A system of the same

Editorial: Safety without sanctuary

Since the election, a petition calling on the administration to designate Bowdoin as a sanctuary campus has circulated among students, alumni and community members. President Clayton Rose emailed all students and employees on November 22 in response, noting that “legal counsel tells us that we have no such power.” The email also expressed that the College will not take action to put community members “in this kind of jeopardy” unless “compelled by law.” He concluded with an expression of support to the community.
In our most recent editorial, the Orient Editorial Board endorsed the establishment of Bowdoin as a sanctuary campus. We stand by the statements we made, but we acknowledge the legal implications explained in Rose’s email and appreciate the clear and honest tone of his communication.
However, the fear and uncertainty among undocumented students and students with undocumented family members remains. Acknowledging that we don’t have a strong understanding of the relevant laws, we believe that Bowdoin can still harness its many resources as an institution and provide support structures for the community beyond campus.
Providing emotional support for undocumented students on our campus was a focus of Rose’s email. In addition to the recognition of members of our campus community, helping students who have undocumented family members should be an equal focus.
The Bowdoin Admissions website expresses a commitment to providing undocumented students “with the support and resources they need to excel.” To accomplish this goal, bringing students with undocumented family members into this conversation is crucial. If a student’s family situation is precarious, they, too, face uncertainty, which provides a barrier to experiencing Bowdoin to the fullest.
Bowdoin has an extensive network of alumni and others committed to the College. There is an opportunity for Bowdoin to harness this network in a new way given the concerns outlined in the sanctuary campus petition.
The College should utilize its resources and take advantage of its far-reaching alumni network to educate and inform undocumented students and undocumented community members about what President-elect Donald Trump’s intended legislation means for them. This could include information about individual rights or available legal counsel.
Expression of support from the campus community for students from all backgrounds should continue to be a focus. This includes facilitated conversations, safe spaces and access to on-campus resources that already exist. In addition, Bowdoin must actively pursue research into what is legally viable given the administrative structure and network available to the College. Though the promise of a sanctuary campus is not legally viable, Bowdoin must take explicit action to assist undocumented students and families in whatever way it is able to. President Rose’s email cannot be the end of this conversation.
This editorial represents the majority view of the Bowdoin Orient’s editorial board, which is comprised of Marina Affo, Julian Andrews, Steff Chavez, Grace Handler, Meg Robbins and Joe Seibert.

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

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

December 9, 2016

Earlier this week, MacMillan House advertised a party planned for tonight called Gender Bender. The posters read: “dress as a woman, dress as a man, dress in between, dress best as you can.” Upon creating a Facebook event for the party, MacMillan quickly received criticism: students on campus addressed how the events’ posters implied a gender binary and how the event brought a sensitive conversation into the insensitive environment of a campus-wide party.

One of the major criticisms was the lack of partnership with Gender Matters, a new discussion group and supportive space for trans/genderqueer/non-binary students to come together to share common experiences and seek support from one another. No member of MacMillan House openly voiced knowledge of this student group.

Due to the sensitive nature of the topic, prior to advertising the party, members of MacMillan discussed the event and met with the Bowdoin Queer Straight Alliance (BQSA). Following that meeting, MacMillan planned to host a panel to explore issues of gender before throwing the party. This programming, however, fell through. Although the House’s intent was not malicious, without this fundamental part of the programming the planned campus-wide was still hurtful and offensive for some. The House should have canceled the party as soon as the plans for the panel failed to come to fruition.

In recent years, students have criticized the College Houses for being predominantly white spaces. In addition to racial homogeneity, however, College Houses consistently attract clusters of applicants who are members of similar campus groups and who socialize with similar people.

The Office of Residential Life’s website describes members of College Houses as “thoughtful leaders in the broader campus community.” In order to be leaders of the greater campus community, however, there must be representation of the student body as a whole in the College Houses. While Bowdoin makes efforts to diversify the overall campus, the College still needs to work to diversify existing spaces, such as the College Houses. This begins with diversifying the makeup of the College House system.

The fact that relevant student communities were overlooked in the planning of the party highlights the lack of social diversity within College Houses. It is important to recognize that for the panel and party to have been properly executed, the makeup of MacMillan—and all College Houses, for that matter—must be representative of all identities that make up the student body.

College Houses seek to be the “living rooms” of Bowdoin’s campus—but if the College House system is not diverse, how can the Houses be truly welcoming spaces? The current social stratification on campus is exemplified by the homogeneity in College Houses. As we move forward in conversations like these, it is important to be mindful of who the conversations include.

This editorial represents the majority view of the Bowdoin Orient’s editorial board, which is comprised of Marina Affo, Julian Andrews, Steff Chavez, Meg Robbins and Joe Seibert.

Comments are permanently closed.