By Paige Clifton-Steele
Twelve men and women met two weekends ago in the basement of Spalt to learn how to make a better democracy. It was the 105th Democracy School— an educational program created by the Community Environmental Legal Defense Fund (CELDF), author and legal historian Richard Grossman, co-founder of the Program on Corporations, Law, and Democracy.
By Linda Sattem
1) Do As I Say, Not As I Do
National figures have a difficult time with this behavior. Scandal after scandal illustrates the hypocrisy in sexual, legal, financial and other venues.
With the recent election, political figures are all about cooperation, not freezing out members of the other party. Obviously, they are asking to not be treated the way they treated others. We can also see this in our own lives. People around us who advocate against a multi-national corporation, while they are swigging down a cold one. Leaders may “preach” tolerance while practicing something quite different. The best way to learn is through experience. The best way to teach is through example. When we treat people in certain ways, they learn that these are the ways that 1) have meaning to us, 2) have power, and 3) are the ways to behave—no matter what we say.
2.) The Blame Game
It is hard to believe that some people can have such a powerful, narrow view, that no matter what happens they can twist the situation to fit this view.
Here are a few recent examples. When the Foley scandal broke (emails to underage male Pages) there were people who immediately blamed a “ring” of gays (mostly staff members) who protected other gays in congress. They claimed the ring not only allowed the inappropriate behavior to continue, there was speculation that they (the gay staffers) promoted preying on young Pages.
Another example of blaming comes from the scandal this November, Rev. Ted Haggard’s exposure of using male sex workers and drugs. This time gays are not bashed, women, specifically wives, are.
Rev. Driscoll (a Seattle preacher, listed as one of the top 25 influential ministers by The Church Report) said: “It is not uncommon to meet pastors’ wives who really let themselves go. They sometimes feel that, because their husband is a pastor, he is therefore trapped into fidelity, which gives them cause for laziness. A wife who lets herself go and is not sexually available to her husband in the ways that the Song of Songs is so frank about is not responsible for her husband’s sin, but she may not be helping him either.”(Quote taken from Paul Campos’ editorial 11/8/06)
Are there people in your life that play the blame game? No matter what happens, they always have the same answer? Nothing is ever their own fault? Anything can be twisted to fit their mindset?
The blame game is very dangerous. Particularly when people in power play it. Everyone gets hurt, the organization is destroyed, and no one shoulders any responsibility.
Be aware of your own patterns, are you playing the blame game?
Date: October 20, 2006
Letter to the Editor – Antioch Record
I am writing to you as the father of Cary James, one of the four students recently suspended from Antioch College for traveling to Columbus, Ohio to purchase marijuana for themselves and other students.
Earlier this year, our family was pleased when Antioch accepted Cary’s application for admission. After visiting the college, Cary felt that Antioch was where he belonged and would flourish. Based on its reputation, we were thankful that Cary had chosen to attend a “liberal” liberal arts college. I use the term liberal in the most positive sense of the word, not as it has been defined in more recent times by conservatives and the religious right. By definition. liberal means “broad minded” and “favoring reform or progress”.
As an undergraduate student, I learned to logically examine the world by the Socratic or dialectical method. Through critical examination of issues, we come to a better understanding and resolution of the problems we face in life. This is the type of education I envisioned for my son in attending Antioch. I was disturbed when I learned that Cary was being expelled (which was later amended to a one year suspension). What concerned me most was not that he was being expelled, but the basis for his expulsion.
As a criminal defense attorney, I am troubled by the criminalization of our youth, and the hypocrisy with which we administer our current “zero tolerance” policy regarding drug and alcohol use. As one who upholds the principal of honesty, I freely admit that I have smoked marijuana. I was, after all, a product of the sixties and seventies. In raising my children, I have not voluntarily disclosed my past usage, nor have I denied this fact as they grew older and were capable of questioning me. I have however always advised them of the potentially harmful effects of drug and alcohol use and abuse, and tried to instill in them an understanding of the problems associated with any addiction. At the same time, I understand that people will engage in the vice of their choice. What vice you indulge yourself (food, wine, sex, gambling, the list goes on), is a matter of your choice. Just as I ask that you tolerate my vices, so long as they do not infringe upon your rights, I will tolerate your vices. For me, the occasional one or two martinis long ago supplanted any desire to smoke marijuana. However, I do admit that a few years ago I smoked marijuana with a good friend, Deb, six months before her death from cancer. We were attending an outdoor wedding for mutual friends. Deb had discovered the benefit of marijuana in counteracting the constant nausea caused by the chemotherapy. Deb did not want to smoke alone, so I gladly joined her in sharing a joint on the shore of a lovely lake. I will always remember that afternoon and the time spent with an old friend.
I have no regrets, nor shame for that event, so please don’t have any for me.
Unfortunately, too may of the people in a position to set policy for the rest of us, hide or deny their own use or experimentation with marijuana. This is sad in light of the statistics regarding marijuana use in our country. According to the 2004 National Survey on Drug Use and Health, 96.8 million Americans age 12 and older, have tried marijuana at least once in their lifetimes. This represents 40.2% of the age 12 and older population. Among college students, the Office of National Drug Control Policy reports that in 2004 18.9% of college students admitted to marijuana use within the past 30 days, with 33.3% reporting use within the past year and 49.1% within their lifetime. Among similar aged young adults not attending college, the statistics on marijuana use are comparable to those reported for college students. Obviously, these statistics demonstrate that a substantial portion of our young adults have tried or are using marijuana. The question thus becomes, are they all criminals? Unfortunately, our country’s misplaced “war on drugs” and “zero tolerance” has answered that question with a resounding “yes”.
According to the report “Incarcerated America”, published by the human right organization “Human Rights Watch”, over two million men and women are currently incarcerated. Although we hold ourselves out as the “land of the free”, the United States “incarcerates a higher percentage of its people than any other country.” Contrary to popular beliefs (perpetuated by the fear politicians attempt to install in us to mobilize support), the increase in our prison population is not attributable to any increase in violent crimes, which has held steady over the past two decades. Rather, the increase has been in non-violent, drug related crimes. Since 1980 the number of people incarcerated for drug offenses has increased twelvefold. Further, we should be alarmed by the disproportionate burden the “war on drugs” has had on our minority population. “Although blacks account for only 12 percent of the U.S. population, 44 percent of all prisoners in the United States are black”.
Drug Sense (www.drugsense.org), an organization committed to educating and debating the merits (or lack thereof), of our current drug policies, reports that over 1.68 million people will be arrested this year for drug offense, according to FBI estimates. A large portion of these arrests will be for marijuana. FBI statistics for 2005, estimate that 786,545 people were arrested for marijuana law violations, of which the vast majority, almost 90 percent, were for simple possession. Not only is there the tragic human costs (disrupting families, lost work and productivity, criminal records, etc.), the actual monies spent to fight the “war” is staggering. It is estimated that between the federal and state governments, over 50 billion dollars will be spent in 2006 directly related to enforcing drug laws. I suggest that, as a nation, we would be better off if a large portion of this money was spent treating drug addiction, educating our children and providing employment opportunities. This issue should at least be openly discussed and debated.
Similarly, we have taken a wrong approach to the use of alcohol by our youth. When I was in college, it was legal to drink “3.2 beer” (beer with an alcohol content not exceeding 3.2% by volume), from age 18 to 20. The effects of increasing the drinking age to 21 have been far reaching. In analyzing this issue, we must recognize the extent to which alcohol is being used by our youth. According to the Core survey, sixty-nine percent of college students under that age of 21 report using alcohol within the past 30 days and eighty-two percent admit to alcohol use within the past year.
By increasing the drinking age to 21, we have criminalized our youth. This instills in them disrespect for the law, as they have determined to ignore the law and drink anyway. Additionally, we have failed to teach them about drinking. We simply ignore the fact that they’re drinking alcohol and then turn them loose at age 21. By bringing back “3.2 beer” (or what ever percentage is determined appropriate), we would allow them to drink in a safer environment. From their standpoint, because it’s all illegal, what difference does it make whether they drink beer, wine or 151 proof rum. Either way, they are committing the same criminal offense – underage consumption of alcohol – a misdemeanor of the first degree. Thus, we have young adults consuming more potent forms of alcohol, with the consequences of excessive intoxication and alcohol poisoning.
For years I have been an advocate of bringing back 3.2 beer and lowering the drinking age to 19. Whether we agree on age 19 and beer with an alcohol content of 3.2 percent is irrelevant. The point is that this issue should be openly debated, and hopefully we will come to a better solution. Alternatively, we can continue with our current policies and accept that we have made our children criminals and placed them at greater risk from drinking more potent alcohol. Just as we debate other issues (abortion rights, stem cell research, the war in Iraq, illegal aliens and so many others), we must openly debate the failed effects of our drug and alcohol policies, particular towards our younger citizens.
Following Cary’s expulsion, I was given an opportunity (exactly one-half hour), to meet with President Lawry, Dean Williams, Richard Jurasek and Joyce Morrissey. In expressing my views, as set forth above, I found your administration less than receptive to discuss these issues. When I expressed my concern that they had chosen the most severe from of punishment (expulsion), I was rebuked in my categorizing expulsion as the “most severe” sanction. I was then advised that they could have turned the matter over to the local prosecutor’s office.
I was astonished that your administration would consider criminal prosecution an option. In response, I simply reminded your administration that possession of marijuana in an amount less than 100 grams is a minor misdemeanor in Ohio. Whereupon, Dr. Lawry asserted the charges could have been greater (apparently suggesting that the four students were engaged in trafficking). As a defense attorney, I can only state that such charges would be problematic. Under Ohio Revised Code section 2925.51, the state must preserve and test any illicit drug and provide defense counsel with both the test results and a sample of the drug for independent testing. If the state fails to comply with these requirements, the charges must be dismissed. But, more important than the obvious defenses, do you really believe that the four students, in sharing their marijuana with their fellow students and friends, were engaged in trafficking? Have we gone that far in criminalizing our youth? What about the hypocrisy this demonstrates. All of us who have smoked marijuana at some time in our past (and the numbers are substantial), acquired it from someone, maybe a friend or fellow student. Were they all criminals?
It is unfortunate that this matter has come to this conclusion. I know that Cary will not be returning to Antioch and that he misses the friends he made in his short time on campus. What happens at Antioch in the future is in the hands of the administration, staff and students. In writing this letter, it is my hope that the school’s policies will be critically reviewed and debated. Only then will Antioch resume its course as a “liberal” arts college. Our future is in the hands of our youth. It is my hope they pursue a future free from the intolerance and hypocrisy which we have shown them. I wish you all the very best in your future.
Jeffrey N. James, Esq.
email: jjnjames@aol.com
Lombardi, George & James, Ltd.
7 W. Bowery St., Ste. 507
Akron, Ohio 44308
Office: (330) 535-9655;
Cell: (330) 815-3063;
Fax: (330) 535-9921
by Kim-Jenna Jurriaans
Humble and majestic is the impression actor Cliff Robertson leaves on his audience during an intimate and humorous speech in the Herndon Gallery Friday night. The Antioch alumnus with more than 60 movies and countless TV appearances attached to his name made his way back to his alma mater to be lauded with the Rebecca Rice Award for his life’s achievement in the performing arts.
“Who the heck is Rebecca Rice?” I can hear myself thinking in the third row in the audience. Reading some of the faces around me when president Steve Lawry takes the stage to shed some light on the matter, I dare to assume that I am not the only one. And indeed, even our distinguished president acknowledges he didn’t know untill several days before. In a priceless Freudian slip, Lawry recalls his e-mail exchange with “Antioch’s renowned anarchist” Scott Sanders, much to the amusement of the audience who figure that “archivist” is probably the word he was looking for. The president quickly corrects himself, but by that time the room has already burst out in laughter. When the giggling dies down, we find out that Rice was a student of that other Rebecca, professor Rebecca Penell, back in the late 1800s, and known to be the first woman trustee of Antioch College.
Schmoozing
The attention moves back to the man with the star on the Hollywood walk of fame, as head of the Alumni Board John Feinberg takes over the lectern to go through an extended list of achievements in a flattering introduction to Robertson’s life off and on the silver screen. Robertson became critically acclaimed in the 1950s, winning the academy award for his leading role in ‘Charlie,’ before being hand-picket by John F. Kennedy to portray a young JFK in ‘PT 109.’ “Too bad he didn’t also get you into Harvard,” Feinberg jokes when mentioning the movie, much to the actor’s amusement.
But Robertson applied to Antioch for a reason. “They seemed to have a realistic approach to life,” he says. “I knew that the world was different from that little schmug old place I had grown up in. I had seen poverty before, everybody had, but I had never really seen it. I came here and saw people who wanted to see what was out there, and wanted to know whether they could do anything for the people out there. And obviously, there’s always more to be done. “
For the baby-boomers growing up in the 70s, Robertson was CIA agent J. Higgins in ‘Three days of the Condor’, as well as a young Hugh Heffner in ‘Star 18.’ In the mid-80s it was Falcon Crest, to which even I, barely born around that time, had — thanks to Dutch network television re-running American soaps for decades in a row– at some point been exposed. The rest of my generation, however, will better know Robertson as Uncle Ben in the recent Spiderman trilogy.
Standing on the sideline with his notes in hand, Robertson manages to make the audience laugh even before he takes the stage, pretending to rub away some tears when Feinberg addresses him as ‘Cliffton Parker Roberson the third.’ “Congradulations John, you have just out-staged me,” the actor jokes after taking over the microphone. “If I were better educated, I would know the precise definition of the word intimidating. But I don’t.”
Fake modesty
Softly spoken and quick witted, he captures the audience immediately: “Yes ladies and gentlemen, like the speaker indicated, I was a student of miss Rice in the 1870s?” There’s widespread laughter in the audience, as Robertson continues to tell his little fake anecdote. “She was a hell of a teacher! And she kept telling me ‘hang in there.’ And I’ve been hanging there all my life. But I thought I give you little disclaimer in addition to that whole list that was just presented.” Robertson flips through the pages of his notes, as if he is looking for actual facts. “I am the only recipient of the Rebecca Rice Award with a bare minimum of scholastic credits; with professional recognition not paid for through political extortion, nor organized crime. In addition, I’m the sole recipient of the RIS Bookkeeping Award, as well as the Foe Humility Award for fake modesty.”
By this point the audience is his. The actor goes on to entertain the guests by reciting a short story starring a 5-year- old Cliff Robertson attending his cousin’s miserable high school play, recalling a phone conversation with his 8-year-old granddaughter advising him to get another job, and sharing childhood anecdotes about his fascination for aviation.
Antioch
When Robertson came to Antioch, in the early 1940s he had set his mind on becoming a journalist, but things went a little different for the boy from South California. “I worked for the Springfield news for about 20 minutes. Then I fell in with the wrong companions and didn’t really care anymore,” he jokes.
“I never intend to be and actor. I never had that plan. But In grammar school I learned that if you volunteered for that stupid little play and you play a vegetable –I was a reddish, I was short for my age– then you wouldn’t have to stay after school and clean the erasers. And in prep school I learned that if you volunteer for that stupid little play you wouldn’t have to walk around with a 40 pound military pack and a rifle. So for me, acting has always been a gimmick. And sometimes I think it still is.” So far, that gimmick has brought RObertson an Oscar, an Emmy and the prestigious Theatre Award, making him one of the few actors rewarded with the “triple crown.”
But above all, Robertson’s passion lies with flying. He feels free and calm in his little glider between the mountains, he says. And even here, the man has managed to move into the rows of the great, with his recent ascend into the Aviation Hall of Fame.
As he approaches the end of his speech he lowers his voice. He stops for a moment. Then softly, almost whispering he says:
“The wind is my closest friend, and I’m for ever, ever grateful.”
The audience prologues the silence for a second, but then moves on to present Robertson with a standing ovation. After the speech, it seem to be the women in the audience who are especially eager to make use of the opportunity to shake hands, express admiration, hug, kiss and congratulate. Robertson undergoes all of it kindly — after 50 years in the industry he must have gotten used to the attention. Still, he makes everybody feel welcome, joking and taking time for each and every one who wishes to share a moment with the actor. “Makes me feel younger already!” Robertson remarks to an enthusiastic blonde who gives him a passionate peck on the cheek.
Charming
In his five decades of cinema, Robertson starred in movies alongside actors like Michael Cain and Robert Redford and turned the heads of leading ladies like Faye Dunaway, Janer Fonda. 81 years old, Mr Robertson is still as charming and flirtatious when he sits down with me for a chat, about to turn the head of yet another lady.
“What’s that accent? Where are you from sweatheart?” Taken off guard, I briefly mention the clogs and tulips and quickly move on to the original subject of the conversation: Cliff Robertson.
But alas…. No such luck. The room has largely emptied out by now and we’re joined by his oldest college friend and partner in undergraduate crime back in ‘42, Frank Woodress. Both look nowhere near their 80 plus years and, judging by their wit and cheekiness, are not planning to any time soon. Seeing the two of them together, all sparkle-eyed and still full of boyish charm, it is easy to visualize two boys in their late teens, hanging out of a 4th floor window in South Hall, trying to catch a glimpse of the girls on the other side of the lawn.
“Do you hear that accent Frank? I used to go out with this Dutch girl when I was younger. She just had the loveliest accent and beautiful blond hair. This one sounds exactly like her.” Feeling slightly mocked in my serious journalistic endeavors, I take some comfort in thinking I can take it from the man whose last movie included Tobey Mcguire in a red body suit.
Flattered as I am, I and can only imagine what a heartbreaker this man must have been when he wandered the halls of Antioch in the summer of ‘42. Answering my question whether he was a ladies man back in those days, Robertson says: “I didn’t have time for it. I was too busy doing other stuff. I worked at a news paper and radio in Springfield, so I had to hitchhike every night.” one can’t help but smile a little at the fact that the honor guest of the night has actually only been to Antioch for one semester, of which he evidently spent the largest part somewhere on the road between Springfield and Yellow Springs. But it’s the thought that counts, right?
Robertson last visited the campus 11 years ago when he gave a lecture on America’s corrupt corporate climate. “Did you know they made me an adjunct in the theatre department? They did. But they never called back.”
I ask Mr. Robertson whether he has any wisdom to share with the college community, besides, of course, never trusting the college to call you back. “You want some wisdom? From me? Well, I’m not a philosopher, but I have been around the block a few times. I would seriously consider injecting some new dimensions of a little humor around here.” Somehow I get the feeling I could have seen this one coming. Robertson himself, at least, seems to have gotten his own advice down to perfection. “As you are younger, you tend to take yourself very seriously. When you grow older, you start to take yourself a little less seriously. Lighten up a little.”
In perfect cinema fashion, Mr. Robertson and I depart with a kiss.
I’m still in the afterglow of excitement when I open the door of South hall to make my way into the fresh October night. Looking into the brightly lit Herndon gallery, I can see the two friends leaving towards the foyer, walking arm in arm, helping each other out a little. I smile and make my way across the lawn, towards the hall where once the girls had been secretly looking over to the boys. And all the way home I can’t help but think:
If only I were 60 years older…
By Marjorie Jensen
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it? –Evelyn Beatrice Hall, The Friends of Voltaire, 1906
Hall wrote this quote to summarize Voltaire’s attitude towards censorship. I’ll paraphrase one more time: I condemn what you are saying, but I will not let them decree what you can or cannot say just because I disagree. Yes, I am going to talk about censorship. Yes, this has been my theme for three terms now. Yes, I really do [heart] Voltaire. I can only hope that you’ll continue reading.
It could be said that the threat of censorship is what has motivated me to work for the Record. William Parke-Sutherland convinced me to go to my first Community Meeting by asking me if it was important to be able to keep writing what I wanted for The Record. As a writer, there are few things that I care more deeply about than freedom of speech.
I disagree with many of the texts that I encounter. Even if my ideals lie in complete opposition to what I am presented with, I find worth in deconstruction. I can strengthen my argument. Some works challenge me more than others, but I can at least laugh at the worst. I’d rather ask, ‘why would someone publish this,’ than ‘why did some one ban this or censor that.’ Given, controversy is one of the best things that can happen to a writer. If you want to increase readership, threaten censorship. However, I wouldn’t advocate for this method to increase notoriety. What is “unprintable? varies drastically over time. Not a dependable variable. It is a decree by someone in power who fears what is being said. This is only somewhat predictable. The irony of the threatening nature of a castration haiku to a male in power does point to some sort of obvious inevitability. Lacan possibly bumped his casket. This could be due to the patriarchy being deeply rooted in the symbolic power of the phallus. According to some feminist psychoanalytic perspectives, the loss of the phallus is directly related to the loss of power.
Therein, castration anxiety is a construct of a power structure that privileges men more than women. Being castrated, becoming more “feminine,? is threatening because women are afforded a lower social position. Is the administration’s latent response that becoming a woman is a put-down in a socio-political sense? Are they commenting on the male fear of the female “lack?? Who knows? Lacan’s not telling. Ironic latent motivations aside, the complaint could have been taken to the appropriate (existing) governing body and not been the rationale for threatening censorship in classic authoritarian style. Then again, I’m still dreaming this dream that our community governance system should be honored by the administration.
After reading something that leaves a bad taste in my mouth, I don’t think it should never be devoured again. Taste is subjective. When one decides on the basis of such a subjective standard what is “printable,? the outcome can only be unpleasant. Censorship is more unpalatable than any text. People have the right to decide for themselves what they find delicious. Have our admission policies become so lax that our student population isn’t considered capable to think for themselves? Unless someone puts a stamp of approval on the student-run newspaper, we will be unable to judge the material within it? In our much-criticized “culture of confrontation,? isn’t it likely that anyone who was “out of line? would get “called out? by the aggressive radicals?
It has been argued that our cognitive ability to write separates us from other species. While I think much of that ability lies in the evolution of opposable thumbs, there is some merit to the former point. Human complexity of thought is something that I value, despite my current existential crisis and postmodern hysterics. Voltaire, back me up here.
“We have a natural right to make use of our pens as of our tongue, at our peril, risk and hazard.? Despite the all too obvious connection that the pen carries power because of its phallic symbolism, the point remains that brains should come with warning labels: “operate at your own risk.? Let people say stupid things. Let people expound brilliant philosophies. Let them be at odds with one another. But above all, let people speak.