Hegemon/Need-Blind/February 18 2005
from the Macalester Public Knowledge Base
This is a coverage of Need Blind at the Mac Hegemon as printed out on February 18, 2005 --Yonghokim 14:15, 19 Feb 2005 (CST)
[edit] The Hegemon gets a reader
[edit] WHAT THE WEEKLY DIDN'T TELL YOU
press were not allowed inside monday's impromptu meeting following the walk-out (oops!), and apparently the weekly's "sources" neglected to keep some of brian rosenberg's more controversial remarks for the record. BB
i was present at this meeting, and transcribed the dialogue as carefully as i could, i am submitting the following excerpts (and a few editorial comments) as a supplement to the weekly's coverage. 1
these quotations are taken out of context and constitute only a part of what rosenberg had to say —but a crucial part, in my opinion, these statements reveal the class bias of the. need-blind decision, and the exclusion of students from the decision-making process. H
"If you think we are serving the population that's being disserved by the American higher-education system . . . we are deluding ourselves. We're serving a privileged population. The only working-class people on this campus are the ones who I work here".
a. remarkably frank observation: macalester has never been committed to recruiting and accommodating lower-income —— students, the gist of rosenberg's argument is: as long as we're serving mostly high-income students, why don't we just seal the deal by further excluding the underprivileged?
this statement was a slap in the face to macalester students who come from working-class families, it was like, 'you are invisible, you are insignificant, and we'd ust as soon rid this institution of your kind'.
of course, rosenberg carefully avoided the word "classism," drawing the following analogy:
"Imagine that we're not a college, imagine we're some other business that provides a service to people. . . Imagine we provide housing to people. . . If I refuse to sell you that house because you're a woman, or African-American, or gay, that's discrimination. If I refuse to sell you a house because you can't pay $100,000, that's not discrimination". HI
rosenberg went on to say, "We're not far from charging more in our tuition than we spend on each student", he described this as an "ethical problem", apparently, overcharging the I very wealthy would be ethically unsound; on the other hand, there's nothing unethical about denying access to the poor.
in attempt to soften all this business rhetoric, rosenberg Stressed macalester's "non-profit" status, "no one's getting 'rich off this".
no one's getting rich off this. . . except maybe the exorbitantly-salaried administrators.
to his credit, rosenberg acknowledged that his vision for the college was "different" from ours. but he dismissed the idea of involving students in decision-making.
As much as we wanna think of this as a democracy, you know that's not the way it works. . . I really don't think leadership means simply figuring out what the majority wants and then doing it". ——
he then challenged our claims to represent the majority, noting that a whole "23 per cent" of students voted "somewhere else" (i.e., in favor of something other than the DNBAM proposal) at last semester's student assembly.
one student suggested that students need more "formal mechanisms", such as referendums, in order to express our collective will. the student said the outcome of student referendums "should have as much pull as the other constituencies" (faculty, administrators, trustees)
rosenberg: "And what if I disagree?" —————H
"There is no college in which students have responsibility for running it", he said. macalester students, therefore, should not be empowered to impact administrative decisions—"That would be unique".
rosenberg repeatedly attempted to sidetrack the meeting by condemning the "tactics that have been employed by students" (and chastising editorialists from both student publications for operating "outside the realm of civil discourse".)
"It surprised and disappointed me that you would not dissociate yourselves from vandalism, and from personal attacks of this kind", he stated.
these bogus claims to moral high-ground were clearly intended to distract and divide need-blind supporters. fortunately, most of the students present remained focused on the real injustices at hand.
in the end, rosenberg lost interest in trying to convince us of the integrity of the need-aware policy. when laurie hamre suggested that we "Give President Rosenber some credit", he remarked, "I'm not interested in credit. From this group in particular".
accusations of slander to: rlibon@macalester.edu
[edit] Storm Clouds
[edit] African American Studies Conference Rocks My World
I was planning on writing a very critical piece about the differences between the political science department and the american studies department and how I wish I had been taking more american studies classes in my time here at mac, but I realized that I'm not prepared to present that case persuasively (and it's really more of a personal issue).
That said, I would like to write a glowing review of the keynote address given by Joy James on february 11th. Pretty much, it was the most enlightening academic address I've been to in my nearly three academic years at mac. And I've been to the convocations, the international roundtables, the poli-sci (that's my major) mitau lectures, and this was pretty much better than them all. I mean, let's think back to when Robert Putnam (from Harvard) gave us the convocation address in fall 2004. He argued that we need to fix america by having more picnics (and joining more civic associations). Now, I'm not saying that his thesis is false (cause he had the statistics to PROOOVE that we can fix america by joining clubs), but he did seem to ignore or deal poorly with issues that are a little more interesting than the raw number of people who belong to clubs (like, hey! does the KKK count as a club? can your statistics handle THOSE numbers???). (I mean, seriously, does it?) Joy James had some sharp comments that helped put some issues in a better perspective for me. Here is a list of my favorite James concepts:
1. Liberals (or maybe it was "white people", or "progressives") think that they don't have to DO anything. [As in, if we can just vote for Kerry then racism will eventually stop]
2. The 13th amendment to the constitution was modified from it's original version (which would have banned all slavery) to this one (which makes slavery ok for "criminals").
Amendment XIII
Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
3. North/South and Red/Blue state distinctions are bullshit and will cloud your perceptions of important issues.
So basically, the African American Studies conference blew my mind, I want to say thank you to the organizers, and I hope we have more events along those lines, (and less of Robert Putnam, even if he does sit on the national board for Project Pericles)
Andy Haug ahaug@mac
[edit] We're not the only ones: militant student action at one of Mac's famed and aspired to comparison schools
Lest you thought that writing a 50 page report is as rebellious as it gets nowadays (and bless the DNBAMers who poured their steam- ing blood into it), Wesleyan students can prove you wrong. During the fall 04 semester, student activists around a diversity of issues experienced a build-up of frustration with the administration. Their issues ranged from a ban on all chalking, the need for a multi-cul- tural dean, gender-open housing, the admin decision to use NPR feeds on the student radio station, and plenty others. Many activists saw these coalesce into a large issue of institutional democracy and admin transparency.
On Dec. 6th. students held an open-mic where about 100 gathered to speak their issues, which "were centered around, but were not confined to, student of color issues" according to the Wesleyan paper, the Argus (check it out at www.weyleyanargus.com - it's instructive). The next day, another 100 students attended the Pres.'s office hours (does ours even lay down that lame offering?) where they told him their minds. After speaking their minds to him, the pres. left for his office and the students followed and filled the stairwell outside of his office.
The students make a demand that he send an e-mail to everyone in the Wesleyan community describing what happened on that day, he attempts to go to a meeting, and they essentially lock him in his office by refusing to allow him by (200 or more students by that point). They negotiate with him in the stairwell over wording of the e-mail to be sent out, and set the details for a forum to be held the next day. A full 5 hours after the activists confronted the pres, they let him leave. At the forum 800 PEOPLE, mainly students, show up. The students demand a response to their concerns from the admin- istration, which is produced in January. It is 27 pages.
One lesson learned from their actions is that most of the student body was unhappy with the core activists after they changed the format of the forum without telling the administration, and more importantly, other students. Honest and frequent communication between organizing activists and other students, as well as not claiming to speak for the entire student body, are important and were not always present. An aspect of the Wesleyan actions which did draw praise from many students was the purposefulness (they had specific requests) of their action locking the pres. in his office. And most of all - thank Wesleyan for showing that it is possible to mobilize that many students around campus democracy.
Can you imagine getting 800 people at a forum at Macal- ester dealing with student/admin power relations? I have hope, but at this point it's just starry eyes. Imagine a school like Macalester where students have veto power over all administrative decisions. Let alone the collective, non-hierarchal place of dynamic and em- bodied learning we might long to be at. This is a time to ask our- selves what mitigating changes are possible at a private, traditional liberal arts school, and what we are willing to do to demonstrate that we care about Macalester, even if Macalester as such prob- ably wouldn't exist in any recognizable form in our radical private and collective dreams. As the need-blind fight has wiped away any nostalgia and naivete that I might have harbored for Mac, Wesleyan students have shown me that it is possible to continue to be invest- ed in that very place which has taught me to despise its workings. Which is to say, thank you Wesleyan for helping me to imagine that space where one might be passionate about a school just barely enough to confront it head on. rlepreau@macalester.edu
Note: 1 wrote this 2 weeks ago but lechnical mix-ups prevented il from being making il into the last issue. Il feels a little dated hut I think is still appropriate. I choose Wesleyan because it most resembles Macalester in terms of student body and structure, but 1 want to acknowledge there is obviously lots of stufi "oini' on right now at oilier types of schools, like Santa Cru/. very recently, and others around the world.
[edit] JEW ME, SUE ME
by rachel the peeved heeb
let's get one thing straight, the satirical letter from brian rosenberg printed in last week's hegemon was lots of things (unprofessional, slanderous, funny)—but anti-semitic it was not. the "letter" made no reference to rosenberg's Jewish background- explicit or implicit.
weekly editorialists hershel nachlis and James stewart seem to find this point irrelevant: to these critics, any characterization of a Jewish person as rich or classist is implicitly anti-semitic.
to anyone who shares this misguided zeal for "political correctness", i'd like to pose a question:
if you really, truly assume any denouncement of a rich and classist person who happens to be Jewish is "anti-semitic" ( i )- what does that say about your own perception of Jews?
to me, it says you buy into the stereotypes that Jews are capitalists, elitists, etc.
and if you groundlessly cry "anti-semitism" in order to defend a particular elitist and discredit his* detractors, you probably see nothing wrong with being rich and classist. you probably applaud assimilation and material success, and laud Jews as a "model minority".
well i've got a problem with that. by calling any old criticism of classism "anti-semitic", you conflate capitalism and Judaism, and as i suggested in the paragraph above, you probably have a vested interest in doing so.
it's kind-of like when adi lackeys and imperialists call any criticism of Israeli policies "anti-semitic": you defend power by making your allies out to be victims of ethnic hatred . . . and subsequently smear all Jews as Zionists.
i know, i know: it's un-pc to challenge somebody else's sense of victimhood (if i thought it were genuine, i would never). it's unpopular to suggest that people on the side of power play the anti-semitism card in order to advance an agenda (and ironically, are considered credible because of their position).
but for the record, i have experienced anti-semitism (you know, the kind of prejudice we encounter when somebody assumes we're capitalists, or Zionists, or whatever, because we are Jewish), i believe your unsupported and strategically-levied charges of "anti-semitism" serve to perpetuate these stereotypes.
well fuck all of that. we are not all capitalists, just like we're not all Zionists, in the words of brian rosenberg, "stay away from my family"*.
see what the weekly didn't tell you tor more quotes from brian rosenberg. (*'cause i'm not trying to use male pronouns as universals here).
for those too young to remember—the title is a reference to a bygone michael jackson scandal, it's called irony, folks. sheesh...
accusations of latent self-loathing anti-semitism and other hatemail to: rlibon@macalester.edu
[edit] another list
[edit] Macalester's most Wanted playing cards
[edit] A response to responses: aan exercise in the pretension of the meta-meta cricle of need-blind in two parts, or, how you piss me off
Part I
Need-blind seems to get more attention now that a decision has been made than before, when the students' voices could actually accomplish something. Oh wait, I don't remember that period. Did they ever matter? Nonetheless, the controversy seems to have shifted from the actual decision to cut need blind to the illustrious letter appearing in the last Hegemon, the vandalism, patch-wearing, and other purportedly negative reactions to the board's decision. I feel the need to add my two cents worth (or two hegepages worth) of opinion.
Let's begin: I feel a response to the MacWeekly Opinion column in the Feb. 4 edition, entitled "Ushering in the Post-Need-Blind Era" best exemplifies some of the problems I have with the submit-and-accept make-the-best- of-it "post-need-blind" mind-set. The column claimed that "the sentiments expressed by the students sporting patches proclaiming their resolution not to donate to Macalester as alumni seem counter-productive." This and other statements are the result of the narrow vision of the great ambivalent compromisers who organize their priorities one way and fail to accept others' differing organization. That patch-wearers and non-donators are "undermining the possibility of Macalester returning to a financially unprejudiced admissions policy" is logic born of a narrow and uncomprehending vision. The administration has clearly shown that it has no concern regarding need- blind. They aren't independently putting its return at the top of their priorities. So blindly giving to the college is not a logical and useful way of contributing to this goal. In this society, money is power. The consumer's power lies in how she/he spends her/his money. Or donates. The Board of Trustees and President Rosenberg speak the language of money. Power is conducted in the currency of dollar bills and gold coins. So to be heard by them, we must speak with our dollars. Conditional donations, or expressed threats of denying donations, are far more persuasive than simply donating, or even verbalizing complaints. Back up your words with money- make money the stake- and it's surprising how much more open people's ears become. This form of systematic legal dissent is within the capitalistic structure (thereby perhaps bringing into question its effectiveness for some radicals) but totally within the liberal sphere, so quit your hitching.
People commenting in veins similar to the MacWeekly column would do well to recognize that not everyone's goals are satisfied with the mere propagation of Macalester in any form. For some people, the issue of need-blind practices is one of utmost importance. Simply achieving the survival of the institution is not good enough. Quality of that institution matters. Ironic, given the debate on "Quality and Access." (This article would not be complete without a heavy dose of irony.) Part of quality is the school's adherence to certain values, such as non-discrimination. Not wanting to donate to a discriminatory agency is completely viable. If simply maintaining the institution is the highest goal, then go ahead, donate your personal funds. But don't be upset if some people don't buy into the argument that a Macalester with sacrificed values is better than nothing. While the argument sometimes carries weight, it also often turns into a downward spiral of compromise.
Part II
I can't ignore the satiric Rosenberg letter which was published in the last Hegemon. The letter provoked a resolution by the LB to condemn the sentiments expressed, as well as garnered discussion at a faculty meeting, or so I hear. Furthermore, some students were purportedly incited to write letters of apology directly to the President. While I can see that the letter would provoke a reaction, this outpouring seems unprecedented. What I don't understand is why the LB and other unrelated students felt such a pressure to apologize for it.
A letter published in an open forum like the Hegemon, or even the MacWeekly Opinion column is part of a dialogue, and an appropriate response is to publish a letter in reply. (Which some students did.) Or, as previously mentioned one can write a letter directly to President Rosenberg explaining one's personal sentiments. If students wish to respond, condemn, or agree, this strikes me as the proper place to do it. I for one am not going to apologize because I didn't write the letter. As a text, it did not spontaneously appear, it was authored by a person or a group of people, and it was not signed by DNBAM, the LB, or the Student Body. It disturbs me that it is attributed to or even associated with any of these groups. That the LB took it into their schedule seems excessive to me. Can't each of them, as individual disagreeing students, write their own responses, rather than issuing a statement for the student body? Quite frankly, I think our LB has better things to be doing. I don't want an apology, condemnation, or any other opinion produced for me. I am upset with President Rosenberg and the Board, but I only need to take responsibility for the ways I expressed those opinions, not the way other students who are also upset choose to express it. That student chose to exercise her/his 'free
speech,' and as the author, she/he can decide if her/his letter merit's a revision/apology, or if it stands. Disagreeing with the contents of the letter is a fellow exercise in free speech, but to complain against the production of the letter itself is to undermine freedom of expression.
The outpouring of student complaints about Need- blind dissent (surrounding the letter as well as other forms) begins to look like one big apology for being upset about the exclusion of student voices in the decision and the cutting of need-blind itself. It seems to me that all of this fuss is often simply a masturbatory diversion to distract from the disempowerment of the students. This is not to say that the other issues aren't important- I just wasted a lot of my time blabbing about them- but it is important to exercise a keen consideration of what the roots of the issues are, rather than simply blowing off indignation.
Nothing is more meta than a response to a response to a response. Except another response. So respond if you want, either by writing to the Hegemon or by contacting me, theresa madaus at tmadaus@macalester.edu.
[edit] Dear Hegemon
[edit] You know it's true
