Moving to the Skidmore suburbs: Challenging Privilege

Posted by Danny Pforte

This is a personal narrative that I gave the social class Intersections Panel, which was held a few weeks ago in Davis auditorium. For those who ask for "evidence" to support the claims I make in my articles, forums such as these have given me the opportunity to provide it. SGA sponsored discussions are other outlets through which students can express their discomfort regarding negative experiences pertaining to their race, sexual orientation and class. I hope my story can be a stepping stone for others toward gaining a new perspective.

I grew up in Cambridge, MA, a place that has had a big impact on my perception of class-related issues. It is one of the few places I have been where the haves and the have-nots live in close proximity, but I never really talked about class as a child. If I could not have the video game or toy that my friend had, it was just because my father didn't let me. I did not question why — I may have whined — but I didn't think of it in regards to class. I was just left empty-handed and envious of my friends.

This silence surrounding class-related issues in my family made them embarrassing. Although my father's job paid decently, my mother's behavior eventually placed my family in a tough situation. She has never held a steady job for very long, and she has obsessive-compulsive behaviors, such as constant hand washing, as well as delusional ideas, thoughts and dreams. For example: during my early adolescence, she was rarely around the house, and spent most of her time with people whom I didn't know. How she met them is beyond me. One day, I woke up to a pissed off father. He screamed that my mother had blown our small savings and, accumulated a credit card debt of $250,000 dollars.

I can only guess that my mother's actions were caused by her suppression of traumatic experiences from her past. But as complex as her situation might be, my dad had married her, and we had to deal with the aftermath. The idea of moving out of our small old apartment became a distant dream. When a window broke, it stayed broken. When our toilet clogged, my dad would suggest that we wash it out with a bucket of water. We had mice every winter and yellow jackets every summer. Needless to say, my home's deteriorating condition caused stress.

We didn't know if we could put up with it anymore, but moving out was not an option. Our stress led to arguments, which often led to blame. My father blamed my mother for our situation, and sometimes he would blame himself for marrying her. But nobody blamed the cannibalistic credit card companies that had taken advantage of my mother. And we never sought the reasons for my mother's worsening mental state. We pushed these large issues to the side because they were just too much to handle at the time, and still are today. We had to focus on surviving from one day to the next.

I am going to fast-forward now to my experience at Skidmore. When I arrived, I had no idea what to expect: I did not visit beforehand, and I did not even know where it was located on a map. Four semesters later, I realized that, as in Cambridge, many people here have that same strong individualistic mentality around which I grew up. But the environment is one that I was not used to. For one thing, Skidmore feels just like a suburb, which is very different from my childhood home. I also hadn't interacted with wealthy people before coming to Skidmore, at least not knowingly, and here, it's unavoidable. But this isn't to say that anybody came up to me and said, "Hey, look at me, I am wealthy and rich." No, class distinctions were hidden from me once again, as they were at home.

I came to my conclusions about the identity of the typical Skidmore student from assumptions that were made about me. It has been assumed that I am "upper middle class." I have been criticized for not having a well decorated room and for the clothes that I wear. "You can't be that poor," some say to me. At times my friends at dinner will talk about all the opportunities they have had, such as jobs during high school and research they've conducted. Sometimes, the conversations get nasty. It will seem as though they think that those of us who haven't had such opportunities are just "lazy bums," or "incapable." Many of my closest friends couldn't make it to college — I guess they were bums.

And then there are the conversations about traveling overseas and around the country, or going on ski adventures at a winter resort, to which my friends assume I can relate. And then there's the criticism of the dining hall food, which also relates to class. I would have loved such a selection as a kid; all I ever ate for dinner was either ramen noodles or Chef Boyardee. In cases such as these, I just sit there quiet and bored.

But it's not only students who make these assumptions; it is the institution as well. My favorite example is the study abroad office. Call me crazy, but why should I use it just because it is there? The farthest I've ever traveled is three-four hours north of Cambridge. I think that the study abroad program is unreasonably unaffordable. And besides that, having that opportunity available to me is new, scary and uncomfortable.

These assumptions have made it difficult for me to share the experiences that make me who I am with most people at this school. I had a tough time adjusting here as a result, as the feeling I get from these assumptions is that I am different and that I don't belong.

So you are probably wondering why and how I am here. It is funny because I believe that my class experience led me to grow up without high expectations of a college education. This is where my different identities come into play. My class experience limited my access to SAT prep classes and even the desire to participate in extra curricular and AP courses. But my part white identity, as well as being a male, both led others to have high expectations of me. As a result, I was motivated to succeed in school.

Looking back, I now realize that no one has told me that I could not do well in school. In fact, most of my teachers have told me the opposite. I remember being scolded by my seventh grade social studies teacher for throwing a paper ball. She asked me what I was doing, and told me that I was "not like those knuckleheads" in our class whom she expected to behave as I had. Unfortunately, most of those knuckleheads were black.

Lastly, I am here at Skidmore because my class struggles did not worsen. A certain point of my life was difficult, but its hardships could be overcome. I don't consider myself mobile, because I don't believe in mobility among social classes at this point in time. I consider myself lucky and privileged, because I know my peers back home went through similar and even worse experiences than me and ended up in dead end jobs, in prison, or dead. And I know that their struggles, as well as those of the 100 million struggling individuals in this country, are silenced as mine were while they chase the lie — I mean dream. Harriet Tubman once said, "I freed a thousand slaves, I could have freed more, If only they knew they were slaves." Let's get free.

Beautiful daze: modern American photography

Posted by Jason Dowd

America's obsession with beauty has grown out of control. It's fueled mostly by ads and pictures in magazines. It seems that every magazine is packed full of fashion photos and beauty product reviews and tips, and, to make matters worse, they are also full of deception.

These magazines not only target adult women, but also impressionable teens and pre-teens, showing them exactly what "true beauty" should look like. The women who look at these magazines then compare themselves to the models and feel anything but adequate in comparison.

The photographs define what beauty is and, therefore, the women who feel they don't match up will do whatever it takes to be as beautiful as the women in the magazines. This is a tactic beauty product companies have used in order to make a multi-billion dollar industry based on the insecurities of women.

Unfortunately, in most cases the photos are completely altered. The model's skin is often digitally airbrushed, her weight is altered and the hips and bust are also enhanced. The problem then is that women are shooting for an unrealistic standard of beauty that can only be obtained through digital manipulation. To the untrained eye the photos look realistic. Women are led to believe that the products these models endorse really do work. What they fail to realize is that these photos are completely fake.

The question is — does it really matter? Is this really hurting anyone? Unfortunately, yes, it is.

The goal is to sell these beauty products in order to make money. As a photographer, I see both sides of the equation. I don't feel there is anything wrong with making money, but I do feel it should be done honestly.

I can see the rationale of the beauty product companies for doing what they do. If they placed people on their ads with major flaws, no one would buy their products. I feel that a little touching up on a photo is fine. If you want to reduce some wrinkles, remove acne or lighten up the shadows underneath the eyes, then go right ahead. However, doctoring the photos to the extreme that they do is just wrong.

Digitally altering photos to the extent they have has led women to compare themselves to the unrealistic. They think that if they are not a size 0 or 1, then they must be fat. And because these older models seen in magazines have absolutely no wrinkles, then female readers feel unattractive with just a few frown lines or crow's feet.

This can make women severely insecure. To make themselves feel better and more beautiful they will go out and buy these beauty products hoping they can achieve the same "results" as seen in magazine ads. And when they don't they are put at risk for more serious problems.

Some women will turn to plastic surgery. There is nothing wrong with plastic surgery, except that it won't last. Breast implants, for one, will need to be checked regularly, and in most cases, replaced after so many years. This is expensive, but once the surgery is completed, these women will have no choice but to spend money maintaining the operation.

In other cases, both women and men will go under the knife to surgically alter their nose or other facial features. Again, there is nothing wrong with this, except every time you go under the knife, you are risking your life. There's also the possibility that the surgery will be unsuccessful and result in a permanent deformity. The sad thing in cases such as these is that the people were fine prior to the surgery, but not afterwards.

If not these things, then weight becomes the issue. In summertime I see ads in magazines and on television talking about the dreaded "bikini season." So, women will often diet in order to look their best in their swimsuits. Hoping to lose weight quickly, some women will turn to fasting, crash diets, dangerous dietary supplements and energy drinks in order to boost their metabolism. All of these methods of weight loss can be extremely dangerous, especially if you are not under a doctor's supervision.

Some women will virtually kill themselves to fit into that size 1 dress because they see so many skinny models on television and in magazines. To these women, thin equals beautiful. In our modern society, there is great pressure to be a certain weight. Interestingly, according to most height to weight charts, 110 pounds for a female who is 5'4" or taller is very underweight.

As these people fight for their optimal weight, they may develop severe eating disorders and other health-related issues. Some will take more drastic measures such as stomach stapling and lap bands, which are medically done, but can be extremely dangerous.

I've been a photographer now since the mid-1980s. I've had clients require me to alter photos to enhance their appearance. In turn, I have successfully shaved 20 pounds off my subjects. I have removed scars, baldness, wrinkles, pale skin, acne, eye bags and other flaws. I have taken away "the muffin top" and created a more toned stomach. If you've never seen these people in person or seen their photos prior to being altered, you'd swear that that's how they look in real life. That's why most people can walk by a supermodel or celebrity and not even recognize them.

What we also tend to forget is that each of us are made from different genetics. With our unique set of genes, each one of us tends to age differently, wear our weight and bulk differently and have different complexions. So no matter what we do to ourselves surgically or cosmetically, a person may never be able to achieve the look they want to because their genes won't allow it. Photoshop, on the other hand, has no idea what a gene structure is.

Apart from the health risks involved with altered photos, we also face an ethical problem. A few years ago I heard a story about a plastic surgeon who gave breast implants to a girl who was less than 16-years-old. The teen simply wanted to enhance her figure. Her parents allowed it, but they too were obsessed with their bodies and had no qualms with plastic surgery.

This young girl said it was her body, and that she could do whatever she wanted with it. She's right, except she forgot a major piece of the equation that both her parents and doctor should have recognized. She was still developing!

The young girl went to a few plastic surgeons and all of them turned her down. Determined to find a doctor, the teenager and her parents kept searching until they found one who had no morals and just cared about the almighty dollar.

As previously stated, this girl was still going through puberty. Some young women do not finish developing until they are in college. So what if that was the case for this girl? What if she grew three cup sizes in addition to the implants and then developed physical and emotional issues down the road? Sadly, as long as there is a desire to be beautiful and the money to pay for it, there will be a doctor who will throw morality out the window to get paid.

In conclusion, I have this to say. We all have a flaw or two; we're human, after all. We need to use these flaws to bring out our strong points. We need to be proud of them and use them to our advantage. Our flaws are what make us unique. They make us stand out in a crowd.

Don't worry what anyone else thinks of you. Don't change yourself to please them. If you want to model or try out for a part, don't ever take one that forces you to alter yourself (other than your hair) because it wouldn't be worth it. Find someone who will accept you as you are.

And most importantly, if you want to diet, do so under the guidance of a reputable doctor and be sure to exercise and eat properly. Don't opt for these dangerous diets and supplements. They may work fast, but they're dangerous and unhealthy; take the weight off gradually. Love yourself and enjoy who you are!

Love and war in human history: Daydreams

Posted by Rick Chrisman

There are many facets to one's identity: gender, class, ethnicity, education and so on. But perhaps the most telling aspect of our identities is our behavior. After all, we are no more than the sum of the decisions we make throughout life.

Judging our identity from the perspective of our behavior has its pros and cons. On one hand, it provides an objective and clear indication of what sort of person we are. On the other hand, the decisions we make are permanent and don't always speak well of us.

We are historical creatures. Human lives have a beginning, a middle and an end. Nature itself is cyclical: the sun rises and sets, and summers come and go. All of our days are named and numbered sequentially, and we tag our summers with memories, associating them with the time "when I went to France," and "when I lost my virginity" and "when I underwent surgery."

Our kinship groups are historical, too. In the West, we trace our origins not only to natural beginnings (the Big Bang), but to social beginnings. As the Jews say, "A wandering Aramean was my father." The Christians date their calendars from the birth of Jesus Christ and Muslims chart the progress of Islam.

Human time is measured by important and unrepeatable events such as these. Similarly, the decisions we make stick with us, even our secrets. This can make life quite the adventure. We learn day-by-day from the decisions that we make, and in turn, we make new decisions in response to what we've learned. Brave people say "I'll try anything once." Most risks are rewarded with revelation. But making the same decision again and again with the same negative consequences is self-destruction. Either way, we're always making history.

Our sexual history, the most private part of our private lives, illustrates this best. We divide these experiences up into categories: "what I did for love" and "what I did without love," and "I want more of that" and "I'll never do that again." Our sexual encounters are our history, our identity.

Every decision we make is another ornament on an individual tree with our name on it — that's the glory of life, as well as its downside. Making love is making history. So is waging war, and history is indelible.

When we have doubts about our identity, when we suffer because of our social identities and our tangle of feelings therein, it would help to look at things in a new light, or under a new lens, in order to see our own personal history. Others may not know us this well, but God does. God, the divine creator, calls us out of nature into history. Ultimately we do not belong to this or that SES group, or to Skidmore or to the U.S.. We belong to God. So, as Koheleth says, remember your Creator in the days of your youth, before the silver cord is snapped and the golden bowl broken.

Editorial: Make internships accessible

Posted by the Editorial Board

Our college gives deserving students money to pursue unpaid internships. This is the kind of project that needs to be trumpeted by tour guides, praised by professors and buzzed about around campus every March. But first, it needs to become what the college needs: a program that serves the students who deserve help the most.

In the Responsible Citizenship Internship Awards, SGA has created an admirable program that could help level a job search playing field that has historically favored the wealthy and well-connected. But to do this, the program needs to evaluate merit only within a pool of students who have established financial need, to be as certain as possible that money will go to food and rent — not shopping budgets and weekend vacations.

At its best, the RCIA program's importance can't be discounted. It helps combat real unfairness in a world where summer internships historically act as just another way the wealthy take care of their own, where students with financial need stand at a severe disadvantage. Without paychecks attached to many of the top opportunities, positions favor those students who can afford to choose an unpaid internship at their dream post-graduation company of choice, in place of a summer's wages at the neighborhood retail chain.

Limited financial resources can also restrict some students' ability to relocate to pursue opportunities where they're available, a serious issue for those students living in rural or low-income areas. Already without the connections and networking opportunities available to their wealthier classmates, these students can be left with limited options and, come graduation day, bleak choices.

As college graduates become a dime a dozen, work experience has become the chief way that employers differentiate among applicants. But besides helping students win jobs after graduation, internships help students hone in on what they want to do in an overwhelming field of options. Whether an experience is good or bad, these summers can be instrumental in helping students learn what kind of offices and industries suit them best. Back in the classroom, students will find that what they learned on the job can act as a complement to and an application of their professors' lectures.

In short, internships have become as integral a piece of the college experience as caffeine and midterms. As shown in administrative work like the "Transitions and Transformations" document, which highlights the need for "experiential learning," administrators recognize the value and importance of how students spend their summers. In setting up the RCIA program, SGA makes these influential experiences available to more students—a powerful example of how students can put administrative theories into action.

But as this new program begins to take shape, the college needs to structure RCIA as a program that makes internships accessible, not just easy. That is, awards need to be given to only those students who would otherwise be unable to pursue unpaid summer internships, in a very real sense: not because their parents are stingy, or because they'd have to scrimp, but because those opportunities would not be possible. Making that distinction about a student's true financial need won't be easy, but it's necessary. And within that specific pool of candidates, only then should merit be considered.

We're a community that talks a big game about confronting our own privilege. But RCIA could genuinely be a step in that direction, toward a graduation day where all students who walk across the stage have had the same opportunities available to them in the last four years.

This is a program that has the real potential to make our college a better place. Let's not screw it up.

Public education at stake in New York state: Politics for the Upstate Student

Posted by Julia Grigel

2011 has been a grim year for public education. State officials and school administrators nationwide have been calling for massive teacher layoffs in the coming year in an effort to "tighten the belt". The recently amplified assault on deficit spending has served as justification for extensive public sector budget cuts. The cause of these cuts is purely economic—but they have effectively impaired government's ability to fulfill its ends.

In New York State, thousands of teachers have been handed pink slips, effective in June. Why?—because Governor Andrew Cuomo is proposing a tax cap that would limit annual property tax increases by 2 percent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower. Cuomo has been pushing for a tax cap since his gubernatorial campaign last year, emphasizing the need to reduce the state's growing deficit and to reduce unemployment.

If that last sentence didn't make sense, it's because Cuomo's logic is just wrong—reducing taxes won't magically reduce the deficit and create jobs. A tax cap simply means a reduced state income, and a state that is less able to provide funds for education. The problem with this economic ideology—that less state spending creates more individual incentive to invest—is (in addition to the fact that it's a myth) that it puts at risk vital social programs like health care and education.

Despite the acrid odor of supply-side economics applied to the social sphere, Cuomo raises one important point: efficiency. The Governor has recently emphasized schools' misuse of state funds, urging them to "reduce the waste, reduce the fraud, reduce the abuse." Schools could certainly reorganize their funds and reduce waste by cutting extracurricular programs and lowering administrative salaries.

But a recommendation from the Governor is certainly not enough to tempt administrators, who are often solely responsible for determining how budget cuts will be executed in their districts, to heroically lower their own salaries. If Cuomo is serious he should be much firmer, issuing public statements urging schools to cut administrators' salaries. With unyielding guidance from Albany, administrators would be forced to hang their heads, admit the injustice of their proposed cuts, and reduce their own salaries.

The lack of direction from Albany on the question of how exactly to make the necessary cuts has had a destructive effect on the morale of teachers, especially young teachers who are typically first on the cutting block. Recent discussion of basing layoffs on merit rather than seniority has given some hope to the younger generation of teachers. But still, the very concept of cutting directly into the state's public education force is a frightening one.

To invest in New York State means to invest in the future viability of its workforce—and that necessarily means providing sound education to all students. Not only is it detrimental to the workforce of current teachers, a large chunk of which might find itself jobless next year, but it is hugely detrimental to the young people who might find themselves cramped in an overcrowded classroom with an over-stretched teacher next year.

Especially in economic times like these, it is more important than ever to provide students with access to sound education—because without good learning, the ability of the state and its residents to sustain themselves is economically debilitated. In the State of the State Address back in January of this year, Governor Cuomo claimed he wanted to restore to New York its role as "the progressive capitol of our nation." Something is frighteningly wrong if being progressive means lowering taxes at the undeniable expense of institutions that are vital to citizens' well-being. Passing a budget that will result in large numbers of teacher layoffs would degrade the quality of our education system and would have injurious results on students' development of their natural abilities, thus causing economic problems for decades to come.

Editorial: We will not forget Alexander Grant

Posted by the Editorial Board

It has been more than two weeks since the death of 19-year-old Boston College student Alexander Grant, who drowned in a Saratoga Springs creek after partying with his Skidmore friends. We are at a loss of words to describe the tragedy, but as one of many student body voices, we are going to do our best to try.

We see Grant's death as a profound loss to his family, his friends in Briarcliff and Boston College, his acquaintances and the countless lives he touched in big and small ways. We want everyone to know we are also deeply affected, and most of us never met him.

What is perhaps the most disturbing for us is that this is not limited to Skidmore and our own campus culture - this could have happened at any college in the country. Indeed, some of us with friends at Middlebury College remember the accidental death of Nicholas Garza in 2008, when he fell into a freezing river after attending an off-campus party.

We do not have enough information at the moment to determine whether Grant's death was a casualty of college binge drinking culture, or if it was an anomaly, a "freak accident." All of us, especially Grant's family, are looking for answers.

In the March 22 Glens Falls Post Star editorial titled "Witnesses must come forward," the editorial board asks the residents of the house on Church Street, where Grant was partying earlier on March 5, to come forward with "answers." They ask these students to cooperate with investigators instead of staying silent under the protection of the 5th Amendment and their lawyers, as they have so far done.

We understand why these students are staying silent. As the Post Star editorial acknowledges, the party hosts "have done what we in society have trained them to do — lawyer-up." But the editorial chastises our students for "evading responsibility at all costs," and enlisting "Mommy and Daddy" to make sure they're not liable for Grant's death.

The Post Star editorial offends us in two ways. Firstly, their language suggests we are all financially dependant on our parents, and implies that we use our parents to bail us out of legal trouble. Their language "Mommy and Daddy," to identify our parents, is a condescending way to characterize Skidmore students as irresponsible, naïve and juvenile.

Secondly, the Post Star implies the party hosts are responsible for Grant's death. Yes, the hosts may be legally responsible if they served alcohol to Grant and other minors, as providing alcohol to a minor is a Class A misdemeanor in New York State, with a sentence of up to a year in jail. But we cannot use the party hosts as a scapegoat for Alexander Grant's death. We therefore understand our students' silence.

After years of D.A.R.E. education and our alcohol assessment before college, we understand the dangers of drinking. When we drink, we are inevitably responsible for our own actions and safety. We keep a close eye on our friends and make sure they are also drinking responsibly, but if we are drinking as well, our judgment is impaired. We all assume this responsibility when we take our first sip. We made the decision to drink. We cannot place the blame on another student or group of students, like the party hosts who live on Church Street.

To a certain degree, it seems as though Grant's parents understand this as well. While they have expressed their desire to obtain more information from the students who were with their son that night, they are not looking to place blame on any individual, as they stated in their March 22 letter to SSPD. They want "answers" so the can have "closure."

It is unfortunate that these students cannot readily share this information with Grant's family without running the risk of being held responsible by law enforcement.

To the family of Alexander Grant, we give you our most sincere sympathies. We do not know, and hopefully will never know, the grief you experience.

As far as the way we live on campus, we are going to be more attentive to our peers when we drink, and we are going to be responsible for our own wellbeing. And while most of us never knew Alexander Grant, we will never forget his death.

A vision of eternity in playa del karma: Ancient American Traditions

Posted by Brian Connor

I spent my Spring Break on the Mayan Riviera, cruising up and down the strip of mega-resorts, quaint cabanas and jungles filled with cenotes and ancient ruins that adorn the Yucatan Peninsula in Mexico. I slept the first few nights in Playa Del Carmen, where four years earlier I had blown two months of lifeguarding paychecks in one week. Playa Del Carmen, or "little Cancun," is a honky-tonk town across the Yucatan Channel from Cozumel and south of its nick-namesake, the mighty Mayan city-state turned frat-boy Spring Break Mecca. Amongst the ruins of these Ancient Mayan cities I was taught a lesson about historical karma and humans' relations to material wealth.

I went out one night to observe the hedonistic flailing, dancing and imbibing spring break rituals of Europeans, Americans, and Canadians in cheesy Mayan-themed clubs staffed by local Mayans selling overpriced sugary mixed drinks. These men and women of the west were crudely and, I presume, unwittingly engaging in activities similar to those practiced by pre-Columbian Mayans, in which alcohol, in the form of fermented and distilled Agave known as Pulque, was imbibed in large madness-inducing quantities (though in the Mayan's case, it was revered as a tool of communication with the gods: alcohol being an almost universal tool of divination, the Catholic sacrament of the Eucharist easily usurped Mayan religious practices, and those of other conquered peoples, upon conquest and conversion).

Later that morning, as my companion and I stumbled back to our hotel room, we were accosted by a group of local Mayan women who aggressively solicited us. Motor skills and situational-awareness impaired by mezcal and many 32-oz. bottles of Sol, I was forcibly pulled into the gaggle of scantily clad women.

I managed to protect my wallet from the hands that scoured and groped my body and freed myself from the women's advances within minutes and staggered back to my hotel room, pesos intact. Only when I had awoken later that morning and jumped in the hotel pool to ease the grogginess did I realize that my gold chain and crucifix, a Confirmation gift, had been snatched. I waded in the pool for a seemingly endless amount of time, full of despair at losing it.

What I really missed wasn't the "Au," or the 3-dimensional depiction of Christ. I missed an object that I had worn for ten years, into which I imbued what I saw as meaning in my life, a possession that reified my existence. I'd once lost it at the bottom of a lake whilst camping along the Delaware River, and, passing by one year later, dove down and retrieved it, further granting it cosmic importance in my existential environ. Upon losing it I felt a sense of loss that only began to wane as I rode a bicycle through the ancient Mayan city of Coba and began to ponder the historical antecedent of that exchange, and the eternality of humanity through material objects.

Here, surrounding me, were the relics of a lost civilization. I climbed the crumbling steps of a pyramid that were once reserved for only the most elite religious figures of Mayan society. 519 years after the European discovery of the New World, gringos abounded and cameras flashed; the world had spun far too hectically and quickly out of those Mayan king-priests' hands. Rockets blast toward space and the cosmos are charted in detail surpassing their own impressive astronomical feats.

Yet, though long dead, they are still relevant and alive with us today, their presence still felt, pervading every inch of that ancient city. The power and privilege they wielded from atop those pyramids was palpable. They are survived by their material objects and an empire of tourism now dominates their domain and worships their achievements.

The Mayan empire had fallen by the time the Spaniards arrived on the Yucatan, but the culture remained somewhat intact, until the Spanish began colonization and acculturation ensued. Mayan texts were burnt and deities toppled, pious Spaniards believing these Meso-American cultures and rituals to be devil worship.

Indigenous Mexicans were enslaved and made to worship new gods, now channeled and personified by the Vatican and the Spanish crown rather than their own kings and priests. The pillage that wrought by European colonization has deformed Latin America to this day, creating what Uruguayan journalist Eduardo Galeano described as the "Open Veins of Latin America," in which the resources and labor of that continent were stolen and exploited by European and American capitalists.

Though Europeans pillaged and exploited the New World in all material capacities, gold, above all else, came to most succinctly express the European lust for resources. Gold so emblematized the Spaniard's frenzied plunder of the New World, that legends were spawned of El Dorado, a city made entirely of gold, a myth so pervasive that it has cemented itself in common parlance as an expression of insatiable desire. But latent in the obsession with gold, in the acquisition of limitless resources, is the quest for eternal life.

In the bountiful New World, the Europeans, their material desires quenched but souls still yearning for more, believed the Fountain of Youth, an ancient legend of an immortal paradise, to be within their grasp. And so unfurled history, the Europeans repossessing and building upon Meso-American empires, themselves built by slaves and the underclass, pillaging and re purposing resources and enslaving indigenous peoples, subconsciously hoping that they might live forever; their culture and structures are testament to this desire.

Through my crucifix I sought the same thing and all of us, through our own possessions, seek immortality or confirmation of existence. We hoard possessions in the hope that they will grant us eternal life, and we build our own personal material empires on the backs of other human beings.

Our own American civilization, often referred to as unique and egalitarian, is unexceptional, built on the backs of African slaves, cheap immigrant labor, and the economic rape of Latin America. When alien conquistadors guide their ships across the galaxy toward Earth just like Europeans did to the Americas and the Empire State Building is excavated from thick jungle or glacial sheets, extra-terrestrial tourists will vacation and marvel at this grand temple to the god known as "Dollar," whose people sought immortality through this deity and trampled upon each other, stealing and exploiting, to attain it.

In a twist of fate, a chance encounter, 500 years of history culminated in a brief exchange. Gold, in the shape of the conquering god, was repossessed by an indigenous woman forced into economic exploitation by the forces of history, unwittingly enacted retribution, seeking economic exchange and engaging in a symbolic one.

I'll yearn for that chain for the rest of my life, it seemed to make me real, it reified my existence. But, like the soaring, crumbling pyramids of the Maya, it will outlive me, will decay, will be re purposed and rediscovered. For now I hope it will inspire a lost soul to straighten her life out, or be sold to feed a child or grant one chemically consoling evening from the terrors of modern life, or even to enhance her personal empire and confirm her existence, grant her immortality.

Our possessions can be taken away from us, small keepsakes and giant empires can tarnish and crumble, but they keep us grounded in existence. Like Ozymandias, we stake claim to our possessions, our kingdoms, and through them live forever despite our fleeting mortality.

Rene Belloq, Indiana Jones' rival archeologist, explains relics as such, holding out a pocket-watch: "Look at this. It's worthless - ten dollars from a vendor in the street. But I take it, I bury it in the sand for a thousand years, it becomes priceless." After trapping Dr. Jones in an Egyptian tomb Belloq tells him, "who knows? Maybe in a thousand years even you will be worth something."

That crucifix is now an artifact that allows me to live forever, its historical and personal symbolism along with me, lost in the sands of time at the bottom of an ancient lake, and like each of us, its atoms will be swallowed up by the sun in 5 billion years and re-deposited and re purposed somewhere in the universe, our material eternal.

A reality in question receives limited answers: Practical Race and Diversity

Posted by Danny Pforte

I want to step back a bit from the specific topics of race, class, and gender inequality and reflect on some of the hurtful comments made toward my pieces and my personal character. In no way is this a response; I will not immaturely fight insulting language with insulting language. But there is something to be said about the anonymous comments made on numerous online anonymous boards after last week's issue. They express more than disdain for the content of my articles. As Sarah Goodwin wrote in a letter to Skidmore News in last week's issue, "We are not yet done with the troubling matters that the Teach-In addressed; we've barely begun".

The insults, jokes, and disrespectful language unpack the need for people to discredit the reality that I have experienced and researched. Earlier this week, I heard from a friend that unidentified Skidmore News editors and writers said that they feel I need to substantiate my claims, with one saying that racism does not affect them. But there is plenty of research to prove the oppression that occurs in our society. It can be found in census data, research journals, the New York Times, and many classes that Skidmore College offers. We cannot offer the topic of oppression for debate; doing so leaves too many silenced and hurt.

Furthermore, the Skidmore News editorial on the faculty posters highlights this argumentative approach to human reality and experience. The article states every faculty member received a memo expressing feelings of stigmatization and marginalization on their door and signed as "The Student Body". The discomfort from these anonymous posters is understandable, as we cannot fully be sure what the students responsible for these posters want or need. But that does not take away from the fact that many have decided to discredit the message in the poster and the clear expression of discomfort on our campus. What critics wanted were specific examples of individual professors responsible and for the participants to come out from anonymity and voice their specific concerns. However, if one went to the campus climate dialogues sponsored by SGA, the community meeting, or the numerous Intersections panels, they would have met students who voiced their discomfort.

Ironically, anonymity is a theme for those who have decided to disrespectfully voice their opinions about my pieces and my personal beliefs. These anonymous commentators call me dumb and uninformed. Some mock my content with witty jokes; others decide to just call me an embarrassment to the newspaper. Interestingly enough, one commentator lists many exceptions to the rules I propose, which only reinforce my beliefs of color-blind racism and a lack of understanding of the social realities that plague our nation from students on this campus.

It is for these reasons that I cannot be silent in the midst of such misunderstanding for people who must suffer for consequences of oppression. In our country, and yes, on our campus, students have been silenced. We have expressed our needs to other students, faculty and administration and have done so this semester, with no change occurring. Students of target (marginalized) races, classes, sexualities, and genders were courageous enough to pour out their hearts and personal experiences to the administration in an attempt to evoke empathy and institutional change that would make our community more embracive toward underrepresented populations on campus.

This was a powerful display, as often times uncomfortable and marginalized populations, such as the working poor and the unemployed underclass, have trouble voicing their concerns at a national level. Many become demoralized because their suffering does not improve, which ultimately leads to a lack of trust in others. The poorer you are in the United States, the less likely you are to vote. This relationship ultimately becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. The poor do not feel like their voice is important and thus have their interests easily pushed to the side. Unfortunately, in this country, this reality means losing the voices of over a third of the nation. We should consider the difficult nature of being constantly rejected and told that your reality and experience is not relevant. Similar to the poor in this country, the lack of change and action for the purpose of making our campus more socially responsible after the community forum brings anonymous claims of marginalization to light.

With that said, it is disturbing that these beliefs are not expressed publicly like the feelings of marginalization were at the community forum. I want to challenge all of us to participate in dialogue around these beliefs. We are students of a college community, not strangers. If you do not agree, have not experienced, or just do not know of the oppression on our campus and in the larger society, well it is time to take a closer look. Let us all seek more than right and wrong and do so without passivity. Let's seek needs, experiences, and change. Let's seek action.

Letter: Our dialogues are very big news

Posted by Sarah Goodwin

It was gratifying to read your coverage of the Teach-In on February 24 in which a series of speakers addressed issues related to race and the criminal justice system in the context of recent events here in Saratoga that affected our students. Given that your article notes there were more than 200 people in attendance — the Spa was standing-room — only, indicating considerable student interest in the Teach-In—it surprises me that your story is listed 6th in the list of stories for last week's paper, behind news about a new café in the library, a new SGA digital coordinator, and four other stories. When in recent history has there been a similar community gathering? I recall a Teach-In on Haiti after the earthquake, also well attended. This one had the added dimension that it bears directly on our students' lives here at Skidmore and in the community. I would have expected Alex Brehm's report to be the lead story for the day. We are not yet done with the troubling matters that the Teach-In addressed; we've barely begun.

Superficial students: looking the part: Campus Banter

Posted by Taylor Dafoe

A couple of weeks ago, a friend of mine visited me from Swarthmore, a school whose student body unfortunately has a reputation of being more brainy than it is beautiful. While he was here, glancing around the campus and reveling in the novel greasiness of the dining hall, he commented several times on the "look" of Skidmore students. He mentioned that everyone here seems to be well put-together, or at least more so than the students at his school, who are supposedly notorious for their lack of concern with all things superficial.

And he's right, our school does have a very fashion-conscious mindset. So much so that for some reason we're often focused more on our boots and seasonal cardigans than on our classes. It's one of our school's defining characteristics, one that people both inside and outside the "bubble" tend to associate with Skidmore students.

Evidence of this obsession can be seen everywhere: our uniforms of Northface fleeces and pretty plaid flannel whatevers, the cigarettes hanging precariously from the pouty-lipped mouths of the hipsters outside Case Center, not to mention the full-length mirrors covering dorm walls. And it's all starting to seem like a bad thing. We can only check out our outfits in the reflections of campus windows so many times before we actually see ourselves.

We have this reputation of being stylish yet shallow students, as if we were walking ads for Urban Outfitters. We look as though we have nothing behind our looks — no original thoughts, no creative drive — nothing but plastic principles. I'm not trying to criticize the fashion trends of Skidmore students. I'm simply pointing out the ridiculousness of the conceited Skidmore mentality.

The irony is that in spite of my new awareness of Skidmore's superficiality, and in spite of the hopelessly naïve fact that I'm taking issue with it, I'm proud of this image. I like the idea that our school is looked at in this way: as a well-dressed and charismatic body of bound-for-success college students.

For a while, I honestly thought that this is how we were perceived. Like all ostentatious people, I assumed that everyone else thinks of Skidmore students in the same way that they think about themselves: as well-rounded, good looking kids, wise beyond our modest years, most of which were likely spent in some ritzy town in New England or Westchester. But maybe we're not seen in this way.

Maybe we're just vain idiots popping our collars and rolling up our jeans, reading fashion magazines instead of books. Maybe we'll be the best dressed at interviews, but also the ones that just missed the cut to someone from a school like Swarthmore. Maybe we're just second rate. Honorable Mention.

I don't think our obsession with looking good is an entirely bad thing; it's not, but the self-absorption that can come with it is. And I'm not saying that I'm above this trend, or that these things don't pass through my head as I'm picking out my clothes every morning. I just think we need to reel it in a little bit, to start focusing on something a little more consequential than that quirky old sweater you got from some thrift store that no one's ever heard of.

Editorial: Show yourself, speak publicly for change

Posted by the Editorial Board

On Monday March 8, faculty members found posters on their office doors that read "Dear Faculty Member, Your students don't feel comfortable being themselves in your classes. They are targeted, silenced, and marginalized. What have YOU done to make the campus climate better? Sincerely, The Student Body."

To the best of our knowledge, this letter was not actually written by the majority of our student body. Whether it was a disgruntled individual, or a small subset of our community is unclear, but the opinions expressed cannot fairly be interpreted as the voice of the entire campus community.

The posters targeted the faculty as a whole, which not only unfairly insulted and provoked some professors, but also the rest of the student body that does not feel "targeted, silenced, and marginalized."

The student or students who created these posters attacked every professor, rather than specifically confronting the supposed wrongdoer.

There is a time and place for anonymity. An anonymous note directed at a specific professor could prove to be an extremely effective method of critique that would, at the same time, protect the individual from any negative repercussions. Hiding behind a forged signature of the entire student body, however, dilutes the impact of the note and strains the relationship between all professors and their students, which does nothing to solve the problem.

Presenting a note from an anonymous source is cowardly and only undermines what could be a valuable opportunity to consider a potentially serious issue on campus.

The posters leave everyone bitter, rather than making the campus community aware of real issues. Professors feel accused, students who wrote the note still hold their resentment and everyone else feels frustration because they do not understand what these students want.

What could turn into an important campus dialogue will not be addressed unless the student or students who created these posters reveal themselves and share specific examples of why they feel "targeted, silenced, and marginalized."

By falsifying the signature on this letter, the student or students have trivialized what they perceive to be a pervasive issues on campus. While the complaints of an individual may be valid, they lose their legitimacy when that individual hides behind the voice of a falsified group, regardless of how legitimate the actual complaints are.

We should take example from this past spring when students in Mary Stange's "Feminist Theories and Methodologies" class organized a rally to change the culture surrounding sexual assault.

During the rally, victims of sexual assault spoke publicly against their attackers and the school's Sexual Misconduct Policy. By sharing their stories in public, they caught the school's attention and sympathies, and subsequently gained strength through solidarity. The Sexual Misconduct Policy changed because they gained the courage to speak publicly.

We encourage the student or students who created the poster to speak out at one of our many public forums on campus and share your story. We want to hear what you have to say. You will gain strength in numbers, and only then can you reverse your perceived marginalization. But for now we cannot do anything with an ambiguous and unsubstantiated letter.

Expose privilege now: Challenging Privilege

Posted by Danny Pforte

It is easy to be colorblind as white person. No one ever questions your race. Rarely will people ask the question "What are you?" Whiteness is the norm in our society. It is the majority race (for now) and the one that holds — not some — but all of the power in our society. Whiteness, one could say, is an awning that protects white people when racial issues change the political climate for the worse. Those under its shelter are unaware of the privilege that it affords. Meanwhile, people of color are left out in the freezing rain.

We cannot underestimate the power of systematic racism. White privilege is directly related to the discrimination people of color face on our campus. In the larger society, white people are more likely to hold positions of power. But even on a smaller scale, white people do not face the persistent negative stereotypes and prejudices that are reinforced through the media, and which were created solely for the purpose of demoralization. Privilege and power are kept from oppressed groups in order to maintain the normative social structure of white dominance in our society. There are no exceptions.

In his article last week, Rick Chrisman did well to reinforce valuable rules of etiquette, friendship, and love, all of which must be upheld in order to create a community that rewards all of its members. However, the racial tension on our campus calls for the need to push these ideas further. White allies must take a stand against racism. Dialogue needs to continue so that the poignant narratives of the marginalized can be heard, but also in order to address the privilege whiteness affords and its relationship with discrimination.

But the fact that friendship and self-control are important in the fight against discrimination goes without saying. It's like an introduction to a physics experiment that states these laws only apply within a vacuum; it's entirely unrealistic. The confusion students have regarding this campus is a private or public space (as Chrisman mentioned) is not the problem. It is the dangerous fact that this is a predominately white public space, as Jon Zibell noted at the Teach-In a few weeks ago. Unless we unpack the way privilege and discrimination intersect, the notions of friendship, love, and empathy will be tough to achieve.

As a multiracial student, being part white and Asian, I benefit from the privileges that whiteness affords, but also face the oppression that accompanies my Asian identity. However, I can tell you that I will fight to change the system that dehumanizes and condemns groups because of their racial identity. I implore the Skidmore community — students, faculty members, and administrators — to join me in demolishing the awning that protects the privileged at the expense of the oppressed.

Danny is a sophomore who is inspired by the need for change.

Business is not a liberal art: Ancient American Traditions

Posted by Brian Connor

A recent helping of "Food for Thought," the anonymously distributed poster series that has sparked controversy and charges of reverse racism, fed my thinking, but it didn't whet my curiosity in the way its authors intended. It says something to the effect of, "what if your silky smooth hair was considered nappy and kinky and ugly, think about that next time you criticize other hair textures." The poster intends to raise awareness of racial marginalization and its effect on self-image and, more generally, acceptance in our community (if I mischaracterized their message the authors have no one to blame but themselves for publishing anonymously).

It was a wasted opportunity, however, as it challenges people who have "silky smooth hair," rather than challenging the system that declares those traits to be desirable. This flyer's detachment from real issues is indicative of a larger disconnect between students' words and actions.

The author of this poster could have scathingly indicted our society, but stopped short and made an ineffective point. What I read in lieu of a substantial argument was that students are eager to take potshots at campus culture and its majority groups (who cannot defend themselves because doing so would demonstrate bias and necessitate liberal reeducation by the administration) under the cover of anonymity, but are not willing to question the larger ills of our society, which they are, as students, buying into. And that is truly the biggest problem facing our college and society today. Students work tirelessly to promote awareness of social problems and instigate progressive change, yet are entirely complicit in the larger system that begets oppression.

Skidmore students, administrators and faculty pride themselves on having a progressive curriculum and diverse community, yet perpetuate a spirit of apathy and a willingness to settle on rigid homogeneity. What we have instead is an institution replete with philosophical contradictions, whose hypocrisy, and that of its students, is crystallized in its treatment of "Management and Business" as a legitimate intellectual pursuit.

The study of "Business," of how to make money, is antithetical to the purpose of a liberal arts education, yet Management and Business is the most popular major. Cleary, there is a credibility gap between students' criticisms of the college and society and their own actions. Skidmore students who take up progressive causes must in many cases be the same ones who, the classrooms of Palamountain and Bolton, plot to hoard wealth, manipulate the masses, and oppress the working class.

I took MB-107 my sophomore year, looking to branch out a bit, explore what the college had to offer. A course designed to teach the basics of business might be interesting, I thought. Unfortunately, as I soon deduced from a fifteen-minute homework assignment about the virtues of the McDonald's business plan, the course is intellectually bankrupt. Moreover, it promoted racial exploitation similar to that which the "Food for Thought" poster aimed to address.

We were assigned to do a semester long project with the goal of increasing the cosmetic giant Estee Lauder's profits. In keeping with our rapidly globalizing economy, we were encouraged to think outside the states, to establish markets abroad. We were given articles to look at, among which were several that focused on the potential market in India. India, they stated, was ripe for expansion by the cosmetics industry because there is an enormous demand among Indian men and women for whitening creams that will give them lighter complexions and make them look European. Here, in a Skidmore classroom, I was being encouraged to exploit deep-seeded and perverse racial complexes for profit.

At Skidmore, we have discussions about righting the wrongs in the world's societies, providing food and shelter to the starving peoples of the world, and advancing a harmonious multicultural philosophy, undoing and healing the effects of thousands of years of racial and economic oppression. Dozens of clubs exist to denounce the destruction of our natural environment and the perpetuation of racial injustice. And over in Palamountain, our very own, in the largest department on campus, we are plotting the economic rape of America's underclass, the exploitation of the colonially imposed psychoses of dark-skinned people the world over.

People will argue that Business can do good things and I am mischaracterizing it. They'll say Businesses can provide jobs and be leaders in environmentally sustainable, socially responsible practices. These businesses, however, are the exceptions and failed ventures. Most business majors won't be pioneering ground-breaking new industries, conceiving of and executing brilliant transnational business plans; they'll be making heart-wrenching decisions around Christmas time about how many employees to lay-off so their bosses can get pay-raises. They'll be lobbying third-world governments to loosen labor regulations and look the other way on child labor. The most helpful thing the Business department could do for its majors is train them to silence their consciences.

And Business is the most popular major at our college, more so than social work, government and philosophy combined. What this means is that we either have a deeply divided campus culture, with progressive socially-conscious students on side and would-be masters of the universe on the other. Or, as I've observed, we have rotisserie progressives at Skidmore, who take up and abandon popular causes like middle school fads. Many students are half activist, half mindless self-promoting consumer. I have encountered many students here who are Studio Art and Business double majors, because "if I can't make it as an artist then I'll need something substantial to fall back on." I believe that if you view art as a means to "make it," then you're doing it wrong—or not doing it at all. We should be engaging in art for art's sake, exercising creativity for the sake of creativity.

There is something to be said about the versatile liberal arts student, the student who balances playing the tuba, playing field hockey, painting, writing poetry and involvement in student government, who spent a summer building hospitals for albino Kazakhstani orphans. In most students' cases, however, these potentially rich personal skills and experiences are seen and wielded as a means to get into college and advance oneself, rather than as personally-fulfilling ends unto themselves. Students view themselves as marketable commodities, their degrees and skills valuable only as tools to achieve social distinction and wealth.

Which isn't to say that your college degree should not serve as leverage to advance your career. Most students do not have the luxury of taking a laissez-faire approach to post-graduation life. But the fact that Management and Business is the largest department at a liberal arts college signals that there is a culture of complicity in the entrenched systems that so many Skiddies aim to change.

Skidmore students too often allow themselves to be, as Mario Savio once analogized, products manufactured by an education machine, marketable items to be bought and sold in the post-grad business world. Our campus culture cynically assumes all of the idealism and activism of the college years should be shed upon graduation, put away like childish things.

Last semester, a representative from Career Services came and spoke to the seniors of my department. We were given a number flyers among which was "a formula for success," which instructs students to line up their interests and skills with their major, which will supposedly yield a viable profession. I was very disturbed by the idea that, after the intellectual journey I'd taken through college, after all the idealism, self-confidence and independent critical thinking skills instilled in me by incredible professors, that I was now honestly being encouraged to apply a "formula for success" to determine my career.

Let's practice what we preach here at Skidmore, and make ours a more genuine, socially conscious and intellectually oriented community.

Defense is not always our best offense: Practical Race and Diversity

Posted by Danny Pforte

Two weeks ago, students and faculty met to suggest to the administration measures that would alleviate the tension on campus that has recently made students of color feel uncomfortable and even unsafe. Some suggestions included institutionalizing IGR (Intergroup Relations), reworking the First Year Experience (FYE) program with the goal of fostering more interaction between different social groups in mind and reevaluating the methods and practices of the Discovery Tour. Although the administration claimed to be interested in making changes, many of their responses to these suggestions made them seem reluctant.

When students called for FYE to take a more rigorous approach to encouraging interaction between minority students and the more privileged majority, Beau Breslin responded by asking students to give him suggestions as to how he should do so. He explained that additions to the program will result in subtraction as well. The dean of Special Programs (among other administrators) summarized what his role is in the college's mission for diversity. Mary Lou Bates defended the Discovery Tour, explaining its effectiveness in bringing a diverse student body to Skidmore's campus.

The Discovery Tour may bring more students of color to campus, but it doesn't ensure that they will be comfortable upon arrival. Simply having a more diverse student body does little to alter peoples' narrow view of those of us who are and have been marginalized because of our identities. A former student argued that interaction between student groups needs to be forced. Otherwise, our campus climate will only worsen.

Furthermore, when needs are expressed to people in a position of power, they should not be met with defensiveness. This attitude defeats the purpose of these discussions and slows the process of resolving this issue. Breslin asked for suggestions from students on how to make FYE more effective in convincing students to "check privilege at the door," but this responsibility cannot be thrown back at the group requesting change. If we are going to promote interaction between student groups, FYE would be a great place to start, since it is one of the few required programs for freshmen.

Also, the administration needs not remind us of their job. We should know their purpose from the moment we step onto campus for the first time. If there was a general consensus that the administration was doing a good job at dealing with campus climate issues regarding diversity, then a community meeting wouldn't have been necessary in the first place.

As individuals of a college community and a complex society, it is time for us to be creative. I have coined the term "action listening"?to describe something that I believe needs to be practiced if serious change is going to happen at Skidmore and in the larger society. Action listening is the opposite of the defensive and sometimes indifferent attitude that concerned students were met with at the meeting.

Action listening also means that when needs are expressed by members of the community, everyone listens and attempts to find a common opinion that will lead to productive action. Solutions go awry when the argument consists of upholding the norm, or the societal and institutional inequalities that minority students must deal with everyday of their lives. Without steps toward tangible action, the social tensions underlying our campus will remain. As Social Work professor Peter McCarthy stated at the forum, we were having these same conversations 30 years ago.

Fed up with the lack of progress, a few students stood up and voiced the personal struggles that they as students of color have faced on this campus. These struggles are real, and they are not going away without listening coupled with action. I hope that both those at the forum and those reading this feel the same way.

Re-evaluate the power of the political party: Politics for the Upstate Student

Posted by Julia Grigel

Something is clearly not right: Jimmy McMillan ("The Rent is 2 Damn High" guy) is going to run for president. Better yet, he's doing it as a Republican.

In case you missed him in last fall's gubernatorial race (or the rest of the New York State elections that he's been a part of since 1993), he was the one with two curiously round tufts of silver hair for a beard, ridiculous mutton chops and black gloves that he attributes to over-exposure to Agent Orange and other chemicals in Vietnam. He ran on "The Rent is 2 Damn High" ticket (the party platform is self-explanatory) in the 2010 elections for governor of NY. Now he has his sights set higher.

Although he ran on "The Rent is 2 Damn High" ticket, McMillan was a registered Democrat. But those days are over: he will run his presidential campaign as a Republican to avoid facing Obama in a Democratic primary. Besides, "the Democratic Party sucked," said McMillan of his sudden turnaround. Hey, I at least give him props for his honesty — it's not easy to come by in politics.

He recently attended the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, D.C., where he cozied up to Republicans and waved his shoe around in support of "our brothers and sisters in Egypt." It seems that McMillan now has a "thing" for shoes — when asked whether or not he would support gay marriage in 2010, he explained that if somebody wanted to marry a shoe, he'd support that.

Okay, so Jimmy McMillan is a funny dude. But the implication of his presence at the Conservative Political Action Conference for politics in general is that our system has become confused and downright messed up. The fact that a single-issue candidate must choose one of two political parties to represent his values speaks quite poorly of our party system.

It seems illiberal to have a system in which "popular sovereignty" refers to the right to choose between two parties. Especially when both parties are confused about what they really stand for because they are so busy trying to please the majority. A majority who — can you blame them? — don't understand what these glossy political euphemisms actually mean in the first place.

Third parties tend to get a lot of negative press because they just don't have a place in our voting system. The fact that so many people were mad at Nader for campaigning in 2000 and "stealing" the election from Gore is an insult to the tenets of democracy. A Nader ought to be able to run in every election. The two-party system simply doesn't cut it when so many people want to see a progressive agenda.

Will we ever see a multi-party democracy in the U.S.? It's doubtful. We've had two parties since before Washington warned against having two parties. It's tradition. It's what we're used to. It makes watching elections feel like watching football.

In order to change the party system we'd need to change the voting system. First, we would have to do away with the Electoral College (and as we know from our fifth grade social studies class, changing the constitution is tough). To give third parties a fighting chance, we'd also need to abandon the winner-takes-all method of voting, which goes hand in hand with a two-party system.

The grand flourish to this idealistic sequence of changes would be a switch to a runoff voting system in which voters rank candidates in order of preference, thus preventing a third party from "stealing" votes from another candidate who might otherwise win. In turn, a runoff voting system would allow for more candidates —like McMillan!

For some instructive (albeit radical) thoughts on the ills of democracies such as ours, it's often helpful to look at the villainous dictator of the day for his constructive criticism. And indeed, we can find some interesting wisdom on the problems of the party system in dear old Quaddafi's 1980 manifesto, "The Green Book."

Perhaps with some inspiration from Marx, Quaddafi informs us that "all political systems in the world today are a product of the struggle for power between the instruments of government." He goes on to say that "a party's aim is to achieve power under the pretext of carrying out its program democratically."

So here we have a power-hungry dictator telling us that a democracy's party politics are essentially a fight for power and control. We certainly don't need to read his denunciation of party-based democracy to make our own judgments. Quaddafi was obviously a little crazy back in 1980, and by now has totally gone off his rocker.

But, if nothing else, his brazen criticism of party politics serves as food for thought. And even the presence of McMillan in politics, as he pushes a fringe issue from within the Republican Party, makes us think about what our parties really stand for. The chance of seeing any significant reform is unlikely, but it's worth hoping for.

Editorial: Students must look beyond the number

Posted by the Editorial Board

Our college is 41. According to "U.S. News and World Report," this number encompasses everything that prospective students need to know about the campus we call home. From that, applicants should be able to understand our professors' engagement, our classes' difficulty and the overall value of a diploma with "Skidmore College" stamped across the top.

The magazine heads its list of college rankings with a disingenuous disclaimer: "These rankings provide one tool for selecting a college." But for many families, the "U.S. News and World Report" list stands as an authoritative guide for where to spend tuition dollars. Whether it acts as a one-stop mailing list for where to ship off a Common Application, or just a quiet source of doubt for high school seniors already second-guessing their own ideas of where they might be happy, the list's influence on students' college search is poisonous and pervasive.

Criticisms of the rankings' methodology and undue influence have been around almost since the magazine initially published its first Best Colleges issue in 1983. Outlets from the "San Francisco Chronicle" to "The New Yorker" have published condemnations of the list, claiming it maintains a status quo of high-endowment colleges dominating the top spots, leaving unrecognized the forward momentum of other schools repeatedly relegated to the middle of the pack.

No one means to denigrate the comprehensive research conducted by "U.S. News and World Report" every year. The data collected is significant: reputation among educators, class sizes and acceptance rates should, without question, play an influential role in students' assessment of potential colleges. But by combining these varied factors under one monolithic heading, "The Best," the magazine suggests that picking a college should be literally as simple as 1-2-3.

"U.S. News and World Report" might do better by its readership by promoting separate lists for each of the factors that now play a fractional role in a college's overall ranking: "Schools with the Smallest Class Sizes," "Schools Highest-Rated Among College Presidents," "Schools with the Greatest Financial Resources." By allowing students to mix and match among several lists, rather than allowing one list to overshadow specific criteria, the magazine would encourage more applicants to think critically about the college qualities most important to them.

As much flak as "The Princeton Review" deserves for its unabashedly unscientific methods for categorizing schools, it gets some of the college application process right. The website gained attention for rankings reflecting specific criteria important to students: from "Great College Towns" to "Most Politically Active Students," the review guide makes sure that prospective students know exactly what qualities are being ranked when they see numbers lined up on a page. These lists' popularity shows that students don't just want to be told what school is "the best" – they want to find out what school is right for them.

We appreciate that our college understands prospective students' difficulties in finding the college best-suited for their needs and that they remain sensitive to how the "U.S. News and World Report" list is ill-suited to helping students through that process. In 2007, President Glotzbach condemned the magazine's rankings for misleading students, going on to pledge that Skidmore would refuse to participate in the "U.S. News and World Report" reputational surveys that play a significant role in the formation of the "Best Colleges." The college is also notable in the absence of those rankings appearing in the college's promotional material, in a deliberate choice that we applaud.

Glotzbach understands, just as any student who has endured the college process does, that deciding where to attend college is a difficult process, one made no easier by the misleading numbers game of "U.S. News and World Report." As we pass prospective students visiting the campus this spring, we empathize with the challenges they face. Regardless of whether potential applicants like what they see at our college, we hope they see Skidmore's particular strengths and opportunities – ones that can't be enumerated.

Our private college is also public: Daydreams

Posted by Rick Chrisman

I was taken by surprise at the community meeting about race the week before last, although I shouldn't have been. The highly emotional outpouring by students of color about their mistreatment and resultant misery at Skidmore was sobering for me, who believed that things were much better than that.

But then I remembered where we are: America! Most of us are Americans, having grown up in a society that faces persistent racism (though there are some exceptions). We brought this racial tension to Skidmore with us from our hometowns and, in doing so, we perpetuate this sort of society. But there's hope.

At the meeting, the calls for action were heartfelt, and promises were made to come back with good proposals for action. Yes, some people were dismayed that they had heard this conversation before at Skidmore. A Skidmore News clipping from 1994 recently posted over a water fountain read "Race Relations at Skidmore One Year Later: is it getting any better?" Apparently not, but the upside is that the conversation has been renewed.

So, we ask, who's to blame? Who is responsible for the ongoing racial hostility here? Can't more be done to prevent this unnecessary pain? We are overdue to "pop the bubble," as Danny Pforte said in his article last week.

But the bubble that I blame for our distress is not one of whiteness, privilege, affluence or ignorance alone, although these factors aren't totally irrelevant. The real problem is one of self-control. Skidmore students seem to see themselves in a "domestic bubble" — in other words, to imagine their college campus as being their big comfy living room.

The reality, of course, is that they have left home and now occupy a larger public space where the rules of communication are much stricter. Students must remember that public discourse is far more limited than private. This rule applies to both to college life and the work world.

Apparently, many students haven't adjusted to this new reality. Back in their living rooms at home, where they are accepted by everybody under that roof no matter how they behave, they are accustomed to exhaling their opinions and fulminations. And that's what private space is for. In the larger community, however, the rules of etiquette change.

Here at Skidmore, we are suddenly met with relationships that differ greatly from those we had at home. They are public relationships, friendships between strangers. Everyone you meet is a candidate for friendship; everyone in the dorm, the dining hall, on the team and in class. In joining this liberal institution, we suddenly become equal-opportunity friends motivated collectively by curiosity, empathy, a passion for learning and what I would call a kind of communal love.

Danielle S. Allen says that such friendship "is not an emotion, but a practice, a set of hard-won, complicated habits that are used to bridge trouble, difficulty and differences of personality, experience and aspiration." She calls this "the citizenship of trust-building." If this mindset were to overtake the Skidmore campus, it would eliminate everything from anonymous racial slurs to more overt harassment. But that's a big "if."

The distinction between the private and public spheres is common sense, but to many students, the boundary of the public sphere is unclear. As far as they are concerned, the discourse appropriate within the private sphere carries over indefinitely, thus invading the invisible public one. And this is how the pain begins.

During the performance after the community meeting that Friday, James Baldwin looked out at the audience and lovingly exhorted them: "Take care of each other, protect each other." It was beautifully said, and it's not that hard to do.

Charlie Sheen wins hearts, blows minds: Ancient American Traditions

Posted by Brian Connor

Not in recent history has an episode of celebrity sensationalism struck so deeply at the underpinnings of the American cultural psyche. Charlie Sheen's wild drug and prostitute-riddled escapades are the latest product of our culture's celebrity mania. He went off the deep-end, TMZ and major news agencies tell us. And now he must pay. Our capitalist overlords who created him now demand that he submit himself to a public shaming, that he shrink into rehab and await exoneration.

Our culture builds up celebrities and destroys them, in an endless cycle of exploitation. Sheen, however, is attempting to break that cycle and reclaim his life from the capitalist puppet-masters of our society who are determined to dictate his destiny. And he's winning.

Charlie Sheen, after several news-making incidents of debauchery involving prostitutes and cocaine binges, has for the past few days been making the rounds on television shows preaching his newfound gospel of freedom. He has spoken erratically, at great length, about "waging a war" and "winning," bizarrely asserting his identity as a "Vatican assassin" with "tiger blood and Adonis DNA," as an "F-18, bro." But throughout his strange rants a theme emerges. Beneath his meandering wordplay is an indictment of our society and its judgments and a reclamation of his right to self-determine his own image and life.

Chris Hedges, known for his war correspondence in the Middle East, gave a lecture this past fall as a part of Rick Chrisman's "Theater of War in a House of Peace" lecture series. Hedges delivered an exposé of our current cultural and political predicament, in which celebrity worship serves as a glamorous façade for our twisted moral and economic ambitions, defining and justifying our "Empire of Illusion."

Michael Jackson, he argued, was the personification of our warped cultural values and priorities. "In celebrity culture we destroy what we worship. The commercial exploitation of Michael Jackson's death was orchestrated by the corporate forces that rendered Jackson insane," Hedges said. Sheen appears to be the next victim, a discredited celebrity whose fall from stardom is being exploited with equal attention and relish as his rise.

Sheen's "insanity," his incoherent declarations of selfdom, are ridiculed, endlessly parodied and mocked. Internet memes, celebrity gossip blogs and major news agencies are all given purpose in destroying him. His outlandish behavior is treated as equally important as foundation-shattering democratic uprisings in Northern Africa.

All the gears of our merciless media are fused into an unstoppable cultural monster that aspires to dictate his behavior, to judge and mock his every word, to reclaim control of his life, to rehabilitate him and reeducate him to the rules of celebrity and remind him that he belongs to us, that we created him and we can destroy him, that he is ours to judge and embrace and ridicule.

His highly personal rants are dismissed as insane by "authoritative and professional" media personalities. His oddly employed baseball analogies, bizarre proclamations of war and instantaneous recovery from drug addiction are detached from reality, we are told. Yet when seen in the broader context of this gross media carnival of human commoditization that is our consumer culture, Sheen's proclamations of war and assertions that he is "winning" appear utterly sane, utterly truthful.

Who are we, Sheen is brutally, confrontationally asking, who are the media, who are the celebrity rehab doctors, who are the "news" anchors on major networks, who are the producers of his films and television shows, who are the puppet-masters of our corporate society, to dictate how he should live his life?

Sheen is refusing to submit to the cycle of use and abuse, the commoditization of his humanity, which his corporate bosses are imposing upon him. There is something inspirational about his resistance to his detractors, his "winning" attitude.

Sheen's outspokenness in the face of imminent and imposed cultural humiliation and exploitation is reminiscent of Howard Beale's, the prophetic news anchor in Sidney Lumet's 1976 film Network. A low-level newscaster, Beale begins to "lose his mind." He goes on a rant on live TV and decries the dehumanizing consumerism of modern life epitomized and perpetuated by network television, in which products and wealth are made the balm for existential fear and the executors of happiness. He ends his rant with the words "I'm a human being, goddammit! My life has value!" and urges his viewers to declare that "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore!" His mantra of resistance ultimately becomes a meaningless commercial jingle, a parody of its former meaning, as the powers he means to confront ultimately commoditize his radicalism and then destroy him.

In the climactic scene of the film, Beale is confronted by Arthur Jensen, the uppermost corporate executive, who speaks with a divine aura of authority an omniscience, telling Beale, "you get up on your little 21 inch screen and howl about America and democracy. There is no America. There is no democracy. There is only IBM and ITT and AT&T and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide and Exxon … The world is a college of corporations … one vast and ecumenical holding company in which all men will hold a share of stock, all necessities provided, all anxieties tranquilized, all boredom amused." Beale, realizing the futility of combating such a pernicious and entrenched capitalist system, abandons his radicalism and complies with the corporate will.

If the powers-that-be have their way, Sheen's story will be turned into a faux-moralistic one. They will ruin him, destroy him and essentially present his life as a model of what not to do. In a culture that has been hijacked to worship celebrities, to believe that celebrity is the one true trophy of success, Sheen's story will be presented as a case of a fallen star, a washed up celebrity. What he really did was challenge the corporately sponsored rule of law that we are all instructed to abide by.

His "winning" mantra, what commentators would have us believe is the pathetic delusions of an over the hill Hollywood actor, actually makes sense in the vicious system of oppressive delusion in which we all exist. He is "winning" the war over his soul, resisting submission to the forces that shape

Hedges writes that, "the fame of celebrities masks the identities of those who possess true power — corporations and the oligarchic elite … The fantasy of celebrity culture is not designed simply to entertain. It is designed to drain us emotionally, confuse us about our identity, make us blame ourselves for our predicament, condition us to chase illusions of fame and happiness and keep us from fighting back."

Politicians inspire us with fear and hatred for one another to advance corporate agendas. Giant corporations seek to encroach upon and determine our lives, keep us entertained as our natural environment is pillaged and our working class is economically raped. Their news organs instill us with fear, and their advertising teaches us that buying their products and living according to their rules is the only way to avoid public shame and ensure wealth, celebrity and happiness. Facebook launches us into cyber-reality in which we can determine our appearance down to the slightest minutiae, meticulously calculate how we are presented to the people around us, and thereby shirk meaningful social interaction. The battle for our souls is taking place each and everyday. Charlie Sheen is winning. What are you doing about it?

Letter: The problem is a lack of respect

Posted by Anonymous

After the "Food for Thought" posters, the community meetings, the teach-in hosted by the college administration and manifold articles in The Skidmore News about diversity, it is clear that the college is facing the breakdown of its attempts to create a stable, diverse environment.

Theories have come from every direction as to why the college's formula has not worked; students and faculty alike are trying to figure out what went wrong and how to fix it. This writer would like to pose a theory that he has not heard yet: the current problems on campus have their root in a lack of respect and good-will overall at Skidmore.

Recall the student-led community meeting that took place as a result of the "Food for Thought" posters. If you were in the room, something would've become clear to you as you hear the students speak: everyone present had been the target of some ridicule, extreme or mild, during their college career. A discussion that focused on prejudice against Skidmore's minority groups revealed that people of all statuses have dealt with malicious jokes, slander and hateful actions at this college. This is a problem that members of every group, from minorities to the majorities, have clearly experienced.

It is definitely regrettable that the recent bias incidents and diversity problems were what it took to make this problem apparent to us. In following the college's second strategic goal, the administration has taken various steps – like diversifying the student and faculty population – to simulate our world's diversity inside the campus's borders. But what Skidmore has failed to realize is that a diverse community without the core value of respect for others (especially for individuals with different backgrounds than our own) will not succeed. Indeed, it cannot.

What the recent diversity tensions have shown us is that the college community greatly lacks moral development. There is currently no emphasis on teaching students how to be honorable, upright and respectful individuals. Though the Skidmore administration teaches multiculturalism and diversity, it has sincerely failed at providing the lessons of compassion and tolerance where are co – if not pre – requisite. Because of the college's deficiency in instilling such values, Skidmore has turned into a place which one student who attended the meeting described as "very bitter."

No community can survive if there is not respect and good-will toward one's neighbor, least of all a diverse community where we may have little in common.

To repair the situation on campus, as it is imperative that we do, I challenge the college administration and the students to push for a greater emphasis on the moral values that have recently been neglected. We, the students, must realize that even the smallest remark of arrogance, hatred or disrespect has enough power to destroy the whole college, since at some point we will have to choose between kindness and hatred. We must also remember that our personal values will eventually shape the community, and if we push to be a kinder people, then we will build a more compassionate campus.

The administration must equally uphold these lessons. It is not enough to push for academic success, diversity, informed citizenship and independence of resources, the college's current strategic goals.

If we go to a college where values of respect and benevolence toward others are not in the forefront of our education, then we've already lost.

The writer of this letter is a member of the class of 2012, and asked to remain anonymous.

Letter: Perspective in a position of privilege

Posted by Matt Cowe

Humans are a tribal species. We like people who look, speak and act like we do. This may be because our brains evolved to categorize, to associate certain things with "good" or "bad," "safe" or "dangerous." This instinct is advantageous in the wild: I've never seen a tiger other than on TV, but if I see one in person, I'll run for my life.

Unfortunately, our societies evolve much faster than our brains do. If I had grown up in an all white neighborhood and my only exposure to racial minorities was through the biased eyes of the media, my instincts might take precedence, and I probably wouldn't be able to make any legitimate assumptions about them.

Yes, there has been a trend toward a more positive portrayal of minorities; I can think of at least three cartoons with highly intelligent black characters. But these shows are designed too shallowly to undermine the overwhelming amount of negative stereotypes: the murderers, the rapists, the high school drop-outs, the freeloaders who suck "our" country dry because they are on welfare. Remember that there is a difference between the idea that "stereotypes have to come from somewhere" and this endless recycling of narrow-minded dehumanizing caricatures.

As embarrassing as it may be, I admit to having prejudices of my own. It's reflexive, and although it's okay if the subject is a tiger, the same isn't true if it's a human being with all the same needs and frailties that I share. Passively absorbing these prejudices took no effort, but seeing beyond them requires constant vigilance.

I am privileged in many ways, being a white, male, native English speaker who attends a prestigious liberal arts college. But I am also unprivileged in several ways, being gay and from the only family on welfare in a town of mansions. As a result, I find myself caught in between.

Those who know nothing but privilege aggravate me. I have felt attacked without cause, and blamed for crimes I can't recall committing. I'm frustrated when the wealthy conflate their social status with personal achievement. I have been frustrated with heterosexuals who take their families' acceptance for granted, and who don't know what it is like to be the subject of constant political debate. It gets old hearing people

I argue whether people like you should be granted equal rights.

I have been on both sides of the conflict between the privileged and the unprivileged with fists and teeth clenched. But my anger isn't helping. It clouds my thinking.

Tension is mounting on campus. And although diversity discussions must be held, people don't take the time to breathe. Arguments become heated — which is understandable, given the gravity of the issue — but they need not become overly personal. There can be arrogance from both parties, an attitude that "I know all about, I'm right, you're wrong, and you are stupid and ignorant for disagreeing with me." And when this attitude emerges, it is far too easy to forget our common goal: a diverse and equitable student body.

Discrimination is dehumanizing in two ways: just as the abused gay kid is lowered to animal status by an attacker, so too does the attacker become an inhuman monster in the eyes of the victim. During these discussions, if we think of the other side as a bunch of ignorant wolves, then they will reciprocate this prejudice. If we keep our egos out of it, these discussions would be far more productive.

Finally, for those in privileged positions, have compassion for yourselves. It doesn't make you a bad person to be born into a position of power, to be frustrated by discussions on diversity or even to be ignorant to another culture or way of life. Sometimes the underprivileged don't handle these issues respectfully and will go out of their way to malign you. Some people are sensitive and are quick to get hostile. But don't get offended in turn; it's unfair, but that does not necessarily invalidate their position.

Embrace humility. Do not dismiss someone's ideas because he or she is hostile. Demand respect and patience and return it ten-fold. Read the literature. Broaden your understanding of discrimination and how it affects the lives of your peers. Go to lectures and meetings on the topic. But most importantly, set your ego aside and stop to think about what others have to say and what you can do to counteract inequality. Remember, fellow humans, remember to breathe. Deeply, and constantly.

Matt Cowe is a senior neuroscience major from Massachusetts.