William Sentell ’02’s update on his blog www.need-blind.com following Tuesday evening’s Resource Planning Committee debate claims that the night’s high point occurred when Jesse Mortenson ’05 “asked everyone in the room who benefits from Macalester’s need-blind admission policy to stand up.” Apparently Sentell still refuses to accept that, while we all have a stake in the need-blind issue, none of us can legitimately claim to be the product of need-blind admissions. We will never be able to retroactively apply a modified policy or determine which of us would have been left in that last discretionary pile.

In fact, Mortenson demonstrated more tact than Sentell gives him for credit for. Mortenson actually asked students who receive a “substantial amount of financial aid” to stand up. While arguably a more concrete request, it is no less offensive. The students leading the fight to preserve need-blind are doing so based on a commitment to social justice and equality. They should be the last people to turn this debate into a divisive argument. It is one thing to say that Macalester should provide access to those without means to afford an education; it is another to suggest that those students are intrinsically more valuable than students who can pay. One of the things that many of us appreciate about Macalester is its tendency to obscure class distinctions. We have probably all known people, some for years, without ever knowing the details of their economic background. That in and of itself represents a valuable trait of our community—and one that Mortenson’s request jeopardized. We’re supposed to be talking about economic diversity, not exacerbating class divisions. The proposed policy change should not make students receiving aid feel threatened. Nor should those arguing in favor of need-blind make full-pay students feel ashamed of their presence here. We should be wary of the suggestion that they contribute less to the quality of the Macalester community than high-need students.

As Michael Barnes has taken pains to point out, we all have the same goals in mind here. Everyone is interested in upholding the values and principles that define this place. No one is interested in turning Macalester into Amherst. In an ideal world, wealth would never be a factor in accessing higher education. With or without adherence to a need-blind policy, factors that determine admissions decisions will never reflect an even playing field. For one side to claim the ethical high ground and frame the debate as a battle of moral certainties is not fair to those who have worked hard to achieve a clear compromise that carefully weighs the ethical concerns we all share.

It is clear that the RPC members have made every effort to articulate an honest policy that chooses real access above misleading labels. They could have opted for the elimination of full-need financial aid practices or suggested that we rely more heavily on loans, two solutions that would have allowed us to remain “need-blind.” Danny Kaplan pointed to the example of Wesleyan University, which recently decided to retain its need-blind policy after a similar campuswide discussion. To solve their financial constraints, they increased the amount of loans in aid packages. Since then, Wesleyan has experienced a drop in its yield of high-need students.

Regardless of how we want to classify our current situation, it is clear that financial aid cannot continue to dominate our spending unchecked. Unfortunately, not everyone has the luxury of the moral high ground. Peter Rachleff is right that poor students should not bear the burden of Macalester’s financial missteps. Yet someone must confront fiscal responsibility without which the college cannot function. It is one thing to be ethical, another to be irresponsible.

We support the suggestion to enshrine a commitment to access in our mission statement. We are also convinced that the college needs to immediately and aggressively fundraise. As the debate continues, we urge everyone to focus on our common goals and treat our current situation as an opportunity to work together towards these shared values. It is clear that the college has no intention of abandoning its commitment to providing access. Perhaps more importantly, it is also clear that no one seeks to de-privilege already under-privileged students. It is valid and productive to argue about whether all alternatives have been exhausted. Grand claims about moral standards, however—though not inappropriate for their emotional nature—are unnecessarily divisive and not ultimately constructive..