BY ERIKA DUPREE and KHENDI WHITE

In print | Published March 24, 2005

The Tri-Co situation has been heavily discussed in the last couple of weeks, and the administration finally remembered that students would be affected. So they held a forum last Thursday to discuss the issue. Thank goodness I (Erika) caught one of five flyers posted the day before the event, or I wouldn’t have known the discussion was taking place.

After statements from Bob, Al and Darryl regarding detailed information about events leading to the decision, it was question and answer time. So I asked what the mission of the program was before the decision to open the program to all students was made. From what I understand, Tri-Co was established to help minority students better acclimate themselves to a majority white institution. In response to whomever had a problem with the race-specificity of the program, how in the world is encouraging students to be themselves in a country that inherently teaches them to be white an “advantage”?

If Swarthmore created a program with this mission, then it understood the disparities minority students face in America, even after the civil rights movement. Swarthmore understood that being in an environment where most people share a commonality that is different from yours culturally and racially could affect your ability to succeed at that institution. They also understood that, in present-day America, this damaging dynamic between people of different races still occurs. If Swarthmore can take it upon itself to recognize this and actually try to do something about it, then they should be able to take steps to prevent the programs they institute from being taken away.

I do not understand why they did not see this coming in the first place and waited until actual action was taken. The program that sent Haverford that letter could have taken legal action immediately; they did not have to send them a warning if they did not want to. What is Swarthmore paying its counsel to do? Being paid the extravagant amount of money that they are to deal with Swarthmore’s legal issues, what was the discussion after the University of Michigan case ruling against advantages to students based on race? Weren’t implications of the ruling discussed? Swarthmore has to choose its battles, I’m sure, but when is the line drawn between what they will stand up for and what they will not? The price of the battle? After the forum, I was also bothered that the purpose of the program was now really up in the air, and would be ultimately decided by meetings with the Dean of Multicultural Affairs and faculty members. From what I understood at the meeting, students will not have a direct vote in the decision-making process, but they can put in as much input as they wish. I believe that at least two Tri-Co alumni should be at these meetings. It’s already bad enough that students had to write to the administration to get them to talk about what happened. For students not to be present at those faculty meetings is like saying we have nothing to add to the decision-making process.

As for the future implications of the decision, no one on the panel affirmed that the college was still committed to the initial mission of the program. If Swarthmore is leading anywhere in this respect, it is in teaching other colleges and students to keep doing what they are doing in the line of liberal programs and initiatives, but make sure it stays “under the radar” of programs whose main purpose is to make sure that they cease.

I fully understand that the decision had to be made given the situation, and the change is not a completely horrible idea, as long as the program is structured responsibly in response to the change. But I have a problem with how the college is dealing with groups and programs in a similar vein, and the lack of vision for how Tri-Co will function in the future.

Swarthmore is hiding under a blanket of quasi-idealism; trying to practice the values it holds and hope the people against them with power to make change do not notice. Well, we really can’t just hope; we have to ensure that the programs in place do not get challenged. Leaders struggle for the values and ideas that they believe in; they are admirable because they do not let other factors, like threat of legal action or loss of federal aid change what they stand for. Unfortunately, for college institutions in general, in order to function, they must waver in ideals and values if they want to continue to run as institutions. Although I understand this “struggle,” it frustrates me as a student to see initiatives being weakened such like this. Too bad Swarthmore isn’t liberal and radical enough to completely rebel, and finds the money issue to be more important.

Erika Dupree and Khendi White are sophomores. You can reach them at edupree1@swarthmore.edu and kwhite1@swarthmore.edu.

« RETURN TO OPINIONS

« PREV ARTICLE | NEXT ARTICLE »