Rethinking the Rhetoric of Need-Blind Activism

, by Matthew Krakaur,

My opinions are built on hearsay and conjecture. However, operating under the belief that political movements of any size have to account for a reasonable amount of both hearsay and conjecture, I am writing to add my admittedly uneducated voice to the controversy surrounding Wesleyan’s decision to discontinue support of its 100-percent need-blind admissions process.

I became interested in this year’s scandal when I learned that it was not about chalk. “Need-blind?” I would say, “Not chalk at all!” Others would agree eagerly. But as I delved into the specifics of the student activists’ stance, I found myself becoming confused. What I had thought to be their platform, namely that the need-blind program at our school should be strengthened, had become muddled by their rhetoric and methods of activism to the point where I was not sure that I understood the issue well enough to support them. Thus prompted, I began to look at the controversy in an attempt to form my own opinion.

A few weeks ago, some students made a video (perhaps you’ve seen it!) entitled, “Who Would Be Here,” in which students hold up signs denoting the effect the need-blind admissions system had on their own acceptance. One girl held a sign that said that need-blind is practical idealism. I was taken aback. Is this what the issue is, that the administration is denying applicants due to a failure to see a moral imperative? Is the student need-blind movement attempting to teach the University administration’S compassion?

To me, arguments like the one made in the “Who Would Be Here” video imply that the school is anti-need-blind, that the administration is fighting to remove the policy because it doesn’t like those who need it. This must be what the activists are saying, I gathered. Why else would they rest their argument on a moral or sentimental stance? It implies that it is possible for the administration to side with them, and yet the moral failings of the administration have driven them to hurt those not fortunate enough to pay full tuition on their own.

I tried to find evidence of a statement made by President Roth or another administrative spokesman that said that the decision was based in the belief that applicants do not deserve a need-blind system, or some other such thing that would lend itself to that kind of response. I could not find it. So then with whom are the activists arguing? It seems to me that they have created a straw man and have been leveling their focus at him instead. This is problematic. They are projecting non-existent sentiment onto the administration’s decision and distracting themselves and others from the context in which that decision was made, which makes it impossible to engage in a constructive discussion on the subject. How can the administration talk about the issue constructively if its points are being warped or ignored?

Since then, the activists have changed tactics: there was a sit-in at a meeting for the Board of Trustees that decidedly opened focus to include student-administration relations. A group of students decided to attend the meeting with a sign that said “Bring us into the conversation.”  This is a simple, assertive message—and it makes sense.  But it addresses a separate, larger issue, which this bout of activism highlights but does not treat with the focus it needs. Specificity in action and purpose are really necessary to produce change. Arguing for a student voice in Board decision-making while advocating for need-blind admissions dilutes the case for both issues. What I am afraid of is that this activism will not only be an ineffective catalyst for need-blind-related change, but it will also act as an obstacle for larger changes in student-faculty discourse. It does not matter whether you are right or not; vitriol does not solve anything by itself.

Need-blind admissions is a good thing. It is a waste of time trying to argue that it is a good thing, because no one has said that it isn’t.  The only way to move forward with the issue is to address the true reasons for the administration’s decision to move away from need-blind admissions. Sparking discourse is the most important thing. Painting Roth as a villain from the get-go does nothing. If he is wrong, the facts will show it.

  • Guest

    Huh.

  • Yona Roberts Golding

    Hey there, I just wanted to clarify something–although every opinion regarding need-blind is valuable, that video was made by an interested student for a class without a vote/meeting/consensus from other students interested in addressing the issue. There is a student group of sorts but that video was not produced by it. I personally think if we had discussed it the message might have been different or differently delivered. I think it’s really important not to conflate individual efforts with collective efforts, or “student activists’ stance” (collectively).

    • Matthew Krakaur

      Hi Yona. You’re completely right. I was not trying to say that the video was meant to speak for all the students currently campaigning for policy change. Looking back, this does appear unclear. To clarify my own point, I felt that, had the video been primarily a tool for change (which, as a project for class, it was not), it would be an issue. I just felt that it was similar in sentiment to a lot of rhetoric I’ve heard used to describe the administration’s stance, so I thought it a convenient example to explain myself. Its place in my article is misleading, however, and I apologize for that.

  • Samantha Maldonado

    “To
    me, arguments like the one made in the “Who Would Be Here” video imply that the
    school is anti-need-blind, that the administration is fighting to remove the
    policy because it doesn’t like those who need it. This must be what the
    activists are saying, I gathered.”

    I am one of the students
    who made the Who Would Be Here video, and it was primarily for a class, not
    part of the activist tactics. We never claimed to speak for everyone opposed to
    the need-aware policy nor did we ever claim association. I find fault that you are equating this video
    (meant to get people talking and get us credit for class) with the argument at
    large. Indeed, the school IS anti-need
    blind at this very moment in time when they have done away with need blind
    admissions! More than that, they did so
    in a way that was not transparent or involved many sources of input. Back to the video though–we never implied
    that the school “does not like those” those who, as you say, “need
    [need-blind admissions]” (which I find to be a pejorative phrasing and a simplification
    of the importance of need blind and who will be affected).

    Admissions is a process
    of discrimination amongst applicants to determine who gets in and who does not,
    but that process should not discriminate based on how much money the applicant
    has access to. The end of need-blind
    admissions representing a type of active discrimination against those who
    cannot afford the price tag of Wesleyan cannot to be reduced to a mere sentimental
    issue.

    PS–

    Practical idealism was a
    nod to a post on Roth’s blog; http://roth.blogs.wesleyan.edu/2011/04/11/we-pride-ourselves-upon-a-practical-idealism/

    PPS- Do not dismiss those who are actively speaking out against
    the issue by categorizing them into a group that you label The Activists. That is a reductive classification of many
    types of different students working in various ways to engage with the policy
    change at hand, and the classification diminishes the myriad of opinions on
    campus about the issue. I’d recommend contacting
    even just one of them to get a better understanding of what people actually
    believe and are hoping to accomplish.

    • Matthew Krakaur

      As I just said in my reply to Yona, I agree that my language could potentially imply that the video was made in collaboration with a larger body of students.

      I found your response to be strangely defensive. I am pro-Need-Blind as a policy, but it feels like you have assumed that I am against it (although I could be wrong). I am also not in favor of the administration’s effort to handle the issue, which I find appalling. This article is not about that.

      I see no issue with saying, “the activists,” because, despite the details of individuals’ opinions (which I am not saying are not important), neither the administration or myself are capable of factoring in every little nuance when forming our opinion. That’s how people work. A movement that aims to change others’ opinions should take their targets’ inclination towards simplification into account. Had I been writing an article that was meant to elucidate on more than my own opinions, I may have found it pertinent to include facts that I would not have uncovered without interviews and research.

      Also, I’m confused when you say that you do not believe that the school does not like those who need Need Blind, and then go on to say that the school is engaged in “active discrimination against those who
      cannot afford the price tag.” Does this discrimination come from somewhere other than dislike? I assume you’re saying it does, but I am unclear about why the school would do that.

      • Samantha Maldonado

        Thank you for your replies, both to Yona and me. You are right in assuming my original reply was written defensively. It was. I had to quickly clarify the video’s role in the response to the issue in light. I also took issue with your use of “the activists” in part because you, although pro-need blind, did not seem to include yourself in that group, and the label itself contributes to both a fracturing of the student body (so many times have I seen people rolling their eyes about the shenanigans “the activists” have gotten into) and the homogenization of varying viewpoints (although I do understand your purpose in writing this was not to elucidate those). It just seemed as though you used “the activists” as an umbrella term by including my classmate and me, the makers of the video, into the category, although you assure me you didn’t mean to (let me say here, though, that I don’t take offense to the term or categorization, but I can’t speak for my classmate).

        To address your last question, discrimination DOES come from somewhere other than simple dislike. Dislike is personal and works on an individual basis–ie, I dislike red meat, or I dislike some person who did me wrong. Therefore, I do not eat red meat nor do I associate with the theoretical person. Discrimination, on the other hand, works systematically and on an institutional level. Racism, sexism, and in the case of need-aware admissions, classism are examples of types of discrimination. And just to put it out there: although I’m full aware that this kind of discrimination goes beyond just Wes (that indicates the systematic and institutional nature of it) and isn’t a problem that can be solved just by keeping admissions need-blind, our institution refusing to practice classist discrimination at this level wouldn’t hurt.

  • 2016

    “I tried to find evidence of a statement made by President Roth or another administrative spokesman that said that the decision was based in the belief that applicants do not deserve a need-blind system, or some other such thing that would lend itself to that kind of response. I could not find it.”

    The question is not about what is being said, but rather about what is being done. Actions speak louder than words, to quote everybody’s second grade teacher.

    What’s being done? Wesleyan is cutting need, certainly significantly & apparently permanently, to enlarge the endowment. The protest centers around priorities. We ask: what priorities place the school’s monetary concerns so far out of balance with the school’s mission to provide a world-class education to anyone who deserves it? Perhaps more importantly, what priorities dictate that this decision should be made behind closed doors and tightly zipped lips?

    Need-friendly alternatives to this current budget are being pursued as we speak. This conversation is not about Michael Roth, or any individual. It’s about the Wesleyan community as a whole, and trying to find ways to both increase transparency and empower our community to make the best decisions for Wesleyan as a whole. Need Blind protestors are generally acting positively, to keep this undeniably important issue on the forefront of the community’s collective mind. Nobody is vilifying anybody.

    Well, perhaps except for those who are prosecuting students for exercising their rights to peaceable free speech as guaranteed in the Code of Non Academic Conduct. That seems to be, objectively speaking, an attempt at scapegoating, isolating and marginalizing part of Wes. I do not think that Need Blind protestors are the ones doing the vilifying; rather, it seems clear that they are the ones being vilified for daring to stand up for the stated principles of the whole community. Once again, actions speak louder than words.

Twitter