<p>
[quote]
Perhaps they were all raging anti-semites when they wrote it--maybe they hated blacks, too, and thought Hindus were heathen savages.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No more so than any of the hoity-toit northeast schools at some point in their histories. </p>
<p>The only difference is that some schools were later than others in ending their "lily-white" policies. Those who were earlier tend to have more diversity today. Those who were later tend to have less.</p>
<p>.....all of the latest posters are obviously more familar with the Davidson story than I am, but here's an interesting web page on Davidson's 1960's integration history...helps me put their diversity challenges in context:
<a href="http://www.davidson.edu/administrative/library/archives/Eng101/Integration/integration_index.htm%5B/url%5D">http://www.davidson.edu/administrative/library/archives/Eng101/Integration/integration_index.htm</a></p>
<p>here's another interesting link....a student-authored critical piece on Davidson's diversity efforts, circa 2002:</p>
<p>While I don't know much of the history of Davidson, why would it be considered odd that a college still affiliated with a church would require its board members to be Christians? I'm sure the College of the Holy Rosary board is Catholic, and I expect that Yeshiva's board is Jewish. If it isn't (wasn't) affiliated with a church (like Williams wasn't) that's a different issue.</p>
<p>ID - secular humanism wasn't an issue in the 1960s, BUT "God is Dead" very much was, especially for colleges in the South, and particularly because the God is Dead movement was centered at Emory University.</p>
<p>Lots of colleges have their own skeletons. Swarthmore's was early, but is particularly nasty. In 1932, the Board of Managers refused to admit a Black student, and raised the old spectre of Black men mixing with white women as the issue: ""After a long discussion, it decided by a large majority that Negro students could not yet be admitted to a coeducational college like Swarthmore. Their admission would raise too many problems and create too many difficulties." (In other words, had it been all men, it would have been okay, but woe the danger to the white Quaker daughters!)</p>
<p>The reality is that while the number of African-American students with 700+ verbal scores on their SATs might be relatively small, the number with 600+ is at least an order of magnitude larger. (and similar with low-income white students, or Hispanics, etc.) When colleges don't have many such students on campus, it isn't because they can't do the work (virtually all of them have data from actual attendees showing that they can), but because it is costly to attract them, recruit them, admit them, advise them, and mentor them, and colleges decide to make other choices, as is their prerogative. These are, after all, private institutions - it's their money.</p>
<p>Oh Oh........ Idad is going to get you for that Swarthmore jab.</p>
<p>The battle of the Williams alums Round III. This time, it's personal.. Ding Ding</p>
<p>The Bungle in the Jungle? Boondoggle in the Boonies?</p>
<p>"Oh Oh........ Idad is going to get you for that Swarthmore jab. The battle of the Williams alums Round III. "</p>
<p>More complicated than even that. I'm a Quaker, too. (with TWO daughters! - but only one who is pinky-grey) ;)</p>
<p>mini:</p>
<p>DUCK and COVER !!!!!!!!!!!!</p>
<p>
[quote]
While I don't know much of the history of Davidson, why would it be considered odd that a college still affiliated with a church would require its board members to be Christians? I'm sure the College of the Holy Rosary board is Catholic, and I expect that Yeshiva's board is Jewish. If it isn't (wasn't) affiliated with a church (like Williams wasn't) that's a different issue.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's kind of what it came down to for me. You say it much more eloquently. My son's elementary school is religious-oriented, and they want board members to have a professed faith in line with the school's. I totally understand, even though it would disqualify myself and/or members of my family. </p>
<p>I actually don't (personally) think such qualifications are important, and I think people could make compelling arguments for how any governing body might be improved by a broader diversity of backgrounds. But I don't find it suspicious if a board has decided (in contrast to my opinion) that it wants members who fit a certain profile that aligns with the mission of the place. Nor do I think it explains why a school might not have many black students. I think interesteddad's other explanations for the variation in ethnic distribution were sound--it's just this "look at Davidson's bylaws" argument that I don't agree with.</p>
<p>"DUCK and COVER !!!!!!!!!!!!"</p>
<p>Don't think it should be necessary. ID knows the history better than I do. And we'd both agree that colleges that dealt with such issues early end up in a better position today than those that didn't.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Oh Oh........ Idad is going to get you for that Swarthmore jab.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Not really. Perhaps you missed the post above where I wrote: "No more so than any of the hoity-toit northeast schools at some point in their histories." I have not run across a single school that was not lily-white and stunningly bigoted (by today's standards) at some point. The only difference is timing. The only reason that this is at all relevant is that, if you are looking for schools with high degrees of diversity, you will probably find a more productive search among schools that embraced diversity earlier rather than later.</p>
<p>Actually, the most egregious example of racism at Swarthmore occured when they admitted a light-skinned Negro applicant, having mistakenly assumed from his photograph that he was white. After much consternation, they corrected their "mistake" by arranging for him to attend the all-male Dartmouth.</p>
<p>I recently read an interesting bit of history about the student-led push to admit black students at Swarthmore and, specifically, how they "worked" the Board of Managers to sign off on the policy change. What they found was that individual board members tended to favor the change in the policy, but that the Board as a whole always found an excuse. So the student leaders scheduled individual meetings with every member of the Board. As none of them wanted to be individually singled-out as opposing integration, the students were able to get personal commitments from each individual Board member to not oppose the enrollment of black students. Thus, when the Board met to make the official decision, the members were all in the position of looking around the room and realizing they had no wiggle room for "hiding" behind the group facade in continuing to find excuses.</p>
<p>"I just don't see it as the "OH MY GOD THEY HATE DIVERSITY" signal flag you do when a Christian college wants Christians serving on its board."</p>
<p>Hoedown, thank you for expressing the thoughts of many. This second -or is it the third- debate about Davidson does not show much improvement. The desire to find evidence of malicious intentions in the bylaws overshadows the interest in facts. In a world where all schools tend to gravitate towars political correctness and liberalism at at costs, it is a rare feat to see schools trying to preserve their heritage and resist to join the mass of institutions that have grown undistiguishable from one another. </p>
<p>Trying to please everyone almost always ends up pleasing no one.</p>
<p>Xiggi:</p>
<p>Didn't you just explain why Davidson has not made a strong commitment to diversity? I agree that their lack of commitment is not malicious in any way. They are simply trying to preserve their institutional heritage and achieve their own institutional priorities, which is perfectly fine.</p>
<p>It is, however, part of the explanation for why some schools have more diversity than others. As you point out, there is no reason that all colleges SHOULD have a commitment to diversity nor that all students should seek a college strong diversity on campus.</p>
<p>This is not a good versus bad discussion. It is simply a discussion that acknowledges that characteristics such as diversity are the result of conscious decisions made about institutional priorities. Every school makes choices about the composition of their student body; choices that may be influenced by many factors ranging from financial to preserving a heritage.</p>
<p>interesteddad-- thanks for laying out your thought process for evaluating diversity issues in post 41....I didn't expect any diffinitive answers to my OP, and I'm happy to have learned something about everyone's approach.</p>
<p>Heres' the LAC list, ordered by greatest minority + international percentage, with Pell and financial aid data:</p>
<p>College/Pell Grants %/ qualifying for financial aid %
Swarthmore 12% 48%
Occidental 24% 65%
Amherst 15% 46%
Williams 10% 42%
Pomona 10% 53%
Haverford 12% 43%
Wesleyan 13% 48%
Macalester 13% 69%
Bowdoin 12% 46%
Vassar 11% 54%
Middlebury 9% 42%
Colgate 9% 44%
Conn College 10% 44%
Hamilton 14% 55%
Trinity 12% 43%
Colby 8% 39%
Colorado Col 15% 43%
Denison 13% 49%
Bates 9% 44%
Davidson 7% 34%
Bucknell 12% 51%
Dickinson 10% 52%
Reed 18% 56%
Skidmore 12% 43%
Richmond 7% 34%
W&L 3% 31%
Kenyon 7% 43%
Rhodes 10% 40%</p>
<p>again, no real surprises here.....Occidental is leaps & bounds above all others in Pell Grant recipients, with W&L, Kenyon, Richmond, & Davidson representing the lowest 4 from this group. On the percentage of those qualifying for financial aid, Occidental & Macalester standout on the high end, and W&L, Richmond, Davidson, & Colby representing the lowest 4 from the list. Reed is not too far behind the leaders in either category, and clearly above the medians for this group.</p>
<p>If you add the three women's colleges - Mt. Holyoke, Wellesley, and Smith to Occidental and Macalester, you will essentially end up with a fairly consistent "big 5" (except that the first three discard all chromosomal arrangements without two legs on each.) (You'll also find them in the top five or so for need-based aid per student attending, which is interesting given that only Wellesley, I think, claims to be "need-blind".)</p>
<p>As I said way back on post 3 "Look at Oxy and Mac. Pretty dang diverse." These two schools pride themselves on a global , inclusive, perspective and appear to live what they are preaching. If I were seeking true diversity of thought across income, racial, sexual, and national barriers at a smaller institution - I'm stll picking these two.</p>
<p>Just saw mini's post -and of course the women's colleges he mentioned joined by Agnes Scott and a school no one ever talks about this board that has almost everybody trumped (if I remember right) -Wesleyan College in Macon , Georgia.</p>
<p>Wesleyan 34% AA,10% foreign,3% Asian ,1% Hispanic</p>
<p>Agnes Scott 26% AA,7% Asian,5% Hispanic, 2%foreign, and 7% not reporting</p>
<p>And goodness, I think Georgia is in the south, best as I can recollect. LOL.</p>
<p>Curmudgeon:</p>
<p>You have to evaluate colleges in terms of their selectivity. Neither Agnes Scott nor Wesleyan College are very selective at all and require significant merit aid to attract the top students who they do get. 25% of Agnes Scott's students and a whopping 39% of Wesleyan College's students receive merit aid.</p>
<p>Unlike some of the colleges on Papa's list, the major insitutional priority for both of these schools is to simply fill their freshman classes. If I recall, Agnes Scott has downsized significantly over the years since Emory went co-ed and pulled the rug out from under its female neighbor. I would say that Wesleyan College in Macon is in a fight for survival with an overall enrollment of 565 and an entering freshman class of only 75 students -- it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see where that trend is headed. </p>
<p>Both have turned to the huge Af-Am population base in their state as an important customer base. I applaud that decision, but it makes for a somewhat different set of institutional priorities than at a more selective college.</p>
<p>Actually Interesteddad, Ol' Agnes is doing quite well with a per student endowment ranking 2nd among women's colleges, 7th in LAC's , 27th overall. In addition to that enrollment has been booming since 1995. And to boot selectivity in this very self selecting category is 59% admitted, compared to Smith at 57%, and MHC at 54%. I'd say that's comparable, but maybe your blade shaves more closely. But this is OT, the topic was diversity.</p>
<p>PapaChicken:</p>
<p>Seems to me that in addition to/instead of the racial diversity you're seeking, maybe you should also be thinking about socioeconomic diversity. I can only assume that many of the African-Americans at Harvard and Amherst come from middle- and upper middle-class families. Who's going to have more different perspective for your son to learn from - another middle-class African-American student or a lower-class student from a rural or urban environment, regardless of race, i.e. Eminem.</p>
<p>My son is at West Point. Although you are a city boy from a Blue state, I hope you appreciate that our Service Academy populations mirror both the racial and socioeconomic demographics of the United States. And since they all know that their lives will depend upon each other, they truly learn from their differences. Remeber, the Army, by Harry Truman's executive order, was the first American institution to integrate. In my opinion it is a true meritocracy.</p>
<p>Oh, as for sports, West Point has a lot of D1 sports but every cadet is required to do a sport. Boxing, swimming, gymnastics are actually required graded courses. There are many, many club and intramural teams. Army has the #1 Rugby team in the country right now.</p>
<p>And there are probably some democrat cadets from blue states, a la Wesley Clark.</p>
<p>"I hope you appreciate that our Service Academy populations mirror both the racial and socioeconomic demographics of the United States."</p>
<p>Do they? Any data? The only data I have says that USMA, Naval, Air Force, and Coast Guard are between 76-85% Caucasian (much less than some of the others), no internationals virtually by definition; and the little I know of the selection process heavily favors folks with connections to local Congressfolks/Senators, generally speaking hardly the stuff of socio-economic diversity (I would seriously doubt that there is anything close to 28% of students who would qualify for Pell Grants). It might be true, but I haven't seen any data supporting the hypothesis.</p>