Posted on 03/15/2003 4:29:53 PM PST by rpellegrini
A Woman’s Right to Exclude
Several weeks ago Wellesley College Government put forth legislation that would allow student groups to exist without the non-discrimination clause in their constitution, an act that some regard as illegal according to the laws set forth by the U.S. Department of Education.
Several weeks ago Wellesley College Government put forth legislation that would allow student groups to exist without the non-discrimination clause in their constitution, an act that some regard as illegal according to the laws set forth by the U.S. Department of Education. This legislation was spurred by the long overdue admission that the black student organization, Ethos, had been violating the college’s non-discrimination policy since it was constituted formed in 1968, Not only had Ethos been violating the Wellesley’s non-discrimination policy, they were receiving money to do so – $6,581.35 per year to be exact, one of the largest sums a student group receives. What is more, the money was raised in part by the student activities fee that each Wellesley student is required to pay every year as part of tuition.
While the administration acknowledged that Ethos was violating the standards to which every other student organization was held, some students were appalled by the college’s refusal to do anything about it. Instead of holding Ethos accountable to standards, they decided to allow all student organizations to exclude members of the student body for “good reason.”
It was argued that certain people need a “safe space” in which they feel comfortable sharing their experiences with others like them. They do not want to be forced to “validate” their experiences to an audience that does not understand. But opponents question that line of reasoning, especially because this is no longer 1968.
“Why should I pay to be excluded?” asked one student at the College Government meeting. And another student speaking at a recent meeting commented, “I don’t understand why you need money to create a safe space.” In the case of Ethos, the “safe space” is a pretty cushy one considering the disproportionate funding the organization receives.
This debate comes on the heals of Wellesley’s submission of an amicus curiae brief in support of University of Michigan’s admissions policies in which they give 20 points to a candidate for being black and 12 to a candidate for having a perfect SAT score. Conservative and moderate students on campus have reacted to both events by calling for Wellesley to reexamine its obsession with race, and value diversity of thought as highly as diversity in melanin levels. This prompted President of the College Diana Chapman Walsh to submit a statement to the college community explaining Wellesley’s admissions policies and reaffirming their legality.
Amid this rising tide of awareness that Wellesley was adhering to a double standard, what came down from the administration was far from a nod to merit and intellectual diversity. Rather the college government issued a proposal this time to exclude students based on their thinking. [I think you need some language from the proposal in here to clarify this.]
Peaceful Justice, a student organization that promotes peace at all cost, asked the college government to issue and endorse a resolution opposing the war on Iraq on behalf of the Wellesley student body.
Students in opposition to the resolution have cited this as another example of Wellesley promoting exclusion so as to marginalize voices that they wish to suppress on the campus, namely the conservative who does not attend war rallies or agree that promoting closed organizations would help diminish the racial divide on campus.
“There are many voices on campus and none of them deserves to be marginalized,” said Angela Phillips who spoke on behalf of the students opposing the proposed anti-war resolution.
Other students have made assertions such as “One College, Not One Voice,” in a campaign opposing such a resolution, while others have questioned the place for such a resolution in a college government that calls itself non-partisan.
An editorial in the Wellesley News even spoke out saying that an anti-war debate overstepped the college government’s duties and that it was not their duty or right, “to take political stances on behalf of the entire student body.”
There is a growing sense that the exclusionary movements on Wellesley’s campus are indicative of a more serious problem on campuses across the nation. Namely, that students expressing diversity of thought are systematically excluded for not agreeing with the prevailing mindset. Those who do represent Wellesley’s idea of “diversity”, are coddled with money and pillared homes to house their groups.
In the minds of many students, (some of whom happen to be white, straight, and more conservative than the rest), Wellesley does not promote diversity at all. Instead, the college uses the term to promote an increasingly brittle kind of thought and moral preening that only serves to shield students from real diversity – diversity of thought and opinion. A growing majority of solid thinking, real-world women at Wellesley are beginning to see the Alice-in-Wonderland quality that has come engulf the campus. In doing so, they have gained a deeper meaning of the word “intolerance.”
Translation: We are feminazis and know that our ideas don't stand up to logic, so we want to live in a bubble in which logic doesn't intrude.
Peace at all cost. Does that mean fighting for peace? From what I have seen of a lot of these "peace" pansies, they had rather kill President Bush than Saddam Hussein.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.