<p>Davidson always seemed way too restrictive. Many schools which still have religious ties embraced diversity decades ago-Duke, Georgetown, and Holy Cross come to mind.</p>
<p>My problem is that rule was only added to the by-laws in the mid-1960s, as the Charlotte Observer put it, around the time that the school administration allowed the first "non-Christian" faculty members. </p>
<p>IMO, based on that historical context, this by-law could have had only one intent. If the intent were an affirmation of the school's affiliation, the by-law would have required membership in a Presbyterian church. But, there was only one significant "non-Christian" religious group in the south in the mid-1960s.</p>
<p>I agree with you that a college has a right to be as anti-Semitic as it wishes. I'm just angry at myself that I encouraged my daughter to consider such a school.</p>
<p>How many Roman Catholics are on the board of Yeshiva or Brandeis? How many whites are on the board of Howard U.?..</p>
<p>I must say that in reviewing these posts, that the vitriol that some posters have spewed about Davidson-a college that they know little about- is appalling. These changes at the Board of trustees level, have little to do with day to day life at the college. I have never seen any evidence of anti-semitism at the college. The percentage of jewish students is low, as it is at most southern colleges, simply because most jews live in the northeast and prefer to go to school near where they live. Interesteddad's daughter would have had an excellent education at Davidson. It is difficult for any college to change from historical roots, whether it is women at the military academies, historical religious affliations( Rhodes, Davidson, Sewanee, Notre Dame, Georgetown, Swarthmore and Haverford and on and on..) I am sure having to offend a rich neanderthal on the board was a difficult decision for the board-they should be applauded, not denigrated for this act. Davidson is an excellent college with a student body second to none, to suggest that the faculty and student body is anti-semitic or reactionary based on this progressive change by the board is ludicrous.</p>
<p>I agree with mini here. Does it offend anyone that, though Georgetown prides itself on diversity, it also works hard to maintain a faculty and student quota that reflects their Catholic and Jesuit identity? I believe they've even set up an endowed fund to recruit Jesuit faculty. I don't know. Is this discrimination? And is interesteddad offended that some of the best colleges in the nation didn't actually start admitting women until the 1970's? My daughter didn't apply to either Georgetown or Davidson, but I have no problem with either school's policies. But if you didn't know or suspect some of this about the school ahead of time, then you didn't do too much research. I don't think one's antennae had to have been too finely tuned to have recognized a certain lack of diversity on the campus. Davidson is a fine school, though definitely not alone. I've said it before, but if a parent and/or student truly desires diversity, I honestly do not believe you will receive it at any elite, relatively expensive, small school (and especially not one that is traditionally religion-based). So I'm a little confused by the shock and awe displayed here. Agree with patuxent and mattmom, too.</p>
<p>Sorry..definitely agree with hubbellgardner, too. And, by the way, wasn't hubbellgardner the name of the Robert Redford character in 'The Way We Were??' Anyway..yes..good points, all.</p>
<p>I agree with hubbellgardner also. Good post.</p>
<p>(The recent vote by the nation's Presbyterians to divest the Church of all investments in Israel strikes me as arguably more negative toward the Jewish community than anything in the present governance of Davidson College.) </p>
<p>This is a complete misrepresentation of the action of the Presbyterian church at its General Assembly of 2004. What we are seeking to do is divest ourselves from companies that profit from the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. There has not been a call for general dis-investment from Israel. As a member of the Presbyterian pension plan, I do not want my pension to be invested in companies that sell the armored bulldozers (i.e. Caterpillar) which are used to destroy the homes of Palestinians. Although they may be more difficult to identify, I do not want to invest in companies that produce the explosives for suicide bombers who prey on Israeli citizens. Someone is making a lot of money from the perpetuation of this conflict. We do not want to be a part of this. In fact many peace-loving Israelis share these same aims.</p>
<p>Thank you mattmom, hubbellgardner, and others who have offered what I consider to be the voice of reason here. </p>
<p>There are probably some skeletons like this in the closets of a number of colleges. It's speculative, even foolhardy IMHO, to assume that those problems permeate the campus or reveal hidden agendas. Before anyone goes patting themselves on the back for their fine moral character in eschewing Davidson, they'd probably look into the histories of their own alma mater and other schools they've championed on this board. Sheesh.</p>
<p>
[quote]
On the women's college issue, I am surprised that nobody has sued a women's college. I believe that several men's colleges (The Citadel and VMI) have been forced by the courts to accept men or lose government funding.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You're surprised?</p>
<p>VMI and Citadels were essentially state schools. Public women's college, such as the MUW and the one in Texas whose name escapes me, do admit men. </p>
<p>The other women's colleges are private, of course. What would they be sued over?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The recent vote by the nation's Presbyterians
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's not quite accurate--the vote was taken by the largest Presybterian denomination in the US (Presbyterian Church (USA), but there are other Presbyterian denominations who are not affiliated with them. It's really not right to say it was "the nation's Presbyterians."</p>
<p>Mini notes,"Why shouldn't they have a Christian board of trustees if they choose? "</p>
<p>Moreover, interesteddad notes,"I think Davidson should be free to discriminate against whomever they want to"</p>
<p>Response: If you all allow this then why we're at it, why not allow any private company to discriminate in its hiring practice. In fact, why not allow any private company to discriminate in its sales. This way if certain real estate companies want to discriminate against blacks by not showing them homes, you would also argue that this is fine too?</p>
<p>The above illustrates the problem with allowing any private venture to discriminate. When discrimination laws were not in effect, many black Americans had a hard time finding housing. Moreover, many jews and blacks had a hard time getting jobs. No discrimination should be allowed in either hiring, management, or in providing services. Just imagine that if all country clubs were allowed to discriminate based on race or religion, we wouldn't have had a "Tiger Woods." But, who cares as long as you can say, "I am a proud American and uphold the rights of private property or private colleges, no matter what the cost of effect on other individuals."</p>
<p>Frankly, I see little difference between what the above individuals noted and Nazism. Yes, I can see folks saying, "this is very different." WE are not espousing any killing. WE are just espousing discrimination in the upper levels of private college management." The Nazis started out small too. They allowed all discrimiation against non arians ( Jews, blacks, hindus, slaves etc.) in upper level jobs, which eventually filtered down to lower level jobs such as professors, teachers etc. Then they allowed discrimination in services such as non arians access to medical and dental treatment or even their ability to attend privately owned plays and movies. Sorry folks, I don't see much of a difference between what you are espousing and what the Nazis did. The only difference is a matter of degree!</p>
<p>Allowing any type of discrimination based on "religious or racial grounds" will result in terrible consequences to our society. I do not think that those of you who posted your appreciation of the trustee's postion reallly appreciates this far reaching problem.</p>
<p>Okay - to cut it a little more finely - the question is really whether they are church-related school or one that simply revels in its religious origins. In the second case, I think your point is well taken, except....do you want to take folks into the merchant marine academy who explicitly don't want to be merchant marines? or men into women's schools whose bylaws call specifically for the education of women, etc... (Or men, for that matter, there ARE men's colleges.)</p>
<p>In the first case, they are arms of their churches. I think the diversity of institutions, the fact that they are different one from another, is a strength, both in American religion, and in our institutions of higher learning.</p>
<p>I honestly don't know which Davidson is (though I always thought it was church-related, but it isn't a school I know much about.) You seem to be suggesting that Davidson is "truly to have its cake, and eat it too."</p>
<p>But as hubbellgardner pointed out, shouldn't the board's recent actions be "applauded," not "denigrated?" After all, they did stick to their guns over Belk's protest and ultimate resignation. And Belk, I am sure, is/was a huge financial supporter of that school. Maybe their actions are a little late, but better late than never? Also, I don't know that anyone has ever said that the school discriminates against students (acceptance policies).</p>
<p>Parentstwo and hoedown, sorry for the oversimplification of the Presybyterian vote and thanks for your clarifications.
mini, Davidson is a church-related school. (And as noted earlier, it is also a very welcoming school, and the welcome is not limited to white Christian males.)</p>
<p>Many reasoned arguments posted....regardless of who is "right" or "wrong" it seems clear that this will not encourage non-Christians to apply!</p>
<p>Mini notes,"Okay - to cut it a little more finely - the question is really whether they are church-related school or one that simply revels in its religious origins"</p>
<p>That is exactly my point. Davidson wanted their cake and eat it too. If they were only to accept nice Christian kids then maybe, just maybe ( and I am not sure about this either), having only Christian trustees would be acceptable. However, the minute they open up the school to non-Christians or encourage others to apply, this should end any argument that they they should only have Christian trustees.</p>
<p>OH yes, I do applaud the universities stand on allowing non Christians to become Board members. However, considering all the hoopla about civil rights and discrimination that has occured over the years, I just think it is a little too late!</p>
<p>too late for what? the board will now begin to reflect its own faculty and student body. Very few coporate boards of this nation's top companies(overwhelmingly WASP men) reflect their employee base(usually very diverse). Ths country is far from perfect. Davidson's trustees are to be applauded for this decision-one they did not have to make.</p>
<p>Folks, I'm not upset at Davidson. I'm upset at myself for recommending the school so strongly to my daughter. I defended it's lack of statistical diversity as being a function of its location, not institutional policy.</p>
<p>To find out that it instituted an anti-semitic bylaw in the mid 1960s and has voted at least twice in the intervening years to maintain that provision makes me feel like a fool.</p>
<p>Yes, I knew it had a church affiliation. So does Emory, which is not exclusionary at any level, including the Board of Trustees. Because I thought of Davidson as a progressive, new-South intellectual institution, I guess I just plain missed its institutional character. I guess I made assumptions, which was clearly a mistake.</p>
<p>I have no problem with Davidson choosing to be a "church" school or even a discriminatory school. I have no problem with Notre Dame, Brandeis, Brigham Young, or Bob Jones University being as religious as they care to be. Of course, these schools are up front in their presentations, to the point where it was automatic to scratch them off the list as they are clearly geared towards a particular customer base.</p>
<p>The lesson here: Don't make assumptions or apologies. Do your research. If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, has only 3% non-Christian and 14% non-white students, it's probably a duck.</p>
<p>It is perfectly possible to agree to disagree over one's comfort level at a given school without regarding it as intolerant or as a sectarian backwater. </p>
<p>Not to digress too much, but ID and other readers should know that Brandeis is not officially a Jewish school and its student body is far from monolithically Jewish. I am not sure that its "customer base" is so rigidly identified. It does, however, close for major Jewish holidays and maintain kosher dining halls for those who choose to frequent them. Although I am not sure that the information I just presented is really relevant to the discussion, I think it is inappropriate in any rational sense to equate either Brandeis or Davidson (to pull out just two examples here)with Bob Jones University.</p>
<p>"Mini notes,"Okay - to cut it a little more finely - the question is really whether they are church-related school or one that simply revels in its religious origins"</p>
<p>and taxguy,"the minute they open up the school to non-Christians or encourage others to apply, this should end any argument that they they should only have Christian trustees"</p>
<p>I totally agree taxguy. I was not condemning Davidson, just surprised that the by-laws existed as such until this point. I think it is quite brave of their trustees to move forward, despite the threat from Mr. Belk et al. I have not read the by-laws of every uni my kids applied to, and it does make you think. I thought this would be a thought provoking thread--but it seems that some have taken it as an attack on Davidson. </p>
<p>Everyone says that diversity (and I count religious and economic in this category) is what they want, and the schools are trying to move in that direction. Some give lip service, and some are actually making feather-ruffling decisions.</p>