Sat 21 Jan 2006
Noah Smith-Drelich ‘07 provided the following discussion.
——————————————————–
To begin, I’m not going to summarize the Orientation and Ongoing Education section of the diversity initiative. The section of the report deals separately with a number of topics: student orientation and ongoing education, faculty orientation and ongoing education, and staff education and ongoing education. These topics are dealt with too separately in the report, as if each contained its own distinct set of unrelated issues. This is a section of the report that particularly has much to gain from further discussion of it. I’d strongly encourage you to read this section (which is more a summary of current Williams than a compilation of suggestions for future Williams), using it as a knowledge base with which to build your own strategies regarding diversity for Williams.
going to pick out a couple of points from the section I thought deserved
further consideration, rather than attempting to tackle the section as a
whole. For those of you who have read
the entire section, please interject with comments on non-discussed portions of
it, if you have any.
After spending their first week or so days on campus, all frosh (with
the exception of a few fall athletes) depart on various free but required 4-day
mid-orientation programs. Students have
the choice of three different programs.
While the majority of students go on WOOLF, the outdoors trips, significant
numbers of students choose the other trips as well.
This section of the diversity report notes the Mid-Orientation period as
“an opportunity to demonstrate to students that
Williams is a community committed to diversity.” What exactly does this mean?
I’m not sure, but if I had to guess, it’s a veiled suggestion to add a
“diversity-themed” trip to the options currently available (such as by
re-instating WOW as a mid-orientation program).
I couldn’t agree
more that the mid-orientation period provides a fantastic educational
opportunity for students. I couldn’t
disagree more with the un-stated implication that this might be accomplished by
re-instating WOW as a mid-orientation program.
Instead, I would suggest that we take our approach to mid-orientation
trips in the opposite direction.
WOOLF–the largest of the mid-orientation programs–is currently
disproportionately white. Offering a
number of different options for mid-orientation trips inevitably leads to trips
being divided along like-interests. In
the current case, this has led to a sort of racial self-segregation among
mid-orientation trips; for whatever reason, white kids are disproportionately
drawn to WOOLF (or non-white kids are disproportionately drawn to the other programs).
mid-orientation program this self-segregation will only increase.
If instead we
during the mid-orientation period, we would increase the diversity of students
within each option. I would suggest
that Williams offer only one variety of mid-orientation trips.
(backpacking, canoeing, and climbing) as well as a range of difficulties within
each option (beginner, intermediate, and expert), and is set up well to work as
the one mid-orientation program at Williams.
I can think of no better diversity orientation than spending 4 days in
the woods with a group of students very different from one’s self.
Additionally, I believe that frosh fall athletes (many of who currently
cannot attend mid-orientation trips) also be required in these trips.
sports teams (although probably not noticeably), I think it’s ludicrous for a
d3 school to exclude its fall athletes from such an important point in their
early college career.
“
place within the first three days of employment as required by law. Employees
complete "new hire" paperwork for tax and IRS purposes and receive
information about payroll, benefits, and College policies. They are directed to
other departments for their ID and parking sticker.
The second part occurs between six and nine months of employment. Employees are
invited to attend a full-morning of presentations by members of President’s
Staff and Human Resources to educate them about the College’s organizational
structure, its mission and goals, its history, its role as an employer and
educational institution, and its core constituencies (faculty, staff, students,
and alumni).”
I couldn’t believe this when I first read
it. Staff don’t receive orientation
regarding the College’s mission until “between
six and nine months of employment??!”
Are you kidding? Apparently many
staff work at Williams for as long as an academic year before receiving any
orientation other than what is absolutely necessary (which undoubtedly is mostly
paperwork). While I haven’t heard of
any issues involving staff (other than occasional complaints from students
regarding staff smoking directly outside their window, which is technically
against college policy), I think that a policy of “orientation” that leaves
such a long periods before, well, orientation, does very little to prevent
future issues from arising. Sure, it’s
probably a bit of a headache to put staff through a thorough orientation more
frequently…but it’ll be a far greater headache to deal with the ramifications of
a staff member making a racist or otherwise inappropriate statement to a
student.
While the ongoing educations of Faculty and Staff are discussed in this
section of the report, student ongoing education receives no such
attention. Personally, I think that
this is the area at Williams that has the most potential for improvement.
effort on “diversity” in frosh orientation (sure we could hypothetically do
more, but after a certain point it just becomes overkill), and the entry system
is a perfect catalyst for bringing people of different backgrounds
together. I believe that the new house
system will provide a number of opportunities for students to continue to learn
from their fellow students. With the
re-organization of campus next year comes the opportunity for the MCC implement
some sort of ongoing education strategy, at the very least.
does not believe ongoing education important for students, so I don’t
understand why this was left out of the report.
I’m of the opinion that the best sort of “diversity sensitivity
training” comes from other students.
Racism and other forms of bigotry usually arise from ignorance.
campus to encourage natural forms of student-student “ongoing education,”
something currently difficult for them to do (that will be easier under the
House system). Most importantly, the
MCC can work to ensure that minorities within the houses are not marginalized,
whether these minorities be social, ethnic, religious, socioeconomic, or
whatever.
want to make sure alumns understand that despite its lack of mention in this
section of the report, a significant amount of student ongoing education does
take place at Williams. Minco groups
are active, innovative, and their events are often very well attended.
active roles in supporting student initiatives, as well as frequently lead
their own. Check out the Jewish
Association’s website (www.wcja.org) for an
example of one of the many active Minco groups.
To sum up my feelings
on ongoing education and orientation, I think Williams is largely doing well on
both fronts. I do feel that there’s a
lot of room for improvement, but I find the potential Williams has heartening
rather than otherwise. Williams is one
of the most welcoming and accepting environments I’ve ever been in, a
characteristic that attests to (despite the aforementioned weaknesses) some
amount of success of the current Orientation and Ongoing Education at Williams.
even with its problems is both encouraging and exciting, and I look forward to
days of an even better Williams.
14 Responses to “Orientation”
Leave a Reply
Noah,
Thanks for this. Since no one else has commented, I’ll jump in with comments and not much editing:
Students: “Mid-Orientation”
This seems intuitively true, but why, why, why??? Has anyone done any substantive analysis of these differences?
As per my suggestion that JAs be shipped off to the Whites for a week, I believe that outdoor experiences are excellent leadership and teambuilding exercises, and could therefore easily get on the bandwagon of “force them all to do the same thing” to avoid racial “self-segregation.”
On the other hand, I am sensitive to an earlier group of strudents claim that their existence was like “being pepper in a salt shaker.” Forced desegregation may not be the answer. And “four days in the woods” is, after all, not everyone’s cup of tea, especially as an introduction and orientation.
I can also see that WOOLF’s self-presentation might be viewed as “racially inflected”– by which I mean that (howsoever much I share WOOLF’s outdoor values), its written and “everyday” “presentation of self” was largely that of a group white, ‘liberal,’ and suburban youth. (I have not interacted with WOOLF for about 5 years…). We could certainly look at such issues with a finer-tooth comb… certainly many Mexicans I know in the mid-South fit in very well with Southern outdoorsmanship, but not with the northeastern “variants.” (Insert my standard talk on demographics and politics here).
Before we start putting many or all students through a WOOLF-model, I would certainly want a lot of input from students on how they perceive those options, and how the current WOOLF offerings appear, and appeal or fail to appeal, to them. From my own perspective as a farm boy whose favorite high school activity was to take a collie into Kentucky’s rolling hills– and who once knew those hills far better than I ever knew Williamstowns– WOOLF also looked a little silly, to be frank.
As for Williams’ “minority” population, my point is that each person will have a different inflection of the above, and a different relationship to one or more traditions of outdoorsmanship. Someone of Latino/a or Jewish decent may have many direct outdoor experiences depending on where and how they grew up; they may have received occasional and indirect experiences from family members; and while it’s hard to attempt to speak for such a “group,” my guess is that WOOLF is perceived very differently by such groups (than, for instance, it is perceived by upper-”class” urban youths).
Any version of the plan above can’t work unless people actually talk to people above, gather an understanding of the issues involved, and re-formulate WOOLF around the resulting concerns.
Staff: delayed…
My first reaction is, how many hired staff continue working for the College after 6-9 months? Unfortunatley, if the College is anywhere near norms in turnover, more than minor formal orientations would greatly increase the cost burden of such orientations.
In ‘97 or ‘98, I remember standing in line at Baxter a few times when a member of Dining Services made pointed and derisive comments about students dietary habits. I suspect there are far many more similar incidents than you suspect.
In that case, I had known the employee for quite a few years, and didn’t think the behavior typical or indicative. I think the solution to such a problem is often to work quietly on the sidelines– pulling people aside, discussing situations personally and carefully– etc.
Generally, I believe the College faces serious staffing challenges given its location, even in comparison to Amherst/Northampton or Albany. In fact, the workforce differences are remarkable. I also believe the College could take a much more proactive role in such issues… a discussion for elsewhere.
In relation to staff orientation(s), my personal instincts and prejudices tell me that even the most engaged employee is not going to bring that much away from “seminars” that present “canned” information and perspectives. In all such things– including the discussion Diana Davis initiated– my instinct would be that the College needs to develop much more “lightweight” components for orientation and mediation of these issues.
What could that mean? In the case of what we call “racial comments,” it could be a five-or-ten minute talk (personally, or in groups of no more than 3) about issues of racial comments or slurs; a quick message that the College has no tolerance or place for racism, but that the underlying issues are complex, that we all have bad days and say things we do not necessarily mean; and that the College encourages resolution of such problems through personal discussions and understanding.
As I’ve stated previously, the College really could go much further in staff development, and, in these and many other issues, connecting the staff to students and on-campus activities.
As well, for what its worth, my view of how many students treat staff– especially non-professional staff– is with amazing condescention and disrespect. We’d do very well to add a section on how to treat staff– and standards of behavior– to student orientation.
The College could also devolve resolution for all such issues from one or two officers, to a multiplicity of department heads, student representatives, and others. The Laleian controversy would never have happened if someone would have just stood up and challenged the comments, which should have happened. Which takes us to:
Faculty:
No blockquote, as this seems to be folded into Staff. As the College separates Faculty and Staff for committee purposes, I’ll address them separately.
Faculty obviously have a long-term committment to the College, and their initial inclusion to the community is an opportunity to visit or re-visit these and many other issues. As with staff above, it seems the perfect time to set out some general guidelines for behavior, and point faculty to the state of issues on campus and the many organizations (and perspectives) involved. Perhaps in the first weeks of each semester– or another period– faculty could be given a long calendar of various events which might connect them to students in these communities.
If it were up to me, such an orientation would relate some of the historical concerns that we’ve gone through here, emphasize that “diversity” is not simply conceived, and that the College community contains many different visions of diversity. Which is my way of quickly expressing my belief that the College’s “official” exploration of “diversity” is woefully narrow in conception and scope; and that the student body, faculty and staff are likely far more diverse than they appear.
Now, in another thread, I was about to relate how the “rule” at Bear Stearns when my brother-in-law worked there in the 80s did not tolerate racial comments: racial comments were not tolerated among employees, and at least in his unit, the working policy in relation to other companies’s employees was to respond to any racial comment by calmly getting up from the table, informing the other side that Bear Stearns did not tolerate racism in its business relationships, and excuse oneself.
My brother-in-law has related four or five of those stories over the years, and such tactics seems remarkably effective. In relation to the Laleian incident, my dismay is that the College has not established such and environment nor standards of behavior. My dismay is that no other tenured professor in the room stood up, quickly indicated Prof. Laleian’s mistake, asked Prof Laleian to leave, and sent for someone to apologize to Prof. Ali ask her to return to the forum. I know far too many of the people who were in that room, and that is simply what should have been done, — the formal business protocol for dealing with such a breach of protocol– and everything that we are discussing here hangs on the fact that no one in that room had the character to take control of the situation and guide it to such an end.
Indeed, it is worth mentioning that student-to-student (and student-faculty-staff) discussion is probably the primary driver of “continuing education” in these issues, and that Williams is one of the better places in the world to address them. But, just as Jack Sawyer once used Williams as the lever to unilaterally shake up the face of American education, I think we need to work on our models if we want to move forward. And indeed, as David mentions, I find such a challenge heartening, encouraging and exciting.
At which orientation meeting do they pass out the brown shirts?
Purple! The Purple shirts will be mailed…
Let me start by trying to meet Rory’s challenge on how to improve the climate at Williams.
I think that we should follow Noah’s suggestion and force first days, and all the programs associated therewith, to be as integrated as possible. If that means having everyone — including varsity athletes — go off on a 4 day WOOLF trip, fine. If the community decides that WOOLF is too much, then design something else. The key is getting small groups of students, put together with all the social engineering that goes into entry construction, to know each other very well, to bond as people.
I have harped on this theme before, but it is nice to be with full agreement with Noah.
I would be curious to know what Rory and Ephgal97 think.
There would no doubt be costs to such a program. Any time you force people to do something that they don’t “want” to do, any time that you put a group of people together that didn’t “choose” to be together, you pay a price. I think that, in the context of First Days, the price is worth paying.
The problem is that there are many people at Williams (and elsewhere) who disagree, who believe (honestly and with good intentions) that it is critical to bring, say, Latino students together during First Days. There are also people who believe (honestly and with good intentions) that varsity sports trump First Day activities.
The reason that the Diversity Initiatives are, at best, only 50% successful is that they have, so far, refused to confont these hard choices head on.
Being all for action, I second the resolution.
How necessary are “diverse” groups during First Days? I had a very diverse group in my Where Am I group- I would say about a quarter international and another quarter what the college would classify as URM. However, I did not talk to these kids after the first few days, and I do not think my orientation experience was helped or hurt by having such a diverse group.
What did help my education immensely was the entry experience. My freshman year was when we were still deciding whether or not to go into Iraq, and it was great to have the perspective of people who had lived outside of the US their entire lives. When students live in diverse entries their entire first year (and from here on out in diverse clusters or neighborhoods) I question the need for diverse groups during these first few days, especially now that students meet their entry before going on orientation trips.
If I were attempting to find a college to which I would desire to apply, anything like compulsory First Days (and most other compulsory college programs) would be personally a significant negative in that process.
But, just for the sake of argument, let’s consider a hypothetical situation where you actually had, for example, real Puerto Rican kids from Villa Victoria in South Boston instead of prep-school minorities from Exeter. Odd are the Puerto Rican kid from Villa Victoria doesn’t swim very well and had never been camping.
So, his orientation experience is to go on an Outing Club canoe trip with the white suburban jocks? And, he’s not supposed to feel alienated from his new environment?
It’s hard for us white folk to understand. But, I’ve been convinced by people whose opinion I value that establishing a support system for minority students at these traditionally white institutions is critical.
Heck. Forget minorities. I would have gone stark raving mad if you’d made me go rock climbing 24/7 with the hockey players in my freshman entry three days into the deal.
Again, I am flexible on whether or not WOOLF is the right trip to force people to take. If people think that it isn’t, then design a different one. No one is suggesting that we make students who don’t want to go rock climbing, go rock climbing. The exact style and content of the trip is something that the Diversity Initiatives should spend time on.
It helps to go back to what the Administration believes and would like to see. (Some of us might disagree with this vision, but that’s a separate fight.) The Administration believes that, by senior year, the set of friendships among the senior class should, if possible, be thoroughly mixed. It does not want to see students of various categories only hanging out with Ephs of their own type. If this is the goal, the trying to bring students of different sorts together as early as possible is a good idea. Maybe the plan won’t work, but it is worth a try. This is way putting a dozen or so first years on some bonding trip is at least a plausible plan.
I am not claiming that this would work, but it has to be better than a plan which, in essence, segragates students at the very beginning.
I think the mistake Williams makes is that their first year experience ensures maximum segregation into small groups.
a) It starts with having freshmen apartheid housing. Isolate the first year students from the rest of the campus and it becomes very difficult to pass along a “campus ethos” by osmosis. The only exposure, on a day to day basis, to older role models is the RA system. A system where freshmen live on a floor with a dozen upper class students is very different in terms of passing along a campus culture.
b) Now, divide the freshmen apartheid dorms up into vertical entries. I understand it’s better today with common rooms, etc. But, when I was a freshman, the next entry over at Morgan might as well have been in Siberia. With no opportunity to meet them, even passing through a lobby entrance way, I don’t recall even knowing who lived in the next entry.
c) Now extend it to orientation, where the cornerstone event is an off-campus trip with 12 people.
All of these structures have the effect of isolating incoming students from the larger community. In effect, the college is “teaching” them from the start that the Williams way is to divide up into small isolated groups (segregated by class, interests, entryway) rather than events during the first week that involve them in a larger community.
Is it then a big surprise that social segregation becomes the norm?
i’ll be brief this time.
First, I think the most fundamental and most overlooked flaw in terms of Williams and its orientation program is that it has not looked the same for three years running since at least 99 (if not earlier). When is WOOLF? Before orientation, in the middle, it changes. And that’s not even getting to when WOW happens, which changes on an almost yearly schedule. that’s not best practices to not try a system for more than three years, though i understand that the desire to get something seen as so important right explains so much change. though it seems like running in circles quite often.
I second the idea that WOOLF carries with it a race and class and geographic bias. This is not to say anything negative, but to face the fact. I knew that a lot of my friends were very unexcited by the chance to go outdoors for days and so didn’t do it. I know that some students did not do it because they didn’t have the money to buy a lot of the gear and they didn’t want their first experience at Williams to be admitting a lack of the wealth they associated with Williams at the time. Those fears may or may not be wrong, but they are there.
I think what is missing is an academic experience connecting the first-years. They’re at Williams to share a top liberal arts college, why not start that via having a class that your entry takes together, or two entries split randomly amongst two classes? Shoot, you know what’d be really cool? Do that over the internet before students get to campus (though how to ensure participation, I do not know just yet. maybe make it part of a grade for a first-year seminar or something) so, via cyberspace, a lot of the preconceptions can be hidden until students decide to reveal their identities. I also think that Williams needs to craft an image of what it wants the orientation experience to look like, and stick to it as a whole for a couple years before redesigning it.
hwc–from my experience, students tend to be friends with a pretty diverse group of people–more than most other schools I’ve heard of. You have odd prejudices against Williams, and your argument attempting to link the JA system to cliques at Williams doesn’t really make sense.
Regarding the mid-orientation trips, like David, I don’t feel that WOOLF is necessarily the only option for the one mid-orientation program at Williams. However, I wouldn’t immediately rule WOOLF out simply because it may not appeal to every student–I doubt that there is any orientation program that could be designed that would appeal to all students. Moving to a single orientation program will inevitably mean that some students will have to participate in an orientation trip they’re not excited about. That’s a sacrifice I think is well worth making.
Furthermore, one of the bigger issues with WOOLF I can see arising is that it would put a fair number of students out of their comfort zone. I see this as a positive rather than a negative. WOOLF is very much a learning experience, and I’d be surprised if even the students who hated their WOOLF trip felt like they got nothing out of it. Also, given the rarity of raw untamed beauty on the east coast, and the relatively incredible amounts around Williamstown, I’m personally a fan of a 4 day required trip out into it for frosh. While students do take advantage of Williamstown’s beautiful surroundings, I think they are far too few in number. For most students at Williams this will be their one time in their life living in a rural environment, and I think for these students a 4-day camping experience is exactly what they need.
After spending a year working closely with Admissions and Prefrosh as the head of purple key, I’m pretty confident that a required WOOLF trip during mid-orientation program wouldn’t noticeably change admissions figures. Additionally, as WOC currently is able to provide equipment for any WOOLFie who needs it, there would be little further investment necessary to cover the additional frosh attending WOOLF trips if it was the only option. Finally, hwc asks us to”consider a hypothetical situation where you actually had, for example, real Puerto Rican kids from Villa Victoria in South Boston instead of prep-school minorities from Exeter. Odd are the Puerto Rican kid from Villa Victoria doesn’t swim very well and had never been camping.
So, his orientation experience is to go on an Outing Club canoe trip with the white suburban jocks? And, he’s not supposed to feel alienated from his new environment?”
Well, chances are that non-swimmer wouldn’t sign up to go on a canoe trip in the first place. But, if they did, I’d be very surprised if they didn’t end up having a great time at it. The way WOOLF trips are structured, they’d end up on a trip with a lot of other students who’d also never canoed before (maybe there’d be some white jocks in the mix), and chances are, they’d have a great bonding experience in their common canoeing woe. Obviously a non-swimmer might feel isolated on an advanced canoe trip with NOLS-skilled frosh wilderness experts, but it’s also obvious that that’s a situation that is not likely to arise.
Chotch brings up the point that it is not diversity alone that makes a first days trip. I couldn’t agree more, which is why I believe that whatever single mid-orientation trip is offered must be of the right sort. I’m not sure if Where Am I Trips bond to nearly the extent that WOOLF trips do. Not all WOOLF trips end up becoming great friends with eachother after their trip ended; my frosh year trip certainly didn’t. However, despite not loving my frosh WOOLF trip and not making any great friends on the trip, I still feel like I learned so much from spending 4 days in the woods with 8 other near-strangers. The trip I led sophomore year did end up becoming very close, and I’m sure what they got out of their trip was very different than what I got out of mine–probably more different than better or worse.
However, I didn’t mean this post to be simply a defence of WOOLF as the single mid-orientation option. While I do believe WOOLF to be the best-suited of the current mid-orientation programs to send all frosh on, I don’t think that it’s the only possible mid-orientation program that would work wonderfully. Rather than discussing the merits (and lack of merits) of WOOLF as the only mid-orientation program, it’d probably be more productive to discuss the advantages (and disadvantages) of moving to one mid-orientation trip option.
I’m not sure I agree with your premise that putting first year students out of their comfort zone after three days at college is a great idea. It is clear to me that many first year college students really struggle to find their comfort zone without the orientation program making an intentional effort to knock them off their feet.
But, for the sake of discussion, let’s stipulate that a challenging experience out of the comfort zone is a good idea. How about a four day field trip to Harlem and the South Bronx for the incoming class at Williams? That should satisfy the objective quite nicely. I wonder if half the freshman class would sign up for that one? Heck, you could even include an athletics component, scheduling some pick up basketball games against the local kids on the playground courts in Ruckers Park.
An 18 year old person of the approximate capacity of a typical Williams student should, except in extreme and very rare cases and then only to the minimum extent, not be deprived of the opportunity to decide for himself what is necessary or desirable in life. At Williams paternalism should have disappeared along with nickel beers, but (to my disappointment) apparently it hasn’t.