Printed Editions



Download our Printed Editions
Volume: 1.1 1.2

Wednesday, April 13, 2011

Dedicated Towards What?

Middlebury College does not equally value all of its students as it is interested in crafting and applauding those who align with its informally maintained narrow mission.  In the following passages we investigate a few topics of exploration to breakdown just what our institution does value and question our dedication towards distinction and domination instead of justice.

Activism
            President Liebowitz is eager to step up at any opportunity to applaud the efforts of our student activism on campus.  He is quick to point out that the Environmental Council, which includes students, helped to push a skeptical board of trustees into building our biomass plant to reduce our carbon footprint.  In fact, he clings to that golden message so much that it got him into Time magazine as one of “The 10 Best College Presidents.” 
Liebowitz likes to tell of how enthusiastic he was when a group of students came to his office and informed him they wanted to enter the Solar Decathlon.  He excitedly threw thousands from his discretionary funds behind the students.  Additionally, he organized an all-star team of faculty and administrators to assist them in creating a stellar proposal.  Due in large part to Liebowitz’s emphatic support of this endeavor, Middlebury has been accepted by the United States Department of Energy as the only liberal arts college in the history of the competition.  Students working on the project have been able to take a reduced course load since they are receiving credit for their dedicated work to the house.  While the house will be built and displayed on the National Mall next fall, the students involved were told not to worry about their classes because the Dean that has been assigned to work with them will graciously ensure they receive appropriate accommodations to receive full credit for their work despite being off campus for most all of the semester.
            Students are so passionate and determined to get their voice out on the issues they feel strongly about that ten percent of our student body will be traveling to Washington DC for the student climate activist summit Powershift.  The Student Government Association graciously awarded thousands of dollars in “loans” so that the organizers could make reservations for bus transportation down to the event.  I use the word “loan” hesitantly because it was kind of like the subprime mortgages that were given out to non credit worthy homebuyers that ended up destroying our world by causing an economic downturn so horrible that we were forced to shut down Atwater Dining Hall.  There is no way that these loans will be paid back in full, but it is okay, there will be forgiveness because the event bolsters Middlebury’s image.  Dean Collado, while hesitating to meet with the Institutional Diversity Committee until six months into her return to the college, despite holding the title as Chief Diversity Officer, nevertheless put her entire support right away behind the Powershift efforts.  She even hosted a retreat with Posse and the environmental group Sunday Night Group to try to darken the average skin color of the Middlebury students headed down to Washington.
            What is the common theme that holds all of these pretty images together?  They are green, but more importantly, they get Middlebury College absurd amounts of press and recognition.  While each of these endeavors are certainly fantastic and the accolades that accommodate them are undoubtedly deserved, to claim from this that Middlebury actually supports student activism would be omitting just as big of a piece of the story as our admissions does in their blatant propaganda to attract more and more students to apply to the college so that we can reject them and increase our ranking.
            Let me put this as clearly as possible: Middlebury College does not care about student activism.  Well, what do I mean?  Didn’t I just outline how impressive the administrations’ support of student efforts has been?  To be most honest I should add a modifier to the previous statement.  Middlebury College does not care about student activism unless it serves to further the image of Middlebury that the administration has imagined.  The school does not care about radical action that pushes us to uncomfortable positions where we must examine our implications and complicit actions of injustice.  The school does, however, care that student activism comfortably conforms to perpetuate support for what the school wants to be seen as and not how it necessarily is.
            When students demanded that the college to take action to address gender affirming policies and other social justice issues on campus, the administration hesitated to embrace the efforts.  The college saw a rising power of students pushing for a Gender Council and further delayed action and eventually voted it down in attempts to dissipate student momentum and further marginalize issues of gender that make this campus an incredibly unwelcoming and discriminatory place for far too many students.
            However, the administration was not quick to attempt to kill this grassroots, social justice oriented, policy change agent.  First they wanted to squeeze Gender Council for all they were worth before setting them out to dry.  The brilliant students were asked to give presentations to administrators who did not understand the issues being raised.  These workshops were incredibly time intensive to prepare and made the courses the students were enrolled in very challenging to keep up with.  The administration abused the students for their incredible work and failed to give them any recognition.
            Just like the biomass gasification plant, students pushed and pushed for Gender Council.  Unlike the bio plant the students were never taken seriously with Gender Council.  Just like the Solar Decathlon, the students involved in the Gender Council efforts put in so much time that it took away from their studies.  Unlike the Solar Decathlon, the Gender Council students were told that their efforts were entirely “volunteered” and they were not to receive any course credit.  Just like Powershift, Gender Council tried to be inclusive of all students on campus.  Unlike Powershift, Gender Council did not have the administration bring in different student organizations from across campus and encourage them to participate.
            As this evidences, Middlebury College does not care about student activism when it questions privileges and pushes for just systemic change.  The administration relegates all race and gender work to a lower status of voluntary work without acknowledging that being able to access facilities is not about getting us in the headlines, but rather about a method of survival for our marginalized students.  “Bad” kids do not ask tough questions.  “Good” kids act as puppets for adults own agenda and massagers of the adults’ egos.

Literacy
            In The Disappearance of Childhood, Neil Postman argues that with the invention of the printing press came the invention of the child.  A knowledge gap was created between those who had access to the “rational” world of written ideas and those who did not.  Literacy was the key to adulthood and had to be earned.
            Middlebury very much agrees with Postman in that they are sure to assign us way too much reading to feasibly actually complete, just so on Princeton Review rankings we can jump for joy when we are one of the top schools where “Students Study the Most.”  To make it out of Middlebury you have to be “literate” and thus on the path to becoming a successful adult.
            However, it is not just important that we are literate, but rather also what we are literate in.  “Good” kids do not read romance novels.  When one was assigned to a Sociology of Heterosexuality course, students nervously made excuses why they were purchasing a romance novel in the stores.  The less courageous students just went to Amazon.  It feels so wrong to buy a romance novel because that is not what “good” kids read.  We have all internalized this notion that we have to maintain a front of being a “good” kids because otherwise how else would we have ever gotten into Middlebury?  One student admitted in class that she was so embarrassed by the cover of her book that she was sure to purchase in the self-checkout aisle so she would not be seen.
            Romance novels may be bad, but worse is to be literate in the humanities.  Despite Middlebury claiming that it wants us to be well versed in a diverse array of disciplines, the liberal arts rhetoric runs no deeper than lip service.  “Bad” kids go out and change the world in ways that do not get Middlebury press.  “Good” kids go out and change the world in ways that do.  Ultimately, “good” kids go out to become “good” adults and make a lot of money (ethically or not is irrelevant) and donate it back in the form of a building to the school so they can be forever immortalized.
Preparing us to be “good” adults is all about preparing us to dominate.  We may like that you can think, but while you are at it major in Economics so you do not just end up starting to think so hard that you begin to undermine capitalistic principles that allow us to study drowning in such privilege.
The only students that are “good” enough to meet with the “holy” board of trustees are those involved in the Student Investment Committee.  These students literally manage a few hundred thousand dollars of our endowment and are continually applauded by our administration for their success.  The college holds them up as being the exemplary model of who and what a “good” Middlebury student is.
The Student Investment Committee knows their important role in helping “kids” grow up to be the successful adults that Middlebury wants them to be.  A poster to recruit for the group reads: “Because being literate enough to read Kant does not mean you are financially literate enough to pick the right mortgage.”  By reading this article and working through my ideas it has been demonstrated that you are clearly literate, but just what type of literate are you?  Is it the appropriate literacy to be granted adulthood by Middlebury standards?

Protecting the PhD
            “Adult status has to be earned so damn those “kids” whose intelligence positions them over me.  They do not have a PhD yet and I will make that known.”  Of course our professors may not convey themselves as blatant as this, but undoubtedly the thought has crossed many of their minds.  This, in turn, has shaped their action towards their students.  In so doing, protectionary measures are taken to ensure the value of the PhD is retained.
            If the measure by which we considered one to be an adult was put into question we would have a lot of previously “adults” fighting to regain the dominant status they thought that they had worked and deserved to acquire.  Of course there is no one finite measure of adulthood and we should really be using plurals to take about the concept since there are so many various conceptions. 
Just like other identities, the saliency of which basis we use to position ourselves as adults or children varies on our situation.  In the college setting, most certainly an important signifier of status and distinction is the terminal degree possessed by faculty.  Once granted a PhD, these newly arrived adults are actively investing in ensuring chil does not substitute in for the Ph.
Students may be encouraged to think critically in the classroom, but like all behaviors there is a limit we place on this.  A student’s capacity to think may be highly regarded until it reaches the point of competition with the instructor.  At this point nervous energy invades and the defense of the border of distinction is on.
Many professors work to ensure that this point will never come close to being reached.  They do so by having their students remind them of their doctoral status every time the students wish to address them.  Such is like reminding Jane and Bobby to call Edwin’s mom Mrs. Claudett.  See Mrs. Claudett is a woman who has achieved “adulthood” and the “kids” Jane and Bobby are thus of a lower status and they must address her in a way that maintains such inequality.
This fact is internalized to such a large degree that at new faculty trainings at Middlebury a topic of concern is what the students should be allowed to call the arriving scholars.  When one woman professor suggested that she wanted her students to call her by her name, others jumped on her repulsively.  To use your first name in the classroom destroys a distance that faculty “work hard” to “achieve.”  It immediately allows the status of that person’s “adulthood” in the academy to come into question. 
The college creates stern policy against students earning credit for courses taught at community colleges.  Likewise, online classes receive no credit.  These policies are heavily endorsed by our faculty because they want to have written into bylaws the fact that students may not receive credit from a location where they may not necessarily be taught by someone with a PhD.
When one person gets challenged there is a frantic response because we are concerned about a snowball being started that will soon upend the privileged position we know ourselves as occupying and put into question who we really are.  Suddenly we are left without our signifier of distinction from the students and consequently are extremely uncomfortable by that fact. 
Soon the growing ball of snow will be put on display in the construction of a snowperson.  Snowpeople are vulnerable for they lack the clothing that would try to trick us into believing that they are a more significant being then they really are, just a mound of matter like us all, a mere mortal who will melt away come the wrath of a global warming.

Languages
            Although we may ostentatiously wish to believe otherwise, most people do not know what the heck Middlebury College is and could not care less about it.  When people ask us where it is they immediately everyone must be a skier not the valedictorians of their high school.  When people have heard of Middlebury, they talk about what great language programs it has.
            Why is our language program so revered and what is its honest purpose?  The fact is we do not learn languages at Middlebury to celebrate cultures, rather we merely learn languages to dominate them.  “Bad” kids may be involved in actions that appreciate life (drugs, punk rock, skateboarding), but we must criticize such “immature hedonistic fools.”  We are “good” kids and that means we have no time to enjoy life, but rather must follow the correct disciplined path so that we may become proper adults who have the power to control and manipulate life.
            Any song that may be learned in our language classes should be utilized for nothing more than a mnemonic device that then allows us to progress to our next stage in becoming dictating adults.  Most of our language classes do not even try to put up a façade that claims otherwise. 
On one of the first vocabulary lists for students learning in Arabic is “United Nations.”  That of course is because we are explicitly teaching our “good” kids to become diplomats.  The very Arabic they learn is incredibly classed and only used by high political officials.  One student remarked that learning Arabic here and then expecting to be able to use it to talk to somebody on the street would be just like learning Latin in our Classics department and then expecting to fluently interact with everyone in Italy.
            In Hebrew classes students are always debating Palestine and Israel.  We actively teach that there is no other reason why one should desire to learn the language.
            All of our languages are taught in a very elite dialect of the colonizer and never of the colonized.  The locations of our schools abroad perfectly illustrates this point as well.  We do not want to teach the dialect of some “powerless people” because then how will you be able to utilize the language to extract power from them?
            Just as we as “good” kids speak the “proper” dialects of the languages we learn, so too is there immense pressure on students to speak “standard” American English.  While we have a student body from all over the globe, it would be very hard to decipher that fact merely from how we talk.  When the kid from Texas has the exact same “non-existent” accent as the kid from the Midwest, we are clearly devaluing a certain culture and placing one above another, but so too is that what Middlebury is always doing.  As “good” kids we have been granted the duty to learn to dominate the world.

Tuesday, April 12, 2011

Spraypainting Workshop

There's an event through VACA (Vitality of the Artistic Community Association) this Saturday (16 April) that might be of interest.

Stenciling/Spraypainting Workshop
LoFo
2pm
All supplies provided


Later the same evening there is an exhibition of student artwork at the Old Stone Mill Gallery. 6-8pm. Also free.

-t h e g (a) d f l y

RADICALISM & CURRICULUM: TWO WORDS YOU WILL NEVER SEE IN THE SAME SENTENCE


Anyone who takes a political science or philosophy course at Middlebury College and expects a balanced curriculum, with readings ranging from radicals like Emma Goldman and Pierre-Joseph Proudhon to liberals like John Rawls and Peter Singer to conservatives like Edmund Burke and Thomas Hobbes to fascists like Mussolini and Franco, will be sorely disappointed. Instead, you will find readings by theorists ranging from Rawls to Hobbes, staying almost entirely within the mainstream political binary that consists of only two options. If you’re lucky, maybe you will get three options, perhaps in the “suggested readings.” Professors proudly declare that they have shown both sides of the issue, when in reality, there are almost always more than just two sides to any given issue. If you are exposed to a radical viewpoint, it will probably be a cursory read of Marx’s Communist Manifesto, which your professor hastily dismisses as having not worked in reality. Your professor will conclude that you’ve covered all the radical viewpoints now (after all, Marxism is the only radical viewpoint, right?) and move on to the material that should be “taken seriously.” But more likely, you will not even be exposed to any radical viewpoints at all, as was the case in Murray Dry’s American Political Regime. You would never know from that class that radical labor unions had considerable power in the early 20th century United States, the membership of the I.W.W. numbering over 100,000 in 1923, until the government cracked down on radicalism in the First Red Scare.
            Some departments, courses, and professors are better than others. You might read about prison abolition in a sociology course, and you might look at some radical views about art in an aesthetics course. But in most courses, especially those that are overtly about political issues, this is unlikely. Indeed, a survey of introductory political science courses reveals Marx’s Communist Manifesto and Capital as the only radical readings on the syllabi, and these in only two of six 100-level courses. Among the three 100-level philosophy courses offered, no readings presenting politically radical ideas appear on the syllabi. Between the two 100-level economics courses, again no readings presenting radical ideas appear on the syllabi…of course, economics courses don’t even pretend to represent radical viewpoints.
            This is an appeal for true balance in the curriculum. It is easy to ignore viewpoints outside the mainstream in the bubble that is Middlebury College, where we never have to come in contact with people outside of this insulated community. It is easy, but it is not right. When I chose to spend my undergraduate years at Middlebury, I expected an institution that values pluralism and encourages differing opinions. Instead, I found an institution that lives in a binary.

-BOS

You've Earned the Right to be Exploited

Sunday, April 10, 2011

pigs on campus

Saturday April 9 2011

Approximately 11:30AM, cop seen "talking to" (questioning?) people in Proctor Dining Hall.

A few minutes later, two cop cars parked behind a public safety vehicle in parking spots behind the library. 3 pigs and 1 pub safe officer were talking in a group behind the library.

There reason for being here is unknown. Keep your eyes and ears open.

Fuck all cops and cop collaborators. They have no purpose in our, or any, community.

Challenging a "Culture of Despair"

The following is an email correspondence between a student and the Chair of the Economics Department.  It is in response to an offensive lecture the college hosted without allowing for any critique.  The email and op-ed following the event have gotten numerous people talking on our campus about many significant issues and has demonstrated that we all have the power to make some noise and begin to challenge domineering and “unquestionable” subjects.  While certainly some have disagreed with the methodology and language used in the email, ultimately being firm and honest about grave matters is essential to questioning a serious action.  Focusing merely on timing and language is simply an act of resistance (see Dr. King’s “Letter from a Birmingham Jail”).  You all can and should speak up to challenge one another in our community!
________________________________________
Subject: March 17: Talk on early non-marital childbearing
Phil  Levine (Wellesley College)
Early Non-Marital Childbearing and the "Culture of Despair"
Location/Time: Thursday, March 17, 4:30-5:30 Axinn 220

This paper borrows from the tradition of other social sciences in considering the impact that “culture” (broadly defined as the economic and social environment in which the poor live) plays in determining early, non-marital childbearing. Along with others before us, we hypothesize that the despair and hopelessness that poor, young women may face increases the likelihood that they will choose to give birth at an early age outside of marriage. We derive a formal economic model that incorporates the role a woman’s perception of economic success may play in determining her childbearing and marital outcomes. We operationalize this perception mainly by using the level of income inequality that exists in a woman’s state of residence. We empirically investigate whether low socioeconomic status (SES) women are more responsive to differences in the level of income inequality in terms of their childbearing and marital outcomes. We find low SES women have more teen, non-marital births when they live in higher inequality locations, all else equal, supporting our hypothesis. The mechanism driving this finding is less frequent use of abortion. For women in their early 20s, higher inequality reduces the prevalence of shotgun marriages among low SES women, leading to more (fewer) non-marital (marital) births.
________________________________________

Dear Chair Matthews,

I am deeply appalled and tremendously offended that your department has chosen to endorse such a hateful lecture.  "Culture of despair" rhetoric is simply a re-branding of the equally problematic "culture of poverty" that both dehumanizes the poor and blames them for their "condition".  Where are the voices of the women in this study?  They have been simply reduced to a faulty economic model.

We must stand up as a community to blatantly discriminatory lectures that our college endorses.  As human beings striving to be just and fair we cannot tolerate hate.  The college has a history of supporting hateful racism, classism, sexism...and that is wrong.  A few years ago Charles Murray came to campus to speak about his disgusting justification of the superiority of whites in the Bell Curve and we did not bring him here ironically or bring somebody else afterwards to critique his oppressive position.

Thank you very much for reminding me that just because Middlebury offers wonderful classes such as Writing for Social Change and Social Justice in Education that does not actually mean it is committed to those principles.  Believing so would be a terrible mistake to make that would blind us to the horrible injustices this institution is involved in and specifically the oppression that your department perpetuates.

We must actively resist the oppression and it starts with you writing an all-campus apology and clarification.
________________________________________

Thanks for sharing.

The department has not “endorsed … a hateful lecture.”  First, invitations to present seminars on campus aren’t endorsements. Second, it’s not clear to me – and unless you’ve managed to find the time to read Professor Levine’s paper before most of us have, I don’t know how it could be clear to you – that it is in fact “hateful” in the ways you suggest.  (I would suggest, however, that the analogy to Murray’s problematic work isn’t constructive here.)

I’d be pleased to send you the paper, and I would be pleased, perhaps even with a colleague or two, to discuss it with you.  I would further encourage you to attend the lecture and ask questions:  in advertising it to other departments and programs, it was our hope that the resulting conversation would reflect an even more diverse set of ideas and methods than usual.  That’s what the “liberal arts experience” is all about.

I’m afraid, however, that there will be no “all campus apology.”

Best wishes, PHM
________________________________________

Dear Professor Matthews,

I appreciate your offer to sit down together and read Professor Levine's paper; however, I do not appreciate the condescending tone by which you addressed me to distance yourself from this act of injustice you are unfortunately supporting.

Every move you make is political and you can never try to remove yourself from power, pretending to be able to do so is woefully destructive.  Each book you assign to your class, every word you choose to use in lecture, and every penny you use to bring speakers to campus is a reflection and perpetuation of an ideology; there is always an embedded endorsement.

Your misunderstanding as to why this talk is hateful exactly illustrates the problematic position of not reading culture critically and acknowledging how you are situated in power structures.  As one of my friends put it: "This is just a further example of why a more appropriate name for the Econ department is the Economics Department of Oppression and Lack of Understanding."  I am not suggesting that this title is an essential component of Econ on this campus, but rather demanding that you take proactive measures to ensure that it continues to be so applicable no longer.

By no means is this an attack on you or your department; rather, this is firm stance against horrible injustice and the dehumanization of a group you are playing a part in the oppression of.

Unfortunately, your calculation that this event will lead to a more diverse set of ideas is terribly misguided.  Consider the fact that all-gender bathrooms are currently being advocated for (and much over due) on campus.  Under your misunderstanding of diversity it would possibly be harmful to focus the discussion in such a place so that we are dedicated to social justice, we should probably encourage a more diverse set of ideas around the issue, perhaps maybe we should posit something else into the conversation such as creating "White Only" and "Colored Only" bathrooms?  What do you think about that diverse idea?

A liberal arts education is not about being indoctrinated with hate.  As our mission statement reflects the experience is more about cultivating "the intellectual, creative, physical, ethical, and social qualities essential for leadership."  This lecture runs in opposition to such ethical and social qualities and therefore it is your duty to clarify and respond in an all-campus apology.
________________________________________

Dear Professor Matthews,

I respectfully attended the event this afternoon, but unfortunately was not respected back.  I am curious as to why this was, perhaps you along with the administration could address this for me and the rest of our college community.

I am puzzled by how quick you were to defend Levine without having read the paper yourself and to leap to the assumption that I had no grounds for objection since I likely had not read it either.  Through the lecture, however, you now know how unsubstantiated your resistance was.

As you encouraged, I questioned Levine at the lecture.  I explicitly stated numerous questions drawing on verbatim quotes from his speech as well as troubling passages from his paper (that yes I have indeed read).  Unfortunately, I failed to receive an answer.  While I respectfully allowed the event to proceed, we certainly learned much from the silence.  Numerous members of our college community expressed disbelief in the unprofessionalism by which he handled his response; we are all left waiting for this troubling issue to seriously be addressed.

Please know that I want to engage in constructive dialogue with you.  While you invited me to speak with Levine, the offer was revoked upon the opening of my mouth.  While I find this incredibly problematic, I am not going to let it get in the way of us having an important conversation.

I look forward to your response to these urgent concerns and receiving a genuine all-campus apology that ensures such events will not be supported by the Economics Department without critical follow up.

Monday, April 4, 2011

"Il Faut Gagner"

I began writing this mid-February with intentions of writing more, but I let it drop as I started having more work to do for classes (something I’m not used to having to do in France…) Now it’s the beginning of April and Libya and Syria have added themselves to rebelling countries in the Muslim/North African world. –Laurice Fox, ‘12

“Il faut gagner!”

“…Sinon c’est la fin du monde!” I cried out jokingly—my competitive nature present. Directly across the table, Diego, poker faced—emotions well masked behind sunglasses…what I would consider a cheap way out—curtly and frankly followed my statement with: “Wikileaks est la fin du monde.” Yes; frank, unprecedented, unexplained. Everyone else around the table was having his or her own conversation before the next round commenced, but there I was immediately thrown back, and of course immediately prepared with a response. Kneeling on my chair, caipirinha in hand, I retorted, “Le fin du monde!? Ou peut-être wikileaks va faire le monde mieux!” I said it in a giddy matter—a little affected by the previous cocktails. Through the ring-clouds of cigarette smoke, cards, chips, Diego stared back at me still poker-faced, through his opaque sunglasses, leaning calmly on the edge of the table, arms crossed. He embodied the Pierce Brosnan/James Bond persona very well. And it was not until directly after my response that I actually thought about it…and thought some more about his statement and recent events.

So, still positioned on the chair on my knees and glass in hand, I drifted away from the playing table into my thoughts for a moment. What was my reasoning in my response? That Wikileaks has revealed how corrupt governments of countries are and therefore the citizens of these countries are actively demanding for political reform and so far succeeding if we look to Tunisia and Egypt as examples? Is that not a change better for the people—at least the over–looked and under- represented? So…where was Shady coming from letting his comment unfurl and blend in with the rest of the smoke rings over the table? Wikileaks: the end of the world. I assumed he was referring to what would happen after the people of these corrupt countries, which at the moment we can specify as North Africa, attained political reform. These countries may over-turn their corrupt governments, but what happens after? More political turmoil? Destabilized allies? More revolts? Interference from political super powers that could end badly? I streamed through these thoughts picturing corruption, countries at war, military verse civilian violence, and then I emerged from them and said to Diego: “En fait, t’as raison. Je pense que t’as raison.” He just stared back…

I don’t want to say that Wikileaks is the end of the world, though. Not yet at least. When I think of the end of the world I think of nuclear warfare or natural disasters of such a large scale that nearly the whole human race is effaced. For now, I can at least say that Wikileaks is the end of an era—or the beginning of one.

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

Resisting Gendered Salaries

While the college claims that it values all of the disciplines that make the liberal arts so vibrant, they clearly construct a hierarchy in the pay grade.  As a private institution we are extremely secretive regarding salary issues; however, we openly admit that Economics, Computer Science, and Arabic necessitate a “market-based premium” and are consequently the highest paid disciplines on campus.  Since these fields are male dominated, do they inflate statistics of gender bias in faculty salary, or in fact do they reinforce and further perpetuate the ill founded devaluation of women’s work?

With the industrial revolution the labor force became gendered into what we now view as “traditional” gender roles.  Instead of working on the family farm, men began to take jobs in cities, assuming their responsibility as breadwinner, and women stayed home to take care of the kids and complete the housework: men’s work was paid, women’s work was not.  Of course gendered occupations are heavily raced and classed as well.  Black men have continually faced limiting social conditions that make it exceedingly difficult to integrate into the labor force.  The racist critique of the black family as matriarchal has been used historically for us to abandon social support mechanisms in favor of futile policy that encourages marriage.

Since a horrible economy has made it increasingly more difficult to live on one income, a persistently growing number of households have more than one provider; however, men still make more money than women.  As a society we will never let a women’s job exceed the pay of that of a man, we are constantly involved in the devaluation of their work.  “Official explanations” for salary discrepancies of Economics, Computer Science, and Arabic keep us from asking why the markets are so situated in the first place.  It is not that the market demands a premium for these fields which just happen to be dominated by men, but rather it is precisely because they are dominated by men that such a premium is granted. 

Should we really care to have the greediest professors or should we rather strive to attract those academics with a dedicated passion towards teaching?  What if we hired the kind of economists who are critical of increasing income inequality instead of in support of it?  Taking the appropriate stance on these issues would dramatically shake up the demographics of our departments, providing us with diverse and invigorating perspectives that inspire us through the compassion of educators committed to liberation.

For some reason our market-based logic fails to hold up on the student end.  Why is it that we are not presented with a differential pay grade based on our major?  The college blatantly undervalues most of our disciplines and it is time that we reflect such back to them to demand equitable pay for all of our professors instead of perpetuating commonsensical groundings for an oppressive pay scale.  For all future tuition bills we must pay only 80 percent with a stipulation that the remaining balance will linger empty until the school stops treating our professors as such.  Let us mobilize and act collectively with our peer institutions.  With enough joining this movement our schools cannot possibly fail to listen.  Together, in solidarity, we shall resist rather than collude in the oppression. 

- the Gadfly

Tuesday, March 22, 2011

Queer Article?

Hey all,

Here's what I've been working on. I think it's pretty much done, though I'm not super happy with it. If you have any suggestions do let me know! Email's nkerr@midd




When talking with other students about the label “Queer”, an idea that pops up in conversation after conversation is the desire to eschew political consciousness in relation to sexual-object choice. This is understandable in some sense; the term “Queer” to many has overt political, theoretical and social underpinnings, that is when it isn’t written off as an outdated and offensive term for which we now have a “better” and more “neutral” alternative in the acronym of LGBT.
            “Why should my sex life be political?”
            “Why, as a (Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Pansexual etc) identified individual, should I have to ascribe to a political ideology for which there is no heterosexual equivalent?”
            These are, of course, important questions to address. Why should a minority group, demarcated by something as arbitrary as sexual preference, be asked to ascribe to a whole set of politics, presuppositions and stereotypes when we do not ask the same of our heterosexual counterparts?
            This line of questioning misses a crucial point; namely, any claim to or classification of identity is an inherently political act, and the classifiers “homosexual”, “heterosexual”, “bisexual” etc, were all conceived, brewed and assembled within political contexts.
            Foucault locates the creation of the homosexual—and of sexual identity more broadly—in the late 1800’s. It was at this point that acts of sodomy, adultery or prostitution suddenly ceased to be sporadic behaviors or activities and became discursive behaviors constitutive of identity. Thus from “sodomy” was born the “sodomite,” someone who engaged in an act or acts of sodomy which suddenly bestowed him with the burden of an identity. Those classified as “sodomites”, “adulterers” and so on could now be punished politically and socially, as the unmarked (and assumedly untainted) individuals of high moral standing could justify their right to dominance by contrasting their discipline, morality and purity against that of the debased and newly-identified sexual deviant.
            And LGB politics has continued in much the same vein since then, using the bondage of identity to engage in identity politics (at times to great effect and good use), demarcating themselves from the unwashed heterosexual masses and demanding rights as Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual individuals. (I leave Transgender out of this list since homonormative identity politics has seen fit to abandon the Trans fight in favor of “respectability”, using a mantra of “First the few, later the many” to justify co-opting and subsequently disenfranchising transpeople).
It is far too late to divorce sexual identity from the political. Heterosexuals too engage in a hetero-identity politics, it is simply because they dominate the political system that a white, heterosexual identity politic is rendered invisible, a convenient way of naturalizing a systematic control that is anything but natural.
            There can be no claim to a “natural”, “apolitical” sexuality; no such identity exists or has existed within modern Western social-political discourse. Instead, Queer Folks ought to embrace the political nature written into our bodies, our identities. Denying the role that social and political power has played in our creation is a fruitless road, one that renders the very recent ascension of the dominant hetero/homonormative identity politic “natural”, i.e. invisible; and ultimately, the denial and rejection of the political within our Queer bodies is a deliberate ignorance of our creation, past, present and future.
            This is not, however, a call to identity politics. The identity politics of white, middle-class homonormative “activists,” with their calls to solidarity, unity, are ultimately a dead end. We’ve seen this tension between a Queer political activism and a hamstringed, straight-jacketed homonormative LGB activism play out in the fight for Same-Sex Marriage. Queers who questioned the idea of marriage as a “human right” (as opposed to, say, access to education, housing, healthcare etc, issues that the homonormative “Human Rights Campaign” does not concern itself with) were demonized by the HRC and homonormative public figures like Dan Savage, cast as opponents of the struggle for the “human right” that marriage supposedly is.
The label of “Queer” has been shed by the mainstream gay movement , its culture co-opted and reappropriated for a white, elite, normative and bourgeois consumer audience. Corporate sponsored Pride Parades, the support of Dov Charney and his chauvinist-anti-fat-softcore-porn-fueled t-shirt empire, empty promises of queer-for-profit pop stars (are you there, Gaga?), this is what is left to us by the lepidopterist that is identity politics.
What, then, is a satisfactory answer? If we cannot ignore the queerness of our bodies, of the bodies of everyone we know, but cannot fit into identity politics, what avenue is left open to us?
It is by finding an activism that fits our own lives and bodies, by constantly doubting “common sense” politics and ideology, by not supporting something just because we are told to, that we can realize a reinvigorated coalitional politics and not be lulled by false consciousness. Instead of opening our campuses up to the ROTC because of the repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (is the military now vindicated, washed clean of all its crimes because of this newfound “tolerance?”), why are we not rejecting the presence of the Military Industrial Complex on our campuses? Instead of getting riled up about same-sex marriage, why do we let Republicans hamstring healthcare legislation and tear down or privatize welfare? The systematic and ruthless war being waged against American citizens and non-citizens alike by white, male, heteronormative capitalist interests affects all of us, and, whether Queer or straight, white or non-white, normative or subversive, it is our task now to recognize oppression when it is presented to us, even if it is wrapped up in an appealing little package. What is the cost of buying into dominant political narratives? Are we any more free without DADT? Are we better people because we can marry (and who, exactly, among us actually has access to that “right?”), or are all of us getting fucked as we congratulate ourselves on the success of our identity politics?

Monday, March 21, 2011

ANNOUNCEMENT

Miss the 18 march deadline but still want to submit an article to be included in our spring issue?

Well, you still have a chance. We are still accepting articles, but please get in contact with us as soon as possible to let us know that you are interested.

middlebury.gadfly [at] gmail [dot] com

- t h e g (A) d f l y