The Board of Trustees meeting this weekend affords an important opportunity to discuss the ongoing evaluation of Macalester’s need-blind admissions policy. Although the Board will not come to a decision this weekend, they are ultimately the body with which the fate of our financial aid policy resides.

While the debate thus far has been lively, it has been plagued by two fundamental problems that need to be addressed.

First, we need to level the playing field of the discussion. President Rosenberg’s argument supporting the Resource Planning Committee’s suggestion to move from a need-blind to a need-aware policy was framed largely in economic terms and clearly derives from his intimate knowledge of college budget procedures. Not everyone, however, is as familiar with the intricate details of Macalester’s financial status. Any thorough debate about our financial aid policy must be predicated on a wide understanding of such issues.

Therefore, it is essential that the administration provide adequate opportunities for students to inform themselves. It is often hard for those not dealing directly with the budget, including students who pay some portion of a $30,000 plus price tag, to fathom the actual cost of a Macalester education.

It would benefit all parties, and certainly the debate itself, if the administration published a condensed version of the RPC’s 72-page report directed to the community at large. The college should hold public forums at which students and administrators can personally discuss with those in the know the proposed policy changes, possible alternatives and current realities.

A second problem is the widespread misunderstanding of the ethical concerns involved with need-blind admissions. Specifically, need-blind admissions is frequently linked directly with a commitment to domestic diversity. Macalester’s progress in increasing domestic diversity, as evidenced by this year’s entering class, is real and can still be pursued through new programs and initiatives regardless of the fate of need-blind admissions. A more relevant concern is the threat to economic diversity that may accompany a shift to need-aware admissions. Speaking at Amherst College’s 2004 commencement ceremony, President Anthony W. Marx said, “Race as a proxy for class does not suffice, for injustices of race and of class must both be addressed with open eyes…Not all people of color are poor, and not all poor people are of color.”

The problem of access to education for poorer students in this country is a very real and serious one that all institutions of higher learning must confront. Marx also spoke of the importance of need-blind admissions and stated that such a policy is not enough to recruit an economically diverse student body. He noted that only ten percent of students at top colleges represent the poorer half of the nation’s population, while three-quarters of students come from the wealthiest quarter.

Although Rosenberg has suggested that a reduction in financial aid spending could free up more resources for recruiting students of color, the president has not yet offered an answer to the broader social justice issue of economic equality that an elimination of our need-blind policy could potentially threaten.

So far, the administration has only put forth a perspective that favors the elimination of need-blind admissions. Furthermore, no other viable remedy to our financial woes has been articulated. The community deserves information that is unaffected by prior decision-making. Certainly there are faculty, staff and administrators who fall on both sides of the debate. In the spirit of President Rosenberg’s address to the community, it remains important that unexpressed insights on the issue be publicly stated. Having numerous perspectives from informed members of the community will allow for an educated dialogue and, ultimately, a judicious decision.