Students raised questions about the severity of Macalester’s financial situation, the suitability of the college’s mission statement and the efficacy of Macalester’s legislative process at a need-blind debate earlier this week.

Students, along with some faculty, staff and alumni, filled the John B. Davis Lecture Hall on Tuesday afternoon for a formal debate planned by members of the Resource Planning Committee (RPC). The RPC authored the proposal recommending a move to a need-aware policy for domestic non-transfer students last winter after two years of research originally directed by former President Mike McPherson.

Three faculty members of the RPC, Math Professor Danny Kaplan, Music Professor Marjorie Merryman and Philosophy Professor Martin Gunderson, spoke in defense of their report. History Professor Peter Rachleff, Natalia Espejo ’07 and William Sentell ’02 spoke in favor of retaining the existing policy. Dean of Multicultural Life Joi Lewis moderated the debate, which used a “modified parliamentary” format.

Current RPC Chair Tom Halverson introduced the debate and clarified the committee’s four recommendations. “We want to be clear about what we should be discussing,” he said. He said the recommendations are that Macalester continue to meet the full demonstrated of all admitted students; that the school set a spending cap for financial aid; that that cap be set at a level significantly higher than all of our comparison schools; and that admissions decisions should reflect the college’s stated mission.

In her remarks, Espejo introduced an alternative proposal, which she said is a work in progress, that recommends adding a commitment to access and economic diversity to the school’s mission statement. The proposal also recommends that the college commence a capital campaign with a goal of raising $40 million to finance the maintenance of the college’s need-blind admissions policy, and that Macalester look into federal-sponsored financial aid programs like the McNair Fellowship for outside financial support.

Kaplan said that $40 million is a “good number” for a capital campaign, but said that Macalester’s history of low alumni giving (Kaplan called it “anemic”) undermines the viability of achieving that goal. He said that in all the college’s history, “alumni whose name is not DeWitt Wallace” have contributed a total of 18 million dollars towards financial aid.

Sentell complained that he had not once been solicited to contribute specifically for financial aid, and suggested that alums would be willing to give in order to maintain need-blind admissions.

The RPC members said that they had examined all possible solutions to burgeoning financial aid spending, and that their proposal represents the most ethically sound alternative. Merryman said that she entered the committee expecting to strongly protect need-blind but was ultimately convinced that a change is necessary. “[The report] is the most honest proposal we could make,” she said.

Merryman emphasized the retention of full-need financial aid (which guarantees that the full demonstrated need of all admitted students is met) in the proposed change. “We will keep the unique character of this college,” she said.

Kaplan repeatedly stressed that the RPC rejected alternatives that would allow Macalester to remain “need-blind” and reduce financial aid spending because the committee agreed that these solutions would practically limit access. He pointed to what he called the “packaging of financial aid” as the loophole that allows need-blind, full-need schools to admit needy students but offer them loan-heavy aid that is not economically feasible for them.

“I don’t understand how the RPC can argue that we can do this and nothing will change,” Rachleff said.

Rachleff suggested that the school is not experiencing as much of a financial crunch as the current debate indicates. “Last year, we had a surplus of $2.7 million,” he said. “Our endowment went up 16.1%. We do have other choices.”

Sentell, and Espejo also argued that the RPC had not exhausted all possible alternatives and that the administration had not demonstrated that there is a financial crisis urgent enough to necessitate an immediate change.

Espejo emphasized that the argument should not be one about numbers, and demonstrated her preference to frame the debate in moral and ethical terms.

Espejo charged that “Macalester’s economic adjustments should not have victims.” Rachleff echoed her comments when he posed the question: “If Macalester has been mismanaged in the last 20 years, why is it that we take that out on poor students?”

Several students in the audience expressed confusion about the nature of the school’s financial situation. “It’s not clear what the actual justification is,” Richard Graves ’06 said. “I don’t know what’s driving the curve and whether we’re in a financial crisis.”

The RPC members explained that financial aid spending is being driven up largely because the group of accepted students that choose to attend Macalester is increasingly needy.

Sentell offered a moment of humor amidst his breathlessly hurried remarks when he said “I wouldn’t be here if it weren’t for need-blind admission—maybe for my opponents that would be good thing.”

Kaplan continually refuted Sentell’s and other students’ claims that they are the product of need-blind admissions. “How could you possibly know that?” Kaplan contended.

Espejo criticized the abundant comparisons to other colleges in the RPC report as irrelevant and insignificant. “It saddens me to know that our deficiencies are determined by comparisons to institutions that we purposefully try to set ourselves apart from,” she said.

Some students also worried that, although the report recommends a specific spending cap, it does not specify the number of applicants whose wealth will be considered in the decision making. “The only safeguard we have is a vague, unenforceable promise about offering more financial aid than most of our rivals,” Sentell said. The RPC recommends that ten percent of admissible applications be considered on a need-aware basis.

Several students raised concern about the timeframe for the decision on this issue. Currently, the Board of Trustees plans to vote on the RPC proposal at their retreat in January. Merryman responded that “The RPC is not pushing any timetable,”

Kaplan suggested that once a decision is made, it is not irrevocable and that a vote to approve the policy does not necessarily terminate the issue. Jared Lodge ’05, however, suggested that “once the policy is on the books” it may be more difficult to change.

While students advocating the policy recommended a deeper commitment to access in our mission statement, Gunderson said that he believes that “the deep spirit of Macalester really is expressed in our mission statement.” Gunderson stated that the RPC is not concerned merely with rankings, but with maintaining the quality and character of the school that the entire community is concerned with. He noted the change that he has witnessed in the student-faculty ratio, and said that “the relationship that we have with students becomes attenuated” when there is a drain on resources.

“I agree with Peter that I like working here and I’d like things to say the same,” Gunderson said. “We cannot let quality slip too much. We may have different visions, but we are all committed to social justice.”

Jesse Mortenson ’05 produced a highly charged moment when he concluded his personal comments by asking all of the students in the room that receive “substantial amounts of financial aid” to stand up.

MCSG President Michael Barnes ’06 commenced the audience participation segment by warning that the degree of passion in the debate “can blind us from the fact there is no one to blame here. We really do all care,” he said.

Andrew Barron ’05 expressed disappointment with the way that the pro-need-blind panelists used emotion. “I was offended that they would take the debate to such an emotional level,” he said. “I felt they were taking it to an extreme.”

In his remarks, Sentell said “There is no way to take the emotion out of this issue.”

Jesse Goldman ’05 agreed with Sentell. “I don’t know how you can have this debate without emotion,” he said. “It’s a moral issue.”

President Brian Rosenberg sat in the rear of the hall for the larger part of the debate but did not participate.