Intolerance at Skidmore

Posted by The Editorial Board

Skidmore prides itself as a community of open-minded students who are accepting of many different beliefs. This open-minded spirit is reflected in the variety of different clubs on campus that support different identities, for example:  BARE Sex Forum, Skidmore Democrats, Skidmore Pride Alliance, Asian Cultural Awareness Club, and HAYAT.

Despite this diverse list of clubs there still remains a marginalized demographic at Skidmore: the politically conservative.

Many students at Skidmore can say confidently that our campus is overwhelmingly liberal. Not only are students liberal, but a majority of faculty members also lean left, creating an environment where liberal thought governs. Although this is common for a Northeastern liberal arts college, it unintentionally undermines Skidmore's values of acceptance, which are conducive to creative thought.

Skidmore's student body is relatively political. However, whether Skidmore is politically aware of alternate political views is questionable. The most evidence supporting this belief is the nonexistence of a 'Skidmore Republicans" club.

Some may say this is because there isn't enough support for conservative beliefs at Skidmore to create one, however based on the existence of conservative classes and organizations, such as the conservative Franklin Forum, one can deduce that there is in fact a measurable conservative population at Skidmore.

Conservative students have complained about Skidmore's liberal atmosphere, saying their views are not respected or considered. As a result, the nonexistence of a Skidmore Republican club can be attributed to our campus's stigma of conservative ideas.

This stigma was seen clearly during the New York State senator's debate, which occurred last year on Oct. 17 in Zankel. Both Skidmore and Saratoga Springs community members attended the event. Despite the variety of audience members, all members of the crowd overwhelmingly favored the democratic candidate. The audience was so partisan that the crowd brazenly cheered on multiple occasions for the democratic candidate and booed and hissed the Republican candidate, despite the fact that any reaction during a televised debate is not considered decorum. The debate is a perfect example of the student body's tendency to attack conservatism. Skidmore's community is not expected to appreciate conservative ideology, perhaps not even to understand it --although as a supposed educated group, it should-- but it is expected to behave and to tolerate. The community's reactions to the senatorial debate will undoubtedly discourage future similar events, but it also further ostracized the conservative student. Skidmore does not need to become more conservative, but with half the country categorized as conservative, we do need to become more open-minded and tolerant.

For a start, Skidmore could consider a subscription to the Wall Street Journal, a newspaper often considered to share conservative views and would provide a second option to the New York Times, an arguably liberal newspaper.

Skidmore's administration nor the SGA can force the creation of a Skidmore Republican organization, but it can still take an active role in forming one, perhaps by recruiting students from the Franklin Forum to start one.

Lastly, Skidmore, the departments and the Speaker's Bureau, an appendage of the SGA, should invite more conservative speakers to the campus. The arrival of Gloria Steinem as this year's keynote speaker, although a fantastic choice and experience (if you were fortunate enough to attend), clearly exhibited Skidmore's liberal predisposition. These hypothetical conservative speakers don't have to be keynote speakers, just the occasional nightly lecturer who will provide an opportunity for conservative students to feel more welcomed, and provide a learning opportunity for those students audacious enough to expand their minds.

In a period of time where severe gridlock incapacitates our country, it is prudent to open up Skidmore to a variety of political views. Understandably, Skidmore's appeal to its students may be the like-mindedness of the community, politically and otherwise. But if we are to consider ourselves an educated student body, it's imperative that we open up to other ideas, and if nothing else, at least tolerate and accept their existence.

Student Academic Services: Where the Action Is

Posted by Thaddeus Niles

Skidmore students are an impressive group by any measure. Take a walk through campus and you can hear singers and musicians, delight in the graceful products of artists and dancers, and feel the weight of a spirited academic argument as it spills out of a classroom door. The diversity of our student body is an incredible asset that shapes the Skidmore experience. But it's also safe to say that Skidmore students share something less desirable: a packed schedule where time is stretched paper-thin.

With commitments pulling students in every direction this spring, it might be a good time to get reacquainted with a special group of people who work tirelessly to assist students in becoming as productive and efficient as possible. Every day on the bottom floor of the Starbuck Center, Student Academic Services (SAS) is faithfully supporting students as they reach for their full potential.
I recently visited the office to discuss their mission, range of services, and the philosophy that informs their work. I learned that, in order to help students achieve the goals they set for themselves, SAS offers everything from writing support to helpful hints for communicating with busy professors. Together with the Writing Center in the Scribner Library, Skidmore can boast a powerful duo of academic services for students.

Importantly, SAS does not put a band-aid on academic concerns and send a student out the door. Instead, they employ a "coaching" model that focuses on students building a set of skills that enables them to reflect on what is going well and what is problematic, respond, and monitor that facet of their academic life in the future. Students don't need to conquer a problem alone, but they do remain central to the resolution of their own concerns. Think of it this way: Would you rather someone replace your flat bicycle tire or show you how to find the leak, patch it, and diagnose future problems before they leave you stranded outside of Putnam Market? Freshman and sophomore students should be especially attentive to the advantages of this coaching model, because a few visits early in their Skidmore career could pay huge dividends when they are better able to manage their academic lives as seniors.

As part of a call to strengthen the campus community, SAS sponsors or publicizes numerous study groups, workshops and speakers throughout the academic year. My favorite way to stay informed is to "Like" them on Facebook and check their page regularly for updates. And don't forget to check out their official Skidmore homepage to learn more about their full range of services.
Any student who is serious about their academic performance should pop in and say hello to the friendly folks at SAS. Think of it as an investment of time-like the famous saying goes, "Give me six hours to cut down a tree, and I'll spend four of them sharpening my ax."

Undeserved opprobrium

Posted by J. Galt

On Tuesday the Senate reauthorized the Violence Against Women Act, an act originally passed in 1994 that expired in 2011 and was not renewed during the tensions of a divided congress.

The bill passed 78-22, but women rights groups were quick to point out that the 22 dissenters were Republican men. Memes and photos presenting these senators under titles such as "These 22 Republican Men who voted against The Violence Against Women Act" proliferated throughout the internet and left the undeniable impression that these 22 men were unapologetic misogynists.

Liberals today are quick to blame Republicans for the gridlock and inactivity in congress, for the deficit, the debt, the wars and every other problem ailing the United States. Figuring out who deserves blame requires thousands of pages of analysis and discourse, but much of gridlock and partisanship can be attributed to misunderstandings between the two main political ideologies, and organizations such as Planned Parenthood, which posted the aforementioned title, are not helping to diffuse the tension through vitriolic blood-rising half truths.

Did these 22 men vote against "The Violence Against Women Act?" Yes. Did they do it because they hate women? No.

They voted against the act because an amendment was added to the bill, which would allow tribal courts to try non-Native Americans who were accused of raping a Native American on a reservation. The logic behind this amendment was that Native-American women are twice as likely to be raped as a White woman, and most of the rapists are non-Native Americans, but because of the issue of sovereignty of tribal reservations, tribal authorities are unable to act against the non-tribal rapists. Under this revised act, they now can.

The dissenters voted against the act because they were troubled by this amendment, not because they don't care about the victims.  They were concerned about the legality of empowering the tribal authorities to try non-tribal members in their courts as a possible violation of due process.

Whether the dissenting senator's qualms are warranted, or if the amendment holds up to constitutional scrutiny, the senators did not vote against the act because they hate women, but out of concern for the law. Some might believe that the law is clearly flawed if it does not protect a certain demographic of women and that any amendment, constitutional or not, is more just than then the existing law, but that opinion does not vindicate the animadversions directed at these senators on the basis of misogyny. Organizations like Planned Parenthood may not be explicitly stating that these Senators voted against "The Violence Against Women Act" because they hate women, but by contriving these half-truth bulletins they leave no reasonable observer without such an impression. This will only create acuter divisions between liberals and conservatives, which in the end will just hamper political, economic and social progress.

Skidmore's future in technology

Posted by Paulina Phelps

More so in the last decade than ever, technological innovations have been utilized in higher education. Many of the innovations are not themselves advanced, but the embracement of them is what is most progressive.

This new employment of technological innovations has abated the concept that technology is disruptive in higher education. Colleges and universities are communities based on collaboration and innovation, which can be fostered through experimental applications of technology. Skidmore has contributed to this trend as shown in its utilization of technology in the classroom.

Director of Academic Technologies at Skidmore, Beth DuPont, speaks on behalf of the department; "We have encouraged faculty to incorporate technology into the classroom in many different ways, which are not always common knowledge."

As a result of this encouragement and the wave of technological innovations in higher education, Skidmore faculty have become more acquainted with and have employed technology much more often. A key identifier that faculty are more comfortable using technology is the increase in content on Blackboard (almost all professors have their syllabus available online). Another change is the introduction of clickers into the classroom setting. These remotes, used to answer multiple-choice questions, are given to every student in the class and are often used by professors that teach larger lecture-style classes.

Technological enhancements have been made not just in the classroom but also throughout campus. A few of them include improving the televisions in the library so students can pull up content onto the large board instead of everyone huddling around one computer. In addition a television screen was installed in Case Center, which broadcasts campus happenings from weather to sports.

Given the innovations that have been made, Skidmore continues to think toward the future. For example, when it comes to creating Skidmore online courses Skidmore's registrar, David DeConno says, "While the college is following the national conversation regarding online and hybrid courses, we do not offer courses of that nature at this time." Skidmore does accept online courses for transfer credit from other schools, though, as long as the programs are certified and meet Skidmore's requirements.

Some professors have even utilized certain technological programs in their classes. For example the Art History department looks at art from the Web Gallery of Art, a virtual museum that makes art more accessible for students.

Developments such as these should be used among all disciplines. Programs like Skype, which allow for people to communicate from all over the world, should be used in classes. Currently, Skidmore's class, "Islam and the West, Correcting Misperceptions in Person," allows students to communicate directly with students enrolled in Middle Eastern universities via skype, and so far the class has been a success.

The Internet is criticized for replacing physical interaction, however programs like Skype contradict that notion, and make face time more accessible. Crossing thresholds and physical boundaries is what programs like these are doing and what curious-minded students should follow.

Furthermore, just as Skype would allow us to extend the classroom outside of Skidmore, so too would a system in which schools in the New York Six (a consortium of six schools in the New England area which includes Skidmore, Hobart and William Smith College, Union College, Hamilton College, St. Lawrence University, and Colgate University) offered online classes to all students of the consortium. Through the creation of this system, students would have the opportunity to take a wide variety of classes with a wide variety of professors, fostering Skidmore's high regard for creativity through collaboration and community based learning.

Skidmore Sustainability looks into the future

Posted by The Editorial Board

Last Wednesday, Jan. 30 Skidmore co-hosted a lecture presented by professor emeritus of music Tom Denny. The lecture, titled Saratoga's Trees, explored the role trees play in the city of Saratoga. Instead of exploring the likes and dislikes of trees, or other aesthetic reactions people may have towards trees, Denny urged community members to look at the benefits of trees on an economic and environmental basis, forcing the audience to consider a new perspective.
The talk was co-sponsored by Sustainable Saratoga, the Environmental Studies Program at Skidmore College and Sustainable Skidmore.
Denny is currently leading the Urban Forestry Project in Saratoga Springs. His work with the organizations is working to bring to light the unique benefits of planting trees, showing how they can increase the cost of real estate, which benefits the economy. Despite these benefits he also quoted the famous saying, "one generation plants the trees and the next enjoys the shade." Relating it to Saratoga and the Urban Forestry Project, Denny concluded that in order for Saratoga to ensure that the next generation profits environmentally and economically, the community's urban forest must increase its number of trees.
Although Skidmore has no intention in planting more trees to increase environmental protection, Members of Sustainable Skidmore have implemented changes in certain programs like sustainability competitions and composting in order to benefit the environment and future community members.
In the coming months, Sustainable Skidmore will be hosting and participating in sustainability competitions. From Feb, 11 to March 4 Skidmore will participate on a national level against colleges in the New York Six Liberal Arts Consortium, which comprises Hobart and William Smith College, Union College, Hamilton College, St. Lawrence University and Colgate University, in a competition called Campus Conservation Nationals.
The competition is the largest nationwide electricity and water use reduction competition among colleges and universities.
Feb. 13 to March 5, Skidmore will host an event for students living in the residence halls called "Skidmore Unplugged." During these 21 days each dorm tries to reduce their energy consumption percentage by the greatest amount. Each dorm's electricity consumption is calculated in real time online so that the residents can monitor it.
This year there is an added twist: Skidmore will be competing against four other colleges in the area-Hamilton, Hobart and William Smith, St. Lawrence, and Colgate to determine who can reduce their total energy by the largest percentage from all of their dorm buildings.
Limitations of existing programs are also being analyzed. For example, Skidmore Unplugged only involves the residence halls and doesn't consider other housing communities like Northwoods, Scribner, or Hillside apartments.
According to Skidmore's sustainability coordinator, Riley Neugebauer, "The reason that the Northwoods Apartment Village does not participate in Skidmore Unplugged is because those buildings are not metered individually and a part of our networked building management system, so we don't have the data to be able to include them in the competition at this time."
Despite this set back, Neugebauer remained hopeful for the future saying, "We hope to be able to do that in the future, but it is dependent on funding and infrastructure."
Composting in the housing villages has also been a point of revision for Sustainable Skidmore. Currently there is a compost program in Northwoods but none of the other housing developments.
"We feel that we need to improve our current composting program in the Northwoods apartments and really develop it and refine it so that it works really well before we expand into other locations" Neugebauer said.
Improvement in the program has begun in the following ways. The manager of the program, Margie Pfeffer, was offered a grant by New York State to fund the compost program in Northwoods. In addition to creating new positions, the grant allows more time and energy to be invested in the program.
With the improvements that have been made in the program, Neugebauer is hopeful for what the future holds saying, "I think we are in a really good place, and will be implementing some changes to the Northwoods program, with hopes that we can do more education, outreach, and assessment this semester so that the process and program can improve and become something that we feel more prepared to expand in the future."

Editorial: New DOF/VPAA

Posted by The Editorial Board

Beau Breslin, former director of the First-Year Experience and previous chair of the Government department, was recently hired as Dean of Faculty/Vice President of Academic Affairs after a tireless, semester-long search. The Skidmore News commends the administration for both this decision and the process in which it was handled. By having students Kayleigh Kahn '13 and Hale Hall '14 serve on the six-member hiring council, inviting students to attend open forums in which the candidates for the position were interviewed and encouraging students to submit feedback on the candidates, the administration did all that it could to foster student involvement.

Unfortunately, despite the invitation, Dean of Faculty Rochelle Calhoun noted that there was little student participation outside of the students on the panel; few students attended the forums and not much feedback was received from the student body.

The administration sent out multiple emails to keep students informed on the process and to remind them of the open forums. A webpage listed all of the candidates' credentials and another outlined the responsibilities of the position. All of the candidates were brought to campus, had lunch with the students involved and were each given a tour of the campus by a student.

President Philip A. Glotzbach noted the position as one that involves little direct student contact, which could explain why not as many students became involved in the process. While this may be true, the DOF/VPAA does have a significant role in the hiring process of new faculty members, as the webpage notes, so one could argue that the position still holds influence over the student body, though not necessarily in a direct way.

Glotzbach also stated that the administration could have done more to help students understand the position, which may have led to more involvement. However, considering the multiple invitations and reminders as well as the webpage coherently outlining the duties involved in the position, it seems like the administration did enough to extend the opportunities for students.

Some students may have seen Breslin as a shoe-in given his advantage in being the only candidate with previous experience at the College as well as the fact that he had been filling the position on an interim basis since June, therefore making the hiring process extraneous and more of a good-will gesture. This would, however, seem unlikely given the fact that the process took almost an entire semester to reach a conclusion.

While Breslin did have somewhat of a leg up on the competition given his familiarity with the College, his experience at Skidmore should not be viewed as an advantage in the hiring process but rather as an aspect that made him the candidate best fit for the College. The ability to successfully preside over the faculty and curriculum should require an extensive understanding of the College.

Whether or not there was a disconnect between the students and the administration in this case is unclear, but if the kinks in communication can be worked out, this inclusive, active method could maximize student involvement in future key College processes. Students should take full advantage of any future opportunities of this nature, especially in hiring new professors.

Editorial: New DOF/VPAA

Posted by The Editorial Board

Beau Breslin, former director of the First-Year Experience and previous chair of the Government department, was recently hired as Dean of Faculty/Vice President of Academic Affairs after a tireless, semester-long search. The Skidmore News commends the administration for both this decision and the process in which it was handled. By having students Kayleigh Kahn '13 and Hale Hall '14 serve on the six-member hiring council, inviting students to attend open forums in which the candidates for the position were interviewed and encouraging students to submit feedback on the candidates, the administration did all that it could to foster student involvement.

Unfortunately, despite the invitation, Dean of Faculty Rochelle Calhoun noted that there was little student participation outside of the students on the panel; few students attended the forums and not much feedback was received from the student body.

The administration sent out multiple emails to keep students informed on the process and to remind them of the open forums. A webpage listed all of the candidates' credentials and another outlined the responsibilities of the position. All of the candidates were brought to campus, had lunch with the students involved and were each given a tour of the campus by a student.

President Philip A. Glotzbach noted the position as one that involves little direct student contact, which could explain why not as many students became involved in the process. While this may be true, the DOF/VPAA does have a significant role in the hiring process of new faculty members, as the webpage notes, so one could argue that the position still holds influence over the student body, though not necessarily in a direct way.

Glotzbach also stated that the administration could have done more to help students understand the position, which may have led to more involvement. However, considering the multiple invitations and reminders as well as the webpage coherently outlining the duties involved in the position, it seems like the administration did enough to extend the opportunities for students.

Some students may have seen Breslin as a shoe-in given his advantage in being the only candidate with previous experience at the College as well as the fact that he had been filling the position on an interim basis since June, therefore making the hiring process extraneous and more of a good-will gesture. This would, however, seem unlikely given the fact that the process took almost an entire semester to reach a conclusion.

While Breslin did have somewhat of a leg up on the competition given his familiarity with the College, his experience at Skidmore should not be viewed as an advantage in the hiring process but rather as an aspect that made him the candidate best fit for the College. The ability to successfully preside over the faculty and curriculum should require an extensive understanding of the College.

Whether or not there was a disconnect between the students and the administration in this case is unclear, but if the kinks in communication can be worked out, this inclusive, active method could maximize student involvement in future key College processes. Students should take full advantage of any future opportunities of this nature, especially in hiring new professors.

Editorial: Skidmore's Green Thumb

Posted by The Editorial Board

With the College's recent reception of the 2012 Social Leadership Award from the Advancement of Sustainability in Higher Education (AASHE) Foundation, it seems that the campus's efforts at environmental conservation are finally receiving much deserved recognition. While the award was for the College's implementation of geothermal cooling and heating, (currently installed in 16% of the total square footage of buildings on campus) it draws attention to all of the hard work that so many groups and organizations have done in executing green initiatives. The award is a great honor, and the College community should further attempts at reducing our carbon footprint.

The College made a big splash when the Murray-Aikins Dining Hall stopped using trays following the 2006 renovations, cutting down food waste by an estimated 20%. Food audits conducted last year have helped cut down on portion sizes in the dining hall, further reducing food waste, and the new composting program in Northwoods Village has reduced food waste even more. Unfortunately, despite test runs, composting in the Dining Hall has yet to be fully implemented. Hopefully this can be achieved in upcoming semesters. 

Last year, the Environmental Action Club led a commendable effort towards getting water refilling stations installed on campus, like many colleges have done across the nation, in an effort to move away from reliance on plastic water bottles. EAC submitted a detailed proposal, entitled the Hydration Station Initiative, with a cost analysis, projected benefits and recommended locations for station installation. Ultimately, as part of the Summer 2012 renovation process, Starbuck Center did receive a refilling station, which is a step in the right direction. Starbuck, however, is one of the buildings least frequented by the student body. While a ban on plastic water bottles might be trickier to implement, the student body and administration should continue to be encouraging of efforts to bring about more refilling stations on campus. 

Skidmore Unplugged, an initiative run by the College every year in which the dorms compete in reducing energy consumption for 21 days, is another commendable effort, but why not have it run during both semesters? Better yet, why not keep a tally on electricity usage and keep the competition going year-round? 

Now that we have arrived at a point where our efforts at being environmentally conscience are starting to show through, let us take advantage of the spotlight and show just how driven of a campus we are when it comes to being green.

Ashes to Ashes

Posted by Jake Dolgenos

The Student Affairs subcommittee of the Institutional Policy Planning Committee recently began looking for student input regarding the College's smoking policy and, while nothing has been formally declared or decided, it has become known that one of the options is to make Skidmore College a smoke-free campus.

After listening to plenty of hyperbole from those in favor of such a switch and those totally opposed (as well as quite a few more reasonable middle-ground positions), I have some thoughts on the matter as well as my own opinion, the opinion, I should clarify, of a non-smoker, with friends who smoke, whose blood flows with a very deep-rooted (and in this case, somewhat contradictory) strain of California liberalism.

The argument for banning smoking on campus takes two main forms, with plenty of supplemental irritation. First, health-conscious students point to cigarette smoke as an acknowledged carcinogen, and cite personal health risks as their motivation for wanting smokers out of their airspace. Second, plenty of non-smokers just don't like walking behind smokers across campus, walking through a cloud of smoke to get to class or their residence hall, or counting the dozens of discarded butts that litter the ground around resident hall entrances and North Woods trails.

Arguments from the other side of the issue have focused mainly (if, I believe, unfortunately) on the case that smoking cigarettes, as an adult of the United States (of 'Merica), is a protected freedom that shouldn't be unduly discarded at the minor protests of the uncomfortable.

Health issues have been regarded as frivolous, with the (accurate) point made that wisps of scattering smoke are not sufficient to cause the cancer that protesting students seem so scared of. Students who are merely irritated at the amount of smoke they must routinely walk through and the lingering smells and unpleasant areas smoking creates on campus are met with occasionally deriding skepticism.

Some have phrased it more eloquently (or using more UPPERCASE and exclamation points), but the main response to the objections of the inconvenienced has been that the freedom to smoke is more important than remedying occasional irritation, and that smoking is a fact of life in this country (and even more so around the world). When we graduate, our world will not be less filled with smokers, so why give students an unrealistic experience at the expense of students who smoke?

There is often the adjoining (and, again, somewhat unfortunate) reminder that students were never presented with a non-smoking Skidmore, and chose to be a part of a culture that supports smoking when they applied and chose to attend the College.

Let me tell you my problems with these counter-arguments, and then why I ultimately agree with them.

First, secondhand smoke is irritating to non-smokers, and while I don't personally see a problem with the areas of campus in which I have come to generally avoid lingering, having a conversation about which areas of campus should be zones where smoking is encouraged is a perfectly legitimate topic of debate. Folks who have simply asked that smoking be discouraged around the entrances to academic buildings, and possibly moved from the areas they dominate now to others around campus are asking for what I believe to be reasonable things, and those who do so politely should be met with reasonable arguments. While they are only occasional irritations, their removal doesn't seem to require unduly strenuous action on the part of smokers, and I firmly believe that both sides could be satisfied with a good compromise.

Second, and more importantly, there is a tone to the arguments made on the side of smokers (or, again, sympathetic non-smokers) that I believe, in the end, to be damaging to their case. Smoking is called a "right," and an issue of "freedom" as the result of a "personal choice" that shouldn't be challenged by the College. Here's something that supporters of a free campus for smokers should keep in mind:

Skidmore is a private institution, and the administration can and will regulate smoking on this campus without your input, against your protests and despite your claims that it violates your personal liberties. The College could implement this policy with the full knowledge that it will not be completely enforceable, that it will not stop smoking on campus completely and that it will piss a lot of students off. 

In addition, students have every right to come together and decide what they want their college to be. Skidmore doesn't have a smoking culture because it's Skidmore, or a small liberal arts college, Skidmore has an open smoking culture because Skidmore students smoke and the administration has not felt that this culture threatens our institutional credibility, the quality of life of non-smoking students or the health of the campus as a whole.

If these facts change, if students no longer want a smoker-friendly campus or the administration feels that the culture has become threatening to any of our institution's guiding principles (as they routinely do when they implement changes to the Alcohol and Other Drugs policy) the policies will change and Skidmore will change, even if it takes, as folks have pointed out, many years to completely do so.

Skidmore will do it.

Other colleges have done it.

The country, as a whole, is slowly removing smoking from public and private spaces.

This is the context in which this debate is taking place, and it worries me a great deal when I see smokers argue as if they are on the obvious moral and legal high ground. Overly defensive speeches about rights and personal choices will only guarantee that the voice for what I personally consider to be the correct choice in this matter will be relegated to the sidelines of a debate that will take place among students and members of the faculty, staff and administration who are willing to acknowledge the legitimacy of both sides of this issue.

So smokers, take a deep breath, and join me in making the reasonable case that Skidmore's smoking culture is adaptable, but ultimately an important freedom in which a sizable portion of Skidmore's students partake.

I end on this note of (I hope) reasonable objection to any broad campus smoking ban:

The vast majority of Skidmore smokers are responsible, more than willing to move a few extra feet from the doors on campus and don't have to do a better job of cleaning after themselves because they already make sure their cigarettes don't get left around. The areas that smokers hang around most frequently now have become smoking areas organically and, if students and administration want to transition smokers to a different location, it can be reasonably expected that this will take some time, and any new smoking areas should be as convenient and socially accessible as those areas currently acknowledged as heavily used by smokers.

Enforcement of anti-smoking policies would be difficult and cause additional tension between Campus Safety and the student body.

Smokers will be forced off-campus with more frequency, and smoke in areas without ashtrays which will lead to more littering, not necessarily less, especially in North Woods and other wooded areas-precisely where butts will be difficult to locate and clean.

Smokers will increasingly find ways to smoke indoors, causing damage to housing and increasing the risk of fire.

And finally, whenever we, as a campus, debate whether or not to regulate or censor behavior, it's worth taking a long look at whether the benefits to our student culture outweigh the costs. I believe in this community as a place of personal freedom, where we learn to talk about our issues amongst ourselves (as we are doing now), and not rely on administrative oversight.

So non-smokers, now is your chance to make yourself heard, as (I hope) I have, without impinging on a freedom some hold to be valuable. Now is the chance to discuss possible changes to the smoking policy and air your grievances without, in the end, relying on regulation and rules. You don't have to awkwardly demand that smokers standing inches from the doors to Bolton Hall move further away, you can take this opportunity to stand up and say that these behaviors make you unhappy. And that's what we're beginning to see: non-smokers taking advantage of the forums provided to lodge legitimate complaints against the current smoking culture.

Smokers, if you want to keep this issue a debate and avoid campus-wide changes to the smoking policy, listen and respond reasonably to these complaints. If you don't, you're already giving up your rights by denying yourself an equal say in this debate.

Take it seriously, and they will take you seriously.

Jake Dolgenos is a member of the class of 2014. He reads boats and rows books, and cries tie-dye tears when he sees someone toss a cigarette out of a car window.

The Liberal Arts in the Modern World: A Defense

Posted by Tillman W. Nechtman

In a recent essay, the Editorial Board of The Skidmore News spoke out against the recent string of disturbingly frequent bias incidents on campus. I applaud their efforts to make the campus a more welcoming and inclusive space, particularly given the graphic nature of some of the episodes our community has witnessed this past semester.

In the final (edited) version of that essay, the Editorial Board made it clear that they would like to see curricular changes be part of the college's efforts to prevent bias incidents and to make Skidmore a better community in the years ahead. I am not averse to the idea of re-making the college's curriculum vis-?-vis questions of diversity. The current Non-Western/Cultural Diversity requirement has been around for some time, and it has been rightly critiqued on a number of fronts. Just last year, the Committee on Educational Policy and Planning (CEPP) proposed a major overhaul of the requirement, and the CEPP has promised to continue that reconsideration this academic year.

The work that the Editorial Board suggests, therefore, is in progress and welcome. But, the suggested changes that the Editorial Board has offered leave me rather concerned about the future of the liberal arts in general, and it is that concern that I would like to address here.

In their editorial, The Skidmore News writes that the current Non-Western/Cultural Diversity requirement fails because it does not ensure that students focus on questions of diversity "in a contemporary context." The essay notes that "while several of these courses [that meet the current requirement] may touch upon contemporary issues in addition to their historical significance, a modern perspective is not necessarily guaranteed." Setting aside any objection I might have to the potentially dismissive attitude towards my chosen discipline (History) reflected in that last sentence, the argument itself demonstrates a bold misunderstanding of what exactly it is that a student of the liberal arts ought to get from her or his education. This argument assumes a fundamental divide between a so-called "modern perspective" and the traditional disciplines of the liberal arts. No such divide exists.

The reference to "liberal" in the label "liberal arts" draws from the same linguistic roots that give us the word liberated, for to be educated in the liberal arts is to be liberated. But, what does that mean exactly?

To get at an answer to that question, we must understand the liberal arts as a habit of the mind and a culture of ideas. The liberal arts have always rested on the notion that one can only ever find true knowledge and valuable wisdom if one is able to liberate oneself from a given situation to get at the core principles and ideas at work in that context.

Let me offer a more concrete example of what I mean here.

In their essay, The Skidmore News Editorial Board addressed the idea of installing surveillance cameras around campus to prevent future bias incidents. Some have floated this solution, and a few have declared themselves in favor of it publicly. The Editorial Board stepped back from endorsing the idea of cameras on campus on two grounds. First, they noted, some students might be "disgruntled" by the use of cameras. Second, two of the three bias incidents they were responding to happened in residence halls, which are, they argued, "the most private sanctuaries on campus." Both of these arguments reflect deeply "modern" perspectives. They are rooted in the immediate here and now, the sensibilities of today's Skidmore students, and the specifics of the bias incidents we have experienced here at Skidmore this fall.

We could, though, read the question of posting surveillance cameras across campus from the vantage point of a liberal arts education. The liberal arts have much to say about our campus's present situation and about the question of surveillance more broadly. They also have the advantage of opening profound considerations about the human condition more broadly. Let me demonstrate with some examples.

The first work that jumps to my mind when I consider questions of human behavior, discipline, surveillance and punishment is Michel Foucault's philosophical masterpiece, Discipline and Punish. There, Foucault speaks to the power of a surveillance state - in the form of Jeremy Bentham's terrifying design for a panoptic prison - to discipline both a person's public social behavior as well as the inner workings of his or her mind.

After Foucault, my mind wanders to the world of literature, where I am reminded of great works of fiction on the subject of surveillance and social control. I am, of course, thinking of Franz Kafka's The Trial in which the central character is arrested by a distant and unaccountable authority and tried without ever being told why. I might also call to mind George Orwell's wonderful 1984. When considering the possibility of posting surveillance cameras around our campus, we would do well to reflect on that novel's protagonist, Winston, who could only live out his private life when he huddled in the few small corners of his home where Big Brother's all-seeing eyes could not reach.

Here at Skidmore, we can also turn to the Government Department where our own Professor Flagg Taylor continues to study the limitations on human freedom that accrue in totalitarian regimes. To read his edited book The Great Lie is to understand that the promise of liberty, freedom and intellectual inquiry is a mere chimera in any atmosphere where the individual is subjected to centralized monitoring and observation.

I could walk through countless instances from History that would offer equally salient perspectives on the question of whether or not we should install surveillance cameras around the Skidmore campus, but I will allow these few examples to stand.

Certainly, though, there is every reason to think - contrary to the argument offered in the Editorial Board's essay - that courses in History have a pivotal role to play in our campus conversations about diversity and inclusivity. For instance, when I teach my FYE students about "beach landings," those moments when Captain Cook and his crew first landed on the shores of South Pacific Islands and first encountered Polynesians and their culture, I am teaching about the very process of experiencing difference. Of course, Cook's "beach landings" are specific and historically contextual, but I trust that the lessons of those moments of historical contact have something to say to me and my students about the interactions we have here at Skidmore. How did Cook and his crew help shape contemporary racial and ethnographic stereotypes? Is it just possible that my classroom, the Case Green, Burgess Caf??, or the Dining Hall are "contemporary" beaches? Is it just possible that the encounters we have in these locations are more like Cook's "beach landings" than we might at first imagine?

My larger point, though, remains. The liberal arts education speaks directly to questions of fairness, equality, justice, liberty and freedom - all issues at stake in our on-going debate about the campus climate here at Skidmore and the possibility of curricular change vis-?-vis the Non-Western/Cultural Diversity requirement. My survey of these few core disciplines of the traditional liberal arts demonstrates that our curriculum has a great deal to say about the "contemporary context" we face here at Skidmore today. They speak to our "contemporary issues" and they do so without ever actually addressing "modern perspectives" per se.

But, how can that be? If we believe the argument proffered by the Editorial Board, studying odds and ends from the past can never solve problems in the present. But, you see, they can. The Editorial Board seems to suggest that there is a gap between what students learn at a liberal arts college and the intellectual skills they need to make their way in the "real world." But, you see, there is no such gap. The liberal arts tradition allows us to liberate ourselves from the specificities of our own context and our own situations precisely so that we can achieve a level of objective distance on the core issues at stake. Because we are freed by that distance, we see our own world and our own lives in new lights and at new angles. We find perspectives we would have missed had we focused only on the here and now, only on "contemporary issues."

I recall a commercial from many years ago that advertised for over-the-phone degree programs. One of the programs was a specialization in TV/VCR repair. The Editorial Board at The Skidmore News might have praised that program for its contemporary relevance. To have studied TV/VCR repair back in my childhood would have been to collect useful applied job skills and to have had a reasonable likelihood of getting a job. But, few households have a VCR anymore. The contemporary context has shifted and those skills that were useful yesterday are pointless now. That is the great difference between a liberal education and vocational training.

The liberal arts education has outlasted other forms of pedagogical training. Indeed, one might go so far as to argue that the modern world is the by-product of minds trained in the liberal arts tradition. Skidmore students are fortunate to be the heirs and the future of that great tradition. They have the opportunity before them to train their minds and develop intellectual habits that will enable them to see the deepest issues at play in any situation and to address those issues broadly, creatively and wisely. That is the great and perpetual utility of a liberal arts education in the modern world.

Does the current Non-Western/Cultural Diversity requirement at Skidmore need revision? Almost certainly. But, the current requirement does not, I want to offer, suffer from a lack of "modern perspectives" and "contemporary contexts." Let us not retreat from the collective intellectual tradition we share - not just among ourselves but also with fellow intellectual travelers across the ages. Let us insist here and now that the liberal arts matter in the modern world and that the world of ideas can shape the future. 

Editorial: addressing bias incidents

Posted by The Editorial Board

Editor's Note: This article previously stated, "the College holds good intentions by instituting the Non-Western/Cultural Diversity requirement, but when you have four years to fulfill it and courses such as British History get the job done, there comes a concern that the efforts might be too little too late." The board would like to clarify that we view the Non-Western/Cultural Diversity requirement as significant to the core curriculum and successful in its intentions. We support the College in its selection of courses that fulfill the requirement and the requirement itself. We would like to suggest that the College further extend this sentiment by adding a proponent that functions to incorporate similar issues on a modern, contemporary level. We recognize the overlook and apologize for the misstatement regarding the courses concerning British History, which was originally listed as a general example rather than a specific one.

The recent string of race-related bias incidents at the College has raised concern amongst members of the campus community. The Office of Student Diversity Programs (OSDP), the Intercultural Center and the administration have worked tirelessly to shift the climate on campus to one of respect and understanding from all students by hosting events, developing the new Inter-Group Relations minor and offering discussion groups. While these methods of approaching a touchy subject have made tremendous strides in the past few semesters, it's sad to see them go in vain amongst some students who continue to commit such reprehensible acts.

Sadly enough, all three parties involved in the recent incidents remain at large. This draws attention to a bigger issue, and one that could deter other instances of vandalism and crime on campus: installation of surveillance cameras.

Installing security cameras is a big step for a small school, and while they might prevent bias incidents from occurring and allow for any perpetrators to be caught, they would also leave many students disgruntled. Two of the three incidents occurred in residence halls-the most private sanctuaries on campus. While installing cameras might be an overreaction to the issue, it does not discount the fact that an alternative solution must be implemented to curtail these acts.

The administration took the right step in drawing attention to the severity of the first two incidents with an email sent out by President Glotzbach on Oct. 25. But vague rhetoric about intolerance of racism and sexism is not enough.

The College's Code of Conduct policy invokes a disciplinary process that handles all violations on a case-by-case basis. While the Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD) and Academic Honor Code policies lay out tangible consequences for breaching them, the Social Conduct Policy does not, but simply states: "A student accused of violating the Honor Code or the College Code of Conduct meets with the DoSA [Dean of Student Affairs] to review the complaint and potential avenues for resolution. The complaint may be resolved, deferred, or proceed to a hearing [with the Integrity Board]."

Strict consequences need to be laid out to prevent students from committing these acts. The point system of the AOD policy serves as a great example for a model. If students are aware of the permanent consequences they face when considering such actions (such as a strike on their record that could prevent them from acquiring a job down the line) they might be less inclined to commit them.

The unfortunate truth is that no matter how successful the climate shift on campus is, it can't guarantee a full disposal of racism. It's sad to acknowledge, but there will always be that possibility for bias incidents to occur, just as there will always be racism in the country and in the world. That's just the nature of the beast.

But, at the same time, we can believe and state with confidence that the students responsible for the recent bias incidents do not, in their actions, represent the views and values of the general student community. As a self-selecting private liberal arts institution, we do hold ourselves to a higher standard when it comes to issues of diversity and race. The events held by the OSDP and the formation of the IGR minor have received unprecedented positive feedback. But, considering that they are optional, one might be led to believe that those choosing to participate already have a positive outlook. So, as another method of combating heinous bias incidents, why not try to further implement the facets of IGR and the discussions led by OSDP into the academic realm?

The College holds good intentions by instituting the Non-Western/Cultural Diversity requirement, which supports the liberal arts sentiment of fostering a more worldly outlook among students. With this particular requirement, students have the opportunity to explore a non-western culture or compare two markedly different cultures. Yet, while several of these courses may touch upon contemporary issues in addition to their historical significance, a modern perspective is not necessarily guaranteed. In addition to the already implemented and effective Non-Western/Cultural Diversity requirement, perhaps the administration could incorporate another aspect into the core curriculum that ensures a focus on the same issues in a contemporary context.

There also comes a concern that the efforts might be too little too late. Even if someone does change their perspective through the requirement, they may wait until their last year at Skidmore to do so. Why not strengthen our resolve and implement discussions on diversity earlier on?

The fourth credit hour component of the First Year Experience is meant to educate first year students not only on important college matters, but life subjects. However, some professors do not even hold their fourth credit hour regularly, let alone at all.

Peer mentors participate in an 80-minute seminar prior to every fourth credit hour-an amount of time that seems negligible to educate them on important subjects such as race and diversity. Why not bring in a professional to speak to the first year students on the more important topics? If students can open up their minds and shift their outlook earlier on, it would be much more effective in fostering a more positive community.

These discussions do not merely have to be limited to topics such as race and diversity, but can address current events and politics, staying in tune with the liberal arts mantra of keeping students worldly, not just academically well rounded.

While it will take time for the administration to develop new methods of handling bias, and these recent perpetrators may very well remain unpunished, for the time being students should feel obligated to participate in as many OSDP and Intercultural Center events as they can. Recently, the Bias Response Group has invited the College community to join in on a conversation on bias on campus. Attending such events would help to illuminate students on what exactly happens after the bias incident occurs, after the email is sent out.

We commend both groups, as well as the administration and those responsible for starting the IGR minor, for taking steps to raise awareness on campus. We can only hope that members of the campus community will continue to strive towards improving the campus climate.

A link to upcoming events is posted below: 

OSDP Events

Editorial: addressing bias incidents

Posted by The Editorial Board

The recent string of race-related bias incidents at the College has raised concern amongst members of the campus community. The Office of Student Diversity Programs (OSDP), the Intercultural Center and the administration have worked tirelessly to shift the climate on campus to one of respect and understanding from all students by hosting events, developing the new Inter-Group Relations minor and offering discussion groups. While these methods of approaching a touchy subject have made tremendous strides in the past few semesters, it's sad to see them go in vain amongst some students who continue to commit such reprehensible acts.

Sadly enough, all three parties involved in the recent incidents remain at large. This draws attention to a bigger issue, and one that could deter other instances of vandalism and crime on campus: installation of surveillance cameras.

Installing security cameras is a big step for a small school, and while they might prevent bias incidents from occurring and allow for any perpetrators to be caught, they would also leave many students disgruntled. Two of the three incidents occurred in residence halls-the most private sanctuaries on campus. While installing cameras might be an overreaction to the issue, it does not discount the fact that an alternative solution must be implemented to curtail these acts.

The administration took the right step in drawing attention to the severity of the first two incidents with an email sent out by President Glotzbach on Oct. 25. But vague rhetoric about intolerance of racism and sexism is not enough.

The College's Code of Conduct policy invokes a disciplinary process that handles all violations on a case-by-case basis. While the Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD) and Academic Honor Code policies lay out tangible consequences for breaching them, the Social Conduct Policy does not, but simply states: "A student accused of violating the Honor Code or the College Code of Conduct meets with the DoSA [Dean of Student Affairs] to review the complaint and potential avenues for resolution. The complaint may be resolved, deferred, or proceed to a hearing [with the Integrity Board]."

Strict consequences need to be laid out to prevent students from committing these acts. The point system of the AOD policy serves as a great example for a model. If students are aware of the permanent consequences they face when considering such actions (such as a strike on their record that could prevent them from acquiring a job down the line) they might be less inclined to commit them.

The unfortunate truth is that no matter how successful the climate shift on campus is, it can't guarantee a full disposal of racism. It's sad to acknowledge, but there will always be that possibility for bias incidents to occur, just as there will always be racism in the country and in the world. That's just the nature of the beast.

But, at the same time, we can believe and state with confidence that the students responsible for the recent bias incidents do not, in their actions, represent the views and values of the general student community. As a self-selecting private liberal arts institution, we do hold ourselves to a higher standard when it comes to issues of diversity and race. The events held by the OSDP and the formation of the IGR minor have received unprecedented positive feedback. But, considering that they are optional, one might be led to believe that those choosing to participate already have a positive outlook. So, as another method of combating heinous bias incidents, why not try to further implement the facets of IGR and the discussions led by OSDP into the academic realm?

The College holds good intentions by instituting the Non-Western/Cultural Diversity requirement, but when you have four years to fulfill it and courses such as British History get the job done, there comes a concern that the efforts might be too little too late. Even if someone does change their perspective through the requirement, they might wait until their last semester at Skidmore to do so. Why not strengthen our resolve and implement discussions on diversity earlier on?

The fourth credit hour component of the First Year Experience is meant to educate first year students not only on important college matters, but life subjects. However, some professors do not even hold their fourth credit hour regularly, let alone at all.

Peer mentors participate in an 80-minute seminar prior to every fourth credit hour-an amount of time that seems negligible to educate them on important subjects such as race and diversity. Why not bring in a professional to speak to the first year students on the more important topics? If students can open up their minds and shift their outlook earlier on, it would be much more effective in fostering a more positive community.

These discussions do not merely have to be limited to topics such as race and diversity, but can address current events and politics, staying in tune with the liberal arts mantra of keeping students worldly, not just academically well rounded.

While it will take time for the administration to develop new methods of handling bias, and these recent perpetrators may very well remain unpunished, for the time being students should feel obligated to participate in as many OSDP and Intercultural Center events as they can. Recently, the Bias Response Group has invited the College community to join in on a conversation on bias on campus. Attending such events would help to illuminate students on what exactly happens after the bias incident occurs, after the email is sent out.

We commend both groups, as well as the administration and those responsible for starting the IGR minor, for taking steps to raise awareness on campus. We can only hope that members of the campus community will continue to strive towards improving the campus climate.

A link to upcoming events is posted below: 

OSDP Events

Beyond Beliefs: Conservative and Proud

Posted by Kristina Kassis

For some people, election day means rushing to the local polls and standing in lines for hours to cast their votes, while for others-either indifferent or simply uninformed-it means choosing to abstain from exercising this right. Regardless of political opinion or action, everyone should feel as if they can freely express their beliefs without fear of mockery, derision, or in extreme cases, persecution.

 As a woman who was raised in a very conservative household and is aligned with many conservative ideals, attending two very liberal schools (in my high school of 300 people, there were a total of 6 conservatives who openly shared their political views) has certainly made me less eager to voice my opinions. I am frankly shocked by the unwillingness of many people to even listen to what I have to say. I cannot tell you how many people openly laughed at me when I told them I was going to vote for McCain in our school election four years ago. I, along with the small group of conservatives at my high school, was forced to watch the election results in a separate room, openly booed when we cheered at a surge in McCain's votes.

Nothing has changed since high school. I opened my Facebook page this morning to see a barrage of Anti-Romney rants, mostly from Skidmore students, some openly bashing those who support Romney. One student even posted: "I literally hate half of the country right now," when Romney began gaining votes. While this is not face-to-face derision, it does make it hard to express my own views in a way that is respectful to others' opinions. Frankly, I do not believe that Facebook should be a venue to put down other's beliefs. Expressing one's own opinions is fine, but when it leads to putting down other's, that crosses a line.

I have never, nor will I ever, force my political beliefs upon anyone, but I do believe I have the right to voice them and that it is very difficult to do so in a place where people seem to take my dissension from their own beliefs so personally.

If you want to know what I think, please ask me, and I will be more than willing to share. If you are not interested in opening your mind, but rather seek amusement, I will not indulge you. My beliefs are something I take seriously, and while you do not need to agree with them, my only hope is that you take them seriously. I urge other Conservatives to speak out. Do not be afraid to be a part of the minority. These are your beliefs and you should be proud. I know I am. 

Editorial: the liberal arts

Posted by The Editorial Board

As a liberal arts institution, Skidmore offers its students a level of academic freedom that most universities and technical schools do not. From the moment we arrive on campus, we are asked to embrace the liberal arts culture of interdisciplinary academics, creative thinking and assumption of new perspectives. However, facing the reality of a competitive job-market full of industries requiring further specialization amongst the workforce, one must ask oneself: what is the role of a liberal arts degree in the 21st century?

The liberal arts date back to the fifth century AD. In the Roman Empire the liberal arts were considered the subject matter necessarily known and mastered in order to distinguish oneself from slaves. Those subjects were: grammar, logic, rhetoric, arithmetic, geometry, music and astronomy (referred to as astrology at the time). Despite the time period, women were allowed to participate within the liberal arts framework of the Empire.

Flash forward to the 18th century Enlightenment Era. In Latin "liberal" means "free," which is exactly what a liberal arts education was intended to do-free oneself from one's own perspective, allowing them to make "free-floating" perceptions.

In a practical sense freedom was no longer the goal of education, but the means. Participation in the liberal arts required freedom from work, which was granted by either a certain degree of virtue or monetary comfort-hence why the aristocratic class were the ones indulging.

A liberal arts education was a gateway into the cosmopolitan world of pure reason and a requirement for serving in the polity. Subjects such as philosophy, religion, art history and classics were further emphasized along with those dating back to the Roman Empire.

Today's liberal arts education seems to have taken on a new meaning. In modern society education is a course for freedom, not that a certain amount of monetary comfort and our modern version of virtue (intelligence) are not required to gain one.

We have clearly departed from emphasizing outdated subjects like astronomy and even those considered vital in the 18th century such as art history. Instead we focus on fields-such as English, government and economics-deemed more practical, in the eyes of the academic institution. Today's liberal arts have encapsulated freedom in a new way: freedom within the education itself.

The College offers students 49 majors and 38 minors. Double majoring or at least having a major and minor combination is highly encouraged. We have our core requirements that essentially force even those who do attempt to specialize-by majoring with degrees in fields like business or pre-med-to branch out into the humanities. At the same time, those who truly embrace the liberal arts must indulge in at least one science and one math course-fields we consider most practical today.

Clearly education of any kind does allow oneself certain freedoms and advantages, but then how is it that in Europe-the continent where liberal arts originated-the idea of a liberal arts degree is almost unheard of?

Most universities in Europe require only three years of attendance-a testament to the lack of core requirements and emphasis on specialization at these institutions. In the United States, some universities still do require core requirements, but there is still a far greater degree of specialization than at liberal arts institutions.

The education bubble has essentially made a college degree what a high school degree was when our parents were our age. So when we enter the workforce what advantage do we have over those with university degrees?

By attending a liberal arts institution we are not just focusing on our academic education, but our education as human beings. Liberal arts in the modern age allow us to take on new perspectives-much like in the 18th century-making us worldly by fostering dialogues on important issues like gender and race.

Being able to participate in student athletics allows us to learn proper time management skills and practice leadership. Editing a school newspaper grants us freedom of expression and a means to sharpen our rhetoric, not just simply running a literary outlet, but a business.

It is not as if one could not engage in these activities at a university, but the percentage of student athletes will always be higher at a smaller college, as will the ratio of students participating in clubs.

The concept of liberal arts endorses the multi-faceted student because the truth is that life today does require creative and interdisciplinary thinking. A liberal arts student might not be looking for the same job as a specialized one, but there are still jobs out there that require these skills. The way the job market continues to evolve and expand over time also means we need the ability to adapt-something that the liberal arts better prepare us for than a specialized degree.

No matter where you graduate from you will not be handed a job on a silver platter, but by teaching us how to be independent, self-willed individuals, the liberal arts, and Skidmore, further our tools for obtaining one.

Votes for women

Posted by Jake Dolgenos

On Nov. 6, 2012, I will cast my first presidential vote. I will be voting as a college student and as a liberal. I will be voting as a man.

But I will also be voting as a big brother, as a feminist and as the father I hope I can be someday. Because as complicated as the election cycle can seem, there are some issues on which Mitt Romney and Barack Obama truly do disagree. And right now, across the country, there is an attack on the reproductive rights of women that pollsters and pundits continue to describe as an issue the country just doesn't care about. Alongside a struggling economy and the threat of a nuclear Iran, this arena of gender issues has somehow been relegated to the fringes of the discussion. But it would be difficult to exaggerate its importance.

After listening to 90 minutes of the foreign policy debate last Monday, I will be the first to confess that it can, at times, feel impossible to stay truly informed. The issues we face as a nation both internationally and domestically do not lend themselves to clear-cut definitive answers that the two candidates can use to neatly differentiate themselves. Rather, it is with broad and necessarily complex outlooks and strategies that Romney and Obama propose to handle the economy, the current Syrian chapter of the Middle East mess and the looming issue of our growing national debt. These strategies are often in agreement on many points; peeling apart the specific differences between the candidates' approaches to Iran is something we can all be forgiven for not having the time to undertake. So when there is a clear difference between the candidates, when a specific policy or range of policies do neatly divide the two party platforms, it is worth paying attention.

At present, Republicans and Democrats do not see eye to eye on the issue of abortion rights, access to contraceptives and legislation supporting equal pay for women.

Let me describe for you my own thought process regarding the sexual side to the discussion of female rights. "No one is 'pro-abortion,'" as the President once said, but the procedure sometimes represents a choice born of unfortunate necessity.

If you are serious about limiting abortions, or making them difficult to obtain, you had better be willing to take the distribution of contraceptives and comprehensive (that's code for "actual") sexual education seriously.

If you are unwilling to take these preventative measures, you had better be willing to support legislation making it possible for low-paid women to take maternity leave, the right to push for flexible work schedules, higher (or just fair) wages, and government-subsidized daycare and childrens' health insurance, not to mention providing classroom space for the millions of inevitable new children.

If you are unwilling to fight for this legislation, you had better accept the fact that with a higher birth rate and no public support, huge numbers of children will be born into poverty or households that cannot adequately support them and women as a group will continue to be underrepresented in challenging fields where the stresses of pregnancy and child-rearing keep them from advancing. Schools will be full and underfunded.

Now, I know that Republicans want to make abortion an illegal procedure. (1) But they also staunchly oppose contraceptive-distributing groups like Planned Parenthood and continue to fight for 'abstinence-only' sexual education, which ignores realistic discussions about contraception. (2) On top of this, Republicans have fought and continue to fight against legislation supporting mothers - they fight against increasing funding for public schools, (3) ideologically oppose the kind of "waste" that programs subsidizing daycare and children's health care constitute, and have staunchly resisted, and, in some cases, repealed, legislation making it illegal to discriminate against women, in the name of avoiding "over-litigation." (4)

The sum total effect of these policies is to unravel the progress in women's rights that has been hard won over the past century. If women must live with the constant threat of pregnancy - and without adequate support, pregnancy is and will always be a threat - they can never truly compete with men in the workplace, who need never fear a 9-month loss in performance and the long-lasting repercussions this can have on the arc of a career. Despite the progress we've made, women are still only making 77 cents to a man's dollar (skeptics should look up the math - it's accounting for profession and education but NOT specific job description. I still hold its conclusions to be valid, but it's worth investigating) (5) imagine what that could be without the reforms we've fought for as a nation, a nation in which more than two-thirds of families primarily rely on the income of a woman.

Is it any surprise that this election will see one of the highest gender discrepancies in history?

I know that many buy into the message we're fed - that the economy is the issue that will truly define this election, the issue that people really care about. I know many conservatives who don't support the Republican Party's social platform, but will vote for Romney this November on the strength of his economic policy. I want those half-reluctant conservatives to know that you cannot avoid responsibility for the social policies you support when you cast that vote next week. These issues are more important than the media admits, and just because you may have the benefit of avoiding personal setbacks at the hands of these policies, your friends, sisters and, someday, daughters may not be so lucky.

We choose, with our votes, the world we want to live in, the country we wish to be a part of. Don't relegate yourself to the losing side of history. Don't be a part of any organization that fights against the rights of women, gays and lesbians and immigrants. Don't be a part of a party that has fought to disenfranchise hundreds of thousands of poor, urban and young citizens in key swing states leading up to the election with heavily-targeted new voter ID laws.

On Nov. 6, 2012, I will cast my first presidential vote. I will be voting as a feminist and a progressive. I will be voting as a big brother, for my little sisters who can't vote yet.

I will be voting for Barack Obama.

It is fine if you disagree with me about the Republican Party's historical and current treatment of women's issues (people's issues - you can't call 51% of the population a special interest group). But here is where, generally, I'm getting my information.

(1) "Numerous studies have shown that abortion endangers the health and well-being of women, and we stand firmly against it." From the Republican Party Platform. 

(2) Their fight against Planned Parenthood is well-publicized, and their support for abstinence-only sexual education is a part of their position on "consumer choice in education" which also slams teacher unions and clearly advocates a greater reliance on standardized testing to determine merit, a policy teachers almost universally oppose. When Mitt Romney says he "loves teachers" what exactly does he mean? 

(3) Once more, this can be found in the Republican Party Platform. But this requires some explanation, because merely calling the Right out for not wanting to increase education spending is disingenuous. As a party, they are merely in support of voucher systems, charter schools and other new kinds of institutions to make changes to the entire field of education (and for-profit colleges, which is its own can of worms I will not open here). To find the really damaging policies on education, you have to look at the state level, where Republican Governors have been cutting funding for public education for years. Most recently, Scott Walker in Wisconsin cut funding for public schools by over $800 million, leading to massive layoffs in public schools across the state. In my own home state of California, similar cuts made a decade ago have resulted in plunging test scores and we now stand, as one of the nation's wealthiest states, with

(4) I'm referencing the Lilly Ledbetter Act specifically, which you can read about here.

But Republican Governors have been unraveling fair pay laws across the country for several years now (Not to pick on Scott Walker, but he's been so very proactive

I don't want to deny off-hand the legitimacy of the Republican position on the bill and others like it: that it would just clog the judicial system with fruitless litigation. Conservatives have a general (though recently not particularly well-exercised) opposition to judicial activism, and, of course, interference in free enterprise. But laws mandating equal pay without regard to gender have been on the federal books since 1963 when the Equal Pay Act was passed, and it's hard to conceive of a way in which women can exercise their right to demand equal treatment without litigation. Whether you accept the Republican position is your call.

(5) I choose to give this citation because I think witnessing the controversy will give a greater sense for where the truth can be found. The specific statistic may vary between professions and, in some cases the differences are not especially dramatic, but the fact that men still universally come out the winners in every field is telling on its own. Take it for what you will.

Jake Dolgenos is a member of the class of 2014, reads boats and rows books, and while he adores conservatives individually, he agrees that as a group they're rather unfortunately shortsighted.

Editorial: registration anxieties

Posted by The Editorial Board

As students of the College enter a brief respite from exams and assignments of that midterm haul, a new wave of bi-annual panic and stress has set in-registration for Spring 2013 is upon us.

It's that time of year again where failure to get into a course can feel like the end of the world. Everyone understands the nature of the beast-major requirements, maturity requirements and credit requirements keep students hunkered down and fully loaded until the eve of graduation. Seniors stress over which capstone they will be able to get into for months ahead of time, and underclassmen just hope they can get into their chosen courses to further explore their interests.

As some students try to complete double majors or double minors, getting into every class they need to take becomes vital, which is not easy to accomplish considering the increase in size of the student population recently (the class of 2014 is the biggest the College has ever seen). Getting blocked out of a single course can be the end of a major or minor especially when you have departments with as many requirements as Government and English.

With all of this in mind, it is fair to think that students shouldn't have to have any further concerns over the impending registration date, but as the day approaches, the outcome of last year's registration comes to mind. 

Since the confusion and conflicts caused from a switch to the new system last semester, and the four-day registration hiatus that took place thereafter, the administration has not taken action to address students' concerns that the same mishaps will not unfold this semester.

While the switch was one the school was forced to make by the network provider, Oracle, and the intentions were good in changing from a staggered method to one in which every member of a grade registers at once, what began as a new system of fairness quickly turned into one of luck.

When the system crashed last semester, many students found themselves blocked out of courses, or at least sitting in front of their computers for hours on end waiting for the system to come back online. Some were fortunate enough to get into some, if not all of their classes before the system crashed. Others were blocked out of registering for days. The registration process also proved to be especially difficult for those abroad at the time.

This semester the College is using the same system as last year. Since no announcement has been made to clarify the issues from last semester and to explain how things will be different this time around, the return of student concern over getting blocked out of classes is reasonable.

Further stress will surely unfold over the problematic nuances that have always been a part of the system, such as requirement overrides. It is all-too-common for students to get an introductory level class waived by the head of a department, only to then find themselves blocked out of upper-level classes because the pre-requisite is unfulfilled in the system. Stepping over this obstacle requires an email to the registrar requesting to waive the pre-requisite yet again, an extended process which usually occurs while the student sits in front of their computer watching their desired courses fill up. While the system was on a staggered basis this was not as big of an issue, but with each class registering all-at-once, these further anxieties seem even more problematic.

While the Registrar had little say in changing to a new registration system, they do have a stake in making sure that students are prepared for the mad rush soon to take place. Students don't necessarily require all the technical jargon of what the exact problem was in last semester's registration, but if the registrar can simply explain last semester's issues and the changes that have been made more or less in layman's terms (that is assuming changes have been made) students can, at the very least, be relieved of the additional panic that was tacked onto the already existing and inevitable stress of registration. 

I am Malala

Posted by Kristina Kassis

As a 19-year old woman attending one of the most rigorous Liberal Arts schools in the nation, it may seem like I am truly privileged. However, I view my education not as a privilege, but rather as a right that anyone, regardless of any factors that make them different, should possess.

So naturally, the October 9 shooting of 14-year-old Malala Yousufzai, a school student and education activist from the town of Mingora in Pakistan, has left me, along with much of the world, shocked, deeply saddened and above all, outraged. It is devastating to know that today there are still people out there who will try to kill a child for voicing her beliefs.

It is even more devastating to know that these very men have eluded capture for so many years. I am certain I can speak for many when I say that the U.S and other nations should continue to band together to eradicate the Taliban once and for all. 

Since the age of 12, when the Taliban invaded her region and closed many all-girls schools, Yousafzai has been active in advocating for women's education. In fact, Yousafzai apparently started speaking about education rights as early as September 2008.

"How dare the Taliban take away my basic right to education!" Yousafzai exclaimed to her audience in a speech that was widely broadcast in both print and on television throughout the region. 

At only 11 years old, Yousufzai decided she wanted to be a politician. She wrote a daily blog detailing her life under the oppressive regime and even made a documentary about her plight in 2009 in conjunction with director Adam B. Ellick.

Hearing a girl so young speak out for what she believed in, and speak out against an oppressive group, is inspiring to say the least, but also eye-opening. The plight of women in Pakistan is something few would know about if it weren't for Yousafzai's brave attempts to share her struggle with the world. That is why she received the country's highest honor for bravery, an honor she most definitely deserved. I did not personally know Yousafzai, but I am infinitely proud of her and pray everyday for her swift and full recovery.

On October 9, the Taliban may have silenced a revolutionary voice, but not permanently. Perhaps as a testament to her unfailing tenacity and perseverance, Yousafzai is already writing and communicating with her doctors. By eliminating Yousufzai's voice, the Taliban thought they would strike fear in the hearts of people worldwide struggling to obtain education, but it seems like their attempts have achieved just the opposite. 

The attack has created a surge of support behind Yousufzai. In fact, former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown launched a United Nations petition in Yousafzai's name, using the slogan: "I am Malala." This petition demands that all children worldwide be in school by the end of 2015. Brown said he would present the petition to Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari in November. 

I applaud Gordon Brown's efforts and the efforts of all activists who have stood by and continue to stand by Yousafzai during her recovery, but again, I do not think this is enough and I do not think Brown's goal is realistic without the complete eradication of the Taliban, which will require help from many nations.
We must band together as a global community to ensure that a tragedy like this never happens again. 

The U.S and other nations have already been working hard for the past 11 years to eradicate the Taliban, and I believe these efforts must continue until everyone can stand up for their rights without fear of persecution for their beliefs. 

Until then, I will stand by my own belief that EVERY child, boy or girl, deserves an education and hope for a brighter future. I am not simply a woman. I am not simply a student. I am Malala

Editorial: Moorebid: Third try is a charm?

Posted by The Editorial Board

Saturday night will mark the third reincarnation of Moorebid Ball in as many years. This year will be the first time the Halloween tradition takes place in the Big Gym of the Williamson Sports Center-it was held in Case Center in 2010  and split between the two Small Gyms in 2011. After the past two attempts ended with early termination due to student inebriation, overcrowding and poor planning, the Student Government Association faced a wave of new obstacles in organizing this year's event, and consequently was forced to limit the number of attendees allowed at the celebration to 800 while also ticketing it at a hefty price of $10-two moves that have been met with student dissatisfaction and have led to concern that Skidmore is diminishing one of its few and most important all-campus traditions.

Talk of skipping Moorebid has been common amongst Skidmore attendees due in part to the $10 charge for and limited distribution of tickets. The Occupy Moorebid movement on Facebook seems to have arisen for similar reasons.

Less students attending Moorebid means more drinking in the dorms and apartments-places lacking supervision. While students will have an easier time pacing their alcohol consumption without having to fret over Moorebid's no re-entry policy, they will not have Campus Safety officers directly watching after them as they participate in one of the more heavily celebrated (and inebriated) weekends of the year. While these new policies may have been faced rather begrudgingly by the student body, it is worth noting that without them Moorebid probably would not be taking place at all.

The SGA has worked tirelessly since last year to ensure that one of Skidmore's most storied traditions carries on. After attempting to reserve the unavailable Saratoga City Center, a facility that could easily accommodate everyone, the SGA was forced to deal with the few remaining cards on the table-either limiting the number of attendees, or canceling the event. The Big Gym was also originally unavailable due to a volleyball tournament that will be taking place up until just a few hours before Moorebid, but the SGA was able to secure the facility at an additional cost-hence the charge.

According to Jess Sonnenfield, vice president for Residential Affairs, the SGA is traditionally budgeted $5,000 for Moorebid, however, this year $4,000 will go to facilities alone to cover overtime wages just to get the space clear after the tournament. The extra $1,000 was not nearly enough to cover the remaining costs of the event. 

The 800-person limit in the Big Gym (two of the three basketball courts will be used with one still reserved for athletic purposes) still includes more students than Case Center could accommodate at its maximum capacity of 700. Sonnenfield added that the limit would probably only exclude about 200 people based off of the number of students who came last year, which was approximately 1000.

The SGA will also be implementing the "Cinderella rule" (in which all unused tickets become void at midnight and put back into the pool of remaining tickets being sold at the door) as a means of achieving maximum inclusivity. Some are concerned that their night will be ruined if they arrive, ticket in-hand at 12:01, while others who did not purchase a ticket ahead of time will be forced to stand in line outside in the cold until roughly the same time. While this unfortunately may be the case for some students, the simple solution is to buy a ticket in advance and show up on time. It is not the SGA's fault if you fail to do either of those things.

Even with the rationale behind these policies addressed, the sad truth is that the limited attendance allowed at Moorebid will only further depreciate one of the few remaining and most popular campus-wide celebrations. By staging the first Fall Fun Day this year, an all-inclusive community event, the SGA hoped that it would take some of the heat off of Moorebid, but the fact of the matter is that we already have Fun Day in the spring, and duplicating an already-successful event does not make up for the lack of an optimal community celebration for Halloween.

Skidmore was recently listed as the fourth-best college to be on in the autumn and Moorebid was specifically cited as a major reason behind it. If 'The Best Colleges,' the website that compiled the list, knew that two-thirds of the student body will be excluded, Skidmore probably would have seen itself further down on the list.

Of the current Skidmore student body, only the Class of 2013 has seen a successful Moorebid Ball. As the tradition continues to twist into new forms and be subject to more debated policies, it will continue to lose its meaning.

It's a delicate balancing act trying to continue on with what has been deemed a failure for the past two years, and it is in no way the SGA's fault that Moorebid has to be limited. The decline in the tradition of Moorebid has little to do with the SGA, the administration, disputed policies and inebriated students but can be attributed to a bigger, systemic problem. Skidmore does not have a facility that can accommodate the entire school, and until it does we will continue to face these types of dilemmas. 

Left to Write: And Beyond

Posted by Jake Dolgenos

Over three decades after the first successful lunar mission of 1969, a peculiar document was released to the press. Written by former president Richard Nixon's speechwriter William Safire, the memo, two pages in length, imagined a worst-case scenario for the as-yet unfinished mission: what if the astronauts could not return home? It is worth reading for its politically unifying message, its raw poignancy and for the opportunity to reflect on what this unique moment of history signifies. I reproduce the full document here because I believe it is one of a few documents worth reading. It will make you believe in us, as a country and a species.

To: H. R. Haldeman [Nixon's Chief of Staff]
From: Bill Safire

July 18, 1969.
IN EVENT OF MOON DISASTER:

Fate has ordained that the men who went to the moon to explore in peace will stay on the moon to rest in peace.

These brave men, Neil Armstrong and Edwin Aldrin, know that there is no hope for their recovery. But they also know that there is hope for mankind in their sacrifice.

These two men are laying down their lives in mankind's most noble goal: the search for truth and understanding.

They will be mourned by their families and friends; they will be mourned by the nation; they will be mourned by the people of the world; they will be mourned by a Mother Earth that dared send two of her sons into the unknown.

In their exploration, they stirred the people of the world to feel as one; in their sacrifice, they bind more tightly the brotherhood of man.

In ancient days, men looked at the stars and saw their heroes in the constellations. In modern times, we do much the same, but our heroes are epic men of flesh and blood.

Others will follow, and surely find their way home. Man's search will not be denied. But these men were the first, and they will remain the foremost in our hearts.

For every human being who looks up at the moon in the nights to come will know that there is some corner of another world that is forever mankind.

You may (and I most certainly do) disagree with much of the attitudes and policies of the Nixon administration, and, indeed, William Safire's own political ideology is not one with which I find much common ground. But, for a moment, he touched something deeper. I took his words as a reflection of something I believe to be important and definitive, something we can all struggle to emulate in our (primarily) earthbound college lives.

Imagine, for a moment, the experience of the men who traveled into the unknown on July 16th, 1969, knowing that the world was preparing speeches for possible tragedy. Remembering the eventual success of the Apollo 11 mission alongside our failures - the crashes of the Challenger and the Columbia space shuttles for instance - puts the seemingly superhuman bravery of those first three in startling context. For this project, they lived for something greater than themselves.

I have two things to say, in my own limited words, about this memo and the thoughts it so eloquently communicates.

First, it is troubling to look at the NASA program of 1969 and realize how little we prioritize our space program today. Our shuttle program is on hiatus (or permanently?) and this year NASA will receive about half the money it did (adjusted for inflation) during the program's peak in 1966. By percentage of the Federal budget, our space program gets less than 1/8th of the priority it did 56 years ago. A look backward makes me wish we could, as a country, look upwards like we did a generation and a half ago. The stars are just as beautiful these days, if a little more obscured by light and air pollution.

Second, and more poetically, it strikes me that the events of July 1969 speak to something profoundly human. We see, in the animal kingdom, many acts of sacrifice that move us. In all cases, these acts are evolutionarily designed to ensure the continuation of the species and, more specifically, the genetic line of the martyr. But the act of making this sacrifice with eyes open, fully conscious of the meaning of the self and the other is something we can truly say is ours alone. When we live and die for our ideas, for loved ones, for the betterment of all mankind, we are expressing our humanity. When we do so with eyes open, as Neil Armstrong, Buzz Aldrin and Michael Collins gladly risked, we take the opportunity to do service to this most sacred of human values. It is the reason we pray to and sanctify the martyrs of history - because in their acts we recognize a pure and uncompromising humanity.

It is intimidating to recognize our own limits to this idealistic notion of self-sacrifice. We pretend, certainly, to live in an individualistic society. It can make one feel small indeed, to witness the grander exemplars around us. Not everyone can give up his or her sense of self to the greater good, at least, not every day. But, I submit that to truly live we must find the ideals worth living for; to truly feel fulfilled we must exercise our human need to give to those ideas and people that we believe in. In the age of the suicide bomb it seems outmoded to celebrate the utter conviction of those who die or risk death for their beliefs. But, we should never forget that it was this determination that produced our greatest triumphs - it is to the scientists who lived in their labs and gave up their lives that we can live in a country free of polio and smallpox, a country that receives color photographs from Mars each day, a country that once watched Neil Armstrong take one small, timeless step.

Find in the world those things you believe, and celebrate with me those moments when humanity conquers our collective obstacles with the stubborn and unyielding vision born of a conviction in the greater good.

Jake Dolgenos is a member of the class of 2014, reads boats and rows books, and believes that space is the final frontier. 

Editorial: political life on campus

Posted by The Editorial Board

Wednesday's debate between New York Democratic Senator Kristin Gillibrand and her challenger Republican Wendy Long marked one of the biggest political events that has ever taken place at Skidmore College. This momentous occasion is one to be celebrated for its historic significance for the school, and also for the inclusion of students.

Despite the fact that the use of the Helen Filene Ladd Hall in the Arthur Zankel Music Center was a great influential factor in YNN and NY1s' decision to approach the College about hosting the debate, the administration and the Department of Special Programs in particular - both parties who helped organize the event - did place emphasis on student involvement by saving approximately 200 tickets for the student body and simulcasting (live-streaming) the debate in the Davis, Emerson and Gannett auditoriums as well as in the Murray-Aikins Dining Hall.

This debate served as an opportunity for students to exercise political initiative; an opportunity that was lost and ignored by a number of students. The problem is that a lot of students did not seem to be aware that the debate was even happening and missed out on their chance to secure tickets.

News of the debate seemed to spread mostly through hearsay until an official announcement was made. A single email was sent out by the administration on Oct. 1, merely two days before the release of tickets, which were distributed on a first-come first-serve basis at 8 a.m., Oct. 3 via a webpage. There were no posters. There were no other emails. On the day of the debate many students were still unclear about what was happening and some were still entirely unaware that it was even occurring.

This unfortunate situation only ties into a greater phenomenon on campus-the effects of the 'Skidmore bubble.'

Students have complained that they are unaware of what's going on in the world-whether due to their own negligence, busy schedules or general disinterest. As college students in the age of technology and an ever-more competitive job market, these excuses are not acceptable.

The administration does what it can to foster political involvement by holding events such as this debate and the voter registration function that took place in the Tang on Oct. 4. We are given the New York Times for free five days a week, which is a blessing when you are on a college budget. We are also allowed to vote on campus, which only further limits any excuses students have for a lack of political involvement and awareness.

It is worth noting that as a tax-exempt institution, the College and its faculty members must adhere to strict IRS guidelines when it comes to expressing political opinion, as noted in the 'Expression of Political Opinion Policy.'

In fact, that very policy prohibited former president Bill Clinton from coming to campus in 2010 when he was visiting Saratoga Springs to endorse former U.S. Representative Chris Murphy. Under the 2010 guidelines: "College space and facilities may not be used to solicit political funds or endorsements." The revised edition of the policy, released in May 2012, removed the part about endorsements.

Under IRS guidelines, and the College's policy, students and student groups are allowed to invite candidates on campus for whatever reason. Debates are allowed assuming that they are on an impartial basis.

In 2010, the administration did what it could to address the problem while navigating through strict government guidelines. The College was able to work around and revise the policy to avoid losing out on another opportunity of this magnitude should it arise again.

While it is not the administration's job to force political involvement on students outside of the classroom, it is within their power to continue strengthening their efforts to keep students informed and active through academic means.

The new Inter-Group Relations minor is a great example of a field that takes contemporary issues into account. Other disciplines have courses that take similar approaches, such as the 'Art History Major and Beyond' capstone class in which students must bring in current event articles pertaining to Art, a great example of a non-political subject that still manages to incorporate contemporary information.

Even if current events are not applicable to every department's academics, the College could take the route of simply offering a one or two-credit current events course-an opportunity for students to stay actively informed.

When students venture out into the real world, employers will not be interested solely in the transcripts and resumes-they will ask you about your opinion on what's going on in the world.

The College grooms us for post-college life in just about every other way. The student body should take advantage of the opportunities the administration has given us and follow this growing trend in political awareness and activity on campus.