Category: Letters

Letters to the Editor

Letter from Laura Hind

Dearest Community,

Last week an extended member of the community wrote in the Record about the insular nature of this campus, how isolated we are in our ideas, our values, and our actions. When I first read the letter, I was defensive; I thought, “How could they possibly know what it’s like?â€? And then in my head, I tried to refute their claim, dissecting the ways in which we do care about other things beside ourselves. But I’m not one who says we need to focus on greater world problems, ignore the ones in our own lives…I think it’s cheesy, but that phrase, you gotta work on your community first in order to change the greater structure, really fits. But what doesn’t fit here -at Antioch- is the ways in which we “workâ€? on our community, but you all probably knew that. We easily become reactionary when it comes to fixing our problems (that includes that administration, students, etc. everyone!). When I see that one of the bathroom stalls in my hall was kicked down from last night’s party, I get angry and immediately want to point fingers and find some kind of public way to shame the person who did it. We all know that scenario too well; it was replayed in community meeting yesterday after a piano was smashed. I guess what I’m getting at is all too simple but seemingly much too hard. We need to work on more longterm goals to challenge systemic problems. So, the whole “cowboys and Indiansâ€? party controversy – it needs to be addressed with a deeper vision and commitment of an anti-racist education. Allen G. Johnson was a start, but please, let’s put our egos aside, and find places to inject “our valuesâ€? in the structure of this community. Culture only exists in practice and we need to practice everyday. I am inspired everyday here, and I think sometimes we need to remind ourselves of those good things and continue to bring this education and dialog into a greater context. Creativity is key. We are all creative. Thanks for reading this corny attempt to communicate.

Much Love,
~Lauren Hind

Letter from Callie Cary

“In our society the two institutions commissioned to provide the substance of a democratic public sphere, as a place for critical nquiry, are the news media and academia.�
This quote comes from a review of David Horowitz’s book “The Professors: The 101 Most Dangerous Academics in America� by 1979 alumnus Robert McCheseney entitled “David Horowitz and the Attack on Independent Thought,� “ in which both McCheseney and Antioch alum Gordon Fellman ‘57 are included.

Robert McCheseney is a Research Professor in the Institute of Communications Research and the Graduate School of Library and Information Science at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign.

Changing campus culture in the name of intellectual freedom is certainly not a new theme in the higher education community. The larger question is how is the term intellectual freedom being defined and by whom? Are the standards universally applied to everyone in the community, and who or what are the arbiters of those standards? And finally, what are the intended educational outcomes of these cultural changes?

It was made clear by President Lawry in his first address at Community Meeting last spring, as well as at subsequent meetings with the Alumni Board and alumni groups around the country, that he seemed to arrive with an agenda, a preconceived opinion about the campus culture and the governance system.

According to the President’s assessment, as stated in “Lawry Challenges Campus Culture; Students Troubled� (Yellow Springs News, 10/5/06), students are too confrontational, lack mutual respect and social maturity, are self-indulgent, use menacing language, and speak irresponsibly, and all these behaviors lead to an anti-intellectual, closed community that prevents students from being able to “embrace the full spectrum of ideas and opinions, without prejudgment….� The article goes on to say that Lawry feels that “A less threatening campus…will help the College retain some of the students who tend to leave Antioch because they feel attacked by other students.�

Where did the President’s perspective come from after such limited exposure to the student body, or anyone else in the community? Is this based on anecdotal information provided by those who oriented him before his arrival? In his presentations, Lawry sites a conversation he had with a student while he was on campus being interviewed for the presidency- a student who had said that he might transfer out of Antioch because he felt uncomfortable with the campus culture. Lawry has also mentioned how a student wearing Nike sneakers got attacked for not being more sensitive to the scourge of sweatshop production. OK, but is there some concrete data to support the theory that the campus culture is the main reason we lose students, or why students don’t come to Antioch? Past data from the exit interviews conducted by the Dean of Students Office over the years has shown that students leave for a variety reasons, including financial, social, academic, developmental, and finding a dream co-op, but very rarely because of campus culture and climate. According to existing data, there has never been one overriding reason for student attrition.

And so, it’s been almost 10 months since this message was first delivered. What steps have been taken to change the campus culture? Apparently, the governance system has been targeted as an axis of confrontation and is described as “out of control� and combative with the administration.

I am puzzled by this assessment. I served on Community Council (ComCil) in 05/06 and was extremely impressed with the high and civil level of discourse between faculty, staff and students, the student chair’s oversight of the meetings, the humor and creativity of the members, and the overall sense of responsibility members felt for the community. We debated, persuaded, challenged, changed our minds, built consensus and agonized over some difficult and frustrating situations on the campus. We also made every effort to engage with the administration to orient the new President to the Council’s purpose, and to express concern over some of the decisions that were being made without any consultation with Comcil, decisions that had historically been brought to Comcil for deliberation and input.

Although at times a very frustrating experience, for me as an alum, it defined one of Antioch’s core values and part of its mission – to create informed risk takers through participation in a laboratory of democratic decision- making. It would be a mistake to define Antioch’s system of governance as a locus of power for all decision- making, but it would be equally misguided to discredit and ignore the significant educational implications of the decision-making process that happens within this system.

Community governance at Antioch provides one of the most unique educational experiences the College has to offer and, if properly facilitated, allows all community members to feel some ownership and responsibility for the community in which they live and work. For students, these skills are further developed and tested in the various co-op communities they enter around the globe. It is this praxis that, with trial and error, teaches students some sense of humility and cultural mobility. It is the ingredient that helps to turn out so many interesting, entrepreneurial, and, yes, outspoken graduates. Last year Antioch College had three graduating students receive Fulbright awards. That sort of intellectual inquiry doesn’t happen in a vacuum!

I have never understood the concern that oppositional perspectives, be they conservative or radical, are somehow oppressed at Antioch.

Antioch alumni, young and old, have always been represented throughout the political spectrum. I know for a fact that Republicans and radicals (some now democrats) actually sit side-by-side with each other as Trustees and Alumni Board members! The alumni work in both the for-profit and non-profit sectors, many are organizers, artists and educators, but regardless of their path, most feel passionately about their values. The alumni take Antioch’s first President Horace Mann’s dictum “Be ashamed to die until you win some victory for humanity� very seriously.

There are some very real challenges facing Antioch right now, and while there is nothing inherently wrong with working on creating a campus that promotes open dialog, the administration needs to be sure to walk the talk and to create a forum that builds consensus around what the walk is…and maybe what shoes should be worn. I would also hope that energy is quickly shifted to other institutional priorities with specific steps being outlined on how best to address the recruitment and retention of students and faculty of color, improving the physical plant, supporting faculty moral, professional development and the integrity of tenure, and building a culture of mutual respect and labor incentives for the union workers, exempt staff and middle managers.

Top-down decision-making rarely has any educational value and it generally doesn’t promote a climate of mutual respect or intellectual freedom. If retention, recruitment and fund raising are the priorities right now (as they have been for decades), the entire Antioch community should be embraced as ambassadors, future alumni, future donors, future leaders, and advocates of an extraordinary educational experience that has held a truly unique place in the landscape of higher education.

Callie Cary ‘84
Second-generation alum and former Director of Alumni Relations

Letter From Meghan Pergrem

Letter to the Editors Addressing New Editorial Policy

Dear Foster and Luke,

I am writing this letter to express my concern with the new declassified policy. I understand that the Record and its editors are under a great deal of pressure from the community, and the administration in particular. I appreciate the importance of the Record as a mouthpiece for all community members and in no way want my criticisms to be taken as a lack of support for the Record or its staff.

I disagree with the sentiments expressed in your letters to the community in last week’s issue of the Record. Foster, in your letter you state, “Declassifi eds are not intended as a medium to stab at people behind anonymity. They are there for cute notes, crushes, thank yous and light hearted humor.� We believe that these are not the only purposes of Declassifi eds. They have also been used as a forum to make public political statements. You object to the anonymous nature of most Declassifi eds, while not taking into account the necessity of anonymity that is a product of what was intelligently referred to by Daniel E. Solis as “the Culture of Fear.� Not all of us feel safe attaching our names and/or faces to our politicized opinions. At this point in time, the Antioch campus is not a space in which people can freely speak their minds without fear of being expelled, banned, or persecuted in some other fashion by the administration. Does this mean that our opinions should go unheard or that they are any less refl ective of the community? If this is a question of whether or not the Record Staff should be held accountable for the content of the Declassifi eds, then my answer is no. The Record is not an individual that should be held accountable for the opinions of community members. The question then becomes, what is happening in our community that is causing individuals to write Declassifi eds that are “not so nice�? Perhaps this question, or rather the answers to this question, could spark some inspiration for stories covered by the Record in the future.

In my opinion, censorship of the Declassifi eds is part of a greater issue concerning the administration’s agenda to control and censor the opinions of community members expressed in the Record. When I read your letters to the community, I was shocked to see our editors supporting this agenda through their editorial decisions. This is the fi rst time in my Antioch career that I have seen the Record editors publicly submit to censorship in the interest of pleasing a disapproving administration.

I want to thank you for your dedication to the Record and respectfully request that you consider alternative approaches to the editorial process that do not include enforcing censorship of opinions, even if you cannot see the value in giving voice to anonymous Declassifi eds.

Sincerely,

Meghan Pergrem

Letter from Carole Braun

Dear friends at the Record and in the Community,

I wanted to clarify the implication in the last Record issue that changing RAB (Record Advisory Board) to REB (Record Editorial Board) would necessitate censorship of the Record. When I taught journalism on campus between 1989 and 1991, my responsibilities included chairing what was then REB. REB, which was composed of previous Record editors and interested faculty, staff and students, created Record editorial policy. Record editors were expected to conform to this policy, but the newspaper was never censored or subjected to prior restraint. (Prior restraint refers to a newspaper being reviewed by someone before it could be published.) Momentum to change editorial policy or question the editors about their responsibilities came from the community and was changed through democratic process. REB was appointed by Comcil. As I recall it, much of REB’s strongest questioning and criticism of current editors about being responsible journalists came from the previous Record editors.

I also was present at an Antioch University Board of Trustees meeting where then-college President Al Guskin defended the Record, its student editors and freedom of speech when Board members complained that the Record needed to be censored or restrained so that its news didn’t offend anyone or spoil the public relations efforts of the College. I was surprised then at the venom of the 1990 Board toward the Record, and I wonder if the current Board is not pressuring the administration for changes.

Carole Braun

Media Arts Technician and occasional adjunct

Letter from Scott Leannah and Gina Kuemmel

To The Editor:

We are new members of what one might term the “extended community� at Antioch. As family members of an Antioch student we have had the opportunity to visit campus a few times, meet a number of students, and read several issues of The Record. We have had the chance to meet some members of the faculty and administration, as well.

It is our hope that, as a “Boot Camp for the Revolution�, Antioch is a place where all assumptions are questioned, the voiceless are heard, and where those who will bring change to society are encouraged to observe, evaluate, and act. Indeed, the legacy of Antioch is one of promoting justice, peace, and a better world. Unfortunately, some of what we have read in this paper and experienced during recent campus visits is, rather than demonstrating openness, promoting a culture of insularity and mistrust of anything or anyone new or from the outside.

We have observed that there is a lot of introspection at Antioch, perhaps too much. It seems that a large number of community members are so engrossed in arguing about “Antioch values� that the school itself seems to be an end, rather than a means, to impacting and changing society. To wit: there was little or nothing that we could see on bulletin boards, in the school paper, posted on walls that speaks to issues outside of your small world on campus. Here are the three main messages we’ve been able to glean from these sources: 1.This is a place where there is tolerance and openness to all expressions of human gender and sexuality. 2. Safe, consensual sex is a value and right for all community members. 3. There is mistrust of those trying to bring about change at Antioch. This is frequently expressed by insults and name-calling.

Meanwhile, in the world beyond Antioch College, discrimination rages, the poor are getting poorer, civil rights are eroding, and those in power seek to rule via fear and suspicion. If Antioch is really the “Boot Camp for the Revolution�, we wonder why the major issue at hand seems to be a single-focused obsession with “the idea of Antioch�. Truth be told, we are not certain what is meant by that expression. We have noticed, however, that in spite of a seeming openness to ‘otherness’ and diversity at Antioch, there is instead intolerance and a willingness (on a shocking level) to engage in name-calling and profanity when describing those with whom one disagrees. There seems to us to be little or no ground for respectful discourse at Antioch.

There is much about Antioch that we admire. The idea of a liberal arts college that encourages independent thinking and then equips students to engage the world in a way that fosters justice and peace is something we support. Unfortunately, at least at this time, Antioch seems too self-obsessed to be able to engage in a respectful dialogue among even its own community members, much less the world.

Scott Leannah and Gina Kuemmel