<p>Actually, it’s just the opposite. Middlebury is giving undue attention to the sexual orientation of applicants. Most people couldn’t care less if all people had the same sexual preference. They only care about the sexual preferences of the person who they find attractive. Really. Come out of the cocoon you’ve spun for yourself and view the real world for a bit. Homophobes aren’t lurking around every corner. For every gay kid who was mocked in h.s. there are hundreds of slow kids, homely kids, fat kids, skinny kids, kids who climb on rocks. As adulthood approaches, people learn a bit of civility, thankfully. </p>
<p>If you don’t have an interest in a sexual relationship with somebody, his orientation isn’t important. The vast majority of people follow that principle, and THAT is the basis for tolerance. Even if you don’t understand homosexuality, even if you believe that practicing it is sinful, as many people do, a live and let live approach is a tolerant one. Not some grandstanding PR move like Middlebury’s new AA for gays policy.</p>
<p>You have it wrong, StickerShock.
EXCLUSION IS OBSESSIVE. INCLUSION IS NOT.
By rendering differences invisible, lives are shattered. I do not think that Middlebury is interested in excluding heterosexuals from campus. It is giving attention to existing differences.
Just because you use a “Most people could care less” rhetoric does not make you an expert of most people. I make no such claim. I have a very specific point:
I live in New York City and teach at Columbia, and have lived in New Haven, Cambridge, Atlanta, Washington, D.C., Hartford, Waterville (Maine) and San Juan, Puerto Rico. I don’t neeed a de-cocooning device, for I live in contact with the students that parents want to shield from reality. Not all of them swim; some sink. And many times the reasons have to do with that “shield.”
Let’s see what happens at Middlebury. It is but one of the 3,000-plus colleges in the United States.
And, by the way, regarding “If you don’t have an interest in a sexual relationship with somebody, his orientation isn’t important. The vast majority of people follow that principle, and THAT is the basis for tolerance,” I’ll counter with this. in all its intolerant, tragic sadness: Matthew Shepard.</p>
<p>Hamilton is a small college “in the New England tradition” as the saying goes. It’s athletic ties to most of the other members predate NESCAC and some of you Thornton Wilder fans may remember the Hamilton reference in “Our Town”; in Act III, the character Mr. Webb was returning on the early-morning train after having been away for several days in Clinton, New York, to make a speech at Hamilton College, his alma mater.</p>
<p>But if being gay is a “larger orientation” than who you desire as a sex partner, and if this gives you qualities that would interest the college, let them seek these qualities in essays, interviews, etc. and not put emphasis on too easily self-applied opportunistic labels.</p>
<p>Just would like to preface this by saying that I’m a student, and that I don’t particularly post much, but that this thread caught my eye : )</p>
<p>When I saw the title of this thread, my first thought was, “Huh. Maybe I should give Middlebury another thought.” I’d thought about Middlebury before because I’m interested in languages, but had crossed it off my list precisely because it has that reputation of being kind of white and preppy and straight, and I really don’t want to spend another four years being the token lesbo who sits grumpily by herself on prom night while all of her straight friends are happily coupled off and waltzing away. Umm. That sounded really pitiful but hey, this is totally an anonymous internet forum, right? </p>
<p>So is their advertising strategy working? From my oh-so-large sample size of one, totally! :). Advertising that they’re reaching out to the queer population is definitely a way to reach a segment of the population that Middlebury would ordinarily not appeal to. </p>
<p>In saying that sexual orientation is simply about who you go to bed with—well, no. Would you say to somebody who is African-American that their race doesn’t matter, because y’know, we’re all Americans? Saying that things like race and religion and sexual orientation don’t matter is kind of hegemonic; it’s saying that as long as everybody conforms to societal norms, everything is perfectly fine. In pretending that these things don’t exist, you’re not giving the very real experience of being an “other” any value. And that, IMHO, is a really big mistake. You SHOULD care about somebody else’s race, religion, sexual orientation, etc., because you absolutely cannot begin to other person until you know and understand which lenses they view the world through. </p>
<p>You can’t ascribe any particular qualities to queer people any more than you can ascribe any particular qualities to racial groups. But—existence precedes essence. Existing as somebody queer gives a very different viewpoint (and believe me, the world looks very different when you’re not approaching it from a hetero mindset; I know this because I tried to do it for 15 years), and that that viewpoint is one that we should choose to value, just as ALL different mindsets and experiences and ways of being should be valued.</p>
<p>lingsquared, I’m not suggesting everyone conform to societal norms (except basic politeness & tolerance.) I’m contending that most people couldn’t care less if those norms are followed. Not in the sense of having no concern for people. But in the sense that most of us are fully prepared to meet & accept people from all walks of life & treat them well. You are quite correct that having different experiences will cause you to view the world through different lenses. But focusing on your own mindset, and assuming that others are fascinated by it, will be very limiting. I understand not wanting to be the token anything. But the Middlebury AA policy will do just that: create a group of token gays. (Sorry, but I have a hard time saying queer. It was such a disparaging label, used to inflict pain, when I grew up.)</p>
<p>And while your prom comment was not intended to earn pity, well…I know that really stinks, being uncoupled in a couples world. My friend’s gay d chose Sarah Lawrence, partially for the gay culture, and is thrilled.</p>
<p>StickerShock, perhaps you need to get out of the liberal East Coast and explore the rest of the country. I shake my head in disbelief when I read “Most of us are fully prepared to meet and accept people from all walks of life and treat them well.” </p>
<p>Let’s see, gays can’t serve in the armed forces. There are many states that have banned gay marriage and more are trying their darndest to do so. Not to mention our president and his friends, who would like to ban it nationally. Someone already mentioned Matthew Shepard. Yes, the gay lifestyle is accepted in NYC and San Francisco and countless other places – typically East or West coast or urban areas. But in many many places in the US it is not. Intolerance – not only of gays, but of Jews, Muslims, blacks, etc., is unfortunately quite common in the U.S. </p>
<p>I remember my first year of college one of my dormmates exclaiming about her roommate, “I’ve never even seen a Jew before.” She got quite an education from her roommate, and never entered a classroom to get it. If someone at Middlebury next year says that about a gay person, and realizes that they are not all perverts out to abuse young innocent children, and comes to realize that gay marriage is not the end of the world as we know it, that’s a good thing.</p>
<p>Would Middlebury invets in faculty who are pultizer prize winner/nobel prize/filed medal winner faculty (who could be gay or could be straight). 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>Unfortunately Middlebury is not investing where they need to put their money and just avoiding the root cause of attracting kids who lack creativity. </p>
<p>What people do in thier bedroom, it is not my business as long as they are mutual consenting adults.</p>
<p>Not having attended Middlebury–like the posters above–perhaps I am simply ignorant of the gay-bashing that must go on at Middlebury–illiciting their vitriol and fear; or it may be that I lack the necessary slash-n-burn disposition to assume it must go on because bad things have happened…somewhere else. </p>
<p>And though I have not heard of many ‘Matthew Shepard’ style incidents of violent intolerance in Vermont (an epidemic?) I will take the word of those in the know (posting above) that such incidents are a constant concern in this bucolic and bohemian/liberal state. </p>
<p>It just goes to show that you can’t trust appearances—it seems like such an open and tolerant state and school.</p>
<p>So the smart-guys/gals above have concluded:</p>
<p>1. Middlebury is a gay-bashing school in need of serious re-education.
2. Gay students feel oppressed by Middlebury’s liberal-elite gay-bashing culture.
2. Vermont is a hot-bed of anti-gay violence most exemplified in its preeminent school of higher education.
3. The elite students who attend Middlebury have no experience with tolerance or difference—a bunch-o-stump jumping bigots that need cultural re-culturin’.</p>
<p>Who knew?</p>
<p>Before having gone through the posts in this thread, I would have considered it much ado about nothing. </p>
<p>Affirmative action programs don’t necessarily cost anything. That’s one of their great advantages. This program should not be taking funding away from any other goals.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>This happens to be a thread about gay AA, but you can rest assured that kids who grew up on a cattle ranch in Idaho are getting an edge at Middlebury too. All the kids from suburban NY who take gays, Jews, and Asians for granted have plenty to learn from farmers, Mormons, 4-H members, etc. That just hasn’t been discussed here because it isn’t the topic of the thread.</p>
<p>FountainSiren: If you are referring to my post, where did I suggest that there is either intolerance or gay bashing or violence in either Vermont or at Middlebury? I don’t think anyone on this board – or the Middlebury admission officer – suggested that. </p>
<p>My post was in direct response to StickerShock, who suggests that intolerance and prejudice are not a problem or issue in this country. I disagree with that position. </p>
<p>As a Vermonter, I can say that Vermont tends to be an open, accepting place. We have our share of homophobes and bigots, I’m sure. But no, there is not “violent intolerence” here, nor is it a 'hot-bed of anti-gay violence." I can’t figure out on what you base your outrageous statements.</p>
<p>(Actually, if there is anyone who would feel out-of-place in Vermont, it would be a far right Conservative Republican.)</p>
<p>“But the Middlebury AA policy will do just that: create a group of token gays.”</p>
<p>Actually, that’s the problem they have NOW, which has made the place uncomfortable for their 5 open gay folks. </p>
<p>In my freshman poli. sci. class in the Dark Ages, we read the “Autobiography of Malcolm X”. There were no African-American students in the class (and few in the school). People looked to me pretty exclusively (as a Jewish New Yorker from a lower middle class neighborhood) to educate them about “the ghetto”. I was a token, and I wasn’t even a member of the affected group!</p>
<p>I don’t know why the speculation about Middlebury’s motives when they say explicitly what they are, or why folks keep on assuming a checkoff on an application form, for which there is no evidence.</p>
<p>This thread, presumably about giving an admissions bump for sexual orientation , has gone from dealing with the fact that some will be more equal than others (why not special bumps for each favored form of orientation: bi, transgender, questioning, etc depending on rarity and availability, or cold-cash value in marketing); to Matthew Shepard (repeatedly and well out of context); to the insistence that those who disagree with giving an edge in admissions for being gay “think that everyone should have the same sexual preference”, to comparing the inclinations of the “vast majority of people” in the United States to the inclinations of the miscreants responsible for the “death of Matthew Sheppard” (which, as I recall, was a bit more complicated then here portrayed).</p>
<p>Is it ever possible to discus issues of gay-openness without having to resort to these obvious, vicious and dumb canards.</p>
<p>In my above post, I was just trying to “get with the spirit” of the bunch of you (peer pressure). </p>
<p>Fwiw, if Middlebury wants to market it self to the student whose sexual orientation is gay, I say go for it. It seems silly, demeaning and trivializing to me, but I am not gay. Perhaps if I were I would feel differently. </p>
<p>Something about it seems cheap and destined to fail, but I see nothing earth-shattering or particularly bad in testing out a new marketing strategy to bump-up admissions…disingenuous perhaps, but not bad.</p>
<p>The admissions people at Middlebury are grasping at straws…maybe a little bait & switch but no revolution.</p>
<p>Hey, bait & switch: sounds like the theme of this thread.</p>
<p>Then Middlebury should claim that they want to attract more gays. Do not claim that they need gay kids beacuse gay kids bring creativity. Do not hide behind bogus claim. I am fine if Middle bury doess AA for gays. Do not say they need gay kids for creatvity sake. They claim that gay kids will bring creativity. That may be true but Middlebury should not claim this statement to bring more gay friendsly environment.</p>
<p>Do only gay kids bring creativity? Does regular kids lack creativity? That staement is my problem.</p>
<p>I believe colleges should be diverse in their populations. But they don’t all have to be diverse in the same ways and will never exactly reflect the demographics of the larger society. Diversity improves the educational environment for all. I just don’t see why forms of gay diversity should be privileged over other (maybe harder to label) diversities. What about kids who were adopted or identical twins or color-blind kids, or those with perfect pitch or from families of mixed religion or so called “red-diaper” babies or homeschooled born again Christians–all these phenomena create interesting complex perspectives.</p>
<p>“has gone from dealing with the fact that some will be more equal than others”</p>
<p>Some are now! (aren’t you at Dartmouth?) It’s simply a matter of how they want to construct their class to enhance the education of all students.</p>
<p>Why did you choose a school so heavily invested in “social engineering”?</p>
<p>Now, I happen to think that most of this is much ado about nothing. Admissions bump or no, I doubt M. is likely to become an extremely attractive place for gay students any time soon. But their strategic plan probably tells them that every little bit helps.</p>
<p>Allow me to correct that “winky” statement: FS is more misunderstood than wrong. In the communication between writer and reader, there has to be an ability or … a willingness to read critically.</p>
<p>What is she supposed to do? Post a CCC (College Confidential Cliffs’ notes) to explain what she meant? Well, I assume she can find some solace in the words of Frost: "When asked about the “planned” ambiguity of his poems, he’d reply, “What do you want me to do, say it again in different and less good words?” </p>
<p>Back to the central subject, how would one react when the Franck Eggelhoffer of Ivy Admission Inc --read Father of the Bride meets Katherine Cohen-- decides that this is an opportunity too good to pass on. From the Kavvya’s "metamophorsis, we already know that her supply of piggy’s lipstick is undepletable. So, what would stop her to stick a nice coat onto a boy’s lips to secure the Vermont “tip?” </p>
<p>After all, how hard would it be to undo the results of a faulty introspection and chalk it to a little confusion? Don’t they say that many teenagers are confused about their sexuality? Farfetched? Just think about how many people discover a sudden affinity to their grand-grand-aunt who might have been a Cherokee or WinniePoohs only to figure that they are only a member of the largest Indian tribe in the US, the Wannabes.</p>
<p>Am I now at Dartmouth, yes; as to the other part of your question: No, I just look that way.</p>
<p>But in general, my mother thinks I’m the most equal amongst equals and that’s good enough for me—not really feeling the-victim at this point. And though I hadn’t really considered how Dartmouth views me, or if it “feels me” I’m guessing that writing for the Review probably doesn’t endear me.
The administration here seems to prefer “the solitary student given to wiling away the hours translating Cattulus”…and, of course, attending the liberal rally of the month (and knowing all the words to the slogan of the day).</p>
<p>How about AA for a true minority on campus: </p>
<p>Conservative writers who haven’t memorized the liberal hymn book and thus feel out of place and awkward when rallying to the cause-o-the-day! They just can’t get wit-it, with the rest of the Lemmings.</p>
<p>Sounds like Middlebury is trying to raise their stock with liberals…think the suckers are gonna be buying what their selling?</p>
<p>I say, wait till next year for the mark-down. Prices slashed…everything must go!</p>
<p>“Back to the central subject, how would one react when the Franck Eggelhoffer of Ivy Admission Inc --read Father of the Bride meets Katherine Cohen-- decides that this is an opportunity to good to pass on.”</p>
<p>I imagine one could check the legacy box and take a picture of oneself atop a polo pony as well.</p>