Skip to Content, Navigation, or Footer.
Logo of The Middlebury Campus
Thursday, Mar 28, 2024

The Future of Activism at Middlebury

The Community Judicial Board’s (CJB) recent decision to reprimand those students who were part of the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee has undoubtedly sparked conversation within the College community. It seems as though much of the chatter surrounding the public hearing that took place last Thursday, Nov. 1 relates to the politics of the situation, including the tone of CJB members questioning those convicted and the dynamics of the relationship between students and the administration. Yet beneath the surface level lie other issues with meaningful implications, including the future of activism on our campus.

Weeks after the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee emailed a false press release to members of the College community and circulated its “coming clean” letter, we must now ask ourselves, what next? As the buzz around the public hearing fades, will we remember the politics of the situation or the content of their demands? Before we move forward, students, faculty and staff should critically analyze both the message and methods these students employed and assess their effectiveness. We applaud the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee for practicing a form of relatively mindful, well-informed activism. The actions the group took — from researching the political satire group “The Yes Men” to drawing on theories and ideas discussed in their own classes at Middlebury — suggest that these students are growing into the critical thinkers that the College aspires to develop. Further, this group showed keen awareness of the global implications that the financial decisions of a single college community may have. Recognizing the impacts of investing in areas that contradict the College’s professed values, they reminded us that there are cracks in the notorious “Middlebury Bubble” and that our own school’s actions have implications for the outside world that go beyond simply graduating students who are skilled writers and thinkers.

However, lofty ideals and harsh demands are not the mark of successful activists; often, concrete steps and tangible goals are necessary to move the needle. Though their methods sparked discussion, the resulting discourse could be far more meaningful. The most productive activism is that which remains focused on the issue at hand, not the group promoting the message. On campus, however, many are talking about the politics of the situation itself as opposed to the issue of divestment, perhaps in part because the group’s actions have alienated a portion of the student body who views the tactics used as radical and off-putting. The overall tone of the students’ opening statement at the public hearing, for example, seemed to demonize the administration in ways that are unnecessary and unproductive. To the extent that this rejection clouds the intended message of the group, the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee will have failed to achieve its goals.

Regardless of one’s personal beliefs, many can agree that these tactics were different than those of other student groups on campus. Currently, putting up posters and organizing panel discussions appear to be the primary means through which many campus organizations mobilize their members and appeal to the larger student body. If there were a spectrum of campus activism, the somewhat safe status quo may be at the less extreme end, while circulating a false press release would be at the more radical. Is one of these methods inherently better than the other?

Given that some complain that the student body remains apathetic, the current “posters and panels” method may increasingly be deemed insufficient; on the other hand, we do not want or need every attempt at activism to result in a public hearing and disciplinary action. An approach somewhere in the middle of these two extremes would be the most appropriate and effective.

What would such an approach look like? Other groups on campus have already tested these waters. Jamnesty, for example, brought together poets and activists to raise awareness about important social issues; “It Happens Here” created an open forum and sparked meaningful dialogue about sexual assault on campus; JusTalks will foster face-to-face discussion between students about a variety of issues. From engaging exhibits in the lobby of the Davis Family Library, to petitions outside of dining halls, to partnerships between distinct organizations on campus, various groups have proved that more inclusive, innovative and respectful outreach methods indeed exist. Such tactics have greater appeal precisely because they are tamer than the methods employed by the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee, but more engaging than the status quo.

We hesitate to claim that this case will set a dangerous precedent and encourage others to send out false press releases; similarly, we also doubt many more students will choose to hold public hearings if forced to face the judicial boards, as many of the other topics addressed, such as plagiarism and sexual assault, are more private in nature. As such, it is possible that the Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee’s greatest contribution will be to shift the relative spectrum of “radical” activism on campus. Given the success that some groups have already had in embracing creative and responsible activism that doesn’t polarize the student body, we welcome this potential change.


Comments