Tag: opinion

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

Lunch With President Leaves Bad Taste in Student’s Mouth

By The Cooperative Council for a Non Wack Social Scene 

This past Monday I had the pleasure filled opportunity of participating in a lunch date with our distinguished president Steve “the bulldog� Lawry. This opportunity was one I did not take for granted, as up until yesterday Steve was the sort of legendary character I only found myself within spitting distance of in my dreams. I do not think it would be a stretch to describe him as elusive. I mean I never see him at community meetings, or meals, he never knocks on my door, never stops by just to say hello, not that I’m hurt or anything.

The mood of the meal was a little bit tense as first year students frothed at the bit to ask Steve questions about issues concerning their everyday realities, such as the disappearance of friends, any upcoming curricular changes, or any sort of hint as to the college’s future. I had the fortunate opportunity of getting to actually eat food two people away from Steve. Yes community, Steve Lawry eats. In fact it can be noted he likes beans, mixed with peas if anyone wants to cook him a meal to get in his good graces. I got to know him a little better as we chatted about his background, and he very diplomatically asked us about ours. Turns out Steve-o received his doctorate from the University of Wisconsin in Madison, where he enjoyed the “lively, open and diverse (campus) with much choice in terms of outlets for expression.� Second year transfer student Erin Cizeski inquired as to the difference in campus culture between such a big school as U.W., and a little Liberal Arts institution such as Antioch and Steve remarked “Everyone should be open and welcome, Sexuality is a choice, no group should dominate. Straight culture dominates, but a campus should be open. There is less conflict in a big school, everything can be taken in its embrace. At Antioch it is intensified, people feel strongly and want to challenge others, to make them uncomfortable. We need to challenge and question what is an appropriate level of discomfort; none of us have all the answers.� This statement would be contradicted later on in Steve’s formal Q & A forum, as he was often heard making empirical “I� statements in regard to his opinions on drug use and “radical identity politics� I have compiled the following list of Steve’s responses to student’s questions about the recent expulsion spree, and the subject of identity politics:

“I can’t speak to the issue� (*note to future students who plan on attending these forums; he will not speak to this issue, continuously asking the same questions with fancier wording will not fool him.)

On the subject of the well being of the expulsees:

“I have larger responsibilities to the overall campus climate. Drugs are corrosive, Marijuana deadens peoples minds� or how about :

“I am the President. I am responsible for the intellectual experience. Drug use is corrosive in my opinion, that’s the way it is.�

Steve spoke to a room of Antioch students of his vision of an idyllic Antioch student- “ An Antioch student walks a different path, asks tough and difficult questions, lives a meaningful life not a consumerist or nihilistic one. They want to contribute to the betterment of society.� As long as they don’t smoke pot, or make people uncomfortable with wild displays of deviant sexuality and identity politics, which was the sentiment I got from the comment; “Sometimes I feel there are Antioch students out there who should be here, but are intimidated by drugs, or the insistent argumentative stridency (of the student population) sends people off.�

Transfer student Preston Krafft had to say of the event “ I don’t think he communicated effectively what he wanted to about the drug policy, and the core programs. I felt what he had to say was reasonable, he just didn’t articulate it in a way a younger generation would understand. He used his stature as president as a way of garnering the final say on the topics questioned. Saying “this is the way it’s going to be, and I back this up because I am the president� would make perfect sense to someone of the baby boomer generation, but for the student population that’s a major turn off. He should have tried a more humble approach by asking for our cooperation, not demanding it.�

I apologize if this article doesn’t speak much to the actual content of the question and answer period of Monday’s forum, but unfortunately I don’t feel there is much to speak to. There was a lot of emotion in the room, people feeling like they had been wronged and wanting to have their voice heard to which there was a lot of very defensive responses from Mr. Lawry. He made it clear that his responsibility is to the college’s financial future, giving the sense that the 3rd and 4th year students are disposable and being shepherded out, where as our class is a kind of testing ground for policy and curricular change to benefit the next wave of Steve’s utopic versions of nonoffensive, drug free Antiochians.

I do feel like this luncheon was a good start to bridging the gap spoken about during the meeting between the students and the administration. The general feeling on campus is that Mr. Lawry isn’t very receptive to student voices, so I send out this plea to you community: If you have an opinion on the current state of affairs, go to Steve. He made it very clear at the end of the meeting, that we were all welcome. He urges us to stop by his office and make an appointment with Nancy Wilburn. In fact he can be quoted as saying “Everyone is welcome, and I’m always happy to meet with students.� I feel it is out civic duty to participate in the wonder that is shared governance, and if you have a problem or concern call up Nancy Wilburn, let her know Steve sent you, and schedule a meeting. Steve made us an offer, let’s hold him to it.

Protest and Oppose Censorship of the Record

Protest and Oppose Censorship of the Record

To the Antioch Community:

As adjunct faculty serving as a mentor to students on the Antioch Record staff, I protest and oppose the Lawry administration’s censorship of the Record. I am advising the students to resist all censorship and intimidation.. And I urge members of the Antioch community to support the Record in affirmation of freedom of speech.

Censorship is — of course — grossly unacceptable. It is unethical and immoral. Censorship, or any infringement of people’s rights of free discussion, free expression and free inquiry, violates the most basic values of democracy and community, not to mention liberal arts education.

That students at Antioch College are denied free speech is shocking and absurd.

Censorship of the Record began with its September 22 issue. In a letter to the faculty dated September 20, college president Steve Lawry announced that the dean of faculty, Andrzej Bloch, had been empowered to censor the Record, and that a new board would soon be appointed to “take overall responsibility for the Record.�

In an attempt to justify its censorship of the Record, the administration has made false and inflammatory statements. A letter sent September 18 to faculty and staff, signed by three administrators (Lawry, Bloch, and Rick Jurasek), characterized a feature in the Record (“Question of the Week�) that was clearly satirical — and clearly protected by the First Amendment’s guarantee of freedom of speech — as “a crime� that put the Record in “high-risk legal territory.�

This is not true. As a newspaper editor and publisher for 33 years, I can assure the community there is no way that the Record, or any other newspaper in America, would be at legal risk for printing this material. (Record staff confirmed this in a consultation with the Student Press Law Center in Washington, D.C.)

Not true, also, is the charge made by Lawry, in his September 20 letter, that the Record’s “generally poor editorial judgments� and “the persistent presence of anti-social and aggressive speech and prolific use of obscenitites� in the Record “systematically degrade and dishonor� Antioch College.

It is not the Record, but the administration’s censorship of the Record — its denial of basic rights of freedom of speech to members of the Antioch community — that degrades and dishonors Antioch College.

The Record is an essential part of the Antioch community. It is rooted in the values of the community, and it speaks in the voice — or the many voices — of the community. It’s a good newspaper. Despite deep cuts in the Record’s funding, the editors have assembled a large staff of talented, enthusiastic, hard-working students. They have provided the community with a diverse mix of interesting, lively, well-written news and opinion.

Last week’s “retro� issue of the Record, full of articles and pictures the staff selected from Records published down through the years, brilliantly illuminated Antioch’s long and passionate commitment to the struggle for human rights, social justice, and freedom of expression. And fun — the Record brightly illuminated Antioch’s bold, free spirit.

The Record, far from dishonoring Antioch College, honors Antioch in the most essential, meaningful way — by expressing, and embodying, Antioch’s spirit. At the heart of Antioch is the free spirit of Antioch, and all attempts to suppress it must be opposed.

Sincerely,

— Don Wallis

From The Editors

20061020-luke.jpgTo my Beloved Community,

There are several things I’d like to address in my corner this week, among them how little I had to do with the title “Bringing Censor Back�?, how much of a slacker a certain over-classman reporter has turned out to be, our new Declassified policy, and my increasing frustration with the state of our affairs; institutional, national, and international.

However, to save time, and space because we have another rather crowded paper this week, I will just talk briefly about our new Declassified policy. From here on out, we will only ‘declassify’ Haiku form poems. That means five syllables, followed by seven syllables, followed by five syllables. Some of you may be asking why we’d do something like this to you. Well, the answer is complicated.

1. I hate Declassifieds in general.
2. Most of them are not very clever.
3. The only ones to me are mean.
4. I expect more from my talented, beautiful community.
5. We need more poetry in the Record

So there you have it. Put on your thinking caps and make a subtle, sublime, structured tone poem to communicate your message. And try to cut back on the menacing and hateful speech; we’re reserving the right not to print it.

Love,
Luke C. Brennan Esq.

20061020-foster.jpgDear Community,

If you’re reading this, good. That means you’ve either already read Declassifieds or you are one of our most valued readers. Welcome. While many editors, including myself have left this portion of the newspaper until last, this week I am actually writing this days ahead of time. I actually have something to say. Any guesses?

Surprise! I want to talk briefly about the ‘DeClassifieds’ section of the Record. Great isn’t it? Indeed, as I suggested above and as we all know, many of us read declassifieds first, sometimes the only thing read at all. Fine. We can’t make you read the work people have put into the Record. However, a few points of respect would be appreciated.

Declassifieds are not news. Declassifieds are not even factual. You have no idea how many little declassifieds I’ve typed up, knowing full well that their sharp statements are entirely false. It is the Record’s job to know what is going on and inform the community. If we don’t report on it, it’s because there aren’t enough facts. If you think you’ve got a scoop, tell us and we’ll check it out. Declassifieds 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. It is not intended as a subversive political machine. Really. Got something to say to someone? Say it to their face. Leave them a note. Just keep the Record out of it. Everyone already knows the rumors and accusations so printing them in the Record only makes the Record accountable. The Record, as I said before, has printed absolutely false statements just to keep readers happy, but really, we have no business doing it, and neither the Record nor the greater community is gaining anything in this.

Also, flooding declassifieds with numerous, meaningless doggerel isn’t cool. It takes us time to fit all that in and it’s all fluff. Often, it’s not even witty fluff. Keep it short and have something to say, even if only to one person. And if you are addressing someone, it would be nice to let them know they were being addressed. If you are saying something not so nice, but acceptable, have the guts to put your name on or don’t submit it at all. You can always write us a letter, and opinion piece…there are lots of ways of getting our voice in the Record that actually make a difference. Do you get what I’m saying? Want declassifieds to stick around? Don’t want the paper to take shit over nothing? Don’t want the Record to get censored? Care about the community? Let’s have fun, but let’s be able to serious and thoughtful also. Think about what you’re saying, whether you really know what you’re talking about, factually and whether your putting it in the appropriate forum. In the name of respect for the community and yourself self, grow up.

Foster Neill
Layout Editor

Dispatches from Community Meeting

By Kathryn Leahey 

The term’s second regularly scheduled community meeting proved to be less exciting than the first. To begin, Beth Jones and Meredith Root (or Be-Root, collectively), the masterminds behind the Womyn’s Center, were named Community Members of the Week. A string of thankfulness involving organized events then ensued. Hope thanked Robin for providing the meeting with refreshments, and Ivan Dihoff thanked all those who had attended the previous emergency community meeting, the organization of which prompted Amanda to offer her gratitude to Levi. Caitlin thanked Jimmy Williams for the Constitution Day festivities while Kaleigh lauded Melody for the Shabbat and workshop she organized this past weekend. CG as a whole was also recognized for bringing Swan Island to campus. Chelsea and Jenna both thanked the women’s rugby team as well as the Cincinnati Women’s Rugby Team. Jenna also extended her thanks to her friends for their assistance during her period of limited mobility. Finally, Luke thanked all Record readers who complimented the first issue of the term.

When the entire community’s gratitude was exhausted, we proceeded with the candidate’s forum. Six students have decided to run for ComCil, while only four students and one faculty member are making an attempt to be elected to AdCil. Those running for ComCil are nearly all third-years and seem to be overwhelmingly female. Brian Utley, the sole second- year male candidate, made it known that he feels his minority opinion would be an asset to the council. Others’ reasons for running differed. Nicole wanted to make sure that campus voices continue to be heard during the changes that are occurring at Antioch, and Meghan Pergram felt as though her thorough understanding of the Leg Code would be an asset. Chelsea Martens and Julie Phillips both cited their previous community involvement as a reason for electing them while Sarah Buckingham banked on her sheer love for Antioch. Questioning began, and we discovered that, although all of the candidates are already exceedingly busy, they all believe that will have ample time to fulfill their ComCil duties if elected. When asked about specific policies, Meghan referenced a long-term guest policy that she would like to see devised and Brian mentioned an idea to support low-income students throughout the registration process, although exactly what he went by that was not made clear. Most candidates were found to have ideas for making meetings more efficient. Brian announced that he was a trained meeting facilitator while others presented ideas about preparation, redirection, and sub-committee use. Meghan, however, felt as though long conversations are often very useful. Chelsea and Meghan also both gave some ideas for strengthening the council’s presence on campus and its standing with the administration which centered around assuring timely progress.

Finally the interrogation of the prospective ComCil members ended and future AdCil members were up to bat. Hassan Rahmanian., the only faculty member who came forth, has been on AdCil for 10 years, but this is his first instance of running on the community side. Two prospective council members, Erin Winter and Ryan Boasi, decided on the spot to run. Both cited frustration with the state of the school as the reason for their decisions. Erin is also, apparently, a morning person, a statement that cannot be truthfully made about most college students. Corri Frohlich, another candidate, is trying to make the big move between ComCil and AdCil. Chris McKinless, the final student hopeful, is most concerned about AdCil’s advisory board status, a concern that he say is his reason for running. When asked by Caitlin how he plans to handle that concern, he mentioned “creative methods�, although he didn’t explain what he meant by that. Ryan and Erin responded to the question by saying that AdCil needs to improve the student body’s relationship with the administration by acting in a strong but respectful manner. However, Corri, as opposed to Chris, sees nothing wrong with AdCil’s status as an advisory board. Although some of the questioning by the community devolved into statements rather than inquiries, Amanda’s question about AdCil taking action had all five candidates poised to show their passion for actually getting things done.

Many of the announcements made after the candidates’ forum involved help being requested in one form or another. The Phone-a-thon still needs workers, as does the Coretta Scott King Center, Events, and the Tecumseh Land Trust. Volunteers were called for by Jelesia for Make-A-Difference day as well as the CG office, the community garden to build a scarecrow on Saturday, and the SOPP office for a poster campaign. Despite all the help that is apparently needed, only one organization asked for any money. One hundred dollars was requested for the Queers Only Party on Friday, about which we were told to “be there or be straight.� The Womyn’s Center is holding an event entitled “Love Your Body Night� on the 29th and a Planned Parenthood Potluck on October 6th. Everyone should also check posts around campus about upcoming Wellness Center activities.

The most anticipated part of the meeting, clarification from Robin Heise, shared little new information and left some with a bad taste in their mouths. Robin read from a statement that she had posted to First Class, reinforcing basic ideas repeatedly. John Minter apologized for any misinformation that he may have taken part in, and Meghan thanked him on behalf of all of the students for being so available; Robin followed up his statement by saying that John had not been working in financial aid long enough to truly understand it. The statement was likely well-intended, although some felt as though Robin was more chastising John than coming to his aid. After the financial aid talk, Melody led a brief party etiquette refresher course. The wisdom imparted? 1) Don’t break anything! 2) Clean up after yourselves! 3) The SOPP still applies, even if you are drunk.

The final major topic brought up at Pulse was a discussion over the appropriateness of last week’s Question of the Week. Most saw no harm in the topic, although some felt that it was possibly exacerbating a standing problem. The misunderstanding related to the Record feature was determined to be due to the difficulty of judging a person’s tone in print without the use of the dreaded emoticon. Noam Chomsky and Voltaire were quoted and ideas about personal rights and discretion were discussed, but no real conclusion was reached except that the article was provocative. Tune in next week for more information about union workers on campus having to submit to drug testing.