Letter: Willingness to learnand growI was disturbed on many levels to read Noah and Smita’s letterin the S&B. The symposium, “Transcending Conflict: Israel andPalestine,” was jointly sponsored by the PalestinianSolidarity Group, Chalutzim and Peace Studies. The authorsfail to mention this crucial fact.Leaders of the Palestinian Solidarity Group received andapproved Roumani’s resume before he was asked to speak atGrinnell. Moreover, Chalutzim helped fund and organize allaspects of the Symposium, including a lecture by Harb Harb, aPalestinian American medical student, and Mariam Bazeed, anEgyptian American from Seeds of Peace. PSG and Chalutzimequally sponsored all aspects of the Symposium, includingProfessor Roumani’s visit, and each group is equallyresponsible for his presence on campus.

The jointly organized symposium aimed to “transcend conflict,”to foster constructive dialogue by bringing varying viewpointsto campus. Each presenter spoke and represented themselves,not Chalutzim, PSG or Peace Studies. We presented differentperspectives because diversity is a core value of Grinnell. Wehoped that these distinct individuals would allow students tolearn and grow, to grapple with their own notions of truth andconflict resolution.

I spent months working on this symposium with my felloworganizers from PSG. I understood that we all approached thesecontroversial issues without cruel intentions and strove,however unrealistically, to bring diverse scholars andpresenters to campus. Last week’s letter offers neither me norChalutzim any such courtesy.

In the aftermath of this joint symposium, the first of itskind, I was excited to have found peers who shared my passion

for resolving the Israel and Palestine conflict and thrilledto have created a program that constructively interacted withpeople whom I disagreed with. Clearly, not everyone agreeswith these sentiments. I look forward to the day whenGrinnellians can move beyond finger pointing and hurtfulattacks, a day when we can recognize the value in all pointsof view and through mutual respect, explore solutions forpeace.

Staff ed: Review of thehiring and firing at GrinnellLast week, the S&B reported on the circumstances surroundingthe hiring of Dean of Students Travis Greene and the departureof Sheree Andrews, former Associate Dean and Director ofResidence Life. Our reporting was based on claims made in afaculty-written document, which constructed a narrativedetailing both cases—arguing Andrews was released in anunderhanded manner and that Greene’s hiring recalled a BossTweed spoils system. While search committee members—studentsand staff alike—rejected the allegations surrounding the Deanof Students search, the S&B’s review of Andrews’ personnelfile and other reporting revealed circumstances that seemsuspicious at the least.

While the Andrews case may be the most visible andcontentious, it is not the only instance of circumspect hiringand firing in Student Affairs. For these reasons, we believethe planned external review of administrative hiring andfiring practices is insufficient. Instead of just a campus-wide review which can dilute the findings of each individualoffice, we demand one specifically focused on Student Affairs,

the office that has raised the most questions in this area.And, just as importantly, the review should be conducted, ifat all possible, before the end of the year so that itsprogress and results can be monitored by all campus members,students, faculty and staff alike.

Before proceeding, we want to be clear that this is not acommentary on whether any individual should or should not havebeen hired, fired or retained. Personnel decisions are highlynuanced and contextual; we do not pretend that we can makethose decisions from an outsiders’ perspective. We are insteadconcerned with the process by which those decisions are made,which often seem questionable at best. Ultimately, appropriatepolicies are not concerned with the final decision, but ratherthe way in which that decision was reached.

In Andrews’ case, three points lead us to ask for externalinvestigation. First, none of the reasons stated in either thecorrective action form issued by Greene or in the terminationletter by Vice President for Student Affairs Houston Doughartyseem to warrant dismissal. Missing meetings and not respondingto e-mails, while problematic, can be commonplace in a hecticoffice and, in the light of a serious personal crisis, seemespecially trivial. Second, Andrews was served her terminationjust one business day after the corrective action form, whichis insufficient time for an employee to improve theirperformance. Finally, there is a clear and puzzlingdiscrepancy in the performance reviews issued by Dougharty andthose issued by Tom Crady, Andrews’ former boss.

Student Affairs administrators have offered a constant refrainabout the need to “professionalize” the division and cast aswide a net as possible in hiring. Despite this rhetoricalcommitment to more stringent policies, the hiring process forthe Assistant Director of Residence Life position occupied byKim Hinds-Brush did not seem to adhere to these standards.Instead of conducting a rigorous national search, as was thecase for every other Student Affairs opening this year,

including RLCs, division higher-ups seemed to merely haveplaced Hinds-Brush in the newly created position without anyeffort at looking elsewhere. Students on this campus greatlyadmire Hinds-Brush and wished her to stay and she has excelledthanks to her great familiarity with the College, its cultureand institutions. But, as in other instances, the process flewin the face of the division’s stated practices.

A final discrepancy is evident in the qualifications forcertain jobs filled in the past year. While the job postingfor the Associate Dean position required five years post-master’s experience, the Dean of Students position requiredonly four years.We at the S&B do not feign to know the circumstances of thesehiring and firing decisions. However, the questionable natureof these decisions casts suspicion across the entire division.A rigorous external review of these policies can only helprestore confidence and mend damaged relationships. If a reviewwere to expose blatantly mendacious activities, then thoseresponsible can be held accountable and justice served. Ifnot, the review can serve to exonerate those accused andrestore a sense of legitimacy and trust to both StudentAffairs and the campus at large.

Column: Cuba, our long-lostmiddle school acquaintanceRemember that kid from middle school, the one who annoyed thecrap out of you all the time? I don’t mean to sound like anass, but I knew one of those kids back in middle school. Hewould always come up to my locker after fifth period, wantingto borrow some gum, or tell me about his new calculator (yeah,

right) and all the “dope!” things he could do with it. I mean,I wasn’t exactly the coolest kid in the world back then, but Iknew enough to know that being seen with this kid—let’s callhim Josh—and his calculator would not bode well for my chancesof hanging out with any of the in-crowd.

I never did see Josh much after avoiding him like the plaguein middle school. We went to the same high school, which,small as it was, was just large enough that we could exist indifferent social circles and never see each other in fouryears. I was fine with not seeing him. Hedidn’t really change much at all in high school, except tograduate from a calculator to a Palm Pilot and a PowerBooklaptop.

But this past winter break, I ran into Josh in a reallysurprising way. I got lost trying to find a friend’s house,and when I stopped to ask for directions at a Bertucci’s, Ifound Josh sitting in a booth across from a gorgeous woman. Iwas a little shocked, but he recognized me, and even ended updriving me over to my friend’s house (whom he also knew,coincidentally). Made me feel bad that I had ignored him allthose years, and not given him the time of day when I shouldhave.

Surprisingly enough, America has a Josh. He’s called Cuba, andhe’s a lovely little island nation off the coast of Florida.America and Cuba, like Josh and I, haven’t talked for a longtime—Josh’s acne was red and gross, Cuba’s government was redand rather aggressive. We just got lost, and now we’rerealizing that a little bit of a guide in the area wouldn’t besuch a bad thing.

I’m talking, of course, about President Obama’s recentovertures towards Cuba—loosening travel restrictions byallowing Cuban Americans to visit their relatives in Cuba, andallowing for some US investment in Cuban telecommunicationscompanies, if the Cubans allow it. It’s not a massive change—

Cuba is still communist, after all, and while good ‘ol Fidelmight no longer be in charge, his brother Raul isn’t exactly arole model—but it’s a step in the right direction. Theultimate goal, at the end of the day, in the eyes of many USand Cuban politicians, is to finally officially recognize Cubaand end the all sanctions and embargoes against the country.

It’s not going to happen soon. It’s like Josh and me. I don’tthink we’ll be hanging out all the time over the summer, butcatching up on elementary school craziness from time to timeis definitely on the agenda. Who knows, maybe Raul and Barackwill have a game of basketball and start acting like they werebest buds. Anything’s possible!

Guest Column: Knowledgeacquired from differentperspectivesLast week Noah Tetenbaum ’12 and Smita Elena Sharma ’08reminded readers of the S&B of the mission of GrinnellCollege, “to graduate men and women who can evaluate clearlyboth their own and others’ ideas.” The mission registers anambition to help students distinguish criticism from criticalthinking and, in the process, to acquire analytic skills thatinform the different ways in which they engage with the world,regardless of where they are positioned on the politicalspectrum. Toward this goal, as a professor, I emphasizekeeping in mind two questions—What is the premise? What doesthis premise presuppose?—when considering both the argumentsthat are appealing as well as those with which we disagree.

Grinnell students who truly aspire to the lofty goal of

discriminating “between truth and lie, who do not toleratebigotry and political soporifics, and who will use theircritical thinking skills to ensure that political discourseprogresses rationally and fairly” should question andinvestigate when “truth and lie” are rhetorically invoked.Knowledge and expertise are not acquired from listening to oneperspective, or reading a selective set of “facts.” This isnot to be misinterpreted as a critique of owning a politicalperspective but rather a disdain for the audacity of shoddyscholarship and partisan pedagogy which undermine efforts tonurture global citizens who will contribute to the noble goalof social, economic, and political justice. (Those who havetruth claims might re-read the lyrics of Bob Dylan’s “With Godon Our Side.”)So while the opinions of Tetenbaum and Sharma are opinions, itis the disingenuity, or perhaps simply a reflection of theirlack of established, simple information, which should bedisturbing. They accuse guest lecturer, Libyan-born-and-raisedProfessor Maurice Roumani, (one of something like 40 percentof Israeli Jews, often referred to as Arab Jews and, likeother Afro-Asian Jewish Israelis, a person of color in theWest) of being racist, ignorant, and an obstacle to peace.Professor Roumani, on the Israeli right of center, offered aperspective that has not been articulated in a public forum atGrinnell College in the 14 years that I have been here.

As someone who was on the left when I lived in Israel (as I amhere), I disagree with Professor Roumani’s perspective. At thesame time, a Grinnell student striving to fulfill the missionof the College should be aware of and, indeed, should find hisopinion of interest. Listening to and understanding themultiple sides of a complex debate denotes comprehension, notagreement. Instead, Tetenbaum and Sharma shrewdly insinuatethe spurious debate over whether Zionism is anti-Semitism andinsidiously cite Jewish philosopher, Hannah Arendt, as ashield en route to the crescendo of an incendiary statement:“we wonder why Chalutzim would invite [Maurice] Roumani, a

member of the overtly polemical Israel on Campus Coalition,and whether his views are synonymous with Chalutzim’s.” What asilly comment! Have speakers whose invitation they havesuccessfully supported been members of groups which are less“overtly polemical?”Reading selectively and intentionally to armor oneself may beuseful for the self-righteous. It is not useful for engagingwith the kind of political activism that supports a just andlasting peace.

I am not shocked by the absence of knowledge—there is nothingwrong with not knowing unless one demonstrates deliberate,intentional bias reflecting ignorance and is totally closed-minded to different interpretations of the same material.There is nothing wrong when students have little to noknowledge about the Middle East and North Africa, who havenever heard of and know nothing about the fact that more thanhalf the population of Israel are Christian and Muslim Arabs,Druze, Bedouin and Circassians, and, like Professor Roumani,Jews from “non-European” countries or are unable to identifydifferences between political culture of Ramallah and Gaza onthe one hand—including the pressure on women— and thepolitical movements of Hamas and PLO on the other. I am noteven surprised by students who do not know there was alandmark event remembered as Black September or realize thatthe Egyptian and Syrian governments have a different policytoward the Muslim Brotherhood in their respective countries.

I do not mean to belittle the sincere efforts of students toengage in support of one cause or another. Living withinformational overload and time constraints does not exemptanyone wishing to support a cause from taking full advantageof our very privileged access to resources that can educate usabout the broad and minute aspects of a particular region orconflict. If students and faculty have differentresponsibilities for intentionally seeking out differentpoints of view and perspectives, we also share a

responsibility for learning about the histories of the peoplewho—in the final analysis—will continue to live together inthe same region.

Column: Consent can be sexy,start practicing nowToday concludes Take Back the Night Week, an awareness-raisingweek-long event focusing on issues of sexual assault andsafety. This Thursday FAC sponsored a workshop on consent, ledby my lovely co-author this week, Emma Lawler ’09. We’re hereto refute the immortal words of Ursula, the infamous Sea Witchfrom everyone’s favorite childhood movie The Little Mermaid.Little did you know, you need to be working against most ofwhat you learned from Disney movies in your adult sexualrelations. Body language is important and sexy (sometimes; didyou go to Underwear Ball?), but it isn’t enough.

In the vague mysticism of sex knowledge, it sometimes can behard to know how and when you need to ask for and giveconsent. Consent can be sexy, and it isn’t signing a contract,despite what you may have taken away from R. Kelly’s trial. Wearen’t talking about license and registration here—we’retalking about talking. Consent is important every step of theway in your intimate endeavors and you need to find a spacebetween silence and finding out someone’s full sexual history,especially that time they got rug burns during the Super Bowlhalftime show. From your first kiss together to introducingyour kink to a new partner, vocalizing your desires andunderstanding their comfort level can be as fun as the downand dirty itself. Feeling out someone’s feelings about feelingyou feels good—trust us.

There is a grand misconception in many of our minds thattalking about sex and consent is a mood-killer. Let’s bereal—you’re not robbing anyone of the mystery of what’s goingon between your ears and your legs. Consciously practicingconsent can be a hard thing to start doing, especially if youaren’t used to the idea or don’t even know the words. But it’scalled practicing consent for a reason—the more you do it, thebetter you get. You have to go big or go home, no punintended.

There are little ways to practice giving and asking forconsent that don’t involve sex, of course. The best way torespect each others’ personal boundaries is to beginpracticing consent that shows your attention to andacknowledgement of other bodies. Instead of playing withsomeone’s hair, ask if you may. Don’t grab someone’s hand andassume they’ll be okay with it. Instead, tell them you’d liketo hold their hand if they want to. Practice consent with yourfriends and strangers alike.

We’ve already said it, but giving and receiving consent isdefinitely sexy. In the zine “Learning Good Consent,” (Googleit; it’s a really awesome compilation of writings on personaljourneys and tips and suggestions and stories, all aboutconsent) an unnamed author writes, “what’s so hot, soempowering, so fucking amazing about consent is that the yes’sreally become yes’s. The first time you hear no, it validatesall the yes’s.” Really, that’s just about the best way to sayit.

So, learn to ask. Turn it into a game—with rules maybe?—we allknow that can be fun. But you have to ask every time. Justbecause you’ve touched her chest like 80 million times beforedoes not make them yours. “Can I take your shirt off?” mightseem a little redundant if your boy is squirming a little withexcitement but you don’t know until you ask! Without it, youcannot understand what they want or what they’re thinking.

Consent is fun, and consent is sexy. Consent is about learninghow to please your lover the best you can through open andhonest communication. So, in addition to knowing, without anydoubt, that your partner wants exactly what you’re about togive them, there’s a pretty good opportunity here of learningexactly how they want it. Teach your partner how to please youjust how you like it—it’s not just about if you can take thepanties off, it’s when.

Faculty concerns over StudentAffairs investigatedAt an ad hoc faculty meeting held Feb 4, a group of professorsdistributed a document claiming to provide evidence of foulplay in hiring and firing practices within the Office ofStudent Affairs. The document (which is available here) gave adetailed outline which argued that the circumstances underwhich former Associate Dean and Director of Residence LifeSheree Andrews was placed on leave were improper. The documentalso questioned, among other things, the College’s hiring ofDean of Students Travis Greene and the response to facultycomplaints by President Russell K. Osgood.

An S&B review of documents from Andrews’ personnel file, whichwas obtained from multiple sources, confirmed much of theinformation relating to Andrews’ departure from StudentAffairs, while individuals involved in Greene’s hiringdisputed some of the document’s suggestions of nepotism.

The faculty associated with the document’s production anddistribution—many of whom signed a damning letter to theeditor in the Dec 12, 2008 edition of the S&B criticizing the

manner in which Student Affairs and the president handledAndrews’ departure—continued to publicize and promote theirgrievances. Partially as a result, the College is planning toconduct an external review of all administrative hiring andfiring practices. However, faculty have still expressedconcern over how the review will be conducted and also overthe administrative response to charges of faculty harassmentof students.

Andrews’ departure from Student Affairs:

According to documents from her personnel file, Andrews wasofficially placed on leave Sept 8, when she received atermination letter from Vice President of Student AffairsHouston Dougharty that cited insubordination and generalunprofessionalism as reasons for her leave. “The interactionlast week with your supervisor is independently a seriousmatter and is what precipitated your current leave … A staffmember cannot berate a supervisor when he or she providesconstructive feedback … It is unprofessional, insubordinate,and shows an inability to hear criticism and negativeevaluation,” Dougharty wrote in the letter.

Dougharty was apparently referring to a confrontation betweenAndrews and Greene in which Andrews called her supervisorinexperienced. Dougharty could not be reached for commentbefore publication.

The documents also show that on Sept 4, Andrews received acorrective action form from Greene listing 12 grievances aboutAndrews’ performance under the headings of “professionalism,”“judgment/role modeling,” “communication” and “organization.”Many of the specific critiques included complaints of“awkwardly refer[ring] to some inside jokes with a studentstaff member” during a New Student Orientation event and“several conversations with you when you would ask ‘do youlike/trust me?’” One of the seemingly more substantialcomplaints was that “student staff … arrived to campus with no

understanding of what was going on. Student staff trainingschedules were not emailed to them in advance [by Andrews]….”Greene also reprimanded Andrews for missing a Dean’s Groupmeeting, and generally sketches a pattern of disorganizationand unprofessionalism by Andrews.

“Given the severity and totality of these incidents, I believecorrective action is warranted,” Greene wrote.

The clear dissatisfaction with Andrews’ performance expressedin both the corrective action form and the termination lettercontrasts strongly with a June 2007 performance review byformer Vice President of Student Affairs Tom Crady. There,Crady specifically praised Andrews for her positive work withjudicial cases and conflict resolution, both areas that Greeneand Dougharty criticized. The next month, Crady would promoteAndrews to the position of associate dean.

On 11 of the form’s 12 specific job performance categories,Crady indicated that Andrews “exceeds expectations,” thehighest of three potential assessments. In the area of“customer satisfaction,” Andrews was evaluated as “meetingexpectations.”

In addition to the discrepancy between Andrews’ evaluationsunder Crady and those under Greene and Dougharty, faculty alsoexpressed concern about the apparently abrupt manner in whichAndrews’ employment was terminated. Andrews’ terminationletter is dated just four days after the corrective actionform authored by Greene and the intervening time between thetwo documents included a weekend, meaning that Andrews wasplaced on leave one business day after receiving thecorrective action form.

According to Osgood and Greene, corrective action forms aremeant to be both disciplinary and rehabilitative. As thedocument’s name implies, one of its primary functions is toinform employees of specific areas of subpar performance and

ways to remedy them before more extreme disciplinary actionsare taken.

While Greene said the time afforded an employee to improve hisor her performance can vary greatly depending upon thespecific situation, generally, “It could go anywhere from sixmonths to one month. Some places are pretty rigid as far ashow they prescribe it—it might be you have 30 days to changethis behavior at which point you’ll be reevaluated … at othertimes it may be that this serves as a notice [that] anythingmore egregious could certainly jeopardize your ability to beat the institution, but in principle let’s work through thistogether.”Faculty also pointed to extenuating circumstances in Andrews’personal life, which developed at the same time as herstrained relationship with her supervisors. At the time,Andrews was experiencing a “personal crisis and [needed] toattend to her family,” the faculty document read.

While Greene said that he could not comment on the specificsof Andrews’ departure, he maintained that “procedures werefollowed in a way that was meant to be supportive and at thesame time followed College policy and that’s probably the mostI can say.”The faculty document also claimed that Andrews’ departuremirrored parallel personnel changes at Lewis & Clark College,Dougharty’s former place of employment. The S&B has neitherconfirmed nor disconfirmed these allegations.

Allegations of Nepotism:

In addition to concerns about Andrews’ departure, faculty alsocast doubt upon the hiring process for the Dean of Studentsposition currently occupied by Greene. Greene and Doughartyshare a long professional history dating back ten years towhen Greene met then-Iowa State University Associate DeanDougharty as he interviewed for graduate school there. Thefollowing year Greene took an internship at University of

Puget Sound, where Dougharty was serving an Associate Dean,and in 2007 Greene completed a doctoral internship at Lewis &Clark under Dougharty.

The faculty document questioned whether or not Dougharty, whowas involved in part in Greene’s hiring, should haveparticipated in the process at all and whether the decision tohire Greene constituted nepotism. Greene was one of threefinalists for the Dean of Students position. One of thefinalists was disqualified for falsifying his educationalhistory. The other, an associate dean at another top liberalarts school, had more formal experience than Greene, as he hadalready served as dean according to his resume.

A search committee composed of students, faculty and staffselected a small group of candidates from the pool ofapplicants for phone interviews. From that group, three aregenerally chosen for an on-campus interview. Dougharty, whochaired the search committee, recused himself during the phoneinterviews of candidates he knew, which included Greene, butwas active during the final selection. Some faculty viewed hisrole in these stages as inappropriate.

Nevertheless, members of the committee interviewed by the S&Bsaid that the process was appropriate and transparent and thatthere was no indication of foul play.

“It was first of all made very clear. Any candidate whoseinformation we looked at, if there was anyone on the committeewho had a prior relationship with them, that was known,” saidKatie McMullen ’09, a student representative on the committee.

“Travis was not the only candidate who had a previousrelationship with members of the committee, and Houston wasnot the only member of the committee who had relationshipswith candidates. [It] was very open and honest within thecommittee—that was made very clear to us what thoserelationships were, and then in the initial stages of the

process, people did recuse themselves,” McMullen said.

Members also said that while the only other viable finalisthad more experience than Greene, they were skeptical of hisability to relate to Grinnell students and mesh with theCollege’s culture. “He just demonstrated a clear inability torelate to students on a mental level. He just was not a goodfit for Grinnell,” said SGA Vice President for Student AffairsJohn Burrows ’10, who served on the committee. “Where we seeadministrators [at Grinnell] as being accessible, we did notsee him as being accessible at all. [He was] very cold, veryimpersonable.”Director of Safety and Security Steven Briscoe, who was amember of the committee, said he felt the search wastransparent. “As a committee he threw it open to everybody …he didn’t try to move us one way or another,” Briscoe said.“The decision was made in that committee and it was very, veryopen.”

Greene also sought to allay similar concerns that some hadbeen raised about the hiring of Andrea Conner for theAssistant Dean position as Conner and Greene were in the sameMaster’s program at the University of Iowa from 1999 to 2001.

Greene refuted claims that his relationship to Conner playedany role in the decision to hire her or that the process wasin anyway inappropriate. “Because we had that connection Irecused myself from [Conner’s] phone interview and I was veryupfront with the search committee and you can verify that with… any of the … students who were on the search committee andthey can tell you about that upfront too,” Greene said. “Did Ipersonally target Andrea or anyone else who applied for aposition? No.”

Faculty Grievances and External Review:

One of the major demands put forth by the group of concernedfaculty has been a request for a full external review of the

hiring and firing practices of the Student Affairs department.At the meeting on Feb 4 during which the faculty document wasinitially distributed, 52 of 67 professors voted that thereshould be an external review of hiring and firing in thedepartment of Student Affairs.

“[That vote] says that faculty were sufficiently concernedabout what they were hearing, not only about Sheree Andrews’firing, but about how hiring goes on in Student Affairs, thatthey wanted a look at it,” said Victoria Brown, History, oneof the professors who helped prepare the document.

In further meetings between Osgood and faculty, a decision toconduct an external review was reached, although there hasbeen contention over the way it will be conducted.

Rather than focusing on Student Affairs, the review willexamine hiring and firing practices for all areas of staffingin the College. And while the faculty have pushed for thereview to be conducted prior to the end of the currentsemester, the review might not take place during that timeframe.

“We would like to conduct the review before the end of thesemester but it’s difficult with people’s schedules,” saidVice President for Institutional Planning and Associate DeanMarci Sortor, who will be assembling the external review. “Sowhen we talk to people who might be good outside reviewers,most of them say ‘wow, I can give you some time in June.’ Andwe want to do this while students are on campus so that ifstudents want to have a say they can have a say. So if we arenot able to identify outside reviewers and get them on campusin a timely way this spring, we’re likely to go ahead and waituntil early fall.”

Some of the faculty who pushed for review expressed concernthat the wide net cast by the investigation will not allow fora thorough examination of their complaints over Student

Affairs. “The problem with the all-unit outside review isyou’re going to bring in outside reviewers and they’re goingto have a lot of people to talk to, so concerns about StudentAffairs can get diluted,“ Brown said. “In the spirit ofcooperation, we have agreed to participate in this outsidereview insofar as we will participate in the planning of howthe review is going to be conducted.”

Aside from the external review, faculty grievances includeunresolved allegations of student harassment. In a Feb 14 all-campus e-mail, the Board of Trustees condemned alleged facultyharassment of students. Faculty members interviewed expressedconcern that they were castigated without investigation.

“So the charge is out there uninvestigated by our group of 18.[We] polled every member of our group to say ‘have you beenhauling kids into your office and brow-beating them’ and wecould come up with no evidence to support such charges,” Brownsaid. “The president has decline to investigate the chargesand therefore declined to make any clarifying statement.”

When asked about the investigation, Osgood responded that suchallegations were never substantiated. “I received someinformation and I talked to some people, and the rest isconfidential. But I did not see information that lead me tobelieve that [evidence of student harassment] was absolutelyclear,” Osgood said. “I talked to several people and it was myconclusion that there was insufficient evidence to goforward.”

Even with insufficient evidence, faculty expected Osgood tocomment on the indictment. “The president is not responsiblefor the Trustees’ letter and we do not hold him responsiblefor the Trustees’ letter,” Brown said. “But we were trying toget him to make his own independent remarks about this.”

Week of pride energizescampusIn addition to the traditional red, white, and blue flagflying outside on the west side of Forum Beach is a morecolorful, more cheerful, and gay flag. It’s here, it’s queer:it’s Pride Week.

Pride week officially began on Saturday, Apr. 11 with aBBQueer on Loose Beach, attended by over 50 students. “Ireally like the BBQueer because it’s in front of Loose sopeople maybe if they weren’t really sure if they were going togo they can see it and stop by on their way to somewhereelse,” Anna Friel ’10 said. “It’s an accessible place, it’sreally fun and it’s really good for the community.” Studentsspent the afternoon mingling and grilling food—both meat andvegetarian options.

On Monday night, spoken-word poet and activist Andrea Gibsonperformed at the Forum South Lounge. “Liz Ehlinger [’09]approached StoneCo with the idea of bringing [Gibson] andshe’s a really phenomenal spoken word poet,” said Pride Weekorganizer Leah Krandel ’09. “There were a lot of students thatalready knew her work and it was a really great show, a lot ofreally positive energy.”

Though Gibson was sick for the reading, she performed throughher illness and delivered over an hour of spoken-word defpoetry. “I was drawn towards it because I’ve seen some defpoets in the past and I think that’s a really neat way toconvey ideas and a good media form, and it definitely was abreak from what pride week usually is,” said Joey Wendel ’11.“Going to hear a personal narrative and then on top of that

being def poetry was a good experience”.

Another new addition to this year’s Pride Week was the QueerMusic and Open Mic Night at Bob’s Underground Café onWednesday. Krandel was inspired to include this event in PrideWeek’s’ festivities after a speaker at the Midwest LGBTCollege Conference gave a presentation concerning support forqueer artists in popular culture today. At the open mic night,students were encouraged to perform songs with queer themes,that were written by queer artists or just generally gavequeer individuals a chance to perform.

“I think it got people thinking more about who they listen tothat’s queer and why they don’t support more queer music,”Krandel said. “It was a nice time to come together as acommunity to come and hang out together.”

As the kickoff to a religions film series sponsored by theCenter for Religion, Spirituality and Social Justice andStonewall Resource Center (SRC), Thursday’s events included aviewing of the film “Call Me Malcom,” about a prospectiveseminary student undergoing a gender transition from female tomale, accompanied by a bake night sponsored in part by theGrinnell College Christian Fellowship (GCCF). Thiscollaboration between the GCCF and the SRC happened for thefirst time during last year’s pride week, and participants onboth sides hope to continue fostering positive dialogue. “Wefelt like Stone Co and GCCF were two groups that might havebeen perceived to have some kind of unresolved tension in thepast,” Sara Woolery ’11 said. “These two groups ought to bereaching out to each other and doing something fun and that’swhere the bake night came the movie came in—it created adialogue and discussion element.” Lilly intern Katie Snipeshelped to facilitate a discussion after the movie.

An all-campus e-mail sent by QPOC member Isaiah Iboko ’12notified the student body about the Day of Silence, which willbe occurring today until 6:30 p.m. The purpose of the Day of

Silence is to bring attention to those that have been silencedas a result of their sexual orientation.

At 10 p.m. this evening, the QPOC Drag Show will take place inthe Harris Center. All donations received during theperformances will go to the AIDS Project of Central Iowa.

The last, and perhaps most interesting, addition to Pride Weekis an all-campus flip-cup tournament sponsored by StoneCo andthe Grinnell College football team.

“Jon Richardson [’10] came up with [the idea],” Krandel said.“They thought it would be such a great collaboration as a wayto demonstrate how supportive our community is.”

Registration, which has occurred all this week, consists of ateam of three and a ten dollar entry fee. Each team of threewill be paired with two other teams of three in an effort toget often socially separated campus factions to intermingle ina queer-friendly environment.Pride week concludes with the Pride Parade this Sunday, April19, beginning at 11 a.m. in the East Campus parking lot. Manycampus groups organize cars, but any and all students at largeare encouraged to participate. “I’m going to be in the FAC[Feminist Action Coalition] car. Last year we like wrote ‘FAChas pride’ or something on the car, but we have a lot ofstreamers and make posters and painted our faces,” Friel said.“The Pride Parade was kind of emotional last year and I thinkit’s a really good way to go out with a bang.”

Faculty Document on Student

AffairsWe at the S&B maintain a steadfast commitment to the highestprinciples of journalism and strive constantly to provide thiscommunity with coverage that is fair, useful and accurate.

Upon further deliberation, and in light of newly acquiredinformation, we believe that the faculty document posted onthe S&B website last Friday does not meet our stringentcriteria for publication and we have since decided to removethe document from our website.

We have not yet and nor will we ever publish something that weknow to be false. And while, after rigorous attempts atverification, the S&B is not aware of any incorrectinformation in the packet, we also cannot definitively verifyall of its information and claims as definitively true.Additionally, we have been approached by some individuals whowere sourced in the packet who expressed concerns aboutconfidentiality and that the information they provided wasbeing misused.

This issue has generated an unusual amount of interest andexcitement on campus and we thought it important to explain toour readers why we made this decision.

We end by reiterating our commitment to quality and principledjournalism in an effort to promote within this community aninformative and responsible exchange of ideas. That is alwaysour goal and we will work tirelessly so that our readers neverhave to doubt that it is being met.

Computer thefts strain ITS,SecuritySince the first day of spring break, six computers and twoceiling projectors have been stolen from rooms in the RobertNoyce ’49 Science Center and the Alumni Recitation Hall.

The flurry of missing computers and electronic equipment areatypical of a usually calm theft climate on campus.“We’ve never had this happen before—it’s usually once everycouple of years that one will get taken,” said the Green TeamLeader of the Information Technology Service (ITS) KarenMcRitchie.

According to McRitchie, the times and dates of the theftscannot be known with certainty. ITS was not notifiedimmediately at the time of the disappearances, but insteadreceived individual reports as the computers were noticedmissing.

“We noticed the [disappearances] trickling in. It’s alwayshard to know when they were taken,” McRitchie said.

The uncommon surge of the thefts has also created someconcerns about replacing the stolen equipment.

“If this continues, we’re not going to be able to replace themthis fast,” McRitchie said, citing budget cuts concurrent witha campus-wide reduction of operating costs.

Although little is known about the thefts, the incidents haveraised general concerns about building and computer security.

“Not all of our buildings are really locked during the day,”McRitchie said.

Director of Security Stephen Briscoe expressed the possibilityof increasing security measures to reduce the likelihood of

theft. The possibilities focused largely around securingNoyce, a building that is unlocked for a large portion of theday and contains a high concentration of computers.

“Now should we lock [Noyce] down? … Should we run everybodyout of that building at 5 p.m.? These things are all on thetable,” Briscoe said.

Though ITS has increased efforts to secure computers withheavy-duty cables, there are still problems that remain.

“We’re starting to go around and cable a lot more,” McRitchiesaid. “The publics [computers] have always been cabled, butthese [stolen ones] come from not so public areas.”

McRitchie discussed how some of the thefts required the use oftools to remove the cables, which secure the computers.

“Two of the cables have actually been cut,” McRitchie said.

The recent thefts include three Mac Minis, two iMacs, one Maclaptop, and two ceiling projectors, according to McRitchie,adding up to a total estimated replacement cost upwards of$14,000.

These current incidents recall two computer thefts at thepublications office in December during finals week.

“All I really know about the computers disappearing is that Ithink it was on Wednesday night or afternoon they were lastseen in the office, and then I got an e-mail late … telling methat two of the computers were gone, wondering if we had takenthem for maintenance,” said SPARC Chair Christine McCormick’09.

Although there were concerns, McCormick cited a feeling ofsafety prior to the thefts.

“There are some security issues with this room, but I guess wejust assumed that computers are big enough they’d be okay,”

McCormick said.

According to McCormick, an increase in surveillance may helpto better monitor and secure the publications office.

“We talked with [Dean of Students] Travis Greene about gettinga p-card reader for the door,” McCormick said. “In the oldpubs building that’s on south campus there used to be a p-cardreader that was only open to media heads and editors so thatyou could patrol who went in and out of the building.”

With the plausibility of more thefts on campus, Briscoe alsosupports an implementation of security cameras.

“If I had a camera in some of the areas, I could just go backto some of the footage,” Briscoe said. “I wouldn’t have to besitting here viewing the camera I could just go back to thefootage of the time span on when the crime occurred, lookthrough the video and come up with what happened.”

Local foods entice GrinnellTwo new developments in Grinnell’s food culture aim to improvestudent relationships with both their food and theircommunity. The creation of both a community vegetable gardenand a student local foods internship represents theculmination of months of commitment and compromise by studentsand staff looking to reconnect with the systems behind thethings they eat.

The garden by Lake Nyanza in Miller Park, located about a milesouth of campus, will combine the efforts of volunteers fromboth the town and College to grow fresh produce. According toorganizer Caitlin Vaughan ’10, the program aims to “get more

fresh foods onto plates in Grinnell and provide the communitywith free access to food and gardens in people’s backyards.”

Eric Nost ’09 said that the project aims to “spark discussionon food policy and bring back gardening to everyday life.”

In addition to the Lake Nyanza garden, organizers hope to usethe project’s Sarah Boyer ’08 Community Service Fellowship, asummer grant given to a student each year, to provide pottedtomato plants for gardening enthusiasts living in apartments.The program is largel aimed at “people who would like tocreate gardens but may not be able to … our target audience isthe disadvantaged and physically handicapped,” Nost said.Regular cookouts are also planned throughout the summer tobring community members together and feature a variety oflocal foods.

The garden’s student developers relied on support from thecommunity, including the Grinnell Parks and RecreationDepartment which donated the land for the garden, andvolunteers from the Mayflower Retirement Home, who Vaughansaid have been eager to share their gardening expertise alongwith the workload. “They are so excited for this project andhave been great with helping us pick weeds,” she said.

Local foods intern Neal Wepking ’10 called the project “anattempt to change [food] culture. More people are looking backat gardening with the economy the way it is.”

The goal of a community vegetable plot began coming togetherlast summer while Nost and a group of three other studentsworked with the family-oriented nonprofit Mid-Iowa CommunityAction, Inc. using a Peace Grant to fund a number of localfoods projects, including paid gardening internships for highschool students and purchasing shares of local agriculturalproducts. Nost began developing the project at Lake Nyanzausing the previous summer’s volunteer connections and leftoverfunding. Nost said that this summer’s programs are “focused on

directly engaging people. This is more ambitious, but alsomore rewarding.”

After a year of planning, Dining Services appointed Wepking tothe new position of local foods intern. Wepking described hisduties as “facilitating communication between local farms andthe dining hall and helping organize the dining hall to buymore local food.” Wepking will serve for the remainder of theseason and begin training a new intern next winter.

“Neal is meeting with people, working on growingrelationships, asking them what they’re planting and whatthey’re willing to grow for us in the future,” said AssistantDirector of Dining Services Terry Waltersdorf. The jobrequires negotiating a practical business model with localfarmers, not all of whom “are willing to grow wholesale andwant two to three times what we’re paying, which is notpractical when you’re feeding 1,000 people,” he said.

Waltersdorf said that he believes the internship “is going toend up growing the purchase of local foods, which we werealready doing, and make the purchases more local” than the 75-mile radius that Dining Services uses to categorize foods aslocal.

Dining Services is currently arranging a meal next fall thatwill feature as many local foods as possible and bring farmersonto campus for the primary goal of “getting food andproducers and students together,” Waltersdorf said.

Wepking comes to the position with a lifetime of experience.“I grew up on a farm and worked on an inner-city garden lastsummer,” hesaid. Last year he participated in Think Global, Eat Local, anindependent study course instructed by Professor Jon Adelson’70 Anthropology, Director of the Center for Prairie Studies,which focused on social and environmental principles behindthe local food movement.

Through the course, Wepking developed contacts with localfarmers Andy Dunham of Grinnell Heritage Farms and Bud Doaneof North Skunk Sawmill and Market that he currently draws uponfor local food procurement. Wepking also aims to establish newsources of local foods, including humanely-treated meat fromfarmer Barney Bahrenfuse.

However, Waltersdorf admits the difficulty of expandingGrinnell’s local food consumption. “It’s not going to be anovernight thing—Neal is laying the groundwork for the future,”he said. “We can’t even get asparagus out of the ground thisyear.”

Letter: Faculty and studentsdecry OsgoodWe the undersigned write as Grinnellians dedicated to freeinquiry and the open exchange of ideas, as faculty members andstudents united in promoting Grinnell College’s core values ofexcellence in a liberal education, diversity, and socialresponsibility.

Last fall, a group of faculty members wrote first to the Boardof Trustees, and then to the Scarlet & Black to protest whatthey considered a grave injustice done to a member of ourcommunity. This protest was quickly diverted by allegationsthat the protesting faculty were acting inappropriately. Onefaculty member was issued a cease-and-desist order. PresidentOsgood appeared to confirm these allegations in an interviewin the Scarlet & Black, and the Board of Trustees announced tothe entire community that faculty members protesting injusticewere guilty of cultivating “a rift between students and

members of the administration.”

As the number of concerned faculty increased, President Osgoodagreed to rescind the cease-and-desist letter, therebyaffirming the principle of freedom of speech on campus. Thepresident also agreed to publicly address allegations offaculty misconduct and voice his support of the faculty. Inhis two drafts of this still-unpublished statement, however,the president could not bring himself to affirm that nofaculty misconduct had occurred. Why? Because, he explained,he had not investigated the charges and would not investigatethem. Concerned faculty and the president reached an impasse:the faculty sought his support and he could not give it.Subsequently, the chair of the faculty spoke on this issue inan official meeting of the faculty, stating that there was notstrong evidence to support these allegations. To this day,President Osgood has not issued the promised public letter ofsupport—though he has continued to contribute a column for theScarlet & Black (the “RKO Corner”).

We the undersigned are profoundly disappointed that PresidentOsgood has participated in a strategy that blames themessenger for delivering bad news. There are genuine problemson this campus, and they need to be discussed. Theadministration’s strategy of besmirching the reputation ofconcerned faculty members does not make those problems goaway. It simply threatens a traditionally strong relationshipbetween the faculty and students of this college, sowing fearand distrust when what we need most is encouragement to speakfreely with one another and to speak out against injustice.

The tenacity with which the administration continues to avoidtransparency and accountability in its practices onlyunderscores the need for candid discussion on campus. We callupon President Osgood and his administration to commit to thevery principles of free inquiry and the open exchange of ideasthat have been threatened by its actions this year.

James Anthofer ’11Kaitlin Alsofrom ’10Todd Armstrong, RussianGeorge Barlow, EnglishBecca Bernstein ’10Allison Brinkhorst ’11Victoria Brown, HistoryChris Bulbulia ’10Robert Cadmus, PhysicsDavid Campbell, BiologyDouglas Caulkins, AnthropologyUmeed Chowdhury ’12Scott Cook, Chinese & JapaneseTed Cooper ’09Alex Conlon ’09Chris Davies ’10.5Brian Davis ’09Vince Eckhart, BiologyCharles Frantz ’11Sam Gault ’09Misha Ghadiri ’12Ed Gilday, Religious StudiesLatona Giwa ’10Raquel Greene, RussianDodge Greenley ’11Katherine Gregersen ’09Jackie Groves ’09Bob Grey, Political ScienceDayna Hamann ’09Timothy Hederman ’10Kelly Herold, RussianJoe Hiller ’12Ben Howort ’09Evan Hunsley ’11Jess Issacharoff ’09Kathy Kamp, AnthropologyAdhiti Kannan ’10

Shuchi Kapila, EnglishPaul Kramer ’09Leah Krandel ’09Adam Lange ’11Emma Lawler ’09Molly McArdle ’09Kent McClelland, SociologyMary McDonald ’10Johanna Meehan, PhilosophyMark Montgomery, EconomicsCourtney Moore ’11Eric Nost ’09Dylan O’Donoghue ’11Tim O’Keefe ’09Jessie Orozco ’09Jonathon Patkowski ’09Brian Perbix ’09Irene Powell, EconomicsJeff Raderstrong ’09Julia Reese ’10Niki Reiner ’07Dan Reynolds, GermanMolly Rideout ’10Tyler Roberts, Religious StudiesJohn Rommereim, MusicJared Rubinstein ’10Kelly Ryan ’09Ralph Savarese, EngishZoë Schein ’12Alan Schrift, PhilosophyMargie Scribner ’10Parvoneh Shirgir ’09Erik Simpson, EnglishMargaret Smith ’09Emily Stiever ’09Rachel Smith ’11Betsy Strewler ’11

Jessica Southard ’10Mark Sullivan ’10John David Stone, Computer ScienceMaria Tapias, AnthropologyAnatoly Vishevsky, RussianLindsey Walter ’10.5John Whittaker, AnthropologyNeal Wepking ’10Jaysen Wright ’09Hannah Yourd ’09

Used book buyback policyraises questionsEvery semester, Grinnell College students swipe their p-cardsand open their wallets at the campus bookstore to spendhundreds of dollars on a semester’s worth of textbooks, bothused and new. In the coming weeks, students will be faced withthe option of exchanging their dusty piles of books for cold,hard cash.

Grinnell College usually has the Nebraska Book Company buybooks from students at the end of each semester, paying thestudent typically 25 percent of the original price. TheNebraska Book Company then sells these books back to thebookstore for 50 percent of the original price, and thebookstore then sells it used typically for 75 percent of theoriginal price.

This semester, Grinnell College spent $118,000 for the usedbooks that it sold to students, and made a profit of roughly$13,000 off of those used books, according to bookstore

manager Cassie Wherry.Occasionally, when the bookstore knows that they need acertain book for a future class, it has a representative buythose books back from students, according to assistantbookstore manager Harley McIlrath. “In that case, the studentis paid for his or her book the amount that we would have paidthe wholesaler for the book,” McIlrath wrote in an e-mail tothe S&B.

Students also find alternatives to buying new and used books,such as buying them online, or utilizing the Lending Libraryor Interlibrary Loan process.

Brita Higgins ’11 uses the Lending Library to lessen the fullcost of textbooks. “I really like the Lending Library becauseif it weren’t for them, it would probably [cost] $300 asemester. It really saves my butt,” Higgins said.

Cammy Roberts ’10, who buys her textbooks online, uses theNebraska Book Company at the end of the semester.

“I think why people go sell it to the third party is becausethey’ll buy books that certain people won’t need, becausethere are certain classes that don’t reuse books,” Robertssaid. “So if there’s a separate corporation that’s like ‘Yeah,I’ll take your books,’ it’s nice to get $5 back.”

However, not every school has an unaffiliated buyer come in topurchase books at the end of the semester. MacalesterCollege’s bookstore actually buys the books back directly fromstudents for 50 percent of the original price, whether used ornew.

“The methodology is that if [Macalester] needs it, we pay 50percent of the new or used price, and then theoretically weturn around and sell it for 75 percent of the new price,” saidMacalester bookstore manager Carey Starr.

Some students would agree that Grinnell’s bookstore should

follow a similar system to that of Macalester’s bookstore. “Iwant to support Grinnell and cut the third man out entirely.The more money I can funnel into this system, the more money Ican get out of it,” said Greg Rossi ’10, who also said that heusually cannot sell his books back at the end of the semesterbecause “they’re pretty obscure books.”

According to McIlrath, the bookstore cannot buy back usedbooks because there is no certainty that the books have thepotential for resale.

“The reason that we do not buy our own books back because wedon’t have any guarantee that we’ll ever use those booksagain,” McIlrath said. McIlrath also cited that constant neweditions to books make it difficult to keep books, even usedones, for a long period of time.

Whenever used books are sold, the author and publishingcompany make no money. Thus, the publisher is only free fromthe competition of the used book market during the firstsemester that an edition is out. After that, the used bookmarket begins to absorb profits, which attributes to the highprice of textbooks. If the publisher profits only during thefirst time the book is sold, they must price the book highersince the profits from subsequent sales will never come backto them.

Henry Roediger, a psychologist and textbook author, wrote anarticle in the Jan. 2005 issue of Academic Observer entitled“Why Are Textbooks So Expensive?” in which he wrote that usedbook sellers are, “true parasites, deriving profits with noinvestment (and no value added to the product) while damagingtheir hosts.”

Students are the ones to pay the brunt of the cost, as theyrun into high prices when buying, and low prices when selling.

“When used books still cost a lot, that’s frustrating,”Higgins said. “If we’re only to get 25 percent of the original

cost, it would be nice if they didn’t sell it for such a highprofit.”