The results of these parliamentary elections, predictable only to those familiar with Russia’s political arena, have demonstrated that the ruling political party of the current Prime Minister Putin is losing its grip on the public. United Russia has received 49.5 percent of the vote, which is widely interpreted as a defeat compared to the 64 percent majority of just a few years ago.

However, election observers and experts in Russia and abroad believe that even the 49.5 percent of the vote for United Russia is a result of fraud. Russia’s only independent election observer, Golos, recorded over 5,000 rampant violations.

According to Golos representatives, buses took people from one voting center to another to allow the same people to vote more than once. In one voting center in Moscow, observers found a pile of ballots already filled out to be thrown into the ballot box. In most of such cases, the police asked independent observers to leave the voting center.

Despite these massive violations, a State Duma committee turned down a draft resolution on allegations of voter fraud and a call on Central Electoral Commission head, Vladimir Churov, to resign. The Russian people, however, prepared their own response. Tens of thousands participated in peaceful demonstrations that took place all over the country. As many as 150,000 people gathered in the center of Moscow to express their dissatisfaction and anger with the election results and the fraud. Thousands of videos documenting
these peaceful protests appeared on YouTube. Noticeably, a large share of,the protesters was young.

What is especially interesting about the protests is the reaction of the government, which manifested itself in police behavior. Many videos on YouTube showed police officers grabbing random people from the crowd and taking them to the police department.

In the city of Khabarovsk, the police tried to arrest the reporter of the Federal TV channel, an act that is against Russian legislation on mass media that grants reporters the right to document any mass demonstration.

One major conclusion from the election’s outcome and its consequences is that the Russian people are losing their trust in the formerly popular United Russia. Another conclusion is that political freedom in Russia is more of a concept than a practice.

An obvious contradiction arises between the country’s Constitution and other legislation on one side, which proclaim freedom of speech
and the right of people to gather in peaceful demonstrations, and the current government practices on the other side, which attempt to silence any dissatisfaction in the public. In this political climate, the upcoming presidential elections are likely to repeat
the course of the parliamentary elections.

Related posts:

1. Ukraine remains divided as Tymoshenko loses presidential race
2. A beacon of hope in Africa
3. Staff Editorial

On Aug. 2, I was at a dinner table with an ex-employee of the speed-train system. We were trying to make him feel as comfortable as possible. Two supervisors from the program I attended, a friend and myself were located in a local restaurant with the ex-employee’s family.

The conversation at the table flew from his children to the incident that occurred with the high speed train system. He said, “The incident that day was not just a train crash. It was a crash in the system.”

His comment made me realize how much trust the government was trying to build in their transportation system. It was meant to be impeccable, to represent an absolute government, both for its citizens and geographical reach.

Perhaps, the trust building process would have been much easier if they had managed to take the old and flawed bricks away first. What they did instead, was to try to cover these old and flawed parts with the new and shiny.

Days had passed since the incident, but the news was hardly accessible using a Chinese I. P. address. In order to find any information one had to find ways that would allow us to go around the security wall of the Chinese network system.

What happened was that hundreds, maybe thousands, were fired after the incident. Not just that, but many were humiliated in front of their family, friends, employers and likely future employers. Their numbers should have been added to the train-crash victims; the numbers of casualties were much higher than those the government chose to list. The news media was suppressed. Any coverage with the
slightest insult to the system would have been taken down within days.

In a few months after the original incident, the line 10 metro crashed in Shanghai. Ironically, this was the same line I took every day during my stay in Shanghai. I easily could have been on any of those transport lines, which would have added myself to the list of casualties. It was just a matter of timing and many were not as fortunate. The system was again required to “recover” from an incident that would ruin the trust that the Chinese government was trying to build in the high-speed train system.

I am sure there is no correlation between the increasing deathly incidents and the rising government influence the government has on the rail system. I am sure the Party wants what is best for the country, even if it takes away the freedom of speech by deleting facts and deleting people. A good example would be Liu Xiabo, who wrote Charter ’08, an amended version of the ’82 constitution, and was arrested as a “political prisoner.”

I am having a hard time believing that this system is what is best for the inhabitants, not to mention the already heavily pollutant fog impending on Chinese streets. Most of my interviews during my time in China were with legal advisors. I was questioning one of my interviewees, whose name I promised not to reveal. The question was, “How should the use of the Chinese constitution be improved in the legal system?” His answer struck me as refreshing. He said the ideal is to change the system completely and give it a new American-like shape: “We can see how the other countries promote human welfare and an upgraded level of life. We can see how countries that are run in democracy have been self-cultivating. However, it takes millennia to simply ‘understand’ the meaning of democracy, let alone the use of democracy nationwide, let alone initiating a systematical [sic] change in a country of billions of people.”

“We have got to design a new system from the inside, with accurate details, and we must not be wrong,” he continued. “For now, slowly, we should introduce the concept of democracy and hope for best, for the citizens to embrace it.”

Related posts:

1. All Eyes on China
2. Storm hits china, students offer help
3. Adventures of a Speed Dater

Jobs may turn out to be the defining issue of 2012 as the election comes down to who America thinks has the best plan to get us back to work. What Washington seems to be ignoring is the “right to work.” The Right to Work Act has been gaining momentum around the nation because of what it is designed to do. The Right to Work Act makes it illegal for labor unions and employers to make agreements that would require membership or the payment of dues to become a requirement of employment. To me this does not look like something people should be angry with, and its popularity is shown with the addition of Indiana as the 23rd Right-to-Work state.

Indiana, the most recent state to become a Right to Work state, passed the law Jan. 25. The act made its way into the spotlight after the anti-union bill, otherwise known as the Budget Repair Bill, plagued Wisconsin and the Midwest, and now the Democrats of the Indiana legislature are not happy about it. The Right to Work Act prevents companies from maintaining what is known as a closed shop, which would require its workers to be a part of its union. This bill is in stark comparison to the Budget Repair Bill as it also prevents unions from forcing workers to pay dues. The Bill called for the elimination of the collective bargaining rights of the unions that would stay intact with the passing of the Right to Work Act.

As stated in a Jan. 26 Los Angeles Times article, the law would make it illegal for unions to collect dues from non-union members, when before workers were forced to pay dues to the unions affiliated with their job. No American should be denied a job simply because of their preference to be, or not to be, a member of any particular union. Democrats are in a tight alignment with unions and therefore strongly oppose the act. Scott Pelath, a Democrat from Indiana’s state legislature, went as far as to say that the passing of the Right to Work Act “is an embarrassment before the nation.”

The original purpose of a union was for workers of a particular organization to band together to ensure better working conditions. Unions started out as very beneficial organizations with good intentions. Today it is hard to distinguish a union from a special interest group, whose job it is to promote their own interests over the interests of Americans as a collective. Americans working in non-Right to Work states may be forced to pay dues to a union that may not have their best interests at heart. Many unions today lobby Congress and run like special interest groups. Of course it can be argued that unions are special interest groups. If this is true why don’t special interest groups force people to “pay dues?” Giving money to interest groups is optional, and you don’t see too many hurting for money. Money is power, and allowing unions to force Americans to pay dues is wrong.

Personally, I find unions to be a huge hassle and a waste of time and money. If people want to be part of a union they have every right to do so. The biggest problem is that many companies require their employees to be members of a union, and that is wrong. This is the same ideology and reason for Republicans fighting the Health Care Reform Act. It is unconstitutional for the government to force you to buy healthcare, and you shouldn’t be forced to pay dues or to participate in a union you don’t want to be a part of.

According to the National Institute for Labor Relations Research, there is a much faster growth rate in jobs in the private sector in states that have passed the Right to Work law. Statistics show that in Right to Work states, the job growth rate is above two percent compared to the negative growth rate that non-Right to Work states maintain. If the results show reduced percentages of unemployment, than why are Democrats opposing the legislature? The issue is about getting Americans back to work, and if this is proven to produce jobs, then why not give it a go?

The United States has an obligation to its citizens, not its unions. If an organization takes away American citizens’ right to choose then the government has the right to intervene. The Right to Work Act is not the same as the Anti-Union Laws that created problems in Wisconsin, and does not take away union rights to collective bargaining. The Right to Work Act may be what the United  States needs to get back on its feet.

If the Right to Work laws are what are going to get Americans back to work, then that should be the priority. If Americans getting back to work requires the elimination of forced unionization then so be it. It all comes down to what is best for Americans as a whole, and not what is better for the individual. It has been working for 23 states, can you imagine what it could do for the whole country?

Related posts:

1. South Africans Work Toward Social Acceptance of Queers
2. Occupy Mount Holyoke gains momentum
3. Woes of the work study program

My attention has been drawn once again to the issue of bullying legislation. I recently saw the headline “Tennessee Bill Would Give Anti-Bullying Laws a ‘Religious and Political Beliefs’ Loophole” floating in my newsfeed. My emotions climbed a rollercoaster hill of epic proportions as I read the article.

Tennessee Senate Bill 760 was intended to amend Tennessee Senate Bill 1621. SB 760 has been floating around the Tennessee State House for a few years but was recently reintroduced, thrusting its incendiary language into the national foray once again.

SB 1621 was enacted in 2005 and ordered schools to create and enforce an anti-bullying policy. The goal of creating anti-bullying policies was to ensure schools be an “environment conducive to learning.” The bill defined bullying broadly, including “physically harming a student or damaging a student’s property,” and “knowingly placing a student in reasonable fear of physical harm to the student or damage to the student’s property.”

SB 760 was intended to amend SB 1621 and, by doing so, narrow the definition of what could be considered bullying. It states a school’s bullying policy “shall not be construed or interpreted to infringe upon the First Amendment rights of students and shall not prohibit their expression of religious, philosophical, or political views.”

The bill additionally enumerated restrictions to school anti-bullying policies so that the policies would not “implicitly promote a political agenda,” or m“make the characteristics of the victim the focus rather than the conduct of the person engaged in harassment, intimidation, or bullying.” Anyone want to venture a guess what the bill is trying to do? I’m guessing the political agenda they’re trying to quash is anything that leans left of their far-right outpost.

The new restrictions would have stripped SB 1621 of its purpose. What bully couldn’t find a “religious, philosophical, or political” backing for their taunts? After being the center of a national firestorm, the bill was withdrawn on Jan. 24. However, it is still important to reflect on the need for bullying legislation.

Some, including the sponsors of SB 760, view bullying as protected free speech. They can also view bullying as outside the scope of torts, a specific type of law. A tort is defined as “an injury or wrong to the person or property of another.” This is where bullying gets into a grey area—would it be prosecutable if someone were hurt physically, but outside the scope of the law if everything was verbal? SB 760’s sponsors had a narrow interpretation of torts, but others could interpret bullying to be a tortuous act. Indeed, bullying is a tort in many states, including Massachusetts. The government does have the power to make a civil action so that someone may be sued for the intentional infliction of severe emotional distress. Bullies get their power from the severe emotional distress of their victims.

In an interview with the Chattanooga Times Free Press, David Fowler, an advocate of the bill, said the bill’s purpose “was to stop bullying, not create special classes of people who are more important than others.” In this quote, Fowler seems to suggest that the bullied do not need special treatment, e.g. legislation to protect them. This condescension suggests that he considers the legislation unnecessary. One only needs to look down the road to Phoebe Prince and South Hadley High to see that bullying legislation is, in fact, necessary. Schools should be places for children to learn and grow, not places for them to be taunted and humiliated for who they are.

Related posts:

1. Anti-Bullying bill to be debated in Mass. Senate
2. MA House and Senate pass anti-bullying bill
3. Film makes bullying a reel issue

Don’t talk to me until I’ve had my coffee. As anyone can attest, see me before my cup of joe and I can only utter something that closely resembles “hello,” let alone hold a decent cheerful conversation. That being said, I also seek out the delicious beverage throughout the day, at lunch, in the afternoon and occasionally after dinner. I have had countless people inform me the amount of coffee I consume on a daily basis is a bad habit. They ask if I have tried switching to tea. They tell me that it will only get worse as I get older. I tell them I don’t care. I am not alone. According to a report on NPR’s Marketplace, the United States consumes more coffee than any other country. Fun fact – Finland takes the cake for the amount of coffee that is consumed per person.

Coffee isn’t just a drink. It’s an experience. In one episode of Ally McBeal, the late 90’s character, played by Calista Flockhart, described her first latte of the morning as an experience. She removes the lid and inhales deeply,letting the world dissolve around her. She takes her first delicate sip, experiences the foam and then her day can truly start. The experience of walking into a coffee shop, smelling the aroma of the roasted beans, hearing the sounds of milk being steamed, computer key boards tapping and soft music in the background, is one of the most relaxing and enjoyable environments you can step into.

I refused to accept that this drink could ever for an instant be bad for me. Cue WebMD. According to professor Frank Hu of the Harvard School of Public Health,“there is certainly much more good news than bad news, in terms of coffee and health.” There are caffeine related problems such as caffeine dependency, caffeine-induced anxiety disorder and insomnia, but for most people the
consumption of three cups of coffee a day poses little risk. In fact, research from 1999 suggests that coffee drinkers perform better on tests which involve new information than non-coffee drinkers. Coffee means better academic performance?

While my three cups of coffee a day are not necessarily damaging my body, the paper cups I often use, which contain my favorite pumpkin spice lattes, are wasteful and not easy to recycle. Stopping at one of 11,000 U.S. Starbucks locations, or your local coffee house, results in the use of an astonishing number of paper cups. These cups are not recyclable, due to the waxy lining of the cup
to keep your beverage inside the cup and not in your lap. An estimated 58 billion paper coffee cups are thrown out every year just in the United States.

The recently popular Keurig coffee machines, with plastic K-Cups that dispense individual servings of coffee, is not any better for the environment than the use of paper cups. What is astonishing, isn’t just the demand on resources after the coffee is brewed and you have the cup in your hand, but it’s also the resources that it takes to produce that cup of coffee. For example, according to the Water Footprint Network, a product of the University of Twente in the Netherlands, it takes nine gallons of water to make a cup of tea, while it takes 37 gallons to produce one cup of coffee. And that milk that gets added to your espresso drink? Fifty-three gallons of water is used to make just one glass of milk.

Purchasing a cup of brewed coffee isn’t economically a smart option either, but that is for a different day.

So while coffee in moderation isn’t as bad for your health as gossip and legend might make you believe, the paper cups of the coffee shop, or the individual K-Cups containers, leave a sizeable footprint on the earth. Next time you grab a cup of coffee order it “for here” and enjoy your beverage in a mug, or brew a pot yourself, saving money and paper products. Do that and you can enjoy
your coffee guilt free.

Related posts:

1. Caffeinated Campus: Coffee is Redefining our Social Life
2. What does it take to make your coffee?
3. Coffee finally gets a good rep

DateMySchool was launched in November 2010 for college students and graduates to meet; much like Facebook in its early stages, it requires an .edu email address to sign-up, and the founders plan to keep it that way. Founded by two Columbia University MBA candidates, it soon expanded to NYU and now has 55,000 users, with New York as its biggest hub. It attracts a rather diverse range of people from 650 universities across the country, both public and private. I chatted with a North Carolinan completing a Master’s in Environmental Decision-making at Columbia, a very interesting and attractive 27-year-old.

The founders believe that college students and alumni are usually too busy to meet potential dates, and that too often we are limited by our group of friends, faculty/major, or workplace and don’t have the opportunities to meet new faces. Hence, DateMySchool offers a quick and easy way for people to meet. For Mount Holyoke students, this may be the next great way to actually date Five College students when and if it gets more popular in the Valley.  Currently, there are only about 100 users in Western Massachusetts, 20 of which are from MHC because the website only recently expanded to the area and has not yet marketed itself.

The website is for those looking for friendship, fun, short-term or long-term dating, cuddling and/or networking. That seems to be a little confusing to me. The name of the website assumes an intention to date. If people were looking for friendship or social networking, why not use Facebook or Myspace? It is important to note that the founders are aiming to distance themselves and their ideas from Facebook, although it seems that the functions of the websites are comparable. One can chat with people, message them, “favorite” them, or even compare answers to a random set of questions to check compatibility. You also have an “about me” and a “status.”

In the website’s promotional video, there is an emphasis on the safety and privacy of the users and the content. DateMySchool does not own your information and your profile is not searchable, which is commendable. However, will the determined politics students hoping to run for office upload their photos on such a website? Not necessarily.  However, this is not to say that the website doesn’t attract widely ambitious people.

Moreover, the narrator on the video claims that the requirement for a .edu address “keeps out the creepers.” I have two problems with this statement. Firstly, this depicts the website as inherently classist. It assumes that people who do not have a college education are “creepers.” It also fails to acknowledge that college students and graduates can be equally creepy. Here is a recent status update from a user: “Freezing… and these blankets aren’t helping :( BODY HEAT is needed at this point! #singlelife.”

The website also promotes elitism, racism and other forms of prejudices in allowing people to search for students from specific universities and of specific ethnicities and nationalities.  While some may find this appealing and selective, I find it rather appalling. The so-called exclusivity of the website is a mere extension of an increasingly prejudiced society. People should be getting together because of their common interests (which the website does allow for) rather than on the basis of ethnicity. And here’s another thing just for kicks: Palestinian is not listed as a nationality and Israeli is.

The other issue I have is with the concept of privacy. While it is true that people who are not on the website cannot search you, and you are never required to reveal your real name, the limitedness of the privacy settings is disconcerting. You can either block people from certain universities or age groups, or simply block specific users. This site attempts to transcend the definition of a traditional dating website or even a social networking site by claiming to be a “reverse social network,” for the following reasons: you are only seen by people who you want to be contacted by and you discover people online and then meet them offline. Do you know enough about the people to decide whether or not you want to be contacted by them? Again, this is an emphasis based on a false premise that the university that one attends tells you something about any person.

At Mount Holyoke, a place where conversations regarding gender are abundant, it is relevant to commend the website’s recognition and/or support of queerness: all users can choose to seek both men and women. Moreover, for many, this site is defying gender roles and is encouraging women to make the first move based on their interest in a male counterpart with the confidence acquired in cyberspace.

In a place where men are few and interaction between Five-College students is not so easy, this website could be your next shot at college dating. It takes seconds to register, it’s free, relatively safe, and there are upgrade perks to inviting your friends. Apparently, many users seem to find someone they like within 30 minutes of signing up. The site hopes to expand to every four-year college and university in the nation during the next semester.

You don’t know what you could be missing out on.

Related posts:

1. The pros and cons of dating in the Five College area An ins and out guide for the lonely and the looking
2. Dependence on technology grows
3. Is Microsoft’s social phone targeting the right market?

Since its beginning in the early 2000s, the Holyoke Confessional has been one of the most debated elements within the MHC community. Some people love it, others hate it—some don’t care at all. I fall into the latter group. I have rarely gone on the Confessional during my time here and, aside from a few conversations now and then, have forgotten about it.

My attention was brought back to the Confessional this year when seemingly everyone was talking about its particularly negative tone.  Once I accessed the Confessional, I realized why I had been avoiding it. What I found was a space full of cyber-bullying and harassment. I could list a litany of examples of the terrible things that were said, but I don’t want to make this column to rehash the negativity. The Confessional, in my opinion, is the antithesis of Mount Holyoke. It is a negatively charged space for people to take each other down a peg, rather than the collaborative, supportive environment that I have come to love at MHC.

I propose that we reclaim the Confessional and make something new out of it. I was inspired for this particular movement by the dialogue with Diane Kim, Emmy Bouvier, Jennifer Walsh and Maxine Getz after the White House conference call we participated in on Nov. 30 [see editorial below]. We lamented the lack of civic engagement at MHC, and also pondered ways we could use our unique abilities as MHC students to promote activism. One thing that stuck with me from that conversation was how we as students can be activists within our community. Social media is a huge component of civic engagement today – look no farther than Tahrir Square in Egypt or Zuccoti Park in New York City to see the power of social media. At Mount Holyoke, we have a particularly unique forum of social media: The Confessional.

Let’s Occupy the Confessional and make it an outgrowth of the positive space of MHC. We all know how powerful our voices are, but just think about what we can do when we use our voices together. Rather than tear each other down, lets challenge each other to engage in new and different ways with our community and our world. Let us continue class discussions with a wider audience, publicize cultural events and in general model the kinds of behaviors we wish to see, on campus and off. I’m going to start using the Confessional – are you?

Related posts:

1. Holyoke Confessional sparks campus discussions
2. Confessions on the Confessional
3. The politics of financial aid: Mount Holyoke caught in social stalemate

Like true Mount Holyoke students, we entered the question queue before any of us had formulated an exact question.

Diane took the phone almost immediately after Cho’s “Hey, Mount Holyoke!” and quickly asked, “Where does the administration stand on Occupy Wall St., and how much more violence and public displays of governmental dissatisfaction will it take for the Obama administration to recognize the legitimacy of the OWS movement?” Ronnie responded to her question with a question, “Assuming you to be in support of  the OWS movement, how does the campus feel about the OWS movement, has the campus been active, and does the campus support the movement?” Ronnie and Diane conversed about the gathering of Occupy Mount Holyoke on Skinner green, as well as how the movement manifested within the Five College Consortium, such as the march to Amherst’s center on the two month anniversary of Occupy Wall Street. The conversation picked up from there. Diane conversed with him about the initiatives she knew her friends, classroom peers and herself have made in signing the petitions, registering for votes and even transferring from corporate banks accounts to credit unions.

But Diane wanted to know more. “We go to the polls, we sign the petitions, we converse about it with our friends and peers,” she said. “But as much as I appreciate this particular initiative for public discourse [referring to the conference call], there is a seeming silence. In what ways can we become even more engaged and civically active in raising our voices to ensure that our voices are heard by the administration?” We concluded the conversation with Cho with some tips and some promises about keeping in contact before ending the conversation. As  Cho moved on to the next caller, we sat there for a moment, processed, and began the kind of discourse Mount Holyoke women are almost always so ready to have.

Our discussion raised many questions, including what it means to be a Mount Holyoke woman in today’s world, how we can make change and take ownership of the rapidly changing political climate, and how we can be involved in political participation.

Particularly interested in our discussion of the lack of political engagement at Mount Holyoke, one thought that stemmed from the ensuing dialogue for Emmy was the passivity of the “MHC Bubble.” “I hate the phrase the ‘Mount Holyoke or South Hadley bubble’,” she said. “It makes me irate when people refer to South Hadley as isolated, or in the middle of nowhere. This language itself suggests passivity, like the actions we take while on campus somehow don’t matter because it isn’t the ‘real world.’ I think that what bothers me so intensely is constant use as an excuse to not get involved. To me, this notion of MHC being incomparable to the real world seems to reinforce the exact philosophy at the core of Occupy Wall Street—individuals, or small towns, Student Government Associations—don’t matter, the only option for change comes from a top down system. Thus, what it really turns into is a system that can exploit those who render themselves powerless by not questioning the actions of those in charge. Patterns are everywhere in culture. Take for instance the sudden reemergence of high waisted pants, a style that has most definitely been done before. Community engagement is no different. Why do so many Mount Holyoke women cop out of engaging in our own community here by using the MHC bubble excuse?”

Maxine expressed similar sentiments, but encouraged students to think of Mount Holyoke as a microcosm of the real world, rather than a bucolic environment unencumbered by reality.  “It is easy for us to feel somewhat isolated,” she said. We are not leaving school to mobilize communities or partake in sit-ins or sleep-ins. But we are talking about the movement rippling through the town and city centers throughout the country and the world, we are learning about past social movements, and we are thinking about what that means on 50 College Street. We think about police brutality on university campuses, and we think about what is happening on our campus – the changing of Public Safety to Campus Police, frustration with parts of the administration, the reaction to Strategic Task Force reports. And, though on a much smaller scale than austerity measures in Europe and elections in Egypt, the dynamic, constructive conversations we have about these topics can also be turned into action on campus.”

As a group we discussed options such as getting involved in the SGA, or joining committees, talking to the administration, mobilizing students and connecting with other campuses. Working towards making Mount Holyoke a stronger institution and community is engagement that is both personal and political, and those efforts are behaviors we can take outside of the boundaries of Park Street and Morgan Street. It makes sense to put effort into this community because we all have so much invested in it. Knowing the importance of on campus civic engagement and how it will fit into our lives after Mount Holyoke, Jennifer, who will be graduating in December, questions what her impact in the “real world” can be. “How can I, or any alum, take from my privileged experiences to make a lasting impact and what will that impact look like?”

Emily Dickinson lamented to her brother Austin in a letter, “I don’t know anything more about affairs in the world, than if I was in a trance… Do you know of any nation about to besiege South Hadley?” But we aren’t in a trance. We can read the news, and think about our place and role as students in this community, and in what way it makes sense for each of us to act out that role.

Related posts:

1. Occupy Mount Holyoke gains momentum
2. Students navigate networking
3. Students question safety on campus after several assaults

I scrolled down a little further, passed the Single Booklovers Group (established in 1970) and past the unique erotic therapy that is nothing less than “discreet and personalized.” I was just about to click back to Benfey’s commentary on limbs lost in the Civil War when I found none other than the Personals section.

Now, I must confess that at the present moment, I’m a little stressed about the personals section of my own life. For the past two years, I have been safe in my oasis of women but, come May, I am going to be shot out into the real world, where it may not be acceptable for me to tell that annoying guy that he best find another chair because, “this one belongs to a woman.”

As we seniors inch closer to finals, we realize that this is it: our last months at Mount Holyoke College. Some of us repress it, and buy that somewhat over-priced but irresistible Mount Holyoke sweatshirt, while others confront it head-on and make daily trips to see whoever is on call at the Counseling Center, and some of us watch Vince Vaughn’s performance in Swingers to remind ourselves that men who act like boys just may be the reason we came to Mount Holyoke in the first place.

But what I found in the Personals section of The New York Review of Books? I didn’t know whether to laugh or cry.

A “foxy slender green eyed woman passionate about film.” A “formerly pretty formerly slender out of shape woman never married and terrified of commitment.” A “professional female, aged like a fine wine.”

This is no joke ladies. This is very, very real.

Do I laugh or do I cry? First of all, if you’re going to write a personal ad, you may not want to include the terrified of commitment piece. I don’t know, that just may not get you the type of response that you need. And also, aged like a fine wine? In The New York Review of Books?

As a principle, the personal ads just bother me. It seems so sad to think that there are such women living lives of quiet desperation, placing personal ads and yearning for connections. Will this be what life comes to post Mount Holyoke? Will I resign myself to the idea of personal ad in lieu of the “Frances Perkins Scholar’s, Making the Connection” event?

I can see it now: Uncommon Woman seeks Real Man who enjoys tropical colors and has some relationship to Cuba.

Have a fantastic break Mount Holyoke, and seniors, best of luck to you in your final semester. If you need me, I’ll be with Carrel, writing a thesis about Cuba.

Related posts:

1. A Harry Potter “virgin” blogs the books
2. Lady is the new bug: “The Carrel Column”
3. Get Personal with StoryCorps

From my perspective, Dr. Laura Greenfield’s departure was an abrupt and devastating shock. Though I believe that I understand the nature of the decision, I am still aware that much has been withheld from the faculty of the College and staff at the Speaking, Arguing and Writing Program. I am cognizant of the fact that this silence is intended to protect both Dr. Greenfield’s professional reputation and College administration. I will never ask any questions, pose any concern or utter a word that might harm Dr. Greenfield’s ability to go forth and do great things elsewhere. She is the absolute embodiment of capability and conviction and I sincerely hope that she continues her journey to find fertile ground for her vision to grow.

My history with Dr. Greenfield is academic, professional and personal. I credit her encouragement and knowledge with the realization of my own identity and voice as a Black writer and speaker. Under her guidance, I recognized the importance of my own unique voice and developed a language with which to combat linguistic and academic oppression. I was encouraged to recognize the myriad of ways in which Academia fails students of color. I was invited to question my own, often unconscious, assimilation to values and voices not my own and gathered the tools to recognize normative whiteness where it lies in rhetoric, a throw-away word ill-considered, in the careless red scribbles on an essay and in the everyday practices of an Academy that preaches inclusion, but allows certain students to either change or fall through the cracks with its consent.

She addressed these issues as essential components of each area of her work and her molding of the Program, not extraneous pieces to be dealt with in their own time. Her perspective changed the world of a Black girl from Georgia who was taught, both explicitly and implicitly, that her culture, language and history, were minor because they were the minority and a failure because they were different. I have been irrevocably changed by the opportunity to not only develop these understandings for myself, but to engage them on the regional and national scale and to have my voice heard and developed. Dr. Greenfield taught me that there is no reason for a different voice to be timid and, most of all, she taught me to emerge from my past experiences and learn to trust. I trusted in her as a true and informed ally and she never once let me down. Her tireless battle against institutional racisms at this school and in the wider writing center community was an inspiration to observe and her departure should be a call to action for every faculty member and student with whom she has interacted.

My experience with her is but one of many. Each and every mentor and student in her acquaintance has their own story and narrative for her influence in their lives. Mine is particular to who I am, what I have known, and what is important to me. I encourage you to listen to these other stories as they bear witness to the departure of a great academic, mentor, and activist. It is our hope that we can begin to paint an indelible picture of her influence on this campus and in our individual lives. May her legacy and values remain. May she leave “not with a fizzle, but with a bang.”

Sincerely,

Imani Griffin Strong ’12
Speaking, Arguing, and Writing
Program Fellow

Related posts:

1. Payen leaves SAW Center
2. An open letter to President Pasquerella
3. Program offices relocate to new building, utilize extra space