<p>hoedown: Could you quote the sources that pointed out those bylaws were created in the 1960's? I'm really curious about that. Also, I agree with your above statement to interesteddad--'unfair characterization'-- yes, definitely.</p>
<p>I'm not trying to kid anyone. I'm afraid I don't understand that comment.</p>
<p>I am just confused about the ties to anti-semitism and the black population at liberal arts colleges. I can't follow the argument. </p>
<p>I completely understand why people would be surprised that such a bylaw existed at a school largely recognized to be secular, progressive, and appealing to students across a wide variety of backgrounds. It is gratifying that they have changed it, and that is has enjoyed such widespread support on campus and on the board, but it seems this change was long overdue. I'm disappointed it was on the books so long given that it doesn't fit the college's reality.</p>
<p>What I do not understand is the drive to demonize this school. I do not understand why people suddenly wish to condemn it for semitism and racism, for duplicity and underhandedness in its advertising. I am perplexed to see people disregarding what they know about the school from a variety of sources (even things they've seen with their own eyes), and revise it all because of one bylaw related to the board of trustees--a bylaw not even on the books anymore!--that only came to light because two rich trustees quit.</p>
<p>
[quote]
hoedown: Could you quote the sources that pointed out those bylaws were created in the 1960's?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>In an AP story that was run in the Lexington Dispatch on 4/12, and another story run in the Charlotte Observer that same day. One of the quotes:</p>
<p>"The requirement that trustees be active church members was added to the bylaws in the mid-1960s, around the time that the school decided to allow non-Christian faculty members. Before that, it had always just been understood that board members would be Christians."</p>
<p>Of course, the tie between secularizing the faculty and firming up the board's definition is only implied--I suppose it's possible it was a fear of communists, or a targeted exclusion of Jews. I'm personally reluctant to impugn the school with the worst of motivations without more evidence. I'm kind of a pollyanna that way. LOL</p>
<p>Thank you hoedown,</p>
<p>It seems to be that there is a huge fallacy in the major argument against Davidson. It seems that everyone who has visited Davidson has, in no way, felt a strong presence of the Presbyterian Church (at least not strong in the sense that Duke does not have a pervasive Methodist feel). So all of these people seem to be in agreement that Davidson does not seem to be overtly Christian; however, because they have a bylaw that I doubt is actively enforced (do you really think all of the board members are practicing Christians or just proclaimed Christians?), apparently they are an unfit school for your daughter or son. Is this not the perfect example of how a homogenous school board can run a more diverse school. </p>
<p>interesteddad, I would say the reason it does not advertise itself as a strong Christian anti-semitic school is because, well, it isn't one. Do you want sympathy for actually considering the school for your son/daughter? I'm not trying to be antagonistic but it's getting old. Don't give a good school a bad name because of the past it's moving away from. Davidson is just a few years behind other schools in diversifying its student body, faculty, and board. Maybe we should move the thread to vilifying Harvard and Princeton for being founded as theological/seminary schools for Protestants. I'm just happy Davidson is trying to change what it perceives as unfair.</p>
<p>I may be naive but I really don't feel all that threatened by the prospect of a few presbyterians getting together and founding a college and then running it even if it does admit non-Presbyterians. Geesh.... How rabidly vicious can you militant secularists get? Is this what passes for Liberalism in the first decades of the 21st century? A pathological fear of a dangerous cabal of Presbyterians? I heard they kidnap little baby atheists and eat them and drink their blood.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I heard they kidnap little baby atheists and eat them and drink their blood.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Indeed, it's a little-known fact in Presbyterian history that it was this very practice that caused the Calvinist Presbyterian Church of America to split with the Knoxian Prebyterian Church of the U.S.A. The Calvinists favored blonde atheist babies, whereas the Knoxians swore that the bible directs them to sacrifice brunette atheist babes, and the Church was thusly torn asunder. Prebyterians don't have dozens of sects for nothing!</p>
<p>Here is a quote from a February Charlotte Observer article citing Davidson Pres. Vagt as the source:</p>
<p>"The requirement that trustees be active church members was added to the bylaws in the mid-'60s, around the time that the school decided to allow non-Christian faculty members. Before that, it had always just been understood that board members would be Christians, Vagt said."</p>
<p>I don't know when Jewish students first enrolled at Davidson. The Board voted to allow black students to enroll in 1962, with two African students enrolling in '62 and '63 respectively, followed by two African-American students in '64. In the historical and geographic context decision was timely, coming at about the same time as Duke and Emory. Emory actually had to sue the State of Georgia to overturn state statues that would have revoked its tax-exempt status upon integration. Credit goes to the Davidson board for not dragging its feet longer on an inevitable decision to integrate based on pressure from students, faculty, alumni, the Presbyterian Church, and (frankly) the shadow of an activist court looming on the horizon.</p>
<p>Emory had significant Jewish enrollment as early as the 1930s. Vanderbilt also had significant Jewish enrollment, which plummeted in the 1960s when the Ivy League schools lifted their "Jew quotas". In recent years, a strong "born again" campus culture has all but wiped out Jewish enrollment at Vandy, (down to the 2% or 3% range). The University is trying to reverse that decline with aggressive recruiting of Jewish applicants, the result of internal studies that show it is the only demographic group where the school gets killed trying to attract customers relative to other top national universities.</p>
<p>I've not said Davidson is an unfit school. I think it's a terrific school.</p>
<p>I think Notre Dame is a terrific school, too. Doesn't mean I'd want to send my non-Catholic kid there.</p>
<p>I honestly did not know that the governing structure of Davidson is that of a parochial school. That's not bad. I don't have any problem with it. It's just surprising. I thought it was like Emory, with historical ties to a religious group, a few seats on the board allotted to church members, but essentially a secular institution. I didn't know that a voting majority of the Board is appointed by the Presbyterian Church and that the remainder must pass a religious litmus test. Again, all fine. I have no objection whatsoever. However, when coupled with poor religious, ethnic, or socio-economic diversity, it's just not my cup of tea. That's all. </p>
<p>The only reason it's put a burr under my saddle is that you have no idea how strongly I defended Davidson to my wife on the diversity issue, assuring her that it wasn't foot-dragging or anything like that. So, it does stick in my craw a little bit to find out they had a corporate by-law preventing a Jew, a Buddhist, a Moslem, or (perhaps) even a Unitarian from serving on the board. Even that wouldn't bug me so much if the provision dated back to the school's founding and hadn't been enacted so recently.</p>
<p>Yeah Vandy is down to 2-3% Jewish which is what? About the percentage of Jews in the national population, maybe a little higher. And Davidson didn't take Black students until the early '60's. And guess when the ACC lifted its Whites only rule for atheletic teams? It was later than 1962 because it was still all White when I was in school in the late '60's and Duke was a member in good standing as were North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and Wake Forest. Meanwhile over in the Ivy League most the schools were still all male.</p>
<p>But whatever the history of segregation and discrimination is in this country and no matter who is guilty of it I don't see what that has to do with this issue. What exactly is wrong with a faith based community running a school or a hospital or a homeless shelter or anything else that commited believers feel called upon to do as part of their faith? And if their faith dictates that they extend those services to others why would it follow that they must turn over control of the institutional framework they built to facilitate this mitzvah?</p>
<p>I don't know what the board that govern Cedars Sinai Hospital or Presbyterian Hospital are and I don't care. I am neither Jewish noe Presbyterian. All I want is a good hospital and if Jews or Presbyterians or Seventh Day Adventists or Roman Catholics or one eyed Armenian Wiccans want to provide one all I have to say is, "Thanks - and God Bless you."</p>
<p>I'll leave it to them to figure out which God and who's.</p>
<p>I'd like to see a hospital run by one-eyed Armenian Wiccans.</p>
<p>While we are on a semi-related topic, do you think one-eyed Armenian Wiccans could get any positive Affirmative Action?</p>
<p>Only if they were also Gay.</p>
<p>And first generation college students...</p>
<p>Thanks to those of you who quoted the source on that date! </p>
<p>And I just have to add here...though I haven't attended a church in years (okay, make that decades)..I'm pretty confident I would not have been offended by hearing some alums talk about going on church retreats. Better that, than to overhear them talk about the latest murder, rape, suicide on a campus. </p>
<p>I'm guessing that interesteddad is as liberal as I am (again..just a guess here), and sadly, I believe--especially after this latest election--the words 'Christian' and religion now raise a big red flag for some people. It certainly does for me. And although I completely agree with all the pro-Davidson people here, I think it's a shame that the far religious right in this country have seemingly hi-jacked (tainted?) religion, Christianity, and the American flag, for that matter.</p>
<p>This has been an interesting discussion. I am sorry, InterestedDad, that Davidson has caused you to feel uncomfortable in your family setting, or so it seems from what you said earlier, quoted here: "The only reason it's put a burr under my saddle is that you have no idea how strongly I defended Davidson to my wife on the diversity issue, assuring her that it wasn't foot-dragging or anything like that." (With friends like that why would Davidson need "enemies"?) I feel better knowing that many readers and posters have taken a somewhat longer and more positive view of Davidson's efforts. </p>
<p>I hope that accepted students who attend Decision Davidson come away from their visits feeling as warm, welcome, and secure in the school's excellence as the school deserves them to--and as they deserve to when one considers that admission was a reward for years of hard work in high school.</p>
<p>I agree with MATTMOM. Interesteddad seems to have conjured up a boogeyman in his mind about Davidson that does not exist, I hope momofwilfchild is not really scared away from Davidson because of the misperception that he created. The 2 years I have spent at Davidson so far have been the best of my life, it is a welcoming place for all.</p>
<p>It's a shame that the so many feel the need to apply a scarlet letter to people of faith--this, to my mind, is not a liberal virtue, but a reactionary one. What happened to judging something but what it actually does. </p>
<p>Obviously Davidson's racial composition mirrors that of other universities of its class (LAC's, and rural or southern private schools) as regards URM's (to say that this is simply because URMs tend to be religious is bizarre and beside the point). That it does not have a disproportionately large percentage of Jews or Arabs or Asians is not necessarily an ethical fault or moral failing. Certain schools in the south, such as Emory, over represent many of these groups (although not Blacks or Hispanics) but it is an urban pre-professional school.</p>
<p>Harvard, Penn and others also over-represent these groups, most of the elite North-Eastern schools do (again excluding Blacks and Hispanics) and there seems to be no real out-cry or hand-wringing over it. </p>
<p>In fact, just as many argue that Affirmative Action should be abolished or diluted which would, of course, further reduce the representation of Blacks and Hispanics and increase the number of other minorities that are already over-represented, some by factors of 10+ at these schools (I have no opinion on AA; but certainly, the consequence of diluting AA will be to increase the numbers of ethnic groups that are already over-represented at these schoolsIm not a diversity-hound).</p>
<p>Davidson may have its own sins; however, racism does not seem to be one of them-- its history of a particular belief in the divine, apparently, is. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.</p>
<p>Anyone with any remaining doubts about Davidson's 21st-century identity should visit its Web site and read the press release about Paul Rusesabagina, subject of the recent film Hotel Rwanda, who will be speaking at Davidson College on Sunday. The purpose of the visit, arranged by a student, is to bring to people's attention the ghastly situation in Darfur. The student got the idea from an international relations class he took as a freshman. It is a detailed and impressive press release and speaks to the quality of both students and instructors, in my opinion (not to mention the press release writer, who writes very well).</p>
<p>Then go into the archives (Davidson Web site, search function) and read about Davidson's upcoming sponsorship of two Children's Defense Fund Freedom Schools this summer. Similar outlook. Very nice.</p>
<p>"Obviously Davidson's racial composition mirrors that of other universities of its class (LAC's, and rural or southern private schools) as regards URM's (to say that this is simply because URMs tend to be religious is bizarre and beside the point). That it does not have a disproportionately large percentage of Jews or Arabs or Asians is not necessarily an ethical fault or moral failing."</p>
<p>While I agree with the sentiment, over- or underrepresentation is a slippery slope. Once one accepts the reality that half the student body at Swarthmore, and two-thirds of the student body at Davidson (just to use those two examples) come from the top 5% of the population in terms of family incomes (speaking of "overrepresentation!" affirmative action for rich, mostly white, folk), the rest of the numbers go out the window. As I've suggested elsewhere, this does not suggest an ethical or moral failing, but may point to an academic one.</p>
<p>At Interesteddad's and my common alma mater, former Governor of New York Herbert Lehman was one of the biggest benefactors. He donated a building, large amounts of scholarship funds, and etc. over a 40-year period. When he died in 1962, he still hadn't been allowed a seat on the college's board of trustees. And there weren't any Catholics either. The Jew quota existed into the late 60s (at Princeton it apparently went much later). But times do change. The last two presidents of Williams have been Jewish.</p>
<p>In that context, I think it is likely that in the early 60s, Davidson felt it necessary to placate their alumni and support base (100% white, and 99% Christian) by putting what had always been the case into their bylaws. It is not likely they were worried about a Jew or an Arab being nominated to the Board of Trustees. Rather, having made a decision to admit non-Christians to the faculty, they wanted to send a clear message about governance. So they did.</p>
<p>Well, the times they are a changin', and Davidson both changed and is changing with them. Not fast enough for some people's tastes. But, hey, that's why there are choices! My d. felt stifled by the rich folks' affirmative action at my alma mater (which I had always thought she was likely to attend), and made another choice accordingly. But choices, differences, niches, etc. are GOOD things, not bad ones.</p>
<p>"While I agree with the sentiment, over- or underrepresentation is a slippery slope. Once one accepts the reality that half the student body at Swarthmore, and two-thirds of the student body at Davidson (just to use those two examples) come from the top 5% of the population in terms of family incomes (speaking of "overrepresentation!" affirmative action for rich, mostly white, folk), the rest of the numbers go out the window."</p>
<p>Agreed! We need better categories and fewer reactionaries.</p>
<p>Totally agree. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of great schools that are fine choices for one student, poor choices for others. Each of our daughter's schools is a perfect example. My daughter made a choice to attend a co-ed college, so Smith was never an option for her despite family alum and all the other great things about the school. Likewise, my D's school would have been a lousy choice for your daugther because it simply doesn't offer the depth or breadth in a main academic interest. Yet, despite those choices, I'm sure there are many things about Smith that my daughter would find attractive and many about Swarthmore that your daughter would find attractive. They simply had different priorities and each gave more or less weight to many different factors.</p>
<p>The key lesson to take away from the interesting board vote at Davidson is that it is worth looking at the "governance" of a college, both contemporary and historic, to learn about the school. For example, you and your daughter value the economic diversity at Smith. That didn't happen by accident. The economic diversity at Smith was the result of its governance -- specific decisions that may not have been made by a different governing body. Conversely, the insufficient emphasis on music at Swarthmore for your daughter's interests isn't an accident. It's a direct result of the school's historic governance and specific priorities that were largely inevitable based on that governance. Of course, this has changed now, but the "damage" (so to speak) was already done by the very late creation of a music department, only perhaps a half century ago. Decisions made decades earlier shape the applicant pool today, which in turn, shapes the distibution of resources and priorities. Or, for a more direct example, I would be willing to bet that Swarthmore never would have dropped football were it not for an 1864 by-law requiring equal male/female representation on the Board of Managers. I'm sure that Lucretia Coffin Mott had no idea that pushing for equal representation of women would result in the decision to drop a sacred college sport 140 years later. But, whatever debate took place in the Mott household to arrive at that by-law has impacted just about everything the college has done since.</p>
<p>Governance matters. </p>
<p>The lesson I learned, that may be of value to future education shoppers, is to look at the governance because it can tell you a lot. For example, the Davidson Board's willingness to lose their biggest benefactor over an issue they felt strongly about says something very positive about the values of the school, IMO. If I were a prospective customer, I would give the Davidson board, alumni, and President a checkmark in the positive column. But, that's just me. Another prospective customer might see the increasing secularization of Davidson as a negative development.</p>