A Healthy Wabash: A Democrat Critiques Current Trends at the College
by Jay Horrey ‘09
I am a liberal Democrat. I decided I was a Democrat during the 2000 Presidential Election and since then have worked to promote and further the issues of the Democratic Party. I am a past president of the Thomas Riley Marshall College Democrats here at Wabash College, have served as the Director of Finance for the College Democrats of Indiana, and am supporting Barack Obama in the upcoming election.
Now, many readers might be wondering what a self-proclaimed “liberal democrat” is doing writing for a publication that is “The Voice of the Conservative Movement at Wabash.” Well, my only answer is this: When it comes to what is best for Wabash College, political views and opinions should be left out of the discussion. The above are obviously my political beliefs and I keep them completely separate from my stance on issues involving Wabash College.
I am a strong supporter of productive, progressive change. However, not all change is good change. Wabash College’s traditions are what makes it so special, and to maintain a healthy Wabash, the administration, faculty and students must work together to remedy some glaring issues that threaten what makes Wabash great. Complicating matters is the fact the administration, faculty and students are all responsible (to varying degrees) for creating and perpetuating the problems. The problems, as I see them, can be broken down into three sections: Questioning all-male education, the college’s new obsession with “diversity,” and the changing practices of the Admissions Office. My critique of the Admissions Office requires more attention than I can give in the context of this article, so it will be stored away for a rainy day.
Questioning All-Male Education
In my two and a half years at Wabash, I’ve sat back and watched individuals gradually push to further an agenda that could eliminate the very reasons why I chose to come to Wabash. This pushing and positioning increased with the hiring of the President White and Dean Phillips and was blatantly obvious in the drafts of the Strategic Plan.
While reading over these drafts, it became clear that certain professors saw the strategic plan as a way to advance their own ideology on the College. Committee Two’s draft provided clear evidence that what’s best for Wabash is not the highest priority for some members of the faculty. Committee Two was charged with the task of “Learning and teaching about Wabash College as a Liberal Arts College for men.” In their draft, the committee did just about everything but talk about a college for men. The committee covered diversity, increasing benefits for new faculty, and creating a “stronger” first year experience for students. Only one sentence in the whole draft dealt with the topic of a college for men(for a more in-depth look at the problems with the Strategic Plan drafts, see the previous issue of The Phoenix). Something is not right here.
This brings me to the administration, and I have one question for those that have the responsibility of running Wabash College: Why does Wabash continue to hire individuals that are fundamentally against all-male education?
The mission of Wabash College is to “educate men to think critically, act responsibly, lead effectively, and live humanely.” If I was running a business and interviewing potential employees, one of the first questions I would ask is if the person believed in the company’s mission statement. If their answer was anything other than “yes, completely,” I would show them the door. This philosophy does not seem too complicated, and I wonder why Wabash has not implemented this strategy when searching for professors. If the new administration believes as strongly in the mission statement as I do, they should actively search for professors that believe in the mission and will work to advance it.
Now, I am not saying that Wabash needs to hire all like-minded professors. I enjoy working with professors that challenge my beliefs. However, I do not see the benefits of having individuals on the faculty who openly speak against the mission of the college. It seems counterproductive, to say the least.
I must preface my next question with this: This section is not directed at all members of the Wabash faculty. Many professors at Wabash enthusiastically work to promote Wabash College and are a vital part of the Wabash community inside and outside of the classroom. I appreciate all that you do for the college. The following question is instead intended for the members of the faculty that disagree with Wabash’s mission and openly question the usefulness of all-male education. My question to these individuals is this: If you do not agree with or believe in all-male education, why are you here?
Wabash College is different. We, the students, like being different. We chose to come to Wabash because it was different than all of the other schools. If we wanted to go to a school that was just like every other university in the nation, DePauw is right down Highway 231. If the students like Wabash the way it is, why do you, a member of the Wabash faculty, desire so strongly to change the thing that makes Wabash unique?
I hate to break this to these individuals but someone needs to. You are not going to change Wabash. Surely Wabash was not the only college to offer you a position. I suggest that, if you do not agree with the 176 year-old practices of the college, you start looking for an institution that better fits your idea of what a college should be.
The New Obsession with “Diversity”
Diversity really seems to be a hot-button issue around campus these days. The Strategic Plan drafts talked much more about diversity than all-mall education, freshmen had to attend a diversity seminar during orientation, and fraternity leaders had to attend a diversity meeting during their H.E.L.P. session at the beginning of the semester. Diversity is obviously a focus for the new administration.
I have been trying to wrap my head around the subject of diversity at Wabash and, I must say, it is proving rather difficult. How does the College define “diversity”? Since the college has been making students attend diversity seminars, it would be nice if the students knew what they are supposed to be diversifying. Many people see the word “diversity” and immediately think it refers about race. Others might think religion, gender, or sexual orientation. I think it would be extremely beneficial for everyone involved if the College provided their definition of diversity so at least everyone was on the same page.
Along those same lines, I have to question the way the administration has decided to deal with the topic of diversity. First of all, why does the Malcolm X Institute get to host every session on diversity? Why haven’t other organization, which hold different opinions than the MXI, been invited to lead seminars? Apparently, intellectual diversity is not a part of the administrations’ new focus on diversity.
Here is my idea about how the College should deal with the issue of diversity: Instead of forcing students to attend a MXI seminar, have a few diversity panels and invite other organizations, with varying ideologies and views on diversity, to participate. This would foster much more interest and might even created some productive discussion. The new administration, whose solution for most problems seems to be “discussion”, should embrace this idea.
Wabash Student and Hopes for the Future
Having addressed the administration and the faculty, I must turn my attention to the students and I have another question: Why do we continue to be apathetic about our college? I have a deep concern regarding the future of Wabash and since you, like me, made the difficult decision to come to Wabash, you should too. We, as students, need to hold the administration and faculty accountable for their actions. Things like the Strategic Plan drafts should worry all of us, not just a select few.
Now I can’t bring up the students without discussing their “voice”: The Bachelor. The previous issue of The Phoenix briefly dealt with The Bachelor’s lack of coverage of the Board of Trustees’ visit to campus to review the Strategic Plan drafts. The Bachelor’s response was as follows:
“We believe that a one-hundred-year history speaks for itself as well as the not-quite-one year history forged by an internal fraction of the rightist elements on campus. Credibility, we believe, does not come from baseless critiques of individual writers, but from a tradition of integrity and excellence, recognized by our peers on a statewide level.”
This is an interesting defense, to say the least. It is disappointing that The Bachelor thinks that, just because of its history, it does not have to address a critique. It is also troubling that The Bachelor has to, in justifying the reason for ignoring The Phoenix’s critique, patronize a group of students. The ironic part of this is that The Bachelor could learn something from The Phoenix. Since it continues to call itself “The Student Voice of Wabash,” I suggest that The Bachelor focus less on interest pieces and more on subjects that directly involve the majority of Wabash students.
I realize that this article may cause some trouble for individuals that label the writers of the Phoenix as “the rightist elements on campus” or simply dismiss the articles as “Aden and women-professor-bashing.” I am obviously not a member of the right-wing community. However, it is my hope that the administration, faculty, and students of Wabash can look beyond their political ideology and affiliation. When it comes to matter concerning Wabash, every member of the Wabash community should always have the best interest of Wabash at heart.
Related posts:
