College campuses are supposed to be places where students can grow intellectually, while also feeling comfortable enough to share their beliefs and opinions. However, if a student or a group of students does not feel safe expressing their views, then clearly the university is not doing a good job at supporting its students. For example, on my campus at the University of Chicago, students in a group called UC United are currently pushing the university to establish cultural centers, so that minority students can feel more welcome and supported by the administration. I figured that my school isn’t the only one fighting this battle, so I decided to do some research into cultural centers and housing on college campuses throughout the U.S.

One of the first schools that I looked at was Northwestern University, which is located just north of downtown Chicago. I discovered that Northwestern is a few steps ahead of UChicago when it comes to having cultural centers on campus. For instance, Northwestern has the Black House, which serves as the social, cultural and educational hub for African American students on campus. However, the president of Northwestern, Morton Shapiro, has received complaints regarding the house. As a response, Shapiro published a letter explaining that he had been receiving complaints about the Black House, but has never once received notes questioning the Hillel or the Catholic Center’s presence on campus. After reading this letter, I wasn’t that surprised that there were complaints about the Black House on a predominantly white campus, since the majority of Jewish and Catholic students are white. So why not attack the minority’s safe space?

After reading about the ongoing backlash against this house that has been on campus for over 40 years, I wanted to learn more about the possible reasons why UChicago might be pushing back against cultural centers. To my utter surprise, I found an extensive research project carried out by the National Association of Scholars (NAS) titled “Separate but Equal, Again: Neo-Segregation in American Higher Education.” This project took roughly two years to complete, and the result is a 214 page pdf with data from 173 schools across the U.S. The report concluded that of the 173 schools, 42 percent offer segregated residences, 46 percent offer segregated orientation programs, and 72 percent host segregated graduation ceremonies. Keep in mind that the word “segregate” often has a negative connotation, but it is important to decide for yourself if this is a negative word in this context or not.

Of course I had to look and see what the report said about my own school, just so that I could see how accurate the data was. Based on the report’s findings and my own experience on campus, I can verify that UChicago does indeed have segregated commencement ceremonies (to use the language of the report), such as our Lavender Graduation, which honors students in the LGBT+ community. Another fact listed in this report is that 68% of the schools have diversity fly-ins, otherwise known as segregated previews of campus. As someone who has personally experienced one of these programs at UChicago, I find these programs to be very beneficial to students because it gives them the chance to see what going to school on a predominantly white campus looks like through the lens of a minority student. However, at the NAS’s presentation of their report, Dion J. Pierre, the lead researcher of this project, proclaimed that diversity fly-in programs make students think of themselves as members of a racial category months before college matriculation even takes place. Personally, I don’t see anything wrong with students viewing themselves as members of a racial category since that is their personal identity and will most likely dictate how they are treated in this racially tense nation, unfortunately.

As previously mentioned, 42 percent of the schools in this report were found to have segregated residencies also known as “themed houses” or dorms that are designed for specific ethnic or racial groups. Honestly, I didn’t expect this number to be so high, and I was surprised to find out that these types of living communities do not solely exist at private universities, and that they also appear at public universities.

Something that was not so surprising to me, is that UChicago isn’t in this 42 percent, and it is for this reason that students are pushing for cultural centers hoping to include places such as a Black house and a Latinx house on campus. One of the reasons why we don’t have places like these on our campus is because we have the Office of Multicultural Student Affairs (OMSA), which provides the main support for many minority groups on campus. I found that it is common for universities to try and appease students demanding cultural centers by implementing places such as these like at Rice University’s Multicultural Center. However, these places are simply not enough for minority students since we are all so different, and while these centers do provide some support for minorities, we can’t help but see the situation as the university’s way of trying to appease all of its minority students by shoving them all into one building.

As with any debate on a college campus, it is important to listen to the other side of the argument, so in this paragraph, I will do my best to acknowledge some of the reasons why people, like NAS, are against cultural centers and housing. The main reason that I came across for the opposing argument is that providing these spaces, which target specific racial and ethnic groups, is a form of neo-segregation. If you have never heard of this term, the NAS defines it in their report as the “voluntary racial segregation of students, aided by college institutions, into racially exclusive housing and common spaces, orientation and commencement ceremonies, student associations, scholarships, and classes.” However, I think the use of this term isn’t appropriate for the situation because segregation in American history was less of a “voluntary” act for the Black community and more of a forced separation. Additionally, another argument being made is that cultural centers and housing erode any sense of unity for students by forcing students to feel like they have to self-segregate into these communities. But in reality, no one is forcing students to live in these themed houses or venture into these designated cultural centers.

Now that we’ve heard both sides of the argument, I want to throw in a little blurb from Van Jones, who I think describes college safe spaces in the most accurate terms possible. In a discussion hosted by the Institute of Politics at UChicago, Jones explained his stance on safe spaces by explaining that they are supposed to be places where people will not be physically harmed, or subjected to sexual harassment, or become targets of hate speech and racial slurs. He says that a common mistake is for students to want safe spaces as places where they feel ideologically and emotionally safe, where if someone says something they don’t like, then it has to become a problem for everyone including the administration. Now in this case, I definitely agree that we, as students, have to be willing to interact with people we disagree with, because disagreement is such an inevitable part of today’s society. However, as Jones said, it is important that we still have a place where we feel physically safe and not subjected to hate speech or slurs within our campuses.

In the end, it is clear that there are already many challenges that come with minority representation on college campuses, and not only do we have to work to get minority students to college, but we also have to work on keeping them there, and that means setting them up with the best resources that make them comfortable being their true selves on campus.

If you would like to read the NAS report on Neo-Segregation, check out the link to their website below:

https://www.nas.org/reports/separate-but-equal-again

[Claire Shackleford is a student at University of Chicago.]

The post Cultural sensitivity at colleges: Separate but equal again? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Elizabeth Warren has proposed a student loan forgiveness program that would cancel up to $50K in student loan debt. Warren says that her plan would totally eliminate student loan debt for 75% of Americans who have that debt and would at least reach 95% of Americans with some debt (there’s even a nifty calculator). Kamala Harris has a student loan forgiveness proposal that would forgive up to $20K in student debt if you received a Pell Grant and start as well as operate a business successfully for 3 years. The business would have to be in an income-disadvantaged neighborhood. Bernie Sanders also has a student loan forgiveness proposal; he wants to forgive all of it. That’s it. There are no formulas, no missives full of technocratic language, and no barrier to entry other than having accumulated student loan debt. To quote democratic strategist James Carville “the less you say, the more you heard”. Simplicity matters, and the broadest policies with the easiest to understand messages typically beat out complexity no matter how much wonkish nerds at think-tanks spend on market testing for whatever candidate they’re writing policy for.

“Build the Wall” was and continues to be more effective at energizing voters than “comprehensive immigration reform.” In 2008, “Universal Coverage” had a much better ring to it than “replacing the tax exemption with a tax credit to be applied to a health savings account.” There’s a separate argument that can be made about messaging and how that can matter when campaigning. As we’ve seen, voters don’t always care too much what actual legislation looks like as long as they can identify it with the campaign message. This would in part explain why Trump voters are satisfied with current policy on immigration despite there being no new wall construction.

However, there are relevant considerations that are obviously more important than messaging such as whether something is good policy. Unequivocally, universal programs are better than means tested programs and that’s why Democrats need to run on them and then fight for them once in government. Whether it’s Medicare-for-All vs. “Medicare-for-All-Who-Want-It” or forgiving all student debt as opposed to forgiving most of it, there are at least 3 reasons why (especially in this campaign) universal programs are better.

1. Universal Programs are More Resistant to Attack from Opposing Interests
   1. Nine states have approved work requirements for Medicaid, and each would have implemented those requirements if not for federal judges blocking implementation. [The Trump Administration is appealing those decisions]. As of 2017, fifteen states have passed legislation to drug test recipients of SNAP or other public assistance programs. Obamacare has been undermined by the failure of 14 states, including 2 of the 3 largest states in the union, have refused to expand Medicaid and have denied millions of people access to healthcare coverage. Meanwhile Medicare benefits have only expanded since its creation in 1965 and has continued to enjoy broad support from voters from both parties. The difference is obvious, Medicare eventually covers everyone while the other programs have formulas for determining coverage and harsh cut-offs. It is easier to oppose a program when it will never benefit you and it’s harder for monied corporate interests to fund opposition to programs that help everyone. That is why privatization of Social Security and Medicare will never become a mainstream right-wing talking point and also serves an effective scare tactic from democratic politicians.
2. Universal Programs Always Help Who They’re Meant To
   1. Hillary Clinton, Pete Buttigieg, and other liberals have made the argument that “we shouldn’t be paying for billionaires’ kids to go to college.” The implication being that public money would be used on the super wealthy to pay for things that they themselves can already afford. That falls apart rather quickly when you go policy by policy. Students take out loans because they can’t afford the cost of school, children of wealthy families are not taking out student loans because they are from wealthy families who can afford tuition and therefore universal student debt forgiveness wouldn’t apply to them in the first place because they have no student debt. The same is true of universal free-public college, most wealthy families send their children to elite private universities and would still pay tuition. When it comes to Medicare-for-All, an argument has been made that we would create a dual-system where the rich are able to afford a higher standard of care under private insurance while the masses must use a public system. That analysis misses two things; we already have the dual-system where wealthy people receive better healthcare and at least in our new paradigm, everyone has healthcare where currently that is not the case. What is most important is that in a universal system, there is no chance that those who need help won’t receive it. Even the best means-tested programs still create incentives for people to work less or stay unmarried or be generally unproductive because without public subsidies they would not be able to afford to live.
3. Politics is About Negotiating, If You Don’t Start High Then You’ve Lost
   1. As anyone who has ever bought a car or home or any product where there isn’t a fixed price knows, you don’t offer the price you’re willing to settle for. If you start with where you’re willing to settle, then you’ll either end up paying more or not buying anything at all because you have to convince the seller that they also received a fair deal. The same is true in politics, we have a bicameral legislature and it will be necessary to deal with conservatives elements in both parties (especially in the Senate) in order to pass any legislation. For Medicare-for-All to be accomplished in the next 4 years a number of extraordinary events would need to happen. Democrats would need to win the Presidency, hold the House, win the Senate, whip every Democratic vote, abolish the filibuster, and appoint a Supreme Court justice to ensure that the law can survive court challenges. That all probably won’t happen, but we can still make sure that we get the best healthcare legislation possible. We may very well end up with Beto’s “Medicare-for-America” or Buttigieg’s “Medicare-for-All-Who-Want-It” or Biden’s “ACA 2.0”. These plans would cover millions more people and make our healthcare system better, but these are plans that we should settle for. We will all be better off if we end up in the middle of Medicare-for-All and our current ineffective system. I don’t know that the same will be true if we’re in the middle of ACA 2.0 and the ACA. By promoting universal programs, we are shifting the Overton window and what is possible in regard to policy which will make it easier to eventually achieve those big progressive ideas.

This country needs big structural change and piecemeal reforms or tinkering around the edges will not make life meaningfully better for most people. Government ought to be viewed as a tool to make people’s lives better and we should not be afraid of unleashing its power to combat the inherent problems present in our political economic system.

It’s time for Democrats to put down the calculators, delete the Brookings Institute from their Rolodex, and embrace big ideas.

The post Embrace Universality, Reject Means Testing appeared first on Occasional Planet.

I recently wrote an article about microaggressions, after helping to organize a movement on St. Louis’ Webster University campus, to try to address systemic discrimination. As part of that effort to create change, students wrote letters to the administration describing student experiences with prejudice and discrimination.

And now I want to take a moment to share some of the stories of Webster University students with you. A few students have given me permission to share parts of the letters they wrote to the administration in this article.

First, let me expound on the idea of the letters. We wrote a summary letter that explained the purpose of the letter campaign and framed the movement. This is an excerpt:

“Webster University prides itself on diversity, inclusion, and internationalization. We know you as president believe in dedicating the institution to furthering the cause of global citizenship and participation; for that we commend you…Webster is one of the largest global institutions in the world, and we want to help it reach the high standards to which you and the Webster community hold it…

We want to do our part to help you ensure that each and every student at Webster University has the same quality education– the same pleasant and engaging experience– unimpeded by issues of prejudice or hatefulness.

These letters contain countless experiences of Webster students regarding issues of diversity and inclusion; unfortunately not every student or every classroom meets the high standard of global excellence upon which Webster prides itself. The incidents detailed herein are neither novel nor isolated…We hope they help you in the process of change, and we look forward to your response to resolve these pandemic issues.”

Many students wrote to the administration anonymously, fearing retaliation, but refusing to be silent on such an important topic. I will respect that request for anonymity here.

The letters describe a range of experiences with prejudice, microaggressions, and oppression at Webster; students detailed discrimination in many forms, in many places, and based in many sources. They depict the pain of racism, sexism, homophobia, classism, heterosexism, ableism, Islamophobia, cis-sexism, transphobia, and the numerous other -isms and forms of hatefulness that impair, paralyze, and deeply pain.

There are a few common themes we identified of major issues we found on campus. The first is the obvious exclusion of minority students.

Concerned Student writes:

“I have experienced difficulties finding opportunities to participate in the Webster athletics teams… While these teams have been doing great job looking in from the outside, on the inside there have been a lot of problems. When in high school, I desired to be recruited by Webster University and try out for the team when that time came. Unfortunately, after several unresponsive emails and leading messages from the coaching staff I felt completely ignored and that my past experiences were of little value. Yet, my peers around me who would be classified as “white-caucasian” have had no troubles communicating with coaches,… receive special treatment, and have had several opportunities to leave and come back to the team while I, a person of color, haven’t even had a chance to try out…

I plead with you please start making an effort to support and listen to your students to make this a better place for all students to attend where we can fully embrace our differences and feel welcome in the environment.”

This is compounded by slews of insensitive comments by students, faculty, and staff alike.

Anonymous wrote:

“I wish people would understand that yes I am African-American but my experience wearing this skin should not be generalized by stereotypes. I do not always know the newest dance craze, certain “slang”, or have a valid opinion on issues that have involved other African-Americans. I just want to be seen as an individual that has her own experiences and whose actions are not justified just because I am African-American. Students also constantly find that professors don’t understand these issues– that rather than being educated, students are having to educate their teachers.”

I wrote:

“A professor has continually referred to me as “her Muslim student.” When she mentioned in class how I sat next to her at an event and her “Black friend sat on her opposite side,” she said she felt like she was “in Diversity Central.” Aren’t I worth more than my skin color? Isn’t my value as a human being worth more than dark skin and a headscarf?”

Lara Hamdan, a Webster student studying International Relations and Journalism, said:

“Sometimes I feel unsafe mentally. I am of Middle Eastern decent, so I have a different point of view on certain issues. They are not conflicting with American values, just different. But I have found that I feel limited to what I can share or express in some classrooms due to some I do not want to silence the professor, or have them feel as if they cannot fully teach what they intended. But rather, I would like to see them bring in outside perspectives, to give students the chance to have a wider point of view, not just the view of their upbringing or their professor. I have had professors openly teach incorrect “facts” about the Middle East or the religion of Islam. It would be much more reasonable to bring in an expert in the field to address those issues, rather than to make false claims.”

Students are constantly called out to speak for their entire identity group.

Anonymous wrote:

“At the beginning of my freshman year here at Webster, Michael Brown was shot and killed in the streets of Ferguson. A few days after, looting took place and many businesses in Ferguson were ruined, as a result. In one of my classes my teacher spoke of the many tragedies that had taken place and asked the class how they felt. Especially myself and another African-American student in the class stating that he hated to ask “this question” from us. Honestly, I did not know what to think or say and had not even processed everything that had taken place in Ferguson in a short period of time. Why should I represent the entire African-American population on such a serious question?”

I wrote:

“I have been asked point-blank by a professor in front of the class to act as a mouthpiece for my racial, (perceived) national, ethnic, gender, or religious identities. In methodological terms, the sample (me) is not representative of the population. But I am supposed to speak for all people because people label us the same way? Pardon, but that doesn’t make sense to me at all. And I know with the utmost certainty that I am not the only one placed repeatedly in such a position; other students are asked to represent their racial, national, ethnic, gender, religious, sexual, SES, etc. identities. And it’s demeaning. It hurts.”

We talked about blatant inadequacies in Webster policies where the university fell radically behind on progress.

A Student Looking For Change wrote that Webster is widely considered a forward-thinking, progressive, “LGBTQ-friendly” school but, disappointingly, fails to live up to that standard several times over:

“I am disheartened and disappointed to express that Webster’s commitment to forward-thinking inclusion seems to have slowed in progress and withered in reach… The administration has yet to make policies that would provide trans* students with safe, comfortable restroom options in all buildings. Students have also expressed interest in an African American Studies program, as well as an LGBT Studies program. In response, the administration stated more students must to take these types of classes before creation of such programs can be considered. This, though, is a faulty argument. Students have trouble finding these classes when registering because there is not one encompassing prefix to use when searching for these classes. Therefore, there are systematic obstacles one encounters when attempting to register for these classes.”

But the letters weren’t all pessimistic. There are many, many opportunities for change.

Andrew Wagner, a junior Sociology major “passionate about justice” warned:

“The solution to these problems is listening to people of color who have been oppressed by these institutions and going forward with their guidance. As Webster University seeks out students of color to help pave the way forward, I would like to put forward a word of caution to the administration as they seek to listen. Patricia Hill Collins who is a critical race social theorist says this, ‘Oppressed groups are frequently placed in the situation of being listened to only if we frame our ideas in the language that is familiar to and comfortable for a dominant group. This requirement often changes the meaning of our ideas and works to elevate the ideas of dominant groups.’ My hope is that the administration at Webster will seek to listen to not only the words that are easy to swallow, but also the words that are difficult to stomach.”

Lara suggested diversifying our faculty, staff, and student bodies so that our campus is as diverse in actuality as it is in advertisements and refusing to raise tuition rates because they “marginalize people of lower income households.”

“We see the many flags above our heads as we walk in the University Center, but once we lower our heads, we don’t see the diversity represented. I hope you take the time to listen to your students needs and take the proper steps to address them. The students are willing to uphold their part if the administration is willing to do the same.”

At the meeting, we also discussed including questions assessing professors’ ability to conduct their class without prejudice, having a staff working at the administrative level to address issues of diversity and inclusion in the classroom rather than one individual, creating a student panel to hear cases of discrimination in the classroom so that students feel there is an approachable entity to whom they can address their concerns (at the moment, there isn’t, which is why so many of these issues go unchecked), having a day that operates like Webster Works Worldwide where the whole Webster community can come together to address these issues in a collaborative and constructive manner, and– most importantly– mandating training for faculty and staff on power and privilege and oppressive structures because currently no such training exists for any Webster employee as far as anyone can tell.

As I said, nothing has come of any of these suggestions yet. The administration has not made any visible changes and none of the grand promises we’ve heard and read tens of times have borne any fruit. But we’re not giving up. We’re stubborn, and we’re here to stay.

The post Prejudice on campus: Are you listening, administrators? appeared first on Occasional Planet.

Citing the need to “prepare children for college and career,” the interim principal of Harley Avenue Primary School in Elwood, NY has canceled the 2014 kindergarten end-of-year school play. Here’s the text of the letter parents received, as published in the Washington Post. It was signed by the principal and all four of the school’s kindergarten teachers:

April 25, 2014

Dear Kindergarten Parents and Guardians,
We hope this letter serves to help you better understand how the demands of the 21st century are changing schools, and, more specifically, to clarify, misperceptions about the Kindergarten show. It is most important to keep in mind is [sic] that this issue is not unique to Elwood. Although the movement toward more rigorous learning standards has been in the national news for more than a decade, the changing face of education is beginning to feel unsettling for some people. What and how we teach is changing to meet the demands of a changing world.
The reason for eliminating the Kindergarten show is simple. We are responsible for preparing children for college and career with valuable lifelong skills and know that we can best do that by having them become strong readers, writers, coworkers and problem solvers. Please do not fault us for making professional decisions that we know will never be able to please everyone. But know that we are making these decisions with the interests of all children in mind.

Did anyone bother to notice that these are five-year-old children? What happened here: Did the children not perform well on a standardized test, and this is their punishment? Did some administrator decide that dressing up as a flower, singing a springtime song, and/or learning a little dance might not look good on a five-year-old’s college resume and could prevent her from getting into the Ivy League? Do the school and parents really believe that a few more hours of rote memorization and test prep will make a difference in these children’s lives? This kind of thinking is the height of absurdity. But, unfortunately, it’s just an extreme example of the way thing seem to be going in what passes for education in 21st century America.

The post School cancels kindergarten play. It interferes with college prep! appeared first on Occasional Planet.

As a student at a Big 10 school, I hear many rumors about athletes and sports. “Most athletes are in the business school because it has the easiest graduation requirements so they don’t have to worry about grades,” or “General education professors have to fail a certain number of students, but athletes are exempt from that rule.” Despite the ridiculous nature of these myths, one can’t help but notice the central role sports tend to have in the college tradition.

The logic behind the over-glorification of sports and athletes is obvious. Schools funnel money into athletics to ensure that their players have the best advantage. This helps guarantee that teams win, which generates money from ticket sales, concessions, merchandise and a host of other retail factors. Having a rich sports tradition can be enticing to incoming students, thus increasing revenue from tuition. Sports are a cash cow for most universities, which creates a lot of pressure for athletes.

Not only are they responsible for their studies, but they’re also held accountable for their school’s reputation. Everyone from coaches to fellow students to alumni and sportscasters are commentating on their athleticism, creating an unimaginable amount of anxiety. As the NBA playoffs and the NFL draft begin, college athletes are focused on the professional arena of their sport rather than finals.

The time and dedication college athletes put into their sport constitutes the equivalent of a major in their sport.

Most universities suggest that each unit of credit requires two to three hours of studying per week. A full-time student usually takes 15 credit hours, which adds up to thirty to forty-five hours each week studying outside the classroom. The amount of time a college athlete spends practicing most likely surpasses the recommended amount of time a student must dedicate to schoolwork.  Under this schedule, it’s plausible to allow  an athlete to major in a sport.

The next logical question would be what would be the criteria for majoring in basketball or football? Majoring in a sport with the intent of becoming a professional is unrealistic. The curriculum should incorporate numerous aspects of the sport. A player should graduate with knowledge of how a contract negotiation works or how to handle salary discussions. The dynamics of coaching or managing a team should also be emphasized in an athlete’s education, as well as legalities related to sports. This would ensure that upon graduation, an athlete is familiar with all aspects of his or her craft.

The discrepancy between a coach and a professor’s salary has also been a long-standing issue for universities. Professors are providing a lifetime of information to students, which is applicable to their careers, while a coach is merely facilitating entertainment for the university. But the revenue sports rake in for schools and the expertise they can provide to craft a championship-winning team can justify a million- dollar salary, while professors make around $100K.

The last thing a college graduate wants to leave school thinking is that some of their classmates were passed along or given preferential treatment because of their athleticism and not their scholastic merit. The passion a journalism student feels for writing or a law student for justice is comparable to what a football player feels when training for a game. College athletes dedicate grueling hours of workouts and practice to their sports, which warrants the consideration of allowing them to major in it.  This change would also help alleviate the pressure an athlete faces from when trying to balance academics and time for practice. When a student athlete spends as much, or even more time. playing soccer or basketball, it becomes more than just a hobby. When the love of the game becomes a way of life, we should think about turning it into a college major.

The post Should sports be a college major? appeared first on Occasional Planet.