<p>I read the links carefully and I can say with certainty that my daughter, who was an excellent candidate and very excited about Mt. Holyoke, will not be applying.</p>
<p>^^ Then that’s her loss, I guess. Probably should cross Smith and Wellesley off the list, too, because they have similar programs. For the umpteenth time, I’m throwing up my hands at CC.</p>
<p>I really couldn’t believe that this wasn’t an April Fool’s Day news item.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>geezermom, why do you assume people who think this is nonsense, or worse, haven’t read the links?</p>
<p>geezermom–I appreciate your helpful explanations to counteract the sensational headline. Thanks for trying, anyway.</p>
<p>No Geezermom, it is Mount Holyoke’s loss. That is a shameful program. There are plenty of ways to discuss social justice without singling out kids as perpetrators at the very beginning of their college careers when they are fragile and vulnerable. I throw my hands up that you don’t understand that.</p>
<p>As my mother always says, there is a time for everything. Pre-orientation is NOT the time to separate out the class by race, it is the time to bring students together.</p>
<p>My question is, what goes on at the other orientations?</p>
<p>Are students of color reinforced in their belief that they are “victims” of oppression? Or indoctrinated in this belief if they were not aware of it before? </p>
<p>As an opt-in program, I can see the children of white privilege having their eyes opened, but poor white children from Appalachia (for instance) are no more oppressors than Obama’s children are victims.</p>
<p>
That’s an excellent question and I wonder that also. Education is important and our nation doesn’t have a blameless racial history by any means, but this pre-orientation is wholly inappropriate and, frankly, dangerous to the possibility of student bonding and inclusion. I can’t imagine anyone thinking this specific example is a good idea.</p>
<p>Then they should have called it a social justice program. Why on earth would this be an orientation? Too many uber liberals with too much time on their hands in the academic bubble redux.</p>
<p>I want my kid to be welcomed to her college on equal footing with every other student and I expect her school to make every effort to help the students come together as a class.</p>
<p>I’d buy the good program, bad timing argument. Gotta say, that jargon-laden quote in post #24 makes one wonder about the communication and pedagogical skills of the “facilitators,” too.</p>
<p>just to clarify one of Geezermom’s statments, that “Probably should cross Smith and Wellesley off the list, too, because they have similar programs,” I don’t know anything about Wellesley but this isn’t the approach Smith takes in its orientation programs.</p>
<p>[Smith</a> College: For First-Year Students](<a href=“http://www.smith.edu/sao/firstyear/registration.php]Smith”>http://www.smith.edu/sao/firstyear/registration.php) describes their programs…one of them is a “Cultural Connections” preorientation, focusing on cross-cultural dialogue and not restricted as to what ethnic group its participants belong. There is an international students’ orientation, but I think that makes sense as they have many issues (opening a bank account, dealing with tax forms and work permits, etc) that are unique to students moving to the US.</p>
<p>By calling attention to itself in this way, Mt. Holyoke will now be receiving a letter from the lawyers at Linda Chavez’ anti-affirmative action interest group, Center for Equal Opportunity. The letter will advise Mt. Holyoke that their, Passages, race-specific orientation restricted to African American, Asian American, and Latina students is unconstitutional based on the rulings in the Grutter and Gratz Michigan Supreme Court cases which held that race cannot be used as a absolute criteria, but only as one among many factors. Mt. Holyoke will consult their attornies who will confirm that the college doesn’t have a leg to stand on. This silly white orientation will be cancelled and Passages will be opened up to all students, including white students.</p>
<p>Been there, done that. The tri-college pre-orientation program at Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore has been in existence since the early 1980s when affirmative action students were struggling, both academically and culturally, to adjust to the elite college experience. Now, that isn’t much of an issue especially where minority enrollment is so high, but the orientation program remained as a community-building exercise that basically fed students into the African American, Latino, and Asian American groups on campus. It didn’t take Swartmore a week after receiving the nice letter from Ms. Chavez to confirm they would lose a legal challenge. The Tri-College pre-orientation was immediately opened up to white students as well and has now been that way for several years.</p>
<p>Mt. Holyoke has rocks in their head if they think this “white only” orientation won’t draw massive attention from the anti-affirmative action crowd. This is textbook politically correct “multi” think run amok.</p>
<p>I don’t want to trivialize any good intentions or real flaws of the program, and I laughed out loud (in good humor) at Barron’s comment…but the premise discussed here brought to mind scenes from the movie “Undercover Brother,” and Martin Mull’s “History of White People.” LOL.</p>
<p>I don’t see what the big fuss is; this is an optional pre-orientation program. If you (or your daughter) does not want to attend, she does not have to. The same is true of Passages orientation for ALANA students. If they do not want to attend, they don’t have to, and a lot don’t. Students who choose to go to the social justice orientation choose to do it because something about social justice interests them. It is all optional, except for International Students Orientation. The actual orientation program is a fully integrated program, in which students get to know the school, etc. Mount Holyoke just wants to please every group… if they’re all on campus at once, they’re all interacting… </p>
<p>I think, if you really have doubts about it, you should contact our Director of Diversity and Inclusion or our Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs.</p>
<p>
The existence of such programs at all serves no other purpose than to separate the class along racial lines. How unfortunate. There is absolutely nothing redeemable about that. As I said, social justice programs are fine. Pre-orientation separation and blaming are not fine. I don’t have doubts, I understand exactly what’s going on and my daughter wants no part of it. So Mt Holyoke gets a little less diverse. Shame for them.</p>
<p>
This is the problem in a nutshell.</p>
<p>This is as ridiculous as UCLA’s “BLack by Popular Demand Admit Weekend.”</p>
<p>“I think, if you really have doubts about it, you should contact our Director of Diversity and Inclusion or our Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs.”</p>
<p>Are you making this stuff up? There actually are people with such titles? What a hoot!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The “big fuss”, as you put it, is about the fact that these programs exclude or include based solely on race. Many people who have spent a lifetime supporting civil rights did so, specifically, to end programs where participation was based exclusively on race – such as “white” and “black” schools struck down by Brown vs. Board in 1954.</p>
<p>westerndad:</p>
<p>Every college and corporation is now pretty much required to have a Director of Diversity and Inclusion or some such newspeak title. Do a google search. </p>
<p>Comcast cable even has one:</p>
<p>[Comcast</a> Names Andrea Agnew Director of Diversity and Inclusion](<a href=“http://www.comcast.com/About/PressRelease/PressReleaseDetail.ashx?PRID=699]Comcast”>http://www.comcast.com/About/PressRelease/PressReleaseDetail.ashx?PRID=699)</p>