What follows are some of my thoughts on the debate night this evening put on by The Forum.
The first debate was interesting, but Natalia's argument that we don't have the funds for isn't much of an argument. One day we will have the funds, but should we still expand to 1400? I think not.
Charlie's argument that more is good and so more students is necessarily a good. But that doesn't follow as Ilan Wurman pointed out in the question and answer period when he asked what "comparative advantage" we face by growing to be as large as our competitors. How then is Claremont "unique"? What do we do to draw students?
It's a worthy point. Maybe Claremont's rise to prominence is a function of its specialization on economics and politics. As I quipped on the screen, "a literature major does not do much for the endowment."
Naturally, much should be done by the faculty to check the "Master Plan" of President Gann to expand to 1400. The very language "master" and "plan" suggests that she (or the Board of Trustees) is making these decisions as if she were a "master." Do we not have faculty self-governance?
Next to the debate about alcohol on this campus.
There was a lot of hemming and hawing about who it is to blame for the drinking culture on campus. In order to inject a little clarity, I asked them what ought to be done now and what they would call for. Of course they dodged the question. Ben Kraus turned around and asked me how I would feel about students drinking in their rooms and that their friends will be likely not to turn their friends over to an RA, when I had argued just moments before that students aren't liking to binge drink when they are hanging out with one another. The view that their friends would check their drinking might help.
I said that there is serious money on the line -- by some estimates as much as $4 million -- and what is being done to protect the college's reputation? Sure, someone might die if we crack down, but I would wager that it is far less likely and if someone does die, we can make the argument that, "hey, we tried to do something about this issue." That might save us more money in the lawsuits that are sure to come. For more on this, please see the article I wrote in The Claremont Independent. Here's a brief snippet:
Nowadays, when a child drinks himself into the emergency room or grave, the first thing many parents do is call their lawyer. In March of this year, the parents of a student at College of New Jersey sued after their son died from drinking too much. The same thing happened at Rider University in 2007 and at University of Wisconsin-La Crosse in 2004.
In September of 2000, M.I.T. settled with the parents of freshman Scott Krueger for a whopping $4.75 million when he drank himself to death at a frat house in 1997. They also got an apology from the president of MIT who expressed sadness for "failing" Scott and his family. In truth, Scott failed all of them by not valuing himself and his education more. These lawsuits present a good argument for reducing the drinking age, but supportive college presidents should be straightforward about their motives.
In all this talk of lawyers, education, and lawsuits, the message becomes crystal clear: while most college students may not be old enough to crack a brew, they still can think for themselves and choose rationally. Colleges, recognizing that they can never truly police it all, should fight for liability reform and to be exempted from frivolous lawsuits over which they had little cause. After all, no one makes you drink. Given that the cost of tuition has so outpaced the value of what many students learn, Pomona should create disincentives for drinking. Pomona should increase tuition for students caught drinking underage. At the very least, those students who drink to excess should be the last ones to get their aid packages evaluated, with priority going toward students who have followed the rules.
Onto the debate about women on campus, contrary to what Elise argued, the point was first mentioned by a Pitzer student, but she was responding to something I wrote arguing that Fareed Zakaria was wrong to insist upon a woman questioner.
Elise's argument is that CMC is not male-dominated, but female-dominated. Well, that's not much of an argument at all! But really what can you expect from someone that worked at "The Independent Women's Forum"? Yes, she was right to make the argument that women aren't all gentle wall flowers that need manly protection, but she was wrong to turn it on its head and argue that women are always strong, courageous, etc when we all know that isn't true either.
The point I was making in the question and answer period, is that CMC seems to have very few real, heterosexual men on campus, which in turn explains why the women tend to be as assertive as men ought to be and the men tend to be milquetoasts or "bros." This, in turn, I believe explains why men tend to rarely ask out women on campus and why women seldom expect it. The men are unable to get up the courage to ask them out and the women are too assertive, too aggressive to woo. Moreover, there isn't a lot of evidence that women really are better at CMC. Can you name a successful alumna? The college became co-ed in 1976, you would that that there would be at least one in 33 years...
In any event, where's the manly virtue on our campus? Where are our Don Drapers? What the debaters failed to do is argue for a full throated defense of manliness. Indeed, the only people to try and make such a defense were also at Pitzer and the Masculinists were an ill-fated, short-lived club that really rankled the feminists.
17 comments:
Charles said:
"The point I was making in the question and answer period, is that CMC seems to have very few real, heterosexual men on campus, which in turn explains why the women tend to be as assertive as men ought to be and the men tend to be milquetoasts or "bros." This, in turn, I believe explains why men tend to rarely ask out women on campus and why women seldom expect it. The men are unable to get up the courage to ask them out and the women are too assertive, too aggressive to woo. Moreover, there isn't a lot of evidence that women really are better at CMC. Can you name a successful alumna? The college became co-ed in 1976, you would that that there would be at least one in 33 years..."
can you elaborate? Especially on the bolded part, never heard that one before. What is a "real, heterosexual man?"
By that I meant by the traditional standards by which one recognizes masculinity, Claremont is lacking.
so homosexuals can't be real men?
I see....as someone who doesn't spend much time on CMC's campus, I'd have to disagree. (And I won't get into the issues of equating heterosexuality with masculinity...it would probably be a wasted effort). I usually am only on the campus when I am heading to Pomona and what I see is: beer pong, football, college sports tank tops, and posters of athletes in rooms, among other things. If those aren't tokens of masculinity, I don't know what are. I'm very confused as to where you're coming from, since what I see, and what the stereotype of CMC seems to highlight is the intense masculinity of the campus. I even forget girls go to CMC sometimes.
On the contrary, some homosexuals can be real men, just as some homosexuals are not. It wasn't an either/or statement.
Okay, I do have to add something about the impossibility of equating masculinity with heterosexuality. All theory aside, I just have to say that I know some gay men that are the most masculine people I have ever met. And I know some straight men that are more feminine than I am even.
While I rarely expect unbiased, fact-based articles on the Claremont Conservative, this post seems to cross even more lines than usual. I take no exception to your argument about expanding the college, and I wasn’t present for the debate itself, so I cannot comment on that particular question. However, there are two particular insinuations that I feel the need to address immediately.
First of all, your “quip” about literature majors (which resembles other arguments you’ve made before) fails to take several things into account. Both the Economics and Government majors at Claremont McKenna are Bachelor’s degrees. Since they are not vocational degrees, they do not guarantee work in any particular field. Similarly, a literature major does not condemn its recipient to a lifetime in academia. Speaking personally, my mother earned a six figure salary for most of her life with an English degree. I also worked in an office of a successful financial public relations firm run by an American Studies major. Let’s be honest here, your undergraduate degree is only as relevant as you want it to be. Economics (unless it’s associated with Accounting) is not a vocational degree.
This dismissal of liberal arts majors – at a liberal arts college, no less – is a minor annoyance in comparison to your extremely sexist remarks later in this “article.” I agree that Fareed Zakaria did not need to insist on a female questioner if the majority of the students raising their hands were male; I also believe that it was a somewhat light-hearted filler remark that you should probably let go. However, I cannot see the connection between that and what you say next.
Your argument, correct me if I’m wrong, seems to argue that female assertiveness – an undesirable trait in your opinion – is only explicable as a consequence of the lack of “real, heterosexual men on campus.” I am not even going to try to analyze what you mean by “real” men. The real issue here is that you actually say that women at CMC are “as assertive as men out to be,” which implies that women ought not to be anything resembling assertive. I’m going to give you the benefit of the doubt and pretend that you did not mean to imply that the women at CMC are inferior to men because you personally cannot name a successful alumna.
One last, slightly less important point: is your ideal of masculinity really a morally grey man whose defining characteristic at the beginning of the first season of Mad Men was his tendency to seduce women other than his wife?
I look forward to seeing you try to explain yourself this time.
Alex,
I thank you for your readership.
On the point about liberal arts colleges,
I remain committed to a literature major actually meaning something. With the exception of Professor Faggen and Farrell, I find that most of what the literature department "teaches" is political correctness, post-feminist this, African-American lit, whatever. It does not teach the great books, nor does it seek to have a truly liberal education. I concede that I am a bit mean to literature majors, but I would also wager that the literature department and some of its acolytes are engaged in a politics of envy that tarnishes the entire college. I would also wager that government and economics majors are more likely to be consistent with the mission of the college as it was laid out by its founders: which is to educate practical men of affairs in the liberal arts.
My view of Don Draper is that he excludes masculinity and manly virtues which are not always the best, admittedly, but that doesn't mean that they aren't necessarily important.
Finally on the point about assertive men and women, I think that there needs to be a balancing act. I think the women here are far too aggressive (which was seen by the debaters) while the men here are far too under-aggressive. Often this results with some of the women hearing being more courageous, hard, cold and then men being too overly emotional, weak-willed, etc. In a way, I could say that both sexes should learn a lot by looking at the excesses of the other.
Wow. So many inaccurate, misinformed points in this article that you probably planted them hoping people would respond to correct you. It looks desperate of you, but I'll bite and correct a few.
1- If I have to name one successful alumna, I'll name Julie Spellman Sweet, who is probably making more money than you'll ever make: http://www.cravath.com/bios/jspellmansweet.aspx. There's more, but one will do to prove you wrong.
2- You really don't come off as knowing anything about the drinking or partying scene at CMC.
3- No, we don't have faculty governance at CMC and I don't really know of any good schools that let faculty control such important financial matters. Why would I want a bunch of academics, most of whom have never held a real job and know nothing about business, deciding such important things as capital budgeting for the school? There's a reason our Board of Trustees is mostly composed of successful businessmen.
4- I know it's a low blow, but you should really learn to write better. Just little grammatical things, excessive use of the passive voice, calling your text messages "quips," etc. make you look like an angry high school-aged blogger.
Charles, you've mostly stayed away from being a huge douchebag in relation to campus "news" for the past few months.
Most of us wrote it off as you finally having a girlfriend or something. What changed?
Thanks for the successful alumna. I meant famous, but I suppose that'll do. Do you have more? I'll add to the wikipedia page. As for making more money, we'll let history be the judge. My goal right now is to make one million by age 25, meaning I have only four years.
Blogging is supposed to be a quick medium. I write a lot every day, not just for the five classes I take or the publications I write for, but for the three jobs I have. I simply don't have time to proofread all of the blog posts I write. I wish there were a better way. Also quip is entirely a fair use. Get a dictionary.
I have never made it a point that I know more than others, but I have offered my opinion when asked and I have thought about the matters more than I would wager many other people have. I do not think in quite the conventional ways that others do, for better or worse.
On faculty self-governance, we do let them control the school, but let's be serious about that supposed Master Plan. Since when was "sustainability" a business or economic decision?
On the final point about a low blow, I don't mind the criticism. I welcome it. Last week, I wrote a speech for one of my employers that was given before the South Korean research association. I can write well, but I frankly don't invest that much time in the grammar of my posts. When you write a blog that has 1500 plus posts, I'm sure you'll slip up occasionally.
On the point about douchbaggery, I would just add that a need to make money and a resignation that CMC is going down the wrong path and that there isn't much I can do to stop it has left me less inclined to weigh in on the tedious, profound stupidity I see around me.
I had argued just moments before that students aren't liking to binge drink when they are hanging out with one another. The view that their friends would check their drinking might help.
I guess you're suggesting that most of the cases where students wind up with alcohol poisoning are cases where they were drinking alone then and not in the presence of friends?
Heidi Nelson Cruz, who for a while was the top officer for Latin America in the State Department under Bush.
http://www.claremontmckenna.edu/news/cmcmagazine/2005winter/cruz/
Thanks. I met Ms. Cruz! Too bad I overlooked her. I'll add her to the wikipedia page now.
Don Draper, an exemplar of manly virtue? No trying to get ignorant pop culture references past us, Charlie. His fantastic shoulders are literally his only redeeming quality. And I say that as a man.
Other points:
-Elise did attribute the original post to Amy Jasper...
-The Independent Women's Forum: you're aware they agree with you on everything, right?
-The debate positions, generally: you're not dense enough to think those were the debaters' real opinions, right?
Post a Comment