Your Custom Text Here
Photos by Tianna Sheih ‘16
Recently, Scripps College was named one of the healthiest colleges in the United States. With access to such beautiful facilities, access to great machines, and even personal training for the luckiest students, being healthy at Scripps is easy. This issue, The Scripps Voice shines a spotlight on the best and most beautiful college gym in the country: the Tiernan Field House
By Natalie Camrud ‘17
Fashion Columnist
It is finally starting to cool down from Death Valley heat levels, much to the relief of all students and squirrels on campus. I’ve been seeing a lot of students with high-waisted shorts and sweater combos, trying to find a good balance between the frigid cold of the classrooms and the oven-like heat of the dorms. But relish the crop top weather while it lasts, my fellow Scrippsies. Winter is coming.
Nicole Zweiner '16 models the distressed boyfriend jean trend. Photo by Natalie Camrud '17.
Name: Nicole Zwiener
Year: Junior
Outfit: Distressed boyfriend jeans with a loose white tank top and a delicate gold necklace to balance it out
Favorite item of clothing: “My favorite item of clothing is my rag and bone boyfriend jeans (what I’m wearing in the photograph). They’re jeans but [they] feel just as soft as sweatpants!”
By Melanie Biles '18
Staff Writer
If I worked in Admissions, I would make a pamphlet about all of the most helpful things one should know before coming to Scripps. None of it would be logistical or concerned with academics or dorm life — there’s already plenty of information out there about all of that. No, instead, my pamphlet would include the most relevant advice like, “It is totally normal for the squirrels to lunge at you like that,” and, “Make friends in air-conditioned places,” and, “Do not — under any circumstances — go to lunch right at noon on days when first years have Core.”
Actually, there would probably be a lot of advice about Core. No Scripps experience is complete without the adventure that is the Core Curriculum, and yet there is little actual information out there ahead of time about what Core is. So far, it seems to just be a lot of having no idea whatsoever about what is happening.
If I had to summarize Core in one sentence, that sentence would probably be the length of Michel Foucault’s Discipline & Punish. It would also be just as complex as Michel Foucault’s Discipline & Punish. Core, I’ve learned, is an academic experiment in how much arbitrarily confounding material can be fit into the average eighteen-year-old girl’s head before she actually explodes. “Confounding material,” of course, does not just refer to theoretically-complicated books like Foucault’s but also to narratives like Jean Genet’s “The Thief’s Journal,” in which there are as many euphemisms for men sleeping with other men as there are aggressive squirrels at Scripps.
The Core theme this year is “Histories of the Present” with a specific focus on violence. While you, like me, may be wondering how the naked men in “The Thief’s Journal” relate to anything violent whatsoever, rest assured that after reading Foucault, it is impossible not to see violence everywhere. The coffee in your hand? Violence towards the barista. The textbook you are reading? Violence on the part of the professor. The fact that I had a deadline for this article? Definitely violence. Pretty much every part of life is a violent act intended to discipline everyone until individuality ceases to exist and we are all just part of one faceless society operating seamlessly to further the greater good. Or something.
In some ways, Core is a lot like the freshman experience in general. I am a fan of metaphors, and I think this is a good one (maybe not as good as Taylor Swift equating her fame to a guy walking around with a cat on his head but good nonetheless). In Core, and as a first year, you learn a lot of lessons that you never knew you needed but that end up being incredibly worthwhile. You are lost. You are confused. You interpret things incorrectly almost constantly. There is “no right answer,” but everyone else seems to know what it is. You have to be prepared to be really, really uncomfortable. Most of all, you have to remember that it will all be worth it in the end.
By Isobel Whitcomb '17
Current Events Columnist
Fracking, the process of using highly-pressurized water and chemicals to force tightly-held fossil fuels out of underground rock, is one of the newest and most highly-contested endeavors in our quest to obtain energy. While fracking is a word that has been thrown around a lot lately in dialogues about energy, conservation and environmentalism, it is a topic that is rarely completely understood. Ignorance is not 100 percent at fault for this lack of understanding. People do not completely understand fracking because even science doesn’t yet completely understand it. To help 5C students gain a better understanding of what information is out there on this process, here is a brief primer on the enormous effect it has on our land, climate and communities.
Why did oil companies begin fracking? As a nation powered by fossil fuels, we are on the verge of the massive realization that we are running out of our primary source of energy. Existing oil wells are drying out faster than we are discovering new ones. It is this impending shortage that spurred oil companies to begin fracking. In the words of Pomona professor Ian Hazlett during his talk at Frank dining hall last week, “Fracking is a way to pick the last fruit off of the energy tree.” Because of fracking, fossil fuels that used to be virtually impossible to obtain are now at our fingertips.
Why is this a problem? We do not fully understand the extent of fracking’s ramifications on our environment, but we do know enough to surmise that it is harmful in at least three major ways.
First, it is harmful geologically. The force fracking puts on underground rock is powerful enough to trigger earthquakes. According to Hazlett, spikes in earthquake activity have been noted near oil fields throughout the Midwest, East Coast, and Alaska.
Second, it is harmful to our health. Many oil fields where fracking takes place are located in residential areas. Water injected into the ground is filled with chemicals like formaldehyde and lubricants that get into the local drinking water — things that people should never drink. Fracking also releases large quantities of methane — a gas so noxious that we install detectors in our homes to protect ourselves from methane poisoning.
Finally, fracking hurts our climate. This final crucial consequence is surprising to many people, including those who see fracking and its products as a cleaner alternative to burning coal. However, recent research has shown that over a 20-year period, the methane released by fracking traps 86 times more heat than carbon dioxide. We are already speeding towards a tipping point in our climate; fracking is taking us there at an even faster rate.
Why does this matter? If you live on planet earth, fracking is an issue that will affect your future due to its effect on the climate. More specifically, however, it is important for all of us living in Los Angeles County. While the City of Los Angeles recently placed a moratorium on fracking, LA County has not yet been that successful. Fracking is going on right now throughout the county. Not only does it pose the risk of triggering a massive earthquake, but it has already caused residents living near Los Angeles county oil fields to report symptoms ranging from nose bleeds to heart problems.
What can I do? First, educate yourself and others. Second, get involved with one of the numerous groups mobilizing to ban fracking throughout Los Angeles County and California as a whole.
Claremont Climate Justice is working to help instate this ban and is a great place to start for anyone looking to join the movement. Third, vote. Keep an eye out for a campaign led by Claremont Climate Justice getting students registered to vote in California!
Trigger warning: abuse
By Evelyn Gonzalez ‘18
Feminism Columnist
At this point, the NFL may be better known for its excessive amount of cover ups rather than its impressive number of touchdowns.
It is always too little, too late with the NFL isn’t it? It seems to be at a loss about what to do when its reputation is jeopardized, as evidenced by its constant issuance of apologies to the public instead of punishments to its players. It is getting pretty old and pathetic having to watch yet again as the NFL tries to scrape another player’s tainted image from the throngs of social media outlets.
On Feb. 19, Ray Rice, a running back from the Baltimore Ravens, was captured on tape dragging his wife’s unconscious body from an elevator. It was of no surprise to me when the Ravens’ representatives quickly came to his defense and tried to cover up the assault charges to minimize the chance of having to remove him from the team. They did, however, set a whopping two-day suspension. After the release of this tape there was an outcry over the NFL’s treatment of this issue, forcing them to reassess Rice’s assault and issue a harsher punishment. Rice was indicted on aggravated assault charges although the court allowed him to complete a 12-month program instead of the possible maximum charge of five years in prison. He was suspended indefinitely. This wasn’t over concern of the well being of his partner; but rather the NFL was more concerned about the public backlash than the real issue. The punishment for domestic violence, especially within the NFL, was not — and almost never is — fitting of the crime committed.
We have this notion of the untouchable athlete where we focus in on their careers rather than the lives and various physio-emotional states of those they assaulted. We live in the type of society that still asks what she could have done to warrant his violence and aggression. People make comments speculating what she could have done to deserve something like this, implying (or even outright stating) that perhaps it was justified.
This is not just an issue of aggression on the part of professional athletes anymore; it is the outright enabling and tolerance of the violence against women. This was not, after all, the first time the topic of domestic violence was brought up nor the first time we have seen questionable actions taken against players, if any action was taken at all. You do not need to look very hard to find everything the NFL has tried to keep private in regards to this matter. According to the database created by USA Today, “domestic violence accounts for 85 of the 713 arrests of NFL players since 2000.”
If we allow this kind of blatant violence against women to occur here, a perfectly conspicuous area covered by mainstream media, what else are we letting slide or being pushed under the rug as a result of our own indifference and skewed priorities?
It is perfectly clear to me that the NFL has no interest in supporting women if it means one of their players has to take some bench time. To them, the business and the game is more important than a person. The most important thing we can do in these situations is continue to voice our own frustrations and concerns about the policies of the NFL and their treatment towards domestic violence.
By Jocelyn Gardner '16
Mental Health Columnist
When I decided to write this issue’s article on the topic of stigma, I was wary of the fact that most people in Claremont probably have an understanding of stigma against mental illness. I was about to scrap the idea — until I made a few disturbing discoveries.
To give some context, I read a large number of resources and articles about mental health. This means I see all of the positive sides of the issue. When looking for resources to compare and add to the blog, of course I see all the support that exists, and I often come across descriptions of stigma and people’s negative experiences (which usually end positively, on these sites). I do not find much in support of the harmful stigmatized views I see in everyday life, despite my certainty of their existence. My point is, I search very specifically to find the helpful results because I know where to search. Instead of discussion on stigma, I wanted to find the beast in its natural habitat. I started looking into this in the most basic of ways: Google.
In Google search, I typed in a few key words to see what autocomplete shows as the most relevant similar searches. For example, the top two autocomplete options for the words “depression is” were “depression is not real” and “depression is a choice.” Top result for “bipolar is” is “bipolar is fake”. A particularly horrifying instance came up with “self harm is”; “Self harm is so stupid,” “self harm is attention seeking,” “self harm is for attention” and “self harm is selfish” were the four autocomplete searches.
It goes without saying that this is offensive in the very least, but this issue is so much larger than the word “stigma” seems to encompass. The word stigma in all its connotations cannot contain the widespread, often internalized and systematic shame, isolation, exclusion, blame, bias and stereotypes. Where have we heard this talk about cycles of oppression before? Social justice. Yes, this is about social justice.
Some of this oppression goes beyond the obvious, however. We have heard of friends turning their backs on people who have come out as having a mental illness but we are often not aware of the deeper lurking problems such as media portrayal and careless language. An example to consider is the way that the media portrays people who have committed violent crimes as “crazy” and point to a mental illness as a cause without necessarily providing further evidence or information that clarifies or explains the mental illness — this leads to misconception.
People who see mental illness as a cause for violence can criminalize people with mental illness and treat them differently. The alleged connection between mental illness and violence is not as strong as media would suggest. According to mentalhealth.gov, “the vast majority of people with mental health problems are no more likely to be violent than anyone else. Most people with mental illness are not violent and only three to five percent of violent acts can be attributed to individuals living with a serious mental illness. In fact, people with severe mental illnesses are over ten times more likely to be victims of violent crime than the general population.” Since the mental health discussion, as I explained in last issue’s article, is not prevalent by any stretch, the general public is not exposed to material that would correct this view. They might not even realize how inaccurate the information is, since major commercialized news sources are widely regarded as infallible sources.
Another instance of mis-understanding and stigmatization of mental health that comes to mind is the use of trigger warnings. Honestly, I had never heard of a trigger warning until coming to Scripps. In one class I had, the professor asked us if we thought that they were important, and I was surprised at the range of opinions. Of course, upon further reading, the internet is also ambivalent, and many people think that trigger warnings are overblown. Before I get farther into this point, I want to make a few distinctions and reaffirm where the importance of this issue rests. Trigger warnings are a relatively recent way to warn people of possible triggers, which allows writers more freedom to write about intense topics. Triggers are not content that is simply “uncomfortable” or controversial. Trigger responses can include panic attacks, dissociation, flashbacks and compulsions among many varied symptoms. Note that these are mental and physical responses that are involuntary and can affect someone hours and even days after exposure to the trigger.
In my class, some students argued that people should know their own triggers and do research themselves to avoid them, as well as that “discomfort” and “challenge” are essential to learning. I do not disagree, nor do I disagree that the “real world’ also does not have trigger warnings.
I understand that there are many cases where people do not use trigger warnings this way and label content incorrectly. Is this really a reason to dismiss trigger warnings for those who need them? How much should these people have to go out of their ways — change the way they live their lives — to protect their own health? More importantly, why should one group of people be allowed to decide what others can or should feel?
The matters I have discussed raise many important questions. I would love for this to be a continuing point of discussion — share your opinions at www.scrippsvoicementalhealth.wordpress.com or the google form, which is linked to on the blog. Comments and submissions are anonymous on both sites. All opinions are welcome and accepted, and as I have said that I have seen a large range when it comes to these topic. I genuinely would like to hear any and all opinions people send to get a better idea of the views in our community.
By Elizabeth Lee '16
Copy Editor and Film Columnist
At first glance, “The Intouchables” is a rather familiar and formulaic film — to the extent that in discussing it with my mother months after we had originally seen it together she had no recollection of it having not been in English. In that sense its familiarity serves as less of a bore and more of a comfort in its universally feel good nature.
The French film, directed and written by Oliver Nakache and Eric Toledano and starring Francois Cluzet and Omar Sy, became rather popular internationally — at least perhaps as popular as any foreign film tends to be outside its own country — upon its international release in 2012. Based on the lives of actual people, it tells the tale of what happens when two people of different worlds — of different races and socioeconomic backgrounds — cross paths and in an expectedly-unexpected turn of events find rich companions in one another. It is a basic pattern that has been continuously described as reminiscent of “Driving Miss Daisy,” in which the posh and aloof employer is confronted with the down-to-earth irreverence of their caretaker and both end up inspiring the other to perceive life a little differently than they did before. Where “The Intouchables” becomes more interestingly its own version of the familiar blueprint of a story is in the unabashed humor surrounding touchy subjects like race and disability as well as a relationship between the two main characters that is odd yet natural enough to seem more sincere than sappy.
Philippe is an enormously wealthy and cynical older man who half-heartedly and with more annoyance at his need for assistance than actual helplessness seeks a caretaker. In comes Driss, who cuts a line of candidates to request a signature proving he interviewed and is upfront in admitting that he has no previous experience nor even actual desire to take on the job. He just wants the signature so that he can continue to live off of welfare benefits. Philippe expresses great appreciation for Driss’s lack of ‘pity’ and the next day Driss moves in on a trial period.
There is a great amount of honesty in the relationship between Philippe and Driss that comes across in significant part due to the honesty of the actors’ performances. Driss laughs upon clumsily becoming acquainted with modern art and classical music and has no problem expressing outright horror at the prospect of having to take care of Philippe’s less-than-dignified needs. Philippe, meanwhile, relies on Driss in a way that Driss has not often found himself capable of or interested in. He eventually encourages Philippe to take greater control of his life by being stricter with his adopted daughter, pursuing a relationship with a woman with whom he has been exchanging letters and encouraging him to poke fun at himself constantly while seeking value in life’s little pleasures; cue image of Driss riding on the back of Philippe’s wheelchair yelling to see how fast they can go.
In two particularly memorable scenes, Driss builds off a sense of humor that borders on uncomfortable but never fails to make us and Philippe laugh in spite of ourselves.
During a birthday concert in which Philippe tries to share with Driss his love of classical music, Driss remains unimpressed — pretending to gallop to Bach, reciting to Vivaldi the phone spiel of the Paris Unemployment Agency when one is on hold. He then leads the room in a dance party to Earth Wind and Fire. And when shaving a rather melancholy and bitter Philippe, Driss tortures him for his own amusement with an assortment of ridiculous facial hair styles — a biker mustache, a handlebar mustache and finally pushing his luck with a Hitler mustache.
Perhaps what feels most familiar about this film is the desire to see past the bleakness of tragedy and even day-to-day life, to laugh at the preposterousness of ourselves and the world, to manage its weight by perceiving it in relation to all lighter things and shifting between the two. Simply put, it is a feel-good movie. It is not a particularly profound feel good, but there is sometimes something more inherently profound in the very nature of this quality.
By Elizabeth Lee '16
Copy Editor
As a kid — and, if I am being totally honest, sometimes still to this day — I would imagine myself riding horseback at the front of the line, hair blowing in the wind as I led thousands of troops into battle while wielding my sword. As I grew quieter and shyer with age, I came to believe myself incapable of being a leader, or even just being strong in general, because I was rarely the one making impassioned speeches to crowds or throwing punches at bullies. We feed into and live according to a culture that generally leads us to believe that strength means being aggressive and that winning means beating others.
When Pantene, a hair-products company, released an ad over the summer as part of its “Shine Strong” campaign, it sparked a debate over the gendered use of language — specifically the word “sorry.” Throughout the ad, women apologize for asking questions during meetings, using their own armrests and speaking first in a conversation. Many people responded positively, viewing the ad as a means of confronting women’s perceivably problematic tendency or, as an article in Latina Magazine put it, “incessant need” to apologize too much or at least the environment causing that need.
I could not agree more that women should not feel they have to apologize when speaking their minds or making reasonable requests. I often do wish I had more confidence and self value. Would that not also mean, however, that women should not have to apologize for apologizing or feel like less worthy individuals for operating on what they may perceive as a value of considerateness and empathy? Since when has feminism meant trying to empower women by encouraging them to adapt traits that are traditionally perceived as masculine? And at what point did saying “sorry” become a filler or indication of weakness rather than a sign of compassion or politeness?
Being an empowered person has more to do with self-actualizing than conforming to a particular method of confrontation — again, a typically perceived masculine approach of dominance and aggression. What I suppose many might, and do, say is that “that's just how the world works,” and if we want to get things done women have to be willing to match or overcome a certain level of aggression by refusing to apologize. But if we are suggesting an ideal version of how the world should operate, why is it we are telling women they need to change rather than men? Maybe some of those guys in the ad should have been apologizing out of politeness for interrupting and talking over someone or taking up someone else's space. Or an even better question, perhaps, is why do we continue to use these traits as a way of defining and polarizing gender roles?
In her recent and now popularly spread speech about the launching of the “He for She” campaign, famed actress and United Nations Women Goodwill Ambassador Emma Watson called upon men to take part in the fight against gender inequality — the fight she described as being for the sake of an individual’s freedom to be both “strong” and “sensitive.”
“It is time that we perceive gender on a spectrum, not as two opposing sets of ideals,” Watson said. “If we stop defining each other by what we are not and start defining ourselves by what we are, we can all be freer.”
Whether Watson can or should serve as a contemporary icon of popular feminism has been heavily debated, but her words have nevertheless drawn attention to and provoked conversations about an important point: Bridging the gender gap should not have to mean one end conforms to or eliminates the other. Rather, we are more likely to reach a state of acceptance and cooperation in seeking an appreciation of balance and finding the value in difference.
There also seems to be the assumption that the use of words like “sorry” or “just” — as in “I was just wondering” — is a sign of timidity or devaluing one’s own thoughts and contributions. People should not have to feel the need to apologize for thinking what they have to say is valuable, but perhaps that is not why they are saying it. Perhaps what matters more is that they are still sharing those thoughts or acting upon what they think they should be allowed to do. You can say “sorry” and still be coming from a place of internal strength and compelling conviction. Eliminating “sorry” and all its relatives from our vocabulary when expressing opinions or self-assertion is not wrong and does not have to be part of a culture of domination. But why should they have to be equated with weakness and submissiveness on the other end of the spectrum instead of compassion or generosity?
The strength and self-assertion we often equate with aggressiveness and confidence do not always have to come at the expense of compassion and grace. Having those last two qualities in addition to the first two is much more noble and admirable, not to mention ultimately more effective in terms of communicating and compromise. Without some amount of aggressive conviction, the compassion approach may fall short of our goals to provoke change or be heard. Matching or one-upping someone else’s level of aggression can serve as a valuable means of creating tension and conflict that can help us grow, but it can also eventually reach a point of destruction. Making people feel weak, inadequate or less valuable for not being more confrontational is not necessarily an effective way of inspiring change. Instead, it can actually silence or discourage someone who otherwise could have something valuable to offer.
As someone who is often told that I apologize too frequently or unnecessarily, I also believe strongly in what I have to say. That happens to be why I am writing this piece. So why do I say sorry? Because I mean it. Aside from serving as a sign of deep remorse and a promise to be better, it is more generally a sign of empathy and compassion. It is not out of self-deprecation or careless trivialization of its significance. In the case of qualifying my words it is an acknowledgement not that I am wrong or not competent enough to make such assertions but that I could be wrong, that I respect that people may disagree or that I realize positive change requires compromise. It is a way of expressing that I can value myself and others simultaneously. It is an assertion that such empathy and compassion are not failures of strength but rather indications of it.
Trigger Warning: discussion of domestic violence and relationship abuse, aggressive language
By Anonymous
“I am a victim of domestic violence.” That one sentence took me months to admit and finally accept. I was living in denial and could not make myself believe that the relationship that I had been in for over a year had been an abusive one. I was in love with someone who wanted to control every aspect of my life, from whom I was friends with to what I did with my weekends to what I discussed with my parents. I felt like I was trapped in a world that was made up of just him and me. I want to share my story to let women on campus who may not think that they are victims of domestic violence to know that they are not alone. You are not alone.
In the beginning, nothing was out of the ordinary. I believed that we were soul mates and that he was “the one.” He would surprise me on the weekends and take me to the beach. Then we would end the day at my favorite ice cream shop and stay in to watch a movie. We would go on hikes together to Mt. Baldy and we would reward ourselves with a burger in the Village. My friends thought that he was the sweetest boyfriend and saw how much he loved me. However, this period of bliss soon transitioned into an endless cycle of verbal and physical abuse.
He would verbally attack me when I did something that he did not like. If I wanted to hang out with my friends he would yell at me and call me a “sl*t who wanted to get f****d.” If I dressed a certain way he told me that I was “asking for it.” And if that failed to convince me to change he would say that I looked “fat.” He manipulated me into doing whatever he wanted me to do. He controlled when I hung out with my friends, what I would do with them and even whom I hung out with. If I was away from him and did not answer within a certain period of time, he would blame me and my friends. He would make sure that the next time I saw him, he told me that I was sneaking around with guys and thought that my friends were “manipulating me out of a relationship with a great boyfriend.” After all of his name calling, if I started crying, he would say that I was either “bipolar” or should be checked into a mental hospital. Soon I would learn how to keep my emotions to myself and avoid talking about anything to my friends and family.
The verbal abuse eventually turned into the occasional shove or a push. He would casually drink six or seven days per week anyway, but when he was with his friends he would drink to get drunk. His personality would switch to an exaggerated version of himself. He would push me down while simultaneously verbally attacking me. But after I fell to the ground, he would say that I had tripped over him or myself. I would try to tell him that he pushed me, but then he would call me “crazy,” and he would tell me he was going to tell everyone that I “needed help.” Sometimes I would try to get away from him by closing the door behind me, but he would push through and smash my fingers with the door. One time he got so drunk that I physically ran away from him. He called out my name from behind and said that he could always outrun me. And before all of this happened, he punched his hand through a wall; he said that this was my fault because I made him mad for “no reason.” It was the first time I mentioned to him that I thought he had a drinking problem.
He tore me down from the inside out. I thought that I deserved it because of how many times he would call me “crazy” and “delusional.” He wanted to control me. I was always scared that I was going to do something he did not think I was supposed to be doing because it would cause him to drink and get angry and aggressive. I should have left at the first sign of that type of aggression towards me.
I ended the relationship with him when he grabbed my forearms and pushed me so hard to the ground that the wind was knocked out of me. After I left him, I spent more time making myself happy and I focused on my healthy and positive relationships. Before I was with him, I never thought that I would be in an abusive relationship — that it wouldn’t happen to me — so I never thought of my relationship with him as abusive. But it was, and it can happen to anyone.
I want everyone to know that no one deserves to be called any name and no one deserves to be physically pushed around. As much as your abuser wants you to feel that it is your fault, I want you to know that it is not. It was not my fault, and it is not any victim’s fault. Know where to draw the line and remind yourself that you deserve to be treated better.
If you or anyone you know is or has been the victim of relationship violence, see the following resources for help. All resources below speak Spanish and are Queer and Trans* friendly.
House of Ruth (Claremont) (Women & Children only)
houseofruthinc.org / 877-988-5559 (24 hr hotline) / shelter available
Safehouse Alliance
safehousealliance.org / 303-444-2424 (24 hr hotline)
Pomona College Advocates for Survivors of Sexual Assault
pomonacollegeadvocates.wordpress.com / 909-607-1778 (warmline)
LA Gay and Lesbian Center
lagaycenter.org / 323-860-5806
More resources and information: 5csurvivorsupport.wordpress.com
Maya Bhat (CMC '18) didn't compete in golf until a few years ago, but she's been playing for most of her life. Photo courtesy of Maya Bhat.
A first year at Claremont McKenna College, Maya Bhat has been swinging a golf club for most of her life. Influenced by her dad to start playing, she is now a member of the Claremont-Mudd-Scripps (CMS) Women’s Golf team. She did not start playing competitively until her sophomore year in high school, but improved quickly from a handicap of about 18 to her current 2.8.
When did you start playing golf?
I’ve owned golf clubs since I was four, but I also started gymnastics when I was four. Gymnastics took up most of my time as I was training up to 26 hours each week and along with school there wasn’t much time for golf. I’d usually play once every three months or so until I got injured in gymnastics three years ago. I guess seriously and competitively I’ve been playing golf for about three years, but I’ve owned clubs for 14 years.
What influenced you to start golf?
My dad got my whole family into golf. He’s always loved it so he introduced my mom, brother and me to the sport and it became a family event. My parents travel a lot for work so when we do get time together we try to utilize it really well. One of the things we do together is play golf. We all have varying levels of skill but we all play. So on the occasional Sunday we would drive across the border from Singapore to Malaysia and play a round of golf. It’s a nice way to spend time with the family and I thank my dad for using it to connect the family.
What was it like to switch from gymnasticss to golf since they are so different?
It was tough. Both gymnastics and golf are very individual sports in the technical sense, but gymnastics is much more of a team sport. You’re always with your teammates, you go through the same crazy-hard training sessions, you get yelled at by the same coaches and you go through the same mental blocks. Since you spend so much time with your teammates they become your best friends and they’ve always got your back. Whereas with golf when you’re in a competition you are alone in your head and you have so many thoughts going through your mind. And controlling those thoughts rather than being able to laugh and talk with your friends was a huge difference. The fact that you also have to stay focused for 4-5 hours in a golf game was tough compared to the five minutes you are on the apparatus in a gymnastics competition.
What is the best part of being on a college team?
I guess the team. Now I have a consistent team and I’m playing with girls, which is crazy. Back home my whole team was guys except for one other girl. Now I’ve actually got girls to play with which is really cool. Also back home everyone had different training days and training hours so although we were a team we weren’t really because you just did your own thing. Being on a college team is kind of replicating the family that I missed from gym because we’re all going through the same thing together.
Can you tell me a little bit about your first tournament?
We played at Torrey Pines in San Diego, which is a beautiful course. I did not play as well as I would’ve hoped. I don’t know what happened but the two days we played were not my finest. It was a lot of fun though. Other than not playing well, the course was gorgeous and the team was super fun. The three days we were gone were the hottest three days in Claremont, so while all of my friends in the Claremont colleges were toasting, I was in a hotel with AC, super-comfortable beds, and pillows, and blankets and it was fantastic. It was a good team bonding experience, especially as a freshman coming onto the team.