.
Is, as Klingenstein asserts, the dearth of ideological diversity at schools like Bowdoin and Middlebury necessarily a bad thing? The likely answer is that it depends. If our professors continually exhibit liberal bias in the classroom and quell the possibility of real debate and dialogue, than yes — this seems like a bad thing.
But most Middlebury and Bowdoin professors are smarter than that. A good professor will open students up to all sides of an argument, educating them in a way that will allow them to form their own opinions, be they liberal, conservative or somewhere in between.
It is also up to students to ensure that Middlebury’s liberal bent does not act as a hindrance on our education. In fact, labeling opinions merely “liberal” or “conservative” often overlooks the important nuances of our convictions.
These steps are necessary because while students and professors can foster an environment where a diversity of opinion is welcomed, there may be little that Middlebury or Bowdoin as a whole can do to actively increase ideological diversity on campus. Does Klingenstein believe that admissions officers should ascertain an applicant’s political affiliation before offering admission? Most of us are 17 or 18 years old when we’re applying to college — hopefully our political views are not completely unwavering before we’ve even graduated high school.
In addition, Middlebury is self-selecting, both for students and for faculty. The College has a liberal reputation, and therefore often draws those who hold left-leaning views. It seems that, in Klingenstein’s view, schools like Middlebury and Bowdoin have a duty to counteract this self-selecting feedback loop. This may be an unrealistic responsibility to place on a college.
Is it possible to expand Middlebury’s outreach in order to encompass a more diverse (in multiple senses of the word) student body without abandoning the College’s identity? Hopefully it is. One way to start is to realize the many forms that diversity can take. Diversity is more than skin deep, and not all of its forms can be immediately recognized or quantified. Take, for example, the diversity of interests and passions held by Middlebury students, as the student symposium this Friday will likely make clear.
The questions that Klingenstein poses are important ones to answer, but the correct way to answer them is by assessing both sides of the situation with an open mind and by accepting the possibility of all viewpoints. The NAS report failed to accept this possibility.
(04/17/13 2:39pm)
The average age of a Peace Corps volunteer, according to the organization, is 28, and only seven percent of the volunteers are over the age of 50. But that didn’t stop Middlebury resident Paul Viko from setting off for Moldova, a small Eastern European country nestled between Romania and Ukraine, at the age of 74.
Viko, now 82, remembers a conversation with a young woman during the early stages of his first Peace Corps trip.
“‘How does it feel to be as old as you are, the oldest one here?’” the young woman inquired. “I remember replying, ‘You can call me older but don’t call me oldest!’”
Indeed, Viko has never found that his age has been a hindrance to his volunteering activities, even when they have involved physical labor as they did while working in Japan. He works out at a fitness center three times a week, and is in fair shape for a man of 82.
“[Despite] my age, I could keep up with [the other volunteers],” said Viko. “I was doing the same stuff everybody was doing.”
This was no small feat. In August of 2011, for example, six years after his 27-month stint with the Peace Corps in Moldova, Viko joined seven other volunteers in Japan to assist the victims of the March tsunami and earthquake.
They slept for the first night on the floor of an office in Tokyo, and then moved 250 miles north to a Buddhist temple just outside of the city of Sendai for the remainder of their four weeks in Japan.
The volunteers spent most of their time outside, doing physical labor in order to clear fields of rocks to convert to farmland, and even clearing a mountain path from top to bottom in case of a fire or flood.
At the end of the workday, the volunteers took turns going to town to purchase food and to attend the public bathing facilities.
Viko’s diet consisted almost entirely of rice and soup. He ate with chopsticks, which was not always easy.
“[The others] felt sorry for me because I wasn’t very good at it,” said Viko, chuckling.
Aside from working in Japan and volunteering within the Middlebury community, Viko has also spent five of the last 10 years using skills he acquired over the course of a lifetime of work in corporate America to challenges within native populations in Moldova, Iraq and Mozambique.
He has spent extended periods of time in Mozambique with an organization called World Vision in 2005, and in Iraq with “Volunteers for Economic Growth Alliance” in 2006, as well as in Japan and Moldova. “During my professional career, although I had traveled considerably, including overseas, I had minimum time to contribute my time to helping others and now was the time to so.”
Viko’s experiences have not always been perfectly smooth. In 2005, while in Mozambique, Viko was a passenger in a car that rolled over twice. He was transported by jet to a hospital in South Africa, where Viko learned that he had broken his neck in two places. He can no longer move his neck to its full extent. In spite of his injury, Viko walked onto the jet holding his jaw together.
Viko remains unfazed by the dangers of his charitable work.
“I really enjoy what I do,” he said. “I enjoy working with people, particularly with people who are not part of my world. I don’t know these people; I don’t know these countries; I don’t know these worlds.”
Despite being the only American present in his camp in Mozambique, Viko felt, after only a day, that he was home.
“I was foreign, but I was comfortable. I probably didn’t feel comfortable to them, but I was comfortable.”
After serving in the Korean War as a Navy pilot, Viko graduated from the University of Utah with three degrees, including a Masters in Mechanical Engineering. Over the next 40 years, he worked for American Standard, American Express and Hanover Direct.
In 1997, Viko and his wife of 29 years, with whom he has two children and from whom he is now legally separated, settled in Cornwall, Vt., before moving to Middlebury in 2012.
Viko’s extensive volunteer work in Middlebury began between 1998 and 2001 when he taught beginning math and beginning algebra at the Community College of Vermont.
“It was interesting because I had kids [who] were just graduating from high school, but who didn’t know basic math, and then I had a 55-year-old woman who was coming in because . . . she felt embarrassed [that] her [high school-aged] kids knew more about basic math than she did.”
During that same time period, Viko served as the program co-administrator for the Employment Associates division of the Counseling Service of Addison County. There, Viko worked with both physically and mentally handicapped people, teaching them the skills necessary to hold a job.
“I’ve taught people how to wash dishes, how to clean offices, how to serve food in hospitals, . . . [even] how to assemble pewter [objects],” said Viko.
The job required Viko to work on-site; for example, he spent time at the Porter Hospital kitchen, teaching one individual “how to prepare the trays that we would take to the patients.”
Clients of his have also included dining hall workers at the College. “One [girl] wanted to eat food off the plates that were coming back to the dish washer, and so we had to help her learn that she couldn’t eat that food.”
Viko’s involvement with the College has extended in the past to the Friends of International Students program. He has “hosted” three different students.
“Typically we would take the students where they want to go, when they want to go,” said Viko.
His first two students, from Pakistan and China, he came to know jointly over a period of four years. “[Yunfei Ren], from China, liked to cook, so he would come over and cook with my friends. And that was kinda cool.”
“He was generous in offering his help,” said Yunfei Rend ’10, one of Viko’s former students. “I didn’t have a car nor could I drive. So he’d help me move in between academic years and offer to provide storage space in his basement. He never asked for anything in return.”
Together, Viko and Ren attended Chinese festivals at the College on more than one occasion, as well as hockey games and concerts.
“He made me feel connected to the local community,” said Ren. “Which frankly, for international students was a rare opportunity.”
Beyond these connections, Viko continues to get to know local students through a reading program called “Everybody Wins” at the Mary Hogan elementary school.
Viko was partnered with one young lady for four years, during which time he enjoyed books such as The Secret Garden and Harry Potter.
“We see the students growing,” said Viko. “She was in fourth grade when I started and she graduated and went into the seventh grade.”
Viko now has a new student, and he continues to spend the lunch hour at the elementary school, reading to his student while she eats lunch, and then taking a turn as listener.
In Middlebury, Viko has worked as an usher at the community theater as well as with the Charter House, which is a transitional shelter, housing residents for up to six months. Viko volunteers his time to man the house on Saturday and Sunday mornings, as well as one night a week and whenever the house is in urgent need of a volunteer.
On Friday evenings, Viko helps out serving food to over 100 community members at the Community Supper at the Congregational Church of Middlebury, and cleans up afterwards.
Viko’s committment to service locally and abroad has made an indellible mark on each of the lives he has touched. Yet Viko’s days of service are far from over; in the years to come, Viko plans to continue to give his time to those who need it.
(04/10/13 1:50pm)
Middlebury students welcome the arrival of spring in many ways, the least pleasant of which may be stress related to housing. As randomly assigned housing numbers are released and superblock applications considered, many students become anxious at the prospect of securing “good” housing for the following academic year. Before considering why this system causes such stress for students, it is important to acknowledge that housing here reflects and enhances the overall liberal arts mission of the College in meaningful ways.
At Middlebury, students are taught to think outside the box, make connections across a range of disciplines and engage with a variety of different perspectives. The fact that on-campus housing is guaranteed for all four years here facilitates these goals and helps to build a strong community in which discussions continue beyond the classroom and into organized events, casual lunchtime conversation and, of course, dorm life. Having the vast majority of students concentrated on campus as opposed to scattered throughout the surrounding area facilitates a richer, more comprehensive learning experience and ensures that no student is too far from class, the dining hall, facilities or their friends.
In addition, it is hard to complain about the quality and diversity of housing options offered. Upperclassmen who live in interest houses, for example, enjoy great spaces themselves and offer engaging programming to the rest of the student body throughout the year. Few other schools can boast having language houses, social houses and superblocks as well.
Managing such a wide-ranging housing system for 2,500 students is undoubtedly a difficult task, and Residential Systems Coordinator Karin Hall-Kolts and others do an admirable job of placing students in a fair manner. In color-coded emails, students are given step-by-step instructions on how to navigate the housing process. The annual housing fair also gives students an opportunity to connect with the appropriate people and ask questions.
Despite these merits, however, housing anxiety arises each year, and with good reason in some cases. Upperclassmen assigned housing numbers have no way of knowing what numbers their peers have received, which makes coordinating with others and deciding which house to apply for difficult. Releasing a list of all students and their assigned numbers would likely reduce the stress involved with strategizing about the “right” house to apply for. Doing so would also clear up any incorrect assumptions that numbers are assigned unfairly. If the administration chooses not to release a full list of assigned numbers, students should take the lead and develop a voluntary system to share the information, making the process easier for everyone. Other measures to make the system more transparent include holding housing fairs after numbers have been released, giving students an opportunity to interact with Hall-Kolts and each other with more pertinent information.
The underlying cause of housing angst may also relate to the commons system itself, which was never fully implemented as envisioned; though original plans had proposed a more extensive system of neighborhood-like communities, the economic recession delayed the full completion of this project. While the poor timing is not the administration’s fault, the commons system as a whole may hurt some students when it comes to housing. Obviously, everyone’s experience is unique; some students love living with the same people for two years and value the relationships that otherwise may not have formed, while others feel that the system unfairly limits their options, making it harder to meet new students and live with friends. We understand that the commons system has logistical merits, as it reduces the number of students who must be entered into the campus-wide housing draw. However, the commons system does not work for everyone, including Febs who may feel isolated from their commons and awkwardly thrown into their sophomore year dorm after a semester elsewhere. The recent decision to allow sophomores to live in social houses may also open up more flexibility on this front.
While students, faculty and staff should work together to ensure that everyone has a positive housing experience, the administration itself will have to acknowledge the need for more housing space in the near future. Rising enrollment and an increasing number of students choosing not to study abroad make construction of new dorms or conversion of existing buildings likely in the coming years. With areas like the mods long past their expiration date and the future of large spaces such as Prescott House undecided, there is an opportunity to develop new housing options that appeal to broader swaths of the Middlebury student body and remain in line with the College’s core liberal arts mission.