Zach Weiss ’15 (Stew 4)- I believe with the utmost certainty that Barrett is a compassionate and responsible human being who contributed to the wonderful dynamic of this hall in irreplaceable ways. For this reason, I believe his dismissal from the hall was the wrong decision, and that is why I am signing this petition. However, I also believe he must pay the consequences his clear lapse of judgment – I support the administration’s decision to release him from his employment.

Jake Wood ’15 (Stew 4)- Barrett is a great FYC . I cant imagine having such a great first semester without him. He’s made me tea when I was sick and has been really helpful for every problem we’ve had from registration to personal issues. We love Barrett.

Meredith White ’15- Barrett’s contribution to the Stewart community can be defined by intangibles that can’t be checked off in a concrete list of what makes a good FYC, but instead can be appreciated by the experience of living with him. While I realize firing Barrett is not a judge of his character, there is overwhelming good character evidence in this instance that it would be negligent not to address it. On any given night, Barrett can be found hosting an eclectic assembly of noisy freshmen, offering them tea, good music, and good stories while at the same time grading astronomy papers. His involvement never seems scripted or forced by a job description but is something that happens out of the formation of genuine relationships. Barrett has hugely impacted my transition into college, not only as an FYC but as a friend. Keeping Barrett in position sets a potentially dangerous precedent, I believe the benefits of his presence in Stewart greatly offset those dangers.

David Russell ’15 (Stew 4)- Barrett has played a tremendous part in making me feel welcome at Middlebury and on Stew 4, and I’m sure that most Stew 4 residents also feel that the tight-knit atmosphere we have is in large part due to Barrett’s efforts to cultivate it. Especially at the beginning of the semester when everyone was new to Middlebury, Barrett made sure we knew what was going on and that we could trust him. Because he was such a big presence at the beginning of the year, he is now an integral part of the Stew 4 community. His removal would leave a hurtful gap on our hall.

Jessie Ebersole 12- Although I have only ran into Barrett a few times around campus I was extremely distressed to hear of his dismissal as FYC, because of the kind of marked impression Barrett leaves on people immediately. I agree with his friend Cody when he says that most people who know Barrett would have trouble describing him as a mere acquaintance. Barrett is uniquely kind, welcoming and accepting. His friend Olivia is right that not everyone on campus can say hi to 3/4 of the people they walk by, and I think it is telling that Barrett cares enough about others that he has made the effort to reach out to so many.

I think the outpouring on this blog shows 1) the complex/diverging interpretations of the events with Luaay, 2) how valued Barrett is at Middlebury. The college at the very least acted hastily in its decision, without the insight of Stew’s residents, and should open an appeals process so their voices can be heard.

Unlike so many of the ways people mess up in college, if Barrett did make any mistake it was in trying to create too open of a community. Therefore, while the college may feel that some action needs to be taken, I do not think that his dismissal as FYC is appropriate, or constructive to the place Middlebury hopes to be.

Leah Robinson ’13- Barrett is one of the kindest, most supportive people I know at Middlebury. His judgement may have been skewed when handling whether or not to allow his guest to stay, but this can only be attributed to the fact that Barrett is accepting of everyone and always believes the best in people. While I acknowledge the incident may have caused some students to feel uncomfortable, or in some extreme cases unsafe, I know that if Barrett had been aware of the stress his freshmen felt due to Luaay’s presence, he would have taken action and asked Luaay to leave.

Rufus Raghunath ’15 (Stew 4)- When we first arrived here, Barrett told us: “This is now your family. Look after each other.” And in that spirit we have lived ever since, in no small way due to the constant efforts of Barrett to create a close-knit, trusting community. Dismissing an FYC is only reasonable if they prove themselves to be unfit for that role, but, while Barrett has certainly made some bad decisions, he has always proved himself a fantastic FYC.

Nico Kaminow ’15 (Stew 4)- Living on Stew 4, over the past few months I have gotten to know Barrett and I have so much respect for this man. I have never seen him in a bad mood despite having a fractured leg, that requires 3 months in a cast, and this whole ordeal. I have always been able to count on Barrett to be smiling when I see him in the morning, passing him on his little scooter, decorated with a bow and bell, while I’m on my way to Bi Hall. Barrett is a caring individual. He asks me about my swim meets and is genuinely interested in my response. He is welcoming and accepting; just the other night I heard some voices in his room so I went down the hall to hangout but he was with his own friends not Stew 4 guys, however, he welcomed me in and I didn’t feel as though I was intruding. Barrett is opinionated and strong willed. Although he might not be the most physically dominating figure on campus, he certainly will be seen and heard if he has something to say. Most importantly I trust him to be some one who would argue on my behalf regardless of whether or not I made a mistake. He is relaxed, always has a happy, positive aura about him and he is the perfect person to be an FYC. He has created a get atmosphere on our hall and, needless, to say my Middlebury experience so far would not have been the same without Barrett.

The idea that we have some kind of cohesive, normative community here makes me sick to my stomach. It is prejudiced, discriminatory, and marginalizing, at the very least. I think it’s openly acknowledged that spacial and social boundaries exist at this college along racial lines (i.e- “why do all the (black/latino/international) students sit together”). Often these boundaries exist along class lines too (not always, but prep school is a pretty good determinant of your social group here, or maybe even entry into a ‘secret’ society).

To deny this, you are either blind, or an ass. The narrative we tell ourselves, laden with feel-good culturally produced Midd-isms (“professionalism,” “pragmatism”, “globalism” “environmentalism,” “athleticism,” “liberalism”) shield students from thinking critically about the fact that other people exist on this campus who identify or look different. This is the same mindset under which we regularly invoke that we graduated the first African American undergrad but- OOPS WE FORGOT TO MENTION- we just didn’t know it at the time! It is the same mindset under which people on this blog comment “We go to the most ‘liberal’ school- how can you talk about race here!”

I regularly hear of blatant homophobia and have witness plenty of sexual and gender based violence on this campus. Some of these students, including one who has been accused of RAPE, as well as people who regularly display blatant disregard for common property, remain on this campus, are allowed to remain on this campus, and perpetuate these tendencies weekly. Are they not members of this “imagined community” you speak of? As I hear, it seems some of their parents donate a lot of money, so according to the definition we arrived at above…

During my freshman year in Stew, a floor-mate, blackout drunk, harassed a female friend of mine in ways that are legally too graphic for a 17 year old (which she may well have been at the time). After chasing her into the dorm room with his penis in hand, on full display, he continued to bang on the door in front of a crowd of gathered onlookers, screaming and calling her name. He was subsequently summoned to talk with his ‘concerned’ dean. No action was taken. Maybe his parents were notified. (NOTE: This was well before Natasha Chang became Brainerd Dean).

In light of all this, it seems to me that the bigger issue is how this guest was treated. If you want to argue that as an FYC, Barrett is responsible first and foremost with following the rules (i.e- registering guest, three day maximum, especially when people had voiced concern) that’s fine. If the administration chose to fire him for that, I think its problematic, I think it’s unwise, but certainly within their right to do so. Given that Barrett broke the rules of his contract, and made some serious lapses in judgement, including lying to public safety, it’s not my place to make that decision and I will bow out of giving my opinion (sorry Barrett). This is a terrible and difficult situation for all involved- Res-life, Dean Chang, Barrett, Commons Heads, etc. It is inevitable that not everyone would be happy with this decision, and the bad handling of a very public incident (bright idea making a scene like that) surely made things harder.

That being said, everyone seems to acknowledge that part of Barrett’s role as FYC is to be trusted with making good judgment calls. By supposing this man was a threat to the ‘community,’ you are thereby also implicating Barrett’s good judgment. He may have made some bad judgment’s about handling the aftermath (see above) but that’s not my issue here. The way I see it, logic dictates that if Barrett chose to offer Luuay a place to stay, he had concluded that indeed he did know Luuay well enough. Again, I remind you that Barrett was hired at least partly because of his perceived good judgment. The remaining string says that if Barrett concluded he knew Luaay well enough, and there was hitherto no reason to suspect his good judgment, under what grounds can one possibly consider Luuay a danger? Superficial appearances?

If you can disagree with this logical construction then I’ll have no choice but to condemn your ‘anonymous one night stand,’ or conversely, any past-present-future use of the phrase ‘love at first sight.’ Because everyone knows everyone at Middlebury so well, right? Because we’re all the same, right?

I don’t know Barrett very well, but based on the few conversations we’ve had (and what the blogosphere tends to project) I am fairly positive that he recognized student’s discomfort to be problematic or portraying some biases. I do know he recognizes some of the issues I outlined above. He also seems to be an incredibly sensitive and insightful person, and as an FYC, had the nuance to pick up on this. I would bet he saw it as his job to create a learning opportunity for these students, and by all accounts, he made every effort to do so even though few people took the initiative to get to know Luaay.

As an active member of the CouchSurfing network (and I know of many other Midd students are as well) I have often let “people I don’t know well” stay in my dorm for a few nights and I (as well as others) have had some of the most profound learning experiences in doing so. According to Luaay’s CouchSurfing account, he is a dedicated pacifist, he abstains from alcohol and drugs, and is fluent in three languages. In his own words he is,
“A strong believer in cultural exchange!
I strive for better world,for unity,love,tolerance and understanding within humanity.
We have only one another on this planet,so lets be one!
In strangers I see new friends whom I haven’t met yet. so come ova hommie!.
i’ll brew you a cup of tea!!”

It seems to me that given these qualities, not to mention all the hoopla around alcohol and dorm damage on campus, Luaay is exactly the sort of people we should be inviting into our so-called ‘community’ with open arms.

Finally in the interest of full disclosure; 1) I lived on Stewart 4, my freshman year, and I walked around that bathroom naked all the time- for goodness sake it’s even a gender separate floor. I would bet that what was disturbing about this particular naked man was that he looked ‘out of place’ and 2) I can’t comment on the specific ‘peeing incident’ but whenever I see drunk people pissing away in public, which is unfortunately way more often than I would like, it is usually in front of crowds of people no less (outside LoFo, the Bunker, on Battell Beach etc). All I’ve ever heard are either words of support or sarcastic heckling.

Maybe thats just me.

To those who focus on Barrett’s qualities as the subject of their posts: I agree completely. I, myself, rarely find any way to criticize Barrett – as a friend, as a student, as a leader. We have to recognize in this situation, first and foremost, that there were serious lapses in judgement and Barrett, my friend, you can be nice and idealistic to a fault. In a perfect world, what you did should be acceptable. We should be able to open our college campus to friendly strangers, trusting the best in others, inviting those often excluded from our community to join us. Unfortunately that is not the case. First of all, Stewart is a communal space. Regardless of the background of the person, having a guest for such an extended period of time goes against so many unspoken rules of dorm life. The argument that this 3-day-rule is only being used now as a convenience may be true, but it’s also there for a reason. Personally, if I found out that some complete stranger to me had been a guest on my freshman hall for such an extended period of time I would have been really upset. I feel like that violates some of the safety and trust of a freshman hall. Secondly, Middlebury may feel like home but it’s not… we’re all temporary residents here. I am all about the ideals of Couch Surfing and opening up doors to travelling strangers. Unfortunately those ideals only apply to your own home, because you have to have the consent of all people who live in a building before you open up the doors. That just doesn’t work in a dormitory. Having the equivalent of a couch surfer stay in your dorm room is not a privilege that comes along with being the occupant of that room. Period. Having a guest like Barrett did, regardless of his background, frankly, even regardless of his relationship to Barrett, violates so much of the trust we put in one another when we live in a communal setting. No matter how much we want to be welcoming, there is a really serious line that cannot be crossed. Barrett, bud, you made a serious mistake, regardless of the reports of inappropriate behavior on Luuay’s part. Even if he had been the most well groomed trust fund baby ever to walk the Middlebury campus and there had been no reports of inappropriate behavior, it’s still wrong to have a stranger live on a freshman hall for that long. Period.

On the other hand, to those who say that the appropriate punishment for such a transgression is the removal of Barrett from his hall, I can’t agree with you. The disturbance of having a stranger live on the hall for a week is minuscule compared to the disturbance of removing a beloved FYC. I think the biggest concern in this issue for everyone is not just it’s just resolution for Barrett, but a just resolution for the boys on the hall. Removing an FYC like Barrett, who, as I understand it, had no transgressions before this event and was actually doing an outstanding job, would seriously upset the hall, as expressed by the other ResLife staff members already. Being a freshman is the best worst time of your life – everything is new and exciting, yet stressful and horrible at the same time. Finding a modicum of stability is crucial – that’s what an FYC is there for. You can’t take that away from the boys on Stew 4. In my freshman year Stew 4 had a planned FYC change and my friends on the hall then, who knew what was coming, were still bothered by it. The FYC is there for the freshman, firing Barrett just mess up their life and doesn’t help anybody.

There must be consequences for what happened, but they should be consequences for Barrett, not the boys on Stew 4. Maybe, considering they are the ones who are being the most affected by the series of events, they should be the ones to decide the consequences for Barrett, and the best way for their hall to move forward into the second half of the year.

I believe it is also necessary to consider how EASILY this situation was handled and fixed. On that same token, I feel that the College intentionally ignored the capabilities of Barrett when making the decision to terminate his employment. This close-minded approach is a message that is not in the best interest of the College if this institution is to keep the respect of its students. The point of a liberal arts education is to teach us to look at every side of an issue and the administration took the easy way out.

We should not forget the negative impact this decision will have on the students living in Stewart Hall. I believe that their comfort should be the College’s top priority and while they may argue that they are looking out for the students by removing an FYC that did not uphold his duties in this single incidence, they are short-sighted and perhaps do not realize that their actions have far greater, more negative, and longer lasting effects than Barrett’s guest will and would have ever had on their comfort.

This decision was made after much consideration and reflects what we think would be the most beneficial outcome for our First Years.

We do believe that Barrett made serious lapses in judgement but this has taught Barrett and the rest of us valuable lessons, and this does not negatively affect his ability to play his role as FYC in the future.

We recommend that alternate measures of punishment for Barrett’s mistakes be employed in this situation.

Thank you,

Brainerd FYCs and RAs.

A No Trespass order issued by Public Safety to a black male on Nov. 21 has caused significant student outcry. The man, 28-year-old Luaay Elamir, was being hosted by Barrett Smith ’13 from Nov. 14 to Nov. 21 in Stewart Hall, where Smith was a First-Year Counselor (FYC). As a result of his hosting of Elamir and his handling of the subsequent investigation, Smith lost his FYC position on Monday, Dec. 5.
On Monday, Nov. 21, at about 3:30 p.m., Public Safety received a call alleging that Elamir urinated in a cup in a lounge on the second floor of Stewart and then proceeded to throw it out the window and that, in a separate incident, someone walked in on him drip-drying naked in the shower area of a men’s bathroom in Stewart.
Director of Public Safety Lisa Burchard explained that protocol was then followed to further investigate the reports.
“As we’re trying to follow up on that, we do what we would normally do, which is go to Stewart, try to locate the person, locate people who might know who this person is,” said Burchard. “In the course of that, we not only did not find the person that was being described, but the officers involved did get some information that they pretty quickly had determined was … incorrect information.”
Smith, the hosting student, explained that when the Public Safety officers came to Stewart, he was approached in the bathroom, about to get in the shower. At that point, Elamir was not in Stewart and Smith was unsure of his exact location.
“I was really taken off-guard,” said Smith. “I don’t really have any justification for doing this … [but] in that moment of [discomfort], I initially said he was a friend from back home.”
In fact, Smith had met Elamir on Oct. 1 at Occupy Wall Street in New York, where they talked for several hours.

Elamir mentioned at the protest that he would be heading home to Vancouver in a few weeks by way of Burlington, and Smith offered him a place to stay in his room, if Elamir needed it.
During a second set of questioning shortly after the initial interaction with Public Safety, Smith admitted the truth about how he knew Elamir.
“I made a mistake, but I rectified it fairly quickly,” he said.
At this point, Public Safety told Smith “they wanted to issue a No Trespass order against [Elamir].” They told Smith that Elamir needed to be contacted by 5:00 p.m., when the No Trespass Order would be issued.
Because Smith had left campus for town, Public Safety contacted the MPD for assistance.
“We needed to get in touch with the Middlebury Police and find out if they could locate the person in town,” said Burchard. “We wanted to issue a No Trespass order, which we do in many instances when we have somebody on campus, or who may return to campus, that shouldn’t be on campus.”
Chief of Police Thomas Hanley explained that Elamir was not in town at the Ilsley Public Library, as originally expected, prompting the MPD officers to search for Elamir on campus.
“The library was closed, so the officers went to the [Davis Family] Library and located the man there, and … Public Safety served him with the notice,” wrote Hanley in an email.
“Our involvement was limited. There were two officers assigned, [and] one of the officers was accompanied by a recruit officer who was in training.”
The two MPD officers and the officer-in-training escorted Elamir into the lobby of the Davis Family Library, where they waited for two Public Safety officers to arrive.
“During that time, [Elamir] just kept saying ‘I don’t know what I did wrong, I was just using the computer, can you give me an explanation for why this is happening?’” said Anna Clements ’12.5, who was in the lobby at the time.
Noting the potentially excessive number of officers present, she added, “In my opinion, the [MPD] were being insensitive towards him … When we were in the lobby, one of the officers said, ‘You peed in a cup in front of girls,’ and … ‘You threw it at them.’ I don’t know if that’s true.”

Burchard agreed that there was no need for five officers to be present in the library, and plans to discuss this with the MPD in order to avoid future situations where more officers are sent on a case than are necessary.
Following the incident in the library, Elamir was escorted back to Stewart to gather his belongings. Smith met him there and his friend, Sam Koplinka-Loehr ’13, followed close behind. As Elamir gathered his things, both Smith and Koplinka-Loehr say they felt harassed and disrespected by the officers.
“Officer [Neil] Mogerley [of the MPD] said that he would arrest all of us if we did not leave the building,” wrote Koplinka-Loehr in his statement. “Despite [Smith]’s limited mobility [due to a broken foot] they continued to rush us and push for a faster pace, saying that we were ‘wasting their time.’
According to Koplinka-Loehr, “Officer Amy [Buck of Public Safety] said she felt that [Smith]’s friendship with Elamir was ‘disturbing.’”
Once his belongings were gathered, Elamir left campus with Smith and some of Smith’s friends. Smith says he hasn’t heard from Elamir since.
On Wednesday, Nov. 23, Smith posted an anonymous editorial piece on the blog The Gadfly, “an independent publication and forum for discussion not officially associated with Middlebury College,” according to the publication’s website. His editorial, titled “Institutional Racism: Alive and Well at Middlebury College,” alleged that the incident was reflective of racism at the College.
The editorial did not include specific details about the events, and Smith admitted that this was a conscious editorial decision.
“I still think that what I said was valid, even without the greater nuances [of the entire situation],” Smith said. “I think that we need to be having these conversations about race and class on campus, and this was something that happened that gave an avenue to have these conversations. So I recognize that I did leave out parts of it, and if someone thinks that that’s misleading, I’d like to talk to them about it.”
Before it was taken down a week later, the blog post garnered significant response in the comments section following the piece.

Rachel Callender ’12 was extensively involved in the discussion, initially criticizing the role Public Safety and the MPD played in the incident.
“There are members of this campus who I know personally that have visitors here for over a month and they don’t get so much as an email,” she wrote on the blog. “Why? Is it because their friends look like the majority of MiddKids do and are therefore snuck under the radar? Should this be accepted?”
Concerned with the details that were lacking in the blog post, Callender sought a meeting with Director of Public Safety Lisa Burchard, who met with Callender and answered all of her questions.
“The meeting was extremely productive and extremely respectful,” said Callender. “[After speaking with Burchard,] I was convinced that it was not a racially motivated incident.”
“It’s so easy, especially within the minority group on campus, to feel victimized … there’s a huge sensitivity of the issue on campus,” Callender added. She identifies as “half black, half white.” “So I don’t blame those who feel threatened by such an incident. I do feel, however, that it is our duty to always search for the facts.”
Burchard appreciated Callender’s questions, and felt that the meeting was a beneficial discussion for both parties.
“Any time we do our work, if people raise concerns, we look at it … and try to determine whether or not we were following our policy and procedure,” said Burchard, and if “we could do our job better.”
In this case, however, Burchard said that the officers were following procedures correctly.
Callender did feel, however, that had Elamir been a white male, his treatment would have been less acceptable and caused greater outcry.
She was not the only student who felt that the incident was an example of racism on campus, either. Matt Birnbaum ’12 expressed his concern with student reactions to Elamir’s presence on campus.

“If questionable behavior was indeed observed by fellow students, why were neither [the] guest nor [the] host approached to discuss the matter?” he wrote in an email, noting that it is not uncommon for students to have guests for over one month without concern from Public Safety. The responses on The Gadfly, Birnbaum added, were also concerning.
“One student [alleged] that this ‘guest’ had to leave because he was ‘smelly’ (since when is it Middlebury policy to remove ‘smelly’ people with the help of police?),” Birnbaum wrote. “It was as if the social biases that many members of our community have long acknowledged, were on full display, out from behind ‘the curtain of privilege.’”
On Monday, Dec. 5, Dean of Students Katy Smith Abbott informed Smith that he had lost his position as an FYC for Brainerd Commons. Smith said Smith Abbott expressed concern about his decision in bringing an older man he barely knew to a first-year dorm and “the way in which [he] responded to the people who said they felt uncomfortable.”
Smith said that at dinner one night during Elamir’s stay, some girls who live in Stewart talked with him about their experience with Elamir in the second floor lounge, where he urinated in a cup and proceeded to throw the cup out of the window.
“The way in which the situation was presented to me was that it was something really strange, but I never got the feeling that they felt that their safety was being threatened,” said Smith. “But that’s one area where I definitely messed up, in terms of not interrogating the situation more fully and involving more of my Res life team in a response.”
Smith had multiple meetings throughout the week of Nov. 27 with the Brainerd Residential Life staff and Dean of Brainerd Commons Natasha Chang, who Smith said supported him throughout the week and had hoped to keep him as an FYC.
Smith then had a meeting set up with Smith Abbott, Chang and Head of Brainerd Commons Roman Graf in the afternoon on Dec. 5. He said he felt “blind-sided” by this meeting, which he believed was going to be an opportunity for him to give his side of the story.
“I’m really, really concerned about my hall … [and] the process by which this was done,” he said. “I wasn’t given the opportunity to speak to any of the other deans, and it wasn’t transparent at all. I feel like there was no semblance of due process.”
Currently, Smith’s fellow FYCs and first-years on the fourth floor of Stewart are fighting to reinstate Smith and have created a blog.

Barrett made errors in judgment, (at this stage, he would be the last one to deny that) yet I strongly believe that letting him go is the wrong response.

Barrett must face consequences for his actions, but I do not think his dismissal is the correct response considering (a) Barrett’s firing has a very real and significant negative impact on my hall and the rest of Stewart, (b) there is no precedent for what the appropriate punishment for such actions is, (c) the process of investigation and deliberation leading up to Barrett being fired left out significant stakeholders and he was not provided with the adequate knowledge and avenues to present his case before the decision was rendered.

The Brainerd Reslife team (the FYCs and RAs) decided unanimously to request that Barrett be kept on as an FYC. We know, from the insider’s perspective (and do not see this situation as black-and-white but nuanced), how important he is to the fabric of this community and we are afraid of what impact his loss would have on Stewart.

We all considered this decision, as a Reslife team, as being very important and I know that a lot of thought was put behind every vote- but in the end, we were united in standing up for what we think would be the most beneficial outcome for our kids. Barrett erred, but we cannot afford to have our first years pay for that also.

There is nothing abstract or unreasonably emotional about what I mean by his removal would impact our community negatively. I have had the unique privilege of serving as Barrett’s FYC, then RA and now serve with him on this hall as his co-FYC. And I make this stance in the best interest of my first years. Our efforts, as a Reslife team, would suffer a considerable set-back if he were to leave.

Other than the Reslife team’s opinion, the first years in Stewart, as far I can see, overwhelmingly believe (quite vocally and actively, I should add) that Barrett should stay on in Stewart. It has been quite heartening to see them come together and independently seek to make their voices heard. At that point, backing them up is it the most reasonable and responsible thing for me to do.

I find it difficult to buy into the argument that the administration did and must play this situation ‘by the book’. First of all, in this case, there seems to be no precedent and thus no ‘book’. Additionally, the purpose of the Commons is first and foremost to foster a strong community. I don’t think that this charge of the Commons was considered as importantly as it should have, in the decision-making process.

At the end of the day, firing Barrett does not improve our situation at all. I ask the question, who gains from this? Who is any safer? No one in their right mind will claim that Barrett is a threat to the hall and therefore should move out. Barrett, the rest of the Reslife team and our students have grown tremendously over the last couple of weeks. So let us take a step back, take these events into our stride, and move on as stronger, united and intact community.

Thank you,

Nial Rele ’12

Stewart First Years’ placed these signed signs outside the conference room where the Commons Deans’ meeting yesterday.

Let me start however by commenting on the decision of some other FYCs to resign if the student led appeal fails.

Threats have little place in civilized discourse. By announcing in advance that they will resign if Barrett is not reinstated, the FYCs in question are holding the administration hostage. They are going against the most central tenant of liberal discourse, that it is OK for others to disagree. If this move stemmed from a principle that they feel was infringed and they were doing this to show solidarity and not issue a threat, they should have resigned after the fact and not made preemptive statements. The fact that they made this announcement before a final decision was made makes it quite obviously a threat. I would love to hear their explanation if this is not the case.

I also wonder if there is a lack of consistency in the arguments the FYCs are putting forth. They argue (and I have no reason to disagree) that Barrett being removed will cause tremendous damage to the hall dynamics. Will their decisions to resign not cause similar harm? When the college put forth its arguments for Barretts dismissal a lot of people consistently argued that the interests of the students of the hall should always come first. I urge you to consider your actions in the light of your arguments.

If you are still with me, I want to quickly explain why I think the college’s decision was right.

From a legal standpoint, if the college does not fire Barrett and something goes wrong in Stew 4 because of Barret or even with no involvement on his part, the college will be left vulnerable to lawsuits. It could very well be argued by anyone who sues the college at the point that the college provided insufficient care by having someone who has demonstrated a lack of judgement in a supervisory position. The college does not deserve this because of a personal mistake on the part of one student.

From a personal responsibility standpoint, Barrett should have resigned after the incident and not waited for the college’s ruling. If he sees the level of threat posed by having an absolute stranger living on the hall, he should feel the violation of trust that some of us felt in his decision. If he feels that there was no such threat, I invite him to explain, 1. why based on the little time he knew this man he is so sure and 2. what could we have done (given that we did not know his complete identity) if he had committed a crime and left.

Once again, I think Barrett should be allowed to stay on in the hall as a student. But when it comes to his employment contract, he clearly violated important provisions of this contract. We should have no say in the decision his employer has made especially given the legal ramifications discussed above.

Frank Wyer ’15 (Stew 4)- Barrett has been an integral part of my Middlebury experience, starting with moving-in day. I cannot imagine Stew 4 without him. He has always been kind, inclusive, and trustworthy, and I sincerely believe he is irreplaceable in this respect.

Dillon Cope ’15 (Stew 4)- BARRETT IS AN AMAZING PERSON.

Travis Fishstein ’15 (Stew 4)- I accept that Barrett has erred in judgement, yet he is my friend, and my family. His dismissal will not only be an injustice to myself, but to the very values that this school is built upon. Please reconsider the rash and inconsiderate decision you are making.

Paul Donnelly ’15 (Stew 4)- Barrett certainly made multiple mistakes and did not have the best judgement in this situation, however his removal as FYC will have a negative effect on our hall community for the year to come. Our hall has a special bond with Nial and Barrett, and having Barrett taken away would deprive the hall as a whole. Barrett has made adjusting to college life a lot easier, and while he made mistakes, it would be to the community’s advantage to have him stay as an FYC. I can totally understand the college’s decision as he did make serious mistakes, but I think they need to reconsider the decision and consider the impact this would have on the Stewart community more carefully. I hope the college can find an alternate punishment for Barrett.

Chris Kennedy ’15 (Stew 4)- In my opinion, Barrett’s lapse of judgment does not deserve this punishment. The people making this decision failed to ask the opinions of the people this decision affects the most: the students. Entering college is a difficult, nerve-wracking process. We have to live in a new place, we have to make new friends, we are pressured to succeed in school, and we are leaving home. We are establishing a new chapter of our lives. This process would have been much more difficult without Barrett as our FYC, and it will become much more difficult with him gone. He made us feel at home, created friendly bonds and established himself as a fatherly figure. If anything goes wrong, I know I have him, and I’ve needed him many times. Whether it was because I was partying too hard, family issues, or if I just needed a friend, he was there with open arms. You cannot replace this. Sure, you can get a new FYC, but Barrett is way more than an FYC. He represents everything Stew 4. He helped create bonds between the members of our hall, establishing a family-type atmosphere. Without him, these bonds will begin to break and Stew 4 will suffer. His actions deserve punishment, but your causing more harm than he ever did by firing him. Think of the larger effects of this decision. Think of the students.

Ahmed Anis Mebraki ’15 (Stew 4)- Justice is not just what’s on paper.

Grace Benz ’15- The coming J-term and Spring semester won’t be the same without Barrett living upstairs.

Nathan Weil ’15- Barrett is 100% a force for good in Stewart Hall. But Barrett can only be that force if allowed to stay. You do the math.

Sarah Nodder ’15- I do believe that what Barrett did was a serious security breach and did not take our well-being into account and that this would be the logical punishment. Yet, I do think that Barrett is a caring FYC and it would be sad to see him leave. He has been very open and has brought together many people in Stewart.

Ruth Tyson ’15- Barrett is [a] necessary part of the Stew community.

Sam Koplinka-Loehr ’13 (Stew 1 FYC)- I have known Barrett Smith for three years as a friend and have worked with him as an FYC this year. While he may have made mistakes, I do not believe those mistakes represented a lapse in his ability to serve as an FYC. He is one of the best FYCs I have ever met, who whole-heartedly devotes his time, energy, and soul to the residents of Stewart Hall. I believe firing him would be a grave detriment to the community as a whole, to do so disrespects the work that he does as well as what is best for the students.

Claire Nishioka ’15- Barrett was one of the very first people I met here on campus, and he made me feel instantly that I belonged. I feel as though his punishment (removal from the dorm) was too harsh, and that Barrett’s presence benefits us in so many ways, that in fact his absence will have only negative effects. keep barrett!!

Blake Shapskinsky ’15 (Stew 4)- Barrett is the best. He’s always willing to chat (and teach me how to rock climb). Looking at the pictures people have drawn for him in his room always brightens up my day. I’m sure another FYC would be friendly, but there’s no other Barrett.

Julianna Mauriello ’13 (Stew 3 FYC)- As one of Barrett’s fellow Stewart FYCs, I am very disheartened to see him fired. I fully agree that he made a serious mistake in allowing Louie to stay in Stewart Hall, and I agree that more immediate action should have been taken on his part when concerning incidences arose involving his guest. I personally felt very uncomfortable when I learned of the entire situation, although that was not until after Louie had already been removed from campus. However, removing Barrett from Stew 4 will only be harmful to his freshmen and to the Brainerd Commons Residential Life Staff. Aside from this particular incident, Barrett is an exemplary FYC. He is very devoted to the well-being of the students on his hall. He is caring, generous, and always a very active member of our residential community. Barrett would be sorely missed, and I believe his removal would mostly be a detriment to the young men on the fourth floor who have developed such strong relationships with their beloved FYC.