'We are the college, if we want to be'

Editorial: Class discussion

The Bowdoin student body is disproportionately wealthy, with a fifth of students hailing from the top one percent of the income spectrum, according to a study by the Equality of Opportunity Project republished in the New York Times last week. The study indicates that socioeconomic diversity at Bowdoin remained largely the same between 1998 and 2009, and data published in the Orient this week shows that the percentage of students receiving financial aid between 2008 and 2015 has remained at roughly 45 percent, despite increased spending on aid.
The data shocked some of us, but others felt it matched their perception of Bowdoin. This discrepancy is important and shouldn’t be downplayed, as it demonstrates students’ varying levels of consciousness regarding wealth on campus. As students at Bowdoin, we spend surprisingly little time discussing class—both amongst ourselves and with administrators, faculty and staff—considering the dramatic impact that socioeconomic status has on every Bowdoin student’s experience, from buying textbooks to navigating social life.
There are also institutional questions that need to be addressed. Of critical importance among these are Bowdoin’s admissions policies relating to class and increases in the overall cost of Bowdoin.
Need-blind admissions are an improvement over need-based admissions but this 1990s policy is outdated and there are other ways of improving our admissions practices. If Bowdoin is committed to educating a more socioeconomically diverse student body, there are enough qualified low-income applicants to allow for such change. In order to achieve that goal, the College would need to go beyond need-blind admissions, which is the most progressive admissions policy regarding socioeconomic class that we know of. By further developing an admissions system that actively seeks qualified low-income students, Bowdoin could distinguish itself as a leader on the issue of class equity in elite higher education.
Since 2008, there has been a 3.2 percent average year-to-year increase in comprehensive fee, accompanied by a 3.16 percent average year-to-year increase in average financial aid gift size. These roughly equal increases cancel each other out and keep the number of students receiving aid flat. If Bowdoin wants to substantially increase the socioeconomic diversity of the student body, it needs to either increase gift size faster than the comprehensive fee or stabilize the comprehensive fee. We acknowledge the efforts the College is making to investigate the budget, but the budget (and comprehensive fee) will almost certainly increase again this year. To achieve a more socioeconomically diverse campus, we encourage the community to focus on the budget and hold the College accountable to keeping the comprehensive fee stable or significantly increasing financial aid spending.
Class affects every student at Bowdoin, and we should more thoroughly investigate how it influences our experiences here. This goal requires efforts from students and administrators alike, working together to bring issues of class to the forefront of conversation and taking steps to ensure that the reality of the student body reflects the College’s goals regarding socioeconomic diversity.
This editorial represents the majority view of the Bowdoin Orient’s editorial board, which is comprised of Julian Andrews, Harry DiPrinzio, Dakota Griffin, Meg Robbins and Joe Seibert.

Editorial: Academics in action

In the wake of the election, some professors have confronted our political landscape in and out of the classroom, modeling healthy discussion, writing letters to President Trump and incorporating current events into their curricula.
Last Friday, Professor of Government Paul Franco moderated an event where attendees discussed the value of ideological diversity on campus. This Thursday, a panel of professors from the government and legal studies department offered their perspectives on Trump’s election and its implications.
In January, Professors Mark Battle and Madeleine Msall partnered with physics professors across the country to pen a letter to Trump advocating he take widely accepted ideas about climate change into account when making policy.
In an Orient op-ed this week, Professor of History Patrick Rael argues that a fierce commitment to politically neutral yet discerning academic values is more important now, in an era of alternative facts.
In addition, we have noticed some of our professors are integrating discussion of current political events into classes, giving an example of how the knowledge and skills we are learning can be used to analyze, understand and influence the world.
For example, Assistant Professor of Government Maron Sorenson’s Judicial Politics course has left parts of the syllabus open to address the nomination of Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court in the coming weeks. A class in the gender, sexuality and women’s studies department has routinely been leaving time at the beginning of class to discuss news and current issues. A few classes addressing executive power and political regimes have highlighted historical connections with the present.
In discussing the recent actions of our professors, we have been reminded of the oft-repeated alumni line: “Bowdoin taught me how to think.” Likely, our professors have been teaching us “how to think” since we stepped foot on campus, but the immediate link between current events and professors’ actions has made that much more apparent. We are learning to confront and evaluate ideas that oppose our own, to use our knowledge to encourage political action and to use information and methodologies from the classroom to solve problems other than those posed in homework assignments.
While we have enumerated several positive examples, there’s a sense on campus that many professors aren’t engaging substantively with current issues. Making time for this type of learning is especially important in this new age. Professors should find a way to connect academics and current events, whether it be in or out of the classroom. Doing so shows us that our learning is relevant, giving us the intellectual tools to engage with the world using deeper frameworks of knowledge.
This editorial represents the majority view of the Bowdoin Orient’s editorial board, which is comprised of Julian Andrews, Harry DiPrinzio, Dakota Griffin, Meg Robbins and Joe Seibert.

Editorial

'We are the college, if we want to be'

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

February 3, 2017

In an email to the Bowdoin community on January 30, President Clayton Rose wrote that President Donald Trump’s executive order banning immigrants from seven Muslim-majority countries and all refugees “has the potential to harm students, faculty, and staff at colleges and universities across the country—including here at Bowdoin—and also to put their family members at risk.”

The immigration order immediately affected Bowdoin students, faculty and staff from the seven implicated countries, and on Monday Rose wrote that the College is working to provide these community members access to legal counsel.

In an email to the Orient yesterday, Rose said that, with regard to Trump’s policies, “any actions or statements on my part will be motivated, in the first instance, by those things that challenge our educational mission and/or our [sic] threaten members of our community.”

Rose’s statements and the actions the College is taking to support its students are valuable. But Rose and the College have a responsibility to proactively speak out against Trump’s actions, separate from their impact on Bowdoin as an institution. In short: Bowdoin needs to do more.

The administration has a significant degree of power that, if leveraged effectively, can be used for proactive resistance.

As students, our role in this is most important. If we want our college to speak on our behalf, we need to hold it accountable and make explicit demands.

Public opposition is a step in the right direction, but we can call on Rose and the administration to put pressure on our Maine and federal representatives. We can demand that the school schedule more programming addressing contemporary political and social issues. We can demand that professors find ways, in and out of the classroom, to convey knowledge and skills to do good in the Trump era.

In May of 1970, students at Bowdoin voted to strike in opposition to America’s military action in Southeast Asia. President Roger Howell Jr.’s actions that spring are notable because they matched the school’s public policy to student political demands about an issue unconnected to the interests of the College.

But the student demands came first. Members of the Bowdoin community have already taken action, such as participating in women’s marches and last week’s protests at airports. But if we are serious about pressing for change, the intensity and frequency of our actions and demands need to increase. As the Orient editorialized on May 6, 1970, “What we ourselves have often failed to grasp is that we are the college, if we want to be.”

If we’re unified in our demands and speak as as a student body, Rose would be wise to follow the example Howell set in 1970 and align the College’s actions with the voices of its students.

A Bowdoin alumnus signed E.B. wrote in the May 1970 edition of the Bowdoin Alumnus, “What was the alternative to the suspension? To have conducted business as usual? To have told seniors, many of whom are only weeks away from going to war, that they should stick to their books because their President knows best?” Neutrality is not an option, and lack of action in this case is equivalent to neutrality.

Comments are permanently closed.