Yeah, I think every serious conversation I have seen about these concepts has included the observation that “historically white colleges” would basically be all of them except for those that were previously specifically for people of color.
I don’t want to get too far out in terms of speaking for others, but I understand part of the point of PWI defined as a contemporary and not historic concept is for people of color to be able discuss the contemporary experience for people of color at colleges that are still a solid majority white (as opposed to, say, only being a plurality white).
A history of segregation might still be relevant sometimes, but again there are, say, colleges located in areas where not a lot of people of color live to begin with. But what people of color might experience at such colleges is obviously still a relevant topic, and again I understand the concept of PWI is meant to include such colleges in that conversation.
No question that those schools are now diverse at the student level. For that reason, I think they’d be be chagrined to learn that their names are arranged in that order as a popular reference given how hard they’ve worked to change that very image. The original question, I think, questioned more the continued casual use of the acronym as shorthand reference to those schools, not whether the schools still deserved it. It’s arguably almost making light of something that many people take seriously.
I think your suggestions work just fine - “Historically white” for whatever compelling reason there is to point it out works just fine in my book.
I think the first part is right but not the second, meaning I think it’s a contemporary concept used to reference schools that are historically white, regardless of their current student composition. As I mentioned above, even if the student composition of some of these schools is now only plurality white, the levers of power remain disproportionately white, resulting in policies and practices that often are not sufficiently supportive of students from historically underrepresented groups.
That is certainly a common criticism of satire, sometimes known as the “this is no laughing matter” criticism.
Defenders of satire will tend to suggest in response that the idea that satire, or generally anything that involves humor, is inherently frivolous or trivializing is based on a misunderstanding of the fundamental role that humor and laughter have always played in human relationships, societies, and cultures.
Satire specifically has been defended as an important and effective mechanism of constructive social criticism. Among other things, it has been praised as a potential counterweight to what are sometimes called social imaginaries, in which prominent and powerful people and institutions are often valorized. This is potentially relevant to the 'WASP" discussion to extent that if some people are unironically valorizing “HYP” and such, a satirical response might be particularly appropriate and effective.
But it is virtually inevitable that any significant satire will lead to some people criticizing it on the grounds that such matters are too serious for humor, i.e. no laughing matter.
I read the book. It’s interesting how Wurgaft (who is also a Williams alum) is willing to toss the German Jews under the bus for mediating antisemitism at the student level, especially in the nineteenth century and before the influx of Eastern European Jewry that characterized the early 20th Century. That latter part of the story, IMO, got soft-peddled.
That’s the name of the conference. No different that calling it the Big 10 when there are now 18 members, or the SEC with schools not in the southeast. Or even worse, the PAC 12 with 2 members.
Thanks for sharing that. I had no idea that Tufts had played such a role in the spread of college a capella. I was in a group at my college that was still performing mostly barbershop quartet music, and then over the summer another counselor at the summer camp at which I worked shared a cassette tape with me of the Beelzebubs (she was a student at Tufts). Inspired, our repertoire completely changed the following year. We were not in the NE, and had no idea of what was going on up there!
I Googled and found several references, most of them by the schools themselves, claiming to be known as “the singing college” way back when for each of Amherst, Tufts and Wesleyan. To be precise, Wesleyan’s nickname, which dates back to the mid-19th century, was “The Singing College of New England.” Not a terribly meaningful distinction given that all three schools are in New England.
I also found this one reference to a “reputation” at Abilene Christian, though it’s tied to one thing or event in 1950:
I didn’t find any other schools claiming to have had the moniker, but I’m sure there were others.
From Wesleyan lore, I thought this tidbit from Michael Roth’s blog was quite funny:
For generations, Wesleyan was known as the “Singing College of New England.” Apparently, students would burst into song whenever Mrs. Butterfield (whose husband Vic was president from 1942-1967) would enter a room.
In that same piece, Roth also shared a more somber occasion for the performance by one Wes’ many acapella groups at a memorial for a deceased student:
But for me, the most powerful music I’ve heard thus far were when the Wesleyan Spirits, a group of young men who usually sing with infectious, antic joy, brought their music to the memorial service for Chase Parr. Chase herself was a singer, and the Spirits paid her tribute with dignity and love. I will long remember how their voices captured our community’s sorrow and affection in song, and how they transformed that sadness into something else – a music we could share.
Question as I try to pass the time until ED2 decisions come out: does anyone have a sense of the numbers breakdown of recruited athletes admitted ED1 vs ED2 at Wesleyan? So, if there will be approximately 185 class of 2028 varsity athletes admitted across the three rounds, how many of them are in the ED1 pool, and how many are in the ED2 pool?
Wesleyan provides a lot of data, and their student newspaper wrote an ED story for the class of 2026 that gives round-specific breakdowns, so I think I have a pretty good sense of how many students are admitted in each round (~465 total, with ~350 in ED1 and ~115 in ED2 based on the Argus article and seemingly true for class of 2028 based on ED1 and early QB admission figures).
And to be clear about my own intentions, yes, knowing how many of those are recruited athletes would help as I try to assess my kid’s chances in ED2. I also realize this is all guesswork with an incomplete dataset and that there are psychologically healthier ways I could be spending my time. But the numbers are so so small that knowing that, say, 5 or 20 or 50 of those 115 ED2 slots will be recruited athletes (combined with numbers available in the Argus article and class of 2027 profile like percentages of students who are seeking FA, first-gen, and other things my kid is not) actually starts to clarify the situation a bit! And I figure if there’s anyone who will humor me—and/or be willing to dig into the data and correct my extrapolations—it’s the NESCAC thread on CC!
ETA: I put this in the NESCAC thread (rather than starting a new one) on the premise that people with athletes at other NESCAC schools who went through the recruiting process at Wes might have useful info.
