I'm [a] PC

Posted by Jake Dolgenos

The College's recent decision to rename the new apartment buildings in the face of a minor controversy has drawn some predictable student criticism. But while the change may seem ridiculous, the opportunity to reflect on our campus and countrywide culture of political correctness and the eye-rolling indignation it provokes is well timed. Let's talk about it.

Many of you grew accustomed to calling the new sophomore housing (for that, to our collective upper-class indignation, is what the new apartments will be) "Slopeside" after the college popularized the word by...calling the new apartments "Slopeside." Since then, the official name has been changed to "Hillside" after it was brought to the attention of the college that "Slope" can be a pejorative term for a person of Asian descent (this checks out - watch Gran Torino for some particularly engrossing context to the slur).

We all know that changes like this have to be made occasionally. And acting on the potential for offense rather than the offense itself, the definition of and most frustrating aspect to political correctness, is something all organizations have to do from time to time. The disastrous delay between changes aside, the College hasn't done anything particularly noteworthy in its treatment of a slightly embarrassing incident. But when I heard about the change, I was irritated.

I understand why the College needs to avoid offending people when it names its new buildings. I understand that "slope" is an old and rarely used but nonetheless legitimate slur (after about 30 seconds of confused Googling). I understand that just because the name doesn't offend me or anyone I know does not mean it is devoid of the potential to offend. But I was still irritated. It's the kind of nagging, illegitimate feeling that persists because you feel like somehow, you're being censored, even if it's not the case. I admit, I still somewhat rebelliously (mostly forgetfully) refer to my home as "Slopeside."

For many people, a particular topic may be "off-limits." On the recent anniversary of the terrorist attacks of 9/11, my housemate asked that I turn off an especially wince-inducing episode of "The Burn" with comedian Jeff Ross. My housemate, like many, has a particularly strong reaction to the event, and for him the humor crossed a line. A few friends who are survivors of sexual assault (and a few who simply object to a humorous treatment of the subject) similarly find jokes about rape to be universally unacceptable. A friend who has a brother with severe autism will stiffen when the pejorative "retarded" or a similar word or style of humor is thrown out in casual situations.

It doesn't take special insight to see that many on this campus have such borders around sensitive subjects. How do we lucky few who live unladen with such sensitivities avoid crossing lines of which we may be unaware? How should those of us who have these limits express them without outing ourselves as vulnerable without choice of context? To step back, is there a right to be offended? Is there a right to offend? These are troubling and broad questions about culture and society for which we must each endeavor to select an individual opinion to inform our own discourse. And for those who deny that this constitutes a valid choice (that some subjects should be universally avoided out of sensitivity), consider my final thought.

To paraphrase Mark Twain, "a man is no more free to speak his mind than he is to commit murder. He has every ability to do either, provided he is willing to accept the consequences." To say that we are victimized by offensive language ignores our very real power to create consequences for insensitivity. I believe, for myself, that the right to offend must respect the right to be offended and vice versa. We must understand our right to our words even as those who flinch understand their right to respond.

Consider the costs, also, of coming down too hard on controversial speech. Context is always important-what is offensive in one medium might be excusable in others. Don't forget, humor is how some people are able to heal from traumatic experiences or deal with their own insecurities, and talking about sensitive subjects ensures they are not ignored.

It may seem as though exposing so much harsh light as a society on things which can be raw and painful is unduly cruel; I submit that this opinion is a product of liberal times. We take for granted our ability to safely communicate, it's hard to remember that the right was hard-won and should not be suppressed for its occasional potential to offend or afflict.

In the end, I try to live my life without hurting others. Sometimes this means I consciously change my vocabulary, sometimes it means I make the personal choice to continue speaking about something, even if some find the subject itself offensive or insensitive. I hope that anyone who hears me cross a verbal line feels comfortable enough to call me out so that we can talk about it. In the end, I think that's better than silence. 

Jake Dolgenos is a member of the class of 2014, reads boats and rows books, and consumes Apple products like they grow on Apple trees.

Editorial: reapplying the honor code

Posted by The Editorial Board

The same day the Daily Gazette published a column praising fellow Liberty League member Union College's new honor code, Skidmore College saw a breach of its own. Late Thursday night, Oct. 4, 13 signs across campus were vandalized with black and pink spray paint, as reported in "Unknown subject vandalize on-campus signs."

As the Gazette article so rightfully advocates, honor codes are an important facet to any secondary educational institution but have unfortunately become a rare fixture in the present day--only about 100 or so colleges or universities in the nation currently have one in place. As one of the few campuses with an honor code, Skidmore's administration has done its best to make students aware of the implications of signing the code, but it seems to have fallen upon deaf ears of at least one member of the community. While this is far from being the first incident of vandalism on campus, the scenario enters grey territory in determining who will cover the costs of repairs. According to Skidmore's Room and Board agreement: "Responsibility for damage to an individual room/apartment is assumed by the resident(s) of that room/apartment...[and] Repair of damage to common areas throughout the residence hall system is shared equally by each campus resident."

Questions of fairness aside, these policies do not seem to apply to the situation at hand. The issue is determining what happens when a case of vandalism takes place outdoors. According to a member of the administration, if there's an instance of destruction not limited to a residential building, the whole school is billed, though the plan for handling this most recent incident has yet to be revealed. The same person emphasized that this policy is not for the intention of teaching a lesson, but has simply been used as a method for covering the costs of repairs.

Regardless of this rationale, it seems unjust for students to see an increase to an already burdening tuition, especially when there is no proof that the perpetrator was even a student. Even if this incident amounts to a negligible addition, which it probably will, the principle seems like it will do little other than perturb the student body. The culprit is hardly punished, and no more so than the rest of the community.

When similar incidents have unfolded in the dorms, the Room and Board policy of spreading the cost has served as a method of pushing witnesses to come forward and present the proper authorities with the miscreant's name. In a situation like this, however, the chances of anyone being cognizant of the perpetrator's identity is ever more unlikely, but we are bound to the College's rules and regulations by the honor code, thus we have to follow them.

When you arrive at Skidmore you are required to sign the honor code, in fact, the College has taken up new measures this year in guaranteeing students' understanding of its importance by having first year students sign the code in front of President Glotzbach during his reception for them early in the Fall. The code explicitly makes clear the fact that it applies to all aspects of college life and is no way limited to academics.

It's hard to protest the effects of an unfair policy amidst a controversial situation such as this one, but the fact of the matter is that the only way we can avoid such instances is by ending vandalism on campus. The 2010-2011 academic year saw between $26,000-$27,000 worth of repairs due to student mischief, and while the heartening reduction to a sum of just under $16,000 in 2011-2012 makes it seem like we are moving in the right direction, it is not enough. Someone has to foot the bill, and it is not the administration's fault when students decide to act irresponsibly.

In the end, this incident simply circles back to a theme that has been prevalent lately on campus and alluded to in other recent Skidmore News editorials, such as "A smoke-free campus." If we are going to solve some of the biggest issues on campus, all we need is to do is to respect one another. The honor code abides us to "be considerate of the rights of others," and if the perpetrator of this most recent case of vandalism had considered that while pulling out his spray can, maybe the rest of the Skidmore student body would not be seeing an additional sum added to their tuition.  

Movies and the meaning of life

Posted by Professor Ronald Seyb

One of my and my wife's friends claims that "A city must be within 50 miles of a major sports franchise to have culture." I confess that when I re-located to Saratoga Springs almost 25 years ago I was inclined to agree with her. I have since, however, learned that, to paraphrase Seinfeld's David Puddy, I do not "Gotta support the team" in order to be fulfilled.

There is, nonetheless, one cultural facilitator that Saratoga Springs has lacked since the closing several years ago of Broadway Joe's in Congress Plaza: a movie theater. The Saratoga Film Forum does a splendid job on weekends during the non-summer months of providing residents of this city with movie screenings, but its reach, like that of most purveyors of independent and foreign films, is limited. The absence of a year-round theater sporting fare that can appeal to a variety ages and demographics has been, to my mind, a Tim Gunn caliber "concern."

I was therefore heartened to learn that plans for an 11 screen theater, located in the space formerly occupied by the Price Chopper on Railroad Place, are moving forward thanks to a series of tax exemptions granted to the developer, Sonny Bonacio, by the Saratoga County Industrial Development Agency. Now, one might aver that Saratoga Springs does not need a Cineplex since the Regal Cinemas dreadnought is docked just a few miles down the arterial in Wilton. I would contend, however, that there is no ceiling on the number of movie theaters from which a city can benefit. I say this not because I firmly believe that That's My Boy must be available on at least four screens (35 millimeter print, 3D print, IMAX print and Extra Crispy) within walking distance of every home. I say it because I believe that the erosion of the cultural norm of "going to the movies" has caused America to be on the cusp of losing a generation.

My nephews are part of this incipient lost generation. They are four young men, ranging in age from 12 to 20, who are smart, responsible and tolerant of even their uncle's screaming, "Run the picket fence!" at their basketball games. I would expect such sterling young men to have developed by now an ardent love for the movies. My nephews' knowledge of film is, however, inferior to mine and my peers at the same age. They do watch a few films repeatedly, most of which feature either Denzel Washington or Matthew McConaughey constructing football teams out of the human equivalent of slag. But the breadth of their movie knowledge is small. It is as if they decided to go to a liberal arts college to major in Turtle Wax. I suppose that such a major would have value, provided that one wished to simonize one's car over and over and over again.

I concede that my adolescent desire to consume theatrical releases was at least partially due to the paucity of movies on television when I was growing up in the '60s and '70s. Each of the television networks did have its "Movie of the Week," but the movies they screened were movies in the same way that The Bay City Rollers was a musical act: fine if one's alternative for getting some stimulation was electroshock therapy, but so forgettable that five minutes after they ended one could not remember if Patty Duke was creating the bioengineered monkey army in the lab in Antarctica or was trying to destroy it.

The place for entertainment when I was growing up was the movie theater. But the movie theater offered me more than entertainment. It also taught me an important lesson, one that I found to be liberating at a time when the prospect of reading The Grapes of Wrath was as welcome to me as the prospect of dying in an oil well fire: movies express important ideas. The following exchange from Raiders of the Lost Ark, for example, constituted both my first and my most compelling encounter with the problem of moral ambiguity:

Rene Belloq: "You and I are very much alike. Archeology is our religion, yet we have both fallen from the pure faith. Our methods have not differed as much as you pretend. I am but a shadowy reflection of you. It would take only a nudge to make you like me. To push you out of the light."

Indiana Jones: "Now you're getting nasty."

I thus did not need formal instruction in philosophy or theology to learn that moral clarity was something to be desired but never attained under modern conditions. Belloq and Indy prepared me for an adulthood that offered me many opportunities to see both the light and the dark in others. And as my memory of the two warring archaeologists began to wane as I aged, Matt Damon was considerate enough to give me Jason Bourne to remind me that we all contain multitudes.

My wife and I decided this past holiday season to make one last bid to push our nephews into the light by purchasing for them twelve "culturally influential movies." Our selection ranged from The Godfather to Top Gun to Animal House. Where are these DVDs now we wonder? We know, alas, that between "the idea and the reality falls the shadow." But we continue to hope that perhaps one day at least one of our nephews will reach into the darkness to pull out a disc, pop it into the DVD player, and learn the lesson that we most wish to impress on them: "Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son."

Ronald Seyb is the Joseph C. Palamountain Jr. Chair in Government

This article was taken from Saratoga Wire with the permission of the author and can be found at the link below:

http://saratogawire.com/article/321/121006-humor-ron-seyb-movies/

Thoughts on the first presidential debate

Posted by Jean-Ann Kubler

After sifting through the talking points and empty rhetoric of last Thursday's presidential debate (we get it, five trillion is a big number), the American public is left with very little substance on which to compare the incumbent Obama and challenger Romney.

The two candidates each made bold attempts, particularly during the economic segment of the debate, to appear as if they were presenting facts and specifics about tax plans, the deficit and creating jobs. But in the end, what did viewers learn other than that Romney and Obama have starkly different opinions on how theoretical math works?

Can Obama decrease the deficit by spending more and taxing more? Romney said no, but demonstrated no evidence other than his lack of faith. Can Romney spend two trillion extra on defense without raising taxes on the middle class to pay for it? Obama said no, and the math seems to back him up, but he was unable to present his argument in a manner that would be digestible by a common viewer.

What the common viewer could easily discern, however, was that two presidential candidates with four Ivy League degrees between them, who both claim that the key to their governing style is bipartisan leadership, were unable to put aside polarizing, partisan rhetoric long enough to provide the American people enough information to make an educated decision about the future of our country

Reaction to the first presidential debate

Posted by Jean-Ann Kubler

After sifting through the talking points and empty rhetoric of last Thursday's presidential debate (we get it, five trillion is a big number), the American public is left with very little substance on which to compare the incumbent Obama and challenger Romney.

The two candidates each made bold attempts, particularly during the economic segment of the debate, to appear as if they were presenting facts and specifics about tax plans, the deficit and creating jobs. But in the end, what did viewers learn other than that Romney and Obama have starkly different opinions on how theoretical math works?

Can Obama decrease the deficit by spending more and taxing more? Romney said no, but demonstrated no evidence other than his lack of faith. Can Romney spend two trillion extra on defense without raising taxes on the middle class to pay for it? Obama said no, and the math seems to back him up, but he was unable to present his argument in a manner that would be digestible by a common viewer.

What the common viewer could easily discern, however, was that two presidential candidates with four Ivy League degrees between them, who both claim that the key to their governing style is bipartisan leadership, were unable to put aside polarizing, partisan rhetoric long enough to provide the American people enough information to make an educated decision about the future of our country

Editorial: A Smoke-free Campus

Posted by The Editorial Board

With an ever-rising number of college campuses in the country banning or restricting smoking, it has come as no surprise that members of the Skidmore College community have been discussing the idea. As noted in "Smoke-Free? Skidmore's future as a smoke-friendly campus," SGA and the administration have been entertaining such a notion since the end of last year. The question at hand is not whether the school has the right to enact such a policy, but what kind of approach the school might take in restricting smoking, and whether or not such action is truly necessary.

Cities and states have been placing bans on smoking in public places since the 1990's. According to a study done by the American College Health Association, published in 2009, 48.6% of the U.S. population is already protected by 100% smoke-free workplace, bar and restaurant laws. Despite protest and an eventual repealment after a year, the ban on smoking in New York City public parks proved that no place, public or private, indoors or outdoors, is safe from such policies. In principle this applies to Skidmore. As long as we walk on ground that is owned by the College, the administration has the right to enforce this policy.

If taken from a more democratic angle, it should be noted that the 2012 Surgeon General's Report on Tobacco Use Among Youth and Young Adults states that 24.8% of college students aged 18-22 were smokers in 2010. If one considers the idea of majority rule, then shouldn't it make sense for the 75% of students who do not smoke to be recognized and protected?

According to the Americans for Nonsmoker's Rights Foundation, 774 colleges or universities in the U.S. have adopted 100% smoke-free campus policies as of July 2012. The trend seems to be spreading rapidly considering that the number of campuses with such a policy was only at 420 two years prior. It should also be noted that these numbers do not even include campuses that have enforced designated smoking zone policies as opposed to absolute bans.

Many campuses have instituted policies that restrict smoking to certain parts of campus, and this idea is more inline with what the Skidmore administration is considering. The College already banned smoking in the residence halls and stopped selling cigarettes in the Skidmore Shop. There is not a whole lot more that the administration can do to discourage smoking other than by banning or restricting it.

If students are still complaining about having to endure the vast amount of secondhand smoke that seem to accumulate outside of the residence halls and academic buildings, then in order to avoid infringing upon the rights of smokers, we need to consider how Skidmore as a community can balance everyone's rights equally.

Some students might argue that by placing ashtrays on the tables outside of Burgess and on the walls outside of buildings the administration is either condoning smoking or designating those areas as smoke-tolerable, but these same zones seem to be the most commonly complained about by nonsmokers. It is worth noting that these ashtrays are there for environmental purposes. The administration could not make its rightfully justified stance against smoking any clearer than with the policies that are already in place. They do not condone it, as anyone who understands the health implications would not, but they respect us as mature adults and thus allow us to continue doing it.

If we are going to avoid having to enact such a policy we need to be considerate of each other. Just because the ashtrays are located next to doorways doesn't mean you have to smoke there. Walk ten or fifteen feet away from a building so that passerbys do not have to endure the consequences of other people's decisions.

We do not need to have a formal written rule when we can have an unspoken one. If we respect each other and our rights to smoke or avoid secondhand smoke, then the administration will not need to further consider this policy.  

Opinions, questions, concerns? Submit a letter to the editorial board about this editorial or any other campus topic you feel is worth discussing.

No Offense/A Defense: Examining where sports fit into our intellectual college lives

Posted by Jake Dolgenos

With the excitement of the Summer Olympics only now slipping from the world's headlines, and with football season underway, the experience of once more finding ourselves enraptured as a species, and as a school, by the results of competitive athletic activity comes with a sense of occasional communal confusion. As we are ostensibly drawn together through our desire to better ourselves intellectually, what, if any, is the place of athletics on a modern college campus? It's a question that provokes much whispered skepticism, and may elicit some ill will for the mere act of it's asking, but one which warrants some discussion nonetheless.

It's easy to feel frustrated as a student when a character like Ryan Lochte, the Olympic swimmer for the United States, captures the world's attention and applause only to prove an inarticulate, self-centered jock. His self-congratulatory mumbling made it hard to ignore an uneasy feeling that punctuated the jingoistic trash talk around my television. Is this the role model we've chosen to represent our society? Is Ryan Lochte deserving of our national attention? It's hard not to weigh the broader sociological implications.

This connects to what I'll call the Typical Intellectual Objection (TIO) to sports in general, one all of us have probably heard or felt or defended or attacked during our time at college. Athletic competition shouldn't command the attention it does, the argument goes. It shouldn't fill our time or define our lives. It shouldn't take our minds and bodies from class, or funding from our tuition. Our national love of sports, the argument may continue, is part of a larger cultural trend, which emphasizes superficial values, anti-intellectualism, and mindless competition. Celebrity worship. The obsession with fitness and skinniness. The stereotype of the dumb jock bully is rarely mentioned, but seems always to hover around the TIO intimidatingly

Admittedly, it seems hard to defend athletic competition in the modern world, a world run by computers and machines, a world no longer requiring the kinds of physical activity we once needed to survive. Cooperation, not competition, seems far more promising a proposition.

I am the first college athlete in three generations of both sides of a particularly bookish family. I come from a world of near-sighted English majors and the authors of books on constitutional law. My parents pushed me into recreational soccer but routinely read books while I played, and encouraged my inevitable mediocrity with the overarching assurance that sports and games are for fun, and that pursuits of the mind were the activities that mattered. Few have been so well exposed to the TIO as have I.

So when I heard my aunt, who teaches law at Rutgers University, admit that athletes were often her favorite students, it gave me pause. She elaborated.

They come to class on time and prepared. They respect the authority and knowledge of the professor. They are considerate of the group's experience in the class, not just their own. They get their work done and don't question its value. They know how to ask for help when they need it. They know how to accept criticism and make appropriate changes.

This was not, she made clear, representative of all of the athletes she taught, nor were these qualities relegated to only those students who had participated in collegiate athletics (soldiers were another favorite of hers). But I found in her assertion my own answer to the TIO.

Athletics, like any other activity, do not magically transform anyone's personality. I say this to make it clear that I intend to make no apologies for Lochte-like cockiness or (seeming) stupidity. There are some athletes who fully embody the dumb jock stereotype. But I believe that the spirit of the liberal arts involves learning from all kinds of experiences and experiencing all kinds of learning.

Playing a sport may involve kinds of physical activity that society no longer needs, but it also promotes and rewards actions and attitudes, which remain truly important in any society. Leadership, cooperation, organization and self-improvement as the result of accepted criticism sounds like a laundry list of inspirational business posters, but these are the kind of incredibly necessary, hard-to-teach values that organized sports inform.

There is little here, I imagine, that students have not heard before, and constitutes a fairly typical response to the TIO. But for me, the kind of hypothetical argument it encompasses is grounded in my own experiences and those of my athletic friends.

There is a mindset to athletics that I rarely see in the rest of my life. It's an attitude that relishes greater challenge, that encourages constant self-examination and critique, which involves honor and dignity in the face of obstacles or defeat. It feels old-fashioned. It's a thrill. It wakes me up in the morning.

For those who live without this feeling, or for whom sports offer little interest, consider the value of the modes of life they inspire. To my fellow athletes, consider what athletics mean to you in a broader sense and try, like my aunt's favorite students, to more fully embody the positive values a lifestyle of competition should promote. What a world it would be, to have every professor so convinced of the benefits of a class full of athletes. 

Daydreams: College's intrinsic worth: Investigating the value of college in a tight economy

Posted by Richard Chrisman

It's time to put into proper perspective all the concerns expressed by commentators and American families about the high cost of higher education today. The discussion can be broken down into two questions: are college costs affordable, and is college worth the cost?

My answer to the first question is: "Ok, it's a stretch right now." The immediate remedy can be huge infusions of scholarship funds, or alternating semesters of work with semesters of study. Northeastern University (in Boston) has done this sort of thing for years.

My answer to the second question is: "Absolutely, unequivocally yes." But, to see why, we must ignore treatments of the subject like the cover story of the Sept. 17 issue of Newsweek magazine, entitled: "Is College a Lousy Investment?" The article utterly confuses the two questions posed above, arguing that, because college is difficult to afford, it is not worth it. Poor logic.

No doubt about it, paying down student debts is made vastly more difficult today by the present economy in which there are not many jobs around that pay enough for students to pay off large debt readily. Hopefully, this condition is not permanent. Nevertheless, looking for "returns" on one's educational "investment" in any economy utterly misses the intangible, intrinsic merits of higher education.

We have to look beyond skills development, career building, social networking and upward mobility to justify education today. Of course, any of us here at Skidmore would tell you how important it is to learn about our cultural history (and that of other peoples) to attain critical thinking and to become imaginative problem-solvers for problems we cannot foresee.

That said, there is yet another reason for being in college (of any kind, size or cost) that people hardly mention, although it is fundamental to our development as individuals. The college experience is a special rite of passage and a potentially transformative one, depending on how a student approaches it. It's almost automatic that students will pass from a state of relative innocence to a kind of maturity in those four years. But more than that is possible because college is really what we modern Americans have for a "vision quest," that sacred ritual for young Native Americans intended to equip them with a life purpose and a personal ethic. They did it by immersion in Nature and fasting, in order to confront themselves and the Ultimate. We, on the other hand, are totally sheltered. But the analogy still may work, because the student is here to discover his or her ultimate direction and, even in plush college surroundings, that is necessarily harsh and demanding, albeit fulfilling, work. The difference lies in the distinction between learning and discovering.

How so? Well, although you got into college on the basis of your strengths, it is your weaknesses that will educate you here, to the extent that you permit yourself to face up to them and discover what they mean. The Dean of Admissions, Mary Lou Bates, reads the list of your aggregate achievements at each Convocation for first year students. These include the many countries you have visited, the different languages spoken at your dinner tables, the volunteer services you have performed, the musical instruments you play, your theatrical kudos, publications, the academic prizes won and the athletic talents you possess. All that is now ancient history.

It took great will power and great emotional stamina to win your college acceptances, and that's just what you'll need more of to get your money's worth out of college now that you're finally here--not just because meeting the academic challenges is so hard, which it is Becoming a better person, a more self-aware person and a more empathetic one is the product of stepping into mud puddles of your own making-hurting others and being hurt-then reflecting seriously about it. Looked at in a certain way, college is a kind of wilderness where we must encounter our fundamental loneliness, our utter unpreparedness for such diversity of people and our anxiety about the person inside us that we are not fully acquainted with.

In a word, the college experience demands intense introspection if you are going to get your money's worth out of it. And for that we need time apart, but where do we find that in a week crowded with activity? All the stimulating activities, the cramming for course assignments and the extreme weekend entertainments are a natural part of learning on any campus, but they also have to share the road with the process of discovery-our self-discovery. The dollars are only worth it if, in addition to developing our strengths, we take time to face our weaknesses and not be afraid to let them show to our friends, our classmates, our teachers and our counselors.

The vision we quest for--that picture of ourselves and our place in this big world--is inside us, if only we can sit somewhere in a place apart and silently contemplate it. Maybe we need to spend more time daydreaming!

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

Editorial: Library Renovations

Posted by The Editorial Board

Over the summer, the Lucy Scribner Library received a multi-million dollar renovation. The revamp addressed a lot of the issues students had been concerned with in the past, including effective use of space and resources. Overall, the renovations have been greeted with enthusiasm, but with one oversight.

Some of the immediately notable additions to the library include: 12 new individual study rooms and 13 new group study rooms; new computers, both Mac and PC; new furniture, including some desks with outlets for easy laptop charging; 250 more seats; a media viewing room; and a new electronic system for reserving study space.

It would be difficult to argue that any of these renovations are not of the utmost practicality and value, particularly the new study room reservation system. In the past, getting a study room was difficult for students, especially during midterms and finals. While the entire extent of its usefulness will not be fully realized until the system endures the first midterm rush, it is safe to say that the electronic booking procedure is a much more practical and fair system of reserving space than the old first-come-first-serve method, which was often abused. Students can no longer leave their belongings in a room and come back later after hours of no use. With designated time slots, students will be forced to use their study time more effectively thus insuring that more people will be able to take advantage of the space.

The renovations have also made the library more useful to professors. Two new electronic classrooms with innovative teaching tools and technology are open, allowing faculty members a chance to experiment with teaching methods, and the new media room will serve as a great place to screen films for class. The fact that clubs and individual students may also use these facilities only adds to their benefit.

The spacing of the library makes librarians more visible therefore more accessible, and the relocation of IT to the basement makes technical support that much easier for students to obtain. The addition of motion-sensor lights and a water refilling station also help move the college even further in its green-friendly initiative.

Improved aesthetics of the library, along with the addition of the Hillside Apartments, ought to create more interest in the school among prospective students. However, with all of the consolidation and rearrangement of stacks one may not have noticed a certain set of resources that is now missing.

A complaint students have voiced concerns the relocation of microfilms and year-or-more-old periodicals to the Hoge building next to Harder Hall. The new system for acquiring these materials treats them almost identically to materials accessed through the interlibrary loan system, which makes little sense when one considers the implications.
Students can no longer look through shelves of these documents and must instead request photocopies of specific pages from them. This change adds a few steps that only complicate the loaning process. It also does not coincide with the eco-friendly mantra that the school has embraced in recent years. Nor does the idea of limiting academic materials fit in with the high regard for academia that our school embraces as an elite learning institution. The move to Hoge might make sense if these materials were being treated like special collections, in that a student would need to make a reservation in order to use them, but why limit access to materials that were already fully available in the first place?

While the improved aesthetics of the library increase its appeal to students, faculty and prospective students, functionality should come first. What is the quintessential point of a library but to house academic materials? Though the renovations made to the library are all undeniable improvements, perhaps more thought should have been given with regards to the periodicals.

Editorial: Heighten Security Measures in Saisselin

Posted by the Editorial Board

After a busy summer of construction, the campus looks better than ever. Lucy Scribner Library's beautifully renovated interior beckons students to spend more time studying; the health concerns in Starbuck have been resolved and the new Hillside Apartments rival Northwoods Village as the nicest housing option. Despite these considerable efforts, however, one stone was left unturned: nothing has been done to heighten the security in the 24-hour-accessible Saisselin Art Building.
Students and faculty members alike have expressed concerns over stolen artwork and materials. The front entrance of Saisselin is always open, and while some of the studios do have punch-code locks, the doors are often left ajar and the codes are rarely changed.
The campus is an incredibly safe and trusting community, and while we value our ability to live uninhibited by security protocols, a luxury students at many larger colleges and universities lack, the reality is that we do not always know who is on our campus. This March, a local man who had been living at the Gateway Motel was caught sending death threats to President Barack Obama from computers in Saisselin. Fortunately, this man didn't harm anyone on campus, but the point remains that he could have.
Studio Art students often work late into the night, and the building is typically scarcely populated. Working sleep-deprived, alone, in the early hours of the morning can feel eerie, especially when the threat of unsolicited or inebriated visitors is a risk.
Case Center is the only other 24-hour building on Skidmore's campus that does not get locked at night. It is a known place of congregation among students, and there is not much valuable equipment to be taken. Any room that does have expensive merchandise has a lock, and the space is so open that it would be difficult to find yourself in a dark corner. However, it is fairly common to have one student working alone in a secluded space of Saisselin late into the night.
Saisselin is full of valuable and expensive materials, and the hours of labor students put into their art is irreplaceable. Instances of student work being stolen or vandalized are not uncommon. Beyond theft and public defacement lies the possibility of injury: there is dangerous machinery which, if in the hands of careless individuals, could cause harm. Instances of drunken carelessness or meandering may be rare, but they do occur.
These concerns can all be addressed by remodeling the security system in Saisselin to look more like that of the Zankel Music Center, the only other 24-hour-accessible building left unmentioned. The doors of Zankel require swipe-entry after 11 p.m., and only students enrolled in lessons or classes may enter the facility. Once inside, they may only swipe into the room needed for the class they are taking. Instruments are stored in lockers with lock combinations known only by the owners.
Of course these measures make sense with so much valuable equipment in Zankel, but why shouldn't this same mentality apply to Saisselin? It would be a relatively simple fix to install similar locks, and students and faculty members could finally be at ease knowing that their valuable materials and precious works are safe.

Editorial: Fall Fun Day Discussion

Posted by the Editorial Board

When the rumors of Fall Fun Day were recently confirmed by SGA, the news received mixed reactions from the student body. Due to the popularity of the school's spring tradition, which shares its name, many returning students showed excitement. However, others have expressed concern over the possibility of the event turning into yet another opportunity for incidents of binge drinking.

While this event is meant to serve as a calm, welcome-back celebration, the connection to the spring Fun Day is inevitable. The spring tradition falls on the weekend before finals week and serves as a day to de-stress. Fun Day is one of the most highly anticipated and attended events, a tradition that is also linked to massive alcohol consumption.

Due to the timing and nature of Fun Day, it is not surprising that the event has become such an outlet for substance use. With this in mind, it's natural that students anticipate that Fall Fun Day may unfold in a similar fashion.

In recent years, it has not been unusual for alcohol-related incidents to occur during campus-wide celebrations. However, Fun Day has typically seen lower numbers of incidents than other major gatherings. There was only one hospitalization during Fun Day last year.

Fall semester is typically back heavy in terms of major celebrations, and Fall Fun Day seems to be SGA's attempt to balance the semester out. First year students would be introduced to a large, campus-wide event earlier on, instead of the annual Moorebid Ball* in late October. Fall Fun Day also provides a great opportunity for spring athletes and study abroad students to participate in an event they would otherwise miss. 

Yet, with the school's history of alcohol mismanagement, there remains a concern for the outcome of this event. The school has seen an increase in the number of substance-related hospitalizations in recent years. In response, however, the administration has put forth many efforts to tackle this issue, including a revision of the AOD policy, campus-wide discussions, and increased safety measures at major events.

However, there is only so much that SGA and the administration can do. With Fall Fun Day, we have been presented with another chance to prove ourselves, and ultimately, the outcome of such a highly anticipated all-campus event lies in the hands of the student body.

*Contrary to rumors, Fall Fun Day is not a replacement for Moorebid Ball, and is very much a distinct entity. Moorebid is still being considered by SGA, and is in the tentative planning stages.

Letter: Response to 'Granting Alumni Access to Online Databases'

Posted by Ruth Copans, Justin Sipher and Michael Sposili

Dear Editor,

It was with great interest that we read the editorial which appeared in the The Skidmore News on Friday, March 23, 2012 titled, "Fan the flames of our education, grant alumni access to databases."  As you may or may not be aware, several members of Skidmore' administration have been actively considering the implications, both technical and financial in nature, of making this service available to alumni. We are pleased to announce that Skidmore will soon participate in a pilot project that will allow alumni to access, JSTOR resources, a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of digital content. This service contains over 1,500 academic journals and other scholarly content.  

Offering this service to alumni is not without expense. Based on the exploration we have completed to date, the fee associated with offering this service to our alumni will be $2,000 annually. Rather than looking at this as an expense, we believe, as you do, that this investment will provide Skidmore alumni with yet another benefit as a graduate of the College. 

Specific information about how alumni will be able to access JSTOR resources will be made available to alumni this summer and it will be publicized in upcoming editions of SCOPE Monthly, the College's electronic newsletter. Additionally, a link will be provided via the Library Website.

Sincerely,

Ruth Copans               Justin Sipher                             Michael Sposili

College Librarian         Chief Technology Officer         Director of Alumni Affairs &

                                                                                      College Events

Letter: Mr. Finkelstein, Let's Be Fair

Posted by William Van den Broeck

Dear Editor,

It's Wednesday April 23^rd and this morning I cannot sleep. Yesterday night, I sat through Norman Finkelstein bashing Israel for an hour and half, omitting any mention of wrongdoings by anyone else involved - historically the Israel-Palestinian conflict deals with more than just Jews and Arabs or Zionists and their neighbors.

The event was packed and people were excited to hear what he had to say, though by the end many members of the audience had left. I don't know if they left because they were bored, or had places to go, or just couldn't take what he had to say anymore. I'd like to think that a fraction of those people that left realized that it wasn't worth their time to listen to someone just go on, and on, and on about everything Israel does wrong, especially when he starts out his speech with "I'm not here to bash Israel." Of course, that is just my hope though it is probably not true. I'm sure to many, he was engaging.

Finkelstein considers himself an activist and surely hoped that yesterday he moved a lot of people to take action. His purpose was not to foster anti-Semitism, it was just to foster anti-Zionism, but understand, Mr. Finkelstein, that the two will always be related.

No, I do not believe the majority of Anti-Zionists are indeed anti-Semitic, but I do know that at many pro-Palestinian demonstrations and marches, there are incidents of anti-Semitism - whether it be through the defacing of synagogues, in the rhetoric mentioned or simply direct physical attacks on Jews.

After the Israeli offense on Gaza, incidents of anti-Semitic acts increased in Europe and cops were needed in front of Jewish schools and Jewish neighborhoods. I remember, for example, in Antwerp at the time when people wrecked the famous Hassidic neighborhood of the city, directly attacking shops, schools and temples. I remember a few years later, Central Park South, next to the Apple Store when I proudly attended the Israeli-Day parade on 5^th Ave. and there were a dozen counter protesters across the street. Again, I'm sure this was meant to be just a protest against what the Israeli government is doing and a call to end the occupation, but there was a banner denying the holocaust.

Yesterday, Finkelstein only mentioned what Israel does wrong; he was not even willing to add an "although...." as if all their acts are inexcusable by anyone's standard. I asked him how his speech can lead to progress (by progress I thought it was explicit that I meant peace but I guess not.) How does mentioning all the weapons used by the Israeli army in Lebanon and Gaza effective without ever mentioning one rocket launched by Hamas? How is talking about the terrible acquisitions from the Six-Day war helpful in a goal of educating when you fail to even mention that Israel was the one ATTACKED? That is not justification but mere explanation as to what happened.

It is always hard to answer to questions under emotion and on the spot when we don't have time to fully think our questions through so, yesterday I just asked why he needed to be SO one-sided, of course he never answered my question. While I am proud of myself for standing up and voicing my opinion (hey, I even got some applause), I wish I could have said something more along these following lines to Mr. Finkelstein:

Sir, why do you feel the need to bash a country and talk about a conflict in such one-sided manner? How can that lead to peace?

Yes, I am against the occupation and I think Israel needs to give up its occupied territories and religious settlers need to stop doing what they do. Others in Israel share my point of view. Their opinion is voiced on the streets through demonstrations, in the Knesset (Israel's congress) by official elected representatives and by soldiers who refuse to serve in the West Bank and Gaza because they feel those are occupied territories.

Yes, there might be more tension between Egypt and Israel now that Mubarak has fallen but you know what, Israeli and Egyptian soldiers have had a peaceful relationship for many years and continue to even after the revolution. This relationship is not just peaceful, they actually get along, Mr. Finkelstein.

Yes, Israel's offensive in Gaza had terrible consequences and the IDF did some pretty horrible things but at the same time there were Israeli doctors that put their lives on the line to go into Gaza and rescue victims of war to give them adequate healthcare.

Yes, there is a blockade right now and it should not happen because no one should have food access blocked to them. But, this blockade is not in place out of hate, it's happening out of fear. Weapons pass through these rations of food and soldiers who fight back this kind of trafficking get attacked.

Yes, Israel must take responsibility for its share in the problem and it responds to the conflict in a less than adequate manner and should be criticized for some of its actions but you know what, it should also be praised for some of its actions. In January of 2010, Mr. Finkelstein, do you know what Israel did? It sent aid over to Haiti to help out in the earthquake, just a day after the earthquake happened. I am not going to name a bunch of countries where Israel has gone, but I can bet you that any natural disaster that has occurred no matter where in the world, Israel has gone there to help out. They even stay in some places longer than other countries. There are places where no one dares to go-helping women in South Sudan and giving aid to victims of the Darfur genocide, granting those refugees citizenship. How many other nations can say they've done that? How many white-nations can say they've granted citizenship en masse to refugees from African countries like Sudan and Ethiopia? Because, clearly those actions are worthy of comparing Israel to N. Korea, Pakistan and noting "when was the last time you ever heard anything nice said about those countries?"

Yes, I agree we need to get rid of the settlements, the occupied territories need to be given back, the treatment of Palestinian refugees is unacceptable and the Palestinian people today are victims whose cry for help needs to be heard.

That's not a reason, however, to go to college campuses and universities and give extremely one-sided accounts of the conflict and bash a country that, though just like any other place, has done many wrong things, has also done many great things and continues to do so today and so many would like to see destroyed. Understanding and stating the multiple pieces of the puzzle-that leads to progress and peace Mr. Finkelstein. You, on the other hand will only promote hate!

William Van den Broeck

Class of 2015

Soapbox: Dear Occupy Wall Street, Clean Up Your Act: Four suggestions to make the OWS movement successful

Posted by Eric Shapiro

It is still premature to write a eulogy, but it's fair to say that Occupy Wall Street has not lived up to the astronomical expectations it generated last summer. The movement has largely been supplanted in media coverage by the presidential race, the war in Afghanistan and Rush Limbaugh's repulsive utterances. Part of this was inevitable; no peaceful movement, Tea Party included, can continue to hog the media spotlight forever, especially as its novelty wears off. Without minimizing Occupy Wall Street's legitimate and much-needed contributions to the national discourse, here are some things the movement can do to ensure its future relevance.

1. Drop the extraneous pet causes

Far be it from me to call the value of animal rights activism into question, or to doubt the sincerity of those who single out Israel for its alleged oppression of the Palestinians at a time when Arab regimes are having a ball brutalizing their own people. But a movement concerned with spurring real change should maintain a focused message and a clear sense of purpose. There are plenty of well-funded organizations devoted to the aforementioned causes. Occupy Wall Street should emphasize the parts of its message that resonate in a time of economic crisis: income inequality, corporate welfare and the plight of the 99 percent. Otherwise, it risks coming across as a jumbled patchwork of progressive pet causes that, for better or worse, do not carry all that much weight with the general population.

2. Establish a clear, efficient hierarchy

Occupiers can learn a lot from the successes and failures of past social movements. For instance, many of the key organizations that comprised the second wave of feminism began as freeform, directly democratic affairs that prioritized every voice being heard. Unfortunately, this very same quality came to undermine the cohesion of the movement and limit its capacity to make decisions in a prudent and timely matter. Occupy Wall Street need not fall into this same trap. It currently has something resembling these leaders, but they have thus far not received much media coverage and, consequently, do not benefit from the attention and respect afforded to high profile political figures. To be fair, there have been encouraging signs of late that Occupy Wall Street is a hierarchy better equipped to pursue its lofty goals. Let's hope this trend continues.

3. Mind the Occupy Wall Street image

As much as we would like Occupy Wall Street to function as an extension of our youthful, free spirited selves, it is important to remember that appearance matters greatly to many older Americans sympathetic to Occupy Wall Streets ideas. I have perused various political message boards and have found that many middle-aged and older Americans are far from impressed by the scrappy, disheveled appearance of Occupy protesters. It may remind them of radical New Left movements in the 1960s, whose members threw rocks at soldiers returning from Vietnam and publicly sympathized with the likes of the Ho Chi Minh and Mao Zedong. It may just give them a bad vibe. Either way, it would be a shame to turn off voters receptive to Occupy Wall Street's underlying message by refusing to obey the basic rules of political decorum. So please, Occupiers, before you get your protest on, have a shave, take a shower and maybe even put on a nice outfit for the cameras.

4. Raise money and back politically viable candidates for office

Lets be real: Ironically, Occupy Wall Street would do well to take a lesson from the Tea Party - its very rough conservative equivalent. The latter movement started small, establishing an infrastructure in communities and grabbing media coverage. Then, as it gained greater attention and more financial support, it set its sights on electing legislators sympathetic to its right-wing populist goals. Granted, the Tea Party had a considerable advantage over Occupy Wall Street: the patronage of the 1 percent. Subsequent investigation has revealed that Republican strategists and donors like the Koch brothers played an indispensable role in conceptualizing and funding the so-called "grass-roots movement. " Occupy Wall Street has not yet attained this level of influence. Yet, its ideas have gained political traction, placing a renewed focus on growing economic inequality in America. In addition, a number of wealthy individuals (many of them celebrities) and organizations donated large sums of money to Occupy Wall Street in its early days. If the movement truly wishes to capitalize on the big splash it made last summer, it must transfer the resonance of its message into political power by means of fundraising and lobbying in Congress. It is not the most glamorous pursuit, to be sure, but you have to play the game in order to change it. 

Closing Thoughts:

Occupy Wall Street is a true grassroots enterprise, unlike the Astroturf Tea Party. It would be a shame for its members to squander the movement's potential out of some misguided notions of ideological purity. As the generation that will inevitably be forced to deal with the deleterious financial effects of the Baby Boomers on American society, it is time to grow up and play an active role in shaping our future. If we refuse to work through the present political system, pulsating warts and all, we will become irrelevant in the issues of our day. Global warming and income inequality, as well as, the stifling of democracy by big money (see my article on Super-Pacs) are not problems that we can conveniently set aside as we live out our communal, post-adolescent fantasies. Unlike our parents, we cannot afford that luxury.

Editorial: If 'Creative Thought Matters' then protect it in the new IP policy

Posted by the Editorial Board

Allow students to retain their rights to intellectual property. Skidmore is behind its peer and aspirant schools when it comes to legal policies. The College has been working to update its policies to safeguard legal action against the school. Creation of an intellectual property policy is being considered. Intellectual property rights issues have been a point of contention between students and institutions throughout the U.S. At our institution we should ensure that we protect student creativity.

For many reasons, it is important that Skidmore adopt guidelines concerning the ownership of copywritten, trademarked and patented material. Many organizations that give funds and grants for research require that the institutions have a clear intellectual property rights policy.

Skidmore does not produce large volumes of patents, especially compared to technical institutions. However, with an increasing entrepreneurial spirit cropping up among Skidmore's student body, it is necessary that the administration and the faculty reach a fair agreement on intellectual property rights.

Patents created by Skidmore faculty in their capacities as employees should be shared fairly between the inventor and the school. This should be done in a way that incentivizes creativity and provides the school with a funding source for further research.

However, when developing this policy, the College should draw a clear distinction between faculty, who work under contract with the college, and students, who are paying to attend classes.

It is imperative that we protect student innovation. Nothing would stifle the creative thought of students more than a surprise phone call from the administration informing them that their patents now belong to the school.

It should be assumed that student work and innovations belong to students.  The administration should have no intrinsic or inherent claim on student work, especially work that is done by students on their own time.

The school might have a claim to patents developed by students if, and only if, the school creates a contract with a student with the express purpose of sharing a patent.

In developing the final version of Skidmore's intellectual property rights policy, students need to be included in a meaningful way, and these concerns regarding the involvement and limits of the College's claims on student property must be accounted for. Students should be on the board that writes this policy and the administration should put this up to the student body for a vote.

In whatever policy the school eventually adopts, the interest of students should be paramount. The extent to which the policy protects student innovation will be a good indication of Skidmore's commitment to its motto, "Creative Thought Matters."

Daydreams: Run, don't walk, to see "Ajax in Iraq"

Posted by Rick Chrisman

Everyone should see this play, which deftly distills the essence of war and makes its audience strive to fulfill its moral obligations.

This is a cheer for the Skidmore Theater Department. Leaving the JKB Theater after the performance, which has a superior cast, great production value and an excellent script by Ellen McLaughlin, I wished every Skidmore student could see it. What follows is not a "theater review," but a personal view.

In a blistering 90 minutes, "Ajax in Iraq" conveys the American experience of these seemingly endless wartime years. It tells a timeless story of war, its tragic ambiguities and its costs, without making political gestures or inducing guilt trips. Ten years of op-ed pieces, media punditry, statistical reports from Iraq and Afghanistan and dinner table conversations are concentrated into the single javelin thrust of poetry by this play.

This piece prods us to reflect on what we think we are doing as a country. It provides a moment to take in the difference between the personal challenges of mortal combat and our self-interested projects at home. You could say Ellen McLaughlin holds the mirror up to our contradictions and evasions.

In so doing, the play elucidates the preciousness of life. Once you see this, you cannot but marvel at the miracle of every morning. Here we are, born where we are born, enduring our sufferings, tasting the edge of God's blade, each given the gift of living one specific life. We could hear the universe cry out at the waste that is war.

Of course, every war story is inherently an anti-war story. In this particular instance, the playwright interlaces the story of A.J., a female soldier under great duress in Iraq, with the story of Ajax, the Greek hero of the Trojan war who commits suicide after a mad fit in which he slaughters a herd of sheep believing them to be his Greek betrayers. These two cases, extreme as they are in outcome, are nevertheless emotionally representative of all combatants. War is abnormal, and calling the soldiers "heroes" is our way of normalizing it for our comfort. This play doesn't let us get away with that.

A play like "Ajax in Iraq" provides a kind of ritual moment to pay our respects to our soldiers -and all combatants. But it also prompts us to find a responsible life in wartime. I believe you will leave this play wanting to seek your own way to contribute to national life, when war is being waged abroad and domestic needs abound. Just taking a political position for or against our wars will not be enough for you anymore. Don't we want to count, to make a difference? Of course, so what domestic service might we perform?

Even apart from wartime, the same question must be asked: aren't our rights and privileges as citizens counter-balanced by certain obligations? The U.S. grew itself out of a wilderness, but we could lapse back into a moral wilderness (according to some, we already have) if we do not act upon our common interests in addition to our individual "pursuit of happiness." After you see "Ajax in Iraq," you will want a better reason for living.

I encourage you to not take any half-steps in this direction but to dedicate your college career to finding a service commitment that fulfills you, one which you might even make permanently and professionally. Maybe you will find a way to make a lot of money and dedicate it to a service project. Maybe you will, as Gandhi did, make service your religion. Whatever you do, go see "Ajax in Iraq."

Daydreams: Run, don't walk, to see "Ajax in Iraq"

Posted by Rick Chrisman

Everyone should see this play, which deftly distills the essence of war and makes its audience strive to fulfill its moral obligations.

This is a cheer for the Skidmore Theater Department. Leaving the JKB Theater after the performance, which has a superior cast, great production value and an excellent script by Ellen McLaughlin, I wished every Skidmore student could see it. What follows is not a "theater review," but a personal view.

In a blistering 90 minutes, "Ajax in Iraq" conveys the American experience of these seemingly endless wartime years. It tells a timeless story of war, its tragic ambiguities and its costs, without making political gestures or inducing guilt trips. Ten years of op-ed pieces, media punditry, statistical reports from Iraq and Afghanistan and dinner table conversations are concentrated into the single javelin thrust of poetry by this play.

This piece prods us to reflect on what we think we are doing as a country. It provides a moment to take in the difference between the personal challenges of mortal combat and our self-interested projects at home. You could say Ellen McLaughlin holds the mirror up to our contradictions and evasions.

In so doing, the play elucidates the preciousness of life. Once you see this, you cannot but marvel at the miracle of every morning. Here we are, born where we are born, enduring our sufferings, tasting the edge of God's blade, each given the gift of living one specific life. We could hear the universe cry out at the waste that is war.

Of course, every war story is inherently an anti-war story. In this particular instance, the playwright interlaces the story of A.J., a female soldier under great duress in Iraq, with the story of Ajax, the Greek hero of the Trojan war who commits suicide after a mad fit in which he slaughters a herd of sheep believing them to be his Greek betrayers. These two cases, extreme as they are in outcome, are nevertheless emotionally representative of all combatants. War is abnormal, and calling the soldiers "heroes" is our way of normalizing it for our comfort. This play doesn't let us get away with that.

A play like "Ajax in Iraq" provides a kind of ritual moment to pay our respects to our soldiers -and all combatants. But it also prompts us to find a responsible life in wartime. I believe you will leave this play wanting to seek your own way to contribute to national life, when war is being waged abroad and domestic needs abound. Just taking a political position for or against our wars will not be enough for you anymore. Don't we want to count, to make a difference? Of course, so what domestic service might we perform?

Even apart from wartime, the same question must be asked: aren't our rights and privileges as citizens counter-balanced by certain obligations? The U.S. grew itself out of a wilderness, but we could lapse back into a moral wilderness (according to some, we already have) if we do not act upon our common interests in addition to our individual "pursuit of happiness." After you see "Ajax in Iraq," you will want a better reason for living.

I encourage you to not take any half-steps in this direction but to dedicate your college career to finding a service commitment that fulfills you, one which you might even make permanently and professionally. Maybe you will find a way to make a lot of money and dedicate it to a service project. Maybe you will, as Gandhi did, make service your religion. Whatever you do, go see "Ajax in Iraq."

Editorial: On 4/20, give Skidmore the reputation it deserves

Posted by the Editorial Board

Editor's Note: To partake in a survey concerning 4/20 and Skidmore's campus culture, click here.

As the counter-cultural holiday of 4/20 draws near, students and administrators are bracing themselves for the anniversary of the College's unfortunate and embarrassing marijuana-related controversy in 2009.

That year's celebration saw a few dozen Skidmore students gathered on the south green openly indulging in drug use. After The Saratogian covered the merriment, Skidmore saw its name thrown into the pool of America's recognizable "druggy" schools. The following year, driven by overblown media coverage and an increased perception of marijuana use, Skidmore temporarily rose to the No. 2 position of the Princeton Review's "Reefer Madness" list.

The fumes from that year's event are still lingering. While our ranking has dropped to No. 15 in the "Reefer Madness" category, we should ensure that it continues to do so.

Our grievance with this persisting depiction is that it is an inaccurate portrayal of Skidmore students and our College in general.

Skidmore's continued appearances on these sorts of lists create a self-fulfilling prophecy: because of the heightened perception of marijuana use sparked by the 2009 incident, the school is placed in this category in college rankings, which, in turn, perpetuates the perception.

If anything, the College has earned this ranking only through an inflated perception of drug use as well as the laissez-faire attitude we have towards the choices of our peers rather than our actual consumption.

The truth is, since 2009, 4/20 is increasingly a non-event at Skidmore. Students do not gather in large numbers on the South Green, or any other location, to smoke marijuana. The category name "Reefer Madness" falsely implies that students are in a constant state of drug-induced hysteria. Anyone familiar with Skidmore's campus culture will recognize that portrayal as ridiculous.

If we wanted to draw a more accurate picture, we could say that Skidmore students are simply more tolerant of each other's choices.

This toleration among students should not be confused with an institutional negligence toward drug use. While the student body might live and let live concerning their peers' actions, the College's administration is far from complacent. The letter that the student body received from Rochelle Calhoun, dean of Student Affairs, reaffirmed the long-held policy that the College would not tolerate violations of College regulations or the laws of New York State.

Rochelle Calhoun and the administration are taking the right stand on this issue. The letter reiterates the Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD) policy from the Student Handbook: "While we understand that students will make their own choices, we also believe that students should experience the consequences of their choices."

We are adults and we deserve to be treated such, which includes taking full responsibility for our actions.

Skidmore College's academics are a source of pride, and the only lists on which we should seek to appear  are those that showcase our educational distinctions. We should continue to correct the misapprehension of our College's relation to drugs. When Skidmore students or alumni speak of their alma mater, there should be nothing to distract from its earned reputation of excellence in higher education.

This 4/20, in any action that students take, they should be mindful of the consequences for them and the institution.  

Editorial: Make Falstaff's a bar: A campus bar would create a unfying social space and alleviate safety concerns

Posted by the Editorial Board

Nearly two years after the College dissolved the Pavilion Corporation, the legal entity responsible for managing Falstaff's, the facility has remained largely unchanged. As the anniversary of Pavilion's dissolution approaches, it is time to reconsider the role of Falstaff's within the Skidmore community, and to again call for a return to its original purpose as an on-campus bar.

Falstaff's was, of course, originally conceived of as a campus pub. Because the Student Government Association did not have the legal status necessary to fund or build such a facility, Pavilion Corp. was established as a certified New York State not-for-profit with a Board of Directors made up of students, staff and faculty, which would oversee Falstaff's.

During the facility's design and construction, however, the national drinking age was raised to 21, previously 19 in New York State. As a result, the College chose to finish the building, but not to maintain it as a bar. Without a liquor license for Falstaff's, student involvement in Pavilion Corp. declined, and Falstaff's was left in the odd state of limbo in which it has existed until today.

Now, this semester has seen lively debate over the College's new and unpopular Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD) policy. The College has gone to great lengths to restrict consumption on campus, under the auspices of protecting student safety and enforcing national laws regarding underage drinking.

The policy makes certain concessions that allow of-age students to host registered parties in on-campus apartments, but regulations require that these remain intimate gatherings. With a rare few exceptions - some events, like Junior Ring, feature a beer garden - there are no activities on campus that allow of-age students to openly consume alcohol in a room with more than 30 people.

But the lack of such a space, a controlled environment where of-age students can socialize and drink on campus, obstructs the opportunity for a healthy and safe social scene at Skidmore. Perhaps more effectively than any clause in the AOD policy, a campus bar would alleviate the risks of over-consumption and irresponsibility both on and off campus, while cultivating a new kind of unifying social sphere.

There are, of course, numerous bars in downtown Saratoga Springs, and many students frequent them. But these are public venues where, on the one hand, many other students feel less comfortable, and on the other, animosity persists between irresponsible students and the businesses and residents of Saratoga. An on-campus bar would be a much safer and more welcoming place for students.

Such a facility is far from uncommon among the College's peer and aspirant schools. Vassar College and Connecticut College not only have bars on campus, they house them within the schools' respective student centers. Skidmore students studying abroad in, say, London or Oxford, witness how campus bars both channel students' social energies in a more controlled setting and improve the social scene of the campus at large. 

The most immediate concern regarding such a move would be how to make sure the bar would be safe and secure. Commonly, a college bar sets a limit to how many drinks one student may order to prevent any event from descending into a mess; Skidmore's Campus Safety would of course be a central part of any working arrangement. How much simpler would it be for our officers to monitor students right before their eyes, rather than hover around dorms and apartments where drinking takes place exclusively "underground"?

At the moment Saratoga Springs is dealing with an influx of fake IDs, but the College is uniquely equipped to avoid such issues were it to have its own bar. Skidmore already issues Student Event cards for use at the few events a year where alcohol is served; this offers a college-verified means for preventing underage drinking. It is also worth noting that, unlike driver's licenses, there exists no cottage industry devoted to forging Skidmore student IDs.

In speaking with The Skidmore News, Dean of Students Rochelle Calhoun accepted these points and others, and noted that the administration's subcommittee on Campus Climate and Student Culture are discussing an exploration of founding a bar on campus. "I am open to that exploration, for that kind of safe space. That committee will be putting such an idea forward as an exploration," she said.

This vision of a campus bar, therefore, is not outside the realm of possibility. For the sake of a safe and centralized social experience for the Skidmore community, it is time to consider the value of bringing Falstaff's back to its roots and pushing for an on-campus pub.

Soapbox: Santorum has convictions: Why I cannot help but admire Rick Santorum?s campaign in spite of myself

Posted by Eric Shapiro

When moneyed interests seem to have a disproportionate influence on the the nominating process, we should commend candidates who are driven by their convictions. Regardless of his politics, Rick Santorum deserves respect for running a campaign that attracts voters with his ideas rather than his bankroll.

I suppose I should start off this article with the disclaimer that I strongly disagree with Rick Santorum on virtually every single issue. His apparent appeal to a segment of the Republican base is further evidence of that party's extremism on matters of faith, religion, family and reproductive rights. His ideology resonates with many Catholics and evangelicals, as well as blue collar workers and "traditional" families. Santorum's partisans hail his pronouncements, but to my young ears they reek of bigotry (toward the gay community), outright delusion (on matters of global warming and taxes) and bellicosity on defense issues (Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran!). If, by some divine miracle, he were elected president in spite of Mitt Romney's huge delegate lead, I probably wouldn't move to Canada, but I would be surely tempted!

Nevertheless, I cannot help but admire Rick Santorum's campaign for what it represents in today's post-Citizens United world: a campaign built on consistent adherence to principles, however misguided, rather than a pyramid of special interest dollars. Those on both the Right and the Left who would prefer not to see future U.S. elections as glorified bidding wars for the 1 percent should see the success of Santorum's campaign as an encouraging sign. Surpassing all early expectations, the former Pennsylvania senator has risen to challenge the front-runner, Mitt Romney, at the top of the Republican presidential pack. Thus, his campaign should serve as an inspiration for future presidential contenders who seek to challenge big money's monopoly on the political process.

Rick Santorum spent the majority of the pre-Iowa primary contest in relative anonymity, owing in part to the consensus that his drubbing in his last race for the Senate and his anemic campaign organization made him a highly implausible nominee for president. Yet, as his fellow Romney alternatives, Michelle Bachmann, Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Newt Gingrich, self-destructed in the glare of the media spotlight, Santorum persevered through the long autumn months. He did this with a simple message that emphasized his steadfast social conservative values, which stand in contrast to the flip-flopping Massachusetts moderate, Mitt Romney. Barring a few short-lived Gingrich revivals (most notably following the former House speaker's victory in South Carolina), the Santorum has consistently held runner-up status for the duration of the Republican primary campaign.

A great deal of Santorum's success is undoubtedly owed to the less than stellar quality of the competition. It says a lot about the current state of the Republican Party that a presidential candidate who says John F. Kennedy makes him want to vomit and opposes birth control has emerged as the most feasible alternative to a candidate whose support rests almost entirely on his alleged electibility.

Mitt Romney's entire primary campaign has consisted of disavowing a political career's worth of moderate positions in a stunningly ineffective attempt to court the Republican Party's ultra-conservative base. It is an accepted fact on both sides of the aisle that Romney's Massachusetts healthcare plan served as a template for Obamacare. The conservatives who support Santorum may not have college educations (not a stereotype, but an exit-poll tested fact), but they're astute enough to see that the Republican front-runner is about as genuine as cubic zirconia.

In all fairness to Mitt Romney, Santorum is not the unwavering champion of Tea Party conservatism that he has promoted himself to be. For instance, he supported George W. Bush's Prescription Drug Program, held up by now-mainstream conservative radicals as a heretical concession to the tenets of the liberal Welfare State. As senator, he was a prolific distributor of earmarks and his intimate connection to lobbyists is no secret. Nevertheless, in spite of these inconsistencies, few doubt the fact that Santorum is a committed ideologue.

The self-avowed culture warrior's extreme statements regarding homosexuality and birth control, while deeply unappealing to the vast majority of the American electorate (including many conservatives), are enough to reassure his constituency of evangelical bible thumpers and "very conservative" voters that he will not abandon their pet causes should he win office. For those right-wingers with the paucity of political perspective to consider Mitt Romney little more than an "Obama Light," Santorum is the obvious choice.

It might be hard for anyone whose values are not stuck in the 19^th century to stomach any praise for a closed-minded, sexist, homophobic bigot like Rick Santorum. But the fact is, he's run a hell of an effective campaign. Sure he has made some costly gaffes, but then, unlike Romney, he does not have unlimited resources and a comprehensive campaign organization to insulate him from the constant pressures of a contemporary presidential campaign.

In a previous post on this very website, I argued that the Supreme Court's 2010 decision to allow unlimited campaign contributions from Super PACs undermined the very foundation of American democracy, fully handing over the reigns of political power to the 1 percent. This is still very much the case. It seems likely that Mitt Romney, a candidate who no one really likes but whose immense fundraising advantage has repeatedly resulted in victory, will be the Republican nominee for president. Be that as it may, Rick Santorum's shocking success demonstrates that there is still a place in America for presidential candidates who earn support with ideas and personal appeal, rather than just money. Mitt Romney may be inevitable at this point, but perhaps there is reason to hope that his equivalents in future presidential races might not be as unbeatable as they seem.