Talk it out

Editorial: A false mandate

This week, the Orient examined a petition circulated by Bowdoin Climate Action (BCA) calling on the College to divest its endowment from fossil fuels. BCA has been collecting signatures since the fall of 2012 and has reported that it now has the support of 1,200 students. The group has shown remarkable initiative and dedication to its cause and has received the attention of those on campus, the Brunswick community, and the greater Bowdoin network. Just a few weeks ago, leaders of BCA met with members of the Board of Trustees to present their case for divestment. President Barry Mills arranged this meeting under the impression that over 1,000 Bowdoin students had expressed a desire for the College to divest. However, this was not the case.
We recognize the passion with which members of BCA have promoted the group’s divestment agenda and appreciate the value that student activism provides to our community. While the editorial board of the Orient expressed its opposition to divestment in February 2013, we acknowledge that BCA has made progress in its mission and sparked significant dialogue on a campus that often lacks political engagement.
In their presentation to the Trustees, BCA leaders relied on the petition when claiming that they had a mandate from the student body. However, a survey conducted this week of students who signed BCA’s petition revealed a considerable discrepancy between the group’s self-reported support and the actual student backing for its cause. Its alleged 1,000 signatures included names from two separate petitions—one of which stressed carbon neutrality more than divestment—and a large number of signatories reported that they do not currently endorse divestment. In light of these findings, BCA should not claim to speak for the majority of students on campus nor use this claim as leverage in its discussions with the administration.
An editorial that ran in the Orient last April argued that students should engage more meaningfully with the issues that are at stake when asked to sign petitions. Although many signed the BCA petitions without such critical consideration, we do not doubt that hundreds of signatories do make up an important voice for environmental change. The large number of students who presented the petition to Mills last April and the letter from 70 faculty members to the Board of Trustees demonstrate that a significant portion of Bowdoin community members are behind divestment.
Despite these outspoken voices, however, there remains an equal if not greater population that doubts whether or not divestment is the best course of action that the College can take to promote environmentalism. For now, the College should not be unduly influenced by the inflated numbers of a vocal minority.
This editorial represents the majority view of the Bowdoin Orient’s editorial board, which is comprised of Garrett Casey, Ron Cervantes, Natalie Kass-Kaufman, Sam Miller, Leo Shaw and Kate Witteman.

Editorial: Due course

When students were notified of their spring semester courses on Monday, a number of computer science and neuroscience students were left without the courses they need to finish their majors. This issue did not stem from Polaris, which continues to work well. Interim Registrar James Higginbotham reported to the Orient that 84 percent of students were enrolled in three or more classes during Round One registration and that the back end of the system was operating smoothly. Polaris provides a simple and streamlined process for students—a welcome improvement over the paper registration that students used as recently as the spring of 2013. For computer science majors, the problem is that there are too few courses to meet growing student demand. In neuroscience, an interdisciplinary major without its own department, the issue is that students are only sometimes given priority for required biology, chemistry and psychology courses.
Demand for next semester’s computer science offerings was incredibly high. Every course filled up after Round One registration, leaving dozens of students who are hoping to major or minor in the subject without any options. Unfortunately, this is not a new trend. Last spring, Caroline Pierce ’16 collected over 80 signatures on a petition asking the College to hire an additional computer science professor. The Office of Academic Affairs has said that it is working to accommodate more students in next semester’s classes, but any solution it offers will be a stopgap. We understand that resources are scarce and that expanding an academic department is an expensive and incremental process. However, the experiences of the many students who were turned away show that long-term solutions are necessary.
Neuroscience majors also struggled during the registration process, although for different reasons. Because the major has no corresponding department, and courses are not listed specifically as neuroscience classes, it can be hard to navigate the program’s requirements. This is especially true since majors do not receive preference for every biology and psychology course that is part of the Neuroscience Program. These issues could easily be rectified by officially cross-listing relevant biology and psychology courses with neuroscience and by offering neuroscience students priority where necessary.
The problems faced by neuroscience and computer science students indicate that there is room for improvement in our curriculum, both in terms of creating space where there is substantial demand and helping students enroll in the courses they need. One of the College’s greatest strengths is offering intimate classes in which we can learn from our excellent faculty. Students will be best served if the administration can ensure that they have access to the courses they are required to take without greatly inflating class sizes.
This editorial represents the majority view of the Bowdoin Orient’s editorial board, which is comprised of Garrett Casey, Ron Cervantes, Natalie Kass-Kaufman, Sam Miller, Leo Shaw and Kate Witteman.

Editorial

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

November 14, 2014

In the past two weeks, the College has welcomed two high-profile speakers to campus to present views that many students consider controversial. Last night, Bowdoin hosted a talk by Kristan Hawkins, president of the national pro-life organization Students for Life of America—the same group that used targeted Facebook advertising to recruit students to establish a chapter at Bowdoin in October. And last week, Fox News military analyst Colonel David Hunt gave a talk supporting a more isolationist approach to the War on Terror, in which he advocated “letting Iraq and Syria burn.”

Both talks provoked responses from the Bowdoin community. At the conclusion of Hunt’s lecture, a few students chanted to protest his belief that Islam is connected to terrorism, and last night, a group of female students stood outside Hawkins’ lecture with signs featuring pro-choice slogans. We recognize that when speakers come to campus to discuss divisive issues, students have a right to protest. They also have an obligation to protest respectfully. We are glad that in recent weeks, Bowdoin students have protested by listening and responding, rather than interrupting, mocking or making ad hominem attacks.

It is critical that public forums remain open to all opinions, especially since a narrow set of progressive political beliefs often seem to dominate campus culture. Hosting speakers whose perspectives differ from those of our community prevents Bowdoin from becoming an ideological echo chamber, which would not serve anyone well, regardless of their political beliefs. After all, the liberal arts ethos encourages us to approach opposing viewpoints as opportunities for learning. When we attend a talk like Hunt’s or Hawkins’, we gain a more nuanced understanding of complex issues and can better situate our own beliefs in the context of a broader discourse.

While Bowdoin strives to create dialogue through its many student-run organizations, the College’s overwhelmingly liberal ideological environment can prevent students from voicing alternative viewpoints. An event like last night’s could empower the minority of students who are pro-life—who may feel that most Bowdoin students are hostile to their perspective—to express their opinions more openly. In recent years, conservative students have reported feeling uncomfortable expressing their views and have asserted that their opinions are suppressed on campus. The community needs to make sure that all of its members beliefs are treated with due consideration.

These two talks demonstrate the College’s willingness to address a discernible lack of ideological diversity surrounding certain hot-button issues. Looking forward, Bowdoin should continue to broaden the campus’ political discourse while also ensuring that guests are willing to engage in meaningful discussions with students.

This editorial represents the majority view of the Bowdoin Orient’s editorial board, which is comprised of Garrett Casey, Ron Cervantes, Natalie Kass-Kaufman, Sam Miller, Leo Shaw and Kate Witteman.

Comments are permanently closed.