MCSG recently passed a resolution asking the faculty and the Board of Trustees to delay their vote because the Macalester community has not had enough time to discuss the issue. In fact, MCSG is part of the reason that we as a student body have been left in the dark. As a representative on the MCSG legislative board in November 2003, I was there to hear Danny Kaplan, the chair of the Resource Planning Committee (RPC), explain why the RPC report was being conducted, Macalester’s financial situation and what the options were. It was our duty as MCSG to relay this information to the student body. We did not. We dropped the ball. The RPC report has been available to everyone on campus since the spring. We as students have had nearly seven months to access this information. The Administration has responsibility in this, but as students we must take responsibility for our inaction.

One of the several false assumptions being thrown around in this debate is that need-aware will decrease our socio-economic and racial diversity. This statement assumes that those in the bottom 10 percent of desirable students are of color and are poor. Prof. Kaplan argues, however, that often the bottom ten percent consists of white, middle class students. This assumption is interesting, because it reveals some deep prejudiced beliefs we as a community possess. As a student of color I am concerned, but not surprised. It is important to think about what we say and the assumptions it entails. Do we think of the international community on this campus, who are not admitted under need-blind, as lacking diversity? I would argue as a domestic student, we would say no. Why isn’t that a part of our dialogue?

Another problematic sentiment asserted by some students is the assumption that if it was not for need-blind admissions they would not be here. The simple fact is that no one can make that assumption because there is no way of knowing. Not one student can say they know exactly where they were on the list of desirable students. We as educated students must practice better reasoning skills then this.

Now lets discuss need-blind as a concept. While it is debatable whether or not Macalester is trying to increase access to the more wealthy and limit access to those who are not, need-blind admissions neither promotes nor prevents this practice of exclusivity. Under need-blind admissions, the admissions office can choose students with nearly any criteria they see fit to give entrance into our school. There is nothing explicitly written that states what type of students, whether it is race, class, income or sex, Macalester desires for its student body. The fact of the matter is that need-blind admissions does NOT guarantee or promote diversity at our institution. Regardless of our official policies, the admissions office itself has principal discretion to decide the consistency of our student body based on what it believes Macalester wants the student body to look like. To people who defend need-blind: are you sure need-blind admissions is what you are fighting for? Need-blind admissions is just a term, a vague concept. I believe that we are all really protesting the lack of clarity that characterizes our goals of what the college’s diversity should look like and how decisions are made in the admission process. It is, in part, our wariness about this issue that prompts our unease about need-aware.

I agree wholeheartedly that under need-aware admissions some students (mainly those whose parents are more wealthy) will have an advantage over others and that is not fair. What is also not fair is that we are here receiving a great education that not everyone can have. There are scores of students who would give their left foot to be in our place. How can we justify that we are here instead of them? It is unfair and unjust but, unfortunately, that is how the world works. We can work, however, to make sure that we are providing access to the college while maintaining the quality of education. Read Rebecca DeJarlais’s article in the last issue of The Mac Weekly discussing what other colleges have done under need-aware admissions. The switch does not have to lead to disaster. We can work as a community to adjust the process to our situation, allowing us to be fair not only to perspective students, but to our own resources. The fact remains that in the long-term, we cannot stay with our current admission-financial aid system. Our school cannot afford to keep our current policy while trying to raise more money. It is shooting a moving target. In the meantime alumni and even current students should think about how we can help the college financially to realize our goals.

Look at the big picture at Macalester. What are our principles? Who are our members? Who are we helping if we keep need-blind? Chiefly students and arguably the integrity of the college. Who we are helping if we have need-aware? Admitted and current students, faculty, staff and their families. This issue is not just about us students. The amount of resources we have affects everyone in our community. We have to think about them as well. If some students cannot be admitted in order for us to maintain our academic quality, people’s jobs and program funding (for the Lealtad-Suzuki Center, the Office of Multicultural Life and other programs), that is a sacrifice I am willing to make. As one staff member simply stated after hearing the campus need-blind admission debate, “Sorry, I have to feed my goddamn family.” How can we ignore those basic needs in our discussion? I am not discrediting the claims of need-blind advocates. In many ways, I agree with them. We agree that as a college we need to state clearly what we want our student body to be and discuss how Macalester can hold itself responsible to that vision. This is what we are fighting for. If we fight for this, we then have foundations and principles of our college that we can really stand on. With everyone in the college being held accountable to that standard, especially Admissions, then we are being fair and ultimately a great institution of learning.