<p>Sorry, but what exactly is the controversy surrounding Mr. Zoellick?</p>
<p>@ ALTOLOVE: [The</a> Phoenix | Choice of Zoellick as Commencement Speaker Sparks Debate](<a href=“Choice of Zoellick as Commencement Speaker Sparks Debate - The Phoenix”>Choice of Zoellick as Commencement Speaker Sparks Debate - The Phoenix)</p>
<p>I am tired of hearing that Swarthmore students were “intolerant” of Zoellick. They expressed their opinions (we do expect that of college students don’t we?) and he decided to withdraw. That was his choice. I would have far rather that he had decided to come to campus and engage in a “spirited debate”, but he chose not to.</p>
<p>I’m with you, donnaleighg.</p>
<p>Well, I started to reply to donnaleighg directly but I caught myself with the realization that this is a site which is intented to help potential students and parents in the admissions process. And I also realized that, unfortunately for Swarthmore, the comments in this thread and the other related one (SHAME ON SWAT…) have accomplished that.</p>
<p>^God forbid people have information about what actually goes on day to day at Swarthmore…</p>
<p>In any case, the referendum results came out and one of the questions passed which asked if students support admitting students of all genders to fraternities and sororities. This means that the campus believes that they should effectively go co-ed (all genders includes people who don’t identify as male or female). </p>
<p>This is a big statement and it came from the majority of students. I am looking forward to seeing the action that takes place as a result.</p>
<p>My understanding of the vote was that the overwhelming majority of students voted NOT to abolish the frats and sorority and that only the one question which was previously referenced by a poster actually received a majority of yes votes. So, 5 of the 6 referendum questions received a majority of “no” votes.</p>
<p>This is a big statement and it came from the majority of students. I am looking forward to seeing the action that takes place as a result</p>
<p>The National Fraternity and Sorority organizations on campus will not go co-es, Nationals will pull the charters and shut down the chapters. They are not co-ed organizations and they have no interest in becoming co-ed. </p>
<p>I don’t understand what is wrong with single sex organizations, as I referenced in my previous post, plenty exist in the adult world, such as The DAR, The Junior League, Girl Scouts etc…</p>
<p>
[quote]
I am tired of hearing that Swarthmore students were “intolerant” of Zoellick. They expressed their opinions (we do expect that of college students don’t we?) and he decided to withdraw. That was his choice. I would have far rather that he had decided to come to campus and engage in a “spirited debate”, but he chose not to. [\quote]</p>
<p>There is nothing noble in threatening to disrupt commencement exercises because you disagree with a speaker. If students want Zoellick to come to defend his record, there are plenty of opportunities for that; commencement is not the right time. Perhaps one positve that can come from this is a change in how speakers are selected.</p>
<p>It’s shocking to me that parents are so caught up in a commencement that has nothing to do with them. Coase, correct me if I’m wrong, but your kid(s) isn’t even a senior. Let’s calm down and let the people affected figure this out.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The Yes forces learned well the recent lessons from state legislators in Mississippi, North Dakota, and many other states. Try every measure you can to regulate or restrict an activity that you do not like. Even if most will be struck down by the courts, the other side will be mired in costly court battles, and the occasional measure will stand.</p>
<p>No. Raise several important issues and the campus will voice its beliefs. </p>
<p>Let’s not forget that at least a third of the campus voted yes on every issue. Not some irrational vocal minority. </p>
<p>Please stop speaking on behalf of the students. It’s our lived experiences. As far as I know it’s not yours.</p>
<p>hopebrinn, is it shocking that parents of a prospective student care about the atmosphere on campus? Should not Swarthmore’s Quaker ideals lead to a respectful debate rather than hasty judgment and hostility?</p>
<p>My older daughter’s graduation had threats of protests last year due to one of the honorary degree recipients; it was not students but outsiders who protested and it did not really disrupt the occasion.</p>
<p>I do apologize I was a bit harsh and have been on the defensive for some time now. So I’m sorry for that. It is frustrating, however, to see people making judgements of the situation based on no lived experiences on the Swarthmore campus. The referendum was a simple process. One student, one vote. To accuse us of being misleading is hurtful. Plain and simple. There was no deception slipped into any of the questions and nothing convoluted to work around. The students spoke. And now everyone can see what our community thinks. </p>
<p>We made every effort to make sure that this movement was accessible to everyone in the community. </p>
<p>Again I apologize for being rude. That was out of line. But I hope that you all can consider other perspectives and what it might mean to be a student on our campus for just a moment.</p>
<p>Hope, I appreciate your reply to mamabear. Since you inquired earlier about what animates me, let me simply repeat what our Swattie said yesterday: “The activists are ruining social life at Swarthmore.” (This is from a mellow, left-leaning kid.) That is what I was reacting to. Once again, I appreciate your reply to mamabear.</p>
<p>Wow. Glad my d choose Wellesley. I sincerely hope things improve for all of you with a vested interest.</p>
<p>My daughter is still seriously considering Swarthmore. While academics is a big part of it, another reason is the caring, close-knit community we hear so much about, which is why these recent events cause concern.</p>
<p>So given that a lot of the discussions on campus are about sexual assault and cover-up, it’s difficult for me to stomach that activists are “ruining the social life.” They are refusing to stay silent about the terrible things that happen to them. Now the rest of campus can no longer ignore it. </p>
<p>Sakakar, in many ways, I wish I had chosen a women’s college. Wellesley sounds like a wonderful place.</p>
<p>Here’s an article in today’s Phoenix which discusses the outcome of the referendum.</p>
<p>[The</a> Phoenix | One Referendum Passes, Five Fail](<a href=“One Referendum Passes, Five Fail - The Phoenix”>One Referendum Passes, Five Fail - The Phoenix)</p>
<p>I do not condone predatorial behavior of any type, and I am glad that the school is trying to fix its policy on sexual assault, especially in light of the time lag for resolution of these cases that Hope pointed to in an article. But any student who thinks taking frats and sororities away will make them safe is fooling themselves. When you graduate, many will move to big cities which are full of danger–like Philadelphia! There’s nothing wrong with advocating for more security, better handling of cases, etc. But I also know that students of both genders can go way overboard with behaviors that can put themselves and others in danger–that even the smartest students get drunk and take drugs to the point of passing out, that they experiment with their sexuality in ways that may embarrass them later (or give them diseases or pregnancies they don’t want), that they do all kinds of things that are in a certain way not very respectful of their own safety and boundaries. Instead of banning fraternities, maybe the school should banish and severely punish alcohol and drug use, for instance. Maybe they should go back to the golden days of separate sex dorms and stern dorm heads who enforced curfews. That would definitely make the school safer and give predators less opportunity to offend. But I haven’t seen or heard of any Swarthmore student who wanted to prevent drinking on campus, and frankly, I agree with them. I think that when students leave their homes to go to college, they’re entering a phase of life with training wheels. They have an incredible amount of freedom with little supervision. Under that circumstances there are all kinds of morally ambiguous things that can happen. Actual assaults, miscontrued situations, messy relationships, changing sexual identity, drug addiction, unspeakably wild behavior, artistic experimentation involving nakedness, swings in their political identity, whatever the hell that goes on with Crunkfest, etc. I think all parents worry about their kids, but for most, they accept this is a liminal period where their children will start to learn how to handle themselves and to take an increasing responsibility for their own destiny. Part of that is learning how to handle the temptations of alcohol and drugs responsibly, to take the most well-lit paths at night, with a friend if possible, to not sleep in the same bed with someone you don’t want to have sex with, just to generally be sensible. I am 100 percent against the idea that any man or woman should be forced to have sex in any of those situations. No means no at EVERY point along the spectrum. Rape is a devastating crime that can have even more harmful reverberations when a situation is ambiguous and I know that many rapes go unreported for that reason (I give credit to the young woman who reported a rape when she HAD been in the same bed with a man). A rapist steals the soul of a victim. What I am saying is that it is hard to protect young people and give them maximum freedom at the same time. Of those two alternatives, I choose maximum freedom. I think that the most varied individual expression of personality, the most experimentation, the most dissolving of boundaries and opening of possibilities as possible is desirable. Because most students come out of it okay. They may get more of the street smarts they’re going to need when they’re walking home from work late at night in New Orleans or when they have a predatory boss. And they probably get more value out of their experiential learning than they would if they heard it from the lips of Mom and Dad. Sadly, every student on campus has always been and will always be vulnerable to rape. And that is precisely why I am glad that a crushing majority of the students voted against banning the frats. Banning them will not add to anyone’s safety, because no student can be guaranteed freedom from crime–and nobody has shared any convincing statistical evidence that removing frats would make anybody safer, or that drinking parties held in the same place would not have the same alleged dangers.But it would 100 percent guarantee less freedom for the young men and women to take on the heavy responsibilities and pleasures of belonging to an association that they choose. Having their interests represented adds to the freedom of ALL students.</p>