Hillcrest Plagued Again by Graffiti
UPDATE: MiddBlog received the following statement in an email late last night, 3/15.
To the Middlebury Community–
As student organizers within the divestment campaign on this campus, we would like to make clear that the recent appearance of graffiti on the Franklin Environmental Center at Hillcrest does not represent the views of, nor is endorsed by, any collective group that has been working towards divestment at Middlebury, including the Socially Responsible Investing Club, Divest for Our Future, and Sunday Night Group. To the best of our understanding, this was an autonomous action that was carried out independently of any organized student group on campus.
However, it is important to keep in mind the remaining urgency of divestment. Let us remember that, according to our administration, Middlebury still has approximately 3.6% of our endowment invested in fossil fuels and approximately 0.6% invested in arms industries. We hope that the discourse around divestment will continue to center on the issues themselves and will not be diverted by a small action taken by an unknown individual or group of individuals.
We stand by our original goals of divesting our endowment from the fossil fuel and arms industries, and are continuing our campaign while working closely with the administration and other campuses around the country.
Thank you,
Student Divestment Organizers
Students might notice the following image tagged on the side of Hillcrest today:
Many will remember the vandalism of the same side of Hillcrest (next to Tire-rhea) this fall.
Oh yes, this will really make the administration take you seriously
This is a very stupid thing to do. A setback for divestment advocates, without a doubt …
Just to be clear: this was not done by -or on behalf of–the student group working for divestment. We assume it was done by individuals, and as of now we do not know who they are or what their aim was. As a group, we do not endorse this action, but we recognize that individuals may feel compelled to take such an action.
I hope -and expect–that neither the administration nor the student body will change their perception of our group, our goals or our methods because of this incident.
Fernando:
Respectfully, what does this mean? “We recognize that individuals may feel compelled to take such an action.”
Jon
There is diversity of opinions regarding methods among those advocating for divestment in Middlebury. This is not a method our group would pursue or encourage, but we acknowledge said diversity and understand that autonomous individuals may prefer a course of action different from ours. And again, I’ll stress that we do not know who the authors are or what their exact intention was.
But again, with respect Fernando. You write: “This is not a method our group would pursue or encourage, but we acknowledge said diversity and understand that autonomous individuals may prefer a course of action different from ours.” At what point do you NOT have such a reaction to a ‘course of action’? Would you say the same – that ‘we acknowledge said diversity and understand that autonomous individuals may prefer a course of action different from ours’ – if they had cut down a tree? Broken a window? Started a small bonfire in the Hillcrest parking lot? Sacrificed an animal? Assaulted a human being? Poisoned a water source? Would you qualify your disagreement, as you have here (‘We recognize that individuals may feel compelled to take such an action) with ANY destructive act; or rather do you only qualify your disagreement with an action that you see as relatively minor? Knowing and respecting you Fernando, I strongly doubt that you would qualify your disagreement with ANY destructive act, like the increasingly heinous ones I list above. Therefore, one is forced to conclude that you see this act – vandalizing a building on campus – as falling below a certain threshold. If I am wrong about that – if you really do see this act of vandalism as offensive and deeply unconstructive for our common cause – do you then need to reconsider language that ‘recognizes’ the right of individuals to act in some way just because they feel compelled to act in that way? For if you embrace such language, what act would you not ‘recognize’ in the name of ‘diversity of opinions’?
Jon,
I respectfully ask you to separate my personal comments (what I did say) from the collective views of the students working for divestment (“I” vs “we” in my previous two comments). What I wrote was based on our conclusions as of last night, at which point we decided to dissociate ourselves from this action. What we recognized was the PREFERENCE that individuals may have to act separate from us, NOT their “RIGHT” to vandalize a building (or to pursue any of the other destructive and heinous acts you list). I did not suggest otherwise in my response to your clarifying question.
Not everyone was present at our meeting last night, so please refer to the official position of all groups supporting divestment at the top of this page. I take full responsibility if I misrepresented the views of the students in these groups. I shall consult with them and inform you if that was the case.
Jon,
Please see my comment to Tim Parsons below. I think we need to redirect this discourse a bit.
Peace,
Hanna
Fernando and Hanna. Neither of you seems to be willing to address or even engage the questions that I raise, questions that I hoped would force great students like you to take a tougher stand – not as a group, but as individuals – against vandalism. It’s not about ‘redirecting discourse.’ It’s about standing up to bullshit actions AND rejecting specious, phony logic that seems to invite the following kind of wiggle room about those actions: ‘Well, some people want to do this so who are we to really judge?” Individuals at an institution full of the best liberal art students – indeed often, I am proud to say, led by those students – should not fall prey to this kind of hollow acquiescence for ‘rights’ or ‘preferences’ or whatever label you want to place on acts that so obviously offend. If we want to be seen as national and global leaders, we’ve got to do better than that. In this case, doing better would have meant standing up, without any qualification, say, about ‘the identity and intentions of those involved,’ against the vandalism of Hillcrest.
Jon, respectfully. I didn’t address your questions because I interpreted that they came from assumptions about personal opinions I had not expressed (the line between singular and plural “you” in your previous comment is blurry). Again, my intention was to dissociate our group from the action not to express my opinion – please see Jeannie’s comment at the bottom for the student groups’ stand.
But you’ve made it about me (and Hanna). You want to know where I stand; here it is. If the aim of the graffiti was to advance the cause of environmental and social justice through divestment, I fully disapprove of it. I do so because in Middlebury such an action is anti-pragmatic. I do so because it troubles me that anyone fighting for this cause would make anyone clean after their mess (and perhaps we should also consider how facilities staff feel when they have to clean beer and vomit every week). If the aim was something else, I do not know what to make of it, it is simply stupid.
Did I find it offensive? Yes, I did. But, to put this into context, let me share some other things I find significantly more offensive. It offends me that, in Middlebury, empathizing with the victims of injustices that one does not endure is not enough to justify one’s solidarity and support for said victims. So I’ll be the victim – almost.
As someone whose home community (that’s my family and friends) is threatened by drug violence, it offends me that the same Middlebury culture that finds this graffiti offensive, accepts that drug consumption is a daily occurrence that has no major consequences. It offends me to smell weed when I walk around campus. It offends that those who consume it either don’t care about the -literally–bloody consequences or convince themselves that their greens were grown in Vermont, Canada or California – can they really know? It offends me that even though drug dealing and consumption are major infractions of college rules and state and federal laws, they happen on a daily basis on campus and the de facto college policy is to ignore it.
Drugs and arms go hand in hand. It offends me that so many people here seem comfortable with the fact that the college’s money (no, I won’t say “our” money because it doesn’t feel like mine at all) is invested on the production of arms. I cannot accept a world in which it is OK that my family and friends live in fear of those arms. I find it offensive that the board of trustees pushed aside the issue of arms manufacturing as though it was a nuisance compared to fossil fuels. I find it offensive that anyone would think it is OK to fund the education of “the best liberal art students” with the creation of machines of death and oppression; that is is OK to profit from the creation of the very weapons aimed at the people I love, just to ensure the “long term sustainability” of this institution. I’d be devastated if we conclude that we aren’t creative enough to come up with a better alternative.
Why am I still here, you may wonder. I ask myself that question constantly, and I haven’t found an answer good enough to warranty that I’ll stay here until May 2015. But I AM here NOW to call on anyone reading this to not ignore the offences that aren’t clearly evident because perpetuating them goes in line with “how the world works.” Here to call on you to stand against injustice even if you aren’t the victim, and to listen even if the one who speaks isn’t the victim either.
So no, I don’t support it. Yes, it was offensive. And no, it wasn’t constructive. Can we now move on to a constructive dialog of the real issues we all seem to care about?
Fernando: I think everyone can empathize with your family’s situation and other injustices around the world. But the issues Professor Isham raises are not about you or your personal circumstances. You (and others) might make connections between injustices you see elsewhere and then justify any action here that seem to be in support of changing things that you believe contribute to those terrible situations. Some of those connections, in fact many, are specious and serve more to deflect the matter at hand than strengthen your position. The situation being discussed is about vandalism here, and the failure of individuals to point out it is wrong, no matter what one’s cause, or whatever injustices you see here or elsewhere.
I am an alumnus and recognize that the college’s money is not “my” money, nor wasit ever “my” money. Even when I went to school here, the fee my parents paid did not cover all the costs of my attending, and I did not receive financial aid (i worked on campus, too, to help pay my way). The endowment and gifts from alumni over the course of the college’s history, subsidized my education, just as the endowment and gifts subsidize the educations of even those students who pay the full price to attend. If you believe the development office literature donors like myself receive year, each student today receives more than $25,000 in scholarship support, or subsidy, and so it is fair for me to ask you what money is “yours” or any student’s?” The whole of the endowment supports financial aid, faculty and staff salaries, and budgets for the academic and other student programs. Without it, there would be enormous shortfalls and the cost of attending Middlebury would increase significantly (to cover the costs that are now covered by the endowment).
This concept, then, of even considering the college’s resources “yours” or anyone’s except for each and every generation it supports over time, appears to be related to an inability to call out such egregious behavior as vandalizing a college building and reflects a sense of entitlement, which sounds odd, but that is what it sounds like. Your cause is no greater than others’ causes, and judging from your post, you are class of 2015, which means you are a sophomore. Hopefully over the next two years, and I hope they will be at Middlebury, you will learn to be more discerning and not give anyone a pass who is protesting something that looks like an injustice to you simply because you yourself are fighting injustices in a more worthy way.
Thanks Fernando for being so clear about how you stand against this vandalism: that you ‘fully disapprove of it,’ find it to be ‘simply stupid,’ that you ‘don’t support it’ and found it ‘offensive.’ You are a top campus leader; many of us – students, faculty and staff alike – look up to you and value your worldview. It matters therefore that you share your unambiguous, unconditional disapproval of the vandalism. Indeed, I don’t doubt that the vandals themselves are following this blog post and these subsequent comments. That’s why it’s all the more important for you to speak out so strongly: your words provide them no recourse.
I am confident that Middlebury will make the right decisions about divestment in the weeks ahead, in large part because of the way we as a community analyze a social challenge, listen to each other, push back when we see faulty logic, discover our common cause and then make a case, with diverse voices, for a more just course of action. To me, that’s the liberal arts in action. As a faculty member, I can not thank Jeannie, Hannah, you and your colleagues enough for your ongoing leadership.
With respect and gratitude,
Jon
Dalai Lama Welcoming Committee, is that you?
This is not in any way productive and is instead a big step back for the divestment cause. Now, not only do advocates of divestment need to argue that it makes sense economically and is a symbol of their positive moral stance, they need to differentiate themselves from extremists.
While the divestment movement may be a good one, this certainly sends the wrong message to the employees of the college that have to clean up your mess.
The attitude of entitlement behind this action is simply outrageous and embarrassing. Grow up.
Why is the divestment movement a good one? What exactly will divestment do, other than make one feel good? How does one live today without fossil fuels? Are all fossil fuel companies “bad?” Why not pursue activities that can address the issue at hand directly (climate change) instead of rallying around something purely symbolic, even according to the leaders of this movement? If someone can explain clearly and precisely how divestment addresses climate change (as opposed to finding ways to change behaviors and finding suitable alternative energy sources), I will agree that the movement is “good.” But good luck.
As for the vandalism: the utter disregard for public space and others’ property is so emblematic of the entitled culture among those supposedly fighting for justice and cause. Sad.
Brittany,
I sincerely appreciate that you raise these questions, and I would love to talk to you about them. However, I do think you make unfair generalizations that undermine the work and commitment of many people in this community and many more beyond Middlebury. I respectfully and eagerly invite you to sit down for a friendly, face-to-face conversation. Let me know! lsandoval@midd…
This is the exact opposite of helpful.
As someone who has dedicated intense time, thought and emotion to the injustice of climate change and specifically to the tactic of divestment at Middlebury, I am deeply disturbed and offended by the vandalism of Hillcrest. I wish to continue to act cohesively with all people working for divestment at Middlebury, but if this was done by anyone with whom I have been working, we will need to rebuild our trust. I hope that Middlebury as a community can continue to move forward constructively on divestment and all its other pathways to peace and sustainability.
I would also like to echo Will Potter’s comments. I can’t believe that anyone truly concerned with justice would do something to create more work for our dedicated facilities staff.
My moral superiority gives me the right to such action
I doubt the DLWC has really posted here. But if the group did, what is the justification for vandalizing a college building and sullying the hard work of honest folks who are working for a similar/related/joined cause? Hard to imagine and therefore hard to believe. The use of “My” and “me” suggests this is some imposter.
Dear Fernando-
What planet are you on? “This is not a method our group would pursue or encourage, but we acknowledge said diversity and understand that autonomous individuals may prefer a course of action different from ours.” Your inability to speak out against childish behavior is what is undermining your cause. By not speaking out against this vandalism on our campus, you are condoning the action, and dooming your movement in the eyes of anyone seriously contemplating change. What other actions would you endorse? Terrorism?
And your response to Brittany ’14 is equally disappointing. “However, I do think you make unfair generalizations that undermine the work and commitment of many people in this community and many more beyond Middlebury. ” Maybe I’m not reading as much into her response as you, but your reply sounds like you fear a dialog our academic culture here at Middlebury supports and thrives upon. The response sounds threatened, as if anyone disagreeing with your cause is insulting you personally.
Overall, your tone reminds me of the time I spent with the Burlington Green party at the end of the Reagan 80′s, a group of great individuals lashing out against anyone and anything, totally overwhelmed by the last decade of Republican rule. I didn’t dare disagree with them either.
Tim,
With all respect (and I really do mean it), you are making assumptions about my opinions, intentions and abilities that are not justified by what I wrote. I do not wish to do the same to you. Dialog in our academic culture is healthy and I fully support it; however, I find that this medium offers too much room for misinterpretation.
I am in the same planet you are in, which gives us the opportunity to meet up in person and dialog openly and free of assumptions. I hope you take me up on it. (lsandoval@midd…)
I want to make clear that these are my words. You should not dismiss the work and dedication of so many of my peers because of who you think I am. I invite you and everyone else in our community to positively engage in the issue itself. As for the graffiti, I personally choose to not make definite judgments without knowing the identity and intentions of those involved.
Tim –
I feel it important to challenge your claim that this perceived lack of ‘speaking out’ will ‘doom the movement in the eyes of anyone seriously contemplating change’. What are you basing this on, I wonder. I for one know the Middlebury community to be one filled with discerning, caring people who will not fall so easily into the trap of fragmentation and alienation based on one small piece of graffiti. Though this was likely not your intent, your reactionary comment actually gives this upsetting incident the power to divide us. I ask you to please refrain from attacking our responses to this event and instead join with us to push forward the important movement for divestment that your comments indicate you might care about as well.
In solidarity,
Hanna
’13.5
I would like to offer a slightly amended version of the statement presented at the top of the page. It incorporates revisions made by some of the organizers who were not satisfied by the language of the initial statement. Please refer to my earlier comment for my own, personal reaction to the graffiti.
To the Middlebury Community–
As student organizers within the divestment campaign on this campus, we would like to make clear that groups that have been working towards divestment at Middlebury, including the Socially Responsible Investing Club, Divest for Our Future, and Sunday Night Group, disapprove of the recent appearance of graffiti on the Franklin Environmental Center at Hillcrest. We do not know who the perpetrators are nor do we understand why it was done.
We hope that productive discourse around divestment will continue to center on the issues themselves and will not be diverted by a small action taken by an unknown individual or group of individuals. Middlebury still has approximately 3.6% of our endowment invested in fossil fuels and approximately 0.6% invested in arms industries, and divesting is urgent.
We stand by our original goals of divesting our endowment from the fossil fuel and arms industries, and are continuing our campaign while working closely with the administration and other campuses around the country.
Thank you,
Student Organizers for Divest Middlebury