Responses to “Our Perspective”
 

To the Editor:

I was extremely shocked upon reading last issue’s “Our Perspective: Averting Divisiveness in the Need-Blind Debate (Oct. 15).” There are three points addressed in the article that I take issue with.

First is the idea that somebody is suggesting that students receiving financial aid are “intrinsically more valuable than students who can pay,” as is stated in the article. I am involved in the fight to preserve need-blind admissions, but I receive no financial aid, and no one has ever suggested that I, or any other full-pay student, am less valuable than students who do receive aid. Be assured that if someone were to suggest that, it would not go over well among any of those involved in the need-blind debate, on either side. I am curious to know where you have gotten that impression.

Second is the idea that we shouldn’t talk about class divisions. “One of the things that many of us appreciate about Macalester is its tendency to obscure class distinctions,” says the article, and while I don’t know that that is necessarily true, if it is, that doesn’t mean class isn’t something we should talk about. We uphold the idea of connecting with other people, of feeling a sense of unity with them, simply because they are people; because we’re all basically the same. But while that may be true, none of us is the same. We all come from different places, and I don’t just mean geographically. In order to feel a sense of unity with other people, to appreciate our similarities, we must first understand our differences. And part of what makes us different from those around us are the circumstances under which we live, and that includes our class. It would be nice if we lived in a classless society, but the reality is that we don’t. And our financial background does have an impact on the way we have grown up, on our formation as a human being, the same way our cultural heritage has an impact.

Class isn’t something we should try to hide, it’s something we should talk about openly. We’re finally getting to a place where we can talk about our racial differences, why can’t we talk about our financial differences? I’m not saying class is something we should use in judging people, just like race isn’t, but like it or not, our financial background has had an impact on all of us, and if we’re going to try and understand each other, we shouldn’t hide these differences. It has always struck me that this inability to talk openly about class in the U.S. has impeded our ability to truly break down class barriers, and it is unfortunate that this same problem exists within Macalester, an institution which supposedly places so much importance on discussing issues that face our society.

My third problem with the article is the idea that eliminating need-blind admissions won’t limit access. Need-aware admissions will limit access in two ways. Firstly, by eliminating, in the bottom 10% of candidates, those who can pay less of the tuition, people who otherwise may have had the ability to attend Macalester. Secondly, most prospective students are not going to take the time to learn Macalester’s full admissions policy, and will see the school as simply being not need-blind, so those who cannot afford Macalester’s hefty price tag may choose to not apply. The article makes it seem that if we maintain need-blind admissions, access will be limited because more aid will come in the form of loans rather than grants, but I don’t see why this must happen. Access should be a number one priority for the school. There are other places we can cut money and maintain not only need-blind admissions, but also the policy to meet full need, without giving more aid in the form of loans. The situation isn’t ideal. It would be great if we had no financial burden, but we have to deal with the realities.

However, it is very disconcerting see financial aid as one of the first major things being considered for cutbacks. I am surprised that more attention hasn’t been placed on the fact that the school is planning to spend up to $100 million on new arts and athletics facilities in the midst of a national economic crisis and has said, according to The Mac Weekly’s front page article last issue, that “funding will come from a capital campaign, which draws large donations from alumni....” It seems very odd that Danny Kaplan claims alumni donations are not a viable option for saving need-blind admissions, but the administration is relying on it heavily in building these new facilities. Furthermore, it is disturbing that over $200,000 was spent on a new roof for Brian Rosenberg’s house, among other large expenditures of this nature, and yet we can’t afford need-blind admissions. I am disappointed that in writing on the need to confront fiscal responsibility, you did not address these issues.

Veronica Cassidy ’05
 

To the Editor:

Whether or not recognizing students who receive a substantial amount of financial aid is relevant to the need-blind debate, the assertion made in “Our Perspective” on October 15 that doing so is divisive and offensive needs to be addressed. Maybe, as The Mac Weekly says, “One of the things that many of us appreciate about Macalester is its tendency to obscure class distinctions.” Well, I for one think it sucks that no one knows anything about their fellow students’ economic backgrounds. If an individual wants to discuss that part of their identity, they should be allowed. Economic and class background shapes a person as much as do other factors we eagerly discuss. Could The Mac Weekly so easily celebrate a “tendency to obscure” distinctions of race, sexuality, or nation of origin? If we’re “supposed to be talking about economic diversity,” why is it such a problem to actually recognize that diversity? Why do we insist on speaking about this issue only in concepts? Coming from a background of financial hardship has heavily influenced my personality and my opinions. Throughout my years here, affluent friends and acquaintances have always responded with expressions of surprise the first time I mention coming from such a background. You can’t glance at me and see the history of bankruptcy, endless calls from debt collectors and narrowly escaped evictions. But that history helped to make me who I am and I shouldn’t have to keep quiet about it just because my well-off friends don’t like to hear about it. And I know they don’t, because they’ve told me. They’ve told me how uncomfortable it makes them, and how they don’t know how to respond. So I’m supposed to be invisible. Sorry, that doesn’t do much for me.

As working class students who wish to be seen, we are not trying “to suggest that those students [who are on financial aid] are intrinsically more valuable than students who can pay.” We are not trying to “make full-pay students feel ashamed of their presence here.” Why would we want that? Just because we are not ashamed to declare ourselves the product of the working class doesn’t mean we are trying to take “an ethical high ground.” We are not being divisive; the Macalester community can “work together” even while recognizing our economic diversity. The fact is, you can’t just look around and see us. We have to stand up to show ourselves. Need-blind debate or not, it’s unacceptable for The Mac Weekly to tell us to sit down and shut up.

Brandi Sperry ’05
 

To the Editor:

According to the college’s financial aid office, less than 15 percent of the entire Macalester student body is drawn from the poorer half of the U.S. population. Like most elite four-year colleges, Macalester is no beacon of economic diversity. Need-blind admission is a necessary mechanism to address structural barriers. It is not sufficient. Without need-blind admission, Macalester would most definitely lose what little progress has already been made toward redressing existing disparities.

There is, simply put, nothing sanctimonious about advocating that Macalester maintain its most basic commitment to access. Rather than deferring to the wisdom of the RPC report and tying itself into rhetorical knots, The Mac Weekly editorial board should find out why so many students and alums think Macalester ought to use its enormous wealth to create more economic diversity, not less.

William Sentell ’02
 

To the Editor:

We felt moved to respond to the “Our Perspective” piece in last week’s Mac Weekly. The editorial argued that talking about our economic differences creates a divisive atmosphere within the need-blind debate, somehow simultaneously rendering wealthier students less important to this community. We feel that these arguments are a manifestation of the tendency at Macalester to ignore class differences, an inclination that obscures the real issue at hand: access to Macalester regardless of ability to pay.

As students that don’t receive aid, we feel that acknowledging economic difference doesn’t devalue our contribution to Macalester’s diversity. In order to better understand the importance of the need-blind debate, wealthier students must move past a paralyzing feeling of guilt. Instead we need to develop an understanding of why differences exist and how they are perpetuated. We cannot address the inequalities created by dominant power structures (such as limited access to higher education), if we do not first acknowledge them. The “Our Perspective” editorial claimed, “We probably all know people… without ever knowing the details of their economic background.” We disagree that this is the universal case. It is much easier for wealthier students to remain oblivious of class difference than it is for high need students. Some Macalester students work 20 or 40 hours a week, some don’t. Class differences are obvious, unless you have the privilege to ignore them as the editorial advocates for: “One of the things that many of us appreciate about Macalester is the tendency to obscure class distinctions.” Class is not often discussed at Macalester, while race, gender, and sexuality form the centerpiece of conversation inside and outside the classroom. We can’t imagine the outrage on campus if The Mac Weekly staff published an editorial praising a silence on race difference. Veiling inequality renders it acceptable. The article suggests that we compromise by adopting a need-aware policy. But what exactly are we compromising? We need to analyze what “compromises” we are making, and how they will affect who is able to attend this institution. If we ignore class difference, we ignore students on this campus, and we ignore the issue at hand, whether access to Macalester should or should not be based on ability to pay. The article assumes that, “we all have the same goals in mind here.” But it is clear that we do not all have one set of “shared values,” and we should not push to falsely homogenize our viewpoints or our economic backgrounds. It is our opinion that need-blind access to Macalester is not an optional commitment.

Maggie Gribben ’05 and

Perry Bellow-Handelman ’05
 

To the Editor:

“[I]t is clear that financial aid cannot continue to dominate our spending unchecked.” If Macalester’s money isn’t meant for its student body and their education, then what is it meant for? Oh, wait, I know—it’s meant for $20,000 billboards, a new fieldhouse, and gigantic birthday cakes for the president’s son. What’s clear about the RPC is that they’ve done a wonderful job of obscuring the reality of Macalester’s financial situation behind a mess of numbers and graphs, designed specifically to further capitalist interests with a total disregard for the integrity of a Macalester college education. “One of the things that many of us appreciate about Macalester is its tendency to obscure class distinctions.” As a need-blind admission myself (and, yes, I think I can legitimately claim this distinction because I wouldn’t have applied to Mac if not for need-blind), I would argue that class distinctions are glaring at Macalester. Ever heard of work-study?

Some students have it, some don’t. If you don’t have work-study, it’s cause you’re rollin’ in the dough; even though you might delude yourself into thinking that this fact is well-hidden under your thrift-store clothes. I’ll let you in on a little secret: we know. And I would also argue that class distinctions should be glaring, as long as classes exist. Because pretending we’re all the same doesn’t make it true, it only makes it easier for those at the top to sleep easy while those at the bottom work their asses off to make ends meet.

Now, before you spill your lattÈ all over your brand-new North Face coat, let me say this: several of my best friends don’t receive any financial aid because their families can afford a Macalester education without it. I am well aware of the enormous amount of work that they and other students put into noble efforts such as saving need-blind admissions, despite the fact that they stand to incur no personal damage. And I appreciate it. And I welcome them into the class war. But it is not divisive to point out that some people are rich and some people are not. It’s realistic. And accusing people of being counterproductive for demanding honesty is merely a tactic for avoiding the real discussion that needs to take place.

So let’s be clear about this: the issue is class. Even with need-blind admissions, Macalester is an incredibly classist institution and we all know it. And every now and then, when a few poor kids slip through the cracks created by a need-blind admissions policy, they’re still fucked, because it sucks to be around a bunch of rich people when you’re not. So while saving need-blind admissions is a good start, it’s only that. Personally, I’d like to see this battle won so we can move on to bigger ones, like clearing out Weyerhaeuser to make room for a soup kitchen/arms cache.

Luce GuillÈn-Givins ’06
 

Open Letter to President Rosenberg

To President Rosenberg:

I just read a Star Tribune article that discussed Macalester’s consideration to drop need-blind admissions. Although I became aware several months ago that Macalester was considering making such a change, I did not respond then out of faith that the college would hold true to its core values and let idea pass. As last week’s article made clear, however, that idea is not only still being considered, it has been voted through the Alumni Board and the decision now rests in the hands of the trustees.

I am aware of the difficulty of your situation, being in charge of the financial situation of the college, and I understand that supporting the need-blind admissions policy is extremely expensive. I know that it has been suggested to you that the college raise money to expand its endowment in order to support the growing financial aid demands. I also know that raising money for financial aid, rather than for new buildings or endowed professorships, is difficult. I further understand that it is difficult to compete with other schools without need-blind admissions, as they can cap their financial aid budgets, and with larger universities, whether need-blind or not, because they have a greater diversity of funding sources than Macalester. Yet the present crisis cannot be used as a basis to violate a principle that is at the core of Macalester’s mission.

Difficult financial times should not trigger a race to the bottom among colleges and universities in their academic objectivity. Macalester currently can make a claim that most other institutions of higher education in the country cannot: that it values academic merit above all other considerations in whom it chooses to become its lifeblood, its student body.

Historically, colleges and universities have been instruments of change and bastions of reason in times of crisis. It is students who take to the streets to protest wars, and professors who place ads in The New York Times to decry political foul play. By abandoning the principles for which it stands when finances become strained, Macalester runs the risk of losing much of its respect in the academic community and the nation, even if it manages to set aside more money for a new athletic center.

Although in the Star Tribune article, you portray the budget as being a zero sum game, it is not. If the college decided that raising money to support financial aid were its top priority, it would be able to raise the money. It would be a more difficult fundraising campaign than most, and would require a significant amount of alumni cooperation, but it would be achievable. In fact, alumni would most likely be more willing to sign onto a capital campaign for a cause as important and meaningful as need-blind admissions than for a building fund or the annual fund.

You talk about the increasing financial aid burden running the risk of sapping funding from other programs and thus making the college less attractive to prospective students. This is a possibility, and would lead to a downward spiral that would result in a serious degradation of the quality of the education Macalester provides; however, an equal consideration should be how much ending need-blind admissions would lower Macalester’s ranking in the eyes of prospective students.

To end need-blind admissions would be to make a very dangerous statement about what Macalester values. It would place a higher value on every other financial consideration than socioeconomic diversity and a policy of openness. Every time a dollar was spent on a landscaping project, a new building, or a better computer lab, the college would have to be able to affirm that that dollar could not have been better spent on allowing an underprivileged student to receive a first-class college education. That is dangerous ethical ground, ground which the college would do its best to avoid.

I support you as president of the college, and have seen you make some very positive changes there during your relatively short tenure to date, but I also feel the duty, as an alumnus, to inform you when I feel that you and the Alumni Board are leading the college in the wrong direction. I strongly urge you to consider the ethical ramifications ending need-blind admissions would have for Macalester, and to consider how such a change would affect how the college is viewed by the public and by prospective students. I also urge you to listen to the voices of the hundreds of alumni who, like myself, are standing up for what we think is right for Macalester.

Joel Creswell ’02
 

New Fieldhouse Wouldn’t Be a “Frill”

To the Editor:

I was thoroughly disappointed to read that William Sentell and some other advocates of need-blind admissions feel that funding for fieldhouse renovations and other athletic spending amounts is a “frill.” This sort of divisive language does nothing to advance or promote their position. In fact, it helps to alienate a large number of students who use the fieldhouse and athletic facilities on a regular basis. I was intrigued by the fact that Sentell did not complain about the other capital campaign, renovations to the fine arts buildings, mentioned in the same article. This attitude trivializes the needs and concerns of varsity athletes, club sports athletes, intramural athletes, and the students and community members who exercise for enjoyment and health benefits.

I am not a varsity athlete. I am a member of the Crew Club. A rower for four years and club president for the past two, I often get up at 5:10 a.m. to practice the sport I love. That’s quite some dedication for a “frill.” I am disappointed to hear that because I’m not a student organizer, a cello player, or a student newspaper editor, that my extracurricular activity is not as worthy. Even though we row several miles away from campus, the fieldhouse is my second home during the winter months as I stay in shape for the spring. The more time I spend in the building, the more I realize that it is not adequate for the Macalester College community. Macalester needs to have a renovated fieldhouse for the students and community members that use and appreciate that facility. Macalester needs a renovated Fine Arts complex for the students and community members that use and appreciate that facility. Macalester needs to be accessible for all in respect to admissions and financial aid policy and in respect to the product that we provide. Those students that choose to attend our college deserve the best that we can give them, no matter where their interests lie. Sacrificing our infrastructure for any short term gain cheats both current and future students.

If one were to look at the other programs and opportunities offered by our college, one could find many other “frills.” Why do we need the Career Development Center? For less than a dollar, students can buy The Star-Tribune or the Pioneer Press and read the help-wanted ads. Why is a Community Service Office necessary? A quick Google search could easily find countless volunteer opportunities. What is the purpose of the art, music, and theater buildings? Plays and concerts can be held outside or in dorm rooms. People can paint or draw in their rooms. There are countless artistic opportunities just “around the corner.” Finally, why do we need The Mac Weekly? No one actually reads all the articles, it only comes out once a week, and we have two fine daily newspapers in the Twin Cities, plus several neighborhood papers that could probably be convinced to run a few pages of Macalester news once a week.

The fact is, all of our resources contribute to make Mac a special place. Having those resources available at our campus, help all of us become well-rounded. I do not feel that any of the programs I mentioned above are “frills.” Just like athletics and the sorely needed fieldhouse renovations, these programs are important enough for the college to support them and for students to dedicate themselves and their time towards.

Macalester is not just the place where we go to class. Our community aids the growth and development of each student in various ways. Athletics is one such way that students benefit from their Macalester experience. It is not a “frill” and should not be used as a pawn in an otherwise open and honest debate.

Jake Odland ’05