Middlebury's true color of diversity

Author: Sean Ramsdell '05

Having been actively involved in the effort to change Middlebury's protocol for recruiters who do not sign the College's non-discrimination policy, I would like to respond to several of the criticisms directed at the protestors of the policy, and those who feel inclined to not allow recruiters representing organizations that discriminate on campus.

First, the military was not previously prohibited from openly recruiting on campus. The same policy has existed for almost 15 years, allowing them to recruit on campus after the minor formality of holding a meeting to discuss their hiring practices. Before the early 1990's, the military was spared even this small inconvenience. The only restriction keeping Captain Doucette in the Grille and away from Career Services Office (CSO) was his own lack of awareness regarding College policy.

Secondly, I wholeheartedly agree that the extreme rightward polarization of the military is a disturbing trend. However, while facilitating the liberalization of the military by giving it more direct access to Middlebury's students might sound nice, it is my opinion that the few students who set up meetings with Captain Doucette during his recent visit will do little to dilute the "conservative environment" of the nation's largest employer. What will make a difference is a substantial body of citizens who refuse to condone their own military, funded by their own tax dollars, "represented" by their delegates (where was the vote?) incorporating a message of discrimination into their rhetoric about freedom and equality.

Not that Middlebury students could not greatly contribute to their country's efforts, or produce some effect on the military's belief system.

Although the gentleman who wrote on this issue last week apparently would not change the policy on the right of homosexuals to say they are homosexual without being punished, I agree that students from Middlebury's language program could be an enormous asset to the military, particularly because some military employees are discharged for reasons entirely unrelated to their professional skills.

The question remains, does Middlebury College want to provide a talent pool to an organization that illogically and whimsically discharges perfectly qualified individuals based on the prejudice of those in charge of, or part of, that organization? Does everyone's private life have to be a part of their job? For example, if homosexuals are silenced, shouldn't we silence everyone about talking about their personal lives - their spouses, their kids, their home - because something about it may offend someone?

The military's policy is, in a word, ridiculous. I would encourage anyone who has not to read the "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" policy to see just how insubstantial the military's justifications for discrimination are.

But I want to emphasize that the point for many students who objected to Captain Doucette's presence on campus was not entirely the military's policy, but more importantly, that of Middlebury College. No one was trying to stop Middlebury students interested in serving their country. That would be absurd. Instead we wanted to draw attention to the injustice represented by and endemic to the military as well as Middlebury's own policy.

We have one of the most progressive non-discrimination policies in the country and yet it does not affect outside organizations that desire to visit this campus. The most substantial deterrent within the policy is that recruiters might have to arrive on campus a little bit earlier than they might have planned - to explain discrimination. That's it.

There is no secondary requirement after this meeting, no minimum standard, no restricted use of College facilities. There isn't a clause requiring employers not to discriminate against women - as long as they hold a meeting to tell us about it. African-Americans? Same deal - hold a meeting and you can ignore them all you want. Somehow this doesn't seem to mesh with the stream of diversity rhetoric spoon-fed to all prospective students by the Admissions Office. Why is it that all potential recruiters are even asked to sign a policy when Middlebury can simply refuse? Has Middlebury's commitment to diversity really shriveled into nothing more than a paper tiger? A clear line must be drawn.

The good news is that this is a fantastically easy policy to change. Employers who cannot sign Middlebury's non-discrimination policy should not be allowed to recruit on campus.

Whether the employer's policy is "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" or "White Supremacy!" it should not matter. A policy is a policy. Period. The faculty has already voted 2 to 1 to eliminate this loophole. The next step is President Liebowitz, who I am sure is as committed to extinguishing discrimination as we all are. But like all of us, he may need a little bit of encouragement to remind him of how important it is to act on this issue as soon as possible. I urge every member of the College community - students, faculty, staff, alumni and parents - who is uncomfortable with Middlebury's current policy permitting discriminatory organizations to contact President Liebowitz to personally express your distaste with the way things stand.