Dila Cakir

The outdoors is inherently political. And so is the Bowdoin Outing Club (BOC). Historically, conservation movements, national parks and outdoor recreation have excluded minority groups. Discrimination and wealth disparities continue to shape who can access outdoor spaces.

The BOC’s main solution to address this politicization is to simply do nothing. The BOC’s philosophy is that all students interested in the outdoors will make the effort to join the outing club. However, this ideology prevents students who are not familiar with the outdoors, often due to systemic inequities, from joining. This creates a cycle in which the BOC becomes a homogeneous community, created by its own self-selection. Yes, the BOC does not intentionally deter individuals from participating, but we believe this complacency actively undermines its stated commitments to inclusivity. “Not excluding” is very different from “including.” Doing nothing is an act in itself.

Access to outdoor spaces, resources and knowledge costs money. The National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) estimates a month-long expedition to be around $7,000-$11,000. Camping at Mount Katahdin in Baxter State Park requires paying for overnight campsite and parking reservations. Owning basic winter gear costs a lot: a winter jacket, winter gloves, hiking boots, hat and long underwear can all run $200-$2,000. These economic barriers further compound existing racial disparities.The National Health Foundation

states, “Although people of color make up nearly 40 percent of the total U.S. population, close to 70 percent of people who visit national forests, national wildlife refuges and national parks are white, while Black people remain the most dramatically underrepresented group in these spaces.” The outdoors amplify systemic inequities of race and socioeconomic status. The BOC is a space of inherent inequity and must address these issues and provide solutions.

Throughout our time at Bowdoin, we have not seen any action. In 2024, the BOC fired its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) coordinator, a student from the class of 2026. The student was told the position was removed because the role shouldn’t be a one-person job; it should exist within every program the BOC offers. However, a rumor suggested that the BOC removed the position to hire more climbing-wall hour monitors. Regardless of what caused the decision, two years later, this job remains unfulfilled.

We have seen little intentional effort to include people of color or members of marginalized groups in the BOC. In fact, if an affinity group wants to partner with the BOC and intends for trip participants to be members of that affinity, the BOC requires them to fund their own trip. Otherwise, their trip must be open to everyone. Affinity groups do not have access to BOC vehicles or the plethora of food in the kitchen, thus resulting in affinity groups having to utilize their own budgets. The BOC requires affinity groups to make a difficult decision: either use BOC resources and compromise the safe affinity space, or fund their own trip to preserve that space, resulting in a large hit to the affinity group budget.

This also leads us to ask some questions about the BOC budget. Why can’t the BOC fund affinity group trips? Where does the BOC’s money actually go? Who makes decisions about BOC purchases? We believe there should be more transparency in the BOC budget and how it’s distributed. Not everyone wants the BOC to invest in a dozen new whitewater kayaks; some people just want to borrow better quality winter gloves. Additionally, BOC officers have little-to-no say in the budget, a change that occurred in recent years. From club members’ perspective, the BOC budget seems misspent. The budget is not geared toward meeting the needs of historically excluded groups but instead furthers the experiences of already “included” members.

Even opportunities that could further include BOC members, like the Beyond the Pines Fellowship, are rooted in exclusionary practices. Beyond the Pines is a fellowship opportunity endowed to the BOC. We had previously been told that BOC employees have no say in the application process. But recently, after a dinner with former Beyond the Pines board members who decide recipients of the fellowship, we learned that Mike Woodruff chooses board membership based on who he stays in contact with. Mike created a tentative list for this year’s board members, all of whom were white men. When we asked the board members whether they could include any women or people of color, they struggled to name any women of color at all. The BOC’s inability to find women of color alumni poses more questions: Have women of color previously been included in the BOC? If yes, why do they not decide to remain connected after graduation? How does this lack of women of color alumni harm present-day women of color students? If the BOC wants a more inclusive community, it can start by examining who it has been listening to and whose voices it is excluding.

The BOC is a privileged resource for students on campus. However, only a select few can experience the BOC in all of its glory. We hope to see the BOC become a more inclusive space through formidable changes and actions by faculty, leaders and club members. The responsibility to join and feel included in the BOC should not fall on systemically-excluded identities.

We want to conclude this article with some potential steps forward. These are not the only solutions that exist, so if anyone has further ideas, please reach out to us to collaborate. We have identified three main areas the BOC should focus on to improve the club:

1) Education:

A) Reflection and research on the identities and patterns of BOC officers, O-trip coordinators, Leadership Training cohorts and Leader Instructor Training throughout the years.

B) Bringing back conscious DEI training and discussion and education surrounding inequity in the outdoors.

C) Provide a concrete action plan on how to address these issues.

2) Budget:

A) More transparency about money and how it is distributed, as well as officer input into the budget.

B) More money allocated for basic, good-quality outdoor gear (especially warm winter clothing).

3) Programming:

A) Collaborations with affinity groups on BOC budget.

B) More programs designed to bring in diverse groups.

C) Ensure programming represents the interests and desires of identities that are not currently present in the BOC.

Asha Adiga-Biro and Nora Wunsch are members of the Class of 2028.