72 items found for your search. If no results were found please broaden your search.
(09/20/17 11:47pm)
There’s this scene in “Page One: Inside The New York Times,” a 2011 documentary film about the paper of record, that I can’t stop thinking about.
It features David Carr, The Times’ media columnist who became the paper's de facto spokesman before his death in 2015. In the scene, Carr debates the future of news with Michael Wolff, the founder of the news aggregation blog Newser.
Wolff succumbs to hyperbole in the course of their exchange, going so far as to declare that traditional news outlets who engage in original reporting are dead. Rebuking his opponent’s ridiculous claim is too easy for Carr. With a grin on his face, he holds up a printout of Newser’s front page and tells the audience that the blog is, in fact, a good looking website.
“But I wonder if Michael has really thought through ‘get rid of mainstream media content,’” Carr says. Again, he holds up a printout of the blog’s homepage, this time with every story containing information originally reported by “mainstream” outlets cut out with a pair of scissors. “Go ahead,” he says, peering through a piece of paper that looks like Swiss cheese.
I think of this scene often because I keep encountering folks who either don’t know or don’t appreciate the value of original reporting.
For example, last month a friend asked me why people continue to subscribe to The Times when blogs like Vox and Slate post concise content online for free.
I was shocked.
Did he not understand that those websites, while important and worth reading, relied heavily on the reportage of papers like The New York Times, Washington Post, Los Angeles Times et al? Could he not see that without reporters churning out copy and immersing themselves in their respective beats, most digital and television outlets would not exist?
The short answer: no, he did not. And I don’t blame him. If I wasn’t pursuing a career in journalism, I probably wouldn’t know or care either.
And it’s not just political news that’s the problem. The other day, a Facebook friend of mine shared a fake article that said Charles Manson had been granted parole. I don’t fault him for the mistake, the phony blog was well-designed and looked like a legitimate news organization. Perhaps we should update an old adage: Don’t judge a website by its homepage.
This is a problem, and as we continue to rely on the internet for, well, everything, we must take media literacy seriously to ensure that subsequent generations are not illiterate. The medium may be changing, but news isn’t going anywhere.
Every night, I scroll through Twitter in awe watching The Times and The Post battle to break news about the president and his men and women. As a young journalist, with a compulsion to join the print media, I can’t help but wonder if this is what it was like growing up in the heyday of newspapers. It reaffirms my belief that tough and true reporting will always prevail.
I was reminded of this a few weeks ago when I came across a tweet by Pete Hegseth, a Trump supporter and guest host on “Fox & Friends,” a morning program on Fox News. His tweet read, “Spilled my coffee this morning on [Fox & Friends]. Finally found good use for failing [New York Times]. #NotFakeNews,” and included a picture of a coffee-stained Times acting as a coaster.
When I saw his tweet, I laughed because it proved David Carr’s words true. Folks can trash The Times all they want, but they’ll still read it. Because without it, blogs and opinion TV shows like “Fox & Friends” will have nothing to broadcast or discuss. It truly is the media kingdom with all the power.
So, will traditional media fail while fake news prevails? To paraphrase my hero Carr: hell no.
Note: A version of this column first appeared in the Addison Independent. It has been reprinted here because it is the first in a series about the future of traditional and print media.
(09/14/17 4:06am)
Members of the Class of 2021 were officially welcomed to Middlebury on Sep. 10 at the college’s annual Convocation.
The 638 first year students that filled Mead Chapel for the event were admitted from a field of 8,910 applicants, and comprise one of the largest classes in the college’s 217-year history. The Class of 2021 brings the total number of enrolled undergraduate students to 2,753.
At last Sunday’s ceremony Dean of Admissions Greg Buckles noted 13 percent of this year’s class are first-generation college students and 27 percent are people of color, the highest percentage in the college’s history.
Though he cited the achievements of many incoming students, Buckles reminded those in attendance that the admissions process is not a treasure hunt.
“We’re not looking for fully formed 18 year-olds. We’re not looking for perfection, nor should you get wrapped up in finding perfection here at Middlebury,” he said. “The truth is you’re not going to find it.”
Buckles advised the Class of 2021 to work hard, be resilient, take risks, and not be afraid of failure. In doing so, he said, students can and will find the best versions of themselves.
“Remember what it was about Middlebury that made you want to apply and come here,” he said. “Relish that as you set about your path and find your way.”
Student Government Association President Jin Sohn ’18 echoed Buckles’s advice, and told students to make the most of their time at Middlebury, and to think of ways they can improve the college for subsequent generations of students.
“Think about those who will come after you,” she said. “Do things that will leave Middlebury a better place than you found it.”
The event ended with a speech from College President Laurie Patton, who began her remarks by acknowledging that adjusting to life at Middlebury can be both exhilarating and disorienting, especially when everyone is “as talented as you are.”
“Maybe you’ve already met one of your new classmates who’s a published novelist and three-season varsity athlete, who started her own NGO and hike d the Appalachian trail solo. And the most annoying thing was, as you’ve probably already discovered, she was really nice, too,” Patton said. “That’s the Middlebury way.”
Patton advised students not to compare themselves to one another, and said the best way for one to leave their mark on Middlebury is to, simply, be oneself.
“We chose you because we sensed, and you did too, that there was something about you and this place that made a really wonderful match,” she said.
Patton told the incoming class that, at Middlebury, students are expected to be citizens of a “robust and inclusive public sphere, where you will likely be uncomfortable.”
Though she did not mention the Charles Murray protest by name, she emphasized the college’s commitment to freedom of expression and inclusivity, two issues that have been, and still are, at the forefront of campus-wide conversations in the aftermath of the protest.
“As members of [our] community, you have a particular obligation to that public space: make it more robust, and make it more inclusive. Don’t let others be silenced, and don’t let yourself be silenced, even if you are offended,” Patton said. “Always look around to see who is included, and how you could use your talent and wisdom to include others’ voices in the debate. And respect others’ wishes to learn and grow, even if you dislike their opinions. That is true wisdom.”
Patton ended her remarks by reiterating the need for students to be their best selves, and by reminding them that the wider Middlebury community is here to help.
“We will help you grow in your wisdom. We will help you bounce back. We will help you dream the world as it ought to be. And we will be here for you for the rest of your life,” she said. “As one student put it to me, Middlebury is really supportive wilderness training for the mind, heart, body, and soul.”
(09/14/17 4:05am)
Take a course with John Bertolini, and you will undoubtedly encounter the T. S. Eliot phrase, “mature poets steal.”
Though I am certainly not a poet, and hardly mature, I had Eliot’s observation on my mind when I chose the title of this (hopefully) weekly column. I spent the summer trying to think of a witty and original title. But, after weeks and weeks of failure, I decided to take Eliot’s advice and, simply, steal. In fact, the title, “I Cover the Waterfront,” has a history of being stolen.
I stole it from Fran Lebowitz, who wrote a column with the same name for Andy Warhol’s Interview magazine. It is one of the many things I have stolen from Fran, whose levels of cynicism, wit, and sneering I can only dream of reaching.
She stole it from a novel by Max Miller, which was adapted in 1933 into a film directed by James Cruze. Though I have not read the novel, I watched the film this summer and can report that it is not good, save a few scenes featuring Claudette Colbert.
The film tells the story of a San Diego–based journalist who, as you may have guessed, covers the waterfront. While working on a story about a fisherman who is illegally smuggling people into the country, he falls in love with his subject’s daughter. I will refrain from summarizing the plot, but in the end (wait for it) the journalist gets the scoop and the girl.
The soundtrack of the film inspired a lyrical song of the same name. “I Cover the Waterfront” became a jazz standard, with many titans of the genre, including Frank Sinatra, Billie Holliday and Ella Fitzgerald, interpreting the tune.
It’s pure serendipity that one title is connected to so many of the subjects I plan to write about in this column: journalism, film, jazz and sneering famous wits.
In the film adaptation of “I Cover the Waterfront,” there is a homeless man who casts his fishing rod into the harbor in search of valuables. He mostly ends up reeling in trash. That is more or less what I expect to happen with my version of “I Cover the Waterfront.” And that’s OK. After all, a college newspaper is the perfect place for the imperfect exploration of ideas.
As my hero Fran says, “Great people talk about ideas, average people talk about things, and small people talk about wine.”
After a year of writing this column, we shall see the group to which I belong.
Will DiGravio is the managing editor of this paper.
(08/04/17 8:19pm)
Katy Smith Abbott will leave her position as vice president for student affairs and dean of the college at the end of this year, President Laurie L. Patton announced today. She will continue teaching as a full-time professor in the art history department.
“I am both saddened at the thought of not having her as a member of the senior administration and pleased that she is remaining at Middlebury and following her academic and personal interests,” Patton said in an email to students.
Baishakhi Taylor, the current dean of students, will become interim vice president for student affairs on Jan. 1, 2018.
Smith Abbott declined to comment, opting instead to talk with The Campus at the start of the academic year.
In her email Patton praised Smith Abbott for her commitment to the college. She cited Smith Abbott’s work to expand MiddView Trips, provide stipends for J-term courses and summer internships, and her role in the creation of First@Midd, a program for incoming first-generation students.
“Over the years Katy has led and inspired numerous initiatives to improve the experience of our undergraduate student,” Patton wrote. “Through it all, Katy has worked to enrich the experience for all of our students.”
Smith Abbott first arrived at Middlebury in 1996. From 2002 to 2008 she and her husband, Steve Abbott, a math professor, served as faculty co-heads of Ross Commons. She was then appointed associate dean of the college and later, in 2011, dean of students. In 2014 then-president Ronald D. Liebowitz appointed Smith Abbott to her current position. She originally served on an interim basis but was formally named to the post later that year.
Taylor came to Middlebury in 2015 from Duke University, where she worked under Patton in Duke’s Trinity College of Arts and Sciences. Like Smith Abbott, Taylor may eventually be named the official dean of the college despite being an interim appointment, although Smith Abbott had been employed by the college for 18 years when she was promoted.
Ethan Brady contributed reporting.
(05/11/17 3:59am)
A group of 19 students have been placed on probation for the remainder of the academic year, plus an additional two semesters, after the Community Judicial Board found them guilty of violating college policy by participating in the March 2 protests against Dr. Charles Murray.
Probation is a form of unofficial college discipline that consists of a student having a letter placed in their official college file. If a student violates another college policy while on probation they may be subject to official college discipline. The letter remains in the student’s file until graduation.
The students were notified of their punishment on Friday, May 5, the day after they testified before the Judicial Board as a group. This article is based on conversations with several individuals familiar with the situation, who spoke on the condition of anonymity given the sensitive nature of the topic and the fact that the investigation is ongoing.
In a typical judicial hearing, each respondent — the official term for students who have been charged with violating the College Handbook — is allowed to invite a “support person.” However, due to the large number of respondents, the College limited the group to five support persons. The respondents opted to invite Sujata Moorti, professor of gender, sexuality and feminist studies, Jamie McCallum, assistant professor of sociology, Linus Owens, associate professor of sociology, Darién Davis, professor of history, and Patricia Saldarriaga, professor of Spanish.
The hearing, which lasted roughly four hours, started at 6 p.m. on Thursday night. As students entered the hearing, they were provided with a packet of evidence that included photographs, screenshots, links to videos and a description of the charges that were being brought against them.
The meeting began with an opening statement by the respondents. According to one respondent, the students spent roughly 20 hours over the course of four to five days drafting the statement prior to the hearing. They were allowed fifteen minutes to make their opening remarks. Prior to the hearing, the group had chosen a few respondents to read their statement.
Respondents were then given a letter, written by Dean of the College Katy Smith Abbott, that outlined the charges brought against them by the College. They were afforded an opportunity to read the letter prior to the start of the hearing.
Students were facing official college discipline for participating in the events of March 2, which the College viewed as two separate protests. The first is the protest that prevented Murray from speaking after he took the stage. The second is the protest that continued in Wilson Hall as the College live-streamed a conversation between Murray and Allison Stanger, professor of international politics and economics. The group consisted of students who participated in both protests.
Prior to the start of the hearing, students accepted that they violated the “Demonstrations and Protests” section of the College Handbook. The hearing was to determine the type of sanction that they would receive, not to dispute their involvement.
Members of the Judicial Board and respondents then engaged in a question and answer session. Respondents had the ability to discuss their answers to the questions as a group, however, they designated a few specific members to provide the answers.
Per the College’s Judicial Handbook Policy, each respondent then had the opportunity to have a character reference speak on their behalf. All 19 respondents had a character reference.
While a majority of the references were faculty members, some were staff members and others were adults from outside the Middlebury community — 16 references were in attendance and three sent letters. They each had four minutes to speak and were called into the hearing separately. Character references were not allowed to talk about the events of March 2, nor any other information or events that did not directly relate to a respondent’s character.
Respondents were then allowed to deliver a closing statement. According to those involved, the students drafted a rough outline prior to the hearing, however, they were able to adjust their statement throughout the hearing based on the proceedings. The Campus was unable to obtain a copy of the opening and closing statements. Those involved said those statements may be released soon.
Once the hearing concluded, members of the Judicial Board spent over two hours deliberating, according to one person familiar with the situation.
As of press time, individual hearings for those involved with both protests have yet to take place. It is unclear when these hearings will take place and how many students opted for an individual hearing.
(05/04/17 3:59am)
The first official judicial hearing for students who participated in the March 2 protests against Dr. Charles Murray is scheduled to take place today, May 4, as of press time.
The hearing will examine the cases of at least 18 respondents — the official term for students who have been charged with violating the College Handbook. The respondents requested to have their hearing as a large group.
The College offered students the option to have their case heard individually, as a member of a small group, or as part of the large group. At the time of this report, no students have chosen to testify as a small group, while a few have opted for an individual hearing. Individual hearings have yet to be scheduled.
The College is viewing the events of March 2 as two separate protests. The first is the protest that prevented Murray from speaking after he took the stage. The second is the one that continued in Wilson Hall as the College live-streamed a conversation between Murray and Allison Stanger, professor of international politics and economics.
Students whom the College believes participated in both the first and second protests are those who are facing official college discipline, and who have opted to go forward with the judicial process. Official punishment is anything that goes on a student’s permanent record.
As reported in the April 27 issue of The Campus, the College has already placed more than 30 students on probation for participating in the first protest. Probation is a form of unofficial discipline, and means that a student will have a letter placed in their file that will be removed at the end semester, as long as they do not violate another college policy.
The 18 students who are proceeding with Thursday’s hearing are not contesting that they violated the “Demonstrations and Protest” policy of the College Handbook. Rather, the hearing will determine the type of sanction that those students will receive. Students who want to challenge the College’s account of what occurred or object to the College’s ruling have been provided with other adjudication options. At this time, it is unclear exactly what those options are. However, according to one person familiar with the situation, they will most likely consist of separate hearings.
SIT-IN
As a response to the way in which the administration has conducted the investigation into the events of March 2, a group of students, with support from faculty members, planned to conduct a sit-in protest in the Services Building on Friday, April 28. Their goal was to push the Middlebury College administration to be more transparent regarding the disciplinary process for students involved in the Murray protests.
The sit-in corresponded with greater efforts from faculty members to seek information from administrators regarding the disciplinary proceedings. Laurie Essig, associate professor of sociology and gender, sexuality, and feminist studies, Linus Owens, associate professor of sociology and Sujata Moorti, professor of gender, sexuality and feminist studies, were among a group of faculty members who reached out to the administration. Initially, they were hoping for more information from the meeting to better understand the disciplinary process and help students who are facing hearings.
“Our original plan was to support students who wanted to take a stand against the opacity of the judicial process,” Moorti said. “We had invited other faculty to join us as well.”
According to Essig and Owens, they were able to set up meetings with Dean of the College Katy Smith Abbott and Provost Susan Baldridge prior to the sit-in.
However, as students and faculty gathered at Crossroads Cafe in preparation for the sit-in, both groups decided to merge the events. Dean of Students Baishakhi Taylor came to the gathering to answer questions at the request of Moorti, according to both Taylor and Moorti.
The crowd of students grew over the course of about two hours. Tyler McDowell ’19, a student who attended, estimated that 40 to 70 students and 10 to 15 professors showed up. Eventually, both Smith Abbott and Baldridge arrived to answer questions.
According to McDowell, many students asked questions about why the disciplinary process has not been a “restorative justice” model. He said administrators explained that there was an attempt last year to implement such a model, but it failed.
In a comment given to The Campus, Katy Smith Abbott said, “I am working hard on a plan for bringing Restorative Practices training to campus beginning in June.”
Restorative justice is a method of discipline that emphasizes reconciliation with victims and the community at large.
“Middlebury could have gone forward with a non-punitive and restorative process,” Essig said. “A decision could have been made that rather than holding students and only students responsible, all involved parties could have been invited to sit down to figure out what happened, what harm was caused and how dissent can happen in the future in productive ways.”
In the end, Moorti said, the administrators decided to allow students to choose a group hearing.
“The meeting has produced mixed results — a shift in the nature of the hearings but no substantive shift toward restorative justice or a clarification of how and what distinguishes unofficial from official college discipline,” she said.
Essig also described the meeting as having at least some positive effects.
“I think Friday showed a possibility that Middlebury as an institution can occasionally stop and actually listen to students when members of the community stand up for our shared values,” she said. “I hope that Friday’s small and momentary break in business as usual might signal that as an institution Middlebury can stop punishing protesters and decide to incorporate dissent into its notions of free speech and academic freedom in the future.”
(05/04/17 3:58am)
The Student Government Association (SGA) passed a resolution at their April 23 meeting that recommended a series of changes to the “Demonstrations and Protests” section of the College Handbook.
The bill aims to change the language of the Handbook in order to better protect the rights of student protestors. The bill was authored and sponsored by Community Council Co-Chair Travis Wayne Sanderson ’19 and Brainerd Senator and Community Council Co-Chair-Elect Kyle Wright ’19.5.
According to current Handbook language, any violation of the College’s “Demonstrations and Protests” policy “may result in College discipline.” It also states that “disruption may also result in arrest and criminal charges such as disorderly conduct or trespass.” The first recommendation made by the bill is to change the word “disruption” in the final sentence to “violent disruption.”
“Currently, as the policy stands, any form of disruption can be responded to with arrest or criminal charges. Disruption is defined in the policy as including the holding of signs, so technically speaking, if the policy says that you can respond to the holding of signs with criminal charges, there’s a problem,” Sanderson said. “We wanted to refine that so it just said violent, so that it narrowed the scope by which you could have such severe consequences.”
The second recommendation is to alter the Handbook policy that reads: “Distribution of materials such as leaflets may not be confrontational and must allow people to decline to receive the materials.” The resolution calls for the removal of the phrase “may not be confrontational.” Sanderson said that the current language is “ridiculous” and seemed “relatively easy to fix,” and that there was no conflict within the SGA itself over the recommendation.
Another recommendation is to insert language into the Handbook that explicitly prevents Public Safety officers from using violent force. The language reads: “Public Safety, as well as outside security and contractors hired by Middlebury College or its affiliates, not including state or federal law enforcement, may not use violent force against students unless they, or another individual, are first acted upon violently by those students.”
According to Sanderson, the recommendation is simply putting into words what Public Safety already practices.
“There was absolutely no clarification as to the situations in which Public Safety could use violent force as a tactic for response,” Wright said. “Though Public Safety has clarified to the Community Council that it is not their practice to use violence in responding to cases of disruption or protest, the fact that that language wasn’t clarified, I think, for us, left it far too open-ended.”
The resolution comes as the College is investigating more than 70 students it believes may be subject to disciplinary procedures for participating in the protests that prevented Dr. Charles Murray from delivering a scheduled lecture on March 2. According to the College, more than 30 students have already accepted disciplinary sanctions.
Wright and Sanderson’s resolution recommends that the College “reconsider any discipline leveled against students involved in the protests against Charles Murray and Middlebury College that were founded in the wording of the college Handbook prior to the passing of this bill.” In short, if the resolution were to be implemented by the College, then the new Handbook language would be retroactively applied to those who participated in the March 2 protests.
Sanderson justified retroactively applying the changes by citing a Nov. 13 protest against President-elect Donald Trump, after which the College did not enforce its own policies.
“According to the policy, that [protest] could have been defined as disruptive and not designated. The protest policy calls for having a designated protest area, having it approved by public safety, etc. We had none of that, there was no enforcement [of the policy],” Sanderson said.
He argued that since current policies are not consistently enforced, it is not fair for the College to discipline students.
“Given the fact that there was no enforcement of the policy until it was convenient, there’s a problem. If you are only enforcing the policy as a means to attack, which is exactly what’s happening now, what needs to happen is the commitment to enforce the policy in a more consistent and more neutral way,” he said.
“If you have one, a policy that they only enforce when [the College] wants to, and two, a policy that is not complete to begin with, then I don’t believe that policy is a valid thing by which to judge people because it’s not objective in the first place, it’s not fully thought out. If you have a policy that is not fully thought out, a policy that is not being enforced fully in the first place, then that should not be used to punish protesters, regardless of the fact that it happened before the [proposed] policy changes happened.”
Wright agreed, citing retroactive action as a norm used by legislative bodies.
“If we’re trying to make a philosophical case for why retroactive action works, there are laws passed through Congress all the time that work retroactively, because the conversation has never been about adherence to the rules, it’s been about whether or not those rules are just,” he said. “If they’re not in the best interest of the student body, I don’t know why we would have a precedent wherein everything that was done in the case of that rule remains valid. We’re hoping to have a talk not about rules and adherence to rules necessarily, but whether or not those rules exclude or include people in ways that are meaningful to people on this campus.”
The SGA Senate passed the resolution 10-3-1. First-Year Senator Jack Goldfield ’20, Cook Senator Connor McCormick ’18, and Feb Senator Rae Aaron ’19.5 voted against the resolution.
Aaron said that she supported making changes to the College Handbook’s current protest policies; however, she disagreed with retroactively applying them to the Murray-investigations.
“In order to make effective long term updates to the College’s antiquated protest policies to empower marginalized voices, the community should engage in thorough inclusive dialogue rather than make abrupt alterations to the Handbook aimed at retroactively excusing students for breaking College policies,” she said.
Vice President for Communications and Chief Marketing Officer Bill Burger said that the College has yet to conduct its regular review of the College Handbook.
“We welcome any suggestions that the community has,” he said.
(04/27/17 3:59am)
The College has officially begun to discipline those who participated in the March 2 protests that prevented Dr. Charles Murray from delivering a scheduled lecture.
According to an official statement released on April 17, the College has identified “more than 70 individuals it believes may be subject to disciplinary procedures under student handbook policies” due to their participation in the protests.
Of those identified, “more than 30 students have accepted disciplinary sanctions for their actions.” In that same statement, the College said, “We will not comment on the nature or range of the sanctions until the process is complete.”
In an effort to shed light on the proceedings, The Campus spoke with several students who had been called into disciplinary meetings regarding their actions on March 2. Given the sensitive situation and ongoing investigation, they described the nature of their meetings and what they were told would be the next steps on the condition of anonymity.
Individuals involved in the protests began receiving emails about potential discipline on Monday, April 3, the first week after spring break. The email, sent on behalf of either Karen Guttentag or Brian Lind, both associate deans for judicial affairs and student life, asked students to attend a meeting with either Guttentag or Lind in the College’s Service Building.
Initial emails did not say that the meeting pertained to the events of March 2. When some students asked for more information, some were initially told that it could not be provided. Others pressed harder and were eventually given information about the subject and nature of the meeting. They were scheduled for an hour.
Meetings consisted of a basic structure but varied in length and topics discussed. Students engaged in a conversation with either Guttentag or Lind about the College’s position and handbook policies. They were not read a script nor were notes taken, according to multiple students.
Before they were given a punishment, students were asked if they had any questions. Students were told that the College had either video or photographic evidence that they had participated in the protest by either standing, shouting, or holding signs. They either received unofficial or official college discipline. Some, after asking to see evidence, were shown either photos or videos of the protest.
Unofficial punishment, according to several students involved, has generally been given in the form of probation; official punishment is anything that goes on a student’s permanent record.
Students who are placed on probation have a letter placed in their file that will be removed at the end of the semester. However, if a student is placed on probation and then violates another college policy, the probation can become a part of their official record.
According to multiple students, the College has given unofficial punishment to students who participated in the protest prior to the live stream of the conversation held between Murray and Russell J. Leng ‘60 Professor of International Politics and Economics Allison Stanger. Students were told that those who continued to protest during the live stream in Wilson Hall may receive official college discipline. As of April 25, it is unclear whether or not any students have received official college discipline. Those investigations, as well as investigations into the protest prior to the start of the live stream, are ongoing.
While multiple students said that they understood that the College may have had to punish protesters, many expressed frustration with the process, saying that it seemed arbitrary and ill-defined. Others condemned the punishments altogether, citing them as an example of the College stifling students’ ability to express themselves.
The Campus will continue coverage as the story develops.
(04/21/17 2:49am)
Tikhon Dzyadko, a Russian radio and television journalist, will deliver a lecture titled “The State of Democracy and Press Freedom in Russia: What Donald Trump Could (and Should Not) Learn from Vladimir Putin,” on Wednesday, April 26 in McCardell BiCentennial Hall 104 from 4:30-6 p.m. His lecture is sponsored by the Russian department.
From 2010 to 2015, Dzyadko worked for TV Rain, one of the last independent television stations in Putin’s Russia. Since leaving TV Rain, he has worked as a Washington correspondent for the the Ukrainian television station Inter, and currently works at RTVi, a Russian-language television station based in New York.
The Middlebury Campus communicated with Dzyadko via email to discuss his upcoming lecture, U.S. President Donald Trump’s relationship with the press, the state of journalism in Russia and the similarities between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin.
Will DiGravio (WD): Your lecture is titled “The State of Democracy and Press Freedom in Russia: What Donald Trump could (and should not) learn from Vladimir Putin.” What do you see as the greatest similarity between the ways in which Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin interact with the press?
Tikhon Dzyadko (TD): I would say that the greatest similarity is that Trump (as Putin) considers press as the “opposition party.” He fights with it instead of admitting that the press is one of the most important instruments of democracy, the voice of the American people which he has to hear.
WD: In a 2014 piece in The Guardian, you wrote about how the Kremlin was able to undermine your independent TV news station “Rain” by excluding you from nearly all cable and satellite services and by putting pressure on advertisers. President Trump has labeled the American media as the “Opposition Party,” and has suggested making changes to the country’s libel laws in the wake of negative press coverage. Having experienced first-hand what it is like to be targeted by a government, what is your response to Donald Trump’s rhetoric? What advice would you give to American journalists?
TD: It is tough because you are becoming marginal and you lose your right to spread your [message] to the audience. At the same time you’re becoming a target of a campaign of misinformation against which you don’t have enough tools to compete: all the main TV stations and newspapers are under control of the government. American journalists, I think, should realize that the situation with press freedom in the US is in danger and they should show solidarity and resist right now.
WD: What is the state of independent media in Russia? What do you see as the future of independent media in Russia?
TD: The state of independent media in Russia is in a bad shape and it’s getting worse every month. The number of independent media is shrinking - the government is making their existence impossible by cutting its opportunities to make money and get to the audience. That’s why the Internet and social media are becoming the real independent press in Russia.
WD: Many have called Donald Trump one of the most media savvy politicians in the country, citing his use of the media and, in particular, television news to spread his message and build his political profile. What is Vladimir Putin’s relationship like with Russian TV news stations? Do you see similarities between him and Trump?
TD: I would argue that Trump is one of the most media savvy politicians in the country. Of course he is using it only the outlets which are friendly to him. Vladimir Putin is using Russian TV news stations only to spread his views to Russian people. News stations for him are not media but only the instruments of propaganda.
WD: Many Trump surrogates and supporters have used television news to spread misinformation in an attempt to legitimize and justify the actions of the president. Should networks provide a platform to individuals who spread misinformation on behalf of the president? How should networks hold those individuals accountable and make sure that the public is not misinformed?
TD: I think that networks should provide such a platform but they should be ready to respond. The anchors of these shows should be prepared well enough to show to the audience that the information these individuals are giving is actually a misinformation.
WD: Several weeks ago, the broadcaster Ted Koppel made headlines when he said that Sean Hannity of Fox News was bad for America. And last month, President Trump sent out a tweet urging people to tune into an episode Fox’s “Justice w/ Judge Jeanine” later that night. During the episode, Jeanine blamed the failure of the Republican’s healthcare bill on Paul Ryan, said the speaker let the president down, and called for his resignation. It is no secret that Donald Trump has an intimate relationship with Fox News. What do you make of this relationship? How is it similar and/or different from the relationship that Putin has with television networks in Russia?
TD: I think it’s common for all leaders who don’t like democracy. They consider media as their servants. That’s why they only like the journalists who ask “nice” questions. And [those who don’t] are “fake news.” That’s the very same thing that Vladimir Putin does in Russia.
WD: What advice would you give to young journalists who are interested in covering Donald Trump? What advice would you give to young journalists who are interested in working a country like Russia where the press’s ability to report is under constant threat?
TD: I think in Trump’s USA and in countries like Russia, journalists should be fearless (even if it’s difficult) and they should not compromise a thing. Because if they do it once, they will definitely be asked to do it again.
(04/21/17 2:44am)
Editor’s Note: This article is the first in a series that will examine the current financial state of the College. In recent years, the College has run budget deficits and has been forced to rein in spending in order to ensure long term financial stability. These articles will aim to inform the Middlebury community about the College’s financial situation, dispel rumors, raise new questions and, hopefully, spark new debates about how the College operates and spends its money.
An increase in the number of students receiving financial aid has contributed to the College’s recent financial woes, causing deficits and a need to rein in spending until greater endowment dollars can be raised.
At present, Middlebury’s current goal each year is to admit a class in which 42-43 percent of students receive financial assistance from the College. However, in recent years, due to its need-blind admissions policy, the College has admitted a far greater percentage of students who require financial aid.
For the classes of 2018 and 2019, roughly 48 percent of students currently receive need-based scholarship support. The blended average is 44 percent when taking into account all other classes.
According to Executive Vice President for Finance and Administration David Provost, who took over the role in January of 2017, the College will operate at a deficit if it continues to provide financial aid at current levels.
“If [the number of students on financial aid] ends up being, say, 48 percent in a given year, we will operate at a deficit, which we have in fact for the last four years,” Provost said. “We’re not covering our operating expenses with our operating revenue plus the endowment, so we’re losing money.”
Because the admissions process is need blind, the College does not know how many students will receive financial aid until the class has been admitted. The 42 percent mark is therefore difficult to precisely achieve.
“Need blind means you’re looking at the application based on what it is independent of financial ability to pay. Then, once you say you’re accepting that student, you deal with the consequences of whether or not a student does or doesn’t need aid,” Provost said. “That is why the number can fluctuate.”
The College’s decision to remain need blind and not compromise financial aid has resulted in the institution reining in spending where necessary in order to minimize the yearly deficit.
“My goal is to get us to live within our means, without jeopardizing the academic experience for our students,” Provost said. “Where can we as an organization, especially on the staff side, be more effective in what we do and how we do it so we’re not incurring these losses?”
According to Provost, the College plans to release five percent of its endowment, a number that is down from previous years and is a byproduct of making sure that the institution is spending within its means. Given the volatility of the market, the College does not project endowment returns, however, Provost said that this year’s returns do look positive.
President of Middlebury Laurie L. Patton has said that increasing the number of students on financial aid is one of her top priorities. The first step in doing so, according to Provost, is to get the College to a point where losses are no longer being incurred. Then, a fundraising campaign will have to be conducted to bolster the endowment and funds for financial aid. In 2015, Middlebury concluded its largest fundraising campaign in the College's history, during which it raised $535.5 million over eight years.
(04/14/17 1:28am)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RK8xHq6dfAo
"Hidden Figures" takes place in 1961, in the midst of the Space Race and at the outset of the Kennedy Administration's plan to land a man on the moon by the end of the decade.
Directed by Theodore Melfi (who wrote the script with Allison Schroeder), the film tells the true story of three black women who work as mathematicians or "computers" at NASA, where they are outsourced to various departments to check the calculations of the agency's male engineers. While the women are brilliant and well-educated, Jim Crow laws and the bigotry of their colleagues serve as barriers to their advancement and acceptance at the agency.
Mary Jackson (Janelle Monáe) is assigned to work alongside Karl Zielinski (Olek Krupa), a lead engineer who sees Mary's potential and encourages her to apply to NASA's engineer training program. Mary, however, is unable to apply after she discovers a new rule requiring her to take extra courses at an all-white high school, even though she has a B.S. in mathematics like most engineers.
Dorothy Vaughan (Octavia Spencer), faces similar discrimination. After the boss of the so called "colored computers" gets fired, Dorothy steps in and assumes the responsibilities of a supervisor. When she approaches her boss (Kirsten Dunst) and asks to be officially promoted and compensated for her work, she is refused.
Were it not for the prejudices of their superiors, Mary could be NASA's first black, female engineer, and Dorothy could be the agency's first black, female supervisor. As Mary puts it, "Every time we get a chance to get ahead they move the finish line."
The main character is Katherine Goble Johnson (Taraji Henson), a mathematical genius who is assigned to the Space Task Group, a group of engineers lead by Al Harrison (Kevin Costner) and charged with sending the Mercury Seven astronauts — John Glenn, Alan Shephard, et al — into space. Katherine is responsible for checking the work of Paul Stafford (Jim Parsons), the group's chief engineer who treats her poorly and classifies his calculations to make her job impossible.
The racism portrayed in the film is not violent. NASA employees do not use slurs, assault black employees, or exhibit any major hostility. Instead, the racism is habitual. It comes through in their facial expressions, instincts, and inability to recognize that their black colleagues have something to contribute and may know more than they do. The film explores institutional racism and how easily it is perpetuated and normalized.
In the building where Katherine works, there is no bathroom for black women, thus she is forced to walk a half mile to the nearest restroom. One rainy day, it takes Katherine forty minutes to relieve herself. When she returns, Al — unaware that there is no bathroom for her to use in the building— angrily questions Katherine in front of her coworkers. Exhausted and frustrated, Katherine alerts him to the problem and demands to know why her coworkers refuse to treat her like a human being. After this exchange, Al desegregates the bathrooms, begins to treat Katherine better, and reminds everyone, "Here at NASA, we all pee the same color."
"Hidden Figures" captures the tension and frustration of the Space Race and in particular, the frustration of the black women whose skill and help were routinely rejected. By exploring the struggle for civil rights through the lens of one of the nation's most prestigious government agencies, the film showcases not only the immorality of segregation, but the stupidity and loss of not putting brilliant minds to work.
After several frustrating months, Katherine realizes that the current crop of mathematicians and engineers aren't up to the task, and, after finding a way to see Stafford's classified data, develops a formula to help send Alan Shephard into space. This causes Al to realize that Katherine is the mathematician he has been looking for, the one who looks, as he says, “beyond the numbers."
Mary, after winning a lawsuit against the state of Virginia, takes courses at the all-white high school and becomes NASA's first black, female engineer. And after NASA buys their first IBM computer, Dorothy, realizing that it is the technology of the future, learns Fortran and teachers her team how to use the new technology. She ends up becoming NASA's first black, female supervisor, and a computer pioneer.
Al begins to give Katherine more responsibilities, eventually enlisting her help to calculate the coordinates that will guide John Glenn (Glen Powell) home after he orbits Earth. While he certainly helps Katherine, Al is not a white savior. She, and the other women in the film, earn and push for every opportunity they are given. They take chance and, in the end, are heroes.
"Hidden Figures" is an uplifting, empowering film about black women who refuse to be passive or let anyone else determine their destinies.
The stories of Mary, Dorothy, and Katherine blend the fight for equality with the fight for space, illustrating that social progress and scientific discovery are one in the same. Though "Hidden Figures" takes place in the past, it is very much a story about how to fight for, find a place in, and never lose sight of the future.
(04/12/17 8:08pm)
A group of faculty members presented a motion to add a “Freedom of Expression Policy” to the “General Information” section of the College handbook at the April 9 Faculty Plenary meeting.
The following professors submitted the motion: Assistant Professor of Religion Ata Anzali, Assistant Professor of Political Science Keegan Callanan, Fulton Professor of Humanities Stephen Donadio, Frederick C. Dirks Professor of Political Science Michael Kraus, Associate Professor of Economics Caitlin Myers, D. E. Axinn Professor of English and Creative Writing Jay Parini, Curt C. and Else Silberman Professor of Jewish Studies Robert Schine, Associate Professor of Mathematics John Schmitt, Russell J. Leng ‘60 Professor of International Politics and Economics Allison Stanger and John M. McCardell Jr. Distinguished Professor Don Wyatt.
Their motion comes in the midst of on-campus debates over free speech and inclusivity in the wake of student-led protests that prevented Dr. Charles Murray from delivering a scheduled lecture on March 2. The faculty group emerged out of an informal conversation about the future of free expression at Middlebury.
“There are several places in the handbook that address academic freedom in one way or another,” Myers said. “But they all have local purposes and don’t provide a complete, coherent, clear statement of policy that protects the whole community — faculty, staff, and students as well as any guest they invite.”
“Because the College is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the College community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge and learn,” reads their motion. “It is not the proper role of the College to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”
The motion emphasised that one of the purposes of higher education is to serve as a place where contrasting ideas can be presented and discussed.
“In a community striving toward this end, free speech protects the right of all individuals and groups to be heard. We recognize the uneven burden that freedom of speech can impose on under-represented minorities. By the same token, minorities often stand to lose the most under regimes of restricted speech,” the motion reads.
It also acknowledges that freedom of speech does not protect all kinds of speech.
“The freedom to debate and discuss the merits of competing ideas does not, of course, mean that individuals may say whatever they wish, wherever they wish,” said the motion. “The College may restrict expression that violates the law, that falsely defames a specific individual, that constitutes a genuine threat or harassment, that unjustifiably invades substantial privacy or confidentiality interests, or that is otherwise directly incompatible with the functioning of the College.”
Although part of the motion was drafted by Middlebury faculty, it also proposes the adoption of the University of Chicago’s “Freedom of Inquiry and Expression” policy and the AAUP’s statement, “On Freedom of Expression and Campus Speech Codes.”
After Myers, Anzali, Callanan and Donadio presented the motion to the faculty, Professor of Film & Media Studies and American Studies Jason Mittell, speaking on behalf of more than 30 faculty members, introduced a substitution motion to delay considering the proposal. Faculty spoke against the proposal not necessarily due to the content of the motion, but because of the timing, process and way in which it was introduced.
The faculty who drafted the substitute motion met on April 5, and decided to reject debating the “Freedom of Expression Policy” because they believe that it is necessary to discuss the College’s shared values before discussing future policy implementations. They also believe that policy changes should not occur in the midst of investigations into the protests on March 2.
“There are disciplinary actions currently underway concerning a number of our students, and potentially even our faculty and staff colleagues,” Mittell said. “Changing our handbook language in ways that pertain to those investigations and accusations in the midst of the proceedings is potentially damaging to the integrity (perceived or in practice) of our judicial process.”
He also argued that the passage of such a motion would only strengthen current political divides on campus.
“Presenting this policy now will be treated as a referendum on the March 2nd event, and our current factionalization will become even more polarized and destructive,” he said. “Regardless of its intent, this motion will be regarded by many as a direct rebuke against colleagues and students, rather than a sincere statement of principles. Even some who agree with the spirit of the policy will always regard it as tainted by politics.”
Mittell ended his remarks by saying that the passage of such a motion should not be done without consulting students and staff. The motion that he introduced recommended that changes to the handbook regarding free speech should be discussed and drafted by the ad hoc committee of students, faculty and staff that will soon be established by the Office of the Provost.
“We ask that one goal of this joint committee will be to consider and offer recommendations for actions, policies and statements that can help us move forward and assert shared community values which all constituencies can commit to collaboratively,” reads the motion. “We also ask that relevant policy recommendations should be considered by this joint committee before being addressed by other policy-making bodies, to ensure an inclusive and deliberative process."
After Mittell made this motion, Associate Professor of Political Science Bertram Johnson offered a friendly amendment to change the language of the last line from "addressed by" to "voted on." This friendly amendment, while accepted by Mittell, has not yet been approved by the faculty. It will require a vote at the May plenary meeting.
Per Robert’s Rules of Order, the discussion then turned into a debate between the two motions. Several faculty members supported the substitute motion and the delay of the first motion, citing that the introduction of the first motion was done too soon. Other faculty members spoke in favor of the first motion, and argued that, by delaying discussion of the “Freedom of Expression Policy,” the substitute motion limited the ability of the faculty to debate issues of free speech.
“From the outset we made it clear that we had no intention of trying to ram [the first proposal] through without time for consideration and debate. We have brought it forward as one discussion point in a broader conversation about our values as an academic community,” Myers said. “The original version of the substitute motion was quite shocking to me in that it gags and binds the faculty in addressing any concrete proposals related to the Murray incident until next winter. The ‘friendly amendment’ removes the gag, but I’m still quite troubled that some colleagues want to constrain faculty governance.”
“If passed, the substitute motion would have been a novelty in the annals of faculty governance: a faculty voting to forbid itself from discussing something,” Callanan said.
However, those who supported the substitute motion argued that delaying discussion and a vote on the “Freedom of Expression Policy” did not limit the faculty’s ability to talk about the issue, rather, it allowed for the faculty to engage in a conversation about these values with the broader community.
“The initial motion frames the entire conversation around the free speech policy proposal on the faculty floor, which drastically limits what issues might be addressed and who can participate. Our substitute motion embraces multiple issues beyond just free speech, such as inclusivity, diversity and community, and brings students and staff to the table as well,” Mittell said. “Our colleagues on Faculty Council and the Provost’s office are sponsoring many opportunities for community discussions on these issues, so I see no lack of open conversations in a wide range of
venues. In short, our substitute motion actually aims to broaden the terms, scope and inclusivity of speech about the March 2nd events and their aftermath.”
After a lengthy debate at the April 9 meeting, the faculty did not vote on the two proposals. Debate will continue at the May 16 meeting which will be held at 3 p.m. at Wilson Hall in the McCullough Student Center.
(03/23/17 2:09am)
John Bertolini first discovered the work of Terence Rattigan as a young boy at the movies, where he developed a taste for Rattigan’s “great theatrical skill.” It is his view that Rattigan is the preeminent British dramatist of the twentieth century, second only to George Bernard Shaw, who belongs as much to the nineteenth century as he does the twentieth.
A self-described devotee, Bertolini published his first book on Shaw, “The Playwriting Self of Bernard Shaw,” in 1991. At the college, Bertolini, who is Ellis Professor of English and the Liberal Arts, teaches courses that explore the works of Shaw and Rattigan and their relationship to one another.
His latest book, “The Case for Terence Rattigan, Playwright,” is a study of Rattigan that seeks, as he writes in the book’s preface, “to illustrate Peter O’Toole’s assertion that Rattigan is the best playwright of the twentieth century.”
The book is part of a series of scholarly works aimed to deepen the academic study of Shaw through the exploration of his contemporaries.
“What appeals to me in Shaw is his heroic optimism. He is the embodiment of the comic spirit of life,” Bertolini said. “But, I know there’s another side to life. And Rattigan seemed to me among modern British playwrights to be the one whose representation of the tragic side of life appealed to me the most.”
In his lifetime, Rattigan established himself as a kind of foil to Shaw, as a playwright of character and situation, rather than one of ideas.”The contrasting approaches to drama make Rattigan and Shaw, in a way, complementary playwrights. The reader gets more out of one by reading the other.
“[Reading Shaw and Rattigan together] highlights what is characteristic of each one. It enables you to see better what is unique to Rattigan and what is unique to Shaw,” he said. “[One can see] how much the ‘play of ideas’ really differs from the play of ‘character and situation.’”
However, as Bertolini points out, there are certainly elements of “character and situation” in Shaw, and “ideas” in Rattigan. And that while they are complementary, there are also many ways in which they resemble one another.
The greatest similarity is, simply, their great theatrical skill, the way in which they set up their effects and follow through with them. Rattigan maintained a high level of dramatic art from his first play to his last play, due in part to his natural flare for drama and his willingness to challenge the form. An example of this comes in “The Winslow Boy,” a courtroom drama that centers around the trial of a young boy but never actually has a scene in the courtroom.
“That reminds me of Shakespeare’s experimentation with dramatic form,” Bertolini said. “That is the sign of a real artist. The challenge of the form."
For Bertolini, the hallmarks of Rattigan’s style are his use of understatement and implication.
“A good playwright has to know what not to have his characters say and when to have them not say it,” Bertolini said. “It is drama achieved through something you expect the character to say, you’re waiting for them to say it, but they don’t say it. Or they say it when you least expect it, they hold off saying it. And that catches your attention. ‘Why isn’t she telling him that she loves him?’ And then you see why she isn’t, because it’s too painful to confront the rejection.”
What makes Rattigan a truly great playwright, says Bertolini, is the way in which he used understatement, implication, character and situation to deliver tragedies that illustrated his unique view of life: the sadness of it, the inevitability of defeat, how victory often feels like defeat. In the later years of his life, Rattigan abandoned comedy and focused solely on delivering this tragic vision.
“I think he stopped writing comedies because he no longer believed in the comic sense of life that animated Shaw all of his life, for example. It became impossible for him to write comedies. He just no longer had that as part of his vision of life,” Bertolini said.
In the more than forty years he has been teaching drama at the College, Bertolini says he has found that Rattigan’s plays and tragic vision tend to resonate particularly well with students.
“[Students] are carried along by his skill. By his ability to write one scene after another that keep their interest and stir up questions in the audience’s mind,” he said. “I think the overall vision of defeated humanity is pretty compelling. How many people realize all their dreams? How many people are completely happy in life? Very few. And he writes about that.”
He says that teaching and engaging with students at the College has greatly contributed to his study of Rattigan.
“I always write about what I teach, and I always teach what I write about. They have a symbiotic relationship for me. I get all sorts of stimulation from the ideas of students in class,” Bertolini said.
“Sometimes I’ll even use them as springboards to finding, extending and embellishing other ideas. It’s always a challenge to keep up with students in the classroom. They keep me on my toes. I love hearing their reactions to the plays, their ideas about them, where they see Rattigan doing this, that and the other thing and how that affects what he creates.”
Bertolini says that he hopes his teaching and scholarship will help ensure that the legacy of Rattigan will live on.
“I like to think of the future,” he said. “To think that when my students have children they will say, ‘Oh, here’s a great play that you should read.’ or ‘Here, I want you to look at a film of “The Winslow Boy.”’ I’m consoled by that, because I feel like then the work will never die.”
(03/16/17 1:34am)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rNUYdgIyaPM
In writing about the leaders of the 1960s, James Baldwin remembered just how young they all were. Medgar Evers and Robert F. Kennedy were 37 in 1963, Martin Luther King Jr. was 34, Malcolm X, 38, John F. Kennedy, 46. Baldwin was 39, the only one to survive the decade, and the only one not named Kennedy to reach the age of 40.
During the final years of his life, Baldwin, who died in 1981 at the age of 63, wrote the first thirty pages of a memoir detailing his relationships with Evers, X, and King. That unfinished manuscript, titled “Remember This House,” has been revived and reimagined in writer-director Raoul Peck’s latest work, “I Am Not Your Negro.”
Though Baldwin is the documentary’s main subject, the film is not biographical, nor does it truly explore his legacy as a writer and public intellectual. Rather, Baldwin’s notes, letters, and reflections act as a kind of Trojan horse, used by the film to explore the lasting legacy of racism in the United States. The film makes use of archival footage, photographs, and Baldwin’s writing (narrated by Samuel L. Jackson) to illustrate how he, as a black man, saw the world around him.
Baldwin’s effectiveness as a commentator comes from the seemingly effortless and brilliant way in which he tied political and cultural issues into one. Among his most effective critiques were those of Hollywood, and the way in which the movies falsely represented American life.
The best example Baldwin provides comes from the 1958 film “The Defiant Ones,” which stars Sidney Poitier and Tony Curtis as two convicts who break out of prison. In the film, Poitier’s character is able to jump on a train to escape, however, he jumps back off when Curtis’s character is unable to hop aboard.
As Baldwin says, the scene from the film was designed to provide a feel good moment for white moviegoers. According to Baldwin, while white people in the audience shared a sense of relief, black people in the audience were thinking, “Get back on the train you fool!”
“The black man jumps off the train in order to reassure white people, to make them know that they’re not hated,” he says.
“I Am Not Your Negro” illustrates how Hollywood pushed false narratives, and how the entertainment industry has perpetuated stereotypes and presented false realities. Baldwin recognized that movie executives can be just as powerful and problematic as those who hold public office. His insights, and the film in general, expose the hypocritical and selective way in which the history of the United States is presented, remembered, and interpreted by those who have power over our institutions and culture.
“If any white man in the world says ‘Give Me Liberty or Give Me Death,’ the entire white world applauds. When a black man says exactly the same thing he is judged a criminal and treated like one, and everything possible is done to make an example of this bad n*gger so there won’t be anymore like him,” he tells Dick Cavett.
The film’s greatest achievement comes from the way in which it blends Baldwin’s decades-old reflections, and ties them to the political and cultural issues of today. As Jackson reads Baldwin’s words, images of Barack Obama, of Ferguson, and of Black Lives Matter appear on-screen. These pictures, and Baldwin’s words, tie together the past, present, and future.
“I Am Not Your Negro” forces us to reevaluate the way in which we examine and reflect on our history. It reminds us that fights for progress span generations, and that the past is really not as far away as it may seem.
(03/10/17 3:31am)
Junior Senator Hannah Pustejovsky ’18 introduced a bill at the March 3 meeting of the Student Government Association (SGA) that, if passed, would recommend that the College administration develop “an appeals process through which students can voice their dissent and disapproval of speakers, forums and public events that violate community standards, in order to create a system of checks and balances.”
Pustejovsky drafted the bill in the wake of student protests that prevented Dr. Charles Murray from delivering a lecture on campus last Thursday. (See “Charles Murray Visit Provokes Uproar” for full coverage.)
According to Pustejovsky, the appeals process would serve as a forum through which students could present arguments against an invited speaker.
“If students feel as strongly about a speaker as they did this week, I was hoping to provide a forum in which they could express their thoughts in a case-like format, with evidence and an argument in order to support their need. Then, possible solutions could include an adjustment to the event, calling for a teach in or discussion panel that provides more than one viewpoint, or less institutional support for an event,” she said. “I want to again stress that this is all in the very beginning stages and I hope to have further discussions with my constituents about what would best fit their needs.”
At their March 5 meeting, the SGA Senate voted to form an ad hoc committee to draft a final version of the bill. Members of the committee include Pustejovsky, Wonnacott Senator Angie McCarthy ’19, Brainerd Senator Kyle Wright ’19.5, Sophomore Senator Emmanuel Duran ’19, Junior Senator Lily Wilson ’18, Feb Senator Alec Fleischer ’20.5, Feb Senator Rae Aaron ’19.5, Community Council Co-Chair Travis Sanderson ’19 and SGA Chief of Staff Jin Sohn ’18.
Members of the College’s American Enterprise Institute (AEI) Club, the group that invited Murray to campus, attended the March 5 SGA meeting and have expressed opposition to the bill.
“I think that applying community standards to speakers in the form of an appeals board is a truly dangerous concept, it’s a censorship board. It’s a board of censors who get to apply those community standards as they see fit and in doing so, will limit who can speak,” said AEI Executive Council Chair Phil Hoxie ’17.5
It is the fear of some, including Huxie and AEI Vice President and Executive Council Member Alexander Khan ’17, that an appeals process may prevent certain speakers who do not hold prevailing political beliefs from speaking on campus.
“To have any type of mechanism whereby students who disagree with a speaker have the ability to block that speaker from coming to campus is basically an institutional mechanism for shutting down discourse.,” Khan said. “Subjecting speakers brought either by a department or by a club to a set of community standards can easily become a requirement that speakers follow or believe in a certain political ideology that is dictated by people in charge of those community standards.”
SGA President Karina Toy ’17 emphasised that an appeals committee would only provide students with a platform to express their grievances over the invitation of a certain speaker.
“[This is] not an appeals process to say someone can’t bring a speaker on campus but to give students a process of how they express their disagreement with a speaker or an event happening on campus,” she said “That’s all very much up in the air.”
A final version of the bill will be discussed, and potentially voted on, at the March 12 meeting of the SGA.
Features Editor Alex Newhouse and Editor-in-Chief Ellie Reinhardt contributed to this report.
(03/09/17 2:37am)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pdqf4P9MB8
Written and directed by Damien Chazelle, "La La Land" tells the story of Sebastian Wilder (Ryan Gosling) and Mia Dolan (Emma Stone), two struggling artists who fall in love after they repeatedly run into each other on the streets, restaurants, and parties of the Los Angeles social scene.
Wilder is a jazz musician who rejects the modernization of the genre and dreams of opening a night club where only classical jazz is played. In salute to Charlie Parker, he wants to name his club "Chicken on a Stick." Dolan is an actress who, in between unsuccessful auditions, works as a barista on the Warner Brothers lot. Like Sebastian, Mia is an old soul, whose love of film and want to be an actress came from watching classic cinema with her aunt.
At its core, the film is a fantasy. The two are bonded by their want for a Los Angeles that no longer exists. Chazelle's story takes place in a kind of dreamworld, where Mia and Sebastian are able to pursue their desires in a romanticized Los Angeles.
The film will be classified as a musical, but it really isn't. Truly, it is a cross between a melodrama and romantic comedy, with a few song and dance numbers that add a dash of color and play into the fantasy of it all. While I did not care for the film's musical numbers, they do not detract from the film.
Stone and Gosling are not the multi-faceted performers — Gene Kelly, Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers — that they try to emulate. Neither excel at dancing, thus making for weak and boring choreography. And they are not particularly good singers either, though Stone is by far the best of the two. I'm of the opinion that Gosling should never sing again. Thankfully, the musical numbers are few and far between, and the film is saved by the pair's superb acting.
Like the actors themselves, Mia and Sebastian bring out the best in one another. Mia accompanies Sebastian to gigs, where she dances in the crowd and encourages him to pursue his passion and be a better performer. Sebastian helps Mia realize her talent as a playwright, urging her to write, produce and star in a one woman show. While neither of them are making any money, they are pursuing their passions and, for the first time, are truly happy. They are in la la land.
As their relationship grows more serious, Mia's mother calls her to inquire about Sebastian's career. Mia tells her that he wants to open his own jazz club and will "figure it out." After he overhears their conversation, Sebastian comes to realization that he must find a more stable job if he wants have a real life and relationship with Mia. He reaches out to an old classmate Keith (John Legend), who offers him a job as a keyboardist in his jazz band. Keith's band is a blend of jazz, pop, and funk — the new wave of jazz that Sebastian detests. Even though he hates the music, Sebastian accepts the job in order to earn a steady income.
To the film's detriment, Chazelle hardly tells Mia's story. As Sebastian goes on tour with his band, Mia is working on her show, and while she is more charming and interesting, her creative process is not explored. The film is Sebastian's and Mia is a passive character.
Sebastian's decision to join Keith's band drives him and Mia apart. One night, when he is home from the tour, Mia questions his decision to abandon his dream. A fight ensues, and Sebastian accuses Mia of no longer loving him now that he is successful and she isn't. In that moment, their relationship comes to a halt; they leave la la land and return to reality. They come to the realization that they cannot pursue their careers and be together, no matter how much they love one another.
A typical movie will portray reality and deliver a fantasy, where the man/woman gets the job and the girl/guy. Chazelle rejects this norm, and uses the fantasy of "La La Land" to showcase an unfortunate reality: the irreconcilable nature of love and ambition. In the end, both Mia and Sebastian are forced the choose between the two.
The final scenes of "La La Land" comprise one of the most original endings that I have seen in a long time. In a beautiful and breathtaking sequence, Chazelle provides the audience with a glimpse into what could have been had Mia and Sebastian chosen a different path.
The sequence challenges our preconceived notions of love. Is it a roadblock or bridge on the road to success? What matters more: one's romance or career? "La La Land" forces us to contemplate these questions and the very nature of love, and it does so in a charming and intellectually honest way.
(03/03/17 1:37am)
Student-led protests prevented Dr. Charles Murray, a W.H. Brady Scholar at the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), from delivering a lecture scheduled to take place at 4:30 PM at Wilson Hall in the McCullough Student Center. The college's AEI Club invited Murray to speak about his 2012 book "Coming Apart,: and to engage in a conversation with Russell J. Leng '60 Professor of International Politics and Economics Allison Stanger.
Opening remarks were delivered by the college's Vice President for Communications and Chief Marketing Officer Bill Burger, AEI Executive Board Member Ivan Valladares 17 and Middlebury President Laurie L. Patton. AEI Co-President Alexander Khan d17 introduced Murray. After Murray arrived at the podium, students began to protest.
Approximately twenty minutes after the protest began, the college canceled the live event in Wilson Hall and decided to live stream a private conversation between Murray and Stanger. That live event will be made available through the college news room.
UPDATE March 3, 2017
In the time that that has passed since this article went live, new developments have emerged. As reported by the Addison County Independent, protestors injured Professor Allison Stanger as she escorted Charles Murray off campus following the conclusion of their live streamed conversation.
“During this confrontation outside McCullough, one of the demonstrators pulled Prof. Stanger’s hair and twisted her neck,” the Colleges Vice President for Communications and Chief Marketing Officer Bill Burger said.
“The protestors then violently set upon the car, rocking it, pounding on it, jumping on and try to prevent it from leaving campus,” he said. “At one point a large traffic sign was thrown in front of the car. Public Safety officers were able, finally, to clear the way to allow the vehicle to leave campus."
According to Burger, she was attended to at Porter Hospital later and is wearing a neck brace.
More information will be provided in next weeks issue of The Campus.
For videos and pictures of the event, please see below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6EASuhefeI&t=26s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_B-DssohgY
(03/02/17 9:35pm)
Eric Bates, editor-in-chief of the New Republic magazine, will speak as part of the College’s “Meet the Press” lecture series on Tuesday, March 7. His lecture, titled “Journalism vs. Trump: The Media as Opposition Party,” will take place in McCardell BiCentennial Hall 220 from 7:30 - 9 p.m.
Bates became the editor-in-chief of the magazine in April of last year. Prior to joining the New Republic, he worked as executive editor at Rolling Stone, as an investigative editor at Mother Jones and as the editor-in-chief of Southern Exposure. More recently, he worked at First Look Media where he helped start The Intercept.
Organized by Scholar-in-Residence Sue Halpern, the “Meet the Press” lecture series has brought dozens of journalists and editors to the College since its creation in 2003. Tuesday’s lecture marks the third time that Bates has spoken as part of the series. He spoke about the presidential elections in 2004 and 2008.
"He is one of the most politically astute writers/editors working today, so I always try to get him to come to campus to help us get behind the news,” Halpern said. “With Trump's self-described war on the media, journalism itself is the story, and as the editor of a political magazine, Eric is in the crosshairs. I think it will be enlightening to have him tell us what that is like, and how the press will be negotiating the current political environment."
The Campus communicated with Bates via email to discuss his upcoming lecture, President Donald Trump’s relationship with the press, and the advice that he would give to young journalists.
Will DiGravio (WD): The title of your lecture is "Journalism vs. Trump: The Media as Opposition Party." Much has been written and said about the Trump Administration's relationship with the press, how have you and those who work in your news room responded to being labeled the "opposition party?"
Eric Bates (EB): That’s what the press should be—a sharp and thoughtful critic of whoever’s in charge. So we take it as a badge of honor, and a welcome reminder of our role in a democracy.
WD: How do you balance coverage of larger stories and controversies surrounding the Trump administration with smaller stories and controversies that happen more frequently?
EB: We’re fortunate to have a website, which we can deploy as a rapid-response vehicle, and a monthly magazine, which encourages deeper reporting and sober reflection. But our core mission is to stay focused on issues that are larger than Trump: to understand the broader forces at work today, and to help the left chart a new and more effective course.
WD: What are the challenges of reporting on an administration that does not always deal in fact? And as a liberal magazine, how do you deal with backlash from those who may say that you are biased when you expose falsehoods?
EB: The goal is not to be unbiased. The goal is to be accurate, and fair. If our journalism does not lead us to facts that the administration and its supporters dislike, then we’re probably not doing our job.
WD: What advice would you give to young journalists who are looking to cover politics in the age of Trump?
EB: Don’t assume that Trump is the alpha and omega of everything, as he wishes to us to see him. The forces he represents were here long before he arrived on the scene, and will be with us long after he’s gone. Make yourself an expert in something and go after him in that area. But go after his opponents just as hard. He’s where he is, in large part, because liberals have failed to understand the experience of millions of Americans and address their needs.
WD: What can the average person do to support the work of journalists and news organizations?
EB: Subscribe to the ones you like. Share their stories widely, and encourage those you know to do the same. Donate to the ones that aren’t supported by big corporations. Push them to favor substance over sensation, and to ask the right questions. And maybe, once in awhile, let them know how much their work means to you.
(02/22/17 5:44pm)
The work and life of film professor David Miranda Hardy epitomizes the complex relationship between art and politics. He grew up as a refugee in Spain, part of a Chilean family that had a love for the arts.
The fall of the Chilean dictatorship coincided with his return to the country and enrollment at the University of Chile, where he studied mathematics, physics and music, and trained as a sound engineer.
“Education was in trouble in Chile; the public university had been decimated and in particular the arts. It was really hard to [decide what to study] and there was no formal film school, yet,” he said. “But [the University] was a great place to meet people, and many of the people that I have collaborated with over the years were connections that I made while I was an undergraduate.”
The Chilean film industry began to take shape after Miranda Hardy graduated from school. At that time, he took an internship at a studio that had begun to make the transition from music to film. He helped finish and design the sound for two Chilean films, the first time a studio had done so in the country’s history. During the dictatorship, movies were primarily finished in Europe or the United States. This marked the beginning of his 23-year partnership with Marcos de Aguirre, the man running the studio, who Miranda Hardy has partnered with on a number of projects.
“I came to be a professional at the time digital technologies were taking over. For the first time, places like Chile, far away from the big media markets, could afford to invest in digital facilities,” he said. “I started testing the first softwares. We did the first Dolby encoded films in Latin America. I mixed the third digital Dolby film in Spanish and I was a kid, I was really, really young.”
After working as a freelancer on dozens of feature films across South America, Miranda Hardy decided to go back to school. He received a Fulbright Scholarship to attend Temple University in Philadelphia, where he earned his MFA and pursued his interest in teaching.
“I always had this thirst for more intense intellectual engagement,” he said. “My experience as a student was not great. There was always this want to be part of larger institutions.”
While at Temple, Miranda Hardy developed a desire to begin writing, directing and producing projects of his own. After graduating, he returned to Chile for two years and began to develop two television series and a feature film. Miranda Hardy, along with Aguirre, secured funding and received the green light from a network to write and produce one of the projects, a television series called “Bala Loca.”
The protagonist of “Bala Loca” is Mauro Murillo, an investigative reporter who rose to prominence after challenging the Chilean dictatorship of Augusto Pinochet. The series takes place post-dictatorship in 2016, where Murillo, who finds himself in a wheelchair after an accident, attempts to rebuild his life and form his own digital news outlet. After one of his reporters is suspiciously killed in a robbery, Murillo and his news organization decide to investigate.
The show explores a number of Chilean political and social issues, including the relationship between money and politics, health care, the legacy of authoritarianism, the role of the military, human rights, corruption and more. Miranda Hardy co-wrote the show in 2015 and spent much of 2016 in production. It premiered in July of last year.
“Chile’s equivalent to the ‘mainstream media’ is incredibly homogeneous ideologically, it’s all right-wing. Even though we have had 25 years of center-left governments, they never coalesced into a journalistic project that could hold. But with new technologies and the Internet, some really interesting press came back," he said. "And our premise [for the show] is, what if, in discovering and unearthing the marriage between money and politics and levels of corruption in a democracy, a [new wave] journalist is killed.”
Miranda Hardy began producing “Bala Loca” the same year he arrived at Middlebury.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gq1KpyuHU4M
All faculty members are required to produce scholarly work, whether it is a book, a chapter of a book or a scholarly essay. For Miranda Hardy, who teaches screenwriting and production courses, his "research" is called “creative work,” and is comprised of the film projects creates or produces.
According to Miranda Hardy, academia provides him with the structure and flexibility to be more selective in choosing the films he wants to work on. He believes that teaching and creating compliment one another.
“I love teaching. I think it is very nutritious intellectually," he said. "I love seeing projects come to life and seeing young people figuring it out. I also hope I can ease some of that anxiety and lack of guidance that I had.”
He recently worked as the sound designer for the 2016 film “Jackie” directed by Pablo Larraín and starring Natalie Portman. Miranda Hardy had worked with Larraín, a fellow Chilean, on films and television shows in the past, including the HBO series “Profugos.” The film was shot mostly in Paris and in Washington D.C., and the sound was finalized with Miranda Hardy’s company in Chile.
“They wanted to work in our facility. There’s [only] a few facilities in Chile that are ready to work on a big project like this in coordination with other studios where you need to do ADR with some of the actors,” he said.
The film was released to critical acclaim in the fall of last year, and has been nominated for three Academy Awards.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g9pW3B8Ycc4
Miranda Hardy is currently working on a few projects. “Bala Loca” will be released on Netflix with English subtitles in March of this year. And his production company, Filmosonido Chile, of which he is the head of the Contents Department, is currently in negotiations to produce a second season of the show.
He is also working on a six-episode mini-series that is near the end of development.
“It takes places in a small rural community outside Santiago in the time of the Agrarian Reform in Chile. It was an incredible period both politically and because of the human stories that are there,” he said.
Miranda Hardy is the series’ showrunner and creator, and is currently in the process of securing funding to launch the project.
(01/19/17 5:03pm)
Representatives from the College administration formally asked members of the Student Government Association (SGA) on Jan. 15 to assist in the funding of MiddView orientation trips for three years, beginning in fall 2017.
MiddView trips in their current form — mandatory for all students and free of charge — have existed since fall 2013. The SGA and the College agreed to split the cost for the program’s first three years, with the College assuming full financial responsibility in fall 2016. However, facing unexpected financial challenges in recent months, the College has been forced to turn back to the SGA. As it stands, the College is asking the SGA to contribute $50,000, roughly one-fourth of MiddView’s $204,000 cost for 2017.
The SGA is not obligated to comply with the College’s request, and may choose to refuse any contribution whatsoever, to fund only a portion of what the College has requested, or to fund only one year.
Speaking to The Campus, three administrators charged with approaching the SGA discussed the causes of the College’s financial predicament, the importance of fully funding MiddView trips and the possible consequences should the SGA decline to do so.
“Some of the unexpected [financial] challenges that the broader institution has faced, including the undergraduate college, means that while we’re certainly financially strong — our endowment points to that — we still need to make certain decisions to ensure that we preserve that endowment,” said Dean of the College Katy Smith Abbott. “That has meant a kind of fiscal belt-tightening, and now a pulling-back for fiscal year 2018, so that non-compensation budgets are being cut by four percent.”
The Administration’s decision to turn to the SGA, Smith Abbott explained, resulted from the “pre-existing collaborative partnership” that already existed between the two groups. “Because that previous partnership had been suggested as a pitch by students to the senior administration, I think that seemed as though it was a fruitful place to begin the conversation,” she said.
Funding MiddView trips in full, they agreed, is crucial to the mission of the program. Derek Doucet, associate dean of students for student activities & orientation, explained that “a single unifying experience that every student goes through at the beginning of college is really valuable, particularly in a time where we’re trying to be more intentional in the way we address issues of equity and inclusion.”
“This is a program where athletes and non-athletes mix, where international students mix with domestic students,” Doucet said. “It’s very intentional in the fact that the groups that we create are drawn from across all different areas of campus. To have that first experience be one that is immediately breaking down some perceived barriers that are often talked about on this campus, I think is really valuable.”
An SGA decision to refuse funding, while not catastrophic, would compromise these strengths. “We’re not saying that if we don’t get this funding from the SGA, MiddView is going to collapse,” Doucet said. “But it would look very different than it has in the past, that’s for sure.”
“We could think about a fee-based program with a very generous financial aid packet built in so that socioeconomic considerations were not a barrier,” he said. “But there are equity and philosophical issues that I have with that particular approach too. So we would have an opportunity, beginning in 2018, to completely rethink how we run the trips program.”
“The way the program is run right now is the most inclusive way we could run it,” agreed Amanda Reinhardt, assistant director of orientation. “In the outdoor education and recreation world, there’s a huge lack of people of color participating in that way, and so what would that mean for students on this campus who maybe don’t already feel welcome here, to have to make that choice: do I opt into this program, or do I not?”
“It doesn’t mean we wouldn’t make a different model inclusive,” Reinhardt said. “There would just be more barriers to participation that we would need to lower. We’d need a lot of help and creativity to figure out how to lower those barriers.”
The SGA will decide whether or not to fund MiddView at their Jan. 22 meeting. According to Interim SGA Finance Committee Chair Peter Dykeman-Bermingham, who delivered a presentation at the Jan. 15 meeting of the SGA, there are several different courses of action that the SGA could take should they decide to fund the program.
“I was looking at [several] options should the Senate decide that they are going to fund it,” he said. “I was very seriously considering student value, of where we put money for impact. Our allocations fund everything from cultural orgs and club sports, to food and service clubs. And I want to make sure that the student body, holistically, gets the most out of their money.”
One option that the SGA has, should the body decide to allocate funds towards MiddView, would be to decrease all spending by five percent, thus resulting in a cut of student organization budgets. Members of the SGA could also choose to tap into the SGA’s reserve fund which, according to Dykeman-Bermingham, is just over $100,000. The SGA reserve fund is used to fund new money requests, as well as any unanticipated expenditures that may occur throughout the year.
“Our reserve has two major functions. One is insurance, so that if something goes wrong we have the funds and capital to put money towards it,” Dykeman-Bermingham said. “The other is to encourage innovation in the student activities realm. If someone comes to the [Finance Committee] with a very good idea that we hadn’t originally budgeted for, that’s the piggy bank we’ll reach into to help promote and bring that to fruition.”
Another course of action that the SGA could take would be to raise the Student Activities Fee (SAF). At present, the SAF is roughly $415 and is used to fund student-sponsored organizations and on-campus activities. It is the responsibility of the SGA Finance Committee and, for larger expenditures, the SGA Senate to distribute this money each year. Students who receive financial aid do not pay the SAF, as it is included as a part of financial aid packages.
The SAF is set by the Board of Trustees and, historically, has been adjusted each year by the consumer price index (CPI). The SGA would need to recommend that the Board of Trustees raise the SAF by $20.40 to cover the entire cost of MiddView.
Dykeman-Bermingham also presented two integrated solutions to members of the SGA that included raising the SAF, depleting reserves and decreasing SGA spending.
The first option would be to raise the SAF by the consumer price index (CPI) plus two percent. This would raise the SAF to $430 and generate an additional $36,750 in revenue per year. The SGA would then deplete their reserves by roughly $30,000 over three years and decrease annual spending by 0.3 percent ($3,250).
The second option would be to raise SAF by the standard CPI plus one percent, deplete reserves by $30,000 over three years and decrease annual SGA spending by 1.3 percent ($13,050).
According to Dykeman-Bermingham, several one year options are also being considered. While the final decision lies with members of the SGA, Dykeman-Bermingham said that the finance committee will advise the SGA should they seek their counsel.
A final decision will be made at the Jan. 22 meeting of the SGA.