Letters to the editor

Author: [no author name found]

To the Editor:

Having experienced Laurie Essig as a teacher I feel compelled to respond to the College returning her to tenure track and the resultant support expressed by the Middlebury community. While Laurie Essig as a person is extremely knowledgeable and the material she teaches is both interesting and intellectual, her classes far from uphold the academic standards Middlebury claims to embrace. In her Sociology of Freakishness class, a grade is awarded based on completion of a single 12-15 page paper with a presentation. Attendance is not required. This contrasts with a biology class where a student may be required to attend all lectures, discussions, pre-labs and labs on top of completing three to six exams, lab reports and a term paper.

There exists a fundamental disparity that is inexcusable when all classes are given the same credit and weight in a student's GPA. At a school where grade inflation is an incessant discussion point, I fail to see how the College can endorse this style of teaching. Middlebury College must make a choice. Students can either complete rigorous and copious amounts of work in order to expand their knowledge and skills or the workload and expectations can be reduced to allow for more freedom in the learning process. It is necessarily unfair to have both standards using the current credit system. This is not a personal issue with a specific teacher, but a critical ethical dilemma facing the College as a whole that necessarily affects the question of tenure for Lauri Essig.

Sincerely,

Robert Hawkins '08
Evergreen, CO


To the Editor:

I am not a Midd grad but I am the brother of several and the brother of a SIM member.

The real victims of this are SIM as a whole and whomever enjoys their music. The other victim is common sense, as we all watch and worry as liability fears force Middlebury down a puritan path with all other colleges.

Once "hazing" has been reported, the College has to cover its butt regardless of the severity of the situation, or whether it was even "hazing" at all.

The truth is that there is a difference between good-natured, hilarious and fun initiation versus involuntary hazing. Everyone who has ever gone to college knows that - including the dean who delivered this punishment. The College could cover its butt in the future better by updating the Handbook to provide some guidelines to students on what counts as hazing versus what counts as initiation. Are all initiation rites of passage hazing? Before seniors have to start buying motivational Hallmark cards to "mutually respect" incoming freshman to their organizations, someone should provide some clarity on this.

Hopefully that clarity doesn't ruin fun for every organization on campus and make it illegal to do anything edgy or funny. If it does, then the rule will be ignored just like every other unrealistic, ridiculous, unenforcable rule, and will only come up when busybody "third-party callers" insert themselves into situations about which they have no understanding.

Sincerely,

Jon Adler


To the Editor:

James O'Brien's opinion ("Bible-beating Conservative," April 10) not only is a remarkably bad piece of writing, it also peddles in the tired stereotypes and poor reasoning that I spend most of the year combating in my ethics courses. O'Brien's essay begins tellingly enough, by admitting he did not listen to the radio show that inspired his own holier-than-thou rant. It then continues by dispensing with conservative arguments against same-sex marriage in one line, so that he can get to his real point - ridicule of conservatives, Republicans and evangelicals, whom he generally assumes are identical. As someone who identifies with none of these caucuses, and who finds conservative views on gay marriage tragically mistaken, I nonetheless would prefer more respect for one's ideological opponent and for the importance of civil discourse than O'Brien displays. Not all evangelical Christians agree with the "Religious Right" on the issue of homosexuality, but for those who do, the issue is more than a matter of simplistic biblical interpretation. It is also rooted in a concern for what they see as the institutional pillars of a stable society. Rather than displaying ignorant contempt for the religious worldviews of opponents and supporters of gay rights, Mr. O'Brien might try learning a little bit about the arguments he wishes to publicly counter. David Tracy once wrote that unfortunately religion is "the single subject about which many intellectuals can feel free to be ignorant." Evidently, some aspiring intellectuals at Middlebury are all too willing to avail themselves of this freedom, too.

Sincerely,

James C. Davis
Associate Professor of Religion


To the Editor:

When I read James O'Brien's April 10 column, I was disappointed by his flippant dismissal of Christianity. Declaring that "its hard to take the scripture seriously" because of two lines and characterizing anyone who is against gay marriage as some backwards hick named Cletus with 12 kids only serves to drag what should be a legitimate debate further into the gutter of invective and ad hominem attacks. I don't disagree with O'Brien's general point about gay marriage, but I think it's immature and intellectually lazy to so completely write-off as idiots an entire section of society just because it disagrees with you. Politics in America are all too often reduced to the lowest common denominator, not in the least because we refuse to consider our opponents to be legitimate.?The only way to work through a cultural impasse like this is with a genuine debate, and in a genuine debate you have to respect your opponents and understand that they believe what they do for reasons other than pure ignorance.?Of course the homophobic pandering practiced by too many of our politicians is reprehensible, but so is dismissing as ridiculous the religion that is the center of so many people's lives.?

Sincerely,

Fraz Thomas '09


To the Editor:

I'm writing in regards to the opinion piece that appeared in the April 10 issue of The Campus written about "Bible-Beating Conservatives."

I am one such conservative Christian. I do not resent the depiction in this article, though I profoundly disagree with the depiction of God in the article, but marriage is the issue.

Leviticus, the letters of Paul, and the Gospels, all state, at least implicitly, that homosexuality is a sin. Marriage is defined, in the Gospels, as a covenant sealed before God. One arrives at these conclusions if one interprets Matthew 19 and 1 Corinthians 6 as the conservatives do. Sin and a covenant before God are incompatible. The issue that conservatives have with the legalization of same-sex marriage is that the religious institution and the civil institution are not clearly separated. Until they are clearly separated, and probably even after, conservatives will fight to establish theocracy in America. I disagree in this case, but I will protect the church before I defend the state.

Sincerely,

Steve Powell '10


To the Editor:

By and large, The Bunker has been a terrific success this year. The school, in all respects, has been incredibly supportive of our efforts to create a quality social venue on campus. With that support and a hardworking staff, we have had nearly a dozen parties since January, each with a capacity crowd. It is great knowing that The Bunker has been welcomed and an enjoyable addition to our social life here at Middlebury.

Unfortunately, students' actions and behaviors threaten the future of The Bunker. Recently, there have been several acts of blatant disrespect, arrogance and selfishness that must be addressed. One of our staff members was hit in the face by an antsy, waiting student. Two we
eks ago, a trashcan full of urine was found upstairs. More recently, we have incurred significant property damage, including the breaking of a large picture window. Every week we find a continuous trail of cups and cans lining the paths, which is a mess left with the assumption that someone else will take care of it. There are no reasons that can justify any of these types of acts. It has to stop!

The perspective gained from working at The Bunker makes me embarrassed as a student because this behavior makes us all look unappreciative and uncontrollable. Furthermore, the job of defending The Bunker, and part of our Friday night social life, is becoming increasingly difficult with these acts of arrogance. While the problem may be focused on a handful of people each week, we are all to blame and we are all accountable.

Whether at The Bunker or anywhere else, do not use alcohol as an excuse for your lack of respect and common decency. If we, as a student body, do not stop this practice of disrespecting both the people and the property of our community, opportunities like the Bunker will cease to exist. Even worse, we will continue to have the reputation of being selfish, spoiled people.

Sincerely,

Dave Campbell '09
Co-President, The Bunker