Mon 29 Nov 2004
A cheerleading article on CNN highlights the orientation program for minority students at Trinity. The article notes that:
Two years ago, Williams College in Massachusetts stopped bringing minorities and athletes to campus early. There are still some orientation events for minorities, but all students go through much the same program, designed to introduce them to neighbors and to the broader class.
It seems that there has always been a First/Freshmen Days program at Williams, but, back in the day, it was a much simpler affair. I have yet to see commentary arguing that the old program was better than the current extensive one.
Of course, not everyone will be in favor of such a radical change. Presumably there are some First Years who might have made the varsity soccer team if they had more time at varsity practice. But the most interesting category of (potential) complainers is the diversity lobby.
At 2,188-student Trinity, Spurlock-Evans [dean of multicultural affairs] says a program like PRIDE does not prevent that kind of campus-wide bonding later in the week. But she says it is essential to show minorities the support they have.
“If you don’t grab them in the first five weeks, they’re gone,” she says. “There would be no one to integrate if we didn’t support them.”
Mega creepy! In other words, if we diversity pimps don’t radicalize incoming minorities first, we lose them. Of course, Spurlock-Evans and her ilk across the country don’t read this sentence the way that I do.
The new First Year program, either by accident or design, makes the point that we are all purple first. Kudos again to Morty, either for originating this idea himself and/or for overseeing such a great change to life at Williams.
November 29th, 2004 at 5:28 pm
“Mega creepy”? By my reading of the passage, the implication is that black students are more likely to drop out if they do not find a support network. The goal of the orientation session is to create that support network. How is the intent creepy?
Reasonable people might differ on whether such programs create social isolation rather than a support network (and apparently Williams judged its program either counter-productive or unnecessary), but I fail to see how such a program or statement suggests students are being “radicalized.” A college should try to ensure that its students do not drop out. The drop out rates are much higher for black students, so it makes sense to tailor particular programs to the population. Hopefully, a college would do the same for any other population that can be identified as “at risk.” Trinity thinks their program works; Williams doesn’t. There is no “creepy” agenda at work here.
Note: “Diversity pimps” may not be the best phrase to use with regards to this particular article or issue. Blacks are all too often portrayed as pimps in the media. We are talking about students and university administrators. Pimping isn’t even descriptive of the activity that you mean to describe (are the administrators abusing and using diversity by selling its services to willing consumers, who also objectify and abuse diversity?). Better choices for the noun might include: supporters; boosters; advocates; fans; promoters; lovers; groupies; freaks (the last two were added to demonstrate that inoffensive perjoratives could still be used).
November 29th, 2004 at 6:34 pm
Dear Ephblog:
By referring to supporters of African Americans as “diversity pimps,” your site has insulted not only your intended target, but demonized the entire Williams black community as well, not to mention, any campus or alumni pimps. I am not going to speKulAte, Nor guEss at, the perpetrator of this racist and anti-pimp commentary, but needless to say, he needs to be exposed to the entire Eph community, and punished accordingly! My recommendation: a one-year ban on comments about Morty’s compensation, the role of athletics on campus, the campus housing system, Eph spouses, and/or me. Let the punishment suit the crime!
Lovingly,
Aida L.
Seriously, I agree with DK that Williams is better served not having the first exposure to campus for minority students be an institutional created ghettoization. A minority support network is all well and good and should be provided for throughout the time at Williams, but something about having a distinct orientation before other students’ arrival just goes way too far in terms of emphasizing surface differences, rather than the commonalities that attracted those students to Williams in the first place. One thing that really set Williams apart, in my mind, from Amherst was that Amherst had all these theme houses — French house, black student house, substance free house, etc., while Williams, with its open housing system and random frosh housing, made a concerted effort to integrate students and not push them into predetermined categories. Considering that a cohesive campus community is absolutely critical for success in light of Williams’ isolation, the more artifical divisions created or supported by the institution, the worse off the student body will be. Yes, there is a fine line between providing enough support and going overboard with grouping based on race, creed, substance use, or whatever other category the administration might choose. But in my mind, a distinct minority orientation is an extreme end of that spectrum that the school is better off without - the costs are just too great.
November 29th, 2004 at 7:49 pm
(d)avid claims that “Blacks are all too often portrayed as pimps in the media.” Presambly, “too often” here means “more often then actually occur in the real world.” Is that really true over the last 20 years, much less the last 10? I don’t think so.
Exercise for the reader: Name 5 instances of pimp portrayal in the media and the associated race of the pimp. I’ll start with the white pimp in Risky Business. A more recent example would be the pimps, of various sorts, in the Sopranos, most of whom, I think, are not black.
But, your point is still well-taken. Please replace “diversity pimps” with “diversity groupies” in the above. By the way, wouldn’t “freaks” have similar (unwanted) racial overtones?
As always, we aim for the highest levels of inclusiveness and sensitivity here at EphBlog.
November 29th, 2004 at 8:09 pm
Agreed with DK. It’s sad to see how so many jocks and minorities (even now) segregate themselves to just their own group. They’re seriously missing out on meeting a lot of interesting people beyond their own safe zone.
December 1st, 2004 at 6:17 pm
For the record, Morty didn’t make the change to the First Days scheduling - he actually didn’t have much to do with it. It was largely undertaken by the Deans’ Office during the 2001-2002 academic year. Basically, the Windows on Williams program allowed minority students who signed up to come to campus a week early and get a grasp on the “minority” experience at Williams from upperclassmen and support staff. The program was developed as a result of large numbers of minority students feeling disconnected from the College community at large, and was aimed at laying the groundwork for an interstudent support system.
The downside was that contacts made during WOW lessened the bonds WOW participants had to their entries. In order to create a more equitable and bond-forming First Days experience, former Assitant Dean Norma Lopez ‘95, restructured the program for the 2002-2003 year so that entries became the first point of contact. WOW continues to be a successful program, but it’s been redesigned so participants attend a few workshops/events after First Days. The redesign also eliminates the scheduling conflict between WOOLF and WOW, which put minority students in a tough position. As a JA during 2002 - 2003, I found the redesign to be particularly successful - while logistics for moving all the frosh in on one day were challenging, the increase in the profile of the entry as a social institution was definitely an improvement from previous years.