<p>A large part of that is likely because Smith’s campus culture since the '60s has greatly changed politically and socially and also, a reaction to the conservative politics of the Reagan and Bush years. </p>
<p>As the spouse of the latter and a representative of a more genteel conservative Smith before the '60s era, many of the Smith students of the '80s and later probably felt she no longer represents what they or Smith college is about…especially considering they’re unlikely to identify with the “earning an MRS degree” ideal that was prevalent in Barbara Bush’s college years. </p>
<p>With the exception of dramatically different social eras, this reaction wouldn’t be different if Oberlin’s admins invited someone like Michelle Malkin('90) to speak at commencement. </p>
<p>It’s not about “lacking sense of humor”. Instead, it’s the perception among many students on campus and graduating seniors the admins who chose such a speaker is out of touch with who they are and what their vision of their college is/hopes will be. </p>
<p>We are fortunate in this country to have a diverse group of colleges with different characters to choose from. Not every choice is accommodating to everyone, but if this is the intent, then why not just make them all the same? If W accepts trans men then one could argue that it is discriminatory to not accept men who are born male. Why not just make it co-ed?</p>
<p>What if a Liberty student converted to another religion? Should that student not expect to have the college be sensitive to his/her religious preferences? How about asking the college to take down any Christmas decorations as that might make them feel excluded?</p>
<p>Establishing any boundary that might define a college- all women, all male, Christian or otherwise is going to inevitably exclude someone. In order to not offend anyone, then one has to not set any line by which the character of a college is defined. </p>
<p>I say this with all respect for colleges like Liberty, women’s colleges and the like. I know some students who are very happy at Liberty, and are grateful to have the choice of that college, and I support their being able to choose that college even if it wouldn’t be a good choice for me. </p>
<p>I don’t have an answer. I don’t know how far is too far to go to accommodate everyone. If we do that, then we might lose the diversity of choices we have. </p>
<p>“Instead, it’s the perception among many students on campus and graduating seniors the admins who chose such a speaker is out of touch”</p>
<p>Yes, heaven forbid a commencement speaker not parrot back exactly what we want to hear. Heaven forbid they provide another view of the world. This is off topic, but shame on the colleges who protested Condoleeza Rice and other speakers who are highly accomplished and have interesting things to say. </p>
<p>@pizzagirl yes it is off-topic, but the <em>colleges</em> did not protest Rice. Some (generally small) fraction of students did. Is your proposal to censor protest? Presnumably not, so what is your solution? In almost every case the speaker backed out, the invitation was not rescinded. God forbid we raise a generation of go-along-to-get-along with whatever the administration proposes. To me, that’s worse. </p>
<p>A bit patronizing of students whose politics and worldview differs from yours, much? Is it your view that students should automatically comply and not complain if the admins choose a commencement speaker even if the most students, especially graduating seniors’ input weren’t considered? </p>
<p>I don’t know…that mindset reminds me more of expectations of college students/graduating seniors in more authoritarian/totalitarian countries. You also seem to fall into the common trap many Americans lately have fallen into when they view any criticism/protest against someone as “censorship” when it’s actually the opponents exercising their own free speech rights. </p>
<p>It’s also interesting you cited Condolezza Rice considering many college classmates I knew from our time in college feel she should be indicted in the ICC alongside W, Cheney, and Rumsfeld as a war criminal for her part in initiating the Iraq War of 2003 and for allegedly knowing about and approving interrogation methods contrary to international law among other things. </p>
<p>I’m not sure I would go that far in my views on her, but the antipathy towards Condolezza Rice among many depending on campus culture is understandable and more principled than a desire to “forbid a commencement speaker not parrot back exactly what we want to hear”, however arguable those principles/beliefs may seem to some of us. </p>
<p>“don’t know…that mindset reminds me more of expectations of college students/graduating seniors in more authoritarian/totalitarian countries. You also seem to fall into the common trap many Americans lately have fallen into when they view any criticism/protest against someone as “censorship” when it’s actually the opponents exercising their own free speech rights.”</p>
<p>Your inane comparisons to totalitarian countries are off the mark, and I’ve not fallen into any such trap because I’m not calling such protests “censorship.” Of course they are free speech and the students have every right to protest (assuming civilly).</p>
<p>And I get to have the free speech that I think their protests are unbecoming, that a more educated way of going about things is to let the speaker speak, and then if you wish to debate the particulars of the speaker’s actions, invite her to a panel discussion separate from the graduation festivities. An education is supposed to provide you the ability to thoughtfully engage in hearing other points of view, not demand they be silenced if you don’t like them or because you’re some precious flower who will be “offended” if someone says something you disagree with. </p>
<p>“It’s also interesting you cited Condolezza Rice considering many college classmates I knew from our time in college feel she should be indicted in the ICC alongside W, Cheney, x”</p>
<p>Well, do tell us MORE about your college classmates! Whenever I think about a topic, my thinking about it isn’t complete unless I know exactly how cobrat’s classmates thought about it, because their opinions are critical to my ability to formulate a POV. I mean, what if I think X and your college classmates think Y? I should totally reevaluate things. </p>
<p>And I’ll exercise my free speech rights to disagree with your view that those protests are unbecoming as it constitutes legitimate free speech, especially considering a part of it is also against college admins the protesting students/graduating seniors feel are out of touch. </p>
<p>Also, there is a school of thought that inviting someone whose actions/values are perceived as contrary to those of the college and its students/graduating seniors is a form of lending that individual and his/her actions/values more legitimacy by association than students/graduating seniors and those who agree with them in that specific context feel is deserved.</p>
<p>In this respect, its similar to the reasoning behind why the vast majority of bona-fide biologists don’t feel the need to rehash the evolution vs creationism/ID debate with the latter’s proponents by allowing them space in their fields’ academic journals. </p>
<p>No, it is not in the least analogous to the evolution vs creationism debate, because there really isn’t a real debate - the issue is settled, scientifically. Matters of opinion and matters of fact are two different things. </p>
<p>Not in the eyes of the Creationism/ID folks. In fact, many of them use the same arguments you made to criticize the bona-fide scientists from engaging in a debate with them.</p>
<p>Likewise, supporters of commencement speakers who are protested against because their values/actions are contrary to the campus values by students/graduating seniors have decried them as “censorship” or “unbecoming” even though the latter would feel it was “unbecoming” of the college admins to invite them as commencement speakers in the first place precisely because they are contrary to said campus values. Especially if the invitation was extended without seeking input from one key constituency, the students…especially graduating seniors taking part in commencement exercises. </p>
<p>The problem is that one small but vocal group has taken it upon themselves that they and they alone represent campus values. Just like the small but vocal group who wishes to change a women’s college identity to suit a few. “Oh, I’m so offended and oppressed!”</p>
<p>When you admit people because they were ‘activists’ in high school, this is the sort of thing you get. Considering you have advocated for this sort of selection, I’m not sure why you call it a “problem.”</p>
<p>Would you make the same argument if instead of calling for more inclusive pronouns the object of the offense/oppression was the open display of the Confederate Flag in first, a public area of a dorm and then a dormroom from a window in a central part of campus and thus, visible to many students going about their daily lives?:</p>
<p>Ironic considering the display of the same flag at a private Catholic school in Long Island was deemed so inflammatory in light of the parading students’ actions that they were “suspended indefinitely”:</p>
<p>In my experience professors at Wellesley do not address the students as “ladies,” whether or not there happen to be any exchange or cross-registered males in the room. Except perhaps in jest. In my era, many students would have found “ladies” a bit redolent of sexism and condescension, since the term was strongly connected to “ladylike behavior,” something which we repudiated. Indeed, many of us routinely wore jeans and BVD t-shirts around campus without thinking that we were being “masculine.” It was startling to us to be around BU, for example, where girls could be seen going to class in <em>skirts</em> (!).</p>
<p>Regarding the term “alumnae,” to my knowledge there is no gender neutral term. “Alumni” is the plural of alumnus, which is masculine. Using “alumni” means women are, as usual supposed to accept that the masculine term refers to “everyone.” </p>
<p>Cobrat, the Barbara Bush thing did not take place at Smith. She dropped out of Smith to get married. It happened at Wellesley. That happened to be he year of my 15th reunion, and I can tell you exactly what the issue was. The student who first gave voice to the dissatisfaction that many were feeling over the invitation said (paraphrasing) “BB is a fine person who has done a lot of wonderful volunteer work and done the important work of raising a family. SO HAS MY MOTHER. Why wasn’t my mother or someone else’s invited to be the speaker? BB was invited solely because she is married to a famous man. That is not what we are about at Wellesley.” Many of us alums completely agreed with her, but were concerned about the rudeness of rescinding an invitation, especially publicly. The Bush White House ended up handling it extremely well. If you recall, BB brought Raisa Gorbachov with her, and they wrote her a great speech. (Coincidentally, a W classmate and friend of mine had just started working for GHWB as a speechwriter, although her only contribution to that one was telling them how to pronounce “Waban.”)</p>
<p>^^ It’s not quite the same thing - if a college’s stated mission was to revere and celebrate the confederacy and flew confederate flags then no one attending that campus should have a problem and if someone had a problem with that the general response would be ‘well what the heck are you doing going to that college.’ Wellesley is pretty clear about what they are all about. </p>
<p>@nottelling, to address your question (posts 71-74) about changing language at Wellesley in order that trans men not feel excluded, here is a quote from the article. Cushman is a long term professor at Wellesley. </p>
<p>“All my life here,” Cushman told me, “I’ve been compelled to use the female pronoun more generously to get away from the sexist ‘he.’ I think it’s important to evoke the idea that women are part of humanity. That should be affirmed, especially after being denied for so long. Look, I teach at a women’s college, so whenever I can make women’s identity central to that experience, I try to do that. Being asked to change that is a bit ironic. I don’t agree that this is a ‘historically’ women’s college. It is still a women’s college.”</p>
<ol>
<li><p>It occurs to me that HBCUs probably have a similar issue, since all/most of them have some students who do not identify as Black, but I have never heard anyone handwringing about it.</p></li>
<li><p>Reading the article carefully, I was not sure this was really a big problem at Wellesley. Everyone who was actually identified and interviewed in the article clearly accepted the premise that Wellesley was a college for women. Some of them wanted more acknowledgment that they were there, but none of the people actually quoted took issue with things like “sisterhood” or the general use of female pronouns. (I don’t count personally shouting “siblinghood” or “brotherhood” when everyone else is shouting “sisterhood” as taking issue.) The issues were always attributed to nameless others, who may be the same or similar nameless others who raise the same issues about language at colleges that aren’t women’s colleges. Yes, that’s the cutting edge of political correctness, and it would be surprising if Wellesley were exempt from it, but it doesn’t mean that people are actually attacking the fundamental identity of the institution. Maybe they might someday, but it wasn’t clear to me that it was happening now.</p></li>
</ol>
<p>Re use if the term “ladies” to refer to the student body: upthread someone said that this was one of the things that the transitioned male students were complaining about. For example:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t really have a strong opinion about any of this stuff. Allowing men to remain enrolled after transitioning seems like the big (and understandable) leap; once that happened, it seems like a much less onerous concession to use language to acknowledge that, while women make up the overwhelming majority of the student body, there are a few male students in their midst. But I leave the debate to those of you with ties to the school who understand these issues far better than I do.</p>