Letters to the editor
Re: Rainbow poster defacement
To our friends in the LGBTQ community:
Wow. How chilling to see a Rainbow Alliance poster defaced with such negative remarks. How profoundly discouraging. We, members of the Protestant Chapel community, would like to communicate to you our full renunciation of such ideas, as well as our sympathy for anyone who suffers because of them. As a community of Christ, our mission is to love extravagantly and to accept all people, acknowledging that we do this imperfectly. We pledge to stand with all those whom society marginalizes, all those who do not feel cared about or safe.
While it is true that nationwide discussions of homosexuality have rent deep and bitter divisions in the Christian churches, we are reminded of times throughout history when church communities have manipulated the Bible to serve thoroughly un-Christian ideologies. Slavery found defense in the Scriptures, as do certain misogynistic ideals. As fallible, human institutions, churches make mistakes interpreting God’s Word. For this and more we are sorry.
Our desire, however, is to transcend institution and stand with Christ and with you. Without question, our God is a God of the marginalized, a God of those whose value the world fails to acknowledge
(which is actually everyone). We believe God loves us all, and calls us to love each other with a mutual understanding, fully affirming each other for the person we are.
Perhaps God speaks to us all in the lyrics of Bruno Mars (seriously): And when I see your face/there’s not a thing that I would change/because you’re amazing, just the way you are.
We would like to be in dialogue with you to work toward creating a community of inclusion, insuring your well-being and your ability to feel safe in our campus community. This is an open invitation to
friendship and a pledge that in our company, you will find a safe place to be totally yourself.
With love and compassion,
Charley Allegar
Bonnie Buis
Katrina Keay
Chiuba Obele
Jacob Taylor
Nathaniel Taylor
Dylan Thayer,
Mattie Theobald
Jeff McArn
Members of the Protestant Chapel Community
Re: Rainbow poster defacement
To the Hamilton Community:
As a Christian on campus, it pains me to see such hateful language used in attacking the LGBTQ community, because everyone is loved extravagantly by God. Jesus preached his message of love to all and, as followers of Christ, we Christians try to follow His example.
We do not wish to hurt anyone, and the Hamilton Christian Fellowship would never write such hateful speech towards a group of people. Such acts of hate only polarize our campus, and hinder an open discussion.
Beau Brians,
Christian Fellowship
President
Re: Rainbow poster defacement
The attitude behind the recent defacement of queer-positive literature is unfortunately nothing new on this campus. It’s a sad fact that even at a place like Hamilton, a small but disheartening number of students feel the need to express hatred and ignorance against the people with whom they walk, eat, take classes, study, party, and, in general share the experience of being a Hamilton student. These hurtful words don’t get shot into a vacuum– they have a real impact on real people, and they can make this campus feel like an unsafe place.
A significant part of the reason that this sort of behavior is able to exist in a supposedly forward-thinking and accepting place like a liberal arts college is that often even people who disagree with a friend’s words or actions aren’t willing to say so. For instance, most students will just laugh off a comment by a friend that so-and-so is a “fag” rather than say something about it, even if they find that kind of language offensive. Via silence, the idea that certain attitudes are supported here can be propagated even if the majority of students feel strongly to the contrary.
An experience that I found both highly discouraging and highly encouraging was an anonymous survey for orientation leaders last August that asked whether or not we would say something if we witnessed someone do or say something with which we disagreed. The discouraging thing was that only roughly a quarter of orientation leaders, who theoretically represent a confident group of students, would say anything in such a situation.
The encouraging thing was that around three quarters of these students would back up another student who confronted the offender. So, the odds are good that if you do have the spine to stand up to someone who is saying something hurtful, you’ll probably find more support than you think. Incidents of hatred will continue until we as a student body take an active role in spreading the message that this is not a place where words or actions that are intended to hurt are tolerated.
Of course, hostility toward people who identify with a minority sexuality is not the only tough issue on this campus. Sexual assault is an issue that has gotten a lot of attention for a long time on this campus, but the discussion is often undertaken in the same way and doesn’t ever really reach a new audience. Racial, socioeconomic and sexual dynamics on this campus are touchy subjects also, and often conversations about these topics feel like they’re covered in red tape and hidden agendas.
Ever since arriving at Hamilton, and this year in particular, my friends and I have had many frustrated conversations behind closed doors about how this campus doesn’t have a good platform for truly open discussion. While there currently exist a wonderful variety of religious, ethnic and other interest groups on this campus, and while they do frequently offer discussions about various on-campus issues, they can’t truly provide a neutral platform for discussion because almost all of them, whether correctly or incorrectly, are viewed as having their own agendas. People who hold opinions that are viewed as countering those agendas are often timid to participate because they feel like visitors on someone else’s home turf.
I had personally been frustrated with how this campus communicates for a while, but I assumed that I was overreacting. Then this April the Thomas Jefferson Center awarded Hamilton the 2011 Muzzle Award for restriction of free speech, and I knew that it wasn’t just me. Something has to give on this campus.
No one should have to talk behind closed doors. Starting next semester, there will be a group called FORUM whose sole purpose is to provide unbiased, agenda-free mediation for some raw, honest discussion about some of the tough issues facing this campus. Any student is welcome to participate in discussion, and any student who feels that he or she would like to help neutrally facilitate discussion is welcome to contact me at sfobes@hamilton.edu for more information.
Sincerely,
Sarah Fobes ’12
Re: Hamilton’s outsourcing
Hamilton College was recently awarded a “Muzzle” by the Thomas Jefferson Center for the Protection of Free Expression. The dubious distinction went to Hamilton for requiring first year men to attend She Fears You, an “emotional and cognitive intervention” by Keith Edwards, Director of Campus Life at Macalester College. The “theory” behind the intervention is that by convincing students that “all women fear all men,” men will become angry enough to do something about “rape culture” on campus. The intervention ends with Mr. Edwards telling the audience how angry he becomes when he sees the fear of him in his partner’s eyes as they sit across the dinner table. I kid you not.
Mr. Edwards is hardly alone in bringing his road show to Hamilton. For the last several years, first year orientation has included an appearance by Maura Cullen, the “Whoopie Goldberg of the diversity circuit,” who uses magic tricks and other devices to promote her theme of “diversity without adversity.” In 2009, “anti-racism educator” Tim Wise came to campus. Mr. Wise makes his living stirring up guilt and anger about “white privilege.” Perhaps worried about what the election of the first African–American president might do for business, Wise put this spin on the 2008 election: “In short, the success of Barack Obama has proven, perhaps more so than any other single thing could, just how powerful race remains in America. His success, far from disproving white power and privilege, confirms it with a vengeance.”
What do Edwards, Cullen, and Wise have in common? They are all modern day snake oil salesmen, making a handsome living peddling their wares on college campuses. Even in these lean financial times for higher education, the “pay to say” business is large and growing. Indeed, whenever such a high-priced huckster causes embarrassment, the administrative response is usually “well, speaker X has appeared at lots of other colleges.” That’s exactly the problem. When confronted with an issue – sexual assault, diversity, race – the path of least resistance for college administrations is to find someone on the lecture/therapy circuit to “do something.”
Even worse than wasting money, such outsourcing distracts us from the task of using our own human and social capital to tackle difficult issues. A few years ago, I had the pleasure of working with faculty colleagues from across the College to organize a town hall meeting on diversity, which brought together in the Chapel 200 students from different courses. All of them had prepared by reading Robert Putnam’s research on diversity and social capital. Afterwards, more than a few students told me that it was the best discussion about diversity they had had at Hamilton.
What made the event work? First, faculty and students owned it. Second, the discussion was grounded in what we do best at Hamilton—serious and sustained consideration of important ideas and evidence. Third, unlike the usual preaching to the converted, this event brought together a very diverse group of students and faculty. None of these conditions is likely with the usual intervention by fly in.
The task of building a vigorous and respectful intellectual community is important and challenging. My modest suggestion is to make Hamilton a national leader in pulling the plug on charlatanry and instead follow the advice of Lowe’s Home Improvement: “Let’s build something together.”
Sincerely,
Theodore J. Eismeier
Government Department
Re: Senior Week passes
I am shocked and appalled by the prices for Senior Week events and passes. Last year, if memory serves, passes were $70 with donation, $75 without, and individual events cost $10 each, never mind the even smaller prices of years previous. While I understand that the costs for food stuffs and entertainment have increased, I cannot believe that, for example, the cost of Tex-Mex and bargain margarita mix for a single individual is $25, nor that the price for such an event has increased by $15 a head. Frankly I have a hard time putting away a single burrito at $7, let alone $25 worth plus perhaps a single drink—these prices feel like we are paying for a quesadilla eating competition for each and every senior.
What frustrates me more is that, according to a March 25 e-mail from our Class President Keith Willner, they had not determined the individual costs for events at that time. So the committee was able to agree on a reasonable price for passes that would adequately cover the costs of the events without knowing the individual prices for the events. This leads me to believe that the committee artificially inflated event prices to make up for the predictable drop in ticket sales due to high pass prices.
Senior Week 2011 offers few events beyond movies for free and has few activities I can do with friends that will not require money in one form or another. It feels more like a fundraiser than a good time, and I am simply sorry that I will not be able to participate in the holy grail of parties that is Senior Week. I would much rather keep my $85 for rent or groceries or clothes for work after graduation. Those at least are justifiable and rewarding expenses—spending almost $100 for less than $100 worth of entertainment is not.
Sincerely,
Marisa Low ’11