Friendly Fire: Live and Let Dialogue, Part I: The campus dialoguers are not nearly as ?tolerant? as they like to think

Posted by Brendan James

*Editor's Note: Read Part II here. 

In my last column I mentioned that our culture of "dialogue" prevents Skidmore from developing a rigorous, deliberative atmosphere on campus and thereby prevents us from truly cultivating the liberal arts. In the aftermath of my remarks, criticism emerged that my analysis of our campus culture was out of touch and prejudicial. If only I would engage, some pleaded; if only I would attend some of the initiatives under scrutiny, I just might have an epiphany.

This week I set out to answer that charge of prejudice. Beginning the descent from my ivory tower, I made sure to accept the invitations of President Zeidan and VP Alamgir to the massive community dialogue held on Wednesday, dubbed "Interrupting Silence."

My attending the event definitely produced an epiphany: I now see that dialogues are far more limiting and dogmatic public forums than I had initially thought.

My confusion began almost immediately after the crowd on the second floor of the dining hall had settled to hear an introduction. Follow the story if you can: Zeidan and Alamgir kicked things off by explaining that last year, amid the Compton's controversy and moments of seriously bad press for Skidmore, there was at least a storm of campus dialoguing going on, in which all of our hopes and fears were served out in the open as a delicious emotional buffet.

This year, however, there have been no nationally embarrassing debacles and our campus has fallen quiet on such sensitive matters as racial tension, homophobia, etc. Whereas many might see this absence of disruption and tragedy as a desirable thing, SGA and Fight Club are worried that our relative quiet this year signifies a dangerous acceptance of some invisible toxin bubbling just under the surface. Having offered this exposition to the group in Murray-Aikins, the two SGA officers then opened the floor up to everyone.

And no one. After a few minutes of murmuring and collective feet shuffling, I raised my hand and followed up on Zeidan's question as to what constitutes this "silence." Are we not, I asked, a school that takes extra care to cater toward anxieties over these issues? Do we not have an IGR program designed to advance the intercultural aspirations of our Strategic Plan goals? Do we not have an actual VP of Diversity Affairs within SGA? A Bias Response Group? A Center for Sex and Gender Relations?

How, in other words, are we expected to construe Skidmore's campus as a place in which these issues are not addressed, let alone one where a silence is imposed upon the members of our community?

My questions, before long, were met with whispers and glares, which soon mutated into calls for me to shut up and let everyone get on with the preordained program. I was sternly informed that by asking these questions I was "perpetuating the silence," which wonderfully confirmed my suspicion that the dialoguers are incapable of perceiving any unfamiliar sound within their echo chamber.

"Now we all know why you are here," another warned. "You have your agenda. But now, what you have to do is listen. And you have to empathize." Empathize, or else. So much for tolerance.

In no way were my interests covert: I was indeed there to ask questions, but I was also there to observe. So I did shut up for the next hour and a half.

What followed was unexpected: only fifteen minutes after I was silenced and the ventilator of personal narratives was rattling on full blast, the population of the room swiftly dropped by half. It seems that all of my indignant peers were actually as turned off by the whole enterprise as I was. So much for community.

I can hear a response: "Well, maybe if you hadn't wasted our time at the start, we would have had time to stay and listen to all the stories." (I now hear, following this curt remark, a downpour of snaps-of-agreement.) Forgive me dear reader and fellow dialoguer, but you must have noticed the deafening silence at the start of the event, that silence which was only overcome by some poking and prodding.

This, to make explicit my argument here, is evidence of the inherent impotence of the dialogue culture. And the more one exposes such impotence, the more swiftly one is labeled an obstacle to change.

Throughout, the organizers and participants repeated that this was to be a "free flowing dialogue" – an obvious falsification, evident as soon as one noticed the venom spat upon anyone who led the conversation away from the understood, preapproved topics. These topics are, exclusively, narratives of racial, socioeconomic or sexuality-based marginalization, and, for some spice, also the guilt of rich students who struggle to interact with their marginalized peers.

I cannot deliver my entire critique of either this specific dialogue or the larger project in the remaining space, but until next time, permit me to state the most basic problem with the entire system.

What I learned on Wednesday was this: the content of each dialogue is simply an aggregate of many unpleasant yet individual and disparate experiences. This aggregate is then distorted and recast as a universal, vague and institutional problem that must be addressed in order for our community to be safe and open. But, again, since the atoms of this grand problem are merely distinct, unique cases of unpleasantness, there really is nothing to be done, except cope with life's lemons – so long as one is being given a fair opportunity to pursue one's goals in the broader picture.

So the participants soon become weary and emotionally drained and head home, having conducted nothing more than an AA-style support group meeting. Thus the crew only accomplishes the first two items listed in SGA's fevered email advertising Wednesday's event: "We'll eat, we'll talk, and we'll finally MAKE THE CHANGE WE WANT TO SEE."

But thank the gods these dialogues are so impotent. As I will show, if the folks sat in Murray-Aikins that night had their way it would create a truly cold, unyielding silence on this campus that no dialogue could ever hope to interrupt.

Editorial: On heels of candidate's remarks, rethinking higher education

Posted by the Editorial Board

While individuals generally benefit – whether extrinsically or intrinsically – from further schooling, the education we receive at a four-year college like Skidmore is not for everyone. Americans, whether adults already in the work force or students just leaving high school should consider all of their post-secondary training options before enrolling. 

The issue of work force development has been brought back to the foreground by contenders for this year's presidential election. "President Obama once said he wants everybody in America to go to college. What a snob," Santorum said while on a campaign stop in Michigan. "You're good, decent men and women who go out and work hard every day and put their skills to tests that aren't taught by some liberal college professor."

Santorum was likely making reference to President Obama's statements to a joint session of Congress on February 2009, in which Obama called on every American to participate in additional training beyond that which they received in high school.

"I ask every American to commit to at least one year or more of higher education or career training," Obama said. "This can be community college or a four-year school, vocational training or an apprenticeship. But whatever the training may be, every American will need to get more than a high school diploma."

While Rick Santorum clearly misapprehended President Obama's statements, he is correct, in as much has he says that college is not for everyone. While all Americans with the aptitude and academic drive should have the possibility of college attendance available to them, it would be ridiculous to have every American attend a four-year college.

For many Americans, a four-year degree would not suit their wants, needs and desires. Fortunately, our economy creates demands for workers with skill sets that four-year institutions do not provide.

To bridge the gap between the need for better trained workers and currently limited access to proper training, President Obama's proposed budget includes an $8 billion Community College to Career Fund.  This program aims at training two million workers in high-demand fields including health care, advanced manufacturing, clean energy, transportation and information technology. The type of training provided could lead directly to high-paying employment in these sectors of the economy. 

This program could not come at a more appropriate time.  Many states have cut funding for their state universities and community colleges.  When compounded with increases in tuition at these institutions, it is becoming increasingly difficult for people with limited means to receive the kind of training that leads to jobs. 

In addition to problems we face assuring the availability of vocational training, we have problems sending the right students to college. The graduation rate for four-year colleges rests at around 60 percent. Though reasons for dropping out are numerous, over-encouragement of high school students is at least partly to blame. 

At 18 years old, though legally adults, most of us have not had any appreciable life experience. We may not be mature enough to decide what it is that we want to do with the rest of our lives. Though many people do discover their calling in college, this can be expensive, especially if that calling does not require a four-year degree. Navigating a course catalog of hundreds of classes can be a daunting task for college freshman – many of whom may change their major or drop-out. 

High school counselors should refocus getting students to think about all of their post-secondary education options. With the reputations of many high schools dependent on the percentage of their students they send to college, there is a push to send all students, even those who are not ready or for whom college is not their best option. 

One solution worthy of consideration is the gap year. At many institutions of higher education, including our own, accepted students have the option of taking gap years. Students can defer their studies one year and still be guaranteed a place when they return. Students can use this time to gain work experience, or consider what it is that they would like to do for a living.  

Our country can benefit form a better-trained and more efficient work force. Keeping the United States competitive in the global economy will demand more training on behalf of our workers.  As a branch of American society with a stake in all of this, we at Skidmore should remember to avoid old, reliable and perhaps comfortable ways of thinking as questions such as these evolve.

Opinion: Syria in Perspective: A student of Syrian descent reflects on her time living under al-Assad's regime

Posted by Kristina Kassis

The ongoing uprisings in the Middle East, specifically in Syria, have spurred wide debate and controversy all over the world. Personally, I believe that Bashar al-Assad's refusal to resign in the face of threats and civil war in his country is merely a result of his stubborn pride and lust for power and wealth.

If Assad genuinely cared about the Syrian people, he would swallow his pride and step down immediately. I admire the people of Syria for fighting valiantly for their rights and freedom, both of which Assad has denied them for nearly a decade, and I think it is high time this tyrant be brought to justice.

During the first summer I spent in Syria's bustling city of Aleppo, I was under the impression everyone loved the president. Though he is a member of the notorious Ba'ath party, Bashar al-Assad was initially viewed as a moderate compared to his father, whose massacre of the city of Hama took the lives of at least 10,000 of his own people.

When Assad the younger first came to visit Aleppo, festivals were thrown in his honor and his face adorned every building in town. However, I quickly learned that I was witnessing Assad's regime from a very limited perspective — that of wealthy Christians. As a demographic, wealthy Christians in Syria have benefited greatly from Assad's moderate regime.

My perspective of Assad's regime changed immensely when I went to work in a poor Muslim neighborhood. I was shocked to hear the whisperings of rebellion and hatred, and the stories of the injustices he had done to these innocent people.

When I heard that Assad had banned the wearing of burqas in universities, I was, frankly, shocked. This meant that thousands of women essentially had lost the right to attend college unless they abandoned the form of religion they believed in so strongly. How did he expect to get away with this in a country that is 90 percent Muslim? 

Decisions like these brought about the rebellion we see today. Initially, protesters assembled peacefully to exercise their right to free speech.  However, tensions escalated quickly as Assad himself resorted to force to suppress them.  His thirst for power over these people drove him to use brutally violent tactics. He should not be surprised that the very people he sought to oppress are fighting for their freedom from this nightmarish regime.

As a woman of Syrian descent living and studying in the U.S., I have heard many different accounts of the ongoing conflict in the Middle East. Assad is often referred to as a "tyrant" or a "terrorist." Some in the Middle East, perhaps marginally supportive of Assad, find this vocabulary offensive or misleading. But what is much more offensive is the labeling of the dissenters as "reckless." My question is this: How can you refer to people who are fighting for their rights and freedom as reckless? Would you not do the same under the circumstances?

For all intents and purposes, Bashar al-Assad is a terrorist. Though the early parts of his regime showed signs of progress and reform from the cruel dictatorship he inherited from his father, as soon as his people demanded a freer society he quickly resorted to violence and force,setting off the first of what became a series of withering crackdowns in April of last year. Assad sent tanks into restive cities as security forces opened fire on peaceful demonstrators, exercising their right to freedom of speech. Assad's actions, fueled by his lust for power, are unjustifiable and inexcusable.

It is clear that the time has come for Bashar al-Assad to swallow his misguided pride and realize that he is only asking for harm to himself and thousands of other innocent people if he continues to tighten his grip on a country that is already on the brink of civil war due to his unjust and unnecessary actions.  It is obvious that he does not care about his people, but rather only for his own status as a man of wealth and power.

Bashar al-Assad, like his father was before him, is a power-hungry tyrant who needs to be brought to justice immediately for the sake of millions of innocent people.

Opinion: Cooking to taste: Innovating dishes to satisfy all palates at the dining hall

Posted by Marcella Jewell

Complaining about seemingly infinite amounts of food in our Dining Hall is unwarranted and unjustifiable. With the fantastic selection of chef-prepared dishes and a grill where any meal can be customized to taste, students have only their lack of imagination to blame for bland dining. 

This human propensity to complain was exemplified in an Internet meme I ran across the other day. For those of you unfamiliar with Internet memes, they are ironic, sarcastic statements written on a corresponding picture. This particular meme portrayed a "first world problem." The picture illustrated a person gawking at an overflowing pantry. The top of the picture read, "Opens Pantry," followed by, "Nothing To Eat," on the bottom. Of course, I chuckled to myself until I stopped to think about the absurdity of the statement.  I was reminded of Skidmore's own cornucopia of food: D-hall. I couldn't help but compare the meme to how some students feel about our dining hall.

When I hear students complain about D-hall, I cannot help but shake my head in disappointment. Are they picky, or too lazy to choose from the vast amount of food that dining services provides? Though it may be in human nature to complain, those who tirelessly criticize the dining hall are disrespectful and undermine the efforts of dining services employees. 

A little independence and creativity go a long way in the kitchen. When my mother finally gave me permission to use the oven by myself, I fell in love with the art of cooking. I am an avid user of D-hall's grill and will be appreciative of this unique aspect of our dinning facility until the day I die. It is far less taxing than most think to put a personal spin on any meal D-hall provides. The opportunities are endless. 

I have decided to take it upon myself to change this ridiculousness. In an effort to help the Skidmore community appreciate D-hall and inspire students to be creative, I've recently published a photo blog, documenting my every day concoctions at D-hall. Future posts include: how to make caramelized bananas, breakfast burritos, "superfood" salads, personalized pizzas, and other meals that utilize the grill. My purpose is to draw awareness to the hidden aspects of D-hall like spices, sauces, and condiments. The secrets of getting the most out of D-hall is first and foremost knowing what ingredients to work with. 

Isn't Skidmore's motto "Creative Thought Matters?" Use that thought when preparing your meals as well! The more time you spend preparing a meal, the more appreciative you will be. D-hall is your kitchen. Do not underestimate your ability to satisfy one of the most delicate senses: taste. The next time you go to D-hall, don't forget your imagination. Happy cooking!

Opinion: Where does Jordan stand in the Arab Spring?: A student from Jordan reflects on the upheavals in the Arab World

Posted by Mohannad Aljawamis

*Editor's Note: Mohannad Aljawamis is Skidmore student and a Jordanian citizen who was born and raised in Jordan.

 "Not a single Arab citizen can practice democracy!" complains one performer on a Syrian comedy show. "In America, for instance, any American citizen can roam the public streets while freely denouncing the American president's policy," he says.

"That is not true!" says another performer. "It is identical here; any Arab citizen can roam the public streets while freely denouncing the American president's policy."

The deeper message delivered by these two Arab comedians is that the term democracy is often subjectively defined. Those of us interested in the developments in the Arab Spring would do well to remember this. In this time of tumultuous change, many Arabs are not seeking the liberal, Westernized version of freedom, the kind held in such high and exclusive esteem here in America.

What so many commentators on the Middle East miss is that such a Western understanding of democracy is unsuitable for the social, cultural, and religious structure of the Arab nations. Jordan is the exemplar of Middle Eastern countries that can respond to the frustrations of its people within its own democratic framework, rather than one imposed from outside.

Jordan, like any nation, experiences its internal debates and strife, but the reason we have heard of so little trouble within the country is not a result of some stifling force or oppression, as I personally believe that these terms do not exist in King Abdullah's vocabulary. Rather, it is rationality and good education that motivates Jordanians to scrutinize their problems instead of combating them violently.  

We have our fair share of troubles: Jordan is a poor country that is suffering from poverty, inflation, and other economic crises. But in comparison to other countries such as Libya, where abundant wealth was monopolized by a dictatorship, Jordan is theoretically hopeless in solving its predicaments. Jordan is one of the water-poorest countries in the world and it lacks most of the natural resources that other Middle Eastern countries relish (i.e. oil.)

Thus far, Jordan has been able to maintain its tranquil environment due to the prosperous public diplomacy of His Majesty, King Abdullah II. King Abdullah has built strong, trust-based relationships with many states in the region and the world.  He has also emphasized the importance of education for Jordanian citizens as the best recourse they have to meet the nation's challenges (especially the economic situation.)

There are several initiatives that are worth mentioning in regard to King Abdullah's educational vision: to name only one, there is King's Academy, a prestigious, independent, American boarding school that aims on fostering global understanding by all means. It is this type of foresight and understanding that sets Jordan apart when dealing with the sort of movements sweeping an otherwise chaotic region.

As the world has witnessed, the spark that Mohammed Bouazizi lit in his act of self-immolation set the whole Middle East on fire: it was the "a-ha!" moment, when Arabs realized that violence might have to serve as a catalyst to democracy. And so Arabs refused to have their future jeopardized by rulers of despotic regimes. This precipitous revolutionary fever spread to the majority of the Middle Eastern countries, including Jordan. Nonetheless, when contrasting the Jordanian Arab Spring with the Egyptian, the differences are rather critical.

In Egypt, oppression, poverty, and unresponsive government were the major drives of the popular movement. In contrast, in Jordan the revolutionary drive was fueled by the public's frustrations of the fragmentation of political parties, which have never had a meaningful existence. Those parties, such as the Muslim Brotherhood, control most of the radical movement by standing against the King and the government.

The majority of Jordanian citizens, however, are proponents of the current system and they are responding to those dissenting parties with "loyalty" processions. One must be careful not to confuse the loudest opinion with the majority's opinion.

Once more, when speaking of democratization it is crucial to acknowledge and account for the country and/or the culture that is being addressed. We must understand that democracy can exist in many different forms. Those who anticipated that Jordan would descend into similar chaos as Libya or Egypt have been wrong up to this point, simply because they have not realized this fact.

Jordan's owes its endurance as a nation to a style of democracy that works for it, even if it is not the model preferred by Western pundits or policymakers. The sooner these more nuanced realities enter into the conversation of this most important topic, the better.

Editorial: Skidmore admissions gets the balance right: As Supreme Court case looms, we can reflect on Skidmore admissions

Posted by the Editorial Board

On Tuesday, the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case on affirmative action in institutions of higher education. While Skidmore College is a private institution and is not subject to the same admission guidelines as state universities, the case provides us the opportunity to examine our own policies ­­— those of our past and present.

The Supreme Court's decision in the new case, Fisher v. Texas, has the potential to undo its 5-4 decision in 2003's Gutter v. Bollinger, which forbids public universities from using a points system to ensure minority enrollment, but allows race and ethnicity to be taken into consideration in a less explicit manner. Fisher, who was denied entry into the Texas public university system, argues that the state cannot supplement their race-neutral admissions policy with one that is race-conscious. 

While the outcome of the coming decision will not have an effect on private institutions like Skidmore, it provides the occasion to examine our past policies and how our admissions process will shape Skidmore's classes in the future. 

Skidmore's current admissions policies and commitment to ensuring diversity has come a long way from the practices enacted at the college's founding. Professor Mary C. Lynn, in her book, "Make No Small Plans: A History of Skidmore College," details some of Skidmore's embarrassing policies of previous decades. "Certain admissions practices, while common at the time throughout the country, were unfair, undemocratic, and opposed the early values of Skidmore's own history," she writes.  

African American students were not welcome at Skidmore until the 1940s and Skidmore's admissions policy heavily discriminated against Jewish students for decades. 

Despite the undesirable admissions practices in the 20s and 30s, in 1943 English Professor Joseph Bolton, under the direction of President Henry T. Moore's, wrote a quickly adopted non-discrimination policy: "Skidmore College as an institution favors a policy of non-discrimination as regards racial, nationality, and religious group relations." 

"By 1949, Skidmore returned to the values of its founder and actively recruited students of color, even searching for scholarship funds so that more African American students could attend." Lynn adds.  

Skidmore's admission process considers several factors in a students academics and background in their decisions. Admissions prefers to see that, for the most part, when advanced courses are offered, applicants have chosen to challenge themselves. Grades are obviously an important factor in the admissions decision, but it is secondary to a rigorous course load. 

Dean of Admissions, Mary Lou Bates, explains how the Admissions Committee selects a class from thousands of qualified applications: "This year we have nearly 5750 applications, the vast majority of whom are qualified, yet we can only accept about 40% of them. We look for students who have taken rigorous academic programs and done well in them but we look at other factors, as well. We don't simply admit a class by the numbers of gpa and test scores. We are committed to creating a community that is diverse and inclusive, representing students from different ethnic, racial, social economic and geographic backgrounds so these are plus factors as we sort amongst thousands of qualified applicants."

Skidmore, as an institution, does a lot right when it comes to selecting prospective students. In addition to a student's academic credentials, the Admissions Office makes an effort to ensure several levels of diversity are represented in each incoming class. The office considers a student's socioeconomic situation, geographical location, athletic ability and musical talent. The combination of all of these factors prevents a homogeneity and ensures both academic excellence and a diverse student body. 

However, still it may behoove us look for other ways to make our student body more representative of the general population. 

One of the factors that Admissions considers is a student's financial means. Skidmore College is not a need-blind institution. Our sister institutions are split on whether or not to consider a students ability to pay. Our sister institutions, such as Hamilton, Vassar and Smith are all need-blind. While Skidmore's need-conscious policy helps ensure that the school's balance sheet is in the black, it does have some effect on the school's demographics. 

Since its accreditation as a college in 1922, Skidmore has come a long way in expanding its opportunities. In general, our efforts to ensure a multi-faceted diversity on campus are effective.  In addition to the good work that we are already doing, it may be worthwhile to weigh the pros and cons of our current need-conscious policy and what effects it has on the incoming classes. 

Friendly Fire: In Defense of Stress: Or: How I learned to keep worrying and despise the Flow Jam

Posted by Brendan James

*Editor's Note: Given the number of responses from members or supporters of Fight Club and the Flow Jam project, we would like to make it known that anyone may submit a reply to this (or any) article for the Letters to the Editor section by emailing skidnews@skidmore.edu.

As I drifted through the spiritualist swamp that overtook Case Center on the first day of Skidmore's new-age festival, Flow Jam, the first words to surface in my mind came from Edna St. Vincent Millay's imperishable poem, "Renascence":

"Ah, awful weight!" she groans. "Infinity pressed down upon the finite me!"

This week, "Infinity," in its various crystal, liquid and tablet forms, is weighing heavily on our finite campus. Flow Jam's sponsor, the college's student mediation club, is hosting nightly seminars on miracles, chi, and transcendence, and the SGA Speakers Bureau has contributed $1,500 to a lecture on the topic of "mind-body-spirit healing." Last week, in this space, Rick Chrisman, Skidmore News columnist and Director of Religious and Spiritual Life, penned a battle hymn for the war against bad vibes.

Rest (rest!) assured, Flow Jam is here to dissolve our anxiety, our darker thoughts, our sense of struggle – in other words, what makes us young and alive. As chief organizer Chris Lord '12 put it: "It's about learning how to eliminate stress, and becoming just totally in-the-present and at peace."

Since it appears almost everyone is in agreement on the desirability of this pacific ideal, on campus and elsewhere, permit me here to say a few things in defense of stress. My case is no rhetorical exercise; there is something to Flow Jam that brings to bear a larger ill plaguing our campus.

First let us locate the necessity of stress where it is most obvious. Here, at an academic institution, the engine of the intellect does not take idle, mellow tranquility as its fuel. Academia is a world in which the conversation is only advanced by the opposition of ideas, brought on by dissatisfaction, argument and projects both taxing and nerve-wracking. And what paper or presentation has any of us ever worked on that was both supremely rewarding and devoid of a struggle? Stress, in fact, is the midwife of every great achievement and hard-won effort, particularly in the collegiate setting.

The suppression of conflict and anxiety also has dismal aesthetic consequences. Under the influence of the new-age, "stress-free" enterprise, all art becomes ambiance. A vibrant canvas usually does more to disrupt one's "energy" than to chill one out – and so under the direction of holism and stress-management the visual arts shrivel into lifeless renderings of triggerfish and lotuses. (If the reader finds herself bemused here, she need only look up at the nearest terrapin tapestry hanging in her dorm or apartment.)

Most disturbing is that music, the most vivacious of the arts, is replaced by fuzzy, meditative humming. The sublime manipulations of Debussy, Gershwin and Waits are hardly a good background for your 24-hour craniosacral therapy; much more reassuring and unifying is the tuneless synth module. Now that we're listening with care, surely we must recognize the inherent dissonance between a college's cultivation of the arts and that creeping drone of yoga sound therapy.

Look even closer. Friction, anxiety, pressure – such things are all, quite literally, the prime source of any movement, any activity, any sensation or exhilaration in the physical world (and, if I might insist, the only world we've got).  The buzzing resistance between each and every atomic particle must say something about the life-affirming character of what spiritualists and quacks contemptuously refer to as "stress."

And so Aldous Huxley, no stranger to either the pleasures or dangers of transcendent spirituality, quoted Ephesus on the matter:

"Homer was wrong in saying: 'Would that strife might perish from among gods and men!' He did not see that he was praying for the destruction of the universe; for if his prayer was heard, all things would pass away."

Before you accuse me of taking this all too seriously, I'll state for the record that I chuckled all the way through the carnival of pseudoscience and shamanism that passed through Case Center on Monday afternoon. It was a kind of sick treat to see all the snake oil and magic healing crystals on display in the student center of an accredited institution of higher education. G.K. Chesterton would have been delighted to see his thesis validated, as every neon pamphlet avowed to its reader that X brand of psychic treatment requires no religion or "belief system."

No, of course one can't help but giggle at all this claptrap. I even sat down to have my "auric field" prodded by a grizzled veteran of the Reiki trade, if only for the conversation.

But beneath the beads and incense I submit that there lies a genuine concern that goes beyond Flow Jam. (By the looks of the faces on prospective students and their parents walking through Case on Monday, I am not alone.) What makes this lethargic festival a particularly undesirable thing for Skidmore is that, quite frankly, much our college community already suffers enough from a decadent and near-pervasive idleness.

Looking around, it increasingly appears as though many of us here want things easy and stress-free, or not at all: students advise one another on what class garners the easiest A's; both faculty and students desire timid "dialogue" over rigorous argument; even Integrity Board justice deals with each offender's "narrative" rather than her transgression.

It should be no surprise, then, that we see ventures such as Flow Jam blossoming; it is only one face of a very limiting and frivolous aspect of our campus culture. For that reason, I would emphasize that I don't mean to pick solely on the good people at Fight Club – there are plenty others who require a little stressing out.

But where to begin? I wonder if the lotus-eaters, the consensus-lovers, of Skidmore will make the first move. The idea of them stimulating a debate doesn't seem consistent with the current state of affairs. But if they do take a hard look at what I've brought to bear, perhaps with their help we can change all of this. After all – to stay consistent with this week's theme – the reader might remember what the hotdog vendor told the Buddhist after the pious customer asked for change back for his $20 bill:

"Change comes only from within."

Soapbox: Slashing defense budget need not leave us defenseless: The Obama administration asserts America's military power while slashing wasteful spending

Posted by Eric Shapiro

It has become increasingly clear over the past few years that the Obama administration is devoted to making the the U.S. military leaner and more efficient. It's necessary for the U.S. to strike an appropriate balance that will allow it to maintain its military supremacy while simultaneously cutting back on unnecessary expenditures.

After a decade of post-Cold War dithering, 9/11 provided the U.S. with a clear and unambiguous foreign policy direction. The attack seemed to mandate a vigorous and immediate response from the world's only superpower; hence, the rare displays of bipartisanship from Congress that culminated in the Afghanistan and Iraq Wars.

The next decade of conflict abroad served as a long and painful wakeup call, with the U.S. forced to question its role in the world to an extent not seen since the Vietnam War. By the 2008 elections, the drawbacks of the War on Terror had become painfully clear.

For one, the economic crisis called new attention to the spiraling national debt, in part the product of two costly wars largely funded by China. Furthermore, the often hostile reaction of the international community, coupled with America's failure to win the hearts and minds of the very people's it sought to "democratize," caste serious doubt on the viability of nation-building as a counter-terrorism strategy. These disconcerting realities have given rise to a new skepticism in the U.S. regarding what role, if any, the world's only superpower should play in international affairs.

This sense of doubt comes at a very dangerous time, with the Middle East in a state of chaos and Iran on the verge of acquiring nuclear weapons.  It seems likely that the prospect of intervention in Iran and/or Syria will put foreign policy back on the political agenda in advance of the 2012 elections. If this is the case, voters will be bombarded with all manner of extreme positions in the coming months, advocating everything from isolationism to a ground war with Iran. The key will be to maintain a balanced approach to foreign policy, one that takes the nation's dire economic situation into account while also remaining mindful of America's security commitments abroad.

The latest military budget proposed by the Obama Administration, which would bring troop deployment abroad back to 2005 levels and cut funding from conventional weapon development, aims to do just that. Unsurprisingly, the new military budget has drawn criticism from both sides of the aisle. Hawks and reflexive Obama-bashers on the right have accused the president of neutering the military and speeding American decline. The Left (and Ron Paul), still bitter that many of the Bush Administration's controversial counter-terrorism policies are still in place, have accused Obama of squandering precious funds on the military that could be better-utilized to stimulate the economy at home. The eventual GOP nominee will almost certainly cite Obama's proposed military cuts as evidence that the president is leading America into decline.

However, it is important that Americans don't overreact to mismanagement of those conflicts and retreat into isolationism. There are myriad of practical reasons that this would be a bad idea. For one, U.S. economic power is inextricably tied to its military capacities. In this globalized economy, the smallest of events could set of a major economic chain reaction, and the U.S. is better equipped than any other state to prevent rogue regimes from disrupting the world economy. The perception that the U.S. no longer has the will to defend its interests could embolden hostile states to be more belligerent.

Suppose, for example, the Iranian regime decides to block off the Strait of Hormuz, which numerous states in Europe depend on for the shipment of oil. The best way to prevent such things from occurring is with the threat of military force. The U.N. and international institutions have time and time again proven incapable of dealing with rogue states with irrational regimes that flout world opinion. As the major world power, the U.S. is in a unique position to keep these regimes in line. There are also humanitarian benefits to the considered and well-applied application of force in international affairs. The recent intervention in Libya – nominally "led" by European states but dependent on U.S. military and logistical support – comes to mind. 

And what of our perpetually imperiled allies? Numerous states (Taiwan, South Korea, Georgia, Israel) provide valuable strategic and ideological footholds in otherwise unfriendly regions of the world.  These countries depend on the U.S. for economic and military assistance. Send the impression that we are no longer unconditionally devoted to their security and we risk not only damaging our credibility, but putting countless lives at risk. Without the threat of U.S. military retaliation, who can seriously doubt that North Korea would immediately overrun its Southern neighbor and spread its brutal totalitarian regime as far as its enormous military allows?  What incentive will competitors like Russia have to take us seriously if they get the impression that the U.S. is no longer willing to defend the allies it has committed itself to protecting?  

None of this is to say that the status quo is acceptable. There are ways for the U.S. to cut back on military expenditures without sacrificing economic and security interests. Long, drawn out wars and "nation building" ventures of the kind undertaken in Iraq are both costly and impractical. They bear a great deal of responsibility for the crippling national debt, and it remains to be seen whether Iraq and Afghanistan will be better of in the long run thanks to our efforts.

In addition, the military industrial complex is very real and as devoted as ever to lining the greedy pockets of military contractors by cranking out endless lines of expensive new aircraft and missile defense systems. This is in spite of the fact that many experts are saying that conventional military forces are becoming less relevant (although still essential) in the post-Cold War world. 

The key is for the U.S. to strike an appropriate balance that will allow it to maintain its military supremacy while simultaneously cutting back on unnecessary expenditures. It has become increasingly clear over the past few years that the Obama administration is devoted to this goal. Moral implications aside, the use of drones has proven to be an effective and relatively inexpensive way of hunting down and killing our enemies. And it was not an army, but an elite squad of Navy SEALs that took out Bin Laden.

It is reasonable to expect that these kinds of small-scale specialized operations will become progressively more effective and hence, more common. Unfortunately, such methods of warfare are no substitute for maintaining military bases in certain key regions to check hostile states. America's future will hinge in part on whether U.S. citizens comprehend the need for a common sense approach to military expenditure rather than retreating to ideological extremes that will not serve the nation well in the long run.

Healthful Hints: Drink to your health: The kind of consumption everyone can get behind

Posted by Zoe Silver

Sometimes, the best thing you can do for yourself is to drink a glass of water. Even though this sounds painfully simple, it actually has a lot of proven benefits for your health.

Drinking the recommended eight glasses of water per day can prevent you from getting the seasonal cold that's going around, put moisture back in your skin, hydrate your body to prevent headaches and energize you. The increasing number of alternative beverages available today makes it difficult to choose bland water over a tangy, carbonated drink, but if you begin to alternate between the two, you will quickly see improvements in your health.

Learning to incorporate drinking water into your daily routine is just like forming any other habit; it takes time and willingness. The general consensus is that it takes two weeks of concentration to form any habit. If you make it a point to drink eight cups of water a day for 14 days,  you will soon find yourself craving it, and you will mindlessly reach for your water bottle throughout the day. In the meantime, while you are starting your water-drinking habit, try to spice things up and make it more appealing by adding lemon or lime. Another helpful hint is to drink one glass immediately upon waking up in the morning — this will "set the mood" for the rest of the day and keep you reaching for the glass. Carry a water bottle with you to class, the gym and elsewhere, and always drink at least one glass of water with each meal. These small actions will make a big difference in your life.

A large percentage of the human body consists of water. During the harsh winters that we have here in Saratoga, this percentage can decrease, which is very rough on our health. The heat that blasts through the vents dries up both the air and our bodies. A simple fix like using a humidifier is another way to keep water in your system.

You may not recognize the symptoms of dehydration, but it can commonly consist of a headache, thirst, joint pain, an upset stomach, nausea, dizziness, or even just a slight drowsy feeling. Our environment can dehydrate us persistently, so we need to be very cautious about rehydrating our body to prevent these symptoms and remain lively and able to go about our days. So, run over to the Skid Shop ASAP and pick out a stylish water bottle that you can flash to your friends and encourage them to follow you in your new healthy habit.

I know that water can be expensive, which is why I suggest that you purchase a reusable bottle. This is both eco-friendly and cost-efficient. Still, some of us will not be satisfied with the taste of tap water. That's an easy fix: buy a Brita to keep in your fridge or a reusable water bottle with a built-in filter. This will eliminate any contaminants in your water and also get rid of that "tappy" taste. If you don't feel like purchasing a reusable bottle and a filter, you will likely be overwhelmed with the number of different choices of water available at the store. These different labels and slogans are marketing ploys to get you to spend more money. I say go for the least expensive, but some people will tell you that bottled waters are no different than tap water, so it's a personal decision.

I hope that this article finds you in a state of thirst so that you are inspired to follow my healthful hints. Whatever your reason, whether it is to beautify and hydrate your skin or to get rid of that daily headache, I guarantee that the two weeks of work will pay off in the long run! Until next time, stay warm, stay healthy and drink, drink, drink!

Citizen Kraines: Europe's Identity Crisis: Amidst collapsing scenery the EU will have to confront its schizophrenia

Posted by Michael Kraines

Is Paris burning? The foreboding question that Hitler continuously put to his generals during his occupation of Paris is once again relevant, albeit in a different sense, concerning the state of the European Union. At this juncture, however, the question is posed as the economies of Italy, Greece, Spain, Portugal, and Ireland, to name only a few, rest helplessly atop the shoulders of the Germans.

The dream of continental unification took one more step toward atrophy on Monday, as European leaders failed to agree on a new, comprehensive solution to bailout the ailing European economies. One could easily have asked the question "Is Europe burning?" on January 16, when Standard & Poors downgraded the credit rating for the European bailout fund from AAA to AA+.  

While the failure of a common European currency (predicted by economists for years) is becoming increasingly obvious, we ought not lose sight of the underlying political challenges that have plagued the European dream from its beginnings. In his recent blog posts on "European Identities," political scientist Francis Fukuyama argues that Europe has never successfully established a sense of identity, "a European sense of citizenship that would define the obligations, responsibilities, duties and rights that Europeans have to one another beyond simply the wording of different treaties that were signed."

Moreover, he rightly argues that the whole European project has been an "elite-driven affair," and that the movement from monetary to fiscal union, bereft of grassroots support, harbors dangerous political consequences.

Indeed, European unification has always entailed a diminution of democracy (e.g., the empowerment of nondemocratic institutions like the one in Brussels, and the notion that some democratically elected national governments must defer to the wills and desires of other democratically elected national governments). The EU has also maintained a policy of continuous expansion, and while professing inclusiveness, has become reticent over the question of accepting countries with a strong Islamic character, such as Turkey.

Yet Europe's political questions run deeper than mere geography: here I invoke the contemporary French theorist Pierre Manent (check out, "A World Beyond Politics?: A Defense of the Nation-State"). Manent argues that Europe's "identity crisis" is rooted in an ambiguity within the notion of democracy itself. Because the modern theory of popular representation has allowed democracy to flourish in large republics, some circles still associate democracy with the national form. These are opponents of the EU, people who, like Manent, tend view the EU as an elite-driven affair, or at the very least question its transnational structure.

Conversely, there are others who think that the national form, manifested in birth and language, undermines the subjectivity of the democratic will. Those making this argument might also add that severing the national form ought to appear natural, given what Europe experienced in the past century. 

Thus must Europe wrestle with an enduring human question: Does liberty mean, as Manent writes, "Be free! Do what you will!" or does it mean, "Be yourself! Become what you are!"? Europeans must ultimately choose between individual autonomy and citizenship. Bailout or no bailout, they cannot subordinate politics forever.

Editorial: College must review new AOD policy with a clear head

Posted by the Editorial Board

On the heels of a group retreat last week, the College administration is ready to meet again to review the controversial Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD) policy adopted last fall. Now is the time to revisit the expectations that the student body and the administration have of each other with regard to the use of substances on campus.

Students, through organized forums and comments posted on The Skidmore News, have voiced several grievances with the policy as it stands. Ambiguities in the current code are problematic to both students and those charged with enforcement of the policies. Chief among these grievances is the "association rule," which punishes those who choose not to drink, but find themselves in the proximity of alcohol. Fines and increasingly more severe sanctions are taken against students who happen to be merely in the presence of alcohol more than once.

Many students also take issue with the permanent nature of all acquired points. Under a stipulation like the "association rule," someone's choice to act as a responsible friend could lead to his or her eventual suspension from Skidmore. Points earned at the debut of a student's college career, even for low-level violations, stay with that student until graduation. Conversations about what a revised AOD policy will look like should include a pathway to forgiveness.

Further confusion lies in the categorization of violations. The possession of six or more standard drinks is considered a Level II violation, but no distinction is made between minors and those legally permitted to drink. As a blanket rule this could have undesirable consequences: could any or all members of a seven-person Scribner House containing 6 drinks receive points and sanctions? Under the current articulation of the policy, the answer is yes. 

There are other discrepancies with the policy and New York state law. Possession or use of marijuana (less than 25 grams) is considered a Penal Code violation and is subject to a maximum of a $100 fine by New York State. Under the current AOD policy, the same offense is considered a Level III offense and is accompanied by a $200 fine, as well as substance education and assessment at the student's expense. 

In this case, the College's policy is more severe than New York state law. This violation is more harshly punished than possession of a false ID – considered a Level II offense by the College, but potentially more grave in the eyes of the law. While cases of possession of a false ID are considered on an individual basis, it could be considered a felony. 

Students have also been confused about the how this policy is executed. Though the administration has created stricter rules, they have left ambiguities in enforcement. While it is useful and convenient to allow Campus Safety and other administrators to use their discretion and better judgment in enforcing the policy, we would like to create a policy that is fair, were it to be rigidly enforced. 

Students who imbibe responsibly, though in violation of the current AOD policy, can benefit from the "discretion clause," however, students and the administration should draft an AOD policy that is reasonable, even when enforced stringently. We do not wish to condemn the use of discretion on behalf of Campus Safety Officers; we merely ask that the new letter of the law be just. 

A reoccurring motif, seen in every offense at every level, is parental notification. This part of the AOD policy implies a lack of respect for students. We are adults and we deserve to be treated as such, and such treatment includes being afforded basic privacy. We are willing and able take responsibility for our actions. 

It may behoove us to examine AOD policies at our sister institutions. Vassar College's Alcohol Policy states: "Students are recognized as adults and are expected to obey all local, state, and federal laws as well as college policies and regulations.  Students will be held responsible for their own conduct." This recognition should be at the core of our policy. 

Having an AOD policy is not inherently oppressive, but ours is unworkable in its current structure. Fixing it entails clarifying the current ambiguities and removing the nonsensical portions. 

It is in the best interest of the administration and the student body to have an AOD policy that, above all else, protects students.  Any new policy should be based on a mutual respect between students and the administration. 

Daydreams: Stress be gone!: Where can we find a space for reflection amidst life's unforgiving routines?

Posted by Rick Chrisman

What would you say pervades the mind of a student? I would hazard a guess that stress definitely preoccupies the minds of Skidmore students. In the last few weeks alone, I met with eight different students who mentioned how heavily they feel stress weighing them down. Is it Skidmore? Is it just college life?  Is it the epoch we live in as Americans?

Whatever the source of the stress may be, do we know the remedy? Well, some are pretty famous.  Sex, drugs and rock and roll, for starters!  And that other handy remedy – rage. Road rage, parent rage, roommate rage and, on a much grander scale, war, are all stress outlets. 

But one need not reach for those extreme measures before you find some intermediate solution.  The College takes this issue seriously as a threat to student health and provides  resources, like stress reduction classes, yoga, Reiki sessions and education about the danger signs of stress. And your fellow students are on the case, too – offering a week of focused attention on energy and energetics in a program called "Flow Jam." Check it out.

None of these stress reduction measures, of course, makes the sources of stress go away.  Those are only going to increase as students enter the job market and, more generally, greater exposure to the world and its injustices. The best remedy to all this is a preemptive one, something that we integrate into our daily or weekly rhythms of life. For if we wait until the stress is upon us, the response may not be so effective.  To use a gross analogy, which do you prefer — dental floss or the dentist's drill?

Some the perquisites of stress reduction are obvious, but we should consider another benefit hidden in these practices. 

When we practice a physical or spiritual exercise, I believe we are stepping out of the rushing river of Time where some honesty about ourselves is possible. In this moment of honesty, apart from the day-to-day mania, we can plan our escape from all false ties.

Unfortunately, many of our spiritual practices have been diluted and rid of their spiritual potency. Tantric yoga, an exercise practiced 1,600 years ago, was aimed at finding and redirecting our most basic energies, such as anger, fear and lust. Through this process, we are able to find a truer self-consciousness.  However, in hatha yoga, a form of yoga that originated only 100 years ago and is often found in today's American studios, the service of "fitness" gets left aside. It is easy to take the "good feeling" as the goal.

Likewise, in our practice of "Sabbath" in Judaism and Christianity, we can also lose the opportunity for honesty if we become over-involved in the sensual aspects of the rituals or distracted by its cerebrations.  It is a shame there is so little time for silence in our liturgies. The ritual action should feed us with its content, but it should also allow us to and achieve real perspective. 

The honesty found in silent contemplation prepares us for the time when we might face some gulag or another, as did Alexander Solzhenitsyn and Ruben "Hurricane" Carter. It equips us to survive when "the silver cord is snapped and the golden bowl is broken," as we read in Ecclesiastes. It also provides, in the instant, a joy more rewarding than the pursuit of happiness. 

Stress be gone!

Editorial: Extend conservation measures beyond the dorms: Skidmore should include more sections of campus in efforts to "Unplug"

Posted by the Editorial Board

The bulbous and tentacled Skidmore Unplugged trophy has once again been moved to the entrance of the Dining Hall, announcing the commencement of a friendly, three-week-long competition between Skidmore's eight residential dorms. 

Around this time every year, students in the residential halls turn off unnecessary lights, take shorter showers and unplug unused electronics.  The goal is to reduce energy and water consumption by the greatest percentage.

This year's competition will coincide with the New Energy Economy Forum and Skidmore's participation in the Campus Conservation Nationals.  The culmination of these events provides us with the opportunity to expand the scope of our conservation efforts.  There is no need to limit waste reduction to just the dormitories.  We can include our whole campus and conserve energy for longer than the current three weeks. 

Skidmore is by no means idle on the issue of environmental impact.  In the past, the college has made efforts to include other parts of campus in conservation measures.  Now Skidmore is positioning itself to be more sustainable in the future by constructing green buildings.  The new additions to campus—including Northwoods, and the Murray Aikins Dining Hall and Zankel—all use geothermal heating and cooling systems.  

In addition to new, sustainable construction, the school has adopted habits and policies with immediate and significant effects on energy consumption and bottom lines.  Though most of the current students were not yet on campus when the Dining Hall eliminated trays, many will remember the introduction of composting in Northwoods.  The decision by the Skidmore News to embrace an online-only model has saved countless pounds of paper and gallons of water.  This is a good start, but we can do better. 

We can look to other small liberal arts colleges for inspiration.  Macalester College and Washington University in Saint Louis, both stopped selling plastic water bottles, in favor of making reusable refilling stations more available.  Many schools have a designated sustainable dormitory in which residents agree to limit their energy usage.  Others have equipped their residential and academic buildings with vampire switches.  These devices work by interrupting the current of energy that is used by devices in standby mode. 

There are other, simpler things the school can do today to reduce waste.  Anyone who has been on campus late at night has noticed that the school is still consuming energy in closed buildings.  Surely the television in the Skidmore Shop does not need to buzz incessantly.   Some lights in the academic buildings, the Scribner Library, and in Dining Hall continue to stay on, even after the janitorial staff has finished. 

It is not unreasonable to include the whole of campus in the spirit of Skidmore Unplugged. There are many steps that we can take as individuals and as an institution to save energy and dollars.  While the effects of any one of these suggestions may seem negligible, their combination and use over time could significantly reduce our campus's consumption. 

Opinion: Voting for the vultures: Mitt Romney and the insidious influence of super PACs in American politics

Posted by Eric Shapiro

In the minds of many, the nomination of Mitt Romney is a forgone conclusion. Unlike his rival Newt Gingrich, he is not a polarizing figure with a dirty past, and it will be comparatively difficult for Democrats to cast doubt on the former Governor's character, or paint him as a dangerous reactionary. Given an innocuous persona and an ostensibly unthreatening, "businessman's approach," it is easy for many Americans, disenchanted as they are with politics-as-usual, to decide that a Romney presidency wouldn't be all that risky. This is a very dangerous conclusion to reach.

Innocuous as Romney may appear, it is important to examine the circumstances of his election and what they say about how he will govern in the event that he defeats Barack Obama later this year. Romney hardly comes across as a transformative figure, but the circumstances of his election are indicative of a disturbing trend in U.S. politics. His candidacy foreshadows one possible political road for the U.S.; one in which government is dominated by Wall Street fat cats, oil companies and billionaires, all working through the plus-sized political action committees known "Super PACs."

Super PACs are organizations that are permitted to anonymously spend unlimited amounts of money to promote and/or attack candidates. They essentially bypass all meaningful campaign finance reform measures undertaken since the Progressive Era. Although nominally required to operate independently from the political campaigns of their preferred candidates, it should be clear to anyone paying attention that this is a clever method of sidestepping campaign finance laws that place limits on campaign contributions. Super PACs are the direct result of the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission decision, a game-changing judicial debacle that sets a dangerous precedent.

The Supreme Court's ruling is based on the patently absurd premise that corporations are people. Therefore, setting a limit on the amount of money they can donate to political campaigns – previously accepted across party lines as necessary to protect democracy and prevent oligarchy – constitutes a violation of free speech (money, by their suspect reasoning, is a form of speech). These justices claim adherence to the original intent of the Founders, many of whom (especially Jefferson) in fact expressed concern that moneyed interests would come to dominate the political process.

But this is not only an issue of morals or principles. It is also one of self-interest. Part of what has made the U.S. so resilient as a nation has been its adaptability to change, the benefit of a government subject to the popular will. Like capitalism, the U.S. system of government provides a basic check on the tendency of states run by a few to  a) make short-sighted, impulsive, enormously risky decisions (like Nazi Germany) and/or b) adhere blindly to a rigid economic model that cannot sustain itself over the long run (like the Soviet Union). Citizens United will restrict voters' choices to those deemed acceptable by the 1% and the party establishments.

In the simplest terms, this amounts to less voter choice, and more candidates like Mitt Romney: candidates that seem inevitable by virtue of their natural advantages in advertising, despite the quiet fact that nobody likes them.

The one arguably positive consequence of Citizens United is that they could backfire, turning voters against candidates who are bought and paid for by billionaire patrons and special interest groups. For those who think a Romney presidency wouldn't be all that bad, take a look at his base of support; it consists mostly of hedge funds, corporate lobbyists, oil companies – essentially representatives of the very special interests that first advocated war in Iraq and then proceeded to gamble away the U.S. economy.

When the radical right gets over its renewed love affair with the doomed candidacy of Newt Gingrich (who, incidentally, has managed to stay in the race this long thanks to the generous donations of multibillionaire casino magnate Sheldon Adelson to Newt's Super PAC), the nomination will likely end up in Romney's pocket. While the timing of his recent adoption of pro-life and anti-gay positions is suspect, it will nevertheless make him an infinitely more appealing choice for conservatives than the socialist-Muslim-Alinskyite Barack Obama.

History has shown that when push comes to shove, the various factions that make up the conservative movement are always able to put aside their differences and coalesce into a formidable electoral force. Mitt Romney may be a onetime Massachusetts moderate, but the powers that be in the Republican Party will force him to govern as a reactionary conservative.

Editorial: Striking the balance in response to Starbuck: Both students and adminstration must press for transparency amidst a difficult situation

Posted by the Editorial Board

For both faculty and students, the evacuation of Starbuck Center upon the first week of this term made for a jarring re-entry from winter break. After reports of health concerns from a few staffers, the College administration took the precaution to swiftly shut down the building and subject it to testing.

Now the situation is rife with rumor. The building's 50 employees, most of who have already vacated, are taking up residence in temporary offices across campus. As the winter chill settles around an empty and slightly forbidding Starbuck, students here are asking professors, mail room clerks, and each other about what exactly shut down the Center – and should we all be worried about it?

There have been whispers of severe illnesses among the individual staffers as well as ominous recollections of the building's swampy climate. The administration, when asked to comment on the substance of these rumors, declined. Without a clear and defined statement of the severity of the health concerns, it is easy to see why students are frustrated and in some cases alarmed.

The administrators find themselves in a particularly demanding spot: they cannot divulge the private information of the individuals who triggered the evacuation, while their resulting generalized announcements to the student body are bound to raise questions.

Between these twin liabilities – the privacy of those individuals on one end with the health concerns of the rest of campus on the other – the administrators of the College must strike a very careful equilibrium.

In speaking with the Skidmore News, President Glotzbach stated "we must balance the questions of the community with the wellbeing and privacy of the small group of employees who work in that building." Along with Dean of Student Affairs Rochelle Calhoun the president stressed that based on the completed tests thus far – testing radon, formaldehyde, carbon dioxide and monoxide levels – there is nothing indicative about the building's climate to cause alarm.

The president also stressed that the College has been extra cautious in its reaction to the reports. "We went beyond the recommendations made by the hygienists. Shutting down an entire building – no small thing – is really a considerable move for an institution to carry out."

Indeed, those employees of Starbuck who have already migrated to their new temporary offices claim the process has been orderly and accommodating, and the President praised these employees' patience in return.

When asked once more to contextualize the health concerns that loom over this rearrangement, Glotzbach again refrained from providing any details. "Based on the relatively small number of folks who work there – we don't believe it's appropriate to comment. We're not prepared to comment."

Next up is a series of epidemiological tests on Starbuck, which by all accounts will run for an extended period. From this point forward it is up to the student body to respect the delicate nature of the problem, while it is up to the administration to remain as transparent as possible out of respect for students and faculty.

Opinion: Ash Tuesday: After the Florida primary, Republicans embrace a self-destructive primary season

Posted by Brendan James

At long last the GOP race has become something captivating, which is not to say something dignified. The two Republican frontrunners, the fox and the hedgehog, are now pursuing victory with what might be most accurately described as reckless abandon.

Florida's primary inaugurated a volley of rancorous attack ads that have set the pace for the rest of the contest. Before our eyes the supposedly reticent Mitt Romney defanged the usually pugnacious Newt Gingrich in the final Jacksonville debate. Fidel Castro watched from home and enjoyed some free publicity. And Jeb Bush, mercifully, didn't even have to open his mouth.

Let us not get bogged down in the storm of contradictions the candidates brought down upon the residents of Florida as they swept through the state. From Romney's courageous pledge to protect Medicare despite his support for the Ryan plan, to Gingrich's pledge to move the U.S. Embassy to Jerusalem despite his support for a two-state solution, neither could be said to have out-pandered the other. Nor is it easy to tell which campaign ran the nastier ads (though Newt might have the edge here claiming that Romney starved elderly Jewish Bostonians of their matzo).

No, what tipped the scales in Romney's favor was his newfound register of emotion, even if it did send him over the edge, into song and occasional mad laughter.

Though the Romney campaign's technicians have not yet programmed their candidate with the full spectrum of human feeling – let them tinker a little longer – his indignant aggression at the last debate was enough. The significance of Romney's Jacksonville performance was not simply that he finally took a firm swipe back at Meister Gingrich, sending his opponent into a timid, apologetic retreat, but that he did so with a furrowed brow and a crackle in his voice. Newt was not the only one flabbergasted by this sudden spark of vitality; Romney's numbers began to rise among voters looking for both electability and strong debate performance. Even mere simulation of human sentiments does a lot for a candidate that has hitherto been viewed as a cold, calculating opportunist who raids ailing businesses and hides his tax returns.

But before we make too much of this new and more dynamic Romney software, we must give due credit to his relentless, routine, and decidedly un-human tactics offstage. Romney outspent Gingrich five times over, blanketing the airwaves as his trusty Super PAC filled any gaps of decency. Moving forward, Romney might have to finally confront criticism of this two-faced approach: smiling (and singing) through the debates and speeches while orchestrating an elaborate smear campaign – which is to say, his presidential campaign – from the shadows.

Enough with the moralizing: it worked. Gingrich's national lead is fizzling, although it is not as though he was helping himself with his grand, inane narrative about moon colonies that was supposed to tempt voters on the Space Coast. It seems that voters in Cocoa Beach and Palm Bay aren't so easily bamboozled and do consider economic recovery more desirable than a massive expansion of a hyper-costly government agency.

In fact, Floridians in general aren't so easily hoodwinked by these mind-numbing gestures. The most telling numbers from Tuesday night are not Romney's or Newt's, but the exit polls that showed 38% of voters were completely unsatisfied with the field of Republican candidates. This low enthusiasm for either frontrunner combined with the concentrated yet feverish enthusiasm for Ron Paul might spell out a greater relevancy for everyone's favorite anarcho-capitalist in coming months. It also raises questions of a brokered convention, which only increases the anxiety of Newt and Mitt and sends them into more vicious and gnarly backbiting.  

There is no going back. These two endlessly ambitious yet boundlessly unappealing candidates have decided to throw their party into a blender this primary season. They spent last week sharpening the blades.

A Call to Service: Tough times call for a renewed public-spiritedness in our country

Posted by Rick Chrisman, Kathryn Lazell & Margaret Myers

The time has come, given our extended military commitments since the Korean War and in view of today's depressed economy, for this country to institute universal national service. 

Because the U.S. is unique in its public-spiritedness, as evidenced by our Constitution ("We the people"), we have grounds for considering such a high civic commitment. Our country was founded on the idea that an informed and participatory electorate was the best hope for creating a prosperous and unified society. Among the basic tenets of American citizenship was public service as a duty to the nation. Since our founding, these values have eroded considerably.

Whereas civic participation was once seen as a duty, today, to the extent that people think of service at all, Americans have different reasons for serving.   Some want to "give back" or to "pay forward" in return for the benefit of living in this democratic society.  Some, in a broadly altruistic way, just want to "serve our country" or "help others."  At the same time, many more people view service as a vehicle for individual development that may have good effects upon their character or make them more employable.  

A portion of young Americans see military service as their choice, but many more might also serve if there were alternatives to the military that qualify as "moral equivalents of war" (as William James phrased it) and contribute to the welfare of the population and the needs of the country. 

Although recent census data show that 26 percent of the total adult population, about 62 million Americans, serve in some volunteer capacity every year, these numbers include very occasional and inconsistent participants. Some service programs, like City Year, have many more applicants than seats.  How much greater benefit would there be to the nation's prosperity and unity with a more comprehensive system, focusing especially on young people ages 16 to 24 who, at present, only constitute 13 percent of annual volunteers? 

After years of a compulsory — and grossly unfair — draft during the unpopular Vietnam War, any type of mandatory and binding duty to the government has fallen out of favor. Consequently, any discussion of universal national service must presuppose a voluntary yet strongly incentivized plan to attract young Americans across all ethnic and economic spectrums and across the whole range of demographics (e.g., region, religion, gender, sexual orientation). In a country so rich with diversity, there is very little left in contemporary America that binds us together.  But with universal national service, if everyone participated, the common experience would provide a new basis for unity by bridging otherwise disparate lives - if everyone participated.

Shouldn't every person be expected to contribute his or her fair share of time, but with a choice of a preferred venue?  Such venues could be set up in a threefold system: the military, for those inclined to defend the country with arms; higher education with a service component; and a pure service organization offering participants the choice of volunteering in such areas as schools, hospitals or infrastructure maintenance.

But the challenge lies in making the system truly universal, so that as many people as possible participate. Special considerations like health and hardship must be taken into account and adjudicated with consistency.

Such a radical change in practice, will, of course, require a radical change in thinking — and one that will not be easy to effect. However, when one keeps in mind the fact that this country is one based, at least theoretically, upon civic involvement, it becomes easy to see that such service, however one wishes to define it, should be a moral expectation.

We propose that a campus-wide debate be organized in which all the issues relevant to this topic may be brought to light. Who would be interested in partnering with us to organize such an event? A good project for a class in the Government Department?  Something the Skidmore Democrats would work on?  A campaign by the Skidmore News?  Any takers?

Editorial: Don't give up on Skidmore traditions

Posted by the Editorial Board

In the wake of the second consecutive failed Moorebid Ball, the success of the Junior Ring dance last weekend provides grounds to discuss the future of Skidmore traditions.

Moorebid used to be a wholly different affair. Attendance was scarcely heavier than that of Junior Ring, the venue was off campus, and the festivities ended as scheduled, without a convoy of ambulances or frightening safety concerns. Over the past few years, however, attendance has grown along with the carnival excesses, and the Ball has become an embarrassment.

In subsequent discussions, SGA, Campus Safety and the Skidmore administration have made it clear that there are serious questions as to whether the College can continue to host an event such as Moorebid on campus. No decision has been made – the administration has formed a review board with the intention of having an answer during the spring semester – but it is possible that the Ball will be given a similar treatment to the Pride Alliance's once infamous Diva night, which was suspended for four years so that the culture surrounding the event might dissipate.

The swollen attendance numbers at Moorebid make the event a challenge to police, but they also represent the most important success of the Ball; it has increasingly become an event that brings together the majority of the College population, a rarity on the Skidmore calendar. Downsizing or suspending Moorebid will leave a considerable void. The only event with comparable attendance is Fun Day – there is no similar event in the fall semester.

Could Junior Ring fill that void? As it stands, it is a sort of quiet sequel to Moorebid, seeing less attendance but also less embarrassment and disaster. It is a genuine Skidmore tradition and generally succeeds in balancing an atmosphere of class with one of unpretentious college fun.

The fact is that Moorebid Ball, as a Halloween dance, brings very little to Skidmore culture that isn't found elsewhere around the country. Aside from the event's name, an artifact of the old downtown Moore Hall building, which the school sold in 2006, Moorebid Ball is less a timeless Skidmore tradition than it is an annual example of a conventional Halloween college dance.

Junior Ring, meanwhile, has been a Skidmore staple since the college's early days as an all-woman's vocational school. The dance has deep traditional roots, a culture and dress code that we students can call our own, rather than jump on the bandwagon with every other college cutting loose on Halloween.

In only a few years' time, there will be an entirely new batch of students on campus for whom the phrase ‘Moorebid Ball' means little. In the interim it is possible to redesign the landscape of our college culture and emerge with something much more fulfilling and stable than what we have now. Shifting emphasis on Junior Ring is of course, only one option. But the larger conversation about Skidmore's identity, its traditions, and the values that underpin such things, is something that will not go away and is worth confronting.

Editorial: Find a place for argument

Posted by the Editorial Board

For a college ostensibly involved with politics, social justice and environmentalism, Skidmore still lacks a culture of debate.

Students attend protests, lectures and dialogues. They take classes on topics of race, gender and class. All around campus can be heard the groundwork for controversial conversations, yet students still seem to think of argument as a dirty word. The recent reformation of the Skidmore Debate Club is an encouraging sign, and should leave the College looking for more opportunities to invite real, open discourse of the kind currently in scarce supply on campus.

Debate is not the same as dialogue, the specialty of Fight Club and the kind of meetings sponsored by the administration we saw last year following the Compton's incident. Dialogue is personal, emotional and highly sensitive. People share their feelings and anecdotes, and argument is usually discouraged in favor of ensuring an open and safe environment where all voices can be heard.

Debate is not the same as protest. Protest, the realm of slogans, posterboard and political theater, can be an extremely effective way to stimulate discussion and raise awareness, but involves little productive back-and-forth between divided ideological camps. As the Occupy movement finds itself in doctrinal gridlock, all should learn the lesson: protest packs a political punch, but protesters are not effective at finding solutions to complex problems. The forum is, again, one of showmanship, not of deliberation.

While a personal anecdote will win applause at an informal dialogue, and chants will raise a larger crowd than well-reasoned verbal sparring at a protest, neither tactic is effective in actual debates. Reason and logic are the faculties respected in debate, where points and counter-points are not shouted down and anecdotal evidence is rightly dismissed.

The EAC, engaged as it is with the issue of hydraulic fracking, should encourage well-educated proponents of the controversial practice to come to campus for a chance to defend their perspective in a real debate. The exercise would certainly be more educational than watching a documentary supporting the perspective of all or nearly all in the audience. "Preaching to the choir" should be especially abhorrent to all of us attending a college devoted to broadening our intellectual horizons.

Lectures are common, and the topics chosen can be quite contentious. A lecture given by the controversial journalist Chris Hedges last year provoked several inflammatory questions from the audience, none of which were given the attention they would have if the style of the presentation had been a debate. In contrast, this semester's sole debate on the sustainability of cities attracted a sizable crowd and gave a broader perspective on a contentious topic than would have been presented in a mere lecture. Leaving the argument for the remarks at the end of a lecture undermines the usefulness and integrity of dissent, something sorely lacking amid all this dialoguing and storytelling.

Oratory and logical dexterity are skills crucial to success outside of college, and they are very difficult to teach when true argument is discouraged. Seminars and intimate, small classes are a great start, but grading and the presence of a professor can preclude effective debate. It is important to offer a forum away from classroom conventions.

While Skidmore has several groups with different perspectives, too rarely do we students find ourselves in a room with two opposing, well-articulated points of view. As our campus celebrates the return of a club dedicated to the artistry of argument, we should encourage our clubs, and administration, to find room for real debate at Skidmore.

Daydreams: Spiritual occupation: Religious values at work in Occupy Boston

Posted by Richard Chrisman

You may not know much about religion, but fundamental religious values are at work in the Occupy Wall Street movement. I was at Occupy Boston over the Thanksgiving weekend, and it jumped out at me. The marks of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are all over this movement, along with those of Hinduism and Buddhism. The site radiates religious history - if you know how to look.

First, you can't miss Gandhi. The Occupy site in Boston, at Dewey Square across from South Station, prominently displays a grand, nine-foot statue of Gandhi, on loan from the Peace Abbey, a Quaker conference center in Sherborn, Massachusetts. Someone hung a sign from it reading, "The world holds enough for everyone's need, but not enough for everyone's greed."

The statue was originally presented to Goldman Sach's in Boston for display in its atrium entrance, but it was declined. Now Gandhi stands at the head of the square. He led two political movements (one in South Africa and another in India), all the time propounding the need for spiritual faith in order to endure the hardest physical adversity.

Down one alley of tents, not far from Gandhi, was a site dedicated to sacred practices. Meditation, prayer, chanting and sharing were welcomed and encouraged. Signs representing different religions offered "bread for the journey," a reminder of the spiritual depths into which people must reach when under conditions of extreme deprivation. It was apparent just looking at the few who were still around during this holiday that the Occupy movement is not for the faint of heart.

Religion not only provides support and sustenance for the movement, it also provides a literal impetus from sacred scripture. To denounce greed is to invoke, perhaps unknowingly, the injunctions of the Hebrew prophets against the powers of state and commerce in their time, between the eighth and sixth centuries B.C.E.

Listen to these words from the prophet Hosea: "Turn back all of you by God's help; practice loyalty and justice and wait upon your God. False scales are in merchants hands, and they love to cheat. So Ephraim says, ‘Surely I have become a rich man, I have made my fortune.' But all his gains will not pay for the guilt of his sins" (Hosea 12:6-8). This is typical of many verses, chapters and entire books of the prophets, excoriating the unfairness of the powerful. Jesus, himself well-versed in the prophets' message, levied harsh judgments on the rich. One clever Occupy sign read, "Obama is not a brown-skinned anti-war socialist who gives away free health care — you're thinking of Jesus."

Income disparity is not just about equality — it's about justice. And economic justice is a religious value. What is called for has many different names, depending on whether you read Paine, Marx or Keynes. But I like Ralph Nader's version most, where he calls for corporations to honor four different constituencies, not just the one they normally serve, namely, stockholders. He names three others— the employees, the customers and the environment (both human and natural) — as part of an implicit and imperative business covenant.

Corporations, Nader emphasizes, are not people at all (as American law currently dictates), but they must be faithful to the personhood of their four constituencies. And, in saying this, Nader is taking a basically religious view of the world, in the direct line of the Hebrew prophets who demanded fairness of us in dealing with each other, especially across power lines.

People have a hard time classifying exactly what kind of civic engagement Occupy Wall St. belongs to — is it a sit-in, a demonstration, a movement, an outburst, a rebellion or a revolution? We will have to see how it evolves, but for me, right now, it evokes the spirit of Tahrir Square in Cairo, which was a spirit of prayerful determination. Those Islamic Egyptians came unarmed to the square and prayed five times a day. Before they were done, Mubarak was gone.

Not all religions are so peacefully inclined at all times, or so universally accepting. The religious track record on social fronts has been pretty bad. And yet there are still religious revolutionaries who remind us of their core values.

The time has come at Occupy Wall Street for a shift of some kind – in strategy, in focus. It is certainly time for a renewal of faith, not just in American democracy but also, perhaps, in God. Bringing these two thoughts together, one sign read, "I'm a Born Again American," held on high by a woman wearing a T-shirt with the "COEXIST" emblem on it.

This may be the time for Skidmore students to "get religion" by taking faith seriously, warts and all. Take advantage of your Religion Program and the religious fellowships and inter-religious programming on campus. Learn from your religious friends. You, like Gandhi, may find the spiritual fuel it takes to remain true to your self in the long and arduous road to change ahead.

Rick Chrisman is the Director of Religious and Spiritual Life. He enjoys looking down on Skidmore from his second story window.