Give a little bit

Editorial: Beyond the game

In last week’s issue, we published “The pretty game: objectification, humiliation and the liberal arts,” an article written by an anonymous female first year. The article ran as an off-week installment in the biweekly Features column “The Bears and the Bees,” but was written by a guest contributor. As of press time, the article had received 69 comments and garnered over 6,800 page views. The writer’s words have started a substantial dialogue on campus; on Wednesday, approximately 45 female students attended an informal discussion facilitated by the Women’s Resource Center which addressed the content of the piece.
This article was unorthodox for the Orient. We only publish anonymous contributions when we have verified the author’s identity and when the content cannot otherwise be obtained. We encouraged the author to include her name, but decided that her words held enough significance for the Bowdoin community to merit anonymous publication. Of course, there are also benefits to withholding names. Granting anonymity can help readers focus on an article’s content and the issues it raises rather than on the identity of its writer. In this case, the author also sought the advice of leaders in Peer Health for guidance in narrating her experiences. And the article was just that—one person’s story. Both online comments and campus conversations suggest that her sentiments resonate with a wider population of students, and not just women. People of all genders face social alienation and self-consciousness about their bodies.
One misses the point of the article if the terminology of “the pretty game” is the only takeaway. By featuring this phrase in the headline, we highlighted one facet of the article’s analysis of Bowdoin’s social scene. The focus, however, should not be on the prepackaged term but on the greater forces at work that contribute to its reality. Students have responded to the article’s discussion of body image issues that lead to eating disorders, social pressure to go out, and the sense of failure some feel when going home alone after a party. We also feel it is limiting to read the article as just a condemnation of off-campus houses and their residents; the author implicates a culture that pervades Bowdoin and beyond.
The article has provoked a broad range of impassioned reactions on campus. While some applaud and identify with its astute observations, others criticize it for relying on perceived generalizations or thinly-veiled accusations. We do not know where these conversations will go, but we think they are productive nonetheless.

Editorial: Open playbook

This week, the Orient published the first in a three-part series about athletic recruiting at Bowdoin and across the NESCAC. The conference adopted a system in 2002 that standardized the admissions process for these recruits, placing them into one of three categories based on the academic strength of their applications. A-band athletes are those who fall in line with the academic performance of the average accepted student, while B-band athletes fall just below those standards and C-band candidates dip even lower. Schools must report how many admitted students fall into the B- and C-band categories each year to ensure that they do not exceed the prescribed limit. Additionally, admissions offices at NESCAC schools conduct “early reads” for applicants who are recommended by coaches. This system was established to ensure that each institution fields teams whose academic achievements do not deviate dramatically from the rest of its student body.
The bulk of this information came to the Orient through Amherst’s dean of admissions, Thomas Parker, who openly acknowledged that his college recruited 66 B- and C-band athletes this year. The athletic department and admissions office at Bowdoin declined to speak candidly about specifics at the College and how B- and C-band spots are distributed among Bowdoin’s 31 varsity sports. According to Parker, NESCAC-wide policy dictates that member colleges are allotted 14 spots for having a football team and two additional spots for every other varsity sports team, with a few exceptions. These total slots can be distributed among coaches as they see fit.
The adoption and reinforcement of this standard is laudable, and we appreciate the effort that goes into maintaining its integrity. It distinguishes the NESCAC from other collegiate conferences. However, this process was established to provide transparency between college officials, and we think the same level of transparency should be afforded to the student body. A 2005 New York Times article exposing the system quoted Parker saying that a lack of open information about recruiting “engendered a corrosive cynicism.” We agree. With over 70 student-athletes supported in admissions each year at Bowdoin, roughly 15 percent of an incoming class receives preferential treatment. This is a large portion of the College and it is in the interest of our student body—and applicants to the College—to understand how they are selected.
The administration might worry that providing specific numbers about athletes aided in admissions could create a stigma against all student-athletes. But as the Orient reported in April 2013—and as the third section of this series will discuss—statistics show that Bowdoin’s student-athletes had a negligible .01 GPA difference from non-athlete students. Any stigma is unfounded. Yet even those statistics have not been updated since 2005, and we deserve to know if this number has changed.
With approximately 15 percent of our peers granted an edge in admissions, we would like to see the parameters of recruitment bands, not to mention more open discourse about the process. Like any other applicant, an athlete is entitled to a degree of confidentiality, but we feel that in a system built to standardize admissions within the NESCAC, we should standardize transparency too.
The editorial represents the majority view of the Bowdoin Orient’s editorial board, which is comprised of Erica Berry, Nora Biette-Timmons, Garrett Casey, Ron Cervantes, Marisa McGarry, Sam Miller and Kate Witteman.

Editorial

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

February 28, 2014

When billionaire hedge fund manager Ken Griffin announced last week that he will donate $150 million to Harvard University, his alma mater, he reignited a national debate over the value of donating to prestigious colleges. In a Slate article, Matthew Yglesias called for college graduates to withhold donations to the country’s most selective schools, which he called “terrible targets of charitable donation” because their funds go to mostly affluent students. Yglesias says that anyone hoping to benefit low-income students would be better off donating to the institutions that educate the majority of that demographic. This idea has gained considerable national media attention. Bloomberg ran an article titled “Cut off Harvard to Save America” and the debate extended into the NESCAC when The Williams Record published an op-ed by junior Chris Huffaker in which he argued that donating to Williams would do little to make the world a better place.

While we recognize the validity of these criticisms, we feel strongly that Bowdoin alumni play a vital role by donating to the College. Arguments like Yglesias’ are utilitarian; they advocate the greatest positive effect for society in general, while ignoring the immense value that a Bowdoin education has for an admittedly smaller number of people. A Bowdoin degree can transform the socio-economic trajectory of a low- or middle-income student. Bowdoin has a clear purpose for its students—offering them a high-quality education and access to good and meaningful jobs—and it serves this purpose exceptionally well. Alumni should reward the College not only for fulfilling its educational mission but also for the opportunities it has afforded them.

Though young alumni in the earliest stages of their careers—still wincing from the costs of textbooks or student loans—may hesitate about donating right after graduation, a gift brings more to the College than its cash value. This year’s ongoing Senior Class Gift Campaign has a participation goal of 85 percent, and for each year out of the next five that the Class of 2014 reaches 60 percent participation, an anonymous donor will contribute $10,000 to a scholarship for a member of the Class of 2018. We encourage seniors to donate any amount they can to help make this scholarship a reality. Additionally, a donation is a symbolic gesture of gratitude to the institution that has subsidized the education of all students, even those paying full tuition. (The true cost of a Bowdoin education is upwards of $85,000 per year.)

Donating to a highly selective college is not going to directly impact the neediest populations. However, alumni can earmark donations for specific projects—whether financial aid, the McKeen Center for Common Good, or sustainability efforts—to ensure that their money is going toward the causes at the College that they deem most worthy. And though a Bowdoin education might not, for example, directly help the students in the Harlem Children’s Zone, it educated Geoffrey Canada ’74, the man who did.

The editorial represents the majority view of the Bowdoin Orient’s editorial board, which is comprised of Erica Berry, Nora Biette-Timmons, Garrett Casey, Ron Cervantes, Marisa McGarry, Sam Miller and Kate Witteman.

Comments are permanently closed.