It’s that time of the week again, where I bring you the best vibes on Transy’s campus! This week’s playlist consists of a mixture of indie tunes from bands like Beach House, The Neighbourhood, and The Dead South! Don’t forget, you can always email me suggestions of songs you’d like to see make next week’s playlist at tmahlinger20@transy.edu!
As for arts events this week, we have opening week of both the play, Stupid F—ing Bird and the new Morlan Gallery exhibit, Something Pretty, as well as a talk by Susan Weinstein!
Friday, November 2nd @7:30pm, Saturday, November 3rd @ 7:30pm, Sunday November 4th @2pm, Little Theater
Join Transylvania Theater for their production of Stupid F—ing Bird by Aaron Posner, directed by Tosha Fowler. The play will run this weekend and next, so be sure to get your free tickets before they sell out here.
Something Pretty, October 29th-November 19th
Morlan Gallery’s latest exhibit, Something Pretty, curated by Dr. Emily Goodman, is officially open! This exhibit features work by artists Tiffany Calvert, Justin Favela, Angela Dufresne, Stephen Rolfe Powell, and HuiMeng Wang. The gallery is open from noon-5pm on weekdays!
Thursday, November 8th @4:30pm, Cowgill 102
Transy will be hosting a lecture by Susan Weinstein, who is a well-known author and scholar and will be talking about the unheard voices of the youth and spoken word art!
Transylvania Volleyball leads the way in conference play this season as they host the HCAC tournament tomorrow here at the Beck Center. They are the regular season conference champions due to their impressive 8-1 conference record this year.
Our Pioneers had an especially difficult out of conference schedule this season: they have faced five different top 25 teams throughout the course of this season. Those teams being #10 Washington (Mo.), #25 Berry, #8 Emory, #3 Wittenberg, and Thomas More twice.
Junior Hadley Trenaman spoke about about their rigorous out of conference schedule and how that has prepared them for postseason play. “Playing some of the top teams in the nation at the beginning of the season was extremely challenging. I think our team has learned a lot through this process and really grown together to become a unit. This style of playing has prepared us to play to a higher level when facing our opponents in conference. We know what is out there and are ready to do big things this post season.”
The Pioneers are led by two-time offensive conference player of the week, junior Jordan Horne, who is third in kills per set. Sophomore Ellie Stigger who was HCAC Rookie of the year and also achieved HCAC offensive player of the week honors is third in the conference in blocks per set and junior Addy Tonn is fifth in the conference in that department. Also, reigning HCAC Offensive Player of the Year, junior Hannah Talkers is fourth in the conference in assists per set.
The Pioneers have proven to be a deep team this year by doing a great job of rotating a number of players each game to keep fresh legs on the court. They are standing at an impressive record of 14-10 going into the conference tournament. They have built some momentum going into this tournament with victories over Mt. St. Joseph’s and Manchester in straight sets, and Transylvania has won eight out of their last nine games.
Saturday starts the conference tournament with our Pioneers taking on Bluffton at 2pm. They defeated Bluffton 3-1 earlier in the year when they played against them. If they take down Bluffton, they will face the winner of Rose-Hulman vs. Earlham on Sunday to determine the winner of the tournament. The winner of this tournament will automatically qualify for the NCAA tournament.
Be sure to cheer on your Pioneers at the Beck Center tomorrow at 2:00PM as they take on the Bluffton Beavers going into post season play!
Walking into Transylvania’s Morlan Gallery to see “Something Pretty” is reminiscent of happening upon a field of wildflowers. Suddenly, the atmosphere becomes ethereal, suspending a surreal glow over scatterings of pieces by Tiffany Calvert, Angela Dufresne, Justin Favela, Stephen Rolfe Powell, and HuiMeng Wang.
“Aloof Whispering Cyclone” by Stephen Rolfe Powell. Photo by Gabby Crooks
In the words of curator Dr. Emily Goodman, “this exhibition seeks to complicate what it means to be pretty, by bringing together several different artists whose work engages with the aesthetics of prettiness, while simultaneously undercutting the diminutive and dismissive connotations of the label.”
Each artist’s unique style is able to exist individually, but integrates into a cohesive message. The most dynamic pieces are those of Stephen Rolfe Powell, a renowned glass artist. “Aloof Whispering Cyclone” is indeed a tornado of color. It recalls abstract expressionism, a swirl of complementary shades that kisses its base like a raindrop meeting a puddle. His work is layered, making it visually delicious upon closer inspection.
Justin Favela’s piñata pieces are also layered, but in a different sense. Up close, they are nothing but brightly colored strips of paper adhered to cardboard, but given space, they become mosaics. Favela’s work addresses myths surrounding the idealization of Mexico “as a pastoral idyll.”
An oil piece done by Tiffany Calvert. Photo by Gabby Crooks
Similarly, some of Tiffany Calvert’s work utilizes non-traditional medium, including foam insulation board. One such piece is “Untitled #297,” whose clunky, fragmented brushstrokes give the impression that the image is falling apart, or possibly, coming together. She also explores the relationship between traditional and digital media in “Untitled #286” and “Untitled #305.” Using oil on a digitally printed canvas, she creates “unseeable” images, meaning that viewers cannot determine “whether they are looking at a photograph or an abstraction.”
Angela Dufresne also uses thickly applied brushstrokes in her oil paintings, creating a textural energy. “Listen To Me You Idiot” depicts a grotesque yet endearing figure emerging from painterly strokes, complicating ideas about beauty and humanness. She also explores gender and sexuality in “Jan,” an oil painting of a masculine figure who seems to be rejoicing amidst Dufresne’s muddied application of paint.
The show’s film component takes shape in “You Are Beautiful You Should Be Seen,” by HuiMeng Wang. For three minutes and 34 seconds, scenes of a beach expedition to uncover tree trunks that were supposed to have been shipwrecks fill the screen. Why? It is a rumination on uncertainty and beauty. These pieces are the individual flowers of a larger bouquet offered to the viewer. It is up to to us to either accept or reject their meaning.
“Cracking Frenetic Glare” by Stephen Rolfe Powell. Photo by Gabby Crooks
As a woman living in the Digital Age, I am well acquainted with expectations and conceptions of beauty. Each work featured in “Something Pretty” speaks to a different aspect of what it means to be “pretty” and how “pretty” things are treated.
Powell’s glasswork meets the viewer at the door, establishing the undeniable prettiness of what is delicate, yet I also find beauty in its boldness and intricacy. The political and social commentary that Favela’s piñata paintings provide are a different conversation entirely. “Valle de México desde el Río de los Morales, After Jose Maria Velasco” may essentially take the form of a commercialized traditional Hispanic craft, but this is what makes it appealing. Favela refuses to allow his culture to be romanticized by turning an instrument of that romanticization into art. Here, the beauty lies in the message.
Assorted artwork by Angela Dufresne. Photo by Gabby Crooks
Dufresne’s pieces from her “Muses and Monsters” series spark a similar conversation. They feature anthropomorphic creatures that are not pretty in the traditional sense. Yet they possess undeniable feminine characteristics. I found myself sympathetic to their plight, their inability to ascend to true beauty.
The simplicity of Calvert’s non-digital pieces wore off the longer I looked at them. “Untitled #267” evoked uncomfortableness, as if she was hurriedly trying to cover what was on the canvas with slashes of black and gray. The larger paintings, in which she combines oil and digital prints, appear to be glitched, as if she was interrupted mid-brushstroke. “Untitled #305” features flowers, a conventionally pretty still life component, yet their status is elevated to beautiful because of Calvert’s unique interpretation.
Prettiness is best described by “You Are Beautiful You Should Be Seen,” in which the dazzlingly white tree trunks are lost in sand, unable to be restored to their former state. The dreamlike quality of the film casts a serenity over the show, reminding viewers to revel in what is there before it disappears.
Come see Morlan Gallery’s newest exhibit, it really is Something Pretty. Photo by Gabby Crooks
“Something Pretty” should be seen by anyone interested in aesthetic standards and the connotations of prettiness. If we are to deem something pretty, is it better that we not say anything at all? Viewers should walk away knowing whether or not they are comfortable with being assigned and assigning the term.
In exposing ourselves to the work of the featured artists, we become part of a larger conversation surrounding beauty. The undeniable feminist qualities of the exhibit present the opportunity for rumination not just for members of specific niches, but for everyone. It is often assumed that art appreciation is reserved only for the elitist and educated, but appreciation is not actually a requirement. Everyone should feel welcome and included in the discussions “Something Pretty” sparks, because if that is not the case, there is no use in having a discussion at all.
Though the exhibit deconstructs traditional prettiness, there is nothing traditional about the artwork featured. Taking what has been marginalized and making it the focus of an exhibition may not be a universally appealing concept. But it challenges the fundamental lenses through which we understand art. Even if we think art is just “something pretty,” we are participating in the discussion.
Kentuckians for the Commonwealth (KFTC) has released their annual voter guide, with questions and answers from candidates for local and state offices.
The statewide grassroots progressive group, which also endorses candidates through its affiliated PAC, New Power, does not include the endorsements in its voter guide, which presents only the unedited, written candidates’ responses to a survey mailed out a few months before the general election.
Another voter guide, focusing especially on issues of land use and development, has been published by the Fayette Alliance.
Surveyed Fayette County candidates for office include the candidates for City Council for all districts, candidates for at-large City Council seats (representing all of Fayette County), candidates for mayor, Congressional candidates, and many others. Because KFTC is a statewide organization, other areas of the state have been surveyed as well.
A voter’s polling place determines their City Council and state legislative districts. You can find out what races are being held in your polling place—and where your polling place is—on govoteky.org, a website sponsored by the Kentucky Secretary of State.
Students registered at 300 North Broadway will choose between incumbent Councilman James Brown and his challenger, Anita Rowe Franklin, for District 1’s City Council seat.
“I value the voter guide because it provides comprehensive information about every candidate’s policies and principles,” KFTC member Mary Landrum wrote in an email. “I really appreciate that KFTC does so much research, and that they compile it such a user-friendly format.”
The 2018 election will be held on November 6. Polls will be open from 6:00 AM to 6:00 PM EDT.
Disclosure statement: Rebecca Blankenship’s partner is KFTC’s organizer for Madison County.
The most recently renovated building on campus, the Carpenter Academic Center, suffered water damage in three rooms from leaks that started just weeks after its renovations were finished.
The leaks were found in three rooms of the Carpenter Academic Center in early October. Rooms 106, 302, and the lower level men’s restroom were affected.
Dr. Melissa McEuen, whose office was room 106 before the leak was found, declined to comment for this story.
The source of the leaks was determined to be the downspouts. A downspout is a pipe on the side of the building that connects to the rain gutter and carries the water away from the building. Two downspouts had a tear in the back side, which allowed water to leak into rooms 106 and 302. This caused members of the academy to go to site in order to get a professional in to help with the issue.
Darrell Banks, the director of Facilities Management and the University Construction Manager, thought at first that the water leak in room 106 could possibly be a result of the extensive renovations Carpenter underwent last year, which concluded in April 2018. But after investigating further, Banks does not believe any of the leaks were related to remodeling.
The damaged downspout has been replaced, along with the downspout on the northeast corner of Carpenter, which Banks said contributed to the leak found in the men’s room. The downspouts were holdovers from Haupt, as Carpenter was previously known, and were not a part of the Carpenter remodel.
Banks and his team will be replacing all of the downspouts in Carpenter as a precautionary measure, while closely monitoring the water infiltration problem and perhaps installing gutter guards as seen on sites like www.mastershieldatl.com, so gutter maintenance won’t have to be conducted as often and damages can be reduced. Banks said that once he is certain the problem has been solved, Physical Plant will begin to repair the damage to the interior.
The University of Kentucky’s Wildcats hosted our Transylvania Pioneers at Rupp Arena on Friday night in the “Battle on Broadway.” The Wildcats prevailed over the Pioneers 94-66 in front of a large but rather quiet crowd.
Starting this game for the Pioneers were seniors Bo Schuh and Cooper Theobald, juniors Spencer McKinney and Gabe Schmitt, and first-year Luke Schroeder. In their first game this season, the Wildcats’ starters were sophomores Quade Green, PJ Washington, and Nick Richards, as well as first-year Immanuel Quickley and graduate transfer Reid Travis.
As Transylvania Head Coach Brian Lane predicted in his preview of the game, Kentucky’s guards came out full court pressing the Pioneers, who adjusted to the pressure over the course of the game. UK blocked an early shot, leading to a fast break alley-oop from guard Immanuel Quickley to PJ Washington. That was followed by another steal and dunk by Kentucky. Going into the first TV timeout, the score was only 8-5 Wildcats, with scores from Theobald and Schmitt.
After the TV timeout, UK went on a 10-0 run that led Transy to take their first timeout of the half. Then the Pios got some help off the bench from sophomore Michael Jefferson with a beautiful reverse layup that got some “oooos” from the crowd. Jefferson found success early, driving to the paint and tossing a smooth kickout bounce pass to first-year Aidan Pashley. The first half ended in a dazzling lay-up finish by UK first-year Keldon Johnson, but he got the shot off too late, leaving the score at the half 49-30.
UK did a great job controlling the interior in the first half, and Transylvania struggled to make them pay from outside, shooting just 4-18 from three. UK had 5 blocks on Transylvania going into halftime. The Pios were also out-rebounded 28-12 in the first half. Kentucky shot 12 more throws than the Pioneers, but had yet to make a three-pointer going into halftime.
The second half fared much better for Transylvania’s offense. They went from shooting a tad over 30% from the field to shooting almost 50% in the second half. Pioneer guards Michael Jefferson and Cooper Theobald found more success driving to the basket and creating opportunities for themselves to score. Kentucky did not make their first three-pointer, sunk by guard Quade Green, until 14:24 to go in the 2nd half. Green built off this shot with back-to-back lay-ups a couple minutes later.
The pace of the second half was significantly slower than the first. Both teams were constantly fouling one another, although none of the fouls were malicious or flagrant. UK Head Coach John Calipari attributed Kentucky’s fouls to fatigue from playing a full court press, and to Transylvania’s consistently lengthy possessions. Pioneer first-year forward Luke Schroeder even fouled out of the game, while the crowd booed louder and louder at the refs with each call that was made.
The game concluded with a final score of 94-66 Kentucky, with dominant play from the big men of the Wildcats. Kentucky out-rebounded the Pioneers by an extremely wide margin of 52-18. UK had a very balanced scoring attack with seven players in double figures to Transy’s two. Leading scorers were Kentucky’s first-year forward EJ Montgomery and the Pioneers’ sophomore Michael Jefferson, each scoring 14 points.
Coach Lane in pre-game press conference mentioned how thankful he was to Coach Calipari for helping the Pioneers get this opportunity. He praised his team’s effort and Kentucky’s communication on defense that the Wildcats were mentioning was a focus for them. Senior Cooper Theobald mentioned that playing this type of competition will only help propel the program and help them learn about what they need to work on.
The Pioneers played with great effort and had some strong moments against the Wildcats. Building off of this performance against a top-five team in the country, the Pioneers should be a force in the Heartland Conference this season and a great joy for any basketball fan to watch.
Here’s This Thing is a new weekly column where Rambler editors share their favorite obscure pop culture and explain what makes it so great. You can find all our new columns here.
During a recent lecture, I purposefully antagonized students.
I belittled one student by criticizing him in front of others. I favored another student by telling other students they should be more like her. I responded impatiently to questions. I told one student his contribution to class was incompetent.
Yes, I felt like a jerk by doing this. But don’t worry, this was not a real college class. Fortunately, this was a video lecture. The “students” I antagonized in the video were actually actors. No students’ grades were harmed and no feelings were hurt.
So what’s the point?
As a communication studies professor who researches effective teaching, my colleagues and I purposefully antagonized the students in the video lecture to see how it affected other students’ ability to learn. Our acts were meant to be what is known as “instructor misbehavior.” We had student participants attend this prerecorded video lecture, then share their thoughts and take a test on the lecture material. We wanted to determine if being hostile to students caused them to learn less.
Levels of misbehavior
Not every bad thing that an instructor does is as bad as the ones I did for our study. Some are relatively minor, such as showing up a few minutes late to office hours. These types of things may detract from a learning environment, but students can recover easily from a few simple mistakes or inconveniences caused by a professor.
But some types of serious misbehavior can hurt the learning environment. These include taking four weeks to return graded assignments, not responding to student emails, deviating substantially from a syllabus or showing up ill-prepared.
The worst thing an instructor can do, from my perspective, is antagonize their students. It may be rare, but students regularly identify antagonism as the most significant misbehavior.
So what happened to those “students” who had the misfortune of having me as their antagonistic professor?
Impact on grades
In our experiment, college students were randomly assigned to one lecture taught by me without antagonism or the same lecture taught with antagonizing remarks. We found that students disliked the course content more in the lecture where I was antagonistic. Those students also scored between 3 and 5 percent lower on a quiz of the material.
College professors have choices about how they communicate with students in the classroom, even if they subscribe to a “tell-it-like-it-is” philosophy. It’s not just about the quality of the content. It’s also about how that content is communicated. Students deserve to be taught in optimal learning environments, and for that to happen, professors need to lay off the antagonism. When they don’t, it could drag down the entire class.
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article. The original article was written by OiYan Poon, Assistant Professor of Higher Education Leadership; Director of the Race & Intersectional Studies for Educational Equity (RISE) Center, Colorado State University.
When it comes to the ongoing debate over affirmative action in U.S. college admissions, both opponents and supporters among Asian-Americans have plenty to say.
The problem is what people say about race-conscious affirmative action in higher education in the U.S. often doesn’t match how it is actually practiced.
I’m a scholar who specializes in Asian-Americans and higher education. My critique of how Asian-Americans discuss affirmative action is not based on some aloof analysis of what they say from afar.
Back in 2016, my co-author, Megan Segoshi, who was my research assistant at the time, and I traveled across the country to interview Asian-Americans on the front lines of both sides of the debate over affirmative action. To recruit participants, we reached out to Asian-American organizations that actively and publicly supported or opposed affirmative action between 2012 and 2016. We identified 36 individuals.
We wanted to see the extent to which Asian-Americans have an accurate understanding of the policy and how it is practiced in college admissions. This matter is at the heart of a pending lawsuit in which Harvard College is accused of discriminating against Asian-Americans in its admissions process.
Faulty views
Due to our previous research, we knew there would be different views on affirmative action. What surprised us was how both sides of the debate had such a flawed understanding of fundamental aspects of how affirmative action is practiced in the United States.
In fairness, race-conscious affirmative action is an amorphous thing. When it comes to actually doing affirmative action, even colleges and universities wrestle with what is legally permissible under the law.
Be that as it may, it is still alarming that some of the Asian-American community’s most outspoken individuals on affirmative action harbor erroneous ideas about what affirmative action actually is and how it works.
For instance, when we asked participants to describe how affirmative action worked in college admissions, 30 out of 36 presented outdated myths of the policy. These 30 included 13 affirmative action supporters and 17 opponents.
Among opponents, many explained their beliefs that affirmative action involved “racial quotas,” which were declared unconstitutional in the 1978 Regents of the University of California v. Bakke case. They also thought it involved “racial bonus points” for black and Latino applicants. Opponents further stated that these racial bonus points were not given to Asian-Americans even though they were outlawed completely in the 2003 Gratz case.
On the front lines
Many affirmative action supporters also explained affirmative action in the same misinformed ways. This was surprising to me because the policy supporters included staff members and leaders of longstanding Asian-American civil rights organizations that had signed legal briefs supporting affirmative action. I wrongly assumed they would be more informed about the current state of the law.
Among these 30 interview participants – both policy supporters and opponents – many also stated that the purpose of affirmative action in higher education was to bring about more racial parity or equity in college access. Racial parity and equity were in fact historical goals of affirmative action. However, those aims have not been in line with the current legal purpose for race-conscious admissions since the 1978 Bakke case.
The opponents argued that racial quotas and point systems were unfair. They suspected elite colleges of limiting the number of Asian-Americans admitted and holding Asian-Americans to higher academic standards for entry. Affirmative action supporters believed these practices were necessary to advance a more racially equitable society, even though race-conscious admissions is now practiced through holistic review of individual applicants. Such individualized review is meant to recognize, in a limited way, how race and racism might have shaped each applicant’s perspectives and educational opportunities.
When asked to explain what they believed would be an ideal way for colleges to admit students, 33 of 36 said they preferred a review process take individual students’ contexts of opportunity into account. In other words, paradoxically, 33 interview participants all agreed in principle with the current state of race-conscious admissions policies.
Even opponents of affirmative action stated that they were not opposed to colleges taking into account how racism could impact students’ lives and contexts of achievement, as long as race was not used as a major factor in admissions.
In 1978, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled racial quotas unconstitutional in the Bakke case, it shifted the legal justification for using race as a factor in admissions away from a goal of achieving racial equity and addressing historical racial injustices. The new goal was now one of cultivating a diverse educational environment that benefits all students. I wouldn’t expect the average person to know about this legal shift. However, I assumed that vocal activists would know more about affirmative action than the average person.
Most recently, in the 2016 Fisher v. University of Texas case, the court again reaffirmed that the use of race – as one of many factors in admissions through individualized holistic review – could be justified by a goal of diversity.
There is no mathematical formula for diversity or holistic review. As Justice Anthony Kennedy explained in the 2016 Fisher decision, each college and university should thoughtfully determine what characteristics or factors should be included in its individualized admission process. For example, through what Harvard calls “whole-person review,” race is considered as one of many factors – not a singular factor – to achieve its institutional mission. Such a process takes individual applicants’ educational and life contexts into account. It can also increase the odds of admission for Asian-Americans at selective institutions. At Harvard, Asian-Americans represented about 23 percent of the class of 2019, reflecting a 29 percent increase over the last decade. Since 2004, in comparison, the Asian-American college student population has plateaued at slightly above 6 percent.
More accurate information on how race-conscious admissions works today may not necessarily end the Asian-American divide in the affirmative action debate. However, it should at least enable people on both sides to have a more informed discussion.
