Sat 25 Jun 2005

---

24 Responses to “ Baradit ‘09 ”

Comments:

1. Aidan says:
   June 25th, 2005 at 9:39 am

   pish posh, David, this woman qualifies for Queen For A Day!

   I’m sorry that living in a homeless shelter and suffering excruciating backpain doesn’t count for anything, though.

   Wow. Yeah, she’s just another rich kid from the suburbs, deep down. If we had been more assidious about admissions, we could have gotten 5 strapping Aryan lads to play fullback and tight end from her high school. A damn shame.

2. frank uible says:
   June 25th, 2005 at 11:22 am

   Why the need for venom?

3. Aidan says:
   June 25th, 2005 at 12:04 pm

   Because there’s nothing more ridiculous than tearing someone down for what sport they play when they have clearly overcome so much. The only venom here is Kane’s.

4. Rory says:
   June 25th, 2005 at 12:35 pm

   I’m confused–do you know Stacey? How can you assert that no one would identify her as hispanic? who are you to state such things, and how do you know? Whence the confidence? Whence the definition of an ethnicity based on whether or not someone else can quickly identify her as part of that ethnicity?

   Would you like her to be dark-skinned and have a Nuyorican accent? Would that be better in some way to you?

   And again–this is an unknowning incoming freshman who is now being bandied about on a blog, let’s try not to typecast her before she even gets on to campus.

5. Eislerman says:
   June 25th, 2005 at 12:58 pm

   Yeah, I completely agree with Rory and Aidan.

   I don’t get it, Kane- for someone who nominally loves celebrating Williams, you certainly love to abuse people associated with it, particularly those about whom, based on *extremely* limited information, you feel reflect some ‘liberal’ tendency. You try to hide behind snide ambiguity or claims of ignorance, or, as another noted long before, by attacking trivial errors others commit in there critiques. You never answer substantial criticisms, and virtually never admit you are wrong even when transparently obvious. How do you justify such an approach, such churlish aggression? It makes my brain hurt and has made Ephblog downright repellant.

6. David Kane = No Standards says:
   June 25th, 2005 at 2:09 pm

   Eislerman is correct. David Kane, you are an idiot and posts like this hurt Williams. Since he couldn’t say it any better, I’ll say it again:

   for someone who nominally loves celebrating Williams, you certainly love to abuse people associated with it, particularly those about whom, based on *extremely* limited information, you feel reflect some ‘liberal’ tendency. You try to hide behind snide ambiguity or claims of ignorance, or, as another noted long before, by attacking trivial errors others commit in there critiques. You never answer substantial criticisms, and virtually never admit you are wrong even when transparently obvious. How do you justify such an approach, such churlish aggression? It makes my brain hurt and has made Ephblog downright repellant.

   Moreover, don’t you have any scruples about posting private, family information about the truamas this girl has overcome? True, the article was posted on the website of a tiny-town newspaper, but that doesn’t mean she wants all of Williams to know about her life struggles. Adjusting to college is tough enough but arriving on campus as a frosh with everyone knowing her “deepest valley of despair and depression” is more than unfair. She deserved the opportunity to share her challenges with her friends on her own terms. Now, it’s likely she’ll walk into her entry or a class and someone will say, “Oh that’s the homeless girl with a curved spine.”

   David Kane, don’t you have any standards?

7. David says:
   June 25th, 2005 at 2:12 pm

   Rory writes:

   I’m confused–do you know Stacey? How can you assert that no one would identify her as hispanic? who are you to state such things, and how do you know? Whence the confidence? Whence the definition of an ethnicity based on whether or not someone else can quickly identify her as part of that ethnicity?

   I don’t know Baradit, but there is a picture of her in the article that I linked to. I also know something about the racial composition of Chile relative to other “Hispanic” countries (hint: it’s a lot paler). On reflection, this is not enough data to assert that Stacy “would never be described as ‘Hispanic’ by anyone who did not know what country (Chile) her parents were born in”; instead, I should have said something like “is unlikely to be described as ‘Hispanic’ based on appearence alone”.

   Now, I realize that ‘Hispanic’ is understood to be a cultural classificantion and that a person of any race can be ‘Hispanic’. I also note that there is no official definition of Hispanic and that there is much debate over, for example, a non-Spanish speaker born in the US to a parent from Brazil is “truly” Hispanic. I’ll also note that, as far as Williams (and the US government) is concerned, Hispanic status is self-identified. If you check the box, then you are Hispanic and no one can say otherwise.

   But before Rory et al get too upset, I’d like to pose the following hypothetical. Williams is very proud that 10% of the class of 2009 is “Hispanic”. But what if I told you that all 50 of these students were blond hair, blue eyed, and non-Spanish speaking with US-born parents (but grandparents who had immigrated from Spain to be doctors in the US)? Would that be just the same as having 50 students whose parents were illegal aliens from Mexico and who grew up speaking English as a second language and whose ancestors had been in Mexico for thousands of years?

   I don’t think so.

   So, one of the purposes of the post was to point this out, without casting any aspersions on Baradit. She deserves no blame or credit for what she looks like or for where her parents were born.

8. Aidan says:
   June 25th, 2005 at 3:12 pm

   David, you again miss the point. The problem with your post was not your casual suggestion that Baradit was “too white to pass” (and I subtextually paraphase) but your offensive minimization of her serious personal struggles because she plays golf and graduated from a good school. I dare say that Baradit will be the only Williams Oh Nine to have been in a homeless shelter in the last five years.

   Besides, I think the bigger question is “have you no shame?” If being a person who genuinely struggled to suceed is of no account because Chilean people are pretty white-skinned, really, and nobody thinks they are Hispanic, anyway, what does count as personal struggle? Having a second car payment so your housefrau can ferry your brood to soccer practice? Having a large mortgage so you could live in Needham? Should Williams be composed, entirely, of the white upper-middle classes?

   Your claim that “Hispanic” is a meaningless descriptive catagory for many students founders on the real, meaningful struggle that Baradit overcame. If you can’t respect that, you’re a far sadder person than any of us feared.

   The truth, probably, is somewhere in between.

9. frank uible says:
   June 25th, 2005 at 3:56 pm

   I say hooray for Stacey. All this other stuff is background noise and kind of irritating noise at that.

10. David says:
    June 25th, 2005 at 5:55 pm

    Aidan claims that the problem with my post was the “offensive minimization of her serious personal struggles because she plays golf and graduated from a good school.”

    1) It was not my intention to minimize her struggles. I, like Frank and Rory, applaud Stacey’s achievements and welcome her to Williams.

    2) I do not think that this is a fair reading of my post. I was trying to make the same sort of point that Jessica Howard ‘06 made much more eloquently in this WSO thread. Stacey, like Jessica and Aidan and me and all Ephs, is a collection of attributes. It is a mistake for any of us to just look at one attribute of Stacey — Hispanic or golfer or homeless or fancy Connecticut high school graduate — and imagine that this tells the whole story of Stacey.

    But, at the same time, Stacey is a particularly interesting Eph because she combines, in one person, a series of attributes that are both uncommon together and uncommon in the class of 2009. I do not think that I am guilty, in anyway, of criticizing Stacey by pointing this out.

    3) I am ready to except criticism from people like Alix Davis when my posts are perhaps too blunt and direct. I am ready to believe that my writing would be better if it were more sensitive. I don’t think that Aidan should give this sort of advice until he starts taking it himself.

11. Aidan says:
    June 25th, 2005 at 6:48 pm

    statement 1:

    “On the one hand, she is a poor Hispanic with signficant medical problems who has overcome all sorts of adversity. In this view, she adds a great deal to “diversity” at Williams. On the other hand, she went to a private school in Connecticut for most of her life, played on the state champion golf team in high school, was born in the US and would never be described as “Hispanic” by anyone who did not know what country (Chile) her parents were born in. Pale-faced golfers from Danbury are generally not thought to add much “diversity” to Williams.”

    statement 2:

    “…Stacey is a particularly interesting Eph because she combines, in one person, a series of attributes that are both uncommon together and uncommon in the class of 2009. I do not think that I am guilty, in anyway, of criticizing Stacey by pointing this out.”

    Kane, 1 isn’t 2. If you had said 2, to begin with, nobody would have criticized you. That’s not being sensitive, that’s being obtuse.

12. David says:
    June 25th, 2005 at 6:51 pm

    A reader berates me for

    posting private, family information about the truamas this girl has overcome? True, the article was posted on the website of a tiny-town newspaper, but that doesn’t mean she wants all of Williams to know about her life struggles.

    So, what is the policy you would have EphBlog follow? Is it OK to post a link to such articles but not to quote from them? Is it OK to quote from them but not comment on them? Is it OK to comment on them, but only produce the most innocuous of EphTripe? Give me a rule about how EphBlog should behave in general and we can discuss if it makes sense.

    In this case, I can’t believe that there is anyone who seriously objects to just posting a link to the article and quoting it. (My commentary is obviously a different matter.) But the links and quotes would, it seems, be objectionable in and of themselves, at least according to this reader.

    Three other comments: First, EphBlogs policy is to remove material that the subject objects to. This isn’t hard and fast. Even if Aida Laleian objected to some material it would probably remain. But, in this case, if Baradit sent me (or Eric) an e-mail, we would remove the post. We have done this in the past.

    Second, I don’t think that many (any?) ’09’s read EphBlog. Indeed, although readership statistics are hard to get a grip on, my sense is that EphBlog is not widely read on campus, beyond folks like Record writers and WSO bloggers. Third, I don’t believe that Baradit would object to the link or the quotes (not sure about the commentary). She obviously consented to the interview, posed for pictures and was a participant in the process. She seems (rightly!) proud of her story and of the sacrifices made by her mother.

13. David says:
    June 25th, 2005 at 7:09 pm

    Aidan,

    I can understand why Rory and Eisler might object to the whole Hispanic/racial/Chilean aspect of the commentary. I disagree with them, but the objection is not unreasonable. I could also understand why the proponents of all things diverse might object to me putting diversity in quotes.

    But what is it that you object to in the statement? The article makes it clear that the following statements about Stacey are true:

    a) She lived in a homeless shelter.
    b) She is Hispanic.
    c) She suffered from scoliosis.
    d) She played on the state championship golf team.
    e) She went to a fancy high school.

    Please string these facts together in a paragraph that you feel is more appropriate to EphBlog.

    Now, there is a certain kind of sensitive soul who thinks it inappropriate to even mention anything about a person who has suffered that might be perceived as untoward. In this world of social correctness, I am not even allowed to report the fact that Baradit played on the golf team. I am only allowed to dwell on the obstacles she faced and her grit in overcoming them. There are many Ephs who are such sensitive souls, but I would never have placed you among them.

    Let me put this another way. Let’s say that the admissions office announced that 10% of the female first years in ‘09 had played on their high school golf teams. What would be your (or my!) first assumptions about these 25 young women? Would any of us guess that someone like Baradit was to be found in this grouping?

    I guess that my point is that the surface statistics that the Williams admissions office tells us are both interesting and useless. It is interesting that 10% of the class checked the box labelled Hispanic. It is interesting that X% played golf in high school. But Baradit highlights, on several dimensions, how little use such statistics are in getting a handle on the Ephs of tomorrow (and on the sort of job that Williams does in choosing them).

14. Eislerman says:
    June 25th, 2005 at 7:16 pm

    Kane, you just used ’security through obscurity’ as a defense for a FRICKIN’ BLOG. Do we need to discuss the absurdity?

    And this isn’t just about this post. It’s about your quasi anti-Semitic post (over which I almost attacked you, but couldn’t because I was in the midst of finals); it’s about your views on AIDS; it’s about your total lack of sensitivity or judiciousness; it’s about your arrogance and intransigence. The points you claim to make- and to which you normally resort when pressed- could virtually always be made in a less offensively aggressive fashion. We’ve said this before, and you just don’t seem to be interested in adjusting.

    And above all else, it’s about your decision to associate these disgusting views (and your disgusting tone) with a forum that is nominally representative of a meaningful cross-section of the Williams community. I don’t care what you think, but I do care when you sully an institution towards which I feel gratitude and affection.

15. David says:
    June 25th, 2005 at 7:32 pm

    Eisler writes:

    I don’t get it, Kane — for someone who nominally loves celebrating Williams, you certainly love to abuse people associated with it, particularly those about whom, based on *extremely* limited information, you feel reflect some ‘liberal’ tendency.

    This makes almost no sense.

    1) What did “liberal” or “conservative” ever enter into the discussion? Indeed, judging from some of the comments in the article, it seems like Baradit’s family (or at least her mother) are quite religious and, one might guess, Catholic. Indeed, the comments that Baradit herself makes about her fellow homeless shelter residents — “They had no conscience about stealing” — are not very “liberal”. Now, obviously, I have no idea about Baradit’s politics, but that would suggest that my motives in posting having nothing to do with them.

    2) How is my post an “abuse”? There are certainly people at Williams that I have been hard on, from time to time. But I still see nothing in the post that is abusive towards Baradit. If I knew which sentence Eisler was referring to, I could be more specific in my defense.

    Now, it is fair to day that by putting diversity in quotes I am being snide toward the particular version/vision of diversity that gets a lot of play at Williams. This has nothing to do with Baradit. She doesn’t make the rules; she plays by them.

16. Aidan says:
    June 25th, 2005 at 8:07 pm

    my only objection is with d) and e) of your fact recitation. Baradit attended a suburban public high school, yes, and also plays golf, well. Instead of phrasing these facts as further, surprising, sucess and evidence of her grit, moral character, and personal triumphs, you seem to suggest that these are, in fact, negatives.

    In any case, the ins and outs of affirmative action are not germane to this case. I think we should all be happy Williams will have such a sucessful (and remarkable) individual in the class of Oh Nine.

17. rory says:
    June 26th, 2005 at 2:39 am

    2009 students might not read this blog, but we know that ’07s do, and likely ’08s. They might not be ‘09 with Stacey, but they will interact with her on a very regular basis. In fact, because Stacey and her soon to be williams friends do not read ephblog, i’m especially defensive about writing about her because likely SHE DOESN’T EVEN KNOW THIS IS BEING WRITTEN ABOUT HER.

    So what do we have written about someone who almost certainly has no idea we’re arguing about her (and if she does, trust me, Williams is a much more fun place than we make it seem sometimes here on the blog)? Ephblog asserted that:
    -she brings “diversity” only through her struggles
    -Her cultural background is not significantly different from the typical white rich williams student because Chileans don’t look Hispanic enough and anyone who plays golf and went to a conneticut suburban school doesn’t bring much new to williams.

    I saw the picture of her, and she may look “pale-faced” in said picture, but to assume that this means she won’t bring cultural diversity is to read into skin color a whole lot more than it deserves. Are darker skinned black students more “diverse” than light-skinned? Does a multi-racial student count double in your concept of diversity?

    Here’s what’s can be safely asserted as true. She is Hispanic. This means there is one more Hispanic student coming to Williams. That brings a racial/ethnic diversity to Williams. I believe that is good. It is indeed interesting that one of the assumptions many white people have about minorities and especially Hispanics is that they have to be noticeably “different” to have been “really” a minority. To me, that’s the ultimate in crap.

18. frank uible says:
    June 26th, 2005 at 3:18 am

    Of course - difference in attitude is the greatest diversity.

19. Mike E says:
    June 26th, 2005 at 7:47 pm

    Thanks for posting a profile (your link) about an interesting ‘09 eph, David. I think generally she and other ‘09ers would love attention. She seems like a great kid. I wish we could have spent more time focusing on how this was the case.

    My comments below are probably somewhat nitpicking. The racial overtones of the original post make me want to say something, however.

    From the original post:

    “…and would never be described as “Hispanic” by anyone who did not know what country (Chile) her parents were born in. Pale-faced golfers from Danbury are generally not thought to add much “diversity” to Williams.”

    I think it is weird and a little offensive (ok, more than a little offensive) to go from a few comments about a great new Eph to speculations about how she fits into the topic of race and Williams admissions — by way of making a lot of assumptions about her.

    I guess she is Hispanic. Maybe that reads as a racial tag for some, although the term’s definitions are usually pretty vague on their connection of hispanic to race. I guess she’s Latino, because of her scholarship, althoug hwho the eck knows. It could be because of her latino grandmother — I don’t know the rules for the thing. (I do know that a friend of mine got a scholarship from a minority-focused organization once, even though he didn’t even identify as being of that minority.) But, whatever.

    Is her relevance to our lives (here, as alums, etc., on Ephblog) so much part of the game of admissions and a debate of it that we have to parse aspects of her identity (apparently from a single newspaper article) to lament our visions of race and affirmative action in admissions at Williams? I arge no. If this fine young ‘09 Eph and other Ephs are reading this post, I hope they will feel that at least a couple of alums (’04’s, etc.) are interested in her for reasons other than her race. And in general I hope that she and others will feel like they are not so easily reduced by most Williams folk. Note, this goes for any “pale-faced golfers from Danbury” out there too.

    *

    On a separate issue: If, say, we don’t want race to be an important factor in admissions, shouldn’t we be more careful when scrutinizing admissions decisions we know nothing about (unless one has info. the rest of us don’t, i.e. outside of the article the original post linked to) and making assumptions about race being a component of them? This seems self defeating.

20. A says:
    June 30th, 2005 at 1:59 am

    Hey David-Just a quick FYI…09’s are familiar with ephblog. And here’s another FYI…ephblog is for everything Williams, not everything David Kane. It’s not an outlet for a long-graduated, micromanaging alum to determine the everyday policy of an institution which isn’t in danger of falling off the cliff of college rankings.

21. David says:
    June 30th, 2005 at 8:37 am

    We have explored at length in the past what “ephblog is for.” Short version:

    What is EphBlog “supposed to be”? As the founder of EphBlog, allow me to state authoritatively the answer: EphBlog is supposed to be whatever the community of Eph authors, commentators and readers wants it to be. If you want it to be something else, then join us and contribute. To the extent that you’d like to remain anonymous, we would be happy to have an anonymous author. EphBlog is supposed to be whatever you make of it.

    If you want to see more material that is not “a long-graduated, micromanaging alum [wanting] to determine the everyday policy of an institution,” then you should write some posts yourself. Or, you should contact some of our other authors and ask them, nicely, to write more about topics X, Y, and Z.

    EphBlog may or may not need less me. It certainly needs more of everyone else.

22. Stacey says:
    July 1st, 2005 at 9:00 pm

    So, I found this ephblog ……..and I just happen to be “the” Stacey. Heck, I really don’t know what to say. I’m not exactly offended, but actually a bit intrigued as to what has been said about me even though no one here has met me.

    Anyways, I’ll just clear a few things up. First, yes I am hispanic - and it’s more than just a box I checked when it became convenient for college admissions. Both my parents immigrated to the United States as adults and I was born here. I grew up in a spanish-speaking household although I did forget much of it and not become as fluent due to an agreement between my father and mother. I would speak spanish with my dad and english with my mom. When my dad became sparse, I spent much more time speaking with my mom and therefore speaking much more english.

    Also, that whole thing about me being a “fancy Connecticut High school graduate” - it’s not exactly accurate. I went to a private school for most of my elementary and middle school. It was NOTHING near “elite”. For the most part, it was a brand new school, just trying to stay afloat with its main goal of educating us with a “Christian perspective”. My parents struggled to pay the tuition for us (which was extremely low to begin with). Finally in high school, I transferred to a public high school. LOVED IT. Honors and APs became my new best friends (which they didn’t have at the other school either). The high school was also very much unlike the traditional stereotypical CT high school. About 50% of the class is considered minority. We have at least 15,000 illegals in our city (heck I found out the other year that some of my own relatives were legal). The high school has almost 3000 students altogether. Hah, it’s going to be interesting going to a college smaller than my own high school. But anyways, the point - DHS is not a bad high school. It just isn’t Choate, that’s all.

    Now about the golf. I began playing golf in the spring of my 10th grade year. Prior to that, I had never picked up a club. It all started when I was staying at a family friends’ house. They saw that I was becoming a bit down because I had nothing to do after school. I used to play sports and now, I was left to spend my time resting and recovering. The family we were with noticed this and the father offered me a part time job at his company. I have to say, that’s one of the best things that’s happened to me. Now, anyone who understands cooperate America generally notices that golf is popular. Hanging around with the Sales guys gave me an interest for the sport and when I found out our school was starting a brand new Varsity Girls Golf team, I gave it a shot. Since it was a brand new team, I made Varsity the first year. When it came to the financial aspect of golf, I found very giving people. The gracious coach gave me extra woods and a bag and a coworker lent me his clubs. That summer I worked at the golf course and the pro shop gave me a used set of irons. Since I work at the course, they also give me free golf. So, the financially, I have been very lucky.

    Ok, I think that covers everything. If anyone has any questions, feel free to ask. cools875@gmail.com

    And for those of you who took the benefit of the doubt and stood up for me, thanks.
    Stacey Baradit.

23. frank uible says:
    July 1st, 2005 at 11:13 pm

    Go get ‘em, Stacey!

24. Ananda burra 07 says:
    July 2nd, 2005 at 3:55 am

    DAMN! Thank god someone made David accountable for his words. Finally. Good to hear from you Stacey - see you on campus.

Leave a Reply

Name(required)

Mail (will not be published)(required)

Website

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Notify me of followup comments via e-mail