How we responded to Dean Tyree
Dear Dean Tyree:
Dr. Hardin has told us that you emailed him. Thank you for acknowledging our concerns. We are interested in meeting, perhaps as a group during presidents hours, and appreciate your efforts to set up an open conversation with President Lemons. In anticipation of such a meeting, we would like to formally submit some of the issues that have been made manifest so far in the blog. In some cases, there may be a simple answer that we are not aware of, and in others, we would like to raise concerns so that President Lemons can come to the meeting fully prepared. We assume that the administration will be able to help us in a cooperative environment where all parties can be heard and acknowledged. We are posting this letter on line and forwarding to Dr. Hardin so that he can forward it to you personally. We respect your decision not to join the blog; our reasons for posting this is to let our members see that their issues are being raised, and that if we have failed to address any of them, they might add to this list or ideally, attend the open conversation with President Lemons.
Of course, you are still welcome here, and we do understand how much you care. Sometimes, however, it seems that the humanity can be lost in the bureaucracy.
Sincerely,
The DL
These issues are in no particular order.
First, could you please explain the policy and the reasoning on Blue Lights?
Second, based on the accounts of a number of the students who have posted, it seems that the school’s policy on psychological disorders and treatment needs review. It may simply be an issue of misunderstanding, but it seems counterproductive if there is a punitive element for any student seeking psychological help.
Third, create a venue for the anonymous reporting of rape, sexual assault, sexual harassment, homophobia, racism, etc. It is great that you have the new Sexual Assault Victims unit here at SU, with 10 caring faculty members, but can we extened that to victims of "hate crimes" also? This would not be intended as a legal venue for punishing the offenders, since we understand the democratic right to confront one’s accuser, but we do feel that the university needs to fully understand the extent that such issues occur in order for it to best address allocate its efforts in making this a better university.
Fourth, consider the designation of hate crime. While it might seem trivial to someone else, for a person who has been victimized because of race, sexuality, gender, etc, it is important for those who have been victimized simply for who they are that the community understand WHY it happened. What will it take to get hate crime rules in the public safety lawbook?
Fifth, address the issue of the class disparity and antagonism on campus. If the school is going to admit working class students, then it should seek to make us feel welcome, not as charity cases or in some way inferior. What can we do to raise scholarships and grants with the tuition raise?
Sixth, we need to find a real solution for the undercurrent of racial tension here. This was made quite evident last year in the school paper, and it does not seem to have been solved, merely hushed. We have no solutions, but would like to see the process toward a fully integrated SU community continue. How can we increase diversity on campus? What areas would be good to target to bring in multicultural students, and faculty.
Seventh, the blog has made it clear that our GLBT students still, in 2006, at a liberal arts university, feel that they have to remain in the closet. Part of this is the problem of the other students who make comments, threats and even hostile actions against the GLBT community; we understand that the administration is not responsible for that. However, we believe that if the administration is more visible in its active support of the GLBT community, such intolerance will have fewer spaces to hide, and the students will feel safer in voicing their fears.
Seven is a good beginning. We know this is an ambitious list, but we did not start the blog to make cosmetic changes. We want to see change. We want to feel heard. We want to know that our school cares about our lives, not just our G.P.A.s. We love this school—we wouldn’t invest so much of ourselves in the DL if we didn’t.
The DL.
posted by thecleansweep @ 12:24 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
This list is excellent! Cleansweep, I really admire you for taking the initiative to address the SU community this way. The past couple of years have been turbulent for all of us, and I think it's great that you and everyone else on this forum are eager to improve life at SU.
With that being said, I have to disagree with some points which Cassandra has made both here and in previous posts. Cassandra, you have talked extensively about how SU should consider the intellectual skills and abilities of the various classes during the admissions process. Before I address the admissions component, I would like to address the idea that certain skills and abilities are exclusive to certain classes.
In a previous post, you mentioned that analytical skills were found mainly among the privileged while creative and practical skills were found mainly among the less-privileged. The problem I have with this assertion is that it is degrading, fallacious, and dangerous. I find the idea that less-privileged people lack analytical skills to be offensive. Many people of limited economic means have excellent analytical skills. If less-privileged people lack analytical skills, then why are students of limited economic means able to gain admission to institutions of higher education? Furthermore, why are those students able to succeed academically in a higher education setting despite their income level? Along these same lines, I find the idea that privileged people lack creative and practical skills to be offensive. Many people who are economically privileged are very creative musically, artistically, etc. Likewise, these same people also have strong practical skills which allow them to fix their toilet when it overflows or to build an addition onto their house.
Although I do not agree with your belief that different types of intelligence exist within different communities, my main point of contention is in regards to the ramifications of this credence. If people were to adopt this belief, then it will only intensify stereotypes about economic classes, which could result in an increase in discrimination. For example, if I was an admissions counselor at SU and I believed that the lower-class lacked analytical skills, then why would I admit a member of the lower-class to a university which strongly emphasizes analysis of ideas, theories, and concepts both inside and outside of the classroom? Likewise, if I was an admissions counselor at a technical school, and I believed that the economically privileged lacked practical skills, then why would I admit a member of the upper-class to my institution? It would be dangerous to adopt the belief that certain intelligences are only evident in certain communities.
As far as your idea that SU should look at other factors besides an applicant’s academic record, they already do. SU has always emphasized the fact that they look for applicants who are well-rounded. What SU does not do is take into account a person’s economic class during the application process. It would be unfair for SU to consider a privileged person’s G.P.A. and ignore a less-privileged person’s G.P.A. because that would be an act of discrimination.
Another idea you mentioned is that SU should focus less on traditional means of acceptance (such as academic records) and more on unconventional means (such as an art portfolio) for less-privileged applicants. Again, it would be an act of discrimination to have different admissions standards for different people. Moreover, admissions standards are supposed to reflect the academic community of the institution. SU is a four-year college which, like all other four-year colleges, prepares students to succeed in areas such as physics, history, and English. Most majors at SU require the skills which one has gained from high school, and the only way to evaluate those skills is through academic records. If a student were to apply to SU with the intention of majoring in art, then it would make sense for him or her to have an art portfolio to showcase alongside his SAT scores. However, the majority of students do not go to four-year colleges to major in art. Therefore, it would be pointless to make an art portfolio an admissions requirement. If someone were to apply to an art school, then it would be a different story.
Cassandra, despite my disagreement with you on this issue, I definitely agree with you that SU should strive to become more diverse. Perhaps with greater diversity and interaction among students, faculty, and staff, our community can remove the racism, classism, homophobia, and religious intolerance which have plagued our campus for far too long.
Post a Comment
<< Home