Diversity at Dartmouth is a sham. Certainly the Trustees would tell you they believe in diversity. They're re-writing the College's mission statement to include it. Shouldn't that be enough? Well, not when you ignore one of the most significant disparities in our world today and at Dartmouth -- the realities of class. I'm no Marxist -- in fact, I consider myself a capitalist through and through. But even to the most devout capitalist, Dartmouth, with its $36,000 a year price tag, is an institution predicated on economic elitism. Dartmouth has made great strides in attracting members of diverse ethnic, racial and religious backgrounds, but one would be hard pressed to say similar advances have been made in recruiting members of certain economic groups. No matter how much money Dartmouth allocates for diversity programming in residential life or for minority recruitment in admissions, Dartmouth continues to recruit and to attract an extremely wealthy pool of students.
Director of Financial Aid Virginia Hazen seemed almost shocked when questioned in Richard Lazarus' Jan. 22 article in The Dartmouth, "Tuition Study Deems College Unaffordable." For the 39 percent of students who receive aid, "we meet the full need," Hazen stated. Yes, 39 percent of Dartmouth students receive financial aid. Perhaps it is more appropriate, though, to list the percentage of students who can afford Dartmouth's tuition without this assistance. That's three out of five students, a number that by almost any measure indicates that the majority of Dartmouth students come from families of significant wealth. President Wright has emphasized that Dartmouth "needs to make absolutely certain that our students represent the diversity of our society and of the world community. We assume this responsibility with enthusiasm." I have no doubt that James Wright is enthusiastic about diversity. It's a shame, however, that he seems oblivious that Dartmouth students do not constitute any sort of economic portrait of society as a whole.
Most Dartmouth students are affluent. It's hard for the College to admit this, but its true. If these students are the best in the country academically, should it matter? Some would say that the color of an applicants' skin, their religion or their economic background should not be considered, but the issue of non-merit-based preference in admissions is another question entirely, and one that the College has resolved for itself. For an institution that wants to make "absolutely certain that our students represent the diversity of our society," then it should matter that Dartmouth's students are, generally, very wealthy. There is something wrong when the rhetoric of the College claims to be so inclusive, when in fact, it has made comparatively little effort to make the College more economically diverse.
Even for those on financial aid, a substantial portion of the money they receive comes in the form of federal loans and federally subsidized work-study money -- not from Dartmouth. The College does not have to spend much on its work-study programs at all. In fact, the College actually uses this money to reduce labor costs rather than spending this money accomplishing valuable projects in the community. Students who earn near the minimum wage in work-study jobs are much cheaper to hire than non-students, who often have families to feed and mortgages to pay.
In Sabrina Peric's Jan. 22 article in The Dartmouth, "College Work-Study Falls Short," the author notes that only 6.1 percent of the federal work study funding the College receives goes toward work in the greater community, less than the measly federal minimum of 7 percent. Should these work-study programs be enriching the College's coffers through minimizing labor costs in Baker, Berry and Thayer, or should they be enriching the greater community and making students' experiences more diverse? Because class is an issue that is so overshadowed by Dartmouth's gender and racial politics, these questions are often sidestepped and, for the sake of Dartmouth's budget and gargantuan endowment, conveniently ignored.
Princeton has already eliminated the loan burden for all of its students on financial aid, choosing to give out only grants and scholarships. Last April (Rachel Osterman, The Dartmouth, April 4, 2001, "College adds $1.6 million to financial aid") Dean of Admissions Karl Furstenberg told The Dartmouth that a similar program, costing roughly $16 million, is "not economically possible." Perhaps our endowment is smaller, but if inclusivity and diversity were indeed priorities, shouldn't Dartmouth be able to spend a similar amount of money to pursue these goals? Dartmouth added only $1.6 million to its financial aid program last year, a drop in their $2.5 billion bucket of an endowment. If the College's mission is to recruit, attract and assist "students from different backgrounds to understand the complicated richness of the world in which we live," certainly Dartmouth should put more money where its mouth is. Or perhaps that is what President Wright has been talking about all along. Dartmouth's consistent hikes in tuition, its failure to recruit more financial aid recipients and the small amount of money it spends on aid, when compared to its massive endowment, is what President Wright means when he talks about "complicated richness." In fact, it's not all that complicated. If Dartmouth wishes to be honest about diversity and wants its richness to benefit and to be a portrait of society as a whole, it must spend more money on financial aid.
