I was at a function in BH about 18 months ago, just before Covid hit. I was surrounded by hundreds of adults who’s kids go to fancy private schools in the area which was fascinating to me as I live in a suburb of Chicago where few go to private schools as our public schools are generally ranked in the tops for the state. I remember specifically talking to someone who’s kids went to Harvard Westlake and how all of their kids went to Wash U and then him telling me how many kids from there go there. I was literally shocked. First, because I didn’t understand how one school could or would send so many kids there, and two thought it was an odd choice of schools to send kids to from the LA area. But, of course my kids who are very familiar with the LA/BH vibe and have friends from camp and college from those schools were way more versed on it than I was (no surprise, lol). So these stats in this thread don’t surprise me but it is interested how some schools just feed students into certain colleges. One private school in LA I know is sending 17 kids to Michigan this year. I believe last year they sent very few. So, things just change from year to year I guess.
As for the parents, the school and many parents disagree with them. This may make them feel frustrated and dismissed, but such as life.
As for the students, I’ve gone through the Weis piece again to better understand the claim, and there isn’t really much of substance written about what HW has done to stifle student dissent, except for general progressiveness. One HW parent says kids are afraid of other kids, and another said they don’t want the parent to talk to Weis for fear it would hurt their college chances.
That said, I agree with your previous post where you noted that this is difficult new terrain and that there are bound to be missteps by everyone, so thinking of the issue more generally and not about HW in particular, I can imagine some situations where kids might feel like dissent is being stifled. In order to move toward a a truly inclusive environment, it seems like some schools are trying to move beyond certain issues still raging in the cultural wars. I imagine this could feel stifling for kids who haven’t moved on. Also, some kids may feel stifled by the school’s preference for respectful conversation rather than contentious debate.
What do you think? Suppose a student believes strongly that LBGTQ+ is unnatural, unscientific, immoral, etc. Should that student be allowed to confront an LBGTQ+ and challenge their identity? If it isn’t allowed, is that stifling dissenting opinion? Or is it teaching students to treat others to be inclusive and treat others with respect?
I do not think it is “contentious debate” for students to calmly express political or religious views to which the PC crowd may object. Clearly some parents and students feel stifled, and dismissing their concerns as “such is life” is unlikely to be helpful in promoting civil debate or a truly tolerant school atmosphere.
One can treat those with whom one disagrees with civility while objecting to their actions.
From the article, parents and students see an ideology being imposed. It’s not merely a matter of making the school more welcoming to those of color or who identify as LGBTQ, it’s that the school seems to be enthusiastically re-educating the rest of the student population in how to think about those issues. @mtmind explains that, well, transition might be difficult for some, and that this is difficult new terrain. What transition? What new terrain? This was supposedly a non-sectarian school.
If parents feel that their kid is being indoctrinated and the kid is worried about retaliation for speaking out, that’s a problem with the climate of the school and is, indeed, a matter of substance. The school’s mission to strive for diversity, equity and inclusion isn’t being met if a subset (of unknown proportions) is feeling the opposite.
It all depends on how schools are “moving on” - if that means new ideas are a fait-accompli and a differing point of view is considered “contentious debate” then, yeah, kids will feel stifled. Unfortunately, “respectful conversation” doesn’t necessarily imply an open exchange of ideas nor does it teach students how to disagree with one another (and disagreement is inevitable in any large group). It’s pretty easy to claim you feel disrespect over what someone else said and that will just shut down the conversation. As @roycroftmom pointed out, “civil conversations” would be a better standard for an environment claiming to foster “diversity, equity and inclusion.” To care about another person doesn’t mean you have to agree with them all the time. Schools can foster a caring environment that still encourages thought diversity.
I did not dismiss student concerns. As for the parents, I’ve explained ad nausuem that, IMO, while the parents voices have been heard, they feel stifled because they didn’t get their way. But in life we don’t always get our way.
I think this gets to the heart of the matter for me. In a community striving for diversity and inclusivity, being LBGTQ+ (for example) isn’t up for debate. It is Being. Existing. So how does one “disagree with civility” to a classmate’s existence?
The difference here would be “being” vs “doing.” For instance, one might disagree with same-sex marriage, or one might disagree with the Catholic Church’s position on same-sex marriage. Neither has to do with attacking an LGBTQ+ or a Catholic. It has to do with your opinion on things they believe in and practice. In a “civil conversations” environment, students can discuss those differing viewpoints and learn from one another without losing friends or being branded a homophobe or a religious bigot. After all, surely the LGBTQ+ person has some critique of others’ belief systems or life choices. They might feel stifled as well.
Thank you for your thoughtful response.
I am no CRT scholar, and so I am coming at this from the basic precepts I was taught in kindergarten and Sunday school -
Treat others how you want to be treated
Love the sinner hate the sin (here that means hate the objectionable beliefs but believe the person thinking them is good).
“Such is life” is not acceptable pedagogy for teaching kids how to deal with life’s inequities- to those in either the majority or minority position. I hope that isn’t what HW students are being taught. Sounds like the rationale behind segregation.
No, confronting a person in the LGTBQ community to challenge their identity is not ok. But if someone believes as part of their religion that there is something wrong with being gay, for example, I would not tell them that their religion is wrong. I might want to try to understand the beliefs, and if they want to engage in conversation explain mine. I for darned sure would demand and expect that they treat everyone with fundamental human decency, even people they think are sinners or beneath them or racist.
Here’s a question. Can a student at H-W question, without being judged, whether trans girls should have any restrictions about athletic participation?
This is a complex issue. Testosterone is so powerful that some 16 year old boys can outrun the world’s fastest women regardless of the women’s age or training. Boys who transition to girls after puberty can have a huge athletic advantage. Even if they take hormones, they still maintain the increased height and lung capacity benefits of testosterone.
What is the discussion at H-W regarding balancing fairness for the trans girl who wants to participate vs fairness for the cis girls who may be at a physical disadvantage? We all know that recruited athlete is an hook for college admission.
I think WashU is thought to be a place where ED applicants (even those outside the top of the class) will have a very good chance of admission. Same for Chicago.
Looking at the stats, when one sees surprisingly high admissions rates for those outside the top of the class, there is a good chance that the school is accepting a lot of kids ED in order to manage yield.
(Plus, WashU supposedly has nice dorms.)
I think if you review my post, you will see that my “such is life” comment was only referring to the parents who are frustrated that they haven’t gotten their way regarding the policies of the school. You expressed a very similar sentiment when you wrote . . .
Learning that we don’t always get our way is an important life lesson, and it is one that some of these parents seem to be having trouble accepting.
HW would not tell kids that “their religion is wrong.” But, speaking for myself only, I can imagine that kids who believe “there is something wrong with being gay” might find an inclusive community to be stifling, especially if proselytizing is also a tenant of their religion.
I’m not interesting in getting into the culture wars here and have no idea what HW’s position is on this issue, if it even has one.
I realize there is similarities in my “welcome to the world” comment and the “such is life” comment. Thought about it when I wrote my response. To me, the difference is “welcome to the world” is part of a dialogue, an invitation to explore the idea that historically they get listened to more than others. “Such is life” shuts the dialogue down. But maybe I misunderstood what you were saying.
On an administrative level, I think the school has to listen to the parents. They are the customers. If existing customers are given a chance to participate in a change in product, they usually stick it out with brand loyalty. If not, they go off to someone else who will take their money and give bad yelp reviews. That is what is happening at HW, seems to me. The change in product can be positive overall, but still be poor implementation.
If someone feels stifled in an inclusive community, then actually it’s probably not an inclusive community. The question would be whether that person is excluded because they are obnoxious and preachy and wish everyone were like him or her, or whether it’s because they happen to hold a different viewpoint on sexual morality that others won’t tolerate. “Inclusive communities” should be very open about what they mean by “inclusive.”
I think the state of CA has passed this into law. So HW would defer to state law. A related question would be HW’s position on preferred pronouns, whether there are mandates there. For instance, if one student refers to another by their biological gender when in fact they are transitioning and prefer another pronoun, what happens? Can a student be expelled, for instance.
@mtmind might have an idea, as someone familiar with these private schools (where there are no first amendment issues that I’m aware of).
It is a shame that many of these schools have become echo chambers for certain views; their graduates will be ill-equipped to deal with the variety of different beliefs and customs in the world .
No one has shut dialogue down. The school has and does listen to the parents. All of the parents. And it has done so for years, and will continue to do so, on these issues and others. But parents don’t speak with a uniform voice and sometimes some parents are not going to get their way on issues that they may feel strongly about. When the school moves in a direction with which they disagree, that is not shutting dialogue down, it is administering a school.
Speaking for myself only, I can think of little the school could do to appease parents who have a fundamental disagreement with the mission of the school. The school, though, continues to try to listen to these parents and include them in discussions and planning, trying to foster community and build consensus. So, in my opinion, it is an unfair and unreasonable leap in logic to suggest that any of this comes down to “poor implementation.”
One more thing that may be getting lost in the debate. The school seems to be doing just fine. For the most part, the kids are tremendously respectful and thoughtful towards each other, and they are learning to think critically and communicate effectively. (All of the parents could learn something from their children.) The school’s mission statement and anti-racist policies have not overturned the apple cart. Life goes on pretty much as usual, with perhaps a bit more focus on inclusiveness. It is a shame that these parents chose to try to turn their school into the outrage du jour in the culture wars.
Apparently many students and parents disagree, but your steadfast defense of the school is noted.
IMO it is quite the opposite. When dealing “with the variety of different beliefs and customs in the world,” who is better equipped? The student who has learned to accept, respect, and include people who differ from themselves? Or the student who views their worldview as the correct worldview, and who chooses to “politely” challenge and debate those who differ from themselves?
UChicago is usually an eye-opener for such students who have learned to “accept, respect and include” without thinking critically about their world or their place in it. Because they aren’t used to “politely” debating others’ points of view, they have no idea how to do so. Then they arrive in their Core Hum or Sosc - both being sequences were a lot of contemporary issues and sensibilities tend to creep in - and they find that pretty much everything they say is challenged, and they are expected to back it up. Assertions are no longer sufficient, and comfortable “inclusive” thinking that everything is valid is no longer acceptable. Everyone is expected to contribute to the conversation - no one is excluded there - but the merits of your viewpoint must compete with others and not all viewpoints are equally valid. It’s definitely a different experience from high school. However, since UChicago seems to like the HW kids, perhaps they are well-prepared to embrace this sort of environment, are proving themselves to be critical thinkers, and so forth.
Respect goes in both directions, so assuming the HW kids are equally respectful of Trump supporters, Midwesterners, Hasidic Jews, observant Muslims, traditional Nigerians,etc, then there shouldnt be any problems. Those who Iive in echo chambers (like HW) rarely are so tolerant, if for no other reason than they really know no one who disagrees with their opinions, and have often never even met such a person. It is quite useful to have done so.