faculty - THE RECORD

FACULTY PROFILE: Haruna Tomaru

Name: Haruna Tomaru
(Climbing Castle)
Sign: Aquarius
Teaches: Japanese
Bloodtype: B

How long have you been here?

This is my seventh year. I came here in 1999.

How did you end up here?

I came here as an exchange student when I was in college at Kyoto Seika University. My major was humanities. I wanted to work an international job. Then, I didn’t know specifics about what job I wanted. My uncle worked at United Nations and he always talked about different countries’ culture so I got interested in working with and studying different cultures. We had three choices at my University: Thailand, Australia, and the US. I went to Thailand when I was in high school, so I chose the US that time. But I still loved Thailand. The people are so nice and the weather was too. But I wanted to see non-Asian countries. And for Australia you had to do homestay, but at Antioch I could stay in the dorm, so I chose here.

Continue reading FACULTY PROFILE: Haruna Tomaru

CSK Center Candidate Visits Campus

In its search for a new director, the Coretta Scott King Center (CSKC) for Cultural and Intellectual Freedom conducted its first interview on campus last Tuesday with candidate Dana Patterson. Two more candidates are expected.

The director’s job description is ambitious. He or she must serve as a special assistant to the president on institutional diversity. He or she must also sit on the presidential staff group in order to ensure that when the cabinet discusses campus issues, the importance of diversity is a part of the conversation. In addition to that, the director must raise funds for the CSKC. Continue reading CSK Center Candidate Visits Campus

Letter from Andrzej Bloch regarding De-Classifieds

Dear Andrzej,

This letter is to inform you that statements made in your October 19, 2006 letter are in blatant violation of the Antioch Honor Code, rendering us unable to ethically accept them. Our institution is an intentional community dedicated to the pursuit of social justice. This is neither your institution, nor Steve’s, but ours. We at The Record, a community newspaper are duty bound to serving the information needs of our community. In an attempt to provide all community members a safe space for discourse, our predecessors created the “socalled�? Declassified section, where anonymous idioms spur constructive dialogue, pine over a crush, rant about policy, and let out inside jokes. Declassifieds are by no means the most important part of our publication, but they are probably the most popular because they are a collection of a variety of community voices.

In your letter you said, “Menacing and threatening speech cannot be allowed in an official publication of an institution dedicated to education and human betterment.�? We find this statement disgraceful. Education is not indoctrination. Opposing viewpoints, even angry ones are valid and have led to human betterment. Human betterment cannot be achieved by oppression and/or repression, and least of all by silence. A liberal arts education must present opposing views, a democratic institution must honor all voices, and the quest for social justice must include the ethics of the populace, not the elite.

We at the Record are students. We participate in experiential learning, and are clearly not professionals. However, we have made every effort to conform to the letter of the law. Through conversations with lawyers at the Student Press Association and discussions with our faculty advisor and former editor of the Yellow Springs News, Don Wallace, we have determined that the statement “Arrogant Shmuck please leave if you want to maintain your balls chop chop chop�? is not illegal. You distortion of the legal issue involved is disturbing on many levels in that it shows you do not wish your institution to educate future leaders, but to oppress and silence dissent through intimidation and distortion for a very specific and transient presidential agenda. This is unacceptable and shameful. You denounce menacing speech and go on to indirectly menace our jobs. This position appears hypocritical. You seem to have disregarded the nature of our community through the delegitimatimation of value systems not your own.

Furthermore, by sending us this letter, you circumvented the Record Advisory Board, a body designed to hear complaints about the Record. If you had a grievance, you should have brought it before the board. Please respect democracy and community. For the past four weeks our community’s council has discussed ways to strengthen RAB, and while those present learned from the discussion, your absence contributed only to your own ignorance. Discussion is communal. Mandates are dictatorial. You spurn the opportunity to learn from our community, listen to its concerns and participate in discussion, instead relying on your position to validate your statements.

In your letter you frequently use the term ‘College’ as code for the Lawry administration. Is the ‘college’ really concerned about our practice of publishing remarks such as the Declassified in question? Are we ignoring the ‘college’s’ concerns regarding these kinds of published remarks? If you attended RAB you would know the answer to these questions. Last, you claim our behavior raises questions about the extent to which we are taking seriously our obligations to the ‘College’ as a paid employee. From where can we derive a clear understanding of our obligation to the college, and by that we mean the Antioch college community, if not community- wide discourse? It is our belief that open dialogue and democratic processes have virtues and by participating in that dialogue we can learn and grow, and fulfill the mandate laid forth in our honor code. We are committed to respecting our community, providing a publication reflective of that community, and to democratic social justice, even if that means taking a stand over a trivial Declassified.

Sincerely,

Foster Neill & Luke Brennan
Editors of the Record

ComCil in Crisis

Row Over RAB Leads to Tears and Tyranny

Like an endless Greek tragedy, last week’s Comcil was yet again fueled by the RAB discussion. In an effort to give the paper tiger its claws back, the council for the first time did not talk about REB, but fully focused on the revival and restructuring of the excising advisory board instead.

The meeting began with a quick update by the Subcommittee on Community Learning Structures, which was formed on October 12th in reaction to a memo that President Lawry had presented in Adcil several weeks ago. In the memo he outlined his views on the tasks and position of several community organs, including Comcil and AdCil. The sub-committee has taken on the job to research the history of all organs and find out whether the President’s standpoints reflect the function they were originally endowed with. In its first update, the committee briefly mentioned how it divided its chores and what sources it will consult, including Antiochiana and former presidents of the college.

The subject quickly moved on to the ongoing RAB discussion, in an effort to find workable solutions for some of the problems that were addressed by the initiators of the proposal for an editorial-board. ComCil shot down a revised REB-proposal authored by the Vice president, the Dean of Faculty and the CM two weeks ago. Instead the members voted in favor of a motion to restructure the existing Record Advisory Board.

The revised proposal had failed to win over hearts in ComCil, because the adjustments to the original were too minimal and general questions concerning the accountability of the board prevailed with the members. REB was thus off the table for the first time since the debate about the need for an editorial board started four weeks ago, leaving room to fully concentrated on ideas to bring more representation in to RAB without taking away to much of the power dynamics in the advisory body.

Some members were asking where the Dean of students and the Vice president were in this discussion, as they had been shining with absence since the original REB proposal was tabled 3 weeks ago. In the mean time the proposal had been rejected and a motion had brought about a constructive discourse to enhance the quality of advice presented to the Community’s newspaper. So far, the veto of REB elicited no reaction from the president’s office. Following the “no news is good news�? motto, ComCil stoically continued its move towards reforming RAB, by further elaborating the tabled motion with concrete suggestions to add two extra faculty seats to the existing board and introducing staggered two year appointments for non-student members. Brainstorming and discussion, however, quickly turned into tears and anger after Record co-editor Luke Brennan returned from the President’s office with an unexpected letter from the Dean of Faculty. In the letter, (found on the back of this issue) both Brennan and co-editor Foster Neill are addressed personally, in what Bloch calls “a final admonition that the Antioch Record not be a platform for menacing and threatening speech.” In the letter, Bloch calls into question the extent to which both editors are taking seriously the educational purposes of their co-op experience and their obligations as a paid employee of the College. Brennan, who read the letter to ComCil calmly, took a minute for himself after putting down the paper. Vice-president Jurasek, who had just walked in to the meeting about half way into the letter, took seat in the back to listen. After a ! clear moment of silence, it is CM Levi B. Cowperwhite who first speaks up, addressing Jurasek personally: “I’m pissed! Why wasn’t this taken to RAB? Why is this system so unimportant to you? We fight for what we love, we think it’s important. We talk about it all the time. It means nothing to you. This is what we work so hard for every day. That’s what makes leaders, Rick. What are you teaching us?” He pauses for a second, but doesn’t get the desired answer. “You are skipping every educational moment here. By writing this letter and not bringing this to RAB. What makes you think you’re so damn important? And I mean you Rick! I know this is also you.�? The CM takes moment, before he continues: “We’re trying to make it better, we’re trying to safe this unsavable thing. You don’t care. We’re just a bunch of crazy kids to you. You don’t care that we’re loving and thoughtful kids who care for this. I have no respect for you any more. Respect is something you have to earn. And you did nothing today to earn that. “

For a moment the room went silent, nobody knowing what to say. Many stared down at the table in front of them in silence, glancing up briefly at the person sitting on the opposite side of the table. The chairwoman cried, and she wasn’t the only one. After this unexpected speech concluded a somber silence filled the room. A member of the Alumni Board that attended the meeting as a guest was clearly affected by what she had just seen.

It was Jurasek’s turn to break the silence. “Well, I’m slightly surprised. I thought I was going to come here to reform RAB. I can’t comment on what’s in the letter, since I didn’t write it, but I guess it isn’t necessarily widely unrelated. Does that sound understandable? There are often separate tracks to things. And they sometimes seem to contradict each other, they don’t necessarily. We still have to work on how we manage editorial policy. I want to work to reconfigure RAB, parallel to the letter, that is separate but not widely unrelated.

This eloquence seemed to strain the heads of the burned out ComCil members slightly. It had been an emotional meeting and everybody was eager to leave and get some fresh air. Cigarette consumption was again at its peak after the meeting was adjourned. Several parties at the meeting seemed to be going into a private second round afterwards, as issues were clearly not resolved for all. “ComCil does RAB�? act 6: in a theatre near you, as this paper goes to print.

On a more positive note, the RAB debate has opened up a wider discussion and growing interest for the Advisory Board meetings. In a meeting of the board held in the Record office last Friday, RAB appeared vigorous and eager. Community and ComCil members joined the dialogue with editors, writers and members of RAB about last week’s paper; an encouraging sight after the gloomy ComCil departure the day before. To keep the progress going, all community members are encouraged to join this weeks RAB meeting, Friday at noon in the Antioch Inn.

The AdCil Spill

By James Fischbeck

In this week’s meeting of the Administrative Council, there were 3 items on the agenda, the first item was the approval of minutes from the October 10th meeting, the second being an overview of the admissions and financial aid plans for the future, and the third item was a discussion of the role and function of AdCil, including faculty personnel issues. The minutes from the October 10th meeting are being re-written to include more of the long discussion that made the last AdCil most memorable. After the discussion over minutes, Admissions and Financial aid gave an overview of their plan to attract future Antiochians. The admissions process works in 2-year cycles, meaning that they are making decisions that will directly affect the next 2 generations of students. The first question raised was is “How are we going to bring in the classes of 2007 and 2008?�? Cathy Paige laid out the answer in 3 parts.

First, Antioch is participating in the purchasing of names of high school seniors from a company called Human Capital as they have done in the past. Last year, they bought about 120,000 names, and this year, they plan on buying around 80,000 – 90,000 names. Their reason for buying fewer names this year is conservation of resources and revision to the criteria to be used for the search focusing on Antioch’s strengths (co-op, community involvement, organizing for social justice). For example, they will be cutting people from the search who are looking for a religious education or intercollegiate sports since neither programs are represented fully here at Antioch.

The second portion of the plan is for the “self-initiated�? students who talk directly to Antioch because of their preexisting interest and curiosities towards this institution. For them, the online system is being streamlined. When someone asks for information or applies online, the turn-around time is now about 24 hours. Speed is a major focus of the revisions, as they are implementing more changes to hasten the communication process.

The third part is a re-organization of admission councilors time away from campus. They have cut the amount of time they spend off campus by approximately 45%, encouraging more prospective students to come visit Antioch. This year, seniors will receive a sequence of 12 postcards that articulate 12 key points designed to spark student interest in visiting or applying to Antioch. For the students that decide to visit Antioch, the campus visit program is improving, with more communication prior to their visit, better scheduling of time spent on campus, and more follow-up after they depart for home. More emphasis is being placed on visiting because students are more likely to matriculate if they come visit Antioch in person.

They will also work with current high school juniors and sophomores to incite interest in Antioch. The major targets of admissions recruiters include people with diverse backgrounds, and Midwesterners, with a focus on Ohio in particular as 1/3 of the new students are from Ohio originally. Rick Jurassek explained that students nationwide are reluctant to travel far away from their homes and families, thus making the search for Ohioans imperative. Another factor is the money that the Ohio state government gives for financial aid grants and how that can be used to put the college’s finances back on track.

In the coming year, they are seeking a target number of 12,000 student inquires for information. The number for this year was around 10,000, with only 11%-12% applying at Antioch. They are seeking a larger pool of applicants with fewer expenses. New scholarships and scholarship programs have increased the number of students who have deposited money to enroll at Antioch, and the scholarship weekend programs will be continued this year with tentative dates for March 4-5 and April 1-2.

Robin Heise spoke briefly about the federal government raising loan limits, making a greater burden on the college financially. The college’s main focus with scholarship money will be towards students who are the first in their families to attend college, and multicultural students. Also, the school is awarding challenge grants to students that will increase in amount over their stay at Antioch. These grants are awarded to students that show considerable improvement in their academics while they are in college.

There may be an unwritten rule against marketing your college to students already enrolled in other colleges, but Antioch has so much vitality and potential that we are attracting a good number of students from other colleges. With the number of prospective transfer students increasing, one concern that was expressed is the difficulty in recruiting transfer students for a curriculum that currently doesn’t exist for 3rd and 4th year students. Antioch already has agreements with a few community colleges in the area and will encourage more involvement with them in the future.

The Next week, AdCil will be discussing its role as an advisory committee and how it can continue to function effectively. This meeting is arguably the most important meeting of the year and if you’re concerned about AdCil’s role in campus politics, come to the next meeting, Tuesday at 8 AM in the Main Building conference room. Or if you just want some coffee and juice in the early morning, you’re welcome as well. These meetings are open to all members of the community who want to attend.