I received this response to the column:

Dear President Liebowitz,

I applaud your recent article in the Middlebury magazine regarding space, the arts at Middlebury, and creativity in general.

I was at Middlebury in the 1970s. I came as a French major, and graduated a music major in 1977. This was in no small part to the many and wonderful opportunities I took part in at Middlebury. I have been a professional musician now for 33 years and my expertise is due in no small part to what Peter Hamlin mentions about space use after hours: I managed to sign up a few hours in the (then) Johnson Music Building during 9-5 hours. but, for the most part, I practiced virtually every single evening from 10 pm in Mead Chapel. The night watchman knew me, and I was able to promise to make sure the lights were off & the door locked after myself when I left. Many (most) nights I stayed til 1 or 2 am, practicing on a splendid church organ and a 9 foot concert grand. When I went on to conservatory for graduate degrees, I realized that had I gone to one of those schools as an undergraduate, I would have been stuck in a tiny, claustrophobic practice room on a mediocre instrument – and likely kicked out at 11 pm. How to compare playing a top-notch instrument in an acoustically grand space to…feeling like a chicken on an egg-laying farm, in my cubicle…I have to say that without this experience that I had at Middlebury, I am quite sure I would not be doing what I do today; nor, would I be as good at it as I am, had I not trained my ears and brain for the realities of real concerts on real spaces. (That’s not to diminish the copious amounts of love & attention I had from my music professors…but still, the unfettered use of the chapel was very important.)

So how wonderful to read your analysis of the effect of unscheduled space on creativity at Middlebury. I must admit, every issue I read of the magazine highlights the “Middlebury is green” theme and the marvelous advances in science, sports and other achievements. And to be sure, you mention many wonderful arts achievements by students and student groups. However, as now the parent of two daughters (17 and 19) and a son (younger), I had the experience of taking both daughters on tours of the college and seeing it fresh from their eyes.

My eldest visited 2 years ago just after spring break. Eagerly I showed her all my old haunts. She is a visual artist, interested also in drama, cognitive science, languages, literature…I thought, what a great fit for Middlebury. But after a tour around campus & wandering around Johnson, she said, “Mom, I can’t apply here.” I asked why not. She said, “I wouldn’t feel creative. I can’t do art here.” You see, we had seen many schools and art departments already. The others (Bennington/Sarah Lawrence/ Skidmore/Bard/ Connecticut/Vassar) had vibrant art departments; students wandered in and out of studios. In most, she was able to wander in, too, and talk to the students about their art. There was a “buzz” that was palpable to me. Middlebury, by contrast, I realized, felt dead & lifeless as we visited. The studios were mostly locked; way too clean & uncluttered; there weren’t any students hanging out, playing raucous music as they worked. Why was that? I began thinking about it & reading the magazine more carefully. In music, it seemed like many professional level & department-organized activities were mentioned. I talked a bit to faculty who mentioned various frustrations. And I noticed especially that the new Arts Center was so far “in left field” that one had to make a real commitment to being there & using it, rather than dropping in with any frequency.

Two years ago I attended a large presentation at Chelsea Piers in New York City. Perhaps you recall: I was the woman who stood up & said “we’ve heard all about a lot of great things, but what about the arts?” – to a certain significant amount of applause from my alumni compatriots. I have to say, your letter is the first sense I have that perhaps you really are committed to regaining that “buzz” of creativity that was palpable, exciting, and ever-present when I was a student at Middlebury. Please, continue to grow the school in this direction!

Sincerely,

XXXXX XXXXX ‘’77

I found this perspective on things very interesting, and I would love to hear from other alumni on this topic: what was it like when you were at Middlebury in terms of your access to space in order to carry out creative pursuits?  Please note when you studied at Middlebury.

Last year, the Budget Oversight Committee (BOC) recommended that the College close 51 Main. The primary reasons given were that, in light of the ongoing budget cuts, it was wrong for the College to fund an establishment that was not “core” to our academic mission, and it was losing money.  I accepted the BOC’s recommendation, but gave 51 Main until December of this year to show whether it could break even financially for two successive months.  If it could not, it would close.  I should mention that, as of November 1, it looks like 51 Main is very close to meeting its two month break-even requirement, and so feedback from community members on the existence and possible continuance of the establishment will be helpful as we assess our options.

Reactions to the BOC recommendation and what drove it have been the topic of many e-mails sent to me, conversations initiated by students, faculty, and staff during my office hours, and questions raised during lunches I have had with students in Proctor and Ross Dining Halls.  Whenever I discuss 51 Main I explain the history behind its founding, which is critical to understanding whatever success it has to date, and to considering whether its goals are as compelling now as they were three years ago.

The idea to open a place in town came from a student-only task force on social life, which I appointed three years ago to combat the collective student sentiment that campus social life had become sub-par: limited, predictable, “the same old same old,” dominated by social house or smaller suite parties that had at or very near their center of fun beer and alcohol.  The task force report included several recommendations, some of which we have implemented during the past two years.    More to the point, the report stated that, because of the size of our campus, federal and Vermont liquor laws, the growing difficulty of hosting parties spontaneously on campus (related to the state’s liquor laws), and the accelerating demand for more diverse social options as a result of our increasingly diverse student body, providing a place with rich and varied programming would make a huge difference to many students.  In follow-up meetings, students identified the desire and need for a place off campus that brought students and town folks together in a social setting, offered musical and other social events (poetry slams; stand-up comedians; exhibitions of students’ art work; etc.), and did not have the feel of a “College venue,” nor center predominantly on alcohol.

The idea for 51 Main sprang from these task force discussions, and when the space became available a donor made a gift to cover the start-up and operating costs for the venue for multiple years. He also funded several other proposals in the student task force report, because he was well aware of the harsh criticism by students about the limited social life on campus (he had children who had attended Middlebury).  Thus, none of the funding for 51 Main comes from the College’s operating budget, but rather is paid for from a gift that would cover 51 Main’s operating budget for four years, and is restricted to that use.

Since 51 Main opened, many have criticized its existence.  Several in the town community felt it was wrong to add competition to a downtown that was having a hard enough time attracting business.  Some countered this by noting that healthy competition would be good for townspeople and for our students alike; it would provide something new and perhaps nudge existing enterprises to introduce new and exciting programming.  Some merchants agreed and welcomed the new venue; others did not.

Based thus far on anecdotal evidence alone, opinion on campus has been divided.  Staff in general, and a good number of faculty, have been highly critical, arguing that running what they see as a nightclub is problematic, even unethical, in the face of budget cuts and reductions in staff positions through voluntary departures and attrition.  Many share the concern about the College “competing” with businesses in town. 

A number of faculty, however, some of whom have performed at 51 Main several times, view it as a unique venue and describe it as a “beacon of social life” for the town and for college students.  They point to the fact that in no other place in Middlebury do college folk and townspeople socialize as they do at 51 Main.  They also say that the kind of programming at 51 Main is special, diverse, and provides the closest thing to an urban feel one finds in Addison County.

Students seem more positive about 51 Main, but again, my information is only anecdotal and thus my desire in posting these remarks is to collect more feedback.  From what I hear, when the venue first opened, it was mostly the underrepresented groups at Middlebury—students of color, inner city, and international students—who visited 51 Main, and found it very much to their liking, just as the student task force on social life had envisioned.  But towards the end of last year, and throughout this semester, a greater portion of the student body began to frequent 51 Main.  Indeed, I have heard this fall from many parents across a broad spectrum of backgrounds that 51 Main has caught on.  Their sons and daughters claim it is an important social option for students who want more than a social house or suite party—for those who want to see, be with, and engage people from town who are not from the College, and listen to interesting bands, including student bands whose members include their college friends.  Many townspeople, too, have commented very positively on 51 Main, noting how it adds to social options in town, and how enjoyable it is to be among College students in a relaxed and new kind of social setting.

The negative voices I have heard, though I don’t know their number, are the loudest.  They convey their thoughts and say they speak for “many” in their opposition to this venture, again on ethical grounds.  Interestingly, I know many of those who criticize 51 Main are also the strongest supporters for greater diversity on our campus, and one has to wonder whether they see any connection between the presence of a 51 Main on the one hand, and the College’s need not only to matriculate diverse students, but also to provide the kind of support, including a social life, that helps a more diverse student body to thrive when they come to a place like Middlebury.

I am interested in your views of 51 Main and whether it should continue if it can break even financially.   Please identify whether you are a student, staff member, faculty member, community member, parent, or other.  Thank you.

The post, written by a current Williams College student, is from EphBlog, a blog having to do with “All Things Eph,” according to the blog, and it is worth reading, along with some of the thoughtful comments.   http://www.ephblog.com/2009/09/21/specialization-consternation/

I oppose double (and yes, triple) majors on three grounds:

1. A liberal arts major is supposed to educate broadly.  With the average major at Middlebury requiring about 11 courses now (some require 10, many require more than 11, and many also have “cognate” requirements), students who choose to double major will concentrate more than 2/3 of their studies and course selections in two areas.  We have more than 40 majors and 31 academic departments, so students who double major have 10 or fewer courses with which to explore 40 other majors or 29 other academic departments.  From an educational perspective, students would seem to be defeating the purpose of coming to a liberal arts college if they chose to concentrate their studies like this.  In addition, there are scores of excellent faculty who, quite routinely, change students’ lives by introducing them to subject matter many would otherwise never have encountered if they hadn’t, without previous reason, taken those classes. 
2. The false notion of “credentialing.”  Students tend to think it “looks better” on one’s resume to have two, or even three majors.  Not the case.  For years now, CEOs of businesses and non-profits have stated clearly on campus and in discussions with students that it really doesn’t matter if one has two versus one major.  The issue really is how well a student has learned to think critically, assess accurately, synthesize information well, and write and speak clearly.  One learns these things best by being exposed to as broad a range of material and modes of analysis as one can. Transcript building runs counter to a liberal arts education and also prevents a student from experiencing the richness of Middlebury’s curriculum, and it is not something that will help students after the graduate.
3. The resource issue.  Double-majoring has a significant impact on College resources, both teaching resources and financial resources.  If a student body with 2400 students had 20% double majors, the faculty would have to offer a curriculum to meet the needs of more than 2800 students.  That is, with double majors come extra teaching requirements for the faculty, which has a negative impact on the curriculum and our students insofar as the opportunity costs they incur.

For instance, take a department that has 150 majors right now, with 60 in the senior class (students do not declare their majors until sophomore year).  That particular major requires two senior seminars (which many do), which means the department must allocate teaching resources so they offer at least 120 slots to meet the senior seminar requirement for the 60 senior majors.  With 15 students the typical upper limit to a seminar at Middlebury, the department would need to offer 8 seminars to accommodate the seniors.  Now suppose 20% of those 150 majors were “double majors.”  That would mean 30 of the 150 majors, or 12 of the 60 in the senior class, had other majors, and were taking two other seminars to fulfill the requirements in their other major.  Those students would be taking four senior seminars, and the first department would have to offer spots for 24 students (the 12 seniors taking 2 seminars in their senior year), or two seminars, that they otherwise would not have to offer if there were no double majors.  Those two senior seminars could be replaced by other lower level courses for the general student population, a first-year seminar, or perhaps reduce the teaching by faculty in that department if its classes were filled and it was overloaded with majors, which some departments are.

With limited resources, should we encourage/permit double majors when it requires departments to offer additional sections of courses when students are already getting their senior seminar experiences in other majors? Since we are not a university with graduate students who might cover a single course we need taught, and since we have no other colleges and universities nearby, we often need to hire a number of full-time faculty to teach the one or two additional courses generated by the large number of double majors when faculty who teach those courses are on sabbatical, which is a costly proposition.

I am interested to hear your thoughts on this issue.  Are there other reasons for why you (the students) choose to double major, especially when you hear about the costs of doing so?  Send along your thoughts!

UPDATE: for those who inquired via e-mail, I did a combined major (economics and geography) as an undergraduate.

The message common to virtually every e-mail is not surprising: all who have written point to the great value of The New England Review; the loss of intellectual life that would be felt by its going away; the frailty of literary magazines in general and how none can exist without external support; and how places like Middlebury have some kind of obligation, moral and otherwise, to continue their support of such publications in the name of supporting the arts and intellectual discourse.
 
I agree fully with the first three items above, but not necessarily the last.  That is why I decided to give The Review an additional two-plus years to consider how it might garner greater financial support beyond the subsidy it now receives from Middlebury College.  Given current financial circumstances, which none of the e-mailers seemed willing to confront, I find asking families who are paying $50,000/year in comprehensive fees to, in effect, subsidize a literary magazine that serves a very small slice of the general population and is known only to a handful of Middlebury students, a very hard sell.  That some e-mails mention how several universities, with far deeper pockets than Middlebury, have closed down literary magazines in better economic times should mean something to those who insist that Middlebury continue to subsidize The New England Review.

I am a fan of The Review, and have been for many years.  But as president of this liberal arts college, I also have a responsibility to the students, faculty, staff, and the generous supporters of the College.  In contrast to the small number of people who have published in the NER or read it regularly, I must consider how our institution will weather the current financial challenges and, first and foremost, preserve what is most central to our students’ education.  Perhaps it is normal to pronounce that “no literary magazine breaks even; all require subsidies,” as many e-mailers claimed.  However, it seems unreasonable, indeed illogical, to expect an undergraduate liberal arts college to provide those subsidies when there is little direct benefit to the students who are covering the costs of operation.  This is not to say The Review is not excellent, valuable, or worth preserving.  It surely is.  It simply cannot continue operating as it has, and my hope is that by increasing subscriptions and sponsorships (gifts), plus exploring whether there are alternatives to the current (and expensive) method of production, it will be able to operate without such a significant subsidy.  I should add that, to my knowledge, not a single individual who has written in protest of the College’s decision has contributed financially to help subsidize The Review.
 
We are committed to assisting editor and colleague Stephen Donadio find ways to increase revenues and reduce costs so The Review can continue to publish the high quality writing it has for the past thirty years.  And, of course, I am interested in any suggestions you may have for bolstering The Review’s revenues or reducing its operating costs.

I close by providing a link to an article that appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education, just as I was completing this post.  An interesting read, and certainly germane to the issue we are facing with The Review.

UPDATE: I have received e-mails letting me know that at least two individuals have made contributions on behalf of the NER since information about the financial situation became public.  We thank those who have made contributions and hope others will do the same and also become subscribers to the magazine.

Students: if you are interested in weighing in, please go to Middblog.

Thanks.

I have yet to attend a Liebowitz Day. Was never invited. The closest I came to either attending or being invited was last year, when, by coincidence, my wife and I were hosting a lunch for first-year Febs at 3 South Street, and two guests at the lunch were wearing red “Che” (Liebowitz) tee-shirts. Almost wished I had one.  One of the students innocently asked me, “Are you coming to the concert tonight?” “What concert?” I asked.  “You know, the Liebowitz Day concert.”

I embarrassingly told the student that I hadn’t been invited to the concert or, for that matter, to any Liebowitz Day events. Ever. All those Feb first-years, who had been on campus for only a month or so, didn’t quite know how to react. “Well, just come,” one said slowly after a few awkward moments.  Unfortunately, doing things spontaneously is not that easy with three small children at home (finding babysitting on short notice is near impossible, especially on weekends), so we couldn’t attend. Besides, I was not invited!

This year, once again, I have not received an invitation to Liebowitz Day. Not one. But even if I had, or had been planning to make a surprise appearance, I would not be able to do so. Sadly, I will be out of town at a memorial service for an extraordinary friend of the College who passed away far too early in life.

But there is next year, perhaps, for both receiving an invitation and attending an event.

The outcome, a last-second (literally) 78-76 loss by Middlebury, was a disappointment in that the Panthers will not continue their season. But the game, and indeed the entire season, was quite remarkable, and one could not help but feel great pride in watching the Middlebury team play with great intensity and sportsmanship.

The comments at the end of the heartbreaking loss by team captain Ben Rudin, who had an outstanding game, season, and career, reflected an unusual maturity for a 22-year-old whose storied season had just ended, and ended in such dramatic fashion. Coach Jeff Brown’s comments reflected the kind of class that has become the standard for Middlebury coaches and the ideals and quality of our athletics program led by athletic director Erin Quinn—something we should never take for granted.

On behalf of so many, I want to thank Jeff and the Panther basketball team for the best season in the program’s history and, even more, for showing such class in both victory and defeat.

• Wilson Café in the library was packed, not only with students, but also faculty and staff as I walked by to return some borrowed videos. The library itself was packed with students working solo and in groups, tackling everything from reading assignments to multimedia projects in the library’s numerous smart classrooms and labs.
• Dr. Paul Farmer, the remarkable medical anthropologist/physician, who co-founded Partners in Health, spoke at 3 p.m. to an overflow crowd … or rather crowds (more than 400 were in McCullough social space and another 300 were in venues that had live video feeds.
• The annual Posse retreat, which brings together more than 100 students, faculty, and staff who support the mission of the 40-plus Posse scholars enrolled at the College from New York City, was taking place at Lake Fairlee, Vermont. I was unable to attend the retreat, but received an e-mail reporting that the retreat was extremely spirited and engaging.
• The practice rooms in the Mahaney Center for the Arts were filled with students playing a range of instruments.
• The men’s and women’s hockey teams hosted home games in their respective NESCAC conference tournaments. (Both won). As usual, the stands were filled with not only students, but staff, faculty, and townspeople, who convert Kenyon Arena into a “town hall” of sorts, where the greater Middlebury community comes together most easily and frequently between our annual town meetings.
• The ski team was competing at the Eastern Intercollegiate Ski Championships at Sugar Loaf in Maine (and placed third behind Dartmouth and UVM).
• And 1,250 fans (a full house) were on hand in Pepin Gymnasium to watch the Panthers defeat Bowdoin to make it to the NESCAC tournament finals against Amherst (which Middlebury won the next day).

Much more was happening on campus, of course, and these snippets represent just a slice of life at Middlebury on a Saturday afternoon in late February.

I will not repeat here much of what I have been saying for the past six months, but I do want to highlight some of the challenges we have encountered in trying to overcome the $20 million deficit we would experience if we didn’t make major cuts now. Our Budget Oversight Committee (BOC), which is comprised of two faculty, two staff, two students, and three administrators, has worked hard to review many suggestions that have come from the College community at large, from members of the president’s staff, and from within the committeee’s ranks. It has done remarkable work in what is an unprecedented economic environment, and it has had to work relatively quickly (for an academic institution) because the sooner we negate a budget gap, the less of an accumulating deficit we will face and need to address two, three, and four years out. Thus, while many would like a slower and more deliberate process than the one in place, doing so would require more drastic cuts in future years.

The big issue for all of us is how to engage and involve students more effectively in the choices before the BOC. I recognize that having two student representatives on BOC does not meet many students’ desire to voice their opinions on options before the committee as it makes its recommendations to me. Acting Provost Tim Spears and I will be meeting with the Student Government Association (SGA) this coming week to see if it can form its own budget oversight committee to recommend cuts in the budget. We will also see whether SGA can develop a process that will get from students a collective sense of what are the most important things to preserve so the BOC and I are better informed about student opinion regarding specific programs and services on campus.

To date there has been less visible student interest in the budget situation than I would have thought. The two open meetings for staff that our chief financial officer Patrick Norton, Tim Spears, and I hosted earlier this month (February 5-6) attracted nearly 500 staff members. Each meeting lasted two hours and included many, many good questions from the floor. The February faculty meeting (February 16), with finances on the agenda, was very well attended, and included, again, good questions and discussion from a wide range of colleagues. The open meeting for students, on the other hand, held at 7:30 p.m. on a Monday evening (February 10), drew fewer than 40 students. The discussion was very good, and there were more good questions, but the turnout was a disappointment. 

I will be holding more open meetings for students this semester-the next will be Thursday, March 5, at noon in McCullough Social Space-and I hope students will attend and participate. In the meantime, I would love to hear any ideas on how to bring students up to speed on the nature and magnitude of the financial challenges before us, as well as finding ways to hear what is most important to them. For starters, they should consult the Web site listed above and try to attend the open meetings in the coming months so their concerns and suggestions will be better informed and placed in a context that reflects these severe economic circumstances.

Traditionally, the purpose of Baccalaureate was/is for the president to give a farewell address to the seniors, which the president now gives to graduating seniors and their families.  Because space is limited in Mead, our largest (and traditional venue) we hold two services.

Over the years, students have questioned the logic of dividing the class for this event, since it represents the “other bookend” of one’s education, where the first bookend was first-year convocation.  At convocation, the president welcomes students to campus, and addresses the entire class as one. 
 
Following several queries from students, we have been discussing what alternatives we have to the current set up.  One that has been proposed would be to move the hour-long Baccalaureate service to Senior Week, and hold it on Wednesday afternoon just before the Senior BBQ.  In this scenario, we would hold just one service, which would enable the entire senior class to be together in Mead just as they were at Convocation when they first entered Middlebury.  We could then have a class picture following baccalaureate as we did following convocation, and move the senior BBQ to the quad in front of McCullough. It would also open up Saturday afternoon for families to take part in other events on campus, or just share time together.  The downside to this option is that families would not be able to attend the service with the graduating seniors.
 
I would like to know whether this option has any appeal to the class of 2009. Let me know what you think by leaving a comment.  Thanks.

UPDATE: sorry for the original typo and thanks for finding it.  I did mean the Class of 2009.