McGregor - THE RECORD

Teach-In Series Concluded with Panel Discussion

By Edward Perkins
A panel discussion in the McGregor building capped off a week of teachins concerning rights and wrongs in the global war on terror. A small but engaged audience consisted of Antioch students, faculty members, and locals from Yellow Springs. The panel was comprised of four experts: Dr. William O’Brien, who works for the Department of Veteran’s Affairs, Gordon Chapman, who worked for the CIA and military intelligence following WWII, Julie Gallagher, a historian and the Ohio coordinator for Amnesty International, and Antioch’s own Dr. Hassan Nejhad who specializes in Middle East Affairs.

Antioch professor Jean Gregorek, PHD, warmed up the audience with a concise but precise introduction to the discussion topic. Jean began by recapping the events of the past few days, which included films and teach-ins. She also informed the audience about the Military Commissions Act, which recently passed Congress. Jean explained how the act gives the CIA and military unprecedented power, including “The power to incarcerate prisoners of war indefinitely�? and “absolute power to decide the fate of these so called enemies�?. After the introduction, Jean handed the microphone over to the panel members.

Hassan spoke first. His presentation was strong, and spiked the interest of the audience. He began “torture is nothing new�? but then stated, “It is a shame that it is still with us�?. The audience was visibly engaged at this point. Hassan gave an overview of definitions of what torture is, how the Bush administration defines torture, and international laws governing torture, including the Geneva Convention. He spoke passionately, citing examples of US conduct that could be described as torture, before demonstrating how such actions are defined as torture by international law. Hassan cut through the confusion surrounding the issue of torture. He explained the governing bodies that prosecute torture, the documents that define torture, and how the USA has violated these guidelines.

Dr. William O’Brien was next, speaking about the psychology of POW’s (prisoners of war). His 33 years of experience working in clinical psychology for the Dept. of Veteran Affairs made him uniquely suited to address these topics. O’Brien gave chilling tales of former POW’s and how their experiences have mentally scarred them for life. Listening to his tales, it was hard not to feel terrible for the CIA’s prisoners, regardless of what crimes they stand accused of. The Doctor also spoke about Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD) and its effects. PTSD is common and severe with many POWs.

Gordon Chapman, who worked in military intelligence, had terrific insight to convey in his lecture. Since 1993, he has worked for Veterans for Peace, a non-profit whose function is explained by its name. Gordie shone some perspective on the matter. He cited examples of US terrorism before 9/11, including the relocation of Japanese-American citizens during WWII and covert actions/operations in Latin America. Gordon also noted that “Ho Chi Minh was a US ally in WWII�?, drawling a parallel to Osama Bin Laden, another former US ally. He then spoke about torture at the CIA during his career there. Years after leaving, he found out about incidents of torture that allegedly went on just doors from his office without his knowledge. Dr. Julie Gallagher (also an Antioch professor) wrapped things up with a lively speech. She spoke about an anti-torture bill, which failed to pass Congress. This bill would have prevented many of the abuses allowed by the Military Commissions Act. The MCA allows for all kinds of outrageous conduct, suspends the writ of Habeas Corpus, and gives the government unprecedented and maybe illegal powers. Julie, the regional coordinator for Amnesty international, talked about her group’s extensive anti-torture work. She made an excellent point, saying at this point we need to at minimum “regain the human rights that have been lost�?, but ideally need to do far, far more.

The evening ended with a brief, but lively, Q&A. The intelligent and thoughtful comments demonstrated how much the audience had soaked up from the panel. The questions ranged from the Supreme Court’s response to what course of action concerned citizens should take next. Hassan explained that parts of the bill may be turned down, but reiterated the urgency of the situation by saying “it could take time and the government can go ahead in the mean time�?, meaning the government could continue to torture until such changes are made.

Students Grumble as Problems Plague IT Department

By Paige Clifton-Steele

The staff knows it and the students notice it: the Information Technology department at Antioch College is understaffed and under-funded. “We’ve had consistency issues. We’ve had authentication issues. And it was generally inconvenient in the beginning,�? says Shea Witzberger, first year. She isn’t alone in her complaints—many Antioch users of WiFi continue to experience similar problems.

According to a June 2002 study released by the Gartner Group, a respected computer-consulting firm, one IT support person is required for every seventy Macintosh computers, or for every forty-five PCs. The Antioch Information Technology department has six people, in addition to one co-op student and the manager of the website, who lives and works out of state. When measured against the approximately 1,200 users who make up Antioch College and Antioch University McGregor, it becomes clear how disproportionate these numbers are. That’s one staff member for every two hundred users.

The implications of this are many. First year students have complained about the wireless in North Hall—mostly about problems that have since been resolved. However, students continue to lament short-term problems with wireless. “I’m glad that they’ve been so helpful with my concerns online, though.�?

Several students report being better able to access support online, while their in-person requests receive less priority. Paul Deardorff, Systems Administrator, acknowledges that questions put to him in his office or the hall may fall by the wayside. “People will come up and say I’m having a problem with this, I’m having a problem with that…And to be honest with you, it’s hard to keep up. It’s much easier for us if someone were to log into the helpdesk and put a helpdesk ticket up.�?

Sometimes, students and staff vary on what constitutes a problem; several students are concerned about privacy policies on First Class, while IT staff would like to handle the issue informally.

“I am concerned about privacy in my First Class Account,�? says Sean Bradley, straight white male first year. “And most people’s initial passwords were logarithms of their names and some fairly consistent number…�?

However, Brown differs, “I don’t know of any policy, but to be honest I don’t see the need for one because every person in the IT department very firmly believes that we don’t mess with your mail unless somebody real, real high up above asks us to.�? At MacGregor, policy states that that person is the president of the school. It remains ambiguous who would have the authority to ask that of the department at the college level.

Cassie Collins, a fourth year co-oping in the department, says, “What I have seen would lead me to believe that there is not [a privacy policy regarding First Class moderation].�? Asked whether she believes there is a call for one, she says yes, qualifying, “But not because anything that IT has done.�?

Another problem hampering the efficiency of the department is its tendency to be pulled into audiovisual maintenance jobs that are not strictly computer related. Collins believes she has a solution: “I think just having one person to handle AV would be useful. Take a coop student, teach them all about the AV, and just have them run AV support.�?

Units, in addition to North Hall, has wireless internet, while Birch and Spalt remain connected with Ethernet. Spalt residents complain of few problems with their internet, but North has suffered a series of setbacks since students arrived in September.

The IT department made changes to the North wireless network just prior to the beginning of the academic school year because of a PHD program residency, but the changes caused problems that went undetected for a few weeks. “There was a difference in firmware between the AP2000 and the AP4000,�? says Tom Brown. “We couldn’t figure it out for a while because we couldn’t see a trend. We had to make the wireless open, available to everyone.�?

During this time, students in North could access the wireless network without a certificate. A few weeks later, it was resecured.

Understaffing isn’t the only problem that plagues the department. On the second floor of the library is a pile of broken computers awaiting disposal. “The village won’t take them because they’re not environmentally safe to dispose of,�? says Brown. Though a few of them were removed when Dylan Reiff took them for use in his show. ‘Robocalypse’ last term, Brown still stays, “I think we need to work with physical plan to make that happen. They’re piling up every time one dies.�?

Asked what makes the IT department at Antioch unique than that of other schools, Deardorff says with pride that the members of the IT department have a variety of degrees and areas of expertise different from the usual computer-related studies. These range from philosophy to English.

Campus Life Gets a Life Guard

by Christopher DeArcangelis

It had been a groggy start. Head in the shower, clothes on the ground and no breakfast. The class had been one of irritation: “McGregor still has no elevator or handicap accessible entrance and its recent cleaning has unleashed a fierce mold.�? When class was over I couldn’t stop thinking about eggs and mayonnaise. My hunger was trying to take me for a ride.

I ran into Joe and he said “Listen: I cant get into Birch.�? I looked at him and rubbed my guts. I had consumed the coffee stimulant, but no food. I needed Birch for its kitchen.

“Come on, ole Joe. I’ve got a key. “ Joe looked back pensively, not letting me in on his inner understanding. We walked down the path past the dew and craters that compose one of Birch’s main pathways. Joe almost broke his ankle stumbling into the hole in the ground. Examining his reddening joints he remarked,

“Oh, I hope lunch is good.�? I helped him up and we made it up to the door. I reached into my pocket, stained from last night’s Gin, and fumbled for my keys. I found them buried beneath my coinage and whipped them out into the keyhole. Turning the key gave way to nothing; the sweat on my brow now ran down my eye sockets. I began to turn the key more aggressively, pulling on the door handles and muttering oaths.

I had not yet received my new Antioch ID. These new IDs include the ability to unlock the dormitory doors, standing for a new era in the General Safety of Antioch. This also means that until someone walked by with an ID card, my friend and I would be pressing our faces to the glass of the doors hoping to see a concerned face. And there she was.

It was Kim Deal, from the rock ‘n’ roll band The Pixies. She is also from Dayton, a nearby industrial city. She was making her way down the stairs and saw our flustered faces. She let us in through the door with the sympathy of a sailor, saying “Hey, we’re all on this ship together.�?

I said, “Why, with all this good nature about, I can’t help but wonder if you know something I don’t.�? Her eyes widened. Her shining teeth revealed themselves to me as she announced her new position as the Campus Life Guard.

“Campus Life Guard tell me more!�? Joe beckoned. The Campus Life Guard took us aside to the Birch Space Kitchen and began preparing some sandwiches a she explained the various changes occurring on Antioch College that require our immediate attention, as well as the aid of a skilled Campus Life Guard.

“This term is but another in a series of swift changes in policy towards the students of Antioch College. The college moves on with its Renewal Plan, and the Housing website still shows a picture of Birch while leaving it out of its Internet tour of Antioch’s student housing.

Changes that face returning students this term: The necessity of a written proof of illness in order to partake in the Cafeteria’s Food Exchange Program; the lack of a smoking friendly dormitory or hall; the reorganizing of financial aid, of the FWSP; the key card identification system that took years. The understaffed faculty. The Pepto-Bismol nightmare interior of the Antioch Inn Practice Spaces and Hailed Hallway of The Dance Space. The largest first year class in years is also welcomed this term.

This term Antioch will posses the following abandoned residence halls: West, Mills, G Stanley, and Norment. “

The sandwiches were served, along with the proper end of summer cordials. Kim peered out through the Birch Space windows as she elaborated.

Housing

“Gazing about the halls of Birch one cannot find a common space. Instead, the passageway, the hallway, is the common space. Folk hang about as if waiting for the bus or a ride, one leg crooked against the wall, cigarettes in hand.

Fuck not smoking, a bright second year says.

The rooms seem to be in fine working order. Aside from the closet full of ancient piss and the incriminating fleabites that spell “get out.�?

Though things seem to have taken a turn for the worse at Birch Town, its residents still have faith in the future. A fancy bench has made its way into one of the dorms halls, providing what would seem to be an attempt at the creation of a common space.

As for smoking, Ohio and many other states have decided to tighten their brassiere in a collective show of progression by banning smoking in some way or another. In Ohio it has been county by county, and while Green County remains indoor smoking friendly Antioch College does not.

The ratio of smoking detectors to smoking Antioch student has continuously caused unwanted smoke alarm detonations, particularly during the last few terms in Birch. It is rumored that tensions are rising between the Yellow Springs Fire Department and Antioch College. It seems that Antioch has been trying to save face, however, what with the sacrificial offering of the recently abandoned Torment Hall to the Fire Department for training exercises.

The RA of Willet Hall in Birch, Rob the Rev, says: “Over the last few terms their have been a lot of fire alarms going off which I think is straining our relationship with the fire department. I think that in the interest of maintaining the basic safety of this campus and the students it would be the logical course to ban smoking.�?

For the first year class, North has been rehabilitated with all the floors open and ready for business. Dorm life is being kept closely monitored. Near the entrance to Green Hall there is posted warning about the seriousness of underage drinking and drinking in North. Underage drinking and smoking will not be tolerated. Steve Lawry has voiced his personal concern with underage drinking in North.

Whatever you do, don’t buy any minors beer this term.�?

Campus Life

“The Financial Aid restructuring has continued to affect the Community Government and Independent Group’s on campus. The various groups provide resources and outlets for the diverse minds and bodies that compose Antioch College’s student body. These outlets show the true potential of Antioch College as a place for creativity and progress. With their diminished importance and volunteer status, they are threatened to disappear completely without student initiative. Even the Antioch Record itself has been struggling keep a hold of funding.

The first years are on a completely different curriculum from the upper classmen. Their days are spent in class. Most of the steady teachers have been usurped into the CORE program for the first years. For a while the fresh key cards given to returning students did not work in North.

Weekend Dance Space parties have long been a staple of Antioch College nightlife. This term, alcohol will no longer be sold at CG parties. It is sad to see the eradication of one of the most ancient forms of socialization. BYOB is encouraged, but still serves as yet another division between the older and younger students at Antioch College, a school with a very small student body.

The cafeteria has taken a new stance on the food exchange program limiting access to a great idea: take home some of the raw goods that the cafeteria uses. You must have a written notice from a doctor validating your need to partake in this program. At a school that is known for its progressive posturing, you would think the food wouldn’t put people asleep or straining at the toilet! But it does, and the cafeteria remains stigmatized.

Kim Deal really had taken this job full on. My stomach was full, but my head was filled with questions. These questions, like many, desire an answering. I leaned forward on the fancy table and asked, “But Kim, what does anyone think?�? I looked at her plainly, naïve to the whole thing. She reached an arm into her pocket and prepared a mini cassette record to myself and Joe. “In order to better understand the changes, I thought it best to speak with some upperclassmen. Here for your pleasure and understanding are the true testimonials of Rob the Rev, and Emily Thornton Wourms

Emily TW

Q: How has your housing situation changed?
A: When I entered I lived in north and it was cesspool of first year debauchery and I liked it that way. The biggest problem with housing is that they don’t differentiate from the people who do drugs and the people who don’t and because of that people are put in awkward positions where their lifestyle conflicts with people around them and I thought that was a very valuable thing and that school did too.

Q: With the changes in smoking and alcohol tolerance do you feel that the school is changing its stance?
A: Oh yeah, we used to have a semi official harm reduction policy when I first entered and now it seems more like z parental relation ship between the students and administration

Q: Do you feel distanced from the first years this term?
A: Yes, but not as much as last year, which I think is very important and a very good sign. I think the issues over housing last year caused a lot of animosity over the first years and older students. I think having the older students in Birch here they’ve always been since I’ve first got here was important.

Q: Do you think that the role of the older students as potential mentors and friends is being eradicated on campus?
A: I think they are trying to formalize that role. I know they have all these official mentor ship programs but when I arrived here there was a lot of informal mentor ships which in a lot of ways worked better because it entered people lives more it was just if you had a problem with homework you had a name you could hunt down, you actually had these relationships. Maybe they are trying creating this in a more formal way, great, but I haven’t seen that happening.

Q: How do you feel about the lack of a common space in Birch?
A: I’m trying to do my senior project, and someone just moved a couch literally a foot and a half from my front door and I think that is going to be very detrimental to me trying to do my senior project, and this was done to compensate for the lack of a proper common space.

Q :Do you feel that a common space is really better than a couch outside your door?
A: A lot better for me.

Q: Why do you think they took the common spaces out of birch??
A: Probably to try to get rid of the community atmosphere that many older students enjoyed here that was somewhat destructive and somewhat dirty but I think that people are just creating that atmosphere in a narrower place that only intensifies that atmosphere, literally narrower.

Q: How do you feel about the need for a doctor’s note in order to partake in the Food Exchange program?
A: I have a bigger problem with not being able to get a refund for your meal plan and take
the money you would have spent on it. The food exchange program is great and if people
can utilize it I think they should but you should be able to opt out of the whole thing.
Q: What would you prescribe to Antioch if you were a doctor?
A: Hmmm, some antibiotics and some Valium.
Reverend Rob
Q: Do you feel cut off from the first years?
A: I do indeed I feel that the first years are in a bubble within a bubble. At the same time when the first
years were put in Birch last years it was the same thing so, I don’t think its so much a spatial issue as
much as a generational issues, as the older generations tend to cut themselves off from first years
and the first years tend to put themselves in a cocoon, it seems this problem would be inevitable
Do we stand a chance?
“Well Kim,�? I started, “thanks for taking a good keep over the flock. I feel like my place in the community
is still pretty blurry though. I almost feel sick thinking about these changes. What do we do, Kim?�?

She stood up from her seat.
“The upperclassmen and first years are presented with some daunting challenges at a college
typically known for its strong community and support of radical thought. The leaves will all being
to fall and time will pass. A healthy diet and good sleep remains important, as well as dancing
and the occasional well supervised consumption of a cold beer and a book. It is up to us to get
what we want, or do what we want. As this term unfolds we will see just what’s in store for us.�?
She then jumped through the window, glass shattering in slow motion, and walked off to
stand post as the Campus Life guard.

1st Year Orientation: A Triumphantly Fisted Watermelon

By James Fischbeck

Small groups process content during RDPP orientation
Photo by Luke Brennan

Roughly 120 new students arrived to Antioch on September 1. Antioch students and faculty welcomed the first-years. Transition is the common theme of the day. After the students settled into their dorms, the integration process began. Students were shown a slide show about the history of Antioch and the Glen Helen Nature Preserve. It showed vintage photographs of simpler times at Antioch. The Antioch Campus was mostly open space until Antioch students planted trees in the late 1800s. At one time, Antioch had a football team and a baseball team; both teams are just fuzzy memories now. Before closing during the civil war, a special military division was stationed on campus for recruiting and teaching purposes. However, that didn’t last long because the military commanders were worried about continued contact with extreme members of the Antioch community.

After the history presentation, the president of the college addressed new students and parents about the updated curriculum and his plans for re-shaping Antioch college. President Lawry spoke of the new co-op communities in Washington D.C., New Mexico, and Southwestern Ohio. There are plans of building a new co-op community in Seattle and making it possible for independent students to utilize some of the same job opportunities that students of the old curriculum experienced. New progress is being made within the Coretta Scott King Center for Cultural and Intellectual freedom. Lawry also spoke of various community outreach programs that he hopes will make the King Center burst into bloom.

The academic and CG orientation was next, and the first-year class barely fit into McGregor 113. Firstyears were presented with the analogy of a three-legged stool, each leg representing Classroom, Co-op, and Community respectively. Janice Kinghorn explained more aspects of the newly revised and expanded core communities. Gaia and Cool are the two new core classes. Gaia involves environmental science, peace studies, and ecology. Cool is a mix of physics, psychology, and music. The sequencing calendar remains the same from last year, with an emphasis on completing a degree path in 4 years, not 5. Clustered classes are one of the fresh ideas being worked into the new curriculum. These groupings of classes are intended to reinforce interdisciplinary learning, but this is still a new, untested idea. Co-op communities are intended to make co-op arrangements less chaotic and more secure. Under the new plan, communities will spring up in various places in and around the United States that will serve as areas where students have more support in times of need. Coop communities are a good idea from a business point of view because they signify a long-term investment of human capital. By focusing on a few areas, employers will be willing to provide work for more students on a more consistent basis. Community at Antioch is the most important leg of the three-legged stool. Our CG managers made the point that community governance is shared governance. Students, faculty, and administration are coequal parts of the community. In theory, it means that everyone has equal voice. In practice, it means that the community is responsible for facilitating dialogue that will bring meaningful, progressive change.

The SOPP is unique to Antioch and embodies respect, communication, and consent. Several returning students participated in the SOPP orientation by performing skits and demonstrating proper handling of sexual devices. The most memorable moment of the orientation involved a duck and a watermelon. At first, it is shocking to see that Antioch is truly comfortable talking about sexual problems so bluntly, but the SOPP isn’t meant to stir up uncomfortable feelings among the student body. Most people at Antioch have a high emo t i o n a l inves tment in the SOPP. The SOPP was born to combat a culture of sexual violence and foster a new culture of positive, consensual s e x u a l i t y. The SOPP is challenging the status quo. In a self-sustaining community, sharing of knowledge and communicating clearly are the most important on an individual level. The SOPP doesn’t dictate that any types of sexual interaction are “wrong�? or “immoral�?, it just stresses that people should know and respect their boundaries and those of others. Even though it started from a women-related issue, it is never about gender because it applies to all. To quote Levi B., “It’s fucked up that sexual issues become women’s issues automatically�?.

A new addition to the orientation process is a briefing on the RDPP, which stands for the Racial Discrimination Prevention Policy. It started as a similar policy to the SOPP and they have similar educational goals. The RDPP acknowledges that racism is a problem that often goes unaddressed in our larger society. You might find yourself asking the question “What is racism?�? well racism or racial discrimination is defined as any distinction, exclusion, restriction, or preference based on race, color, descent, or national or ethnic origin which has the purpose or effect of nullifying or impairing the recognition, enjoyment, or exercise, on equal footing, of human rights and fundamental freedoms in the political, economic, social, cultural, or any other field of public life. As you can see, racism is a complicated issue and the RDPP emphasizes that individuals are responsible for creating and maintaining an anti-racist environment around them. As with the SOPP, the RDPP stresses communication and conflict resolution over punitive action. The RDPP is an important addition to Antioch policy that will strengthen the community by encouraging education and examination of greater social issues both inside and outside of Antioch.

On behalf of the Antioch community, I would like to thank Amy Campbell, Beth Jones, Chelsea Martens, Anne Fletcher, Emily Dezurick-Badran, Luke Brennan, Sarah Buckingham, Tess Lindsay, Nicole Crouch-Diaz, Megg Fleck, Katie Archer, Travis Woodard, Keri Gregory, Phillip Wooten, Marissa Fisher, Josh Oliver, Corrine Frohlich, Megan Pergem, and everyone else that was involved in making first-year orientation memorable and enjoyable.

The Past 50 Years of the Antioch Presidency, Part II (1985-1997)

By Marissa Geiger

[The first part of this articles was published last issue (Vol59/Issue18)-BS.]

The Man in White Came in Riding on a Horse

After a presidential search, the BOT chose Alan Guskin to replace William Birenbaum. Guskin’s presidency spanned from 1985 to 1997 and I split them up into two very distinctive periods: 1985-1990 were the calm years and 1990-1997 was when things started to get severely problematic. According to Guskin, when he arrived here, AC was an estimated 12 months from closing. According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, in the first two years Guskin was here, in order to reverse a downward spiral, he had to fire some people, begin phasing out the Law School in D.C. and balance a budget some $800,000 in the red.

While Birenbaum named the University, Guskin sustained it at a very high level of prosperity for most of his tenure as an administrator. It is not until the period of 1990-1997 that you can see why he may be so controversial. Things started going sour when the Record investigated an administrator whom Guskin appointed without approval of any pre-established legitimate processes (AdCil various committees of the time). Michael Bassis was unilaterally hired in 1989, and just happened to be one of Guskin’s old University of Wisconsin colleagues (where he held a position previous to Antioch) and also created a position for him, AU Executive Vice President to assist Guskin with the College. This was a developing trend for Guskin, as he appointed many people who shared his interest to high-level authority positions. The Record unearthed that Bassis lied about the concentration of his PhD: it wasn’t in Sociology as he and Guskin adamantly proclaimed time and time again, but in Education. This raised serious questions about his qualifications for the job and honesty relating to his academic record. But Guskin shot back, “Mike Bassis will be here as long as I am”.

The Snowball Effect

The problems snowballed. That little lie set the stage for the rest of Guskin’s tenure. Guskin had been rearranging positions and departments since he got to campus, but nothing was as epochal as the restructuring of 1992, which stretched until 1994. This was often referred to as “decentralization”, or Guskin implementing his “federal model”, in which there was is autonomy but within a negotiated policy framework. According to Devine, who was also the Dean of Faculty a short while during Guskin’s tenure, “The federal model allowed the College its autonomy to have the governance that we have, to have the program that we have and provided the safe harbor to say ‘We had a bad year’ and we had some subsidies to help cover what we’re doing.”

The subsidies Devine mentioned refer to the other units of AC. It was at this time the position of AU Chancellor was created, to link all the other executive directors (i.e. presidents) of the other campuses. This decentralization was said to promise the reduction of the responsibility and workload of the central administration. It was at this time there were only five units under the AU (six if you count the AU administration as a separate entity): Antioch College, McGregor School, Seattle, Southern California, and New England (last four are adult campuses).

Instead of AC pumping money into the adult campuses, Guskin reversed the flow of resources and they turned into, in effect, the College’s endowment. Money flowed toward the AC from all the centers it birthed years ago. It usually added up to about $1 million from each center (this number fluxes depending on the source). Devine added, “Guskin was good at working a board. That’s what a CEO of a non-profit has to do. Love him or hate him, he did rebuild the finances of the place.”

Under Guskin’s model, the affected offices were Personnel, Business, Financial Aid, the University Registrar, and (at the time) possibly the 1993 equivalent of Tech Resources. The campus was assured that the consolidation of these departments would save money.

Administration for each unit would be central, but would report to the BOT through the Chancellor of the University, which made the relationship between campus administration and the Board a little more ambiguous. Denman calls Guskin as a loving parent and all the units his children, “Guskin fell into the trap of getting too close in his sense of identity to the College and its future so when he began to receive criticism after the romantic period was over (1985-1990), he withdrew periodically, began to see faculty and students as aliens. At times he tried. When it didn’t pay off for him, it was a reason for anger, and he would move back into the authoritative role. He loved Yellow Springs; his love affair was too great; love in the romantic sense. Love of one who could maintain own independence, and offer independence of College to itself. Its like the love of a parent and letting the child become an independent person that bewilders, disappoints but also achieves its own visions.”

The Crowfoot Dismissal

Guskin took the chance to become Chancellor of AU, thereby ending his dual presidency. After a presidential search (which also caused an uproar in the way it was conducted), Jim Crowfoot was chosen as the 18th President of AC. He only lasted one year (1995-1996). This particular year in our history is the reason the AIF was born and part of why some alumni feel so severed from the AC community.

The Crowfoot controversy is a complicated one and depending on who your sources are, can be entirely hearsay. According to a faculty compiled chronology of events, a new College budget came out on July 1st, accompanied with restrictions on the budget. Crowfoot left for planned vacation on the 22nd. The 23rd, the University imposed a freeze on spending and College could not authorize any spending. A memo given to faculty read Severe disciplinary action if procedures are not followed. Crowfoot was contacted and said a freeze may be helpful and that it is essential to cooperate.

On August 6th, Crowfoot flew home to attend an AdCil budget meeting and found that $600,000-800,000 deficit is why the University took over. It was announced the 13th that Crowfoot “resigned”. Guskin replied with “Sometimes you have to act.” Now, I have heard from some that Crowfoot was a terrible President and the campus culture didn’t mesh well with him.

Denman said “These climatic events, turning points… In the minds of some of us, we felt these were moments where it was established, or should’ve been established, that certain kinds of processes are legitimate here and other processes are not. It stands as a precedent that the University can’t get rid of a College President without consultation, without real involvement of the AC process for hiring and firing. It all goes back to the notion that we make decisions collaboratively at the College. We have normative processes that we should follow for making decisions.”

The dismissal of Crowfoot, was out of line with the College practice of due process, up until that point, that is. There was a flood of articles posted in every newspaper in 25-mile radius, and one thing resounded, the actions of the Executive Committee of the BOT were necessary and the stability at the top of the College hierarchy was the key consideration. Less than a week later one of the Board members, Malte von Matthiessen resigned, citing a lack of confidence in the leadership of AU Chancellor Al Guskin. Malte’s concern lay in the fact that Crowfoot wasn’t given the resources or the support to deal with the College’s problems and was not informed as to how severe they really were. It was doomed from the start merely from miscommunication.

Do you need clarification at this point?

From 1972-2002, the College had 16 different leaders. In the first ten years, 1972-82, enrollment dropped from 2,470 to around five or six hundred, where it has remained. I asked Bob Devine his what he thought of the stagnate admissions rate in the past 20 years and he replied, “You gotta meet 100% of financial need to compete. We need consistent financial aid and more people on the road promoting Antioch College.” Money is always the issue with this question. When we spike the money to be able to bring people here, we spike in admissions. There is a direct correlation between the two. All distractions aside, I set out to determine the root cause in our current crisis, and I believe it lies within the Dixon Network. Superfluous educational imperialism of the early days of the University set the precedent. But I should probably describe what I mean by the “current crisis”. Not really knowing who is really in charge compounds the effects of living within, as Devine calls it, a manufactured crisis. The Board made the decision to charge depreciation to the College’s budget (and every other unit) two years ago. “Depreciation is the $1 million worth of physical plant and it’s going to wear out in 10 years so you must show expenses of $100,000 each year. It originally showed up on AU’s budget (started in 1993, since it was required to have it)- depreciation as an expense, and endowment growth and revenue and they wash each other out.” Numerous consultants advised AU financial executives not to charge each unit for depreciation, claiming the College can’t take the hit.

It is a good strategy, since the money can be used to revitalizing dorms, inadvertently addressing issues of retention. However, it is taking a huge chunk out of the school’s budget for depreciation. At the same time that it was a shock there was no reserve funds set aside to counteract dilapidated conditions of the grounds, $1.8 million dollars was also wrenched from the College’s pockets at the same time when all the other units decide to stop paying the overhead they have been sending our way for years. Instead, the subsidies are called (money from adult campuses, because remember, they were thought to be our endowment) “allowable deficit”, meaning they will go away sooner or later if we get our finances in order. Glenn Watt’s attitude and the rest of the University is destructive, as both think it is time for all other satellites to concentrate on themselves, to better themselves with all their revenue, instead of pumping money into a black hole of a college. Devine responds, “The College is a black hole cause we don’t know what people do, and we don’t necessarily share the values.” But the University seems to forget that the College is a vital part of AU. The central administration is located here and without some of the resources we have (library, cafeteria, etc.), the other schools could not be accredited.

Adult campuses are the most important source of revenue for the University. Not only do they bring in more money, but the other branches of the University are growing amazingly fast, in comparison to the College, which is currently struggling to maintain its existing attendance figures, as it waxes and wanes like it always does, or has for 20 years. A liberal arts model of education is expensive and there are two ways of remedying it: large endowments, which we don’t have, and/or high enrollment rate, which we don’t have.

Again, the structure is questioned

“But when the autonomy goes away [supplied under Guskin’s federal model] and the subsidies go away then I question whether the College does not need its own BOT, its own structure.” which is Devine’s response to how he feels about the current AU/AC dichotomy. AU administration is putting us in a very difficult situation, as all our money is tied up in projects that should have happened a long time ago. It is really easy to fall into the trap of not seeing the end in sight when it comes to campus projects, since we have adopted the “band-aid fix” for many years now. I asked Denman for his opinion on AC/AU and he said, “I have been convinced that it would be good for the College to regain its independence, but I have concluded in the last four months that this is an impossibility, that the AIF was the last good try, that now the future of the College lies within the University and that we better do everything we possibly can to have the entire University system thrive with the College as a part of it. The trustees will never really entertain the question, let alone answer it favorably.” (In a Record from 1993, it said the Board will no longer entertain questions about whether the University should exist or not.)

I asked Pelakoudas the same question and he mentioned that other places had Board of Visitors and depending on how the BOT defines the BOV, they can be delegated whatever powers the want. He suggested, “Total abolishment of current hierarchy. The University is a holding company with five separately incorporated units. It’s a business model. It doesn’t produce anything. Make the University a non-operating unit, contrary to what we have across the street. The superstructure can exist, but while not running programs. Each unit can make decisions about assets and leadership as long as they are consistent with the holding company (AU) and the BOT. As long as AU owns the resources we cannot be successful. We must manage our own resources to be successful, if we have any chance. (And here is where Al and Connie agree) It may be that we are beyond the stage where anything will work. I hope not… but I don’t think we can work under the present structure.”

I ran into an article in a Record from 1985 titled Is the University good for the College? Professor of Co-operative Education Dan Hotaling responds with, “Accountability and sense of responsibility are so spread around that no one can get a handle on how to run the place. No one is in a position to make a significant difference. No one can truly lead here since advocacy for this campus clashes with subservience to the University’s administration. Who is in charge of AC and what can s/he really do?” I want to challenge and prove Guskin wrong when he says, “It is an academic truism that trying to change a University is like trying to rearrange a cemetery.” It doesn’t sound like Connie’s suggestion would be that painful.

Reports of linkage problems

Even if our ideas are not heard or just completely ignored, the current system should not go to waste or make us go to waste. We have a communication problem with the University and it is to our benefit to remedy it. I read in the NCA report from the last time the accreditation team was here in 1993. A serious fault they see within our system is the problem of linkage, connecting different departments, especially between AC and across the street. Duffy explained to me that, for a long time, Glenn Watts didn’t know the air condition was broken in the library. He told Duffy that no one had told him, to which replied to me during the interview, “Kettering Building might as well be in Mexico.” Although, I do know information slips through the cracks over there and irresponsibility cannot be blamed on workload. If that is the argument, a review is in order of the consolidations that occurred more than a decade ago. So…what?

This summer, I was blaming Joan, and then I convinced others and myself that it was the BOT. Recently, I think that it is we as a community. Richard Lapides, a trustee of nine years, resigned June 8th, 1995. He was interviewed in the Record and he had this to say about the “blame game”, “Sometimes people like to talk overmuch about leadership because it’s a way to avoid dealing with them. It’s a lot easier to hold a leader responsible for what’s good or bad, more often what’s bad, instead of looking to oneself and one’s own role. It’s ridiculous. It happens all the time. It’s human nature.” I don’t fully agree with that statement, but I do think he makes a valid point by singling community members out and telling them to take responsibility for their surroundings. Times have changed since 1995, and I wonder if any Trustees would agree with his statement while still recognizing how many times students voices and efforts have been quashed on this campus.

Which leads me to four criteria I found in a commentary I found in the Record by student Matthew Rick. 1) The people who control the money call all the shots. 2) Important decisions are made from the top down. 3) The people in control don’t have to apologize. 4) Protest is tolerated as long as it doesn’t change anything.

These were written in 1992 and I remember discussing these same issues in the days following Joan’s meeting with us. We protested about DOS restructuring and the blatant weakening of the Office of Multicultural Affairs. If you have noticed other parallels through out this report to what is going on now, do not be surprised. It all goes back to the Guskin era, at the start of his difficult years. Notice that Guskin created a position specifically for Bassis. We ran into that issue this past summer with how obvious some of the positions were designed and written. Some purposely excluded while others were inclusive. It was as if some of the positions were being molded around individuals. Also notice in Guskin’s decentralization/federal model how there was decentralization of less centralized power in one area (AHEM DOS) and this command came from above, namely the BOT, but implemented by President <enter name here>. The College Community has yet to see the Restructuring Committee notes that were compiled at numerous social settings and via email. Again, whom are we supposed to go to for it? I gather there is some hesitancy from up above Joan to release them, or she would have put them out by now. Or maybe not. The students don’t have the money to be able to call the shots, but we certainly have every other constituency beat by majority. And without us, there is no reason for the College to continue operating. “If you don’t feel influential over your environment, then you loose the will to change.”

There are interesting parallels between the past and present. McGregor School merged with AU in 1995. Of course there was a lot of discussion on taking on such collaboration. At the same time, the Yellow Springs campus dwellers were in an uproar about the College renting out Units to McGregor. And here we are, in 2003, McGregor is threatening to leave, and we are negotiating with them to rent out Units (or maybe it was quashed by Housing). It was also the same time as racism/systematic oppression were active issues on campus. You would think the administration would have it down by now, right? We are moving in circles around a circle. It seems as if we keep asking the same questions over and over again, and they are the wrong ones every time because we don’t get the right answers. The question “Is AU good for AC” is becoming tedious and gets us nowhere close to achieving some sort of independence within the College.

We have been operating in the same cursed structure for 20-odd years. The fear that I mentioned before plays an important role in keeping us in this static position. Pelakoudas states, “An environment in which you feel squeezed by limited resources and constant economic constraints makes dealing with the other issues difficult (those of race, class, gender, etc.) It makes people angry and scared. It comes down to ownership of resources and the quality of life campus. If you don’t feel influential over your environment, then you loose the will to change, and not just financial, governance side. It is also the ownership of assets, issues surrounding governance. If you really feel that [influence] working with colleagues, you can make a difference. If you don’t have that possibility, what is the point?”

I personally, do not feel like I am, or have been, influencing my environment. The resistance against that this summer was suffocating and culminated at one particular community meeting where two executive administrators began to tear up. THEY WERE ACTUALLY LISTENING FOR ONCE. And its not like they had a choice. There is no room for power hungry individuals in administration. Guskin is a member of the Renewal Commission. Check out and click on “Project on the Future of Higher Education”. Notice who is on it: Guskin, BASSIS, and a few other of his friends he appointed to administrative positions while President/Chancellor.

Should this scare you that he is once again a part of a crucial decision making process? I will leave that for you to decide. I am not placing blame on any one individual for all our current woes. However, it seems odd to me that we are tackling issues that have root in the Guskin era, and he is on the Commission. People say the Commission and its members have the best interest of the College in mind. But what they mean is the members have their own interest for the College in mind and in turn, come to the table wielding their own agenda.

I am not a proponent of this, it is merely an observation- I already pointed out that we, as students, have the majority, population wise. Students in 1973 took advantage of that and look at the damage they did. We are still recovering from it. I say we escape this perpetual victim mentality that comes along with living in an environment where we have no control. We are at another crucial bend in our cycle, where we could possibly break off. The Renewal Commission, restructuring of the DOS, presidential search- its all happened before, and all at the same time and Antioch College reacted the way we always do, with fear and trembling submission. I am going to take Duffy’s advice and “adopt” a trustee, alumni, or a member on a commission and open my heart to them totally so I can feed them so they can make the judgments by they know from me. I cannot accept “Nothing will ever change here”, because the means lie within all of us.