<p>I don't have any problem with the source of Duke's endowment and have never expressed any issue with it.</p>
<p>Tobacco money. Sugar water money. Manufacturing patent money. Investment banking money. Department store money. Whiskey money? What's the difference?</p>
<p>Interesteddad notes,"
Tobacco money. Sugar water money. Manufacturing patent money. Investment banking money. Department store money. Whiskey money? What's the difference?'</p>
<p>Hmm, well there is drug money, nazi money, funding from terrorist governments etc. I do believe that the source of funding matters!</p>
<p>Not sure how much you want to go there. Both Brown and Yale were originally funded off the Triangle slave trade, and much of their funds today are growth off the original endowment.</p>
<p>You might find this of interest.</p>
<p><a href="http://www.racematters.org/ruthjsimmons.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.racematters.org/ruthjsimmons.htm</a></p>
<p>It has always been my experience that the best money to spend is other people's money ;-)</p>
<p>I'm too lazy to look up the actual source but last night a counselor in an online chat said that over 60% of Davidson students are not from the south. So yeah...it definitely draws students from around the nation.</p>
<p>If Davidson has fewer Jewish students due to lack of proximity, then it probably has more African American students(than say, Grinnell) due to proximity...why wouldn't that cut both ways?</p>
<p>We thought it interesting in looking at schools that some designated their religious affiliation as "historic only." I guess this is why some take the pains to do this, but who does look at the religious affiliations of the boards, who does read the by laws? I thought we were digging deep to look at endowments...</p>
<p>As for where the money comes from, I would worry if it were Saudi money myself.</p>
<p>Robyn, I think the lesson here is that it may be more important to do research on broader issues of college culture than on whether or not the economics department is "top-rated". For example, a quick persual of the board of directors and their bios can be very informative. The fact that Emory has a Rabbi, several prominent Jewish businessmen, several prominent black leaders, and quite a few women on its board probably says something about the university. Or, a board with equal representation of women and men tells you something very fundamental about a college. The more I learn, the more I understand that these colleges and universities don't become what they are by accident. They are what they are because the that's the way the smart, capable people who run them WANT them to be.</p>
<p>I have found that doing a simple search of the school newspaper for keywords like "alcohol poisoning", "diversity", or whatever interests you can be informative. Unfortunately, this one is tough at Davidson as their student newspaper is not online.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I would worry if it were Saudi money myself.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>You mean like having the Bin Ladens as development admits?</p>
<p>Interesteddad,</p>
<p>You know, my husband felt very reassured about sending son #1 to a school that was not necessarily that familiar to him before the college search because the money that endows the school came from Robert Noyce (Intel) and was managed by Warren Buffett. Sure enough, everything else about the school reflects the same careful, analytical management style. I definitely agree with doing research, but only got to that point late in the game with #1, somewhat earlier with #1. </p>
<p>I agree also that it is often the "hidden curriculum" and other elements of a school that make or break it when you use a fine tooth comb..</p>
<p>I live in a country where justice is cheap and inconsistent and corruption is the name of the game. I would like to think there is integrity and oversight in a college environment to which I send my child, including discretion in accepting funds from "iffy" sources.</p>
<p>This issue of where major money and hence institutional funding comes from is an interesting one. I suspect there are relatively few super-rich people (that is, founders of dynasties) whose reputations were as good during their greatest money-making years as their family names became later after being sanitized by decades if not centuries of philanthropy and public humanitarian gestures. Times change, expectations change, standards change. Obviously one would not think harshly of present-day Brown because its founder made his money in the Triangle Trade, or the Rockefeller Institute because of the early actions of Standard Oil, or the modern Williams College because Ephraim Williams was a military man, or (even) Princeton because it was for so long considered virtually forbidden territory for Jewish students. (And of course Henry Ford was one America's most public and offensive anti-Semites; few people still refuse to buy a Ford car and probably even fewer will reject Ford Foundation funding.) Schools, like people and businesses, are what they make of themselves on a continuum; individual schools move with the times too, just as the public's expectations do. </p>
<p>After reading robrym's post, I don't really think the past or present Belk funding at Davidson can be considered terribly iffy either in the context of how the money was made or in the general tenor of the contributions, despite Mr. Belk's recent and obviously repugnant position. If one reads the material about the Belk Scholarships on Davidson's Web site, for example, it is very difficult to see a sinister agenda buried there. </p>
<p>And to get back to the original subject of this thread; texastaxi mom, in one of your early posts on this thread you said of Davidson's situation, "It's kind of scary, that this persists in writing. I know that some campuses it can be more of a "feeling" .....but to have a by-law. Sheesh. I can't imagine it would sit well with most folks. I guess we'll sit back and watch the spin." This does not strike me as the statement of someone hoping for a general philosophical discussion of religious tolerance or diversity, but perhaps I'm mistaken. Since I am neither an attorney nor a tax expert nor a mainstay of a recognized congregation, Christian or otherewise, I can't presume to know the specific legal, financial, or religious rules underlying some of the comments about Davidson College. But I can say unapologetically and unequivocally that the ethical climate at Davidson is the equal of that I have experienced anywhere, and if that statement sounds defensive rather than suitably philosophical, so be it. If there is a "hidden curriculum" at Davidson it is one of encouraging morality and decency in the most general sense--that is, kindness and consideration of others. (The religion department offers an array of courses in all the world's great religions, incidentally, and among the most popular courses is one about Budhhism.)</p>
<p>I'm still not convinced this is an anti-semitic. </p>
<p>John Belk might be; I don't know, as that Charlotte Observer article isn't open-access.</p>
<p>I don't think it denotes intolerance if a church-affiliated college wants its board members to be church-going. It certainly seems old-fashioned and unnecessary for a school whose church ties aren't strong. All the more reason for them to ditch it, which they did. </p>
<p>But discriminatory? Shameful? Anti-semitic? That's reading an awful lot into it, isn't it?</p>
<p>Amongst us liberal and educated ccer's, it often seems there is no bad time to demean either religion, religious institutions, the practice of religion or religious people (unless it is a minority religion--Judaism, Islam [?], Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.-- even though all the same things would apply, it would be such bad form [publicly]). </p>
<p>I'm not a Presbyterian and I'm not very familiar with Davidson (daughter made no near-escape from its treacherous blood-drenched clutches-- Presbyterians being known as such monstrous religious predators), however, I would imagine that graduates of Davidson are to the left of America generally and thus harmless in terms of our cultural/political leanings here on cc.</p>
<p>Davidson grads will leave school believing deeply in multiculturalism, in theory (like most of us), and live in wealthy [and, or] exclusive communities (like many of us); much like students from other elite-exclusive schools (say, Harvard, Swarthmore, Dartmouth, etc). We can all sleep peacefully tonight: our children will grow up to be safe and secular consumers--with a healthy sense of guilt.</p>
<p>On another note, I agree with everything Mini said on this issue, and thus will not repeat my similar, and redundant, comments.</p>
<p>Edit:
[sorry for the cynicism, the issue just seems so contrived and tired]</p>
<p>I wouldn't automatically read anti-Semitism into a requirement that board members be practicing Christians; while anything is possible, it seems equally likely that the primary objective was to ensure faith-based board decisions. While many students and/or parents might find this anachronistic or otherwise objectionable, some may find it quite desirable. The great thing about colleges in the U.S. is that there are so many to choose from, and that many of them offer quite different or even unique learning and living environments.</p>
<p>One concern I have about many colleges where the board, faculty, and/or students are somewhat homogenous is the development of critical thinking skills. One of the more useful abilities a student can acquire in higher education is the willingness to question established beliefs and accepted wisdom, and make logical, well-informed, fact-based decisions. One might expect that some religiously oriented schools wouldn't be quite as eager to promote critical thinking, though sometimes political orientation can have the same effect. I haven't heard that complaint about Davidson, though.</p>
<p>This thread is geting off the mark in my opinion. Again, I have no problem with Board members being only Christian, Jewish, Islamic etc as long as the school makes it very clear that it is trying to take certain students of that persuasion. Thus, I would find it strange for a Rabbi to be on the Board of Presbyterian or Catholic oriented school. However, when a school encourages folks of all faiths and beliefs, they should lose the ability to have only one type of religion on their Board or in management positions. I don't care if there is 1% jews or 10% jews or Catholics, et. al. As was stated above, "they can't have it both ways."</p>
<p>I should note that I would only allow this for religious institutions such as a church, synagogue or religiously oriented institution such as high school or college. I would not allow this type of management for any other type of private institution. Thus, having all Christian Board members on country clubs would be way off the mark, and I think also illegal.</p>
<p>F</p>
<p>
[quote]
I have no problem with Board members being only Christian, Jewish, Islamic etc as long as the school makes it very clear that it is trying to take certain students of that persuasion.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Can you amplify that a bit? I don't understand what the objection is. I wouldn't expect that the board would make decisions about curriculum or admissions, or faculty hiring, or pedagogy, or student life.</p>
<p>Hoedown, if a school has a strict religious denomination so that their religious beliefs are incorporated into most of what they do (i.e. Falwell's school. Bob Jones University, Southwest Assemblies of God University et. al.) , and they communicate this fact to all incoming kids, I have no problem with the school board or trustees being very homogeneous. A Catholic school would be this type of institution, whether high school or college or church. A Yeshiva would also qualify. </p>
<p>If, however, they try to encourage diversity in its student population (i.e. try to get kids of varying religious beliefs and note that their curriculum is fairly neutral regarding all religions) then you are talking about a very different creature. At that point, I certainly do feel that having a homogeneous board is NOT the right thing to do or even should be encouraged. You may not agree with my beliefs on this,but I don't understand what it is that needs amplification.</p>
<p>One thing I have come to realize after years of private school and college parenting is that no matter what the ethnic makeup of a board of trustees, the board members will never really reflect my position in the world. I am your basic well-educated upper-middle-income person, with no family money and no investments. The prerequisite for being a board member at virtually all institutions I'm aware of is to be very, very affluent and to be a major fundraiser/donor--or, failing that, to be so well known and respected in a given field that one can attract and woo major donors. Despite the absolute certainty that I will never qualify on either count, I don't feel it is inappropriate for me to have children at schools whose board members are all way richer or more famous than I am. I hope and have generally found that in other respects we share at least some significant values. I think the same holds true for the ethnic/religious makeup of most boards, with the obvious exception of people who are totally intolerant of beliefs and identities that differ from their own.</p>
<p>The reason I am asking for more information is because I don't know why you feel you do and want to know more about it. It may give me a new perspective. Whether or not we agree isn't really an issue (for me).</p>
<p>What I'm missing in my own understanding: What is the problem with having a religiously homogenous board and simultaneously having a diverse, student body, faculty, and staff; fair admissions processes; a secular curriculum; and so on? I don't see the connection. Perhaps that's because I don't see the board as having a strong hand in the day-to-day governance and operations of the institution. Am I being naive? </p>
<p>You suggest that "having it both ways" is bad. Of course, Davidson has changed its board so it's moot for them. But if I knew of another college with a religiously homogenous board that embraced religious tolerance and diversity on campus, I'd see that as a progressive and interesting thing. Not a hypocritical thing, or a greedy attempt to get what they do not deserve. Why should they "lose their ability" to keep the same kind of board, if it's continuing to serve them well? </p>
<p>I'd agree it would seem more fitting to not have restrictive board bylaws, but I don't see it as a necessary condition before they are allowed to be diverse and tolerant. To me the proof is in the pudding. What's the college like?</p>
<p>
[quote]
To me the proof is in the pudding. What's the college like?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Pudding: </p>
<p>Davidson (North Carolina): 86% white
Vanderbilt: (Tennessee): 81% white
Emory (Georgia): 69%
Duke (North Carolina): 66% white
Swarthmore (Penn): 63% white
Harvard (Mass): 60% white</p>
<p>interesteddad: A couple of things jump out with your stats here.. all the schools (with the exception of Duke and Davidson) are in/very near major cities. And although Durham is located in a relatively small town, it's certainly not remotely similar to the type of small southern town in which Davidson is located (in my opinion). Maybe that makes a difference? Also, isn't Davidson a lot smaller in student population than these other schools you list? Would any of that make a difference; I really have no idea--just an observation. I certainly don't think their actions were or have ever been anti-Semitic. Honestly. And I do believe they are working on improving diversity among the student population.</p>
<p>Like some others, though, I honestly can't see what the problem is here. Davidson is a fine college, academically top notch, tough to get into, and--yes-- founded by Presbyterians. The students work incredibly hard, but they all seem to like it there (the ones I know).</p>
<p>You know, this thread reminds me of those that contain posts, mostly by students--but often written by parents as well--when, after applying and getting accepted to these small (mostly Northeastern) liberal arts colleges that cost $160,000+ over 4 years--they (the student and/or the parent) get cold feet after visiting or doing the overnight, because suddenly they realize that--gee whiz--this looks like a school where--lo and behold--a lot of "rich" kids might attend. Well, duh.. no kidding.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Davidson (North Carolina): 86% white
Vanderbilt: (Tennessee): 81% white
Emory (Georgia): 69%
Duke (North Carolina): 66% white
Swarthmore (Penn): 63% white
Harvard (Mass): 60% white
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Huh? I'm just getting more confused.</p>
<p>Help me understand what these figures mean in the context of this discussion (and my rhetorical question about how what Davidson is "like" is affected by that former board bylaw).</p>
<p>Would you attribute the "whiteness" of the college to the bylaws? How does having a all-Christian, all-church-going board figure into race of the student body?</p>