<p>
That being the case Westerndad, it’s surely for the best that another white oppressor like my daughter not impose herself on the oppressed students at MHC.</p>
<p>There is absolutely no way that I would subject my own children to this sort of nonsense.</p>
<p>In life there is always substance and nonsense. . .Mt. Holyoke has been around for awhile and one would hope they are doing their best to see the difference, and work towards the former. I have no daughters, so don’t have a clear thought on this matter, but if one is looking at a all women’s school i have to ask, why a all women’s school in the first place?</p>
<p>The thread seems to be tacking from criticizing what may well have been an ill-considered or poorly communicated program to comments that have the character of more broadside swipes.</p>
<p>Before taking jabs at MHC’s diversity efforts, maybe have a look at their diversity/international student numbers (perhaps even compare them to some of the colleges that your children were or are considering). Now think about what those numbers portend for a school like MHC when the competition to enroll highly qualified URMs is so keen. It’s really quite a commitment to diversity to have those demographics, and to deal with all the attendant issues, when you’re not a HYP or AWS, or even a Smith, Wellesley, or Bryn Mawr. Many of these students arrive with academic disadvantages and are thrown into a culture very different from the ones they’ve experienced. Anyway, I wish more colleges–particularly those of MHC’s selectivity–showed their commitment to enrolling and serving students from under-represented groups, even if, at times, it’s imperfectly.</p>
<p>I don’t know about that, but it certainly leaps off the page that MHC is a well-managed college financially. They realize a very impressive $30,000 per student in cash money revenue (after aid discounts). With an astonishing 19% international enrollment, they must be successfully attracting and enrolling a lot of full pay students from overseas. The endowment spending rate is admirably low 4% to 5%. Nice job.</p>
<p>Domestic diversity is just so so. They have a high Asian American enrollment of 13%, although nothing like Wellesley in this regard. Af Am and Latina enrollment are both 5.6%. Solid, but not spectacular.</p>
<p>I give them credit for recognizing what is required to make a diverse student body work. On the other hand, I agree with WesternDad that the rhetoric and approach is divisive and counter-productive. This is hardly a Mt. Holyoke issue. Unfortunately, the “victimhood” and “oppression” rhetoric seems to be all too common among diversity professionals. It has the feel of the minority students and the institution conspiring to stigmitize the students in what becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.</p>
<p>"Domestic diversity is just so so. They have a high Asian American enrollment of 13%, although nothing like Wellesley in this regard. Af Am and Latina enrollment are both 5.6%. Solid, but not spectacular.</p>
<p>^^^ What’s “spectacular?” The top LACs (Amherst, Williams, Wesleyan, Swarthmore, Pomona) have black enrollment of 8-9%, but many other selective LACs (Midd, Mac, Bates, Colby, Bard, Lawrence, Skidmore) enroll under 3%. MHC is among a group of selective (but not tip-top) LACs that with black enrolment of 5.5-6.5%; other schools in that range include Bowdoin, Smith, BMC, Wellesley,CMC, Davidson and Vassar. Clearly, the schools w/ more resources and higher rankings are drawing the lion’s share of strong black candidates, so MHC and other schools in that mid-range are probably doing about about the best they can in terms of enrollment. And, since female applicants would overwhelmingly prefer to attend coed schools, the relatively high number among the women’s colleges demonstrates their continued committment to diversity - - MHC’s foolishly titled “white student orientation,” notwithstanding.</p>
<p>I do agree, though, that the rhetoric often gets out of hand.</p>
<p>“Clearly, the schools w/ more resources and higher rankings are drawing the lion’s share of strong black candidates, so MHC and other schools in that mid-range are probably doing about about the best they can in terms of enrollment.”</p>
<p>What concrete evidence exists to “clearly” show this?</p>
<p>And how does this justify a “best they can” pass to mid-range schools?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>College/ Endowment/ (ALANA Enrollments 03-08)</p>
<p>Dartmouth $3,760,000,000 31.8 31.1 29.8 30.7 33.1
Brown $2,800,000,000 XXX 29.7 29.6 32.8 34.7
Williams $1,892,055,000 29.3 28.6 30.0 28.6 29.1
Amherst $1,662,377,000 31.2 28.8 25.7 32.5 32.2
Middlebury $936,354,000 24.5 15.3 22.1 21.1 23.7
Bowdoin $827,714,000 24.3 27.2 28.1 22.6 30.0
Wesleyan $710,800,000 25.4 24.5 28.5 26.2 26.3
Hamilton $701,670,000 14.4 13.8 16.8 17.6 18.3
Holy Cross $658,855,000 13.6 14.6 15.1 17.1 18.4
Colby $598,729,000 11.0 10.5 10.6 18.3 16.1
Trinity $440,195,000 14.9 17.5 17.9 18.1 18.2
F&M $362,871,000 10.1 11.6 11.7 10.5 13.1
Dickinson $287,731,000 10.7 14.5 15.4 13.4 14.3
Bates $275,557,000 15.6 XXX 9.0 10.4 16.7
Gettysburg$274,194,000 XXX XXX 6.5 8.1 8.6</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree with you that diversity costs money. Like I said, Mt. Holyoke is doing a solid job in recruiting a diverse class. I intended “solid” as a compiment. A spectacular job recruiting overseas – probably the most spectacular I’ve seen.</p>
<p>BTW, I look at black enrollment as an increasingly small part of diversity. After forty years of trying everything under the sun, the percentage black enrollment at elite colleges has barely budged from the initial wave of affirmative action. The problem is the lack of African American males in the applicant pool. For example, if you look at just Swarthmore’s female enrollment, African American women make up 11% – for all intents and purposes, not underrepresented at all compared to the national population.</p>
<p>This is something the communities are going to have to address. I’m not an expert, but it might help to stop accepting the portrayal of black males by African American pop culture (music, etc.) You do not, for example, see too many black male college students in music videos.</p>
<p>Meanwhile, the growth in Asian American and Latino/a enrollment has been nothing short of spectacular.</p>
<p>MarathonMan:</p>
<p>If you use per student endowment to correct for the varying college sizes, the point you are making will pop into even more sharp focus.</p>
<p>“I’m not an expert, but it might help to stop accepting the portrayal of black males by African American pop culture (music, etc.)”</p>
<p>Love that point. People might want to take a look at folks like:</p>
<p>Juan Williams
Clarence Page
Walt Williams
Thomas Sowell
Clarence Thomas
John McWorter
Shelby Steele</p>
<p>And yet, these are the very types of black males who would be castigated on many college campuses.</p>
<p><em>rolls eyes</em> You guys are reading to much into this. So your saying its fine for there to be other orientations for different minorities and such, but it is seen as racisum if there was one for white people? </p>
<p>I don’t get what the big deal is.</p>
<p>No. We are saying that it is NOT fine to have separate orientations for different minorities and such.</p>
<p>Oh, so does that include the others as well? I’m confused…</p>
<p>The problem seems to be that the types of programs offered are not equal. The international orientation sounds the most sensible, if it is practically focussed on helping people settle into a new country.</p>
<p>The ALANA orientation seems aimed at self-esteem raising, ego boosting and general congratulations and praise.</p>
<p>The ‘domestic white’ orientation seems aimed at chiding them for ancestral sins and telling them that they are youthful exploiters.</p>
<p>At bottom, I’m not sure we’ve got as much disagreement as it seems. Nobody thinks a totally segregated whites-only orientation is a good idea. Most, I assume, applaud the general idea of including white students, particularly those predisposed to support students of color, in the pre-orientation rather than keeping it segregated as it has been in the past. Few (but admittedly some) would object to some segregation–nonmixed breakout groups that provided different programing on some issues and a safe space to begin discussing others before talking about them in a potentially more volatile mix-group setting. And we all recognize that there’s nuanced and thoughtful diversity training and the heavy-handed variety. </p>
<p>I don’t think we’ve got much to go on about where on the spectrum the program itself falls, since it’s clearly in the planning stages, and most of the wisps of information we have were filtered through a single student reporter. Maybe time to admit (I’m guilty as charged) that we’ve been revealing more of our hopes and/or fears for this program and our own political inclinations than much knowledge of the MHC pre-orientation, its intent or content.</p>
<p>I’m with InterestedDad. I oppose race-based segregation for any racial group, minority or majority.</p>
<p>“Few (but admittedly some) would object to some segregation–nonmixed breakout groups that provided different programing on some issues and a safe space to begin discussing others before talking about them in a potentially more volatile mix-group setting.”</p>
<p>I’m in the “some” category.</p>
<p>IMHO, these race-based programs hurt the very people they purport to help.</p>
<p>“The ‘domestic white’ orientation seems aimed at chiding them for ancestral sins and telling them that they are youthful exploiters.”</p>
<p>And why any student would go to an institution that subjects him to such nonsense is beyond me.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Much appreciated . :)</p>
<p>MM88–
Agree with Curm.</p>
<p>Many thanks for your posts #84 & 96. Very balanced and “level headed” positions regarding the topic of this thread.</p>