Linking Diversity with Education

“The greatest challenge facing Americans is to accept and take pride in defining ourselves as a multiracial democracy.”

-President Bill Clinton, 1998-

The issue of race is always a sensitive topic. In the not too distant past, segregation still existed and all citizens were not treated equally. Today, many political candidates are answering questions concerning immigration. Political and social issues involving race are a hot topic as our nation becomes increasingly more diverse. At Allegheny College, there is an initiative to promote more diversity on campus, and attract students from various racial, economic, and religious communities. Allegheny College has a vision of preparing its students to be educated citizens in today’s multicultural society. As Sylvia Hurtado’s article states, our goal, and the goal of Allegheny College’s diversity program, should be “. . . to achieve a vision of the pluralistic democracy we aspire to become.” Linking diversity with education not only provides important educational benefits, but it helps today’s college students to become better citizens in the evolving multicultural society.

I was raised in a middle-class suburban neighborhood that, similar to Allegheny College, was mostly white. I also went to a high school that was about 95% white. Racial diversity, therefore, has never really been present in my life. The most diversity I ever experienced was when I played in basketball tournaments in the city. I now know that this lack of racial diversity in my life has caused me to be less active in civic missions and projects. We have read articles in this class that have shown proof of this relationship. Citizens that participate in diverse groups or organizations tend to be more socially and civically active. Many issues in our world today are influenced by some racial factors. Not to stereotype, but statistics show that poverty, crime, and lack of education are more common problems for minorities. Citizens that participate in diversity are aware of this and are more engaged in finding solutions to these problems. As I have said before, where I grew up, poverty, crime, and education were not problems I saw on a daily basis. However, it is important to recognize that these problems do exist. Diversity education is the first step to identifying these problems and working towards a solution.

Hurtado’s article also notes that by the year 2050, approximately half of the U.S. population will be represented by minorities. It is therefore important for young citizens today to learn how to collaborate in the evolving multicultural society. While Allegheny College may not be very diverse, I can at least admit that they are taking steps to rectify that problem. Allegheny’s new advertising campaign focuses on diversity and “unusual combinations” in hopes of attracting students from diverse communities. As a former Resident Advisor, part of my training was heavily focused on promoting diversity on my hall and in the community. In fact, I was required to put together at least one program each semester that involved diversity education. This was beneficial because it allowed me to become more educated on diversity issues, as well as allowing me to socialize with students and educators from different racial, economic, or religious communities. Allegheny College has helped educate me on working with citizens from different backgrounds, and that is something that is very important in today’s increasingly diverse society.

I know Allegheny takes a lot of criticism for not instituting the best policies and programs, but I legitimately feel that they are trying. In the four years I have been at Allegheny, there have been some changes to become a more diverse campus. The problem is that the changes have not been enough. Today’s college students need diversity as a part of their education to fully reach their potential as engaged, active, informed citizens. We have seen proof that linking diversity with education produces more civically engaged citizens. It is time that everyone becomes a more responsible citizen and participates in diversity education. This is the only way that we can achieve our ultimate goal of a more equal and diverse democracy.

Involvement at Allegheny

Linda Sax’s essay on citizenship development during the college years was very interesting and insightful. Sax argues that the college years are a critical time for developing three specific aspects of citizenship: commitment to social activism, sense of empowerment, and community involvement. Sax feels that college campus life strongly influences these three aspects of citizenship, and positive influences will lead to more social activism in the years after college. The question we must focus on is do college campuses, specifically Allegheny’s campus, influence students to get involved? I am of the opinion that Allegheny’s campus life does influence its students to be involved and actively engaged, however some students are not listening. Allegheny offers many organizations and opportunities that foster activism and community involvement, however many students fail to take advantage of these opportunities, and this has led to an overall decline in activism on Allegheny’s campus.

When I first came to Allegheny as a freshman, I was a member of the Men’s Basketball team. I was so busy trying to learn how to balance my studies with basketball that I did not fully realize all of the different organizations Allegheny offers. Only after I decided not to continue with basketball did I learn of the many groups I could become a part of. In my opinion, I feel Allegheny does a fine job in advertising the many different ways students can become involved on campus. The Activities Fair is always crowded with students anxious to sign up for groups or clubs that sound interesting. Just browsing the list of groups, there is something for just about everyone. Even if a club is missing, new clubs are formed every year bringing together students with common interests. The Campus Center always has flyers and posters for organizations, inviting anyone to attend the next meetings. The number of groups on campus makes it easy for students to find at least one that they identify with. In providing support to these groups, I feel Allegheny does influence its students to be involved and active on campus.

Allegheny’s Residence Life Office also does a good job of trying to involve incoming freshmen and current students. Speaking from personal experience as a former Resident Advisor in a freshmen dormitory, part of my job required the completion of CBAs, or Community Building Activities. I was required to organize hall programs or events that involved everyone’s interests, and met a number of different criteria such as academic, social, diversity, service, and wellness. It was a way to build community, as well as encouraging conversations and relationships on the hall. Most of the CBAs were very successful, although I sometimes had to knock on a few doors to encourage students to come. However, by the end of the year, many of my residents were asking me when the next CBA would be. In this way, Allegheny definitely fostered the building of relationships and interconnectedness among students.

While Allegheny provides many opportunities to be involved on campus, it is unfortunate that some students still choose to remain isolated from social activism and community involvement. Students cannot be forced to do something they truly don’t want to do, and some students prefer to remain alone watching television or playing video games. Other students remain involved in groups and organizations, but only minimally. These students just attend the required meetings and events so they at least feel like they are participating. There has been speculation of an overall decline in activism among students, not just at Allegheny, but everywhere. I honestly don’t believe it is necessarily the fault of the colleges, but more a fault of the students. It is up to us to become involved and practice activism during our college years. Being involved in college and building strong relationships will result in positive experiences later in life. Continued involvement in citizenship issues will also help create a better place and world for everyone. Allegheny, while not perfect by any means, is setting the table for us to be involved, but to steal a slogan from Nike, we need to just do it.

Allegheny's Soapbox Alliance

On November 5, 2007, Allegheny College announced its newly formed “Soapbox Alliance,” designed to encourage colleges and universities across the nation to work towards the goal of having an open campaign-event policy. The Soapbox Alliance seeks to end the practice of “closed” or “ticketed” events that are subject to discrimination. This initiative stems from an event that took place at Allegheny College in 2004, when Vice-President Dick Cheney visited Meadville, PA and held a private, political event on Allegheny’s campus. Tickets to the event were distributed in advance, and the Bush-Cheney campaign controlled who was allowed to attend. The Allegheny College Republicans, for example, were given 40 tickets to distribute at their discretion. This tactic of selective ticket distribution was used by the Bush-Cheney campaign to make sure that there were no protesters, disruptions, or distractions during Cheney’s speech. Only supporters of Cheney were allowed in, and anyone who might oppose his policies were kept out. This is where the Soapbox Alliance comes in. Under the Alliance, at least half of the available seats are to be made available to the general public though some non-discriminatory means, like a lottery system. This way, everyone has a fair chance to attend, protest, and express their views; although, Allegheny President Richard Cook also notes that he would still support the removal of disruptive or uncivil persons from the event. While Allegheny College means well with the formation of the Soapbox Alliance, the problem with this initiative is that although it eliminates forms of political discrimination, it still locks out voices and creates more discrimination by not respecting citizen’s First Amendment rights.

The main problem with Allegheny’s Soapbox Alliance is the question of where to draw the line on appropriate behavior, or more specifically, disruptive or uncivil behavior. When is it acceptable or legitimate to remove a protester from a political event? Is it not within their First Amendment right to protest at an event? President Cook may say one thing, but someone else may say something else. For example, one person may feel that interruptions and yelling should result in removal, and someone else might feel that silent protesters with signs should be removed. The difficulty is that where to draw the line is often blurry, and to be perfectly honest, I don’t know if there is a right answer. The Soapbox Alliance has good intentions of letting everyone in, but it does not necessarily allow them to voice their opinions once they are in. In a way, it creates just as much discrimination as it eliminates. Denying someone their right to free speech locks them out just as selective ticketing locks people out, and that is a problem.

Another troublesome problem, for me, about the Soapbox Alliance deals with Professor Shea’s proposal that half of the tickets be made available to the general public. Why not make them all available to the public? If we are truly trying to end selective ticketing of events, we should make the entire event open to everyone; a true town meeting. I understand that this may cause some politicians to avoid coming to Allegheny College, and that is why Professor Shea proposed a collaborative or “give and take” arrangement. Still, I feel that if a politician is qualified and educated enough, he or she will be able to answer the tough questions and respond to the protester’s concerns. If I disagreed with a policy, but I saw a politician at least try to hear other’s concerns and questions, that politician would at least earn my respect. Doing the right thing is usually not the easy thing to do, but you never know how voters may respond. It might even change some people’s minds.

The Soapbox Alliance is a good idea with good intentions. I just feel that there is some room for interpretation that should be cleared up. When, if ever, is it appropriate to silence someone’s right to free speech? As I have said, I’m not sure that there is a right answer to this question. I do know, however, that Allegheny’s view of an “open” event still locks out some voices, even if those voices are actually at the event. It is something that must be considered if the goal really is to have a true open-campaign event policy.

Finding the Right Balance

New communication technologies have enabled many people from many parts of the country to all have a conversation together simultaneously. Technologies such as e-mail and instant messenger have, in a sense, shrunken the public sphere. The limitations of time and space have become meaningless as communication has few boundaries. The question we must ask ourselves is, do these new technologies contribute or hinder our ability to be politically engaged? I personally believe that technologies, such as the internet, both contribute and hinder out ability to be politically engaged. The internet allows us to connect and share ideas with others we normally wouldn’t communicate with, but at the same time we are isolated from others because we are not physically with them. The internet keeps us alone in a room with a computer instead of actively participating in face-to-face political engagement.

Many of my relatives live in different parts of the country. Besides seeing them for the occasional Thanksgiving or Christmas, I used to have relatively little contact with them. The introduction of e-mail has completely changed the way I communicate with them. I now have regular weekly conversations with many of them where we discuss weather, sports, and political issues. The internet has enabled me to become more connected with my family, but it still does not replace physically being with them. Given the alternative of not communicating with them at all, e-mail has made communicating with my family easier and more convenient. Speaking about my ability to be politically engaged, I know I am a quiet person who usually has a lot to say, but I’m not always willing to stand up and say it. When I am anonymous, the fear of being criticized or embarrassed disappears for me. Political deliberation, thus, becomes easier for me in an online world. I have the confidence to express my views and beliefs because I am just a name on a computer to everyone else in the chat room. In that regard, the internet has allowed me, personally, to be more civically and politically engaged. All things considered, technology has definitely improved how I communicate, but the internet can be a double-edged sword, as it has a serious drawback.

The major problem with online communication is that the internet can breed isolation. When we communicate online, we are usually alone in a room with a computer. When I think about the definition of participation, I envision people working and sharing ideas with others in face-to-face conversations. If I were to enter a chat room and discuss a political issue with others, I would remain an anonymous screen name to everyone in that room. The presentation of my ideas would also suffer because tone, emotion, and passion are much more difficult to express in text than in face-to-face conversation. That is a serious difficulty with online communication. While technology has opened our world to new possibilities and ways of communicating, it has closed another world where people would meet together and deliberate face-to-face.

New technologies have provided us with new ways of communicating and becoming politically engaged. The trick, however, is to balance online communication with face-to-face communication. We cannot allow ourselves to just be an anonymous screen name. It is still important that we hold physical conversations with others. While the new technologies have made life easier for me, I too must also realize that visiting my friends and family who live far away is just as important as the new ways I am communicating with the

Keep Violence out of Political Expression

By: Robert Rodgers

Throughout history, their have been many groups that have used violence as a form of political expression. The first two that come to mind for me are the terrorist attacks on 9/11 and the Oklahoma City Bombing. In both cases, an activist or group of activists attempted to express their political views by using mass terrorism as the vehicle. I, for one, do not believe that violence, such as terrorism or any other type that physically harms someone, should be considered a legitimate form of political expression. While I do not agree with all the laws in our democratic society, murder is one of the laws I feel very strongly about. While those victims may not have been “innocent” in the eyes of Timothy McVeigh or Al-Qaeda, I feel that those people should not have been murdered. I believe there are other more legitimate and ethical ways to express political feelings and views. Violence opposes some of the fundamental rules of not only society, but civic engagement as well. As Patricia Roberts-Miller notes, it is important to have emotion and passion in political expression, but we must keep out terrorism and violence because they are unethical forms of political action.

In a true democratic society, everyone should have an equal voice. While this does not always hold true, it is still possible to form a political action group and fight for or against a policy or law you feel strongly about. Peaceful protests can be very powerful and they have worked in the past. I believe that activists should be expressing their views towards the policies and rules they disagree with, not the people behind them. No one deserves to die because of what they choose to agree or disagree with. The point of a democratic society is to let different voices and views be expressed, and I believe the best way to express those views is peacefully.

I am not saying that violence is not effective; I am just saying that it is unethical and wrong. Violence and terrorism can be a very powerful expression. It certainly catches everyone’s attention and the media publicizes the actions to the world. Some laws in society are unfair and unjust, allowing certain privileged people to succeed. However, murder is not one of those laws. I strongly advocate people standing up for what they believe in and doing what feels right, but do so in a peaceful manner.

Where is the line drawn then? I feel that if your political expression endangers the life or safety of another human being, then it should not be practiced. If you disagree with government policies, there is no need to bomb a federal building to express your views. Killing others that have different political or moral views, however radical they may be, creates an unsafe and dangerous environment for everyone. Isn’t the whole idea of civic engagement centered on making the world a better place for everyone to live? I’m all for activism and transgression, and I’m glad people are willing to fight, but we must draw the line somewhere, and hurting others is the place. As the popular saying goes, two wrongs don’t make a right. Violence and murder as political vehicles may actually end up hurting more people than it helps. To me, that is not legitimate political expression in a democratic society.

Stepping Outside the Box

By: Robert Rodgers

I will be the first to admit that I have lived a sheltered life. I have been privileged to grow up in an upper-middle class suburb where both of my parents have good jobs. I attended a private school and received an excellent education. I am fortunate to say that my life has been pretty good. In Paul Loeb’s Soul of a Citizen, Loeb mentions many inspirational stories where citizens have acted on the behalf of some injustice or problem in their community. For example, Loeb talks about one neighbor acting when another neighbor died because of sub-standard housing. The actions of this inspirational woman led to renovations and improvements in the community, paid for by the state. Citizens act on causes they feel a personal connection or responsibility to. One of the reasons that I feel I have not engaged in a community cause is because I have yet to be inspired by one. Whose fault is that? Well, really it’s my own fault. Living where I do, sub-standard housing, although it exists, is not a problem I see everyday. Rarely do I step outside “my little box” and see the real problems that are present everyday in this country.

Thinking back, I can recall one particular instance when my neighborhood did unite and take a stand against an issue. However, I was only 12 at the time and I was not actively involved. I know age is not an excuse, but at that age I was more concerned with video games and sports than civic engagement. A businessman that owned a large property of land adjacent to the neighborhood had agreed to let a communications company build a cell tower on his property. Many neighbors were outraged, protesting the potential health effects associated with a large cell tower being built in close proximity to the neighborhood. I remember my parents, along with most of the other neighbors, attending a civic board meeting to protest the construction of the cell tower. Because of the strong support that gathered, the plan for the cell tower was rejected. I think this is a great example of how the neighborhood I live in came together for something we felt strongly about. While I am still waiting for my inspiration, I now know that I will be ready.

I feel that it is very important that we, as a community, tackle problems we feel strongly about. I think that one of the most important aspects of helping others is not a quick, temporary fix, but trying to get to the root of the problems. For example, if someone is homeless, we can give them a place to live, but we must now begin to ask why they were homeless. To truly fix a problem, we need to work to solve the why. In the case of poverty, temporary fixes are nice, but the overall problem will never be solved unless we ask why the poverty is there in the first place. Asking the why and then working to solve it is the first step in making the world a better place for everyone to live. I have been largely absent in civic engagement issues and I feel that this has hurt my community. I do feel a sense of responsibility to those that are less fortunate than myself, and I should act on that responsibility. Fortunately, I feel that there is still time left for me to make a difference, and hopefully I will soon come across an opportunity that truly inspires me to act.

Barb Smith and HEARTH

By: Robert Rodgers

If Paul Loeb were to write a subsequent book called Soul of a Citizen Revisited, I am sure he could include the story of a neighbor of mine, Barb Smith. Mrs. Smith is a current board member (and former chair) of the nonprofit group HEARTH, which stands for Homelessness Ends with Advocacy, Resources, Training and Housing. HEARTH aims to help homeless women and children in Ross Township, PA by offering a program that provides temporary housing and services for up to two years. While in the housing program, the women receive assistance in education, job-training, child care, and other self-sufficient needs. Women have the opportunity to meet with counselors, set goals, and work to achieve them while they are living in temporary apartments provided by HEARTH. Since 1995, 143 mothers and 264 children have gone through the program with astonishing results. According to HEARTH, 84% have gone on to live in permanent houses, 75% have gone on to full-time jobs, 100% have increased their education, and 95% have increased their income. Much of HEARTH’s success can be attributed to the work that Barb Smith has done.

Mrs. Smith admits that she has had “a pretty easy life” as she lives in a comfortable home in Marshall, PA with her husband and three children. While Mrs. Smith began volunteering her time to help the homeless in the early 1990s, she joined HEARTH in 1995 because she wanted to make a difference in the lives of others. In 1998, Mrs. Smith became president of HEARTH, a position she held until 2005. As I mentioned, Mrs. Smith’s work and dedication has been an instrumental part to the success of HEARTH’s program. She attended months of training while she learned how to develop a successful model that would improve HEARTH’s program. She also has worked to develop a longer term plan for the program that involves expanding the services offered. The success and improvement of the program under Mrs. Smith’s guidance has made it easier for HEARTH to raise money to continue and expand its program. While volunteering at HEARTH over 20 hours a week, Mrs. Smith also finds time to be at home to raise her three children. She credits her husband, Charlie, for helping ease the workload for her while she is working at HEARTH. She notes, “I feel fortunate to do something that means something to me, helping other people. My husband has supported me in being able to stick with the organization and do something I think is really important.”

Mrs. Smith’s volunteer work has not gone unnoticed as she recently won the 2006 Jefferson Award for Public Service. She has been an inspiration to me as she truly is an example of an individual making a difference in the lives of so many. Mrs. Smith’s example of civic engagement has inspired me to look for more ways that I can help out the community and make the world a better place. You can read her story in full in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette Online at the following web address:

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/07005/751372-51.stm

Dog Fighting vs. Deer Hunting

By: Robert Rodgers

The Michael Vick dog fighting situation has been a polarizing story in the news this summer. Many people are horrified and shocked by Vick’s association to dog fighting, which apparently, is not as uncommon as most people would like to believe. However, many have publicly supported Vick, including some of his fellow NFL players. One such player, Terrell Owens of the Dallas Cowboys, has described dog fighting as a “cultural thing,” saying that it is not much different than deer hunting. While I respect Mr. Owens’ opinion on the situation, I completely disagree with him. While I am not condoning hunting, as I do not hunt nor ever plan to hunt, I believe there are certainly fundamental differences between deer hunting and dog fighting.

First, while I acknowledge that not all hunters eat the deer they kill, many hunters do hunt for the purpose of eating. I happen to know first hand a hunter who hunts so he can put food on the table during the winter season. Wasn’t that the purpose of hunting in the first place? Didn’t the Native Americans who first roamed the Americas hunt for food? Dog fighting is done primarily for sport. Dog fights, as I’ve read, typically involve gambling and are attended for the thrill of it. Second, dog fighting is illegal and considered a felony; however, deer hunting has a season when it is legal to hunt deer. This is done to control the population of deer. The deer population sometimes needs to be checked, or else deer would freeze and starve during the winter. Also, deer may cause accidents in the winter when they cross major roads in search of scarce food. Dog fighting has no such benefit as there is not a need to control the dog population. Third, in our culture, dogs are domestic animals and deer are wild animals. While this may not mean much to some, dogs are considered pets while deer are considered wild animals. True, both are creatures in the world, but who would kill their pets? Lastly, when hunting, the goal is to kill the deer as quickly and painlessly as possible. While this goal is not always achieved, it is certainly better than the pain and suffering dogs experience as they are attempting to tear each other apart in dog fights. Dog fights can last hours and the dogs may suffer considerably before one of them eventually dies.

I think it is very clear that we should not consider dog fighting to be a similar practice to deer hunting. Dog fighting is illegal and viewed as a sport, and not a source of food, as the dog owners gamble and watch their dogs suffer and fight to the death. While Mr. Owens may not see the difference between dog fighting and deer hunting, I think there clearly are differences that make dog fighting a much more unacceptable practice in our cultural today.

What does Civic Engagement mean to you?

By: Robert Rodgers

This year Allegheny College will participate in the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AACU) Core Commitments Program, which is designed to educate students on personal and social responsibility through civic and community engagement. This civic engagement program is meant to teach students about their responsibilities as citizens. But what does civic engagement really mean? What responsibilities do we, as students about to enter the work force, need to care about besides getting a job and paying bills? After thinking about this question for quite some time, I decided it would help if I actually wrote down what civic engagement means to me.

When I hear the term “civic engagement,” the first thing that comes to my mind is activism in the community because of a social issue or concern. Civic Engagement involves an individual or group acting on their feelings, usually to create a positive change in the world. Civic Engagement could involve demonstrating against the unethical treatment of animals, or working at a soup kitchen on a Saturday afternoon. We are civically engaged as long as we are out in the community trying to make a positive change, expressing a belief, or simply making the world a better place to live. That is the responsibility we have as citizens in this country. We have been blessed to be able to go to a school like Allegheny where we can grow and mature as adults. It is time to share the gifts we have with others. It is time to interact and help build a better community. Only from being out in the community can we learn what is important to the community. Once we have learned what’s important to the community we can articulate this by voting or setting up neighborhood associations. That is what civic engagement is about. If we really want to make a difference in the world and become a part of a civil society, we must all do our part by being an active, concerned member of the community.