<p>The black, Hispanic, Native Amer, low income, first-gen college and other under-reped groups are indeed special. One may not agree than gay students are under-reped on any particular campus, but if the data indicates that gays are under-reped at Midd and Midd wants to increase their presencd/perspective - - I repeat, that’s Midd’s business. </p>
<p>Apparently I misunderstood. I thought Midd was recruiting gay students for the purpose of increasing the pool of “culture creatives” - - whch didn’t make sense (why not just recruit art/theater students). Instead, increasing the artsy pool is just a bonus of having more gay students on campus - - then goody for Midd.</p>
<p>padad, I agree with you…this thread is a great argument for colleges taking steps to ensure that every student is going to live/work/eat with gay classmates.</p>
<p>“I’d be if a school said they’d apply AA to groups like zombies and goblins, all of a sudden people would be checking off that they are zombies and goblins.”</p>
<p>Are you a parent? I seem to see a title on this Forum. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Makes no sense to me that a college should admit or exclude a person because he or she is gay. Admit students who are talented, creative, original thinkers, foster a tolerant atmosphere that respects differences, have a curriculum that responds to diversity and campus culture will improve–narrow focus on sexual orientation seems a rather adolescent approach-putting the cart before the horse…</p>
<p>It’s not at all narrow if you lack a critical mass of students who you believe (as a result of your data and research) represent a “unique perspective” and that, without a critical mass, the ones you have feel uncomfortable being there. (exactly the same thing would be true for African-Americans, Jews, Hispanics, or low-income students.)</p>
<p>Let’s be clear: they are not “admitting” or “excluding” students because they are gay (unlike the exclusion of students who, above a certain percentage, can’t pay the bill). Not all athletic tips are accepted either, nor all legacies. (But all developmental candidates are.)</p>
<p>I agree pyewacket. Though if they truly want to have representation of minority “sexuality” status–according to statistics I’ve seen in the media, it would seem that virgins would be the most under-represented ;).</p>
<p>But consider two students: A has SAT scores and grades slightly lower than B and has one or two fewer extracurricular activities, both have written decent essays–but A is clearly gay and B gives no hint of his sexual orientation–is there any reason to think the college benefits more by having A enroll than B? Shouldn’t the college be looking more closely at other aspects of the “content of their character” than who they prefer to go to bed with??</p>
<p>I don’t see how that could be a sensible selection criterion for an academic institution…</p>
<p>“Shouldn’t the college be looking more closely at other aspects of the “content of their character” than who they prefer to go to bed with??”</p>
<p>Only 1) if you assume that being gay only has to do with whom one goes to bed, rather than a larger orientation, and 2) if you assume that the college is admitting individual students rather than building the best possible class. </p>
<p>Middlebury has stated its belief quite clearly that 1) they believe that gay folks bring a “unique perspective” to campus (ergo, it ISN’T about whom they go to bed with), and 2) they believe that having a critical mass of gay students is good for the education of ALL students, not just the gay ones.</p>
<p>Both may be untrue, or we might have “opinions” that they are untrue, but Middlebury didn’t go into this blind, or without data, research, and strategic planning. In other words, I consider it very sensible, though without more data, I can’t tell whether they are right or wrong.</p>
<p>And with every entry I read, it also becomes clear that THE issue that is debated has moved away from its basic premise. This is not about accepting–or resenting–the presence of a gay population; it’s about the use of a sexual preferences in admissions. Couldn’t we support the notion that Middlebury might feel pressed to introduce such a change because there is a perception of discrimination? </p>
<p>The problem with arbitrary classifications and “little boxes” on applications is that the pendulum always swing farther than originally expected. What will happen the day that there is a bit too much of a “tip?” Should we then talk about the evil of all evils: q-u-o-t-a-s? How much is “not enough” and how much is “too much?” And does ne determine the correctness of the ratios between the targeted population and the overall population? We have a pretty good idea on our racial and economical statistics. How accurate are our statistics for gays and lesbians? What is the number? 1 or 2%, 3 or 4%, or is it close to 10%. </p>
<p>Poking in the dark, aren’t we! Indeed, a slippery slope, if I ever saw one.</p>
<p>While I see that middlebury has a right to do whatever they like, I feel it is a slippery slope. Is middlebury giving a meesage that only gay kids are creative? I think they just say for diversity sake, they want more gay kids. In addiiton, instead of focusing on gay kids why not bring more pultiger prize winner/nobel prize/filed medal winner faculty who may be gay or not. By improving faculty, talented creative kids will follow. Why not go after the root cause of brining distingushed faculty and then see what happens.</p>
<p>Talk is cheap, action is harder - action mean bring better faculty and resources. Try to do better then williams and Amhrest and then see.</p>
<p>To me, the idea that gay students need affirmative action is ridiculous. Test results, essays and grades are all blind to sexual orientation. I thought that sexual orientation was a personal choice and nobody else’s business. This action will most certainly increase applications by gay applicants but will also turn off some straight applicants. They are giving the impression that Middlebury would prefer gay students.</p>
<p>Dad, Do you mean that the personal choice is whether or not to act on one’s sexual orientation? Or do you think we actually choose our sexual orientation?</p>
Middebury is not making anyone check a box saying “I’m gay”. I hope that is abundantly clear by now.
But… every college in the country asks whether you are male or female, presuming you will be attracted to the opposite sex.
So, college administrators have it as a given that you will be thrown into an exclusively heterosexual world???
NO WAY. They know … Middlebury and Yale and Columbia and Harvard and Princeton and Tulane and Reed know that CHECKING BOXES DOES NOT TELL THE WHOLE STORY.
I think parents want to believe that college has less of the “real world” than it really is. Hence, the “Higher education is NOTHING like the real world” comments posted here.
Most of us in higher education strive for more nuaced, inclusive views of the world. I, for one, do not presume my students are straight or gay.
And I agree with mini:
“I just don’t see this is as much of a big deal - certainly less than the tips for white, well-heeled legacies.”</p>
<p>“Unless you were planning to date one of them, why in the world would you give a moment’s thought to any student’s sexual orientation?”</p>
<p>Oh, StickerShock, you don’t get it, do you? THE ONES GIVING UNDUE ATTENTION TO SEXUAL ORIENTATION ARE THOSE WHO THINK EVERYONE SHOULD HAVE THE SAME SEXUAL PREFERENCE.
That’s the basis of intolerance.</p>
<p>"“Unless you were planning to date one of them, why in the world would you give a moment’s thought to any student’s sexual orientation?”</p>
<p>Because I would like to understand and appreciate their “window on the world”, same as I would that of an individual from other minority groups with whom I will spend the rest of my life working, playing, and building a more inclusive world for my children (who, for all I know, might turn out to be gay.)</p>
<p>Same reason I have come to appreciate my (sometimes unpleasant) experiences with wealthy, pinky-grey, prep-school, whiskey-chugging legacies.</p>
<p>“Same reason I have come to appreciate my (sometimes unpleasant) experience with wealthy, pinky-grey, prep-school, whiskey-chugging legacies.”
Same here.</p>