Hazard an opinion

Editorial: Qualitative reasoning

President Obama introduced the White House’s College Scorecard, a compilationof federal data including student debt and attendance cost for over 7,000colleges and universities, last Saturday. While the scorecards aren’t an outrightranking, they are intended as a means of comparison for prospective studentsand families choosing between schools. In some data categories, Bowdoin scoredpredictably high. With a graduation rate of 94 percent and a first-year retentionrate of 97 percent, the College far surpasses the respective national averages.Bowdoin’s average annual cost for students receiving federal aid, $18,613,is only $1,824 greater than the national average and is the smallest such figurein the NESCAC. This relative affordability speaks well of the College’s financialaid packages.
One statistic the scorecard highlights is average salary after attending, whichconsiders the income of alumni who received federal student aid ten years afterthey entered school. For Bowdoin graduates, that number is $54,800. That is asignificant step above the national average of $34,343 and the sixth highest in theNESCAC. However, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, Bowdoinalums’ median annual earnings are fourth-lowest among colleges whose studentsaveraged scores of at least 1400 on their SATs. Considering their alma mater’sprestige, Bowdoin graduates are earning relatively little. Many students and familiesin the throes of the college search will find this information useful as returnon investment is an important factor to consider when choosing a school.But attending Bowdoin is more than just a means to an end. We think of collegenot only as a financial investment, but as an experience that can fulfill us inother ways, too. It’s impossible for any data-based scorecard or rating system tomeasure the relationships, values and skills we develop. There’s no way to quantifythese aspects of life at Bowdoin, but they shape our lives here and beyond insignificant ways.
Still, initiatives like the College Scorecard show that statistical comparisons dohave a role in helping people approach a large investment like a college education.One number that doesn’t appear in the College Scorecard, but that we findsignificant, is the alumni giving rate. A U.S. News article from December 2014listed Bowdoin as one of ten schools where the highest proportion of alumnidonate. As the Orient reports this week, over 61 percent of alums donated to theCollege last year, an all time high.
This statistic represents a group of people who have had time to reflect ontheir experience at Bowdoin and everything it did for them—whether intellectually,socially, emotionally or financially. And remember, this statistic measuresbreadth, not depth of giving. It does not speak to the raw amount of money theCollege receives, but it is significant because it shows many Bowdoin graduatesare still dedicated to the institution. In giving money to the College, alums areexpressing satisfaction with their Bowdoin education. Regardless of the numbersthat come out, most are willing to put something back in.
This editorial represents the majority view of the Bowdoin Orient’s editorialboard, which is comprised of John Branch, Sam Chase, Matthew Gutschenritter,Emma Peters and Nicole Wetsman.

Editorial: Learning and teaching

Yesterday, the campus-wide teach-in, “Intersections: Making Connections, Moving Forward,” finally took place after ten months of planning. What was originally conceived as an event dedicated to climate change ultimately became an opportunity for members of the community to discuss the intersections between a range of pressing issues—namely climate and race. As a campus that often bemoans its tendency to “talk about talking,” the College finally engaged.
The teach-in’s goals were abstract. As organizer Mary Hunter told the Orient this week, “My bar is that people learn something that they couldn’t have learned without the day and that they converse in a way that they would not converse without the day.” As best as we can tell, yesterday met that goal. Events seemed well-attended, and participants engaged in conversations that are often had behind closed doors, if at all. Students and professors alike took advantage of the platform to share their knowledge and unique perspectives.
However, the event’s reach did not truly extend to the whole campus. Because events were optional and classes were not cancelled, many students did not participate, including some who may have wished to. While successful on many levels, this teach-in was not the campus-wide reckoning that some hoped for.
The teach-in was special because it concentrated the energy and focus of many students, faculty and staff. But every week, events are held on campus that address the same topics as the teach-in. For example, this past Monday, Clenora Hudson-Weems, a prominent academic from the University of Missouri, discussed the modern socio-economic, political and cultural experiences of women of African descent. This event did not occur as part of the teach-in, but it dealt with similar themes of race and social justice. A teach-in is a visible way to draw attention to certain issues, but Bowdoin should not forget the importance of engaging with them regularly, especially given the opportunities that only a college campus can provide.
Many members of the Bowdoin community attended the teach-in as a statement in and of itself. By attending, they showed not only the importance they place on the issues at hand, but affirmed the value of dialogue and activism in general. This is an affirmation that should exist beyond the teach-in; we should constantly look for ways to engage with issues that challenge us, not only when the opportunity falls in our lap in the form of a day-long event. This could mean attending more organized events and talks, getting involved in student activism, or being open to having more uncomfortable conversations. Everyone will take away something different from individual experiences at the teach-in, but if there’s one thing community members can all share, it should be a desire to continue filling the spaces where opportunities for engagement and thoughtful discussion are presented to us so readily.
This editorial represents the majority view of the Bowdoin Orient’s editorial board, which is comprised of John Branch, Sam Chase, Matthew Gutschenritter, Emma Peters and Nicole Wetsman.

Editorial

This piece represents the opinion of The Bowdoin Orient editorial board.

September 25, 2015

Wesleyan’s student newspaper, the Argus, published an op-ed headlined “Why Black Lives Matter Isn’t What You Think” on September 14. The article questions the motives of Black Lives Matter and goes so far as to suggest the movement was to blame for the deaths of police officers. The article was ill-conceived, poorly-written and, by the paper’s own admission, insufficiently fact-checked. After the campus weighed in with deserved criticism, the paper scrambled to atone. In an unprecedented front-page editorial, the Argus apologized profusely, even suggesting they were at fault for not accompanying the controversial op-ed with an opposing viewpoint directly next to it.

Despite the Argus’s over-the-top backpedaling, activists in the Wesleyan community are not satisfied. This week, a petition demanding that Wesleyan’s student government defund the paper until a list of other conditions are met gained over 170 signatures. In exchange for continued funding, the petition calls for specific measures such as diversity training for the publication’s staff each semester and an open space on the paper’s front page for marginalized voices. It also calls for vague measures such as “active recruitment and advertisement.”

It is apparent that the petition’s signatories believe that the Argus has not sufficiently addressed issues regarding the voices of students of color. A few of the petition’s specific demands, such as staff diversity training, are both worthwhile and attainable. Nonetheless, attempting to withhold the student newspaper’s funding is misguided. Though their frustration with the paper extends beyond this one column, in trying to censor an opposing idea, these signatories contradict their own goal of promoting diversity of opinion.

We do not pretend to know everything about the controversy taking place on another campus. But we find several elements of the situation concerning journalistically. For instance, the Argus’ editorial implies that opinion columns should be coupled with counter arguments, but this is neither a standard journalistic practice nor a wise one. All newspapers strive to publish opinion articles with a range of perspectives, but not necessarily side by side.

In terms of the petition’s demands, the mandated creation of a space on the front page of the newspaper reserved for the perspectives of minority students, however well-intentioned, would set a disturbing precedent: it would make continued funding for the paper contingent on the publication of certain content. Such a policy would infringe upon editorial independence, which is vital to the integrity of any publication.

While it is not specifically mentioned in the petition, the op-ed appears to have been the catalyst for the document’s creation. We find it further troubling that members of the Wesleyan student body are conflating the opinions of an op-ed contributor with those of the paper at large. Publishing an article is not the same as endorsing its assertions, and we worry about the implications of missing this distinction moving forward. A newspaper that serves a small community like Wesleyan or Bowdoin should strive to represent the perspectives of its diverse constituents, and that includes publishing unpopular opinions.

This editorial represents the majority view of the Bowdoin Orient’s editorial board, which is comprised of John Branch, Sam Chase, Matthew Gutschenritter, Emma Peters and Nicole Wetsman.

Comments are permanently closed.