<br>
<br>
<p>I always thought of Hampshire College as the antithesis of “tense.”</p>
<p>What about the biracial kids? Are they forced to choose between trying to pass or denying their white heritage? Does the one drop rule apply?</p>
<p>Many organizations are promoting “cultural diversity” training, which is certainly readonable and probably helpful on several fronts. Perhaps if this program had been presented as promoting awareness and understanding of and sensitivity to issues of cultural diversity , rather than with the name they chose or identifying solely with one skin color, the reaction might have been positive rather than negative. Just a thought.</p>
<p>“It could become a way for white kids to bond with each other to the exclusion of others”</p>
<p>That’s not so bad, I hope it does go that way. That’s how all the other clubs are.</p>
<p>The original post makes clear that all the orientation groups will interact. It also mentions other details that suggest that the nature of the experience is interaction and dialogue: "the past year’s Intersections orientation performance and the growing Intergroup Dialogues. . . . " The MHC program will lead to an integrated campus during the pre-orientation period, and introduce ideas that nearly all 18-yr. olds could benefit from being exposed to. Potentially, it’s got some things going for it.</p>
<p>If they’d announced this by saying “pre-orientation is now open to all students interested in issues of race, diversity, and social justice,” had called the initial, non-mixed group discussions “breakout groups” or something similar, no one would be raising an eyebrow and they would still be running exactly the same program. I still think it was just unfortunate communication, much of it from a student newspaper writer who used ill-chosen terms like “white pre-orientation.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Really? My daughter is at Smith, and this is the first I’ve heard of this. Not that it would necessarily come up in conversation. What is going on?</p>
<p>I find Smith to be extremely tolerant and engaged with social issues, so this surprises me.</p>
<p>Yes, marathonman, we are on the same wavelength, though you worded it better than I, and without typos! (I meant “reasonable”, not “readonable”). The idea is a good one, and I believe it was well-intentioned. It is the name that is unfortunate.</p>
<p>I also agree with momwaitingfornew. The sister colleges have been known for their social awareness and tolerance of many views and lifestyles. I think this was another attempt to open doors, not close them.</p>
<p>I don’t think the idea of separate pre-orientation sessions by color is any better than the idea of separate drinking fountains.</p>
<p>It won’t matter. This scheme will never happen. Holyoke will get its letter threatening legal action in a couple of weeks and the two pre-orientations will be integrated.</p>
<p>My D, of mixed race descent, belongs to a residential college with a social justice focus at a small liberal arts college . This experience has been wonderful. Her hall mates include white students, African American students, and non-white students from the US and some foreign countries. The social justice issues they’ve explored usually involve “class”, but of course there are historical underpinnings of race which have been discussed.</p>
<p>I cannot imagine how she would have felt at Mount Holyoke if she was only allowed to join the “partially white” group. I suppose she would not have opted to join a social justice program at all. So I guess this division by race at Mount Holyoke would certainly have been thought provoking for her.</p>
<p>Do current MH students actually support and embrace this program?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So 55 pages is the over/under on when the mods will lock this thread? LOL My money is on under right now. </p>
<p>More seriously, having watch the inmates run the asylum when I went to college, it appears as though there has been a jail break at Mt. Holyoke. How can I tell?</p>
<p>First, I have no problem with and in fact am in favor of LACs in the course of their instruction teaching their students how the working mechanisms of a society can serve perverted ends when those in power use their power to further concentrate the wealth and control of a society. This is legitimate liberal arts stuff and an opportunity to engage students in critical thinking, the key goal of a LAC.</p>
<p>However, this offering (not technically a course of instruction) appears to be the problem posing as the solution. I’ll tell you why I see this.</p>
<p>If I read their material correctly, their argument is that this society (I’ll mention this society later) rules by
This administration by sponsoring this divided message to divided groups, in effect manipulates their students into their own roles by delivering a different message to different races. I’m sure that the “white” attendees are given a message that reinforces a sense of guilt for the undeserved privileges they have, while the minority attendees are told how they have been denied the privileges the “white” attendees historically and have a sense of victimhood reinforced. </p>
<p>I am not buying the idea that the same message is being delivered to different audiences, and even if it was the identical message, the intentional racial segregation would to most impressionable minds lead them to race-identify and receive the message differently because of the different social context - a message that you “should” hear these things and identify with these thoughts as a group not as an integrated community.</p>
<p>A now-racially-divided student community has begun formation with each group “having internalized the role assigned to them” in this pre-orientation. We (the administration) have divided the student body in their hearts, setting up these race-specific roles and now will watch them play out the game of victims overcoming opressors, while we finish “educating” them on what is wrong with our society. </p>
<p>You shouldn’t need to reinforce the historical roles of “groups” (teaching one group they are a victim and the other an opressor) to teach cultural sensitivity. A student truly open to introspection (many are not due to an overwhelming indoctrination) when taught the mechanics of societal control will clue into what is wrong with their own behavior in that society. This sort of indoctrination actually works against the idea of self-reflection based upon the lessons of others. You cannot indoctrinate someone out of indoctrination. The ends do not justify the means and only serve to prepetuate those means.</p>
<p>I’m sure others will disagree, but I see this not as an evil attempt to control, but more of the typical misguided social engineering of those who have come up with a better shortcut to their idea of a better society.</p>
<p>I’m not liberal, nor conservative, but a cynic. We are frail humans, blind to our own ambitions.</p>
<p>There was much angst at Swarthmore when Linda Chavez’ attornies forced the Tri-College Summer Institute to include white students for the first time. To his credit, in announcing the decision, the President of Swarthmore said that there was no choice because the cost of a futile legal defense was prohibitive, but that a strong argument could be made that including white students was the right thing to do anyway.</p>
<p>Here’s a newspaper article after the fact, pronouncing the first integrated Tri-Co Institute a smashing success:</p>
<p>[First</a> open Tri-Co Summer Institute successful - The Phoenix](<a href=“http://www.swarthmorephoenix.com/2005/09/08/news/first-open-trico-summer-institute-successful]First”>http://www.swarthmorephoenix.com/2005/09/08/news/first-open-trico-summer-institute-successful)</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Holyoke’s diversity and incusiveness chieftans ought to be looking around beyond their own insular enclave and learning lessons from how things have gone at Bryn Mawr, Haverford, and Swarthmore with a totally integrated “diversity” pre-orientation.</p>
<p>The larger question is whether or not these pre-orientation events even serve a purpose now. They started decades ago because the first wave of affirmative action was a comprehenisve “fail”. The minority students were miserable, feeling like aliens invading a “white” campus. The graduation rates were horrible. The bitterness on the part of alumni was palpable. </p>
<p>The smart colleges figured out that it wasn’t enough to enroll minority students, but you had to take steps to make them actual stakeholders in the community. The early incarnations of these pre-orientation events were the first steps in the process, attempting to ease the transition both academically and culturally to these “white” schools.</p>
<p>Now, of course, the picture has changed. At least at places like Swarthmore, only 55% of the enrollment is white US citizens, so the campus hardly feels or looks “white” anymore. Quite the opposite, in fact. Minority students are no longer struggling academically. The quality of the applicants is outstanding. </p>
<p>So, the pre-orientation events have evolved. I don’t think there is any academic component anymore. There may be a study skills seminar, although that is given to anyone who wants to attend for four days at the end of winter vacation. The Tri-co program is really a “diversity” workshop now and for the last few years, open to any incoming freshman with a strong interest in those areas. </p>
<p>It leads into such an integrated orientation week that I don’t suppose it does any particular harm. Might be something to consider for budget cuts, though.</p>
<p>If the posts here are accurately describing the atmosphere at most liberal arts colleges, I am so very happy that my son does not attend one. The folks at these schools seem to have far too much time on their hands.</p>
<p>westerndad–never trust what you read on these posts.</p>
<p>My compliments to those here that are genuine and fair. By that, I don’t really mean they are for or against the Op’s program; I mean that they are consistent. If they rail against this voluntary program because it is intended for only one race then I hope they are also equally railing against any voluntary program intended solely for blacks, hispanics, asians, or voluntary programs separated by gender. If they have that consistency I applaud their integrity. I may or may not agree with their position, but I applaud nonetheless. </p>
<p>For those who are strongly against this voluntary program, and claim it’s because of inclusion/exclusion based on race, I hope you have spoken out equally strongly against all other voluntary programs that have done the same thing- but included a different race. If you haven’t- then your argument against this program has no credibility.</p>
<p>“For those who are strongly against this voluntary program, and claim it’s because of inclusion/exclusion based on race, I hope you have spoken out equally strongly against all other voluntary programs that have done the same thing- but included a different race.”</p>
<p>Excellent point, hoss. For the record, I’m against White Student Orientation at Mount Holyoke, Black by Popular Demand orientation for African-American students at UCLA, and any other orientation that segregates students by race. While we’re at it, I’m also against separate commencement ceremonies based upon race. This stuff is simply poisonous.</p>
<p>Well, I guess I’m not as “fair” as you are. I see a very real difference between “monority” affinity programming and similar programs for the “majority.” Disable students may need as space to discuss their issues w/o the able-bodied being present; LD students may not feel comfortable discussing thier issues in a fully open setting - - and the existance of safe/comfortable spaces shouldn’t require that the college offer designated able-bocdied stuent program b/c general programming is for the able-bodied. The same can also be true for race-based programming and gender-based programming.</p>
<p>My D chose to attend a community service orientation rather than her school’s black orientation program. The latter started 2 days earlier than the former and D didn’t want to cut her summer short by even 2 days. Also, having attended day and boarding school, she didn’t feel a particular need for support (she already had friends on campus and friends enrolling with her) or additional 2 days to transition from home to school. Other black students had that need and it was fine that the college offered appropriate programming for them (better still that students like D who didn’t need it or weren’t interested we required to attend).</p>
<p>As for MHC, I suspect it was just a poor choice of wording (or a misguided attempt at being cute/provocative). If the orientation had been titled “social justice” or “white priv,” there would be no brush fire.</p>
<p>The Tri-Co progam included both segregated and large, mixed group sessions:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Operationally this is more or less what the MHC article described, too. Agree with interestedad that MHC could look to this as a model, perhaps for how to run such a program and certainly how to present it.</p>
<p>My niece is a recent graduate of MHC. Being a white American, she arrived for freshman orientation, only to find non-whites and internationals had been there for several days (or was it a week). During “pre-orientation,” the Chinese were put into the group with other Chinese, the Chinese-Americans were put with other Chinese-Americans, etc., etc. If you were a white straight American, you were out of luck. Lots of kids, including her roommate, had already bonded with their ethnic groups by the time the other kids got there.</p>
<p>I haven’t read this entire thread, but the white group must be in response to this. To MHC, diversity means having a student body composed of lots of different ethnic groups, with a relatively smaller Caucasian component. If there was any interest in having the groups interact and bond, they wouldn’t have pre-orientation based on race, which is racist, pure and simple. Best to treat everyone equally.</p>
<p>On top of all that, the lesbian group was aggressive and verbally abusive. Niece toughed it out by taking classes at other schools, study abroad, etc. I had hoped MHC would have changed by now.</p>
<p>BTW, D1 is currently a student at NYU, touted as a very liberal environment. She has NEVER encountered the unpleasantness my niece did at MHC. (Perhaps that is due to MHC being such a small school.)</p>
<p>For a school of only 2200 students, MHC feels a need to have:</p>
<ul>
<li>An Office of Diversity and Inclusion.</li>
<li>A Coordinator of Multicultural Affairs.</li>
<li>An Inclusiveness Initiatives Fund.</li>
<li>An Ombudsperson “to ensure that every member of the MHC community receives fair and equitable treatment.”</li>
<li>A Multicultural Community and College Life Committee.</li>
<li>An Intergroup Dialogue Project.</li>
</ul>
<p>In spite of this, MHC’s Presidential Commission on Diverse Community Report informed us that:</p>
<p>“The Commission has a clear sense that at the core of ALANA student concerns is the belief that Mount Holyoke is not serving some fundamental academic needs. Students described at times feeling alienated, unwelcome, or inadequately prepared in certain academic classes, fields, or majors. Students articulated a failure on the part of the College to create an academically hospitable environment. Research … pointed to divides between Black and Latina students on one hand, and white students on the other, in achievement, engagement, and satisfaction.”</p>
<p>Students at MHC seem awfully oppressed, in spite of (or because of?) all of the resources devoted to stamping out such oppression.</p>