May 27, 2009
To whom it may concern,
This is a letter of support for the Cultural Education Center Task Force’s Report. We appreciate the diligent work of the CEC Taskforce and the proposals they have suggested to satisfy the need for a CEC. We strongly agree with and support their long term vision of a “CEC formed by a cluster of three buildings: the renovated ALCC, the current Career Services, and the Ferry building. The buildings could be “knitted” together via landscaping or architectural design” (11). Given the current economic climate, however, we believe it is smartest for Hamilton to take the second recommendation of the task force and designate the Azel Backus House as an interim space and commence a capital campaign to fund a full CEC Complex.
We think that the 1st floor renovation of the ALCC is somewhat comparable to the entire Azel Backus House in that they both only satisfy the smallest most basic needs of a CEC which are as follows (and articulated on page 9 of the Task Force Report):
1. Community/ Meeting Room (interim need 50, long term need 75-100),
2. Conference Room (interim need 1-2 rooms, long term need 5-6 rooms),
3. Library with Computers, and
4. A full Kitchen (in addition to a Kosher kitchen).
Without any renovation the Azel Backus can currently satisfy the most basic of these needs while the ALCC requires significant renovations in order to do so. Further, minimal renovations to the ALCC would require some shared space with what is currently the ALCC. While the renovation would be a small addition of physical space designated for diversity issues, there would be a symbolic loss if the historic integrity of the ALCC were compromised by the creation of an interim CEC.
The Azel Backus house as an interim space would allow the large addition of physical space and would allow appropriate planning for the incorporation but not the co-optation of the ALCC into a CEC Complex.
The ALCC should be renovated to become part of a CEC Complex. It would be an inefficient use of resources and time to renovate it to satisfy our basic needs and then renovate it again to become part of the complex. This further construction would disrupt whatever use this space would serve in the interim. We suggest the college designate the Azel Backus House as the interim CEC and begin a fundraising campaign for the CEC Complex.
We have also written to the Task-Force and Acting President pointing out that a Director and Staff Person are essential for the success of a CEC. We request that these two roles be filled by the Fall of 2009. We have suggested that Janet Turvey be asked to work as the Staff Person for the CEC or split her time between the DSJP and the CEC.
Thank you,
The Social Justice Initiative
Please contact Robyn Gibson (regibson@hamilton.edu)
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
Open Letter April 7 2009
April 7th, 2009
Open Letter
Professors of Hamilton College,
The students assembled here are concerned not only about Delta Phi’s invitation to “Mexican Night,” but also about the administration’s response to our concerns. The passivity and neutrality of the administration’s response polarized the student body and increased the hostility we face here every day. We ask you, as our professors, to take the time at today’s meeting to address this issue, to hold the administration accountable, and to facilitate the forward movement of our community.
A number of concerned students who felt hurt and targeted by the Delta Phi’s invitation to “Mexican Night” issued a complaint to the administration. We pointed out that the party violated the second section of the Code of Student Conduct which states: “Respect for Others: Community members are encouraged to treat all people with respect without regard to race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender or gender identity, sexual or affectional orientation, political view, physical abilities, age or intelligence. Such respect for one another promotes free and open inquiry, independent thought and mutual understanding.” We therefore asked that the party be cancelled and, even more important, that the administration “begin to pursue appropriate response via the Judicial Board.”
We were shocked by Acting President Urgo’s initial response in which he requested “that those who have cited the offensive nature of the image disseminated by Delta Phi meet with members of the fraternity to discuss the image and its effect on the community.” It is inappropriate and insensitive to require those subjected to harassment and hatred, especially when they are concerned for their personal safety (which we were), to explain to the purported perpetrator their perceived wrong. Rather, as the college’s harassment and sexual misconduct procedures suggest, we expected an officer of the school to meet with us and then begin an investigation.
Acting President Urgo has not, even now, initiated the proper procedures. Instead, he has simply changed the subject. His all-campus email “Community Dialogue” dilutes the discussion of our specific complaint to a generic discussion of “the ways in which social events are advertised” and of routine “vulgarity and insensitivity.” The email further suggests that we, as complainants, are the main hindrance to the dialogue.
The email did not allude to any action on the administration’s part in response to our complaint other than quoting the apology issued by the fraternity. When asked how he planned to move forward on the complaint Acting President Urgo answered simply and entirely “Robyn, have you seen the all campus email that went out this morning?” We view the refusal to address our individual complaints as an act of disrespect and feel disillusioned with an institution that purports commitment to its students.
Although we agree with Acting President Urgo that “failure to conduct open, face-to-face dialogue only polarizes us,” we feel that the way he uses it in his email and in individual conversations with us targets us as the source of the problems rather than the victims.
While extremely disappointed and disillusioned with the response of our administration, we would like to thank the many professors, students, and staff who gave up their Saturday night to join us in speaking out against hatred and ignorance at Hamilton.
We hope that you share our concerns and believe that you, as professors, should lead the discussion of the invitation and the response of the administration, and initiate the movement forward. The administration has proven to us their inability to host this conversation and their suggestion that Delta Phi “take the lead in fostering a discussion” is profoundly disrespectful.
Please take the time today to pass a motion laying concrete plans for moving forward. We hope that you, either as a body, a group of individuals, or with the aid of an outside organization, will facilitate some event and further discussion that addresses these issues by the end of the semester.
Thank you,
Corinne Bancroft
As one of the Concerned Students
Open Letter
Professors of Hamilton College,
The students assembled here are concerned not only about Delta Phi’s invitation to “Mexican Night,” but also about the administration’s response to our concerns. The passivity and neutrality of the administration’s response polarized the student body and increased the hostility we face here every day. We ask you, as our professors, to take the time at today’s meeting to address this issue, to hold the administration accountable, and to facilitate the forward movement of our community.
A number of concerned students who felt hurt and targeted by the Delta Phi’s invitation to “Mexican Night” issued a complaint to the administration. We pointed out that the party violated the second section of the Code of Student Conduct which states: “Respect for Others: Community members are encouraged to treat all people with respect without regard to race, religion, ethnicity, national origin, gender or gender identity, sexual or affectional orientation, political view, physical abilities, age or intelligence. Such respect for one another promotes free and open inquiry, independent thought and mutual understanding.” We therefore asked that the party be cancelled and, even more important, that the administration “begin to pursue appropriate response via the Judicial Board.”
We were shocked by Acting President Urgo’s initial response in which he requested “that those who have cited the offensive nature of the image disseminated by Delta Phi meet with members of the fraternity to discuss the image and its effect on the community.” It is inappropriate and insensitive to require those subjected to harassment and hatred, especially when they are concerned for their personal safety (which we were), to explain to the purported perpetrator their perceived wrong. Rather, as the college’s harassment and sexual misconduct procedures suggest, we expected an officer of the school to meet with us and then begin an investigation.
Acting President Urgo has not, even now, initiated the proper procedures. Instead, he has simply changed the subject. His all-campus email “Community Dialogue” dilutes the discussion of our specific complaint to a generic discussion of “the ways in which social events are advertised” and of routine “vulgarity and insensitivity.” The email further suggests that we, as complainants, are the main hindrance to the dialogue.
The email did not allude to any action on the administration’s part in response to our complaint other than quoting the apology issued by the fraternity. When asked how he planned to move forward on the complaint Acting President Urgo answered simply and entirely “Robyn, have you seen the all campus email that went out this morning?” We view the refusal to address our individual complaints as an act of disrespect and feel disillusioned with an institution that purports commitment to its students.
Although we agree with Acting President Urgo that “failure to conduct open, face-to-face dialogue only polarizes us,” we feel that the way he uses it in his email and in individual conversations with us targets us as the source of the problems rather than the victims.
While extremely disappointed and disillusioned with the response of our administration, we would like to thank the many professors, students, and staff who gave up their Saturday night to join us in speaking out against hatred and ignorance at Hamilton.
We hope that you share our concerns and believe that you, as professors, should lead the discussion of the invitation and the response of the administration, and initiate the movement forward. The administration has proven to us their inability to host this conversation and their suggestion that Delta Phi “take the lead in fostering a discussion” is profoundly disrespectful.
Please take the time today to pass a motion laying concrete plans for moving forward. We hope that you, either as a body, a group of individuals, or with the aid of an outside organization, will facilitate some event and further discussion that addresses these issues by the end of the semester.
Thank you,
Corinne Bancroft
As one of the Concerned Students
SJI CEC Staffing and Governance 4-21-09
April 21, 2009
Social Justice Initiative: Staffing and Governance of the Cultural Education Center
A position for a Cultural Education Center Coordinator must be created and the position of one staff person should be reallocated as a resource person (primarily for students, but also for the coordinator and professors,) in the CEC in order to best use the space designated by the CEC Task Force.
Counsel of Representatives: governing board of the CEC which consists of one representative from each identity-based group. Identity based groups are organizations that are formed around non- dominant identities in order to assert the presence of that identity, provide a safe space to its members, and to program events. Currently, these organizations include: BLSU, ACS, ISA, WIAA, HILLEL, MSA, The Brothers, Womyn’s Center, Rainbow Alliance, ICWES. We anticipate more identity-based groups to form in the future. We also stipulate that only non-exclusive organizations should be represented in the Counsel. Each group will elect a person who will act as a representative of their organization either for a semester or a year. The responsibilities of this counsel are, but not limited to:
• Ensure collaboration among these groups
• Govern the space
• Work with the resource Person and future CEC Coordinator
• Hold regular meetings to discuss upcoming events and programming
• The counsel of representatives is limited to ambassadors from these identity based groups. The use of the space, however, is actively open to all organizations and individuals.
Resource Person: a person who can be a resource to the Counsel of Representatives, and carry out the administrative functions of the CEC. Her/ his responsibilities include, but are not limited to:
• Working with the student representatives in designing and implementing programs and events,
• Facilitating the scheduling spaces
• Managing the calendar of Cultural Events
• Coordinating interaction and collaboration with the DSJP
• Working with the future coordinator to put together trainings, pedagogical resources, etc
In acknowledgment of the economic times, a currently existing staff person can be reallocated immediately. We request that Janet Turvey become the Resource Person either full time or split her time with the DSJP where she currently works. As soon as this position is reallocated for this purpose she can immediately facilitate the formation of this Counsel by contacting the various organizations.
CEC Coordinator: position trained in the area of cultural education, can hold trainings for faculty, students and administration, and be a pedagogical resource. As we see it, the College exists for the students; this person will be an advocate for students in two ways:
• Firstly, she or she will be responsible for the Cultural Sensitivity and Awareness on campus. If done properly this could promote community engagement in difficult conversations and topics: currently such conversations are stymied and censored.
• Secondly, she or he will serve as the Ombudsperson for incidents both inside and outside the classroom. She or he will work with the Social Honor Code task-force.
• The hiring of the coordinator should be completed as soon as possible by a committee the Counsel of Representatives, some students drawn from SJI and professors drawn from the Diversity and Social Justice Project. In order for this position to be effective it must be independent: the person who holds this position must be working for the students, not for the administration. Due to the sensitive nature of student concerns, this person needs to be someone students can confide in, trust and relate to. We are aware that in an institution such as Hamilton each position has oversight, but we feel that this position would not work under the administrative jurisdiction of the Dean of Students or the Dean of Faculty.
Please contact Robyn Gibson
Social Justice Initiative: Staffing and Governance of the Cultural Education Center
A position for a Cultural Education Center Coordinator must be created and the position of one staff person should be reallocated as a resource person (primarily for students, but also for the coordinator and professors,) in the CEC in order to best use the space designated by the CEC Task Force.
Counsel of Representatives: governing board of the CEC which consists of one representative from each identity-based group. Identity based groups are organizations that are formed around non- dominant identities in order to assert the presence of that identity, provide a safe space to its members, and to program events. Currently, these organizations include: BLSU, ACS, ISA, WIAA, HILLEL, MSA, The Brothers, Womyn’s Center, Rainbow Alliance, ICWES. We anticipate more identity-based groups to form in the future. We also stipulate that only non-exclusive organizations should be represented in the Counsel. Each group will elect a person who will act as a representative of their organization either for a semester or a year. The responsibilities of this counsel are, but not limited to:
• Ensure collaboration among these groups
• Govern the space
• Work with the resource Person and future CEC Coordinator
• Hold regular meetings to discuss upcoming events and programming
• The counsel of representatives is limited to ambassadors from these identity based groups. The use of the space, however, is actively open to all organizations and individuals.
Resource Person: a person who can be a resource to the Counsel of Representatives, and carry out the administrative functions of the CEC. Her/ his responsibilities include, but are not limited to:
• Working with the student representatives in designing and implementing programs and events,
• Facilitating the scheduling spaces
• Managing the calendar of Cultural Events
• Coordinating interaction and collaboration with the DSJP
• Working with the future coordinator to put together trainings, pedagogical resources, etc
In acknowledgment of the economic times, a currently existing staff person can be reallocated immediately. We request that Janet Turvey become the Resource Person either full time or split her time with the DSJP where she currently works. As soon as this position is reallocated for this purpose she can immediately facilitate the formation of this Counsel by contacting the various organizations.
CEC Coordinator: position trained in the area of cultural education, can hold trainings for faculty, students and administration, and be a pedagogical resource. As we see it, the College exists for the students; this person will be an advocate for students in two ways:
• Firstly, she or she will be responsible for the Cultural Sensitivity and Awareness on campus. If done properly this could promote community engagement in difficult conversations and topics: currently such conversations are stymied and censored.
• Secondly, she or he will serve as the Ombudsperson for incidents both inside and outside the classroom. She or he will work with the Social Honor Code task-force.
• The hiring of the coordinator should be completed as soon as possible by a committee the Counsel of Representatives, some students drawn from SJI and professors drawn from the Diversity and Social Justice Project. In order for this position to be effective it must be independent: the person who holds this position must be working for the students, not for the administration. Due to the sensitive nature of student concerns, this person needs to be someone students can confide in, trust and relate to. We are aware that in an institution such as Hamilton each position has oversight, but we feel that this position would not work under the administrative jurisdiction of the Dean of Students or the Dean of Faculty.
Please contact Robyn Gibson
Trustee Letter CEC 12-10-08
December 10th, 2008
Trustees,
On the Hill, there has been overwhelming support for the proposal for the Cultural Education Center; the Faculty passed a motion supporting it, Student Assembly supported it unanimously, and the Social Justice Initiative continues to collect more signatures. Although early proposals suggested that we would wait until an ideal time to build the CEC, the economic situation and the current surplus of empty space at Hamilton lead us to believe that either a full CEC or interim space should be housed in an existing building by the fall semester of 2009. Azel Backus House, Emerson Literary Society, and North and South Court all offer adequate and currently or soon to be available spaces that could be the interim or full CEC. We ask the Board of Trustees make a decision during the meeting in March to provide basic renovations to one of these spaces or allocate another so that the CEC can open in the fall of 2009.
Because we do not know how much you know about our activities at Hamilton, we are including with this letter:
• Our Principles
• Our most recent proposal
• A timeline of the previous steps we’ve taken
We hope these documents help explain you can see how we arrived at our decision that the CEC is an important step toward addressing our concerns with the campus climate and the steps we have taken on campus to pursue this goal. We understand that although the Hamilton Community has endorsed the CEC, you may still have some questions. We invite you to contact us, set up meetings, or communicate with us in whatever forum works best for you. Corinne Bancroft (cbancrof@hamilton.edu) will serve as the administrative assistant, so you can email her with questions or forums for communication and she will find the appropriate student or groups of students to get in touch with you.
As you can see, we have exhausted all the internal venues available to us as students to make these necessary changes at Hamilton. We hope that at your March meeting you will validate the processes that we have chosen by providing leadership on a CEC.
Thank you for your time,
The Social Justice Initiative
This is SJI
Who we are: We are a coalition of Hamilton students with diverse backgrounds and areas of involvement on campus.
What we do: We hold Hamilton College primarily the administration and faculty responsible for educating the Hamilton community about the inequalities associated with diversity in a way that empowers students to engage with these issues intelligently. Further, we hold Hamilton accountable for addressing the inequalities that exist within the community.
How we do this:
Some of our efforts include:
Sponsoring bi-weekly student discussions
Campaigning for a Cultural Education Center
Coordinating cultural organizations on campus
Discussing curricular changes that would truly represent a diversity of ideas
Documenting incidents of mistreatment
Campaigning for a Cultural organizer administrative position
Why we do this: There is a disparity in quality of experience of Hamilton students because of socially marked identities. This is a result of Hamilton’s failure to define, address, and educate on issues of diversity.
Principles by which we operate:
Horizontal organization – SJI operates as a horizontal organization that does not privilege any members above others because we want to unpack hierarchy rather than reproduce power structures that exist outside of our organization.
Transparency – Because the efforts of SJI affect the entire Hamilton community, every member of the community has a right to know exactly what SJI is doing and how it is being done. Everything we do is subject to public examination. We work towards this through meetings open to students, coffee hours open to everyone, and a website will make all our documents available.
Inclusiveness – Our meetings our open to all students and our events are open to anybody who wants to attend.
Relevance – We react to concerns we hear voiced by Hamilton students.
Non-violence – SJI does not attempt to seize or undermine authority from the administration. Rather we hold the administration accountable to execute its academic mission in a way that defines, addresses, and educates on issues of diversity.
Cultural Education Center Proposal
For the past 7 years the College administration has received authorized reports recommending improved space for students from marginalized groups, specifically students of color (Diversity Task Force report, Diversity Strategic Plan, letter from Joan Stewart). The Social Justice Initiative is a coalition of students who came together over a year and a half ago because of perceived problems in the education at Hamilton College. We work to create a positive change in the educational and social experiences and treatment of underrepresented groups at Hamilton. At the same time, we also seek to promote interaction across groups and increase social awareness among all students at Hamilton College.
We work from the assumption that there are power structures within the United States and the world that benefit certain identities over others. We believe that these systemic inequalities are relics based on historic exclusion and oppression that unfortunately still exist today. Although Hamilton’s student body is increasingly “diverse,” the physical campus and curriculum fall short of accurately reflecting the changing demographics of Hamilton, and indeed of the nation. While we represent a relatively new student group, many others such groups have formed with the same concerns as ours; nothing has yet been done to address these concerns. There is a serious need.
Students of color report less satisfaction with their overall Hamilton experience in their exit interviews and are less engaged with the College as alumni/ae (see Institutional Research document). Students who are not the “typical” Hamilton student routinely encounter slurs, ignorance, or simply forms of elitism in their daily lives.
To address students needs, we have proposed a Cultural Education Center, a physical and intellectual space on campus that will advance intercultural communication by putting the experiences of people from marginalized groups at the center. As cultural theorists like Dr. David Stovall have argued, historically white institutions do a good job of creating a comfortable and ‘safe’ campus for the majority of the students; the whole campus effectively becomes ‘white’ space. The consequence is, however, that this norm of elite whiteness once again marginalizes students from underrepresented groups. Although all students are ostensibly welcome all over campus, students of color and other underrepresented groups do not feel equally welcome. The Center will not be an exclusive space but rather an inclusive one that starts from those histories. The Center will be a dynamic place with speakers, arts events, and workshops that will be open to all. We hope to ensure that they are well attended by many from different areas of the campus. Attention to social dynamics will be key; we hope to stimulate conversations by sponsoring informal gatherings after events. The presence of magazines and coffee should help attract students and others to the Center even if there is not an event. It will also serve to help Hamilton recruit students in the future, when the demographics require that we be attractive to the so-called “Majority minority.”
Because it will be open to all, with a director who is trained in these issues, the center will actively recruit attendance at its events. Thus, it will have the potential to improve the education of all Hamilton students. Many students study other cultures on campus or study abroad. The Center will provide a place for them to continue their education when they leave the classroom or when they return to campus from their studies.
The Center will be a vibrant place where open and honest conversations around difficult issues are facilitated; workshops can help train leaders of such conversations. Events featuring music, art, and speakers from diverse cultures will spill over into gatherings, and magazines, books and films can increase students’ familiarity with the world beyond the hill. Most importantly, it will be a place of academic excellence because it will nourish a diversity of ideas.
Please contact us with any questions, comments, or concerns by emailing sji@hamilton.edu.
Needs:
• A meeting space for fifty people that has furniture that resembles Glenn House, Opus1, or Christian Johnson Browsing Room.
• A lecture space for programming that would have seating for 60-75 people, but a capacity of 100 people. We envision a layout similar to the Red Pit, having removable seats.
• A lab with 6-8 desktops and a printer this would be a designated computer area (this could exist in the resource room).
• A resource room to house historical documents of the multicultural organizations, as well as books, periodicals, and articles pertaining to issues of diversity both on campus and off.
• The Womyn’s Center would have a designated room in order to replace their space in North Court.
• Classroom/ conference rooms to host luncheons/dinners for speakers, also serve as additional meeting or academic space for students.
Note: All rooms should be smart classrooms.
These needs can currently be met by existing spaces on campus including but not limited to the Azel Backus House, Emerson Literary Society, and North and South Court.
Arguments for a Cultural Education Center
• There is a problem on campus; students from underrepresented, ‘marginalized’ groups that have been historically oppressed feel unwelcome at Hamilton.
• Students need a space in which to discuss issues of diversity and the tools to do so; we need to learn how to relate to others from cultural backgrounds different from our own. We need to create not only a ‘comfortable’ space but an encouraging environment for discussions and education about diversity.
• The CEC would have transformative educational power in terms of making students aware and sensitive to these issues, and in helping all students (regardless of whether they are aware) continue their education in these important areas.
• Hamilton College’s public statements articulate a commitment to diversity.
This commitment lacks follow through, however. For years different task forces have suggested that we need improved space for students from underrepresented groups (cultural education space) and a position to make our efforts at diversity coherent (chief diversity officer) (Kirkland Project 2000, Diversity Task Force 2004, SJI 2007-8). The College has never funded either of those initiatives. As a result, we still lack a central resource for cultural education.
• Students from all ethnic backgrounds feel uncomfortable and lack the tools to talk about issues of race and diversity. Due to this lack of dialogue, most students from historically underrepresented backgrounds feel either ignored or tokenized.
• This Cultural Education Center space will be fundamentally different from all other spaces on campus. This space will not merely celebrate underrepresented identity groups on campus, but it will also provide a forum for encouraging the campus community to engage with the issues. We envision an intellectual as well as a social space. In addition to providing a conference room and a small reference library for students, the Cultural Education Center will be a resource center for both students and professors in the pedagogy and critical theory of difference. Programming led by a director, educational initiatives, discussions open to the entire Hamilton community, and a dedication to providing a space for difficult but important dialogue about issues of privilege and oppression will contribute to achieving this educational goal.
• The education and discussions taking place in and because of a CEC would prepare students to become citizens of the global world. As a liberal arts college, Hamilton is ideally placed to produce graduates able to communicate with and work with people who differ in background, ethnicity, perhaps in fundamental values. The proposed CEC can help Hamilton to achieve these goals.
• We would all benefit from having a Center that could sponsor education, training, and conversations around race, class, gender, sexuality, ability. By learning how to talk to one another, students would learn to become better informed citizens of the world.
• A CEC will attract students not only from non traditional groups, but also those who are interested in a more pluralistic learning atmosphere.
• The CEC would benefit students from the dominant groups: these students increasingly come to college seeking a diverse institution and are disappointed if they don’t find it. On tours, a lot of prospective students about ask diversity. Most tour guides give answers that even to them seem hollow. This building would be something concrete that can prove the college's stated goals of diversity.
• Students who study abroad, those who study in departments with strong cultural components (World Politics, Comparative Literature, Anthropology, Sociology, Economics, History, Languages, etc), and those who do not receive this education in the classroom need a physical and intellectual space that can serve as a co-curricular resource so this cultural learning does not need to stop when students return from abroad or when their class periods end. This physical exhibit space, tangible library and central location would be an excellent educational resource to all students and a draw for prospective students.
• Many schools in the same category as Hamilton in terms of type of college and academic prestige have already built multicultural student centers, including Colgate, Williams and Vassar.
• If the College shows its commitment to its stated goals of diversity with a CEC, current students form underrepresented groups would feel more welcome at the school and more likely to feel attached to the institution as graduates and give back to Hamilton. At the present most alums from these groups feel alienated and do not come back except when invited by multicultural student groups, much less give money to the college.
• A CEC will help with retention of students from underrepresented groups.
• It would be a recruiting device for attracting students from underrepresented groups, students that will soon be a majority of the college-age population.
• The CEC is a proactive step to prevent incidents of harassment or greater tragedy on campus rather than waiting for another incident to occur before acting.
Responding to Arguments Against the Cultural Education Center
• Why should these groups get their own space? Isn’t that a lot of money for just a few people? Multicultural groups already have unique sources of funding, their own space in the ALCC, and plenty of events, why should they get more?
While the CEC would house only a few organizations, its educational and programming resources would be available to the entire student body.
Furthermore, the Womyn’s Center is being torn down, Rainbow Alliance only has a closet, and the ALCC is not large enough for big group meetings and has no programming component.
There is no space currently at Hamilton with the same mission statement as the CEC. It’s not getting more, it’s getting what has never been offered in the first place.
• Wouldn’t a Cultural Education Center just promote self-segregation?
The CEC isn’t meant to be used by just a small group of students but rather the entire campus; anyone can make use of it resources. Everyone will be welcomed and invited. Self-segregation would happen if two conditions were met: 1) the CEC were not open to everyone and 2) students who don’t identify as part of a ‘marginalized group’ made a choice not to come. Since the first condition is met by the inclusiveness of the CEC, any ‘segregation’ would be due to students making a choice not to come and therefore not a process of self-segregation.
It would not be a place where marginalized students go to hide themselves, but rather it would be a place for forming strategic coalitions across class, race, sexuality, gender and national boundaries.
• How would a building do anything to combat oppression?
Building a Cultural Education Center would be a signal from the administration that they really care about these issues, and not just in order to attract a statistically more diverse student body. The Cultural Education Center would bring groups together and allow them to work with a program director; space to collaborate and programming to help us in our mission make the CEC more than a just a building.
Furthermore, space is power. This is illustrated by the relation between a decision to end private housing at Hamilton and the experiences of women here. A recent study by Professor Chambliss shows that the most satisfied group at Hamilton is white women with good grades. The experiences of women have been much more positive since Hamilton got rid of privately-owned Greek housing in 1995. This change in buildings made a huge difference in the experiences of a large group of Hamilton students.
• A building would cost a lot of money, especially considering the financial crisis.
We are not asking for a new building, we are asking for small renovations to an existing structure. Furthermore, Hamilton is a very rich school. Recently lobster was served for lunch in the Little Pub and a helicopter was used to dry off the football field.
People feel comfortable asking for expensive renovations to athletic fields when these too are used primarily by only a small number of students. Perhaps field conditions affect whether or not students want to come to Hamilton, but a CEC would also be a tool for recruiting students to come here and would pay off in the long run.
• How is it different from the multi-million dollar student center?
The Cultural Education Center’s mission includes more than just providing a space to study and relax; it also includes programming, education, and a forum for discussion of challenging ideas.
Hamilton has already tried and failed twice to create a student center (Bristol and Beinecke); the Cultural Education Center is a fresh idea with a plan of action for how it will improve the campus climate.
• Isn’t everyone oppressed in some way? Isn’t it ignorant to say that only some of us feel ‘uncomfortable’ at Hamilton? Diversity isn’t just about race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or class status. Shouldn’t we be more concerned about diversity of individual hopes, dreams, thoughts, choices and morals?
It would be nice to able to live in world where we see people as "people" in terms of their individual hopes, dreams, etc., but given the very auspicious power differences that exist in our society that privileges certain groups over others, to NOT acknowledge "race" or "sexuality" is to deny that racism or heterosexism exists. It's like the let's be color blind argument... we can only claim to be color blind when we are all on an equal playing field. There are historical hierarchies in play that make the feel of ‘discomfort’ one that must be dealt with at an institutional rather than interpersonal level.
Trustees,
On the Hill, there has been overwhelming support for the proposal for the Cultural Education Center; the Faculty passed a motion supporting it, Student Assembly supported it unanimously, and the Social Justice Initiative continues to collect more signatures. Although early proposals suggested that we would wait until an ideal time to build the CEC, the economic situation and the current surplus of empty space at Hamilton lead us to believe that either a full CEC or interim space should be housed in an existing building by the fall semester of 2009. Azel Backus House, Emerson Literary Society, and North and South Court all offer adequate and currently or soon to be available spaces that could be the interim or full CEC. We ask the Board of Trustees make a decision during the meeting in March to provide basic renovations to one of these spaces or allocate another so that the CEC can open in the fall of 2009.
Because we do not know how much you know about our activities at Hamilton, we are including with this letter:
• Our Principles
• Our most recent proposal
• A timeline of the previous steps we’ve taken
We hope these documents help explain you can see how we arrived at our decision that the CEC is an important step toward addressing our concerns with the campus climate and the steps we have taken on campus to pursue this goal. We understand that although the Hamilton Community has endorsed the CEC, you may still have some questions. We invite you to contact us, set up meetings, or communicate with us in whatever forum works best for you. Corinne Bancroft (cbancrof@hamilton.edu) will serve as the administrative assistant, so you can email her with questions or forums for communication and she will find the appropriate student or groups of students to get in touch with you.
As you can see, we have exhausted all the internal venues available to us as students to make these necessary changes at Hamilton. We hope that at your March meeting you will validate the processes that we have chosen by providing leadership on a CEC.
Thank you for your time,
The Social Justice Initiative
This is SJI
Who we are: We are a coalition of Hamilton students with diverse backgrounds and areas of involvement on campus.
What we do: We hold Hamilton College primarily the administration and faculty responsible for educating the Hamilton community about the inequalities associated with diversity in a way that empowers students to engage with these issues intelligently. Further, we hold Hamilton accountable for addressing the inequalities that exist within the community.
How we do this:
Some of our efforts include:
Sponsoring bi-weekly student discussions
Campaigning for a Cultural Education Center
Coordinating cultural organizations on campus
Discussing curricular changes that would truly represent a diversity of ideas
Documenting incidents of mistreatment
Campaigning for a Cultural organizer administrative position
Why we do this: There is a disparity in quality of experience of Hamilton students because of socially marked identities. This is a result of Hamilton’s failure to define, address, and educate on issues of diversity.
Principles by which we operate:
Horizontal organization – SJI operates as a horizontal organization that does not privilege any members above others because we want to unpack hierarchy rather than reproduce power structures that exist outside of our organization.
Transparency – Because the efforts of SJI affect the entire Hamilton community, every member of the community has a right to know exactly what SJI is doing and how it is being done. Everything we do is subject to public examination. We work towards this through meetings open to students, coffee hours open to everyone, and a website will make all our documents available.
Inclusiveness – Our meetings our open to all students and our events are open to anybody who wants to attend.
Relevance – We react to concerns we hear voiced by Hamilton students.
Non-violence – SJI does not attempt to seize or undermine authority from the administration. Rather we hold the administration accountable to execute its academic mission in a way that defines, addresses, and educates on issues of diversity.
Cultural Education Center Proposal
For the past 7 years the College administration has received authorized reports recommending improved space for students from marginalized groups, specifically students of color (Diversity Task Force report, Diversity Strategic Plan, letter from Joan Stewart). The Social Justice Initiative is a coalition of students who came together over a year and a half ago because of perceived problems in the education at Hamilton College. We work to create a positive change in the educational and social experiences and treatment of underrepresented groups at Hamilton. At the same time, we also seek to promote interaction across groups and increase social awareness among all students at Hamilton College.
We work from the assumption that there are power structures within the United States and the world that benefit certain identities over others. We believe that these systemic inequalities are relics based on historic exclusion and oppression that unfortunately still exist today. Although Hamilton’s student body is increasingly “diverse,” the physical campus and curriculum fall short of accurately reflecting the changing demographics of Hamilton, and indeed of the nation. While we represent a relatively new student group, many others such groups have formed with the same concerns as ours; nothing has yet been done to address these concerns. There is a serious need.
Students of color report less satisfaction with their overall Hamilton experience in their exit interviews and are less engaged with the College as alumni/ae (see Institutional Research document). Students who are not the “typical” Hamilton student routinely encounter slurs, ignorance, or simply forms of elitism in their daily lives.
To address students needs, we have proposed a Cultural Education Center, a physical and intellectual space on campus that will advance intercultural communication by putting the experiences of people from marginalized groups at the center. As cultural theorists like Dr. David Stovall have argued, historically white institutions do a good job of creating a comfortable and ‘safe’ campus for the majority of the students; the whole campus effectively becomes ‘white’ space. The consequence is, however, that this norm of elite whiteness once again marginalizes students from underrepresented groups. Although all students are ostensibly welcome all over campus, students of color and other underrepresented groups do not feel equally welcome. The Center will not be an exclusive space but rather an inclusive one that starts from those histories. The Center will be a dynamic place with speakers, arts events, and workshops that will be open to all. We hope to ensure that they are well attended by many from different areas of the campus. Attention to social dynamics will be key; we hope to stimulate conversations by sponsoring informal gatherings after events. The presence of magazines and coffee should help attract students and others to the Center even if there is not an event. It will also serve to help Hamilton recruit students in the future, when the demographics require that we be attractive to the so-called “Majority minority.”
Because it will be open to all, with a director who is trained in these issues, the center will actively recruit attendance at its events. Thus, it will have the potential to improve the education of all Hamilton students. Many students study other cultures on campus or study abroad. The Center will provide a place for them to continue their education when they leave the classroom or when they return to campus from their studies.
The Center will be a vibrant place where open and honest conversations around difficult issues are facilitated; workshops can help train leaders of such conversations. Events featuring music, art, and speakers from diverse cultures will spill over into gatherings, and magazines, books and films can increase students’ familiarity with the world beyond the hill. Most importantly, it will be a place of academic excellence because it will nourish a diversity of ideas.
Please contact us with any questions, comments, or concerns by emailing sji@hamilton.edu.
Needs:
• A meeting space for fifty people that has furniture that resembles Glenn House, Opus1, or Christian Johnson Browsing Room.
• A lecture space for programming that would have seating for 60-75 people, but a capacity of 100 people. We envision a layout similar to the Red Pit, having removable seats.
• A lab with 6-8 desktops and a printer this would be a designated computer area (this could exist in the resource room).
• A resource room to house historical documents of the multicultural organizations, as well as books, periodicals, and articles pertaining to issues of diversity both on campus and off.
• The Womyn’s Center would have a designated room in order to replace their space in North Court.
• Classroom/ conference rooms to host luncheons/dinners for speakers, also serve as additional meeting or academic space for students.
Note: All rooms should be smart classrooms.
These needs can currently be met by existing spaces on campus including but not limited to the Azel Backus House, Emerson Literary Society, and North and South Court.
Arguments for a Cultural Education Center
• There is a problem on campus; students from underrepresented, ‘marginalized’ groups that have been historically oppressed feel unwelcome at Hamilton.
• Students need a space in which to discuss issues of diversity and the tools to do so; we need to learn how to relate to others from cultural backgrounds different from our own. We need to create not only a ‘comfortable’ space but an encouraging environment for discussions and education about diversity.
• The CEC would have transformative educational power in terms of making students aware and sensitive to these issues, and in helping all students (regardless of whether they are aware) continue their education in these important areas.
• Hamilton College’s public statements articulate a commitment to diversity.
This commitment lacks follow through, however. For years different task forces have suggested that we need improved space for students from underrepresented groups (cultural education space) and a position to make our efforts at diversity coherent (chief diversity officer) (Kirkland Project 2000, Diversity Task Force 2004, SJI 2007-8). The College has never funded either of those initiatives. As a result, we still lack a central resource for cultural education.
• Students from all ethnic backgrounds feel uncomfortable and lack the tools to talk about issues of race and diversity. Due to this lack of dialogue, most students from historically underrepresented backgrounds feel either ignored or tokenized.
• This Cultural Education Center space will be fundamentally different from all other spaces on campus. This space will not merely celebrate underrepresented identity groups on campus, but it will also provide a forum for encouraging the campus community to engage with the issues. We envision an intellectual as well as a social space. In addition to providing a conference room and a small reference library for students, the Cultural Education Center will be a resource center for both students and professors in the pedagogy and critical theory of difference. Programming led by a director, educational initiatives, discussions open to the entire Hamilton community, and a dedication to providing a space for difficult but important dialogue about issues of privilege and oppression will contribute to achieving this educational goal.
• The education and discussions taking place in and because of a CEC would prepare students to become citizens of the global world. As a liberal arts college, Hamilton is ideally placed to produce graduates able to communicate with and work with people who differ in background, ethnicity, perhaps in fundamental values. The proposed CEC can help Hamilton to achieve these goals.
• We would all benefit from having a Center that could sponsor education, training, and conversations around race, class, gender, sexuality, ability. By learning how to talk to one another, students would learn to become better informed citizens of the world.
• A CEC will attract students not only from non traditional groups, but also those who are interested in a more pluralistic learning atmosphere.
• The CEC would benefit students from the dominant groups: these students increasingly come to college seeking a diverse institution and are disappointed if they don’t find it. On tours, a lot of prospective students about ask diversity. Most tour guides give answers that even to them seem hollow. This building would be something concrete that can prove the college's stated goals of diversity.
• Students who study abroad, those who study in departments with strong cultural components (World Politics, Comparative Literature, Anthropology, Sociology, Economics, History, Languages, etc), and those who do not receive this education in the classroom need a physical and intellectual space that can serve as a co-curricular resource so this cultural learning does not need to stop when students return from abroad or when their class periods end. This physical exhibit space, tangible library and central location would be an excellent educational resource to all students and a draw for prospective students.
• Many schools in the same category as Hamilton in terms of type of college and academic prestige have already built multicultural student centers, including Colgate, Williams and Vassar.
• If the College shows its commitment to its stated goals of diversity with a CEC, current students form underrepresented groups would feel more welcome at the school and more likely to feel attached to the institution as graduates and give back to Hamilton. At the present most alums from these groups feel alienated and do not come back except when invited by multicultural student groups, much less give money to the college.
• A CEC will help with retention of students from underrepresented groups.
• It would be a recruiting device for attracting students from underrepresented groups, students that will soon be a majority of the college-age population.
• The CEC is a proactive step to prevent incidents of harassment or greater tragedy on campus rather than waiting for another incident to occur before acting.
Responding to Arguments Against the Cultural Education Center
• Why should these groups get their own space? Isn’t that a lot of money for just a few people? Multicultural groups already have unique sources of funding, their own space in the ALCC, and plenty of events, why should they get more?
While the CEC would house only a few organizations, its educational and programming resources would be available to the entire student body.
Furthermore, the Womyn’s Center is being torn down, Rainbow Alliance only has a closet, and the ALCC is not large enough for big group meetings and has no programming component.
There is no space currently at Hamilton with the same mission statement as the CEC. It’s not getting more, it’s getting what has never been offered in the first place.
• Wouldn’t a Cultural Education Center just promote self-segregation?
The CEC isn’t meant to be used by just a small group of students but rather the entire campus; anyone can make use of it resources. Everyone will be welcomed and invited. Self-segregation would happen if two conditions were met: 1) the CEC were not open to everyone and 2) students who don’t identify as part of a ‘marginalized group’ made a choice not to come. Since the first condition is met by the inclusiveness of the CEC, any ‘segregation’ would be due to students making a choice not to come and therefore not a process of self-segregation.
It would not be a place where marginalized students go to hide themselves, but rather it would be a place for forming strategic coalitions across class, race, sexuality, gender and national boundaries.
• How would a building do anything to combat oppression?
Building a Cultural Education Center would be a signal from the administration that they really care about these issues, and not just in order to attract a statistically more diverse student body. The Cultural Education Center would bring groups together and allow them to work with a program director; space to collaborate and programming to help us in our mission make the CEC more than a just a building.
Furthermore, space is power. This is illustrated by the relation between a decision to end private housing at Hamilton and the experiences of women here. A recent study by Professor Chambliss shows that the most satisfied group at Hamilton is white women with good grades. The experiences of women have been much more positive since Hamilton got rid of privately-owned Greek housing in 1995. This change in buildings made a huge difference in the experiences of a large group of Hamilton students.
• A building would cost a lot of money, especially considering the financial crisis.
We are not asking for a new building, we are asking for small renovations to an existing structure. Furthermore, Hamilton is a very rich school. Recently lobster was served for lunch in the Little Pub and a helicopter was used to dry off the football field.
People feel comfortable asking for expensive renovations to athletic fields when these too are used primarily by only a small number of students. Perhaps field conditions affect whether or not students want to come to Hamilton, but a CEC would also be a tool for recruiting students to come here and would pay off in the long run.
• How is it different from the multi-million dollar student center?
The Cultural Education Center’s mission includes more than just providing a space to study and relax; it also includes programming, education, and a forum for discussion of challenging ideas.
Hamilton has already tried and failed twice to create a student center (Bristol and Beinecke); the Cultural Education Center is a fresh idea with a plan of action for how it will improve the campus climate.
• Isn’t everyone oppressed in some way? Isn’t it ignorant to say that only some of us feel ‘uncomfortable’ at Hamilton? Diversity isn’t just about race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or class status. Shouldn’t we be more concerned about diversity of individual hopes, dreams, thoughts, choices and morals?
It would be nice to able to live in world where we see people as "people" in terms of their individual hopes, dreams, etc., but given the very auspicious power differences that exist in our society that privileges certain groups over others, to NOT acknowledge "race" or "sexuality" is to deny that racism or heterosexism exists. It's like the let's be color blind argument... we can only claim to be color blind when we are all on an equal playing field. There are historical hierarchies in play that make the feel of ‘discomfort’ one that must be dealt with at an institutional rather than interpersonal level.
Hamilton College Diversity Initiatives Timeline December 10 2008
Hamilton College Diversity Initiative Timeline
Administration
April 2001- Report of the Diversity Task Force
June 2002- Hamilton College Strategic Plan “embraced the importance of fostering a diverse campus community as essential both to our strategic objectives and to our providing an excellent education for all of our students.”
November 2004- Diversity Strategic Plan
Fall 2006- Associate Dean of Students for Diversity and Accessibility position begins Allen Harrison, Jr. currently holds the position.
Fall 2007- Associate Dean of Diversity Steven Yao becomes the campus ombudsperson
Fall 2007- Student Assembly revives Diversity and Accessibility Committee
April 2008- Hamilton creates Coordinating Council on Diversity
Summer 2008- Hamilton College renovates the Afro-Latin Cultural Center
Fall 2008- Position added to the Africana Studies Department
November 3, 2008- Student Assembly approves resolution for a Cultural Education Center
November 4, 2008- Faculty approve resolution for a Cultural Education Center
Social Justice Initiative
Spring 2006- Social Justice Initiative founded
September 2007- Met with Nancy Thompson asked for renovations of the Afro-Latin Cultural Center and submitted first proposal for the Cultural Education Center.
October 2007- Hosted a coffee hour with almost 100 community members demanding change rather than support in response to a hate crime on campus.
October 2007- Created an incident report form that was distributed to the student body. Anonymous surveys gave community a glimpse of prejudice and intolerance on campus.
November 2007- After being refused permission to speak, demonstrated silently at the November faculty meeting.
January 2008- Submitted a revised proposal for a Cultural Education Center.
February 2008- Submitted a revised proposal for a Cultural Education Center which included renovations of the ALCC.
March 2008- Presented a revised proposal for a Cultural Education Center to a Committee of the Board of Trustees.
April 2008- Presented a proposal asking the faculty to address ‘diversity’ in the curriculum.
October 2008- Demonstrated at the Board of Trustees Meeting, and presented proposal and petition with over 300 signatures.
November 2008- Toby Jenkins, Multicultural Center Coordinator for the University of Pennsylvania, came to Hamilton College to meet Dean Urgo, Chair of Executive Strategic Plan Committee. A plan was presented to demonstrate how Hamilton could undertake establish a cultural education center.
December 2008- SJI send letter to executive committee regarding the use of the term diversity in the December draft, as well as the task force being an ineffective solution. As a result of this letter a second meeting was scheduled for community feedback on strategic plan.
Administration
April 2001- Report of the Diversity Task Force
June 2002- Hamilton College Strategic Plan “embraced the importance of fostering a diverse campus community as essential both to our strategic objectives and to our providing an excellent education for all of our students.”
November 2004- Diversity Strategic Plan
Fall 2006- Associate Dean of Students for Diversity and Accessibility position begins Allen Harrison, Jr. currently holds the position.
Fall 2007- Associate Dean of Diversity Steven Yao becomes the campus ombudsperson
Fall 2007- Student Assembly revives Diversity and Accessibility Committee
April 2008- Hamilton creates Coordinating Council on Diversity
Summer 2008- Hamilton College renovates the Afro-Latin Cultural Center
Fall 2008- Position added to the Africana Studies Department
November 3, 2008- Student Assembly approves resolution for a Cultural Education Center
November 4, 2008- Faculty approve resolution for a Cultural Education Center
Social Justice Initiative
Spring 2006- Social Justice Initiative founded
September 2007- Met with Nancy Thompson asked for renovations of the Afro-Latin Cultural Center and submitted first proposal for the Cultural Education Center.
October 2007- Hosted a coffee hour with almost 100 community members demanding change rather than support in response to a hate crime on campus.
October 2007- Created an incident report form that was distributed to the student body. Anonymous surveys gave community a glimpse of prejudice and intolerance on campus.
November 2007- After being refused permission to speak, demonstrated silently at the November faculty meeting.
January 2008- Submitted a revised proposal for a Cultural Education Center.
February 2008- Submitted a revised proposal for a Cultural Education Center which included renovations of the ALCC.
March 2008- Presented a revised proposal for a Cultural Education Center to a Committee of the Board of Trustees.
April 2008- Presented a proposal asking the faculty to address ‘diversity’ in the curriculum.
October 2008- Demonstrated at the Board of Trustees Meeting, and presented proposal and petition with over 300 signatures.
November 2008- Toby Jenkins, Multicultural Center Coordinator for the University of Pennsylvania, came to Hamilton College to meet Dean Urgo, Chair of Executive Strategic Plan Committee. A plan was presented to demonstrate how Hamilton could undertake establish a cultural education center.
December 2008- SJI send letter to executive committee regarding the use of the term diversity in the December draft, as well as the task force being an ineffective solution. As a result of this letter a second meeting was scheduled for community feedback on strategic plan.
Nov4thFacMeetingCEC 2008
Social Justice Initiative Proposal Nov 2nd 2008
For the past 7 years the College administration has received authorized reports recommending improved space for students from marginalized groups, specifically students of color (Diversity Task Force report, Diversity Strategic Plan, letter from Joan Stewart). The Social Justice Initiative is a coalition of students who came together over a year and a half ago because of perceived problems in the education at Hamilton College. We work to create a positive change in the educational and social experiences and treatment of underrepresented groups at Hamilton. At the same time, we also seek to promote interaction across groups and increase social awareness among all students at Hamilton College.
We work from the assumption that there are power structures within the United States and the world that benefit certain identities over others. We believe that these systemic inequalities are relics based on historic exclusion and oppression that unfortunately still exist today. Although Hamilton’s student body is increasingly “diverse,” the physical campus and curriculum fall short of accurately reflecting the changing demographics of Hamilton, and indeed of the nation. While we represent a relatively new student group, many others such groups have formed with the same concerns as ours; nothing has yet been done to address these concerns. There is a serious need.
Students of color report less satisfaction with their overall Hamilton experience in their exit interviews and are less engaged with the College as alumni/ae (see Institutional Research document). Students who are not the “typical” Hamilton student routinely encounter slurs, ignorance, or simply forms of elitism in their daily lives.
To address students needs, we have proposed a Cultural Education Center, a physical and intellectual space on campus that will advance intercultural communication by putting the experiences of people from marginalized groups at the center. As cultural theorists like Dr. David Stovall have argued, historically white institutions do a good job of creating a comfortable and ‘safe’ campus for the majority of the students; the whole campus effectively becomes ‘white’ space. The consequence is, however, that this norm of elite whiteness once again marginalizes students from underrepresented groups. Although all students are ostensibly welcome all over campus, students of color and other underrepresented groups do not feel equally welcome. The Center will not be an exclusive space but rather an inclusive one that starts from those histories. The Center will be a dynamic place with speakers, arts events, and workshops that will be open to all. We hope to ensure that they are well attended by many from different areas of the campus. Attention to social dynamics will be key; we hope to stimulate conversations by sponsoring informal gatherings after events. The presence of magazines and coffee should help attract students and others to the Center even if there is not an event. It will also serve to help Hamilton recruit students in the future, when the demographics require that we be attractive to the so-called “Majority minority.”
Because it will be open to all, with a director who is trained in these issues, the center will actively recruit attendance at its events. Thus, it will have the potential to improve the education of all Hamilton students. Many students study other cultures on campus or study abroad. The Center will provide a place for them to continue their education when they leave the classroom or when they return to campus from their studies.
The Center will be a vibrant place where open and honest conversations around difficult issues are facilitated; workshops can help train leaders of such conversations. Events featuring music, art, and speakers from diverse cultures will spill over into gatherings, and magazines, books and films can increase students’ familiarity with the world beyond the hill. Most importantly, it will be a place of academic excellence because it will nourish a diversity of ideas.
Please contact us with any questions, comments, or concerns by emailing sji@hamilton.edu.
Needs:
• A meeting space for fifty people that has furniture that resembles Glenn House, Opus1, or Christian Johnson Browsing Room.
• A lecture space for programming that would have seating for 60-75 people, but a capacity of 100 people. We envision a layout similar to the Red Pit, having removable seats.
• A lab with 6-8 desktops and a printer this would be a designated computer area (this could exist in the resource room).
• A resource room to house historical documents of the multicultural organizations, as well as books, periodicals, and articles pertaining to issues of diversity both on campus and off.
• The Womyn’s Center would have a designated room in order to replace their space in North Court.
• Classroom/ conference rooms to host luncheons/dinners for speakers, also serve as additional meeting or academic space for students.
Note: All rooms should be smart classrooms.
All these needs can currently be met on a smaller scale by housing the cultural education space in Azel Backus.
Expansion in future:
Although the Azel Backus house would be a great interim space, it would need to be renovated or moved in the future to meet the necessary capacity.
Potential expansion into the Health Center, if it moves to Bristol, would work. Alternatively, Dean Thompson has suggested that the Career Center and/or Campus Safety will be available after those offices move to Bristol.
Those this might seem like the Azel Backus house would be going through a lot of changes, it can still be used for the current functions, like the Little Thinkers and for dinners with guest speakers/lecturers.
Arguments for a Cultural Education Center
• There is a problem on campus; students from underrepresented, ‘marginalized’ groups that have been historically oppressed feel unwelcome at Hamilton.
• Students need a space in which to discuss issues of diversity and the tools to do so; we need to learn how to relate to others from cultural backgrounds different from our own. We need to create not only a ‘comfortable’ space but an encouraging environment for discussions and education about diversity.
• The CEC would have transformative educational power in terms of making students aware and sensitive to these issues, and in helping all students (regardless of whether they are aware) continue their education in these important areas.
• Hamilton College’s public statements articulate a commitment to diversity.
This commitment lacks follow through, however. For years different task forces have suggested that we need improved space for students from underrepresented groups (cultural education space) and a position to make our efforts at diversity coherent (chief diversity officer) (Kirkland Project 2000, Diversity Task Force 2004, SJI 2007-8). The College has never funded either of those initiatives. As a result, we still lack a central resource for cultural education.
• Students from all ethnic backgrounds feel uncomfortable and lack the tools to talk about issues of race and diversity. Due to this lack of dialogue, most students from historically underrepresented backgrounds feel either ignored or tokenized.
• This Cultural Education Center space will be fundamentally different from all other spaces on campus. This space will not merely celebrate underrepresented identity groups on campus, but it will also provide a forum for encouraging the campus community to engage with the issues. We envision an intellectual as well as a social space. In addition to providing a conference room and a small reference library for students, the Cultural Education Center will be a resource center for both students and professors in the pedagogy and critical theory of difference. Programming led by a director, educational initiatives, discussions open to the entire Hamilton community, and a dedication to providing a space for difficult but important dialogue about issues of privilege and oppression will contribute to achieving this educational goal.
• The education and discussions taking place in and because of a CEC would prepare students to become citizens of the global world. As a liberal arts college, Hamilton is ideally placed to produce graduates able to communicate with and work with people who differ in background, ethnicity, perhaps in fundamental values. The proposed CEC can help Hamilton to achieve these goals.
• We would all benefit from having a Center that could sponsor education, training, and conversations around race, class, gender, sexuality, ability. By learning how to talk to one another, students would learn to become better informed citizens of the world.
• A CEC will attract students not only from non traditional groups, but also those who are interested in a more pluralistic learning atmosphere.
• The CEC would benefit students from the dominant groups: these students increasingly come to college seeking a diverse institution and are disappointed if they don’t find it. On tours, a lot of prospective students about ask diversity. Most tour guides give answers that even to them seem hollow. This building would be something concrete that can prove the college's stated goals of diversity.
• Students who study abroad, those who study in departments with strong cultural components (World Politics, Comparative Literature, Anthropology, Sociology, Economics, History, Languages, etc), and those who do not receive this education in the classroom need a physical and intellectual space that can serve as a co-curricular resource so this cultural learning does not need to stop when students return from abroad or when their class periods end. This physical exhibit space, tangible library and central location would be an excellent educational resource to all students and a draw for prospective students.
• Many schools in the same category as Hamilton in terms of type of college and academic prestige have already built multicultural student centers, including Colgate, Williams and Vassar.
• If the College shows its commitment to its stated goals of diversity with a CEC, current students form underrepresented groups would feel more welcome at the school and more likely to feel attached to the institution as graduates and give back to Hamilton. At the present most alums from these groups feel alienated and do not come back except when invited by multicultural student groups, much less give money to the college.
• A CEC will help with retention of students from underrepresented groups.
• It would be a recruiting device for attracting students from underrepresented groups, students that will soon be a majority of the college-age population.
• The CEC is a proactive step to prevent incidents of harassment or greater tragedy on campus rather than waiting for another incident to occur before acting.
Responding to Arguments Against the Cultural Education Center
• Why should these groups get their own space? Isn’t that a lot of money for just a few people? Multicultural groups already have unique sources of funding, their own space in the ALCC, and plenty of events, why should they get more?
While the CEC would house only a few organizations, its educational and programming resources would be available to the entire student body.
Furthermore, the Womyn’s Center is being torn down, Rainbow Alliance only has a closet, and the ALCC is not large enough for big group meetings and has no programming component.
There is no space currently at Hamilton with the same mission statement as the CEC. It’s not getting more, it’s getting what has never been offered in the first place.
• Wouldn’t a Cultural Education Center just promote self-segregation?
The CEC isn’t meant to be used by just a small group of students but rather the entire campus; anyone can make use of it resources. Everyone will be welcomed and invited. Self-segregation would happen if two conditions were met: 1) the CEC were not open to everyone and 2) students who don’t identify as part of a ‘marginalized group’ made a choice not to come. Since the first condition is met by the inclusiveness of the CEC, any ‘segregation’ would be due to students making a choice not to come and therefore not a process of self-segregation.
It would not be a place where marginalized students go to hide themselves, but rather it would be a place for forming strategic coalitions across class, race, sexuality, gender and national boundaries.
• How would a building do anything to combat oppression?
Building a Cultural Education Center would be a signal from the administration that they really care about these issues, and not just in order to attract a statistically more diverse student body. The Cultural Education Center would bring groups together and allow them to work with a program director; space to collaborate and programming to help us in our mission make the CEC more than a just a building.
Furthermore, space is power. This is illustrated by the relation between a decision to end private housing at Hamilton and the experiences of women here. A recent study by Professor Chambliss shows that the most satisfied group at Hamilton is white women with good grades. The experiences of women have been much more positive since Hamilton got rid of privately-owned Greek housing in 1995. This change in buildings made a huge difference in the experiences of a large group of Hamilton students.
• A building would cost a lot of money, especially considering the financial crisis.
We are not asking for a new building, we are asking for small renovations to an existing structure. Furthermore, Hamilton is a very rich school. Recently lobster was served for lunch in the Little Pub and a helicopter was used to dry off the football field.
People feel comfortable asking for expensive renovations to athletic fields when these too are used primarily by only a small number of students. Perhaps field conditions affect whether or not students want to come to Hamilton, but a CEC would also be a tool for recruiting students to come here and would pay off in the long run.
• How is it different from the multi-million dollar student center?
The Cultural Education Center’s mission includes more than just providing a space to study and relax; it also includes programming, education, and a forum for discussion of challenging ideas.
Hamilton has already tried and failed twice to create a student center (Bristol and Beinecke); the Cultural Education Center is a fresh idea with a plan of action for how it will improve the campus climate.
• Isn’t everyone oppressed in some way? Isn’t it ignorant to say that only some of us feel ‘uncomfortable’ at Hamilton? Diversity isn’t just about race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or class status. Shouldn’t we be more concerned about diversity of individual hopes, dreams, thoughts, choices and morals?
It would be nice to able to live in world where we see people as "people" in terms of their individual hopes, dreams, etc., but given the very auspicious power differences that exist in our society that privileges certain groups over others, to NOT acknowledge "race" or "sexuality" is to deny that racism or heterosexism exists. It's like the let's be color blind argument... we can only claim to be color blind when we are all on an equal playing field. There are historical hierarchies in play that make the feel of ‘discomfort’ one that must be dealt with at an institutional rather than interpersonal level.
For the past 7 years the College administration has received authorized reports recommending improved space for students from marginalized groups, specifically students of color (Diversity Task Force report, Diversity Strategic Plan, letter from Joan Stewart). The Social Justice Initiative is a coalition of students who came together over a year and a half ago because of perceived problems in the education at Hamilton College. We work to create a positive change in the educational and social experiences and treatment of underrepresented groups at Hamilton. At the same time, we also seek to promote interaction across groups and increase social awareness among all students at Hamilton College.
We work from the assumption that there are power structures within the United States and the world that benefit certain identities over others. We believe that these systemic inequalities are relics based on historic exclusion and oppression that unfortunately still exist today. Although Hamilton’s student body is increasingly “diverse,” the physical campus and curriculum fall short of accurately reflecting the changing demographics of Hamilton, and indeed of the nation. While we represent a relatively new student group, many others such groups have formed with the same concerns as ours; nothing has yet been done to address these concerns. There is a serious need.
Students of color report less satisfaction with their overall Hamilton experience in their exit interviews and are less engaged with the College as alumni/ae (see Institutional Research document). Students who are not the “typical” Hamilton student routinely encounter slurs, ignorance, or simply forms of elitism in their daily lives.
To address students needs, we have proposed a Cultural Education Center, a physical and intellectual space on campus that will advance intercultural communication by putting the experiences of people from marginalized groups at the center. As cultural theorists like Dr. David Stovall have argued, historically white institutions do a good job of creating a comfortable and ‘safe’ campus for the majority of the students; the whole campus effectively becomes ‘white’ space. The consequence is, however, that this norm of elite whiteness once again marginalizes students from underrepresented groups. Although all students are ostensibly welcome all over campus, students of color and other underrepresented groups do not feel equally welcome. The Center will not be an exclusive space but rather an inclusive one that starts from those histories. The Center will be a dynamic place with speakers, arts events, and workshops that will be open to all. We hope to ensure that they are well attended by many from different areas of the campus. Attention to social dynamics will be key; we hope to stimulate conversations by sponsoring informal gatherings after events. The presence of magazines and coffee should help attract students and others to the Center even if there is not an event. It will also serve to help Hamilton recruit students in the future, when the demographics require that we be attractive to the so-called “Majority minority.”
Because it will be open to all, with a director who is trained in these issues, the center will actively recruit attendance at its events. Thus, it will have the potential to improve the education of all Hamilton students. Many students study other cultures on campus or study abroad. The Center will provide a place for them to continue their education when they leave the classroom or when they return to campus from their studies.
The Center will be a vibrant place where open and honest conversations around difficult issues are facilitated; workshops can help train leaders of such conversations. Events featuring music, art, and speakers from diverse cultures will spill over into gatherings, and magazines, books and films can increase students’ familiarity with the world beyond the hill. Most importantly, it will be a place of academic excellence because it will nourish a diversity of ideas.
Please contact us with any questions, comments, or concerns by emailing sji@hamilton.edu.
Needs:
• A meeting space for fifty people that has furniture that resembles Glenn House, Opus1, or Christian Johnson Browsing Room.
• A lecture space for programming that would have seating for 60-75 people, but a capacity of 100 people. We envision a layout similar to the Red Pit, having removable seats.
• A lab with 6-8 desktops and a printer this would be a designated computer area (this could exist in the resource room).
• A resource room to house historical documents of the multicultural organizations, as well as books, periodicals, and articles pertaining to issues of diversity both on campus and off.
• The Womyn’s Center would have a designated room in order to replace their space in North Court.
• Classroom/ conference rooms to host luncheons/dinners for speakers, also serve as additional meeting or academic space for students.
Note: All rooms should be smart classrooms.
All these needs can currently be met on a smaller scale by housing the cultural education space in Azel Backus.
Expansion in future:
Although the Azel Backus house would be a great interim space, it would need to be renovated or moved in the future to meet the necessary capacity.
Potential expansion into the Health Center, if it moves to Bristol, would work. Alternatively, Dean Thompson has suggested that the Career Center and/or Campus Safety will be available after those offices move to Bristol.
Those this might seem like the Azel Backus house would be going through a lot of changes, it can still be used for the current functions, like the Little Thinkers and for dinners with guest speakers/lecturers.
Arguments for a Cultural Education Center
• There is a problem on campus; students from underrepresented, ‘marginalized’ groups that have been historically oppressed feel unwelcome at Hamilton.
• Students need a space in which to discuss issues of diversity and the tools to do so; we need to learn how to relate to others from cultural backgrounds different from our own. We need to create not only a ‘comfortable’ space but an encouraging environment for discussions and education about diversity.
• The CEC would have transformative educational power in terms of making students aware and sensitive to these issues, and in helping all students (regardless of whether they are aware) continue their education in these important areas.
• Hamilton College’s public statements articulate a commitment to diversity.
This commitment lacks follow through, however. For years different task forces have suggested that we need improved space for students from underrepresented groups (cultural education space) and a position to make our efforts at diversity coherent (chief diversity officer) (Kirkland Project 2000, Diversity Task Force 2004, SJI 2007-8). The College has never funded either of those initiatives. As a result, we still lack a central resource for cultural education.
• Students from all ethnic backgrounds feel uncomfortable and lack the tools to talk about issues of race and diversity. Due to this lack of dialogue, most students from historically underrepresented backgrounds feel either ignored or tokenized.
• This Cultural Education Center space will be fundamentally different from all other spaces on campus. This space will not merely celebrate underrepresented identity groups on campus, but it will also provide a forum for encouraging the campus community to engage with the issues. We envision an intellectual as well as a social space. In addition to providing a conference room and a small reference library for students, the Cultural Education Center will be a resource center for both students and professors in the pedagogy and critical theory of difference. Programming led by a director, educational initiatives, discussions open to the entire Hamilton community, and a dedication to providing a space for difficult but important dialogue about issues of privilege and oppression will contribute to achieving this educational goal.
• The education and discussions taking place in and because of a CEC would prepare students to become citizens of the global world. As a liberal arts college, Hamilton is ideally placed to produce graduates able to communicate with and work with people who differ in background, ethnicity, perhaps in fundamental values. The proposed CEC can help Hamilton to achieve these goals.
• We would all benefit from having a Center that could sponsor education, training, and conversations around race, class, gender, sexuality, ability. By learning how to talk to one another, students would learn to become better informed citizens of the world.
• A CEC will attract students not only from non traditional groups, but also those who are interested in a more pluralistic learning atmosphere.
• The CEC would benefit students from the dominant groups: these students increasingly come to college seeking a diverse institution and are disappointed if they don’t find it. On tours, a lot of prospective students about ask diversity. Most tour guides give answers that even to them seem hollow. This building would be something concrete that can prove the college's stated goals of diversity.
• Students who study abroad, those who study in departments with strong cultural components (World Politics, Comparative Literature, Anthropology, Sociology, Economics, History, Languages, etc), and those who do not receive this education in the classroom need a physical and intellectual space that can serve as a co-curricular resource so this cultural learning does not need to stop when students return from abroad or when their class periods end. This physical exhibit space, tangible library and central location would be an excellent educational resource to all students and a draw for prospective students.
• Many schools in the same category as Hamilton in terms of type of college and academic prestige have already built multicultural student centers, including Colgate, Williams and Vassar.
• If the College shows its commitment to its stated goals of diversity with a CEC, current students form underrepresented groups would feel more welcome at the school and more likely to feel attached to the institution as graduates and give back to Hamilton. At the present most alums from these groups feel alienated and do not come back except when invited by multicultural student groups, much less give money to the college.
• A CEC will help with retention of students from underrepresented groups.
• It would be a recruiting device for attracting students from underrepresented groups, students that will soon be a majority of the college-age population.
• The CEC is a proactive step to prevent incidents of harassment or greater tragedy on campus rather than waiting for another incident to occur before acting.
Responding to Arguments Against the Cultural Education Center
• Why should these groups get their own space? Isn’t that a lot of money for just a few people? Multicultural groups already have unique sources of funding, their own space in the ALCC, and plenty of events, why should they get more?
While the CEC would house only a few organizations, its educational and programming resources would be available to the entire student body.
Furthermore, the Womyn’s Center is being torn down, Rainbow Alliance only has a closet, and the ALCC is not large enough for big group meetings and has no programming component.
There is no space currently at Hamilton with the same mission statement as the CEC. It’s not getting more, it’s getting what has never been offered in the first place.
• Wouldn’t a Cultural Education Center just promote self-segregation?
The CEC isn’t meant to be used by just a small group of students but rather the entire campus; anyone can make use of it resources. Everyone will be welcomed and invited. Self-segregation would happen if two conditions were met: 1) the CEC were not open to everyone and 2) students who don’t identify as part of a ‘marginalized group’ made a choice not to come. Since the first condition is met by the inclusiveness of the CEC, any ‘segregation’ would be due to students making a choice not to come and therefore not a process of self-segregation.
It would not be a place where marginalized students go to hide themselves, but rather it would be a place for forming strategic coalitions across class, race, sexuality, gender and national boundaries.
• How would a building do anything to combat oppression?
Building a Cultural Education Center would be a signal from the administration that they really care about these issues, and not just in order to attract a statistically more diverse student body. The Cultural Education Center would bring groups together and allow them to work with a program director; space to collaborate and programming to help us in our mission make the CEC more than a just a building.
Furthermore, space is power. This is illustrated by the relation between a decision to end private housing at Hamilton and the experiences of women here. A recent study by Professor Chambliss shows that the most satisfied group at Hamilton is white women with good grades. The experiences of women have been much more positive since Hamilton got rid of privately-owned Greek housing in 1995. This change in buildings made a huge difference in the experiences of a large group of Hamilton students.
• A building would cost a lot of money, especially considering the financial crisis.
We are not asking for a new building, we are asking for small renovations to an existing structure. Furthermore, Hamilton is a very rich school. Recently lobster was served for lunch in the Little Pub and a helicopter was used to dry off the football field.
People feel comfortable asking for expensive renovations to athletic fields when these too are used primarily by only a small number of students. Perhaps field conditions affect whether or not students want to come to Hamilton, but a CEC would also be a tool for recruiting students to come here and would pay off in the long run.
• How is it different from the multi-million dollar student center?
The Cultural Education Center’s mission includes more than just providing a space to study and relax; it also includes programming, education, and a forum for discussion of challenging ideas.
Hamilton has already tried and failed twice to create a student center (Bristol and Beinecke); the Cultural Education Center is a fresh idea with a plan of action for how it will improve the campus climate.
• Isn’t everyone oppressed in some way? Isn’t it ignorant to say that only some of us feel ‘uncomfortable’ at Hamilton? Diversity isn’t just about race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, or class status. Shouldn’t we be more concerned about diversity of individual hopes, dreams, thoughts, choices and morals?
It would be nice to able to live in world where we see people as "people" in terms of their individual hopes, dreams, etc., but given the very auspicious power differences that exist in our society that privileges certain groups over others, to NOT acknowledge "race" or "sexuality" is to deny that racism or heterosexism exists. It's like the let's be color blind argument... we can only claim to be color blind when we are all on an equal playing field. There are historical hierarchies in play that make the feel of ‘discomfort’ one that must be dealt with at an institutional rather than interpersonal level.
CEC Proposal Oct 2 2008
Social Justice Initiative Proposal for a Cultural Education Center October 2008
During the fall semester of 2007, the Social Justice Initiative proposed a Cultural Education Center; throughout the year we hosted conversations, discussions, and debates on this idea. Many cultural organizations, the Diversity and Social Justice Project, and the Posse advisors have supported the initiative. We had many fruitful conversations and wrote many proposals. The administration has acknowledged the importance of cultural space on campus by renovating the Afro-Latin Cultural Center. At the end of the spring, it seemed that Dean Thompson had agreed with our proposal in principle and was even talking about where the Center could be.
We have seen the wisdom of her suggestions for possible locations, and instead of asking for a new and expensive building, we want to move forward in the ways that Dean Thompson suggested. We propose that, upon completion of the Student Union, the College move either campus safety or the Career Center to Bristol and dedicate one of those two buildings to be part of a Cultural Education Center Complex. The College should choose one of those two locations now and start a fund for renovations of and possible additions to that building so that construction could be completed immediately after the current residents move to Bristol. We understand that this will take a few years at least, but are willing to wait if there is commitment to a plan and the initial steps to raise money are taken. Hamilton College takes pride in the increasing diversity of our student body and notes the importance of diversity to education. We believe that Hamilton must match its words with its actions. This can be done immediately by committing to a Cultural Education Center.
Conversations about social justice can occur anywhere on campus. They occur in ELS when we host coffee hours there; they occur in the Pub when the Chaplain has his “Chat and Chew” discussions; they occur in professors’ offices and around dining hall tables. But that space ceases to exist when the students leave or when they change the subject and talk about other things. And that space is dependent on happenstance. While the Hamilton community has changed in the past 60 years, Hamilton as an institution has not done enough to accommodate the changing population and attitudes of its students. A Cultural Education Center must be constructed for Hamilton just to catch up to and compete with our peer institutions, like Colgate and Williams.
This Cultural Education Center space will be fundamentally different from all other spaces on campus. This space will not merely celebrate underrepresented identity groups on campus, but it will also provide a forum for encouraging the campus community to engage with the issues. We envision an intellectual as well as a social space. In addition to providing a conference room and a small reference library for students, the Cultural Education Center will be a resource center for both students and professors in the pedagogy and critical theory of difference. Programming led by a director, educational initiatives, discussions open to the entire Hamilton community, and a dedication to providing a space for difficult but important dialogue about issues of privilege and oppression will contribute to achieving this educational goal.
Over the last year, we, as students, were faced with many questions, critiques and doubts about the purpose and effectiveness of this space; we were asked about self-segregation, exclusivity, equal representation, and monetary issues, among other concerns. These issues were presented to us from other students, but primarily from the administration. We worked, read, and learned a great deal about the success of other spaces like the one we propose and have repeatedly addressed these concerns.
We ask you to take the lead on making the Cultural Education Center a reality, and commit to leading Hamilton towards being the kind of institution you want it to be in 2012, the bicentennial year.
The Social Justice Initiative
Stephanie Tafur and Corinne Bancroft
During the fall semester of 2007, the Social Justice Initiative proposed a Cultural Education Center; throughout the year we hosted conversations, discussions, and debates on this idea. Many cultural organizations, the Diversity and Social Justice Project, and the Posse advisors have supported the initiative. We had many fruitful conversations and wrote many proposals. The administration has acknowledged the importance of cultural space on campus by renovating the Afro-Latin Cultural Center. At the end of the spring, it seemed that Dean Thompson had agreed with our proposal in principle and was even talking about where the Center could be.
We have seen the wisdom of her suggestions for possible locations, and instead of asking for a new and expensive building, we want to move forward in the ways that Dean Thompson suggested. We propose that, upon completion of the Student Union, the College move either campus safety or the Career Center to Bristol and dedicate one of those two buildings to be part of a Cultural Education Center Complex. The College should choose one of those two locations now and start a fund for renovations of and possible additions to that building so that construction could be completed immediately after the current residents move to Bristol. We understand that this will take a few years at least, but are willing to wait if there is commitment to a plan and the initial steps to raise money are taken. Hamilton College takes pride in the increasing diversity of our student body and notes the importance of diversity to education. We believe that Hamilton must match its words with its actions. This can be done immediately by committing to a Cultural Education Center.
Conversations about social justice can occur anywhere on campus. They occur in ELS when we host coffee hours there; they occur in the Pub when the Chaplain has his “Chat and Chew” discussions; they occur in professors’ offices and around dining hall tables. But that space ceases to exist when the students leave or when they change the subject and talk about other things. And that space is dependent on happenstance. While the Hamilton community has changed in the past 60 years, Hamilton as an institution has not done enough to accommodate the changing population and attitudes of its students. A Cultural Education Center must be constructed for Hamilton just to catch up to and compete with our peer institutions, like Colgate and Williams.
This Cultural Education Center space will be fundamentally different from all other spaces on campus. This space will not merely celebrate underrepresented identity groups on campus, but it will also provide a forum for encouraging the campus community to engage with the issues. We envision an intellectual as well as a social space. In addition to providing a conference room and a small reference library for students, the Cultural Education Center will be a resource center for both students and professors in the pedagogy and critical theory of difference. Programming led by a director, educational initiatives, discussions open to the entire Hamilton community, and a dedication to providing a space for difficult but important dialogue about issues of privilege and oppression will contribute to achieving this educational goal.
Over the last year, we, as students, were faced with many questions, critiques and doubts about the purpose and effectiveness of this space; we were asked about self-segregation, exclusivity, equal representation, and monetary issues, among other concerns. These issues were presented to us from other students, but primarily from the administration. We worked, read, and learned a great deal about the success of other spaces like the one we propose and have repeatedly addressed these concerns.
We ask you to take the lead on making the Cultural Education Center a reality, and commit to leading Hamilton towards being the kind of institution you want it to be in 2012, the bicentennial year.
The Social Justice Initiative
Stephanie Tafur and Corinne Bancroft
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)