You may make people uncomfortable, sure, but you’re known and probably trusted by at least some. my take on Luaay is that he made people uncomfortable through his actions and presence as a complete stranger that Barrett hardly even knew. First Years in Stew are reliant on their FYCs to ensure an environment of safety and openness. That was compromised.

Claiming that those allowed to stay on campus who have committed wrongs because of their parents’ financial donations is a bold statement. it may happen, but it may not. you cannot make blind claims like that. and you also don’t know if that person who was accused of rape and is still here was actually guilty of such a horrible crime.

There are indeed social divisions on campus, as everywhere in life. but it is my optimistic hope that the divisions are based on common background/interests first and foremost. if you are claiming that international and non-white students are always together because of racial preference by whites to stick together, then would it not also be racism by internationals/non-whites who prefer not to mix with whites? it seems like that is what you are proposing, and i refuse to believe that the majority of students, of any race and background, are actually racist, or racist to such a great extent that it is the primary dictator of social divisions on campus. i think international students stick together primarily because it is easier for them to relate to each other than with a white kid from Boston who easily steps into the swing of things here. in regards to your statement that social divisions are also often along class lines, well, i also think you’re quite wrong. i think the mix of private and public school kids here is excellent. i do think there are divisions based on family/home community wealth perhaps, but you can’t pin that on private vs. public school.

Barrett was indeed hired based on his good judgment, amongst many other factors, but all humans err at some point and his judgment erred in this instance. its well known that he talked to Luaay for a few hours down on Wall Street and invited him to stay at Midd with him if he ever came through this way. I refuse to believe that he could have really gotten to know him in such a short period of time and in such a specific situation (a protest amongst other like-minded individuals). There would have been nothing wrong with providing Luaay a place to stay for a night or two, and there’s no bad judgment in that. And your logical conclusion that Luaay wasn’t a danger is correct. But that isn’t the point. He wasn’t a “danger” until he acted the way he did. And I don’t think “danger” is the right word. Regardless, that stay became far too prolonged and clearly, as is testament by comments here and the actual complaints to PubSafe, made students throughout Stew feel uncomfortable. once Luaay compromised the safe environment with his various actions, Barrett’s judgment failed. Luaay does indeed seem like the kind of person who would be absolutely fascinating to have around and could definitely be a part of the community. I don’t think anyone can speak against his character, but we can speak against his actions.

And so yes, we can also speak against the actions of many students here, especially on Friday and Saturday nights. And we should. And people should be held accountable if they too compromise the safety of our community. But Luaay wasn’t a student, so what do we do when the freshmen complained? We can’t write him a citation or put him on probation. All of this would have been easier, as another commenter said above, if this had been handled through Chang and the Commons as opposed to PubSafe. But it wasn’t and this was the course of action that resulted. It sucks, I agree, but it makes sense that he was given a No Trespass order.

And finally, you may have walked around your single-gender bathroom naked as well, but i’m willing to bet that when a female custodian walked in, you would have covered up and apologized and let her go about her work. Luaay didn’t. And you’re right, people pee in public all the time, and if they’re caught they get a citation for it. But those people are often peeing because they’re both drunk (terrible excuse, i know, but its a factor) and without a nearby bathroom to use. Luaay was sober and peed into a cup in the presence of girls 10 years younger than he while there was a bathroom probably no more than 20 yards away.

And one last note- don’t be so demeaning (calling people an “ass”, for instance), and tone down your anger. it doesn’t help this dialogue on a very important issue to go in swinging punches like you have.

Stewart Girl and others-

I’ve been told that I make people uncomfortable when I talk to them- on more than one occasion too. I’ve been called confrontational, uncompromising, and even alienating at times. I have strong opinions and I’m not afraid to share them. Does this disqualify me as “a member of our community?” Perhaps it’s my tuition payments that makes me a member of the ‘community’ (likewise, does that exclude Staff members or Davis Scholars- how about Professors- their children- dogs- what if dogs put me on edge? Or how about alumnae who don’t live here anymore and don’t even have the decency to donate- I know, despicable).

The idea that we have some kind of cohesive, normative community here makes me sick to my stomach. It is prejudiced, discriminatory, and marginalizing, at the very least. I think it’s openly acknowledged that spacial and social boundaries exist at this college along racial lines (i.e- “why do all the (black/latino/international) students sit together”). Often these boundaries exist along class lines too (not always, but prep school is a pretty good determinant of your social group here, or maybe even entry into a ‘secret’ society).

To deny this, you are either blind, or an ass. The narrative we tell ourselves, laden with feel-good culturally produced Midd-isms (“professionalism,” “pragmatism”, “globalism” “environmentalism,” “athleticism,” “liberalism”) shield students from thinking critically about the fact that other people exist on this campus who identify or look different. This is the same mindset under which we regularly invoke that we graduated the first African American undergrad but- OOPS WE FORGOT TO MENTION- we just didn’t know it at the time! It is the same mindset under which people on this blog comment “We go to the most ‘liberal’ school- how can you talk about race here!”

I regularly hear of blatant homophobia and have witness plenty of sexual and gender based violence on this campus. Some of these students, including one who has been accused of RAPE, as well as people who regularly display blatant disregard for common property, remain on this campus, are allowed to remain on this campus, and perpetuate these tendencies weekly. Are they not members of this “imagined community” you speak of? As I hear, it seems some of their parents donate a lot of money, so according to the definition we arrived at above…

During my freshman year in Stew, a floor-mate, blackout drunk, harassed a female friend of mine in ways that are legally too graphic for a 17 year old (which she may well have been at the time). After chasing her into the dorm room with his penis in hand, on full display, he continued to bang on the door in front of a crowd of gathered onlookers, screaming and calling her name. He was subsequently summoned to talk with his ‘concerned’ dean. No action was taken. Maybe his parents were notified. (NOTE: This was well before Natasha Chang became Brainerd Dean).

In light of all this, it seems to me that the bigger issue is how this guest was treated. If you want to argue that as an FYC, Barrett is responsible first and foremost with following the rules (i.e- registering guest, three day maximum, especially when people had voiced concern) that’s fine. If the administration chose to fire him for that, I think its problematic, I think it’s unwise, but certainly within their right to do so. Given that Barrett broke the rules of his contract, and made some serious lapses in judgement, including lying to public safety, it’s not my place to make that decision and I will bow out of giving my opinion (sorry Barrett). This is a terrible and difficult situation for all involved- Res-life, Dean Chang, Barrett, Commons Heads, etc. It is inevitable that not everyone would be happy with this decision, and the bad handling of a very public incident (bright idea making a scene like that) surely made things harder.

That being said, everyone seems to acknowledge that part of Barrett’s role as FYC is to be trusted with making good judgment calls. By supposing this man was a threat to the ‘community,’ you are thereby also implicating Barrett’s good judgment. He may have made some bad judgment’s about handling the aftermath (see above) but that’s not my issue here. The way I see it, logic dictates that if Barrett chose to offer Luuay a place to stay, he had concluded that indeed he did know Luuay well enough. Again, I remind you that Barrett was hired at least partly because of his perceived good judgment. The remaining string says that if Barrett concluded he knew Luaay well enough, and there was hitherto no reason to suspect his good judgment, under what grounds can one possibly consider Luuay a danger? Superficial appearances?

If you can disagree with this logical construction then I’ll have to flagrantly condemn your ‘anonymous one night stand,’ or conversely, any past-present-future use of the phrase ‘love at first sight.’ Because everyone knows everyone at Middlebury so well, right? Because we’re all the same, right?

I don’t know Barrett very well, but based on the few conversations we’ve had (and what the blogosphere tends to project) I am fairly positive that he recognized student’s discomfort to be problematic or portraying some biases. I do know he recognizes some of the issues I outlined above. He also seems to be an incredibly sensitive and insightful person, and as an FYC, had the nuance to pick up on this. I would bet he saw it as his job to create a learning opportunity for these students, and by all accounts, he made every effort to do so even though few people took the initiative to get to know Luaay.

As an active member of the CouchSurfing network (and I know of many other Midd students are as well) I have often let “people I don’t know well” stay in my dorm for a few nights and I (as well as others) have had some of the most profound learning experiences in doing so. According to Luaay’s CouchSurfing account, he is a dedicated pacifist, he abstains from alcohol and drugs, is fluent in three languages, In his own words he is,
“A strong believer in cultural exchange!
I strive for better world,for unity,love,tolerance and understanding within humanity.
We have only one another on this planet,so lets be one!
In strangers I see new friends whom I haven’t met yet. so come ova hommie!.
i’ll brew you a cup of tea!!”

It seems to me that given these qualities, not to mention all the hoopla around alcohol and dorm damage on campus, Luaay is exactly the sort of people we should be inviting into our so-called ‘community’ with open arms.

Finally in the interest of full disclosure; 1) I lived on Stewart 4, my freshman year, and I walked around that bathroom naked all the time- for goodness sake it’s even a gender separate floor. I would bet that what was disturbing about this particular naked man was that he looked ‘out of place’ and 2) I can’t comment on the specific ‘peeing incident’ but whenever I see drunk people pissing away in public, which is unfortunately way more often than I would like, it is usually in front of crowds of people no less (outside LoFo, the Bunker, on Battell Beach etc). All I’ve ever heard are either words of support or sarcastic heckling.

Maybe thats just me.

i also think that because the issue was dealt with first by Public Safety rather than less publicly within the Commons by the Dean, this incident went way bigger than it needed to. i have little doubt that if the students who complained had gone to Dean Chang or the CRA rather than PubSafe, who is obviously going to react intensely, that this would have been resolved in a much more sane manner. Luaay probably would have been asked to leave, but Barrett probably would not have been fired. because the situation went past Chang and Brainerd and up to PubSafe and the administration first, Chang’s ability to mediate the situation was compromised. a real shame.

I agree that no one is above the law. No one is advocating for Barrett not to be held accountable. What we want to do is consider responses that will not have such a drastic, negative effect on Stew 4 and the Stewart community as a whole.

I regret if it seems like I am making demands, that was not my intention. Considering the issue holistically and with an eye towards our community in Stewart, we are asking the administration to reconsider and work towards a better and more inclusive solution. We believe this will require dialogue that involves Barrett, our Res Life team and the community.

The outright removal of a member of our community does not seem like the best response to help us heal and move forward. I cannot imagine this hall without Barrett, honestly. All that we have put so many hours into, all that we have worked for is in jeopardy. And this is what drives me to fight for keeping him here.

2. No one is above the law. Is Nial (and others) advocating a consequentialist approach – that the good Barrett will bring to the hall will outweigh his mistake and accountability?

If so, then to what extent can Barrett knowingly violate college policies, his duties, and the trust placed in him, without deserving to be removed from his post? Because as long as “missteps during that short period of time are outweighed by the good he has done” , he is essentially exempt from taking accountability that he disagrees with. And WHO, by the way, should decide this? Some students? Students who like him? What about students who disagree? A vote by “affected students”?

As such, can such a consequentialist approach be taken for ALL College Policies? That the punishment/consequences be based on a) How much good the person has done, b) How much good we think he/she will bring in the future c) A person’s popularity ?

So, I would like to ask, if an A-student is caught violating the honor code at Middlebury. Should the Judicial Board and his/her professor take into the student’s past work (all A’s), intellectual and enriching contributions to class discussions, future contributions as a TA or RA, and therefore allow this student to not Fail the class.

I support giving people second chances. In fact, I would support a petition asking the administration to consider giving him a second chance. HOWEVER, asking for a second chance is very different from demanding one, or calling it “incorrect”.

Basically, Barrett and those (if any) who knowingly condoned his actions have lost their moral authority or high ground. First, recognize that. Then I think no one will disagree with a petition for a second chance.

Midd senior

If you think that Middlebury College isn’t inherently racist, though, I have zero interest in hearing your sad musings about the role race might or might not have played in this situation.

i love that the expectation that so many people have is that when the institution is punishing you, if you do anything other than remain silent you deserve what’s coming. makes this administration’s job pretty easy, yes?

Do you have ANY idea how hierarchies and power differentials operate? Wow.

DANGER!!!!!1!ELEVENTY!!

Thank heavens we treat all strangers to our community like this, though, amirite?!

If you aren’t aware of the repeated instances of rapists being found guilty of sexual assault and then allowed to remain on campus—including particular instances of expulsion and readmittance, sometimes before the window for appeal has even opened!—I don’t know what to tell you. I’m certainly not going to describe such instances in detail here lol.