1000 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(04/04/13 3:04pm)
On April 4, the Campus celebrated its annual tradition of releasing an April Fool's issue. As none of the information presented in the issue is true, the articles were not uploaded to the website this week. Be sure to check out our video about the making of the April Fool's issue!
Even though the articles were a joke, the editorial board sincerely addressed readers. Here are our thoughts:
As you hopefully have figured out by this point, none of the stories in this issue are true (and if you haven’t, don’t let us burst your bubble — gullible was removed from the dictionary!). Editors at the Campus use April Fool’s Day as an excuse to take a break from our usual blend of hard-hitting journalism, deeply profound opinion pieces and revealing profiles of the student body in order to poke fun at ourselves and the community as a whole. We do this not to alienate any particular group or have a cheap laugh, but to add a new perspective of our lives through the lens of humor.
Satire has always had an important role in presenting news from a new angle. Satire is sometimes the sole way to communicate the truth in societies where more serious news is subject to the heavy hand of government censorship. But it also plays a role in the information era, in which we are bombarded by an unending stream of superlatively negative news reports. Perhaps as a way to escape this or perhaps because of it, more and more people mine their news from comedic avenues like The Daily Show or The Colbert Report, while publications like The Onion serve as both a welcome commentary on serious issues and a check about the mundane reality of everyday life. Shows such as South Park serve society by testing limits, targeting every possible group and daring them to take it seriously. Satire preserves the First Amendment and the principle of equality by reducing hypersensitive matters to absurdity.
This is not to say that satire has no limits. Several weeks ago we criticized the posting of “flying spaghetti monster” posters created in response to advertisements for the Middlebury Christian Fellowship because they served no broader purpose than belittling the beliefs of a set group of students. True satire builds on reality in order to build a dialogue; it cannot discriminate and cannot disparage. The Onion recently found that line when it hurled an out-of-context insult at a child actress. Similarly, problematic attitudes towards topics like race and gender cloaked in satire can serve to glorify unhealthy attitudes. Websites like “Bros Like This,” which refer to women as “slam pieces” and worse, even if intended to mock a particular culture, merely reinforce misogyny.
The April Fool’s edition of the Campus is one of our most-read throughout the year, even among students who have long since figured out the joke. Its comedic value comes not only from surprise and initial credulity, but from the need to laugh at ourselves. By presenting issues that we often treat as grave and even dire in a more entertaining light, we gain a more holistic perspective. Satire, in short, can show truths through humor. We believe that our purpose as a campus organization is both to inform and to entertain. In exercising our right to mock, we hope to maintain an atmosphere where not all discourse has to be serious.
We continue this tradition of satire in the hopes of entertaining our long-time readers, but also with the goal of expanding dialogues around the more serious matters from which students may have stayed away throughout the year. If any of you read this and laugh, we have done our job well. But even if you don’t, and you read an article about the STI epidemic and decide to get tested, read about divestment and decide to become involved or simply realize that the mere fact that there are no sacred cows on this campus says something extremely important about liberal arts and liberal society, then this issue has served a broader purpose.
(03/20/13 10:56pm)
On March 18, Community Council voted to disband Delta. The decision came after the Residential Life Committee conducted its biennial review of Middlebury’s five social houses. Delta was the only social house that the committee recommended for disbandment.
While disbanding Delta, formerly known as ADP, may seem like an unnecessarily dramatic move on the part of Community Council, the decision did not come out of nowhere. Delta membership failed to comply with the steps urged by the administration in order to avoid disbandment this academic year. In addition, Prescott house has already surpassed its $1,500 annual dorm damage limit implemented by Community Council as of last year.
President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz therefore has a clear basis to support Community Council’s decision to dissolve Delta. Even after the report released by the Residential Life Committee, the organization had multiple chances to prove its commitment to change — yet its leadership failed to do so.
However, Delta should not be solely to blame for this year’s transgressions. Dorm damage is not confined to Prescott house — it occurs everywhere on campus. Prescott is just one of a number of large party spaces that the College has shut down as a result of damage in recent years — Fletcher and the Bunker are two examples. If the College’s prescribed method of dealing with the issue — shutting down the spaces where the most damage occurs — continues to yield weak results, perhaps it is not the solution to the problem. It may even be the case that dorm damage is inevitable.
Whether this last statement is true or not, as it currently stands, the Community Council’s policy does not overlook the unfortunate reality of the situation; by allowing for a certain dorm damage threshold, the College explicitly acknowledges that dorm damage will happen. Therefore, as students, we must uphold our end of the bargain. Accidents happen, but cutting loose does not necessitate breaking windows. We all must work to ensure that partying does not become synonymous with destruction, and this responsibility does not just fall on members of social houses.
We must recognize that many students here — and not just those who are members of social houses — want the type of party scene that these spaces provide, and these students should not be vilified for preferring to socialize in this way. However, under the College’s current restrictions, it remains unclear whether the typical “college” parties we grew up seeing on TV and in movies can exist in our community.
The disbanding of Delta will undoubtedly have some effect on Middlebury’s social scene. Many of us took part in the typical first-year activity of trekking down to ADP or Tavern with a huge group of hall-mates in search of a stereotypical, big college party. And attendance at social house parties is not limited to first-years — judging by the overwhelming crowds that can be found in Ridgeline basements on any given weekend, social houses play a role in the social lives of a critical portion of Middlebury’s student body and eliminating large party spaces will reduce weekend options for students.
In addition, with fewer large party spaces, students will likely hold smaller, less inclusive parties where they are unlikely to meet new people and likely to drink more irresponsibly, creating additional risk to students’ safety. Instead of grabbing a beer in a basement of a social house, students may be driven to drink in small groups behind closed doors.
Weekend partying aside, Delta as an organization has historically had strong ties to the space as a residence. Administrators have indicated that with the dissolution of Delta, Prescott house will likely serve as a regular dorm for the 2013-2014 academic year, comprised of singles and doubles, rather than be offered up as a superblock. We can anticipate that this change will affect the feeling of community created when organization membership and residence combine.
There are no obvious solutions to address these larger issues, and we are unsure as to whether removing Delta from the social scene will in the end yield any real positive change. Looking at the past few years, Delta’s extensive dorm damage is likely a symptom of an overarching campus-wide problem.
The question that needs answering is, where do we go from here? How do we fill the void that Delta is bound to leave? It seems that some of this responsibility of ensuring that students can find a communal place to party will fall on the social houses still in existence. From the big picture perspective, however, it is clear that the onus for creating a healthy, functional social scene that still satisfies student preferences falls on all of us. The administration should ensure that its expectations remain realistic, and continue to help students remain aware of and capable of meeting these expectations. However, as students, we must fulfill our side of the bargain by respecting these expectations and making ourselves accountable. Respect for our surroundings and our peers cannot go by the wayside come Thursday night. Accidents are inevitable, but no one has a right to commit them.
(03/13/13 5:00pm)
With the review of the College’s Honor Code, which this year includes the Community Forum held this past Monday, March 11 and the forthcoming creation of the Honor Code Student Committee, it is important to take time to assess the effectiveness of the code itself, both in theory and in practice. As noted in the preamble to the Constitution of the Undergraduate Honor System, Middlebury students form a “community of individuals that values academic integrity as a way of life” and thus are deemed capable of holding themselves and their peers accountable to the Honor Code’s high standards intended to prevent cheating. Unfortunately, the admirable ambitions of the Honor Code do not always translate into its adherence in the classroom.
In practice, the self-proctoring of exams by students appears to be problematic; while a majority of students may not explicitly cheat in this context, an overarching attitude exists that facilitates the ability of some students to get away with cheating with little fear of repercussion. In a community of individuals supposedly committed to honoring academic integrity, why do students fail to report incidents of cheating? The most apparent explanation is that under the current system, there is little incentive to hold others accountable.
A variety of factors account for this lack of enforcement. Reporting an incident of cheating can be a traumatic experience for both the accused and accuser. As each student has a right to hear all charges being brought against him or herself, those who report cheating must confront the accused, face-to-face in the hearing overseen by the Academic Judicial Board. Given the close-knit nature of the Middlebury community, it is understandable why students may feel uncomfortable bringing up charges against a fellow student, likely a friend or acquaintance. Thus, while the small community feel of the College is supposed to strengthen adherence to the Honor Code, it acts as a double-edged sword. Additionally, though students who are accused of cheating face extremely high costs (including possible expulsion if found guilty), those who report cheating receive little benefit from doing so besides the moral satisfaction of maintaining the College’s academic integrity. Given this imbalance, students have little motivation to report incidents of cheating among their peers.
Students, faculty and administrators should consider different methods of addressing this issue as they review the Honor Code. First, the Honor Code itself should be highlighted more prominently throughout students’ entire academic careers here, rather than just mentioned during first-year orientation and at the beginning of the semester in some classes. Second, serious thought should be given to reforming the process through which students report cheating; students should not be dissuaded from doing so for fear of an overly stressful experience. Finally, though testing methods differ across various academic departments, simple changes may be implemented in all courses to help decrease the probability of cheating. Requiring students to place all electronic devices at the front of the room before the exam begins, for example, may force students to think more seriously about their actions and dissuade them from cheating.
We are not advocating for changes to the Honor Code that promote a classroom environment in which students feel they must police their peers. Students’ ability to self-proctor their exams is a key feature of our academic life here, and one of which we are proud. Similarly, it is impractical and unfair to require professors to babysit students in long exams. What must change, however, is the general attitude embedded within the student culture that maintains that cheating is okay, or, at minimum, is “not my problem.” Students must understand that they implicitly endorse cheating by not taking a stand against it; each time cheating occurs and each time it goes unreported, the academic integrity of the College as an educational institution is compromised. Though the Honor Code explicitly states that any member of the College community who is “aware of a case of academic dishonesty is morally obligated to report it to the professor or the Judicial Affairs Officer,” this language is fairly ambiguous and offers no mechanism for enforcement. In an academic environment of trust and mutual respect, the moral obligation of students to not cheat in the first place must be as strong as the moral obligation of others to report violations of the Honor Code.
Undoubtedly, our reactions to the Honor Code directly reflect our views of cheating. Is cheating really that big of a deal? The answer is yes. Though students face a variety of external pressures to achieve a certain GPA, we ourselves have the power to make the right decisions each time we step into an exam or submit an assignment. Though some may view the act of cheating as a personal choice, it has implications on the entire college community. While looking over someone’s shoulder during an exam may positively impact your grade one time, it negatively impacts the academic experience of others around you and diminishes the College’s academic standing. In reality, the true value of the Honor Code is as good as our respect for it, and we can do better than the status quo.
(03/07/13 1:19am)
Track and Field
After an indoor season which has seen numerous school records fall and a new Division III national record in the women’s distance medley relay, the Middlebury track-and-field teams look to improve on last year’s success as they gear up for the outdoor season.
Jack Davies ’13 – last year’s NCAA runner-up in the 3000-meter steeplechase – returns to lead the Panther men in 2013. Other returning men’s NESCAC champions from a year ago include sprinter Peter Hetzler ’14, hurdler Kevin Chu ’14 and the 400-meter relay team of Jason McCallum ’14, Bryan Holtzman ’14, Fritz Parker ’15 and Hetzler. The 1600-meter relay of Parker, Sam Craft ’14, Lou
Cornacchione ’13 and Patrick Rooney ’13 returns all four legs and will look to improve on last season’s runner-up finish at this year’s conference meet.
The men finished third in the NESCAC a year ago, topping conference power Williams for the first time in years.
On the women’s side, Middlebury is led by Addie Tousley ’13, who won the 5,000 meters and finished second in the 1500 meters in the conference last year. Juliet Ryan-Davis ’13 will look to defend her conference title in the 800 meters, as will Grace Doering ’13 in the high jump. The 3200-meter relay team, which finished third in the NESCAC in 2012, returns two runners in Sarah Guth ’15 and Lottie Hedden ’14.
The Panther women were also third in the conference a year ago, finishing just two points behind second-place Tufts.
After indoor NCAAs, the Panthers have a one-week break from competition before they return to racing on their spring-break training trip in California. After the break, Middlebury has a three-meet regular season before competing in NESCACs at Tufts on April 27.
— Joe MacDonald
Men's Lacrosse
Coming off of a 4-9 record last year, the Middlebury men’s lacrosse team is looking forward to another shot to prove their talent to the NESCAC and return to national prominence. The team has opened their preseason with two scrimmages, most recently against St. Michael’s College.
“[The second scrimmage] was better than the first, but there is still a lot of room for improvement,” said tri-captain Johnny Duvnjak ’13.
Returning players to look out for include starting attackmen Mike Giordano ’13 and tri-captain Stew Kerr ’13. Andrew Metros ’13, Scott Redmond ’13, Erich Pfeffer ’13, Brian Ayers ’14 and Joel Blockowicz ’15 return for the Panthers at midfield, while tri-captain Billy Chapman ’13 and Darric White ’14 return at long-stick defense with Nate Gaudio ’14 in net.
“Harrison Goodkind [’16] and Sean Carroll [’16] have been very impressive at midfield,” said Duvnjack.
The team has a tough schedule this year, starting off the season on the road at Bates this Saturday, March 9. With only 14 games in the regular season, the Panthers play 10 NESCAC games and four out-of-league games in hopes to qualify for NCAA’s.
“The NESCAC, as it is in most sports, is extremely competitive and games usually come down to a goal or two,” said Duvjnak. “I don’t think we necessarily have a biggest rival, as each and every game in the NESCAC is extremely competitive.”
The men play their first home game against Springfield on Wednesday, March 13.
— Mary Claire Ecclesine
Women's Tennis
The Middlebury women’s tennis team will take the court this coming weekend to start their quest for a national championship. Their first challengers are Brandeis and Trinity this Saturday, March 9. Alongside experienced assistant coach Karen Wells, last year’s ITA National Coach of the Year Mike Morgan is ready to lead his team to a successful opening weekend.
Seniors Leah Kepping ’13, Brittney Faber ’13 and DeeDee Myers ’13 will guide their fellow teammates this season. The doubles pairing of Kepping and Faber compiled a 14-4 record at the number-one position last spring. Their doubles expertise will surely help all three doubles pairings in the upcoming matches.
Lok-Sze Leung ’15, last year’s NESCAC Player of the Year and National Rookie of the Year, will take to the courts at the number one position. Dorrie Paradies ’14 and Katie Paradies ’15 also return for the Panthers. Sophomore Sarah Macy ’15 hopes to serve her way into helping the Panthers succeed.
Adding to this powerful group of girls is a stellar first-year class including Ria Gerger ’16, Margot Marchese ’16, Lauren Amos ’16 and Sadie Shackelford ’16. Gerger, who reached the finals of the ITA Regional tournament this past fall, has established herself as the fifth-ranked player in the region and will be instrumental in helping the Panthers.
“The team is chomping at the bit to finally start competing,” said Morgan.
Currently ranked six in the country, the team is hoping to climb even higher. The Panthers won’t have to wait much longer as competition begins this weekend.
— Courtney Mountifield
Women's Lacrosse
The Middlebury women’s lacrosse team looks to continue their NESCAC dominance with the return of many key players from last season, along with the addition of many new talented first-years. After finishing last season 15-5, taking second place in the NESCAC Championship, and making it to the NCAA semifinals, the Panther women have a challenging road ahead of them to match and outdo last season’s success.
Middlebury will have two of three All-Americans from last year returning including Margaret Souther ’13, and Katie Ritter ’15. Souther totaled 63 points for the Panthers last season, including 39 goals and 24 assists. Ritter, who was named NESCAC rookie of the year, finished the season with a total of 42 points, consisting of 32 goals and 10 assists.
The Panthers will also return Liza Herzog ’14 who made the Intercollegiate Women’s Lacrosse Association second team, and finished the 2012 season with 35 goals and nine assists. Middlebury will look to these returning players along with the leadership of the captains and talented seniors who also include Neilie Weeks ’13, Emma Kramer ’13, Ellen Halle ’13, Michaela Colbert ’13, Alice Pfeifer ’13 and Heather Marrison ’13 for the leadership and talent needed to have a successful season.
The Panthers face a tough schedule this year given the number of games they play in the perennially competitive NESCAC, along with games against a number of talented out-of-conference teams. However, given the depth of the aforementioned Panther veterans, and the help of the talented junior, sophomore, and first-year classes, the Panthers are well positioned to take on any opponent that they face.
— Gabe Weissmann
Baseball
After missing out on a trip to the playoffs in the 2012 season, the Middlebury baseball team looks to improve on a 14-19 overall record and a fourth place finish in the NESCAC West Division. A strong senior class and highly talented roster promise to fill the gaps left by the loss of several key players during the postseason.
The Panthers look to be in great shape offensively despite losing two-time All-NESCAC selection and four-year staple Zach Roeder ’12. The potent lineup consists of six returning starters, including third baseman Thomas Rafferty ’13 – another 2012 All-NESCAC pick – and outfielder Alex Kelly ’14 who led the Panthers with a .387 batting average and a .432 on base percentage. Senior captains Thomas Driscoll ’13 and Michael Morris ’13 also aim to build on their powerful hitting performances from a year ago.
The pitching rotation suffered a major loss as former ace Michael Joseph ’13 opted out of his final season to sign a minor-league contract with the Baltimore Orioles back in August. Look for sophomores Logan Mobley ’15 and Cooper Byrne ’15 to respond with solid starting efforts this season backed by a deep relief staff and highlighted by Andy Dittrich ’13, the third co-captain.
“If [the team’s] strong work ethic is any indication of our future this season, then we are going to have a lot of success,” said head coach Bob Smith.
Weather permitting, the Panthers will open their season this Saturday, March 9, with a doubleheader against Bates at Endicott College.
— Chad Clemens
Softball
After falling short in their quest for a second straight NESCAC title last season, falling 2-1 to Tufts in the final, Middlebury softball is looking to come back stronger and more competitive for the 2013 season and to improve on their 22-16 overall record from a year ago.
With a strong returning team as well as the addition of five first-years, including three pitchers, a key to Middlebury’s season will be depth.
“We will be more competitive in weekday games this season, since we have serious depth both in our line-up and the field,” said co-captain Jessa Hoffman ’13. “The experience our returners gained from tournament play last year will guide us through playoffs this springs. We expect big plays from members of every class this year after last year’s postseason.”
Middlebury returns with five 2013 all-NESCAC players, including a Defensive Player of the Year in Hoffman, who also set a school record with 49 hits.
Head coach Kelly Bevere stresses the role of each individual player on the team this year.
“Our team overall is what’s most important, and we’re pretty interdependent,” she said. “Our four seniors will play a key role in shaping the team, but we’re looking to rely on upper and underclassmen alike.” With this new depth, the Panthers are aiming to win every game they play. Consistency, especially with regards to hitting, is another big goal for Bevere.
Middlebury starts their season with a double-header at Johnson State on Wednesday, March 13, before heading to Florida over spring break to kick off their NESCAC season.
— Alex Morris
Golf
While the golf course may be covered in snow, both the women’ s and men’s golf teams are preparing for their spring season in full form. Hitting balls into nets inside The Bubble has helped the women’s team maintain their technique throughout these winter months in order to be competitive with more southerly opponents.
After a great fall season, including a pair of second place finishes, the women’s team is gearing up to make improvements and build off their successful fall season.
“With three underclassmen on a team of five, we are definitely a young team,” said captain Keely Levins ’13. “But we are full of potential and are looking forward to the challenge of trying to unseat Williams as the top North Eastern team.”
Returning Panthers include Michelle Peng ’15, Jordan Glatt ’15 and Caroline Kenter ’14, while Monica Chow ’16 will be competing in her first spring season for the Panthers.
The men’s golf team is also eager to begin their spring season after a very successful fall season as they look to replicate their conference-championship season from a year ago.
The Panthers played five tournaments last year, cumulating in a finish at the NESCAC qualifier whcih was good enough for the team to qualify the team for the conference championship, which will take place in the spring.
The team’s strongest competition will likely come from Trinity and Williams. The College’s team will not feature any first-years, as they bring back a strong lineup consisting of four sophomores, four juniors, and senior captain William Prince ’13.
The Panthers have been training hard this winter, practicing in an indoor hitting area and watching video of their swings. The women will have their first tournament on the weekend of April 13, at Vassar while the men begin a weekend earlier, on April 5 at Rhode Island College.
— Men’s coverage by Kevin Yochim, Women’s Coverage by Christine Schozer
Men's Tennis
Ranked 14th in the country in the preseason poll, the Middlebury men’s tennis team will look to build on last year’s experience under the helm of head coach Bob Hansen and assistant coach Adam Kent. New faces on this year’s roster include first-years Ari Smolyar ’16, ITA Regional semi-finalist Palmer Campbell ’16, Jackson Frons ’16, Allen Jackson ’16 and Jack Welch ’16, as well as junior transfer Alex Johnston ’14. They are joined by impactful returners from the junior class: Brantner Jones ’14, Teddy Fitzgibbons ’14 and Zach Bruchmiller ’14.
“Our [first-years] continue to push the envelope and set a high bar for the rest of the team but we are now getting some strong push back,” said Hansen.
Characterized by its bench strength, the team is captained by three seniors, all of whom were starters last season, in Will Oberrender ’13, Alec Parower ’13 and Spencer Lunghino ’13.
Oberrender believes cohesiveness and work ethic are the squad’s two biggest strengths.
“We have been working extremely hard all year for the chance to show we are one of the best teams in the country,” said Oberrender.
In the first half of the season, the Panthers will take on three foes from the Northeast at home before heading to Southern California over Spring Break for 10 more matches. After that, they will stay primarily in New England for their NESCAC regular season.
The men open their regular season at home against Oneonta and Brandeis this Saturday, March 9.
— Lok Sze Leung
(03/06/13 11:21pm)
Next Tuesday, Community Council plans to vote on whether Delta, the social house commonly known as ADP and which currently occupies Prescott house, will be disbanded as a recognized social organization. The vote comes in the wake of dorm damage that once again exceeds the maximum set by the College. [Further violations are outlined in our news coverage.] But while we recognize the legitimacy of the administration’s recommendation to disband the organization, the outcome of their decision will send ripples through a Middlebury social scene that students often complain lacks excitement and variety. It also highlights the gap between the public face that the College puts forward and the reality that many students experience.
The College proudly bills itself to prospective students – in both its promotional materials and in every information session – as a Greek-free social scene, but neglects to acknowledge the commonalities between Middlebury’s social house system and a campus dominated by fraternity and sorority life. Many incoming students find this an appealing change from the typical college social scene and arrive on campus with an incorrect impression regarding the influence of Greek-derived organizations. Although social houses lack the intensity of fraternities and sororities at other schools, the five College-sanctioned social houses form the backbone of the weekend party scene here on campus. The main distinction is that the College owns the houses that these organizations inhabit, which provides it with a greater level of control over the way that they operate.
This gap between the way that the College markets itself and reality may be jarring to some admitted students, who come here hoping to avoid the drama and expectations sometimes associated with Greek life at other colleges and instead find themselves pulled inexorably into a scene that the administration does their best to obscure through euphemisms. Some of these alternative terms have an awkward Orwellian feel: rush becomes recruitment, pledge becomes education and initiation becomes appreciation. But changing their name does not change their meaning.
For many students, though, social houses end up providing far more than simply a place to drink and dance in a crowded basement. They provide an alternative outlet for community that many take advantage of – particularly people who feel left out of the commons system. New Febs, in particular, often arrive with little support from that oft-promoted system, and without the experience of living on a social hall of their peers. To these students and others who feel alienated throughout the cold, dark days of winter, social organizations provide a sense of community and of family unique to the College.
It would be naïve to assume that disbanding one of these options means that students won’t still seek out the experiences that they would have had in joining. It is obvious from the large number of unregistered social organizations on this campus that demand for membership in groups bound by history and tradition continues unabated, even when removed from the strict rules for membership, requirements of social events and oversight on the recruitment and admission phases that the College imposes. The ability to participate in these groups — which many students consider one of the most significant aspects of their college experience — outweighs even the risk of recriminations that their members face.
Like any organization, social houses should obey the rules laid out for them. But we must not forget that they provide a necessary function to campus life. For members, they provide a sense of community that they might not receive elsewhere. For nonmembers, they provide a place to have fun on a weekend night. We are an extremely isolated school. It’s time to own up to the fact that social houses play an important role; that students here — as at our peer institutions — still yearn for a deeper connection than that found on their hallway, in their class or in their weekly club meeting. Forcing students underground will accomplish little more than to broaden the gulf between our marketing materials and the reality of our college experience.
(02/27/13 9:41pm)
Last week, members of Middlebury’s IntraVarsity Christian Fellowship hung posters across campus that sparked complex considerations of religion — “Jesus was either a liar, a lunatic or exactly who he said he was,” for example — in order to attract students to join in on group meetings. At the same time, an anonymous group of students, under the guise of the IntraVarsity Pastafarianism Fellowship, responded by hanging almost identically formatted posters, with headlines such as “Does the flying spaghetti monster care?”
For the most part, there was little backlash to the Pastafarian’s posters, a fact that may be indicative of a greater trend on this campus. At Middlebury, why does it seem more acceptable to belittle the efforts of the InterVarsity Christian Fellowship than to mock other groups, especially those of minority status? For example, would the reaction have been different if the posters had mocked the Islamic Society or the Middlebury Open Queer Alliance?
Our campus appears to be an open space where students can be whoever they want without fear of judgment. But this may not be the case for all students, as these recent events have demonstrated.
Some may argue that in the United States, Christians have historically not faced the same level of oppression as other groups, be they religious, ethnic, racial, etc. While this may be true, should it really matter? Do Christians not deserve the same level of respect and sensitivity to their beliefs?
The intentions of the students who hung the Pastafarian posters are unclear. The task of reconciling the need for respect with the need for open and honest dialogue is admittedly a difficult one, but if the Pastafarian group’s aim was to spark dialogue, their goal was hindered by the group’s anonymity. Unlike the IntraVarsity Christian Group, which not only posed important and potentially controversial questions on their posters, but also kept the line of communication open by assuming responsibility, the format and tone of the Pastafarian posters was not one that effectively brought about constructive dialogue.
One of the best things about Middlebury students is their passion for issues of social and political significance. But passion should not lead to conformity of thought or condemning the views of those with whom we disagree.
Another explanation may connect to the overwhelming “liberal” outlook of our student body. Accordingly, many student interactions are among people who hold similar beliefs, and individuals are rarely confronted with the need to explain the reasoning behind their convictions. However, it is important to note that the term liberal describes ideological preference — “liberal” is not a synonym for “good,” and is certainly not interchangeable with tolerance. Therefore, the so-called “liberality” of the student body does not imply widespread acceptance of all viewpoints represented therein. Acceptance is often, though not exclusively, reserved for liberal beliefs.
For the most part, voices on campus perceived as liberal are unchallenged. However, it is important that we critically analyze arguments on both sides of the ideological spectrum, especially because Middlebury is not indicative of the nature of society in the United States as a whole — our campus is much more homogenous.
To be clear, there is nothing wrong with the fact that Middlebury is a left-leaning school. However, the purpose of education is not simply to reinforce our pre-existing convictions, but instead to open our minds to new ideas. After graduating, most of us will no longer live in a predominantly liberal bubble. Therefore, now is a good time to learn how to have constructive and respectful conversations with people who may disagree with us. There are bound to be many more of them in the future.
Simply agreeing with one “right” view while showing intolerance for the opinions of others is not a conversation; it is an echo chamber. Being progressive entails tolerance and openness to the possibility that one’s views may be wrong or that reasonable people can disagree without one being right and one being wrong.
(02/20/13 4:56pm)
The recent increase in fines for parking violations — from $10 to $50 for a single ticket — brings our attention to the complex relationship between students and Public Safety officials at the College. Public Safety plays an important role by protecting students, faculty and staff and working tirelessly to ensure that the college community is safe, an aspect of our lives here that we too often take for granted. Clearly, parking rules are required in a college community, and proper punishment for breaking those rules is entirely appropriate. Logically speaking, raising the fines associated with parking violations may be effective in reducing the number of tickets issued and ensuring compliance. However, while we recognize the need for greater adherence to parking rules and understand the intentions behind Public Safety’s action, in this instance we believe the punishment is disproportionately harsh for the crime.
A fine of $50 for a one-time parking violation represents a five-fold increase from the previous fine, a notable rise in a cost for students. The fact that this increase has taken effect when parking is already officially limited due to construction across campus is also problematic. In addition, the all-student email Public Safety sent out failed to adequately explain why reducing the discrepancy between ticket prices and towing costs necessitated an increase in parking fines. For all those whom this change may affect, the rationale behind such action needs further clarification.
There are a variety of ways to address parking problems, each of which would more appropriately decrease violations than the recent fine increase. The goal of these suggestions is simple: to better align the severity of the punishment with the extent of the crime. Public Safety could still increase ticket prices, but to a lesser degree; a $20 fine, for example, may be enough to alter student behavior while also demonstrating greater consideration for student finances. Public Safety could also clarify the parking rules by providing comprehensive maps of campus parking lots and designated spots on its website. Posting such maps in dining halls and academic buildings at the beginning of each semester would also provide the student body with more access to this information. Another option would be to raise the number of violations students may receive before their cars are officially kicked off campus. Finally, to increase accountability, students should be able to pay their parking tickets directly; currently, fines are automatically billed to the student’s account and the true cost may not be felt by the person who violated parking rules.
Above all, we ask that Public Safety be reasonable when issuing tickets for parking violations. If an upperclassman’s vehicle is parked for a short period of time in an otherwise empty lot reserved for sophomores, for example, a fine of $50 may not be necessary; a one-time warning would likely be enough to alter that student’s future parking decisions. For the sake of the relationship between Public Safety and students, it is important that the College value the spirit of the law rather than the letter of the law.
Stepping back, we recognize that the ability to have a car on campus is a privilege for students, one that is inherently tied to a simple responsibility: park in the appropriate spot. Not every college allows all students to have cars on campus, and Middlebury students, first-years in particular, are especially lucky in this regard. As student drivers, we are stakeholders not only in the parking system, but also in the broader college community. Parking compliance is a sign of respect for others who use campus lots, as well as for Public Safety officials who monitor the parking lots and issue fines for violations.
While owning a car may be a privilege, it is an important aspect of life in a rural setting such as Vermont. Having a car, or a friend with a car, expands the Middlebury bubble, as it enables trips off campus to explore Burlington for the day or hike Snake Mountain, for example. We care about parking because it has logistical implications. Do I have to park far from my dorm? Can I make it to my class in time if I’m driving back from off-campus? We know that Public Safety is aware of these student concerns and appreciate their efforts to foster a better parking system on campus. However, we ask that the punishment fit the crime and that the rationale behind such changes be better communicated in the future.
(02/13/13 3:50pm)
Today is Valentine’s Day. No matter how you feel about this “holiday” — whether you love it, hate it or try to forget about it — Feb. 14 usually makes us think about love. And, even though the two are not necessarily or always related, love often makes us think about sex.
Most college students, however, do not confine their sex-related thoughts to this single day in February. Sex is a part of college — whether you’re having it or not. You may be waiting until marriage, but your roommate may not even wait until you leave the room. Sex is an inevitable part of our four years here.
It is important, therefore, that we are conscious of and educated about not just sex, but our sexual health in general. A recent survey on the topic of student life conducted by the SGA found that 58.3 percent of respondents had never thought about getting tested for STIs. Testing is available at Parton Health Center, but only 5.64 percent of respondents had taken advantage of this option.
There are various explanations for these somewhat jarring statistics. Some students may not be aware of the resources that Parton has to offer or may be dissatisfied with care they have received at Parton in the past. Other students may find the idea of getting tested embarrassing. Some students are also concerned about cost of the tests themselves, which range from just $6 to test for syphilis to $25 to test for gonorrhea and chlamydia.
Yet another possible explanation may be the “Middlebury Bubble.” Middlebury allows its students the opportunity to pursue intellectual enlightenment with little distraction of the problems of the “outside” world. We read about catastrophes and violence in the news, but at Middlebury, it can sometimes feel like these problems do not affect us — that we are invincible.
Unfortunately, that is not the case. Middlebury students are not invincible. And as a campus charged with sexually active 18 to 22 year olds, Middlebury is especially not invincible to STIs.
Middlebury is not invulnerable to violence, either. While the fact that 89 percent of respondents to the SGA’s survey claimed to “feel very safe on campus and never think about safety as a problem,” can be construed as a positive indicator of life at the College, it also may demonstrate a lack of awareness of certain aspects of campus life.
For example, the above statistic may overshadow the harsh fact that sexual assaults do occur on our campus. While most students here feel very safe, this is not the case for all students. Given this situation, it is alarming that 35 percent of survey respondents had little knowledge of the on-campus resources available to victims of sexual assault. As a community, it is important that we remain aware of and sensitive to the issues — both physical and mental — that are a reality for some of our friends and peers, if not for ourselves. As students on a campus where sexual assault exists, we are all responsible for educating ourselves.
Clearly, we are primarily responsible for our own sexual health. Part of that responsibility includes taking advantage of the resources the College has to offer beyond just the health center. Educate yourself on the newly enhanced Sexual Assault policy, which expands the definitions of consent and substantial impairment. Reflect on the message of yesterday’s One Billion Rising event. Talk to members of the Student Wellness Committee about initiatives you would like to see on campus. Pay attention to the “It Happens Here” display in the Davis Family Library.
While it is important that students take advantage of these resources in order to be accountable for their own sexual health, we also urge the College to place greater importance on this issue. It has been a year and a half since the resignation of Jyoti Daniere, and we are still without a director of health and wellness. Forums and lectures on the topic of safe sex and sexual assault are largely nonexistent or reach limited audiences past first-year orientation. What kind of message is the College communicating in terms of valuing the sexual health of its students?
Our sexuality is inseparable from our whole being. Therefore, our sexual health cannot be ignored. STIs and sexual assault exist on campus. Increased sexual health programming, along with greater student accountability and responsibility, will ensure that the College and its students give sexual health the attention it deserves.
(01/24/13 12:35am)
This academic year, there has arguably been no bigger issue on the minds of Middlebury students than divestment. The topic polarizes us at times. Some argue that as an institution with a pledged commitment to environmental and social justice, Middlebury should put its money where its mouth is. Divesting from fossil fuels won’t end their use, but it will take away some leverage from the giant — and environmentally-damaging — fossil fuel industry. Others point to possible disadvantages of divestment, citing the importance of maintaining a stable endowment. And a third argument — that divesting Middlebury’s relatively small endowment from fossil fuel companies and arms manufacturers would have little impact — has also been raised.
To summarize the arguments in this way is to do them an injustice by grossly oversimplifying the issues. The truth is that the issue of divestment is nuanced and complex. However, one thing should be clear: divestment is not an abstract issue.
In fact, divestment has everything to do with Middlebury and its students. Middlebury prides itself on its commitment to environmental issues and on being ahead of the curve. The administration has demonstrated this commitment by building a biomass plant and aiming for carbon neutrality by 2016. Students here go even further. Environmental groups are among the most active on campus. The Sunday Night Group was even the birthplace of the global environmental organization 350.org. The core of the divestment issue is not financial — it is environmental. In fact, divestment may be the future of the environmental movement. And, because the College claims to be environmentally committed, divestment has everything to do with us.
Divestment is no longer just a small movement discussed among limited pockets of students. Although groups such as the Socially Responsible Investment club have been committed to this issue for years, recently divestment has become a concern of the general student population. And while many disagree with the methods they employ, the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee (DLWC) must be given some credit. Standing on the shoulders of the many students who had been pushing for endowment transparency for years, the DLWC was successful in bringing the issue of divestment to the attention of the general student body this past fall. Groups such as Divest for Our Future, which was one of the sponsors of Sunday night’s “Do the Math” event, have continued working to get more people involved in the issue.
The administration also deserves some credit — they have been responsive, to at least some degree, to student calls for action. The DLWC fake press release was sent out in October and just three months later, the formal process to consider divestment is underway. Tuesday night’s forum, sponsored by the administration, marked the beginning of this process.
And this truly is just the beginning. Divestment is becoming a global issue — and to which that Middlebury, as both an environmentally committed and globally connected school, is intricately tied. Thus our community’s involvement with the issue must grow as well. We hope that the administration will remain open to diverse opinions even after the forums are over.
The responsibility of students is growing as well. Whether one is adamantly for divestment or wholly against it, it is important that we all take advantage of the resources at our disposal to form an opinion. Attend the two additional divestment forums. Read up on 350.org. Talk to someone with whom you disagree. Whatever you do, educate yourself on the issue. Form an opinion. We have the potential to be leaders in a field that is constantly growing in importance.
It is likely that divestment may be the biggest student movement that has taken place in a long time. The movement is no longer at society’s extremities — it is an issue that goes far beyond Middlebury. As such, the conversation can no longer be confined to discussions of the pros and cons of the DLWC’s tactics, to finger-pointing and personal attacks.
Yet even as the movement expands, by virtue of attending an institution as dedicated to the environment as Middlebury, we are integral to the future of divestment. Not everyone has access to the tools we do to educate ourselves on the subject. And not everyone has access to an endowment that can be used as leverage to convey where our true commitments lie. Whatever those commitments may be, it is clear that something big and important is happening. Whether for or against divestment, we are all a part of the debate.
(01/19/13 4:41pm)
Please excuse our appearance as we update our archives. If you're looking for a specific article in this issue, you may access the PDF archive above. Thank you for your understanding.
(01/16/13 8:56pm)
About one year ago, the College launched a new site — ‘go/portal’ — in order to aggregate information about events and activities on campus. The initiative aimed to provide a single, comprehensive resource for students, many of who were tired of their inboxes being inundated daily with all-student emails from various clubs and organizations. One year later, we ask ourselves how successful ‘go/portal’ has been, and how we as students can communicate more effectively with each other and with the College itself.
In essence, ‘go/portal’ is only valuable to the extent that students use it, and, unfortunately, it has largely failed to engage a majority of the student body thus far. Through advertising campaigns, Library Information Services (LIS) and the Student Government Administration (SGA) have been working hard to spread the word about the resource and increase the site’s traffic; despite their efforts, many students remain unenthused or unaware.
The initial failure of ‘go/portal’ does not reflect the site’s content or quality. Certainly, the page offers information that is relevant to all students — from current dining hall menus to events calendars to links to BannerWeb. The site also caters to students with various interests by posting, for example, scores from the most recent sports games, as well as upcoming performances in the arts. Students can customize their own portal sites too, choosing which links are most important to them. There is even a dining hall menu app available for your phone.
What, then, explains the site’s less-than-stellar debut? One explanation is simply that it may take more time for the practice to catch on. While ‘go/portal’ has not been as widely used as many had hoped, it is possible that more students will visit the site in the years to come as it becomes more ingrained in the student body’s mindset and incoming first-year classes are told about the resource during orientation. In addition, aggregating information in one place may prove most valuable to underclassmen, who are still exploring a variety of organizations and activities on campus and deciding which interest them. Upperclassmen, on the other hand, have most likely already identified the groups and gatherings they prefer and see little need to use the site to plan their social lives.
So, if ‘go/portal’ is not the primary resource for accessing social information on campus, how do students find out about the College’s events and activities? Often, existing platforms that we frequently access, such as email and Facebook, are effective in spreading the word about an upcoming event or activity planned by a student group. The Middlebury College Activities Board (MCAB), for example, maintains an up-to-date Facebook page that highlights events on campus. As many students are already on these platforms throughout the day, the College should not shy away from using them to make announcements and share information. While we appreciate the decrease of clutter in our inboxes as a result of ‘go/portal,’ all-student emails, as noted in the Campus’ editorial in January of last year, remain the most effective way to share information with the maximum number of students, and a few more would most likely be welcomed.
In addition, “old-fashioned” communication methods, such as hanging posters, still work effectively. Students can often be found in the hallway outside Proctor, for example, looking at the flyers that fill the message board; the large winter term calendar currently hanging in Proctor is a successful method of mass communication. Traditional means of journalism also remain relevant. The Addison Independent, for example, maintains a comprehensive calendar of local events on its website. On campus, student publications including MiddBlog and the Campus itself enjoy wide circulation.
Student groups are experimenting with new forms of sharing information as well. WRMC, the College’s radio station, is launching a new website soon and is working to incorporate more programming focused on student activities on campus. We as members of the Campus editorial board are also committed to communicating in more engaging ways — increasing the photos, videos and audio content offered on our website to tell stories in the best way possible.
When you take a step back, it appears that information is being shared, though perhaps not through the channels formally established by the College. Still, some students lament the fact that “nothing is going on” on campus. For those who complain, we place the onus on you. Check the message boards in McCullough and Proctor. Take the time to read the few all-student emails you receive. Go to an event you wouldn’t normally attend with a new group of friends. If nothing on the calendar excites you, plan your own party. During winter term especially, there is extra free time and exciting activities we can all take advantage of. As adults, we should not require the College to hand us a schedule for everything we do, so take a stake in your own social life. Finally, though the responsibility of ensuring a vibrant social scene does not fall solely on the shoulders of the College, the administration has provided a valuable resource nonetheless; take the initiative to visit ‘go/portal’ — you may be surprised at what you find.
(12/05/12 4:42pm)
After having been long overlooked as an unavoidable part of playing contact sports, concussions have only recently started to get the attention they deserve. The rise in media coverage is partly a result of recent controversies in sports leagues such as the N.H.L. and the N.F.L, in which athletes have started to demand that their safety be taken seriously. After the recent rash of concussion-linked suicides by players — the death of N.F.L. player Junior Seau being an oft-cited example — along with the publication of numerous studies citing the danger of concussions, it seems that people are finally starting to take concussions seriously.
Luckily for us, it is clear that Middlebury is ahead of some of its peer institutions when it comes to dealing with concussions. But there are still some strides to be made.
As a society, and, on a smaller level, as a college community, we still have much to learn about concussions. Too often concussions are brushed off as nothing serious. We are calling for our community to be more aware of the severity of concussions.
According to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, about 3.8 million sports-related concussions occur in the United States each year. And athletes are not the only ones susceptible to concussions.
A concussion can no longer be dismissed as a minor injury. Studies have found that concussions are often linked to depression and serious changes in emotional stability. And the danger only increases when concussions go undiagnosed, which, unfortunately, the majority of them do. Additional blows to the head that occur after a concussion become increasingly more debilitating.
Students who are suffering from a concussion should get the support and understanding they need from their professors. Therefore, professors must be educated on the true nature of concussions. There are many groups on campus that have the potential to raise this awareness — the health center, athletic department, Student Wellness Committee and commons deans are just a few possibilities.
A student suffering from a concussion may be temporarily unable to complete his or her academic work or attend class. Professors should understand that this is a case of putting a student’s health above academics. The time it takes to recover from a concussion varies from person to person, and students should not be dissuaded from taking the time necessary to fully recover before returning to class. Student-athletes return to academics before athletics after suffering a concussion, but only after a gradual recovery period. What must be clear is that concussions are a health issue — they are not just a side effect of athletics.
Some groups on campus have already started to take the initiative to raise awareness of concussions. One such group is Concussions Speak, which Emma Kitchen ’14.5 founded as an outreach and awareness program for people with concussions. It is clear that students are starting to take concussions seriously. In fact, on Nov. 11, the SGA passed the Resolution for Inclusive Athletic Injury Care on Campus in order to expand access to sports trainers to non-varsity athletes. We call on the administration to enforce this resolution. During last year’s season alone, four Middlebury Water Polo players had concussions, but they could not access the College’s trainers because Water Polo is not a varsity sport. This resolution must be enforced so instances such as these can be prevented in the future. The health of all Middlebury students — varsity athletes or not — must be a priority.
Our brains are much of the reason why we attend Middlebury. We all need to be aware of how to protect them.
(11/28/12 11:54pm)
On Thursday, Nov. 15, Olav Ljosne, senior manager of international operations at Royal Dutch Shell, came to campus to speak on a variety of topics, including the future of energy demand and conflict surrounding oil. Both students and members of the faculty filled the Robert A. Jones ’59 (RAJ) Conference Room to hear the talk, titled “Meeting Future Energy Needs.” Unlike the day before at the University of Vermont, where a group of climate justice activists interrupted Ljosne to the extent that his presentation could not proceed, those in attendance at the College did allow for Ljosne to speak during his allotted time. However, the talk was not without interruptions. Before Ljosne began, two students presented him with a fake diploma while graduation music played, congratulating him for engaging in “multiple human rights violations consistent with the practices of the Middlebury College endowment.” During the question period at the end of the talk, two other students became agitated, accusing Ljosne of being a liar, before falling to the floor in protest. However, a student drew applause from some members of the audience when, in response, he told his peers that they were embarrassing the College and should stop.
The question we ask ourselves in light of these events concerns the status of free speech on this campus. To what extent are students willing to tolerate such behavior as was exhibited by the protesters, some of whom are members of the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee (DLWC)? Clearly, opinions diverge. Some find the means through which these students expressed themselves to be entirely consistent with the severity of the topic at hand, which dealt in part with accusations against Shell of human rights violations in Nigeria. Others, however, consider such behavior offensive and disrespectful, not only to Ljosne, who made the effort to come to campus, but also to those in attendance who wanted to learn more about Shell’s position and engage in sincere, constructive dialogue.
It seems clear that the protesters at Thursday’s meeting aimed to spark thoughtful discussion around Shell’s practices. Though many on campus may agree with the criticisms raised by this group of students, their actions, ironically enough, appeared to inhibit dialogue to a far greater degree than to facilitate it. As in the aftermath of the false press release sent out by the DLWC, once again the student body is left deciphering the actions of a small group, as opposed to critically analyzing the content of the issue at hand. Substantive discussion regarding Shell’s oil practices in Nigeria is largely absent from the current dialogue on campus, replaced with chatter about the drama that unfolded at Thursday’s talk. Certainly, the dialogue that ensues such protest cannot be entirely controlled by the protesters themselves; it is up to the students to decide whether or not they will focus on the critical issues. However, protesters do have the ability to project an inviting manner, engaging more students and promoting a more productive dialogue.
The current reality shows the paralyzing effects resulting from protest that polarizes a portion of the student body. Activism that engages many groups of people is not necessarily weak activism; in fact, throughout history, the most successful movements demonstrate that there is great strength in numbers. The efforts of a small group, however worthy they may be, will ultimately fail unless they solidify a broader following by appealing to more people and including those with slightly different viewpoints. Activists may also find that educating students on the issues before a controversial speaker arrives will help to facilitate constructive dialogue. While some of the activists at Thursday’s meeting hold forums each Friday to discuss issues with the college community, how inviting are such events to others who feel intimidated by the group’s aggressive tactics? Further, activists should look to diversify how they communicate, expanding beyond the spaces they establish; it shouldn’t matter what platform or forum is used — a productive conversation can happen anywhere, from Proctor tables to Middblog, and should not take place solely on their terms.
Taking a step back, we see that the real issue here is not between Middlebury students and a visiting representative from Shell. Certainly, students owe guest speakers who come to campus a certain degree of respect, even if they disagree vehemently with that speaker’s opinion. For the most part, protesters at Thursday’s meeting did allow Ljosne to speak.
The crux of the issue, then, is the relationship between the protesters and their peers — the rest of the student body. Middlebury students are bright, incredibly passionate people who bring different skills and perspectives to the table. As members of a small college community, we are somewhat surprised to see those with whom we attend class and interact on a daily basis challenge authority in such an overt manner. Protest does not necessarily have to be loud and dramatic to be effective; taping their mouths during Ljosne’s talk, showing solidarity by dressing in one color or picketing outside the RAJ are alternate methods that might have been less polarizing and more effective. The reason we remain focused on the methods and drama of the situation instead of the content of the matter itself reflects the fact we are accustomed to the type of constructive, inclusive discussion in which all can voice their opinions and contribute.
Free speech on campus has many dimensions — it implies an atmosphere that encourages collaboration and open exchange of divergent ideas, as well as tolerance of others. In this case, we must tolerate those who protest a visiting speaker, as well as acknowledge the right of the speaker himself to express his ideas, and the rights of other students to speak their minds. Just because others choose not to show their frustration as dramatically as the protesters does not mean that they do not care deeply about the issues. Some students, for example, asked questions that reflected thought and research. The protesters’ satirical performance overshadowed, and potentially dissuaded, those who wanted to ask pointed questions in a more traditional manner. Further, receiving a reply one does not agree with — a reply that appears veiled in corporate rhetoric — may be incredibly powerful in itself; Middlebury students deserve the opportunity to be critical listeners, and hearing a stock response from a Shell representative may send a stronger signal to the student body than any amount of interruption.
Learning, progress and development of a consensus takes place in a welcoming environment, such as that of a Middlebury classroom in which professors and students alike are respected instead of ridiculed. Though classrooms may be better suited for discussion than action, we must bring these practices of dialogue into the real world. Instead of utilizing divisive tactics not conducive to constructive conversation or the inclusion of others, we as students should identify our common interests and join together to promote the type of change many of us hope for. Undoubtedly, the work we could accomplish together far exceeds that which we achieve as separate entities.
(11/15/12 6:37pm)
One of the College’s greatest strengths lies in its professors. The Princeton Review recently ranked the College seventh in the “professors get high marks” category, a fact that is likely unsurprising to many students here. What is surprising, however, is that a primary criticism that came from the College’s 2011 reaccreditation process was that faculty members should be more involved in the governing of our institution.
The faculty’s role in governance has come under further consideration after the Oct. 1 faculty meeting was adjourned because the number of faculty members present failed to meet the necessary quorum of 169 professors. A quorum was declared at the Nov. 12 meeting, which was largely centered on a resolution to change the definition of the quorum, and an overwhelming majority of faculty members present voted to change the quorum to one-third of the faculty population on campus.
We would hope that faculty members care about and are involved with the governance of the College. The decisions voted on at faculty meetings — involving grade changes, the approval of graduates and practices relating to the firing of professors, to name a few — have direct effects on students and faculty alike. For this reason, we were disheartened to hear about the general pattern of low faculty attendance.
Before we cast judgment, we must examine what, exactly, the role of a professor entails. Too often we think of teaching — and the grading and planning that it necessitates — as a professor’s sole responsibility. The reality is that in addition to teaching, our faculty members are expected to be accessible to students outside of the classroom, produce research and scholarly work and, as evidenced by the quorum necessary for faculty meetings, participate in the governance of the College.
It is clear that we ask a lot of faculty members here, which begs the question of what the primary obligation of a professor should be. Most of us agree that students should be the first priority for professors, but it is less clear how our professors can and should best facilitate an enriching learning experience for us. Is a professor who shows up to faculty meetings to vote on academic policy inherently more attuned to students’ needs than the professor who makes him or herself available to meet with students for extra help? Both actions are important in that they affect students directly, but it is difficult to say whether one is more valuable to students than the other.
One thing that is clear is that our professors are incredibly committed to facilitating the academic growth of students, and for this we are grateful. This enthusiasm and passion for teaching does not exist solely within the confines of the classroom. For the most part, professors here make themselves readily available to students who want to meet outside of class time, whether for extra help or just enlightening discussion.
But while this commitment to the individual growth of students is commendable, we feel that it is also important for professors to be able to balance this commitment with their responsibility to contribute to the governance of the College as a whole, and we call on the administration to help faculty members do so. The revised quorum may be one such way, as it allows for faculty meetings to take place even when some professors have conflicting obligations.
One problem may be that there are few clear motivations for professors to attend long faculty meetings, whereas there is great incentive to being a good professor inside the classroom. Effective teaching is awarded with student growth and learning, as well as positive feedback from students. Does the College need to provide incentives for professors to attend faculty meetings? The fact that the meetings are now run by a faculty moderator instead of President of the College Ronald D. Liebowitz may be one such enticement. The administration and the faculty together, should examine if further changes are necessary.
Students on the whole have many responsibilities, such as long assignments and papers, sports practices, club meetings and off-campus jobs. The only way for students to keep up is to find a balance. For many of us, that means occasionally skimming an academic article or skipping a meeting to cram for an exam. The same can be said for our professors, who, on top of having additional responsibilities to their families and to their outside communities, are expected to teach with enthusiasm, be accessible to students and help govern our institution. So while we believe that it is part of the duty of a professor to attend faculty meetings, we recognize that, like their students, professors have to strike a balance between conflicting responsibilities. At the same time, a good solution is not one that entails neglecting important facets of one’s job, such as attending faculty meetings.
(11/07/12 11:06pm)
The Community Judicial Board’s (CJB) recent decision to reprimand those students who were part of the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee has undoubtedly sparked conversation within the College community. It seems as though much of the chatter surrounding the public hearing that took place last Thursday, Nov. 1 relates to the politics of the situation, including the tone of CJB members questioning those convicted and the dynamics of the relationship between students and the administration. Yet beneath the surface level lie other issues with meaningful implications, including the future of activism on our campus.
Weeks after the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee emailed a false press release to members of the College community and circulated its “coming clean” letter, we must now ask ourselves, what next? As the buzz around the public hearing fades, will we remember the politics of the situation or the content of their demands? Before we move forward, students, faculty and staff should critically analyze both the message and methods these students employed and assess their effectiveness. We applaud the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee for practicing a form of relatively mindful, well-informed activism. The actions the group took — from researching the political satire group “The Yes Men” to drawing on theories and ideas discussed in their own classes at Middlebury — suggest that these students are growing into the critical thinkers that the College aspires to develop. Further, this group showed keen awareness of the global implications that the financial decisions of a single college community may have. Recognizing the impacts of investing in areas that contradict the College’s professed values, they reminded us that there are cracks in the notorious “Middlebury Bubble” and that our own school’s actions have implications for the outside world that go beyond simply graduating students who are skilled writers and thinkers.
However, lofty ideals and harsh demands are not the mark of successful activists; often, concrete steps and tangible goals are necessary to move the needle. Though their methods sparked discussion, the resulting discourse could be far more meaningful. The most productive activism is that which remains focused on the issue at hand, not the group promoting the message. On campus, however, many are talking about the politics of the situation itself as opposed to the issue of divestment, perhaps in part because the group’s actions have alienated a portion of the student body who views the tactics used as radical and off-putting. The overall tone of the students’ opening statement at the public hearing, for example, seemed to demonize the administration in ways that are unnecessary and unproductive. To the extent that this rejection clouds the intended message of the group, the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee will have failed to achieve its goals.
Regardless of one’s personal beliefs, many can agree that these tactics were different than those of other student groups on campus. Currently, putting up posters and organizing panel discussions appear to be the primary means through which many campus organizations mobilize their members and appeal to the larger student body. If there were a spectrum of campus activism, the somewhat safe status quo may be at the less extreme end, while circulating a false press release would be at the more radical. Is one of these methods inherently better than the other?
Given that some complain that the student body remains apathetic, the current “posters and panels” method may increasingly be deemed insufficient; on the other hand, we do not want or need every attempt at activism to result in a public hearing and disciplinary action. An approach somewhere in the middle of these two extremes would be the most appropriate and effective.
What would such an approach look like? Other groups on campus have already tested these waters. Jamnesty, for example, brought together poets and activists to raise awareness about important social issues; “It Happens Here” created an open forum and sparked meaningful dialogue about sexual assault on campus; JusTalks will foster face-to-face discussion between students about a variety of issues. From engaging exhibits in the lobby of the Davis Family Library, to petitions outside of dining halls, to partnerships between distinct organizations on campus, various groups have proved that more inclusive, innovative and respectful outreach methods indeed exist. Such tactics have greater appeal precisely because they are tamer than the methods employed by the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee, but more engaging than the status quo.
We hesitate to claim that this case will set a dangerous precedent and encourage others to send out false press releases; similarly, we also doubt many more students will choose to hold public hearings if forced to face the judicial boards, as many of the other topics addressed, such as plagiarism and sexual assault, are more private in nature. As such, it is possible that the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee’s greatest contribution will be to shift the relative spectrum of “radical” activism on campus. Given the success that some groups have already had in embracing creative and responsible activism that doesn’t polarize the student body, we welcome this potential change.
(10/31/12 7:21pm)
Within the next week, Americans will take to the polls and cast their votes for the country’s next president. Anticipation has been high across the country, and the atmosphere at Middlebury is no exception. One need only stop by Crossroads Café during one of the recent debates to appreciate the fact that many students here are passionate about the presidential election.
This election will mark the first time that many of us are able to vote, and student groups such as College Democrats and College Republicans — as well as student and faculty sponsored talks and forums — have done a great job keeping the election at the top of our minds.
While we applaud these efforts and the awareness that they have raised, we question whether Middlebury students have utilized these resources in the most beneficial way. Lectures and panels should serve as means for students to constructively engage in the political process and explore — and question — the choices we make. Our political beliefs should not be so deeply entrenched that they are impossible to change. After all, most students are no older than 22 — we are therefore too young to be so completely unwavering in our views.
We do not go to college, especially a liberal-arts college, simply to have our pre-existing opinions reinforced and confirmed. The purpose of our Middlebury education is not just to learn facts — it is to learn how to question both ourselves and others. The presidential election is the perfect time for us to utilize this facet of the Middlebury education. Voting is important, but it is infinitely more so if your decision is the result of real deliberation and analytical evaluation.
Many of us vote for the same party as our parents. Others may vote for the party their parents abhor as an act of college rebellion. Some people may be pressured by Middlebury’s liberal-leaning student body to vote for Obama, while others may vote for a third-party candidate just to be different. But before casting your vote, we encourage you to question the reasons behind your decision. Are you truly voting for the person you think would make the best president of the United States, or is there another reason behind your decision?
At Middlebury, we are provided with resources and tools that make analytical decision-making possible. On-campus political organizations are one such tool. However, instead of just providing a venue for like-minded individuals to meet and discuss issues, groups such as College Democrats and College Republicans should promote discussion that crosses party lines. A debate between members of the two groups would be one way to facilitate such discussion. Additionally, it is important that such organizations not only educate on what specifically they stand for, but also that they explain the reasoning behind these beliefs.
Another resource here is our student body. Middlebury students come from all different backgrounds, practice different religions, study different subjects and care about different issues. Whereas in high school you may have only been exposed to the political views of your parents or from people from your same neighborhood, the same does not hold true at Middlebury. Therefore, we encourage you to discuss your beliefs with other students here — and not just students who have similar values or fall on the same end of the political spectrum. Whether these discussions reinforce your opinion or cause you to step back and question it, they ensure that you make your decision based on what you truly believe.
As college students, it is hard to know where exactly we fit in as voters in this presidential election. Do we vote in Vermont or for our home state? If we vote in our home state, why should we vote for local issues that likely will have little effect on us? Do we vote for seemingly minor local positions in our hometown if we know nothing about the candidates? Should we focus on social issues that may affect us more during our four years here, or economic issues such as unemployment that may confront us upon graduation? When are our absentee ballots due? And do our absentee votes even count?
It is hard to know the right answer to most of these questions — we on the editorial board certainly do not. But what you can and should be sure of is that, no matter whom you vote for, your decision is a reflection of careful deliberation and thinking. Knowing why you believe what you believe is just as important as believing anything at all.
(10/25/12 2:46am)
Change at an institutional level can be frustratingly slow. Recent actions taken by a small group of Middlebury students prove that when such change takes too long, more drastic measures may effectively pique awareness of an issue. In an email sent on Oct 12 to a majority of students, staff and faculty, a fake press release announced that the College was divesting its endowment from war in light of the recent visit of His Holiness the 14th Dalai Lama. The email, sent from the account middofficeofcommunications@gmail.com, stated that the College finds this divestment to be “the most fitting way to welcome the Dalai Lama and to align its money with its mission.” After returning from fall break, a group of five students revealed themselves as true authors of the email and called on the College community to take action to live up to its proclaimed values. The letter divulging the students’ names hung in posters around campus and stated that “a growing contingent” supported the demands.
While we do not believe that a false press release is an appropriate means of expressing concern about the nature of the College’s endowment, we do think that this group of students was successful in raising awareness about a complex, multi-dimensional issue that has long been a dominant force in the dialogue between student activists and the College administration.
For years, the Socially Responsible Investment club (SRI) has worked to increase transparency and responsibility regarding the College’s investments. The group made history last weekend when its president sat in on a meeting of the Board of Trustees Finance Committee, the first time a student has had the opportunity to done so. SRI has made other notable gains collaborating with the administration; as a result of their recent efforts, Toronto-Dominion (TD) Bank, which invests some of the College’s endowment, will no longer be able to leverage Middlebury’s holdings in the same way it used to, by investing in fossil fuel companies.
Despite these advancements, progress remains slow. After a meeting last year with Investure, the firm managing the College’s endowment, students had good reason to believe that a portion of the College’s funds are invested in arms manufacturers and fossil fuel companies.
But who is to say that the recent actions taken by these five students will result in more meaningful progress? The College’s Academic Judicial Board will try members of this group for violating college policy; if these proceedings result in severe disciplinary action, some of the most prominent voices of social activism on campus may find themselves silenced. What then?
In a way, the actions taken by this group of students exemplify the proactive, critical approach espoused in Middlebury’s mission statement, which states that the College strives “to engage students’ capacity for rigorous analysis and independent thought within a wide range of disciplines and endeavors.” Yet how students confront issues they are passionate about is equally important. While frustrations with the somewhat sluggish pace of progress regarding divestment are warranted, false emails are not.
We do not deny that the issues this group of students raised are worthy of attention or that the group’s method of shedding light on the topic succeeded in generating needed discussion and educating the college community. We too believe it is important for the College to align its actions with its proclaimed values, and we applaud the students for refusing to passively accept the status quo, one in which the College acts hypocritically. In this light, the false press release was an effective, if controversial, means towards challenging hypocrisy.
Yet it is not a sustainable method. The scope of divestment requires dialogues with, not against, those who ultimately make the College’s financial decisions. When the glow surrounding this incident fades, what will be left to assure progress is made on this front? Student groups and structures that embrace collaboration with the administration, such as SRI, will prove more effective in the long run. In line with such a mindset, the Student Government Administration (SGA) recently passed an “Ethical Endowment Resolution,” encouraging the College “to invest its endowment in a manner consistent with its principles and mission statement.” Though the resolution has no binding power, it demonstrates that many on campus see this issue as increasingly significant.
While the administration may justly discipline the group of five students if they are found to have violated college policy, it must also understand the context in which the students took action. This incident did not occur in a bubble. Divestment from war reflects the larger issue of aligning the College’s own actions with the values it champions and challenges its students to embrace. Ironically, in sending out a false press release, these students demonstrated the same lack of transparency associated with the way much of the College’s policy and decisions are made. In an interesting twist, it is the students who have come clean. We are still waiting on the administration to do the same.
(10/10/12 10:58pm)
Middlebury College has the reputation of being one of the most environmentally friendly colleges in the United States. With that in mind, one might assume that the editorial for this year’s “Green Issue” would take the route of applauding or congratulating the College on being a leader in the realm of green-innovation and environmental education. An editorial in this vein would surely reference the College’s biomass plant, its quest for carbon neutrality, the abundance of locally-sourced foods in the dining halls — the list goes on and is undoubtedly familiar to most students here. It is pretty clear that, though far from perfect, the College as an institution does a pretty good job of being green.
What is less clear, however, is whether this environmentally conscious institution has necessarily translated into an equally mindful student body. Is merely attending a “green” school enough to instill sufficient knowledge of the environment and subsequent environmentally friendly habits? Do students, by virtue of attending the College, automatically graduate with the skills and knowledge they need to continue living a “green life?”
Unfortunately, we think not. Just look at the amount of food waste we produce or the number of laptops left on at night as proof.
This is not to say that there aren’t Middlebury students who are incredibly environmentally conscious and who practice green habits. But we cannot assume that all Middlebury students have this knowledge — in fact, members of this editorial board admit that we too often fall short of living energy efficient lifestyles. But the College cannot hope to ever truly be green until the everyday habits of the majority of its inhabitants are in line with the institution’s green goals. In regard to environmental practices, the school has neglected its primary purpose of education.
Middlebury has the potential to do so much more for the environment than just cutting the carbon output of the campus or generating some solar energy. As an educational institution, Middlebury has the power to change how people treat the environment. Only with individual accountability will we be able to reverse some of the damage to the environment. We believe the College should foster this accountability by instilling students with environmentally friendly habits that won’t disappear at graduation.
There are many ways in which the College can promote increased environmental literacy among students. Orientation can feature sessions that teach new students how to live “greenly.” In addition, we hope that the commons systems, residential life and campus sustainability coordinators continue to promote sustainability — a simple way to do so would be to bring back the now-defunct competition that measured and reported on energy use by dorm. Or the College could hold more events like Project Green Challenge, a competition sponsored by “Teens Turning Green” which takes place on campus throughout October. Currently 31 Middlebury students are participating by completing “green” challenges. We hope to see more such events such as this one that encourage practical implementation of green habits.
That being said, we as students must hold ourselves responsible for developing green habits. Students here have displayed an enormous capacity for innovation and problem solving, and we encourage our fellow students to continue to think of new ways to make green living a reality. The College’s role is to educate us and to show us how to be individually responsible, but it is our job to apply our education to our day-to-day lives.
We are very lucky to have the opportunity to study at an institution that is so committed to green issues. But we must learn from the mechanisms in place around us, and this learning must take an active form. Living in close proximity to a biomass plant does not necessarily correlate with increased environmental awareness and greener habits. Only after the College commits itself to its primary purpose — education — in regard to this issue will we become environmentally conscious students rather than just students at an environmentally friendly institution. After that, if we as students really want to think of ourselves as “green,” we must actively pursue environmental literacy and green habits.
Saying that we embrace or support environmental causes is no longer enough; instead, we must take specific action. With this active student participation, the College will be truly deserving of its reputation as an incredibly environmentally friendly institution. Because in the end, the College can only be as green as its students are.
(10/03/12 10:21pm)
A liberal arts education. Trumpeted in the College’s brochures and website, and reinforced by professors and students alike, these few words form the basis of Middlebury’s identity as an institution of higher learning. Increasingly, opportunities like those offered by the Project on Creativity and Innovation (PCI) are prominent features of one’s academic journey. According to a PCI fact sheet, the initiative aims to make “intellectual risk-taking and creative problem solving second nature to Middlebury students and part of a portfolio of critical skills that will serve them throughout their lives.” We have great faith that the value of expanding learning outside the classroom lies in producing more capable, strategic thinkers. After all, is a student who is an economics major worse off for having applied his business idea in the real world before graduation? We think not. However, for the frequency at which the phrase “liberal arts education” is used to describe life on campus and to promote the College abroad, its true meaning remains somewhat unclear.
To define the term more precisely, we can start with what a liberal arts education at Middlebury is not. It is not an academic free-for-all, an unstructured four years of traipsing through the Vermont mountains, dabbling in a few different disciplines without gaining any skills that will be of use in the real world. Nor is it a set journey in which students remain laser-focused on a single subject area in predetermined boundaries, but have little room to explore and experiment within new disciplines.
Rather, a Middlebury liberal arts education is a balance between these two extremes. First and foremost, it is an academic experience, and a rigorous one at that. Middlebury has over 45 departments and programs — from neuroscience to philosophy to global health to Russian — that challenge students to expand their horizons, make connections between various disciplines and, perhaps most importantly, learn a subject area intimately, gaining in-depth knowledge in a field of one’s choosing. Yet a liberal arts education, as Middlebury students know, is also about linking academic pursuits to activities outside the classroom in a meaningful way. It is about having the opportunity to test ideas and hypotheses in the real world that have been thoroughly developed in class. For Middlebury students, the real world may be no further than Addison County, but using the “Middlebury bubble” as a space for thoughtful experimentation does not detract from one’s academic experience or make it any less significant or rigorous. In addition, the expansive definition of liberal arts in the past decades is seen in numerous dimensions — from increased funding allocated to recruit varsity athletes to the expansion of Middlebury academics into a graduate school at Monterey Institute that offers world-class international studies programs.
With so many options, commitments abound, and many may find themselves putting academics on the backburner for various periods of time. Are we truly forced to neglect some of our readings on a hectic Tuesday night? No. We are busy largely because of what activities we choose to take on outside of class. The Middlebury student body is active in every sense of the word, as our energy translates into a bustling world of commons councils, athletic teams, student government committees, political organizations, outdoor interest groups and more. Prioritizing these commitments is a challenge that all students confront throughout their four years here; finding this balance is difficult, to say the least. We must be aware that these decisions have implications on the community as a whole. If, for example, a student is off campus attending a lecture promoted by one of the College’s environmental groups and does not complete the required reading for a class, the quality of the discussion section the next day may indeed suffer without full participation from all students. However, we believe the overall benefit of a liberal arts institution, which includes having the opportunity to engage in an extensive range of activities, far outweighs the cost of one unread article. In this light, we can see that a liberal arts experience is a deeply personal experience, a journey whose path is dictated by the decisions each student chooses to make for him or herself.
We must also consider what tangible skills these extracurricular endeavors bring. Again, we find that taking advantage of certain opportunities does in fact better position students for the real world; certainly, the English major who spends time honing her skills writing for the Campus or submitting work to other Middlebury publications is better off than the English major who only writes the essays assigned to her in class.
Stepping back, it is vitally important to note how we frame these issues. Academics and extracurricular activities must compliment, not compete against, one another. Applying one’s knowledge from the classroom to the community, the state of Vermont or even at the Proctor dinner table is crucial in order to maximize the value of a Middlebury education and prepare for life after college. Drawing lines around an academic sphere will only isolate it from other aspects of students’ lives and downplay the connections that are present among varied interests. While “learning outside of the classroom” may sound like a cliché, it is precisely this opportunity that has the potential to strengthen the liberal arts as a whole and the student that emerges four years later.
(09/26/12 11:49pm)
This past Saturday night, approximately 100 students flocked to the McCullough Student Center for Jamnesty, an event co-hosted by Verbal Onslaught and Amnesty International. The event entailed an exploration of pressing social issues through various forms of art. Students used spoken word, music, dance and video to focus on and discuss the issue of racial injustice in America.
We applaud Rana Abdelhamid ’15 and Barbara Ofosu-Somuah ’13, along with the other hosts of Jamnesty, for their use of art — a medium that is so often focused on solely the performers — to explore issues of great importance. Jamnesty successfully combined the draw of arts with the importance of activism to create an event that brought together many typically disparate groups of students.
If you look at posters around campus or eavesdrop on dinnertime conversations, it is evident that Middlebury students care about social issues such as racial injustice. However, many of these important conversations take place in completely separate spheres.
People say that Middlebury is a bubble. However, the truth is that our bubble may be even smaller — many students spend the majority of their time with close friends or certain clubs or teams. Our conversations and our views shared amongst these groups are important, but they will not be heard at full volume until we open ourselves up to new audiences. We can use our diversity of voices and views as a powerful tool, but this power can only truly flourish if we have these conversations together. As the success of Jamnesty demonstrates, collaboration is key.
We have seen other instances of such collaboration this year. For example, many on-campus environmental groups — Campus Sustainability Coordinators, Solar Decathlon and Socially Responsible Investment Club, to name a few — have all come together under the umbrella of “Green Poodle” to promote their shared goals of environmental awareness and sustainability. We encourage more of this type of collaboration, and feel that it is necessary in order to strengthen the power of the student voice.
That being said, collaboration does not have to take place solely among similar individuals or groups. Part of what made Jamnesty so powerful was the fact that it brought together performance art and activism — often relegated to separate spheres — to promote a common goal.
We encourage Middlebury students to go even further. We challenge you to collaborate not only with those in separate bubbles, but also with those whom you most disagree. As just one example, while we applaud College Democrats and College Republicans for working together to promote MiddVote, we believe that their collaboration should not stop there. Why not hold public debates? Expressing an opinion to a group of like-minded individuals can only get you so far. It is only when these opinions are brought out of the echo chamber and into the open that real change can occur.
Jamnesty exhibited another benefit to collaboration by demonstrating that there are numerous ways to express a message. The College does a great job of bringing speakers to campus and hosting lectures. However, a lecture or a speech is not the only way to convey a powerful message. After sitting in class or the library all day, it is often hard to find the motivation to attend another lecture, no matter how important or interesting the issue. This fact was evident at the Alcohol lecture, which only a handful of students attended, even though alcohol use is an issue that affects most students at the College.
We encourage students to look to the strong turnout at Jamnesty as an example of how creative outlets of expression can be successful means of communication. Increased collaboration will strengthen our voice by ensuring that our opinions go beyond the walls of our individual silos. It’s time to start working together.