<p>I would be interested in hearing from current/recent students. Thank you.
<a href="http://media.yaf.org/latest/12_19_06.cfm%5B/url%5D">http://media.yaf.org/latest/12_19_06.cfm</a></p>
<p>No.</p>
<p>It is full of fairly earnest, bright, hard-working, somewhat geeky young adults who have a wide variety of experiences and interests. The culture of the school attracts students who value (and accept) diversity, tend to be moderate to liberal politically, and have a relatively high percentage who go on to academic/research and public interest careers.</p>
<p>There hasn't been much radicalism on college campuses since the 1970s. Today's students, at Swarthmore and elsewhere, are much more inclined to work "within the system" rather than fight it.</p>
<p>The "Peace Studies" course cited by that whacko organization is reflective of the Quaker heritage of Swarthmore. The school was founded by people active in the Underground Railroad abolishionist movement. A Swarthmore grad (Alice Paul) led the women's suffrage movement. Swarthmore and its students (including the current chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. Carl Levin) were active opponents of McCarthyism in the 1950s.</p>
<p>Students do tend to take an above average interest in politics, which isn't hard given that college campuses these days are seriously unpolitical. It helps that Swarthmore is located in a district with major national implications -- both the Senate race and the local House race were major national races this past fall. So a lot of students register to vote at Swarthmore and there is some involvement in local campaigns. A lot of Swatties do internships and post-graduate employment in Washington....Federal Reserve, think tanks, public interest organizations, etc.</p>
<p>From the social science/political science/history courses my daughter has taken, I would say that the academics move beyond the soundbyte slogans very quickly. It would be difficult to study any issue at Swarthmore and not appreciate at least two sides of the issue.</p>
<p>There are a few "agenda-oriented" professors. These profs are widely known around campus so students don't get blindsided very often. They can either choose to take courses from those professors or not. The most famous professor in the Poli Sci department has worked as an expert in the Naval War College, is an evangelical Christian, and writes regularly in Republican oriented magazines. His Defense Policy seminar is a hard-to-get ticket. </p>
<p>Another has written the definitive book on African American voting statistics in the South from Reconstruction through the Voting Rights Act. I read his book while my daughter was taking his American Politics class and he took a decidedly "just the facts" point of view. For example, while explaining the violent tactics used to stop black voting in the South from the late 1800s through the 1960s in great detail, he also explained why mistakes made during Reconstruction (the disenfranchisement of Confederate loyalists) contributed to the legitimate resentment of whites inflicting the violence. You would not be likely to do well on a paper that doesn't acknowledge the complexity of an issue or topic. I thought his course looked very effective at getting students to consider the fundamental checks and balances of our political system (executive, legislative, judicial) and apply those built-in tensions to several issues. One of the final paper topics was on the "nuclear option" and Gang of 14 agreement on Judicial nominations. The take home final exam question was delightfully open-ended, "What good is judicial review...really?"</p>
<p>These "Oh My God, look at this course" articles like you cite are a staple of the Rush Limbaugh-type press. They scan the course titles and look for buzzwords without even bothering to check the syllabus to find out what the course is really about.</p>
<p>I visited Swarthmore a few months ago, and it seemed like a very laidback, hippie kind of school. That's not what I want, so I didn't apply, but I wouldn't describe it as radical, either.</p>
<p>I'm wondering now if my perception of it was incorrect? I dunno, everything my tour guide told us/showed us kind of led me to that conclusion. Doesn't matter now, I didn't apply, but just wondering.</p>
<p>I have no idea how Swarthmore could be described as "hippie." There is dramatically less radicalism than I expected, particularly far more moderate (though still left) economic views.</p>
<p>That article is ********, imo. It is as if the authors randomly looked up courses without any real understanding of what a liberal arts education is supposed to entail. </p>
<p>Honestly, how is suggesting terrorism can be fought in a way other than with multi-million-dollar-bombs and the loss of thousands of American lives radicalism? It might seem unrealistic, but also far from radical. The article also suggests that by suggesting "rags to riches" is a myth a college is radical? Are they crazy? My amazingly PC text book in high school said the exact same thing.</p>
<p>Quark: Your observations are really far out and groovy baby! I, for one, am glad that you're the kind of chick that doesn't let the truth interfere with first impressions.</p>
<p>David: I find it interesting that you would try to paint Swarthmore as an institution full of "radicals" based upon an article reprinted in a forum that espouses a return to "traditional values." I take that to mean an agenda that has no apologies for being anti-gay, anti-women, anti-minority, anti-immigration and anti-anything else that doesn't comply with their idea of morally correct. Just look at the list of institutions offering the courses deemed unacceptable by these moral blowhards, Duke, Penn, Amherst, JHU, Moho,Berkely, Cornell and Swarthmore. These institutions are the elite of the elite. A college education, at least a liberal arts education, is here to broaden the mind. To see things from a different perspective and allow us to judge for ourselves what is right for each of us individually, not to be indoctrinated into a lock step mindset that will force us to follow blindly the edicts of a few sexually repressed mono visioned hypocrites (and we all know that they're hyprocrites right? do as I say, not as I do types?). So Dave, since you're younger than me, let me impart some elderly advice. Stop being a moron. If you didn't dismiss the article immediately upon reading it, then that's what you are. If you felt the need to have someone tell you that the article is agenda driven drivel, then you are. Would someone please tell me what is happening with America's youth these days that they can be so gullible. I guess being born in 1988 is a big difference from 1989.</p>
<p>To call Swarthmore "radical" is ridiculous.
But even more ridiculous is calling it "laid back"...</p>
<p>The irony I missed is that the course singled out by YAF is one of the courses taught by this year's Lang Visiting Professor. This is an endowment by Eugene Lang to bring a leading activist in social change to Swarthmore each year. This year's Lang Professor is George Laskey, a Quaker activist who wrote the field manual for non-violent protest in Martin Luther King's civil rights movement and has been active around the globe in virtually every type of social movement. I'm sure he's not YAF's vision of an ideal professor teaching courses about dead white guys, but this has been a great program that gives Swarthmore students the opportunity to interact with leaders who have "been there and done that". It's the kind of program that expands the course offerings beyond some of the limitations of a small undergrad college. It's part of Eugene Lang's belief (see <a href="http://www.projectpericles.org%5B/url%5D">www.projectpericles.org</a>) that elite colleges have a responsibility to educate students "for social responsibility and participatory citizenship", i.e. that a college education is about inspiring leadership in a larger community, not just vocational training.</p>
<p>Past Lang Visiting Professors under the fairly recent program include:</p>
<p>
[quote]
Lang Professors have come from many areas of social action and research, and from many parts of the world.</p>
<p>Sulak Sivaraksa (<a href="http://www.sulak-sivaraksa.org/%5B/url%5D">www.sulak-sivaraksa.org/</a>) is an engaged Buddhist activist from Thailand. </p>
<p>Denis Halliday is the former head of UN humanitarian programs who resigned his position in protest against the effects of sanctions against Iraq. </p>
<p>John Baugh, (<a href="http://www.stanford.edu/%7Ejbaugh/%5B/url%5D">www.stanford.edu/~jbaugh/</a>) Director of the Center for African and African-American Studies at Washington University, is a linguist honored for his work on Black American speech and on the implications of speech patterns for fair housing; </p>
<p>Robert Edgar (<a href="http://www.ncccusa.org/%5B/url%5D">www.ncccusa.org/</a>) is General Secretary of the national Council of Churches. </p>
<p>Uri Riesman (<a href="http://www.utdanacenter.org/%5B/url%5D">www.utdanacenter.org/</a>) is a mathematician distinguished by his demonstration of strategies for high achievement in math by minority students. </p>
<p>Herbert Kohl, author of 36 Children, and visionary educational activist, was the Lang Visiting Professor for 2005-2006.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Here is an article from last week's Daily Gazette--with some reactions to the dubious "honor" of being on the YAF list by both Lakey and students!
<a href="http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/daily/index.php?year=2007&month=01&day=24#n3%5B/url%5D">http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/org/daily/index.php?year=2007&month=01&day=24#n3</a></p>
<p>
[quote]
David: I find it interesting that you would try to paint Swarthmore as an institution full of "radicals" based upon an article reprinted in a forum that espouses a return to "traditional values." I take that to mean an agenda that has no apologies for being anti-gay, anti-women, anti-minority, anti-immigration and anti-anything else that doesn't comply with their idea of morally correct. Just look at the list of institutions offering the courses deemed unacceptable by these moral blowhards, Duke, Penn, Amherst, JHU, Moho,Berkely, Cornell and Swarthmore. These institutions are the elite of the elite. A college education, at least a liberal arts education, is here to broaden the mind. To see things from a different perspective and allow us to judge for ourselves what is right for each of us individually, not to be indoctrinated into a lock step mindset that will force us to follow blindly the edicts of a few sexually repressed mono visioned hypocrites (and we all know that they're hyprocrites right? do as I say, not as I do types?). So Dave, since you're younger than me, let me impart some elderly advice. Stop being a moron. If you didn't dismiss the article immediately upon reading it, then that's what you are. If you felt the need to have someone tell you that the article is agenda driven drivel, then you are. Would someone please tell me what is happening with America's youth these days that they can be so gullible. I guess being born in 1988 is a big difference from 1989.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Wow, you are one heck of a hothead!... If you had read his post, you would have seen that David never even said anything about Swarthmore, he just asked a question and posted a link. Insulting David personally was not the right thing to do in your opinion. You should apologize.</p>
<p>Ernie: From your posting I can deduce why you're from nowheresville. I did read the post and if you had understood his post, you would have realized the implication of the posting. Since David didn't post the same question on the boards of any of the other schools indicted in the article, it is clear that David is not as concerned about the content of the classes offered, but is making a veiled accusation that Swat is a hotbed of radicalism while the other schools are not.</p>
<p>I also appreciate your self appointment to the CC politeness police, but sadly, no apology is forthcoming.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Ernie: From your posting I can deduce why you're from nowheresville. I did read the post and if you had understood his post, you would have realized the implication of the posting. Since David didn't post the same question on the boards of any of the other schools indicted in the article, it is clear that David is not as concerned about the content of the classes offered, but is making a veiled accusation that Swat is a hotbed of radicalism while the other schools are not.</p>
<p>I also appreciate your self appointment to the CC politeness police, but sadly, no apology is forthcoming.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Allright, now I am ****ed. Yes, Swat does have a reputation of radicalism. Wait, so you are mad that david posted the question on the Swat board and not on the, say, Brigham Young U board? What in the hell are you talking about? Asking if Swat students are really as radical as they say is just like asking if Harvard students are really as stuck up as they say or if Princeton students are really as preppy as they say or if Brown students are really mostly hippies, as they say. True or not, stigmas bring legitimate concerns. David was not "trying to paint Swarthmore as an institution full of 'radicals'" or implying anything, he was asking if what he had heard was true. So quit trying to pick a fight.</p>
<p>Oh, and another thing. Evidently you didn't catch the irony in david asking about "radicals" and you ranting in typical "radical" fashion about the "moral blowhards'" "agenda that has no apologies for being anti-gay, anti-women, anti-minority, anti-immigration and anti-anything else that doesn't comply with their idea of morally correct." David, I think duhvinci aswered your question for you.</p>
<p>Ernie:</p>
<p>Don't let Duhvinci get under your skin. For reasons that I do not understand, Duhvinci enjoys attacking posters and making people angry. I think it's some kind of weird sense of humor thing that just doesn't work on an internet forum at all. Several people have tried to point out to Duhvinci that the "attitude" is not working. But, so far, to no avail.</p>
<p>I don't think asking whether Swarthmore is full of radicals is out of line. Frankly, I think you have to cut high school students a little slack when they ask questions about colleges. It's great that they are asking. Every once in a blue moon, somebody is just trying to stir the pot. So what?</p>
<p>Ernie, I agree with almost everything that you're saying. I don't agree the last sentence, though, even if as I suspect it was tossed in at the end somewhat flippantly and not meant entirely seriously. Duhvinci obviously hasn't shown that Swarthmore is full of radicals. Whatever else Duhvinci is, I don't think its at all clear that he's a radical, and in any case he's only one individual, and wouldn't make a school "full" of anything. By making that kind of judgment about a place based on one student, you're at best "picking a fight" and at worst being immensely hypocritical given the entire nature of the rest of your argument. Duhvinci has by my count stupidly and unfairly judged three people so far in this thread, but you just had to go and do the same thing to at least 1500.</p>
<p>Yes, your right JP. I did toss that last sentence in without thinking. Sorry about that. The one Swattie whom I personally know is not a radical.</p>
<p>But I still think duhvinci is an idiot:)</p>
<p>Oh, I agree. He's the kind of person who provokes others into saying things they don't mean and lowers them to his level.</p>