faculty - THE RECORD

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:

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

A New Acronym: CSKC Prepares to Open its Doors

By Madeline Helser

Coretta Scott King once said, “The greatness of a community is most accurately measured by the compassionate actions of its members…�? and it holds true today, especially when applied to our institution.

Construction is slated for completion on the Coretta Scott King Center for Cultural and Intellectual Freedom, designed to enhance knowledge and awareness about cultural identity in our community and beyond. It aims to educate future generations about cultural struggles and focus on how, as a community, to increase the unity among the different cultural identities.

The CSK Center was the notion of Bob Devine and Team 7. Team 7 was part of the renewal plan for Antioch College given to us by the Board of Trustees. The idea for the center was motivated by an essay written by Dr. Everett Freeman on some of Dr. King’s writings on community. Dr. Freeman was then on the Board of Trustees, and is now the President of the University of Indianapolis. It was in the renewal plan that Team 7 would articulate some sort of center for cultural and intellectual freedom. Out of the plan and the mind of Team 7 and Bob Devine, The CSK Center was born.

After a few weeks on the project, Bob Devine resigned, and Beverly Rodgers became the chair of Team 7. Team 7 was one of the most diverse teams working on the renewal. The team had good community representation; students, staff, and faculty were all represented in a very diverse manner. The team created job descriptions for Diversity positions within the administration.

The positions created were Director/ Diversity Advisor to the President of the College and Administrative Assistant/Diversity Advocate. “The position of Director is loaded with responsibilities, including fundraising, which will be important to the Center’s programming and future staffing. The new director will also need to be visionary, and carry out projects and ideas to better inform and engage the community. They will also serve as a special assistant to the president on institutional diversity; this is crucial to the retention and recruitment of faculty, staff, and students of color. We are a very white campus, especially in the upper-administrative positions, and the Director will hopefully be able to assist with this problem as they sit in the President’s staff group and bring in resources to support faculty, staff, and students of color.�? Says Lauren Hind, an upperclassmen working for the Center. As of now, they are in the process of interviewing and hiring an administrative assistant and are in the last steps of hiring a director, which includes visits to campus and talks given by the three candidates in the Inn during Lunch.

When Steve Lawry was hired as President, things were not flowing together very smoothly, so Beverly Rodgers was asked to step in as Interim Director for the Project. Beverly’s job is to oversee the entire renovation of the building that used to be used and known as the G-Space and Security. From overseeing the installation of the carpet to the programs hopefully being set into place, Beverly deals with it all. The main part of Beverly’s job as Interim Director is to organize. She is to get all of the little things out of the way so when the Director starts in early January, the little things will be out of the way and the director will be able to start their job right away. She also has staff meetings with the people that are going to be occupying the new offices in the CSK. Until now, the groups to occupy those offices have had no direct supervision. She is also to get a handle on the budget for the CSK Center. The CSK Center, until just recently, has had no direct monetary support.

The As far as physical changes to the building, the laundry equipment was removed, which included the floor having to be leveled, the electricity taken out, and the walls needing to be repaired and painted. The rest of the building was carpeted and painted as well. It is now being wired for Computers and Internet Access. There are new doors on the front and main entrance and the fireplace is being replaced from a wood burning type to one with gas logs. There are going to be 8 offices set up. The director, the administrative assistant will occupy two of the offices. The other offices will be for the Bonner program, the Makeit program, Vista Americorps, and the community engagement office. The office furniture has already been ordered and should be in by the week of October 16. Once the furniture is in the building, everything should be set within 2 weeks. The Lounge furniture for the common room, formerly known as the G-Space, won’t be in, however, until the middle of November.

As far as programs in the future, Beverly has positive outlooks. “Antioch has a lot to offer our community. But sometimes we get very hidden under a bushel basket. Let’s look at how privilege plays out in the outside world. We need to continue dialogue about it. It’s an important facet of education.�? A goal is to be able to have a good developed program for next term. A positive step was bringing Allen Johnson to campus, as he opened up the arena for discussion on topics of cultural identity on a new level.

She has in mind a program educating about Youth Urban Violence, specifically in the Dayton area. It would be for volunteer work or for co-op. Beverly believes that it would be a wonderful way to expand students’ ability to connect with the area.

Another possible program would be focused on immigration. “ I feel like immigration is something that people just do not know much about,�? said Rodgers, “we have so many opportunities to interact and focus on what we already have.�? The aspects of things like availability of healthcare, work, and ESL courses are important to the immigration issue. There are so many struggles associated with it that it is very much linked to cultural and intellectual freedom. Beverly remarked, “Allen provided good grounds for discussion of that once again. To be able to express culture freely and respectfully, you have to be empowered. It doesn’t necessarily have to be regional or national, but we can look at it on a smaller level, because in some way, it all connects.�?

Overall, The Coretta Scott King Center for Cultural and Intellectual Freedom is headed in the right direction. “I went to Atlanta to talk to Mrs. King, and I feel we have a serious responsibility that we do honor her name. She expanded on Dr. King’s ideology with the fight for the rights of women and gay’s as well as supporting HIV research. She was courageous and forceful, yet elegant. A truly amazing person,�? said Beverly.

There will be an opening celebration for the center sometime in the spring of next year. The orchestra will play and alumni will flood Kelly Hall. It will be a celebration of cultural freedom and diversity. As Beverly said, “We may be small, but we’re pretty mighty!�? We can accomplish anything we put our minds to, and the King Center is solid proof of that.

President Lawry Shows His Teeth

By Wesley Dawson

At the AdCil meeting Tuesday October Tenth School President Steve Lawry began discussion with a document entitled “Principles of a Community Learning Structure.�? Presumably written by Lawry himself, the page subtitled as a “Draft for Discussion�? had all statements and no questions. Community members present at the meeting found the document demonstrative of the President’s desire to change to a more top down school power structure that negates decision making shared governance once had.

The bite in the document seems to be that even though Lawry has been instigating what many older students see as unprecedented change on the school, it is written as an explanation of policy rather than a proposal for change. Lawry’s point is to say that the community government never had any real power beyond advising the real decision maker, himself.

The document asserts that the purpose of shared governance is purely educational, preparing students to “be effective in public life and to represent their views and values convincingly in public affairs after leaving college.�? This is not unlike Student Government models in many other colleges where students hold no power beyond fund raising and throwing parties. One purpose this parallel serves to the perspective of a newer student like myself is to say that Antioch is, and always has been, structured the same way as any other college in the country.

Many students, some of whom who have been at the college longer than the President, disagree with the statements in his document. They say that while the President of the school holds the official power, they have historically taken heed of the community’s wishes and made decisions as a representative rather than an authority. This point of view shared by many members of the community asserts that until the current president, governing power was shared under shared governance.

Teachers present at the meeting were noted as saying that the ability to utilize real power allows students a better opportunity for learning to be “effective in public life�? because it allows them to do so as students instead of just “after leaving college.�?

The document does not refer directly to Steve Lawry but rather to a theoretical President but also includes statements like, “Faculty have in recent years gained greater direct responsibility for curricular matters. This is a welcome and healthy trend and it should continue,�? which, aside from the date, is the only part that shows that Lawry himself wrote the document, and recently. The rest could have been a policy set out years ago by the school administration were it to always have the absolute power Lawry asserts it to have.

According to the President, “AdCil’s role is advisory to the President and the administration�? and ComCil is “a place of discussion and debate on community matters�? not “an alternative locus of authority to the President, the administration or the faculty.�? Older students say that while the President’s statements may correspond to how the school policy is written, it is a new interpretation of that policy that does not take account of how school decision-making has historically worked at Antioch.

If that is the case, the student body faces the question of whether the decree of authority is more important than the ideals of community. President Lawry has already considered this question and made up his mind.

Letter To The Editor – 10/11/06

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.