Contact Information
The Spectator
Letters to the Editor
November 06, 2009"Mutual respect" should be mutual
To the Editor:
Last week, I read a letter to the editor in The Spectator titled "Students lack mutual respect" and was amazed by how its writer felt like such a victim. The student, a nonwhite female, detailed an incident at the library in which a wallet was thrown at her head because she was talking on the phone. She "felt so alone" after the incident and thought that it may have been racially or gender motivated, but perhaps "not consciously." After reading the article I couldn't help but wonder how this student had felt so disrespected when she herself had been disrespectful by willfully interrupting a study space that was "full of students."
Personally, every time I enter the library, I put my phone in my pocket on vibrate mode and excuse myself from the library anytime someone calls me. I know many others who do the same. However, I don't think it's totally ridiculous when students in the library answer their phones and quickly whisper something like "Hey, can't talk now, I'm in the library" before hanging up. Still, I've been in the library quite a few times when a student answers his or her phone and starts a conversation. Even if the student speaks quietly, the conversation is very disruptive and distracting.
However, the author of "mutual respect" wasn't even talking quietly, though that in itself would have been rude. This student admitted in her article that she had been "talking on the phone too loudly." When a male student threw a wallet at her head, she was, understandably, shocked and indignantly told her perpetrator that she would hand the wallet back to him. I agree with her in that throwing a wallet at a person is disrespectful, immature, and unnecessary, but isn't talking in the library those things, too? Were all the signs in the library asking its patrons to turn their cell phones off not enough to warn this student that talking on her phone there is rude?
Perhaps most baffling to me is that this student continued her phone conversation after this event. When she asked the wallet thrower why he had thrown his wallet, he explicitly told her, "You were talking too loud." If all the signs in the library hadn't been clear enough, shouldn't this have been enough to send the message? This was apparently not even sufficient, for she continued her phone conversation with her friend. Another student approached her, "yelling" at her and saying that he was "trying to study," that she was "driving everyone crazy," and demanding that she hang up the phone. Even if the perturbed student were "yelling," which I doubt as it is, I don't think his demands were unwarranted. Perhaps this really was the only way to get this student to hang up her phone. Obviously, the numerous signs in the library and the fact that she got a wallet chucked at her head were not enough.
Toward the end of "mutual respect," the author ponders the reason for the incident in the library. Would her perpetrator have approached her had she been a "6-[foot], 280 lbs." male or of a different race? In regard to her "6-[foot], 280 lbs." male comment, I can't help but wonder if she thought that an actual brawl would have taken place in the library. Nonetheless, it is perplexing to me that this student would point to racism as a motivator for the incident when a) she was at fault and b) there was absolutely no circumstantial evidence to suggest that either student who approached her was racist. The student did not mention any racial slurs or any other race-related comment as having been used. Their anger was a valid response to someone being rude in the library.
Although there are mature and immature ways of dealing with people on their cell phones at the library, the fact remains that these phone conversations are disrespectful to other library patrons. Being considerate of other people and owning up to our actions is the only way to "make Hamilton a community where we all feel safe and respected."
- Molly Haughey '12
Re: Students Lack Mutual Respect
To the Editor:
I could write a book in response to the questions raised in Hannah Roth's letter to the editor in the October 29 edition of The Spectator. Fortunately, Norbert Elias has already done the work for me. His major work, titled The Civilizing Process, marks an important contribution to cultural history. (It is one of my favorite books, and I recommend it highly to anyone interested in the evolution of Western societies.) Elias draws many of his examples from a period as recent as the Renaissance in the course of describing the gradual refinement of manners. To make my point, let me cite some of the more memorable ones. At that time, people sometimes did not pay much attention in public to the sounds emanating from their mouths, noses, and other corporal regions. Moreover, some of their actions would strike us today as strange, if not repulsive. (Vomiting at table was not an uncommon practice, for instance.) Elias suggests that what changed their minds and allowed them to modify their behavior was, among other things, a gradual realization of shame, although I think the appropriate term for our own age would be self-restraint. From such an important book there is much to be learned on both sides of the debate raised by Ms. Roth's letter. Further reading by both parties on this vast subject might prove helpful. Elias's book would be a good place to start.
- John C. O'Neal
Professor of French
Re: Students Lack Mutual Respect
I would like to write a response to Hannah Roth's Letter to the Editor (Students lack mutual respect).
While I feel bad that Roth felt harassed and unsafe over the incident, I am jaded with the way her letter went on to draw far-fetched conclusions from the event.
Of course throwing a wallet was not the best way to remedy the situation, but the immaturity on the part of the student who did that does not reflect any more than, well, his frustrations.
Would it be any different had Roth been a burly male? Perhaps she would have met with a 'Dude, shut the f### up,' instead. Or a flying wallet all the same. I doubt that a white male could get away with obnoxious talking in the library. To suggest that gender and ethnicity was what accounted for the incident was just as unfeminist and racist, for Roth effectively relegated her own responsibility to her gender and ethnicity.
I find it ironic that Roth, with her strong stance on mutual respect, should be talking loudly in the library on the phone in the first place. Now do I condone the wallet-throwing? There are probably better ways to deal with the situation, but the wrong does not make the first situation right. Would Roth have carried on a loud phone conversation if the library were filled with professors in a meeting, or in the event of a speech going on? Probably not. But she didn't take the trouble to step outside when the library's only filled with her peers. Now, isn't that some form of discrimination in itself?
Hamilton College is a safe place not by its own miraculous making, nor by just paying lip service to respect and equality, even though policies and codes can be put in place in the attempts to create such a place. It is truly safe only when every member in the community recognizes the rules and play by them, and more importantly, start from oneself instead of solely positing expectations on others.
Lastly, her accusation of "We as Hamilton community do not show respect and basic human decency toward one another" is one fine example of inaccurate extrapolation and erroneous deduction, as I do not recall the Hamilton community to make up of just 2 people. To suggest so implies an amazing self-absorption on Roth's part. I think I gladly speak for many when I say that there are still some of us who would not carry on a phone conversation in the library nor fly a wallet at someone who does so. Does that count for anything?
- Grace Liew '11
Shut Up or Get Out: Library Etiquette
To the Editor,
The letter to the editor entitled "Student's lack of mutual respect," while rightly emphasizing the important point that violence and intimidation are never the answer, reminds me of a problem students encounter far too often in Hamilton's Burke Library: excessive noise.
The studying atmosphere in the Burke Library does not suffer solely from cell phone conversation, but from conversation in general. Far too often I find myself and other students distracted and annoyed by the inconsiderate actions of their peers. As of late, the first floor MPC area has become more like Commons at 11:55 on a Wednesday than the conducive learning environment a library is intended to be. I have moved to the carrels in the back of the first floor, to the second floor wood desks and to the third floor periphery in search of a quieter location, but the atmosphere everywhere has forced me to all but move out of the library entirely.
As I see it, there are two problems. First, on a residential campus, students want to socialize. That urge has not been turned off at the door, just as no one turns off their cell phone (as a sign clearly instructs). So whether you came with a friend or not, inevitably conversation ensues with people you know and would rather be off hanging out with, or a phone conversation to plan what you are doing after the library goes on for far too long. This behavior comes from a lack of restraint and self-awareness amongst the Hamilton College, which I think students of Hamilton's caliber, should have.
Second, students quietly studying feel like they are rude or hostile and fear that they will be ignored when confronting distracting conversation. This leaves the students who are actually rude, un-confronted and essentially in the right. I have felt it and you have undoubtedly felt it as well. It is awkward to confront our peers and even if they are confronted it seems unlikely that they will stop entirely. Furthermore, if you confront one person, should you confront everyone talking from then on and proceed get none of your work done anyways? This is an extremely unfortunate problem to which there lies no clear solution.
These problems indicate a sad state of Hamilton's academics and community. Those at fault have become the mainstream to the degree that the people in the right feel ostracized. The library is not a conducive learning environment. If places meant specifically for academics become increasingly social, they are no longer academic. If students cannot productively pursue their education in a building specifically built and reserved for academic pursuits, what does that say about our values and academic integrity?
Simply put, when someone talks in the library, they are talking on someone else's time. Currently no one is taking any initiative to solve this problem. Students do not feel empowered to self-enforce this power and it doesn't seem in the job description for library staff. I propose a section or floor be designated as a quiet section. Conversely, a team building section could be designated for students working on group projects or studying together for an exam. In this way, everyone could complete his or her academic work efficiently without distraction.
- Ezra Rosenberg '10
Demonstration at Faculty Meeting
Dear Editors,
We write to explain to the campus community our demonstration at the faculty meeting on Tuesday, as we want to be clear about our reasons for doing so.
This is no longer just about a wallet being thrown at a student's head. Rather, this incident is indicative of a pattern of administrative failures to address incidents that happen at Hamilton. What happened two weeks ago in the library was just one in a long string of incidents that are reported and 'dismissed,' not by the students but by the administration. This dismissal means that other incidents are never reported because students do not feel like anything will happen if they do make a report.
Consider, for example, the highly publicized incident of sexual assault during fall break 2008. Consider the others e-mails about incidents of sexual assault, homophobic and racist graffiti, and degrading party themes we've received from Nancy Thompson, detailing the reports of bias crimes to campus safety. When you look back at Campus Safety's annual reports, sent to us by e-mail each year and available on the Hamilton website, these incident reports are invisible. Rows of 'zeros' appear. Have all of these filed reports really been lost? An e-mail to the campus community means little when there is no action to back up those words.
Hamilton needs to be more clear and transparent about how to report incidents, how they are handled, and what constitutes an incident important enough that it will be listed in campus records. Otherwise, students feel confused and unsupported when something happens to them.
Furthermore, we wish to call attention to the countless incidents that have not been reported, but which change the way students experience the "community" at Hamilton. For some students, throwing a wallet at a girl in the library, making an ignorant joke about Mexican immigrants, or being called a faggot as they walk home are isolated experiences at Hamilton. For others of us, these actions add up to be constant reminders of how unwelcome we are here. The failure of the administration to respond and document these incidents affirms the first interpretation and erases the second in a way that makes us feel isolated and alone. It has come to our knowledge that our lived experiences on campus are far too similar to many negative incidents that have happened in the past, and it is time to change this cycle. We came here to get a good college education and ended up being taught how to graciously accept this ignorance and immaturity. We're not asking that Hamilton become a police state and punish offenders but rather we are asking the administration to treat these incidents with the respect and seriousness they deserve.
Finally, we want to be clear that we are fully aware that racism, sexism, heterosexism and other forms of discrimination exist outside of Hamilton. But outside of Hamilton, there are consequences for assault, like throwing something at someone's head. Hamilton isn't helping anyone by sweeping these incidents under the rug. What will it take for the administration to realize that it's time, now, for proactive change?
At the faculty meeting on Tuesday, we wanted to revisit this pattern of administrative non-response and dismissal of so many incident reports, and the uneasy atmosphere that these actions perpetuate.
Sincerely,
Amy Tannenbaum '10
Stephanie Tafur '10
Cross-Country Article Censored
To the Editor:
I respect The Spectator's commitment to journalistic ethics. I believe you have allowed this commitment to interfere with good reporting in one of your articles. I am referring specifically to last week's Cross-Country article in which you censured the author from reporting his own race time in the article. While allowing an author to comment on his own performance usually presents a conflict of interests, in this case, the disbarred comment was a race time, a quantitative measurement of performance. Furthermore, the author's performance, first on the Hamilton team, 8th out of 103 runners at the New York State Collegiate Track Conference championships and worthy of the Second Team All-State is a news-worthy event and one that would have surely been reported had The Spectator not edited it out without the author's consent. The Spectator's reporter for the Cross-Country team is a committed journalist who travels with the team and regularly speaks with its other members. He is not using the column as a grand stand to boast of his own athletic achievements. In fact, I think his membership on the team encourages him to report fairly on his teammate's performances because he would not want to be accused of misreporting or biasing by his friends at practice.
The Spectator has little ground for claiming they can competently report on the Cross Country team's performance. The picture that the paper had accompanying the last article was from September 12, and featured an athlete who has not raced since then due to injury. A reporter familiar with the team would not have chosen this picture to accompany this article because it was both untimely and unrelated to the story. Rather than disbar a student from reporting the team because of a blind devotion to journalist ethics, The Spectator should encourage the most competent people to do their reporting. If the Editorial Board would like to let their readership know that their author is also a member of a team, then they can print this fact alongside every article.
- Adam Vorchheimer '11
Editor's Note:
Mr. Vorchheimer has brought to light a greater issue of journalistic ethics. Over the past year, we have attempted to work with Mr. Bickard to develop a means for him to contribute to reporting of Cross-Country articles. This has been a departure from Spectator policy. It has been The Spectator's policy not to allow individuals who participate in events to report on those events. Unfortunately, it has become clear that it is impossible to avoid possible conflict of interest while allowing Mr. Bickard to write said articles. From now on, we will be returning to our policy of prohibiting team members to cover their own sport. I personally apologize for this lapse in judgement and pledge to do everything neccesary to ensure proper coverage in the future.
– Erin Hoener '10, Editor-in-Chief