That’s an interesting and somewhat complicated question. I think that the answer is probably yes. Pomona is no different from Williams/Amherst/Swarthmore/Bowdoin etc in terms of her experience on the political debate front. What has happened at all of these campuses is the intersection of identity politics with these “political” issues. “Intersectionality” is an absolutely huge concept on college campuses today.
My D did a lot of public forum debate in high school and looked forward to this imagined opportunity to debate weighty issues with her intellectual peers using facts and evidence. But to her surprise and chagrin, she found out that using facts and evidence means that you are violently traumatizing and oppressing the person on the other side of the argument, abusing your cis-gendered white privilege, and wrongfully invalidating that person’s “lived experience.” My D hasn’t figured out yet how to have a meaningful “debate” on these terms and finds it easier to do that in the classroom. I guess the classroom is her safe space because she feels freer to voice her opinions there.
Regarding Kenyon, 17% of their incoming students originated from the top 1% of their high school classes, so, essentially by definition, many of them arrive with remarkably strong quantitative skills. In terms of sciences specifically, the school has supported a recent Apker Award finalist (physics) and tends to have notable success with medical school placement.
That said @Josh700, your list of colleges seems excellent and appears to be one of the most well considered and cohesive that I’ve seen on CC. I’d personally suggest no more than one or two additions or removals.
@Josh700 Amherst is not very politically diverse, and there is lots of activism on campus (environmental, LGBT, sexual respect, etc). If you want to go somewhere where debate trumps people “feelings”, Amherst is probably not the place for you.
On the other hand, in the past few years Amherst has an active Young Republican groups, and the school has paid for visits by Newt Gingrich and about a dozen other conservative speakers. Although the prevailing mood on campus is liberal (particularly on social issues like gay rights) , I don’t think it felt nearly as doctrinare as places like Wesleyan, and Swarthmore.
@ThankYouforHelp Amherst is more conservative (ever so barely) then SWAT or Wesleyan and a few other LAC’s, but OP wanted to know of places that foster debate rather than just knee-jerk activism. As a current student of Amherst, and a member of the College Republicans, I can tell you that no debate really happens on campus, for fear of “triggering” others or of being shut down.
Fair enough,. I have a D at Amherst and she tells me that it is not as simple as that.
I suspect that it has more to do with the particular issue. If you want to discuss fiscal or foreign policy from a conservative point of view, I bet the discussion will be just fine. She has experienced those types of discussions in her economics class and with her classmates outside of class.
However, if you want to dispute gay rights, bash immigrants or assert moral arguments based on biblical literalism, I bet you will be shut down pretty fast. In other words, the traditional Bob Dole/John McCain strains of conservatism are not regarded in the same light as the currently ascendant Donald Trump and Jerry Falwell strains of conservatism.
Of course, I’m sure it looks different from your point of view.
Amherst does invite politically conservative speakers (as well as liberal ones) and that seems to go well. Heck the sit-in at Frost went well last fall with some pretty major stuff at the outset that turned into a great discussion and compromise after a short time. Or so my D who is a soph related to me as it was going on.
@amherstclassof2020 It’s only been about 6 weeks, what debate(s) have you seen shut down for fear of triggering so far?
@ThankYouforHelp you seem to be saying that the discussion will be just fine as long as you don’t transgress certain boundaries (drawn by whom?). But you acknowledge you’ll be “shut down pretty fast” if you “bash immigrants” for example. But let’s take a slightly more nuanced example: birthright citizenship. In 2012 one of the PF debate topics was: “Resolved: Birthright Citizenship Should Be Abolished.” One of the things my D loved about debate was that you always learned the pro and con sides of an argument and never knew which you would end up having to argue in any given round. You had to rely on logic and evidence to win, in addition to your oratorical and persuasive skills. In her college, however, all issues are inextricably tied up with one’s identity. Your argument is heard and weighed based on your race, ethnicity, economic status, and gender identity. So let’s hypothesize that a student says there are some good arguments for abolishing birthright citizenship. I think that student would quickly be denounced as “problematic” at best and a white supremacist (or disloyal POC) at worst. Not by everyone but by those who are the most vocal on campus. Is that what you mean by “shut down pretty fast”? Or do you mean that you will quickly be bested in a civil, logical argument? I wish it were the latter but I’m afraid it’s the former. And whether or not it’s a justified fear, that fear is stifling debate on a lot of campuses. Students see significant downside social risk to engaging in debate.
@OHMomof2 On a sexual respect discussion they had us participate in a group of 15 other freshmen, I mentioned the need for a middle ground (in respects to women respecting their own bodies, and men respecting women’s body as well). Apparently my words were seen in a different light, and in the next squad meeting I was reminded of being careful with the words I spoke (apparently I triggered someone…?). I’m not entirely sure exactly what I mentioned could have even been a trigger; my guess is someone thought I was insinuating something else.
“I’m not entirely sure exactly what I mentioned could have even been a trigger; my guess is someone thought I was insinuating something else.” Did you ask? They should have told you but you should have asked as well. I don’t think its right to mention it to you without mentioning more details in order for the conversation to be constructive.
Um… were you implying that they shouldn’t eat junk food or what? My guess is that they were trying to get at the issue of sovereignty for women when it comes to anything related to their bodies. So external suggestions about ‘women respecting their own bodies’ might strike them as you infringing on that sovreignity. As, unfortunately, is very common.
This is hilarious and sad. Obama did not support gay marriage in 2008. Was this “disputing gay rights?” Is arguing for control of borders (the norm in most countries) “bashing” immigrants? What of those who assert moral arguments based on Koranic literalism? Will they be “shut down” as well? We need to decide whether we are going to defend and celebrate free speech or not. It can’t be a selective thing based on what speech you support.
If anyone here is shocked, shocked that 18-21 year olds can get loud and emotional about certain social issues,
and if anyone is surprised that many of these young people are not always inclined to have entirely dispassionate formalized debates about subjects like their own body autonomy or things they view as core civil rights issues,
Well then, I suspect that you all have forgotten what it was like to be an 18-21 year old. It’s an emotional time. Deal with it. If you actually have the courage of your convictions, getting shouted at by a couple of other students isn’t the end of the world.
This exchange makes me realize there are limits to my interest in vigorous debate of all issues. Yes, America is a healthier democracy if we can civily debate financial deregulation, abortion, and military intervention. Some of the examples of problematic topics mentioned here seem like the should be taboo in civilized society. Women’s right to vote, birthright citizenship, and outlawing racial segregation seem to me issues we have rightfully left in the past.
Until recently, I would have said Columbia College (and Barnard) are top of the heap for free speech and rigorous political debate, but recently the administration censored the marching band by canceling its traditional every-semester satire show that used to take place in the main library at midnight on the night before the start of finals week. The “Orgo Night” show (so named because it happens on the eve of the organic chemistry final) is a program of music and humor and was a favorite of many students, but the administration decided it was no longer “appropriate” and canceled it without notice. Does not bode well for free speech rights at Columbia.