“The Boston College student body is painfully homogenous,” I said to the woman who sat beside me. We were waiting for a panel discussion on “Workplace Diversity” to begin, and found common ground on the topic of education. She works for a nonprofit that aids underprivileged students in preparing for the demands of a university, and I attend a school that is nearly void of the types of students her organization helps.
Our conversation was brought to a hush as the panel speakers filed onto stage—three women who build teams for organizations in technology, finance, and government. The panel, which was hosted by Design Exchange Boston in the Seaport District, placed an emphasis on putting “people first” when recruiting talent.
Chief resilience officer for the City of Boston, Dr. S. Atyia Martin, sat on the panel and spoke of her current project— building a team that works to make social and economic equality in Boston a sustainable reality. She admitted the danger of simply filling “token representations” within an organization, which is often a product of attempting to solve underrepresentation from a statistical standpoint (i.e. 30 percent of our employees are female: we need to hire more women). Instead, Martin believes the recruitment process should be driven by asking, “Who are we serving?” By enlisting advocates directly from marginalized groups, Martin said, organizations avoid the trap of merely appeasing the statistics, and will ultimately be more successful in achieving solutions.
As I scribbled down Martin’s words about the inextricable link between a team and its mission, I remarked on the irony of BC’s Jesuit mission to produce “men and women for others.” At its most basic interpretation, “men and women for others” is good and simple. However, its simplicity spawns ambiguity. Who exactly are we “men and women” of BC? And who are the “others” for whom we exist?
Jesuits working at Boston College in the winter and spring of 1994 made an attempt to spur conversation surrounding these questions. In a paper entitled, Jesuits and Boston College: BC’s Mission, Jesuits’ Mission, the Jesuits analyze how the seemingly confounding variables of religion and modernity confuse the identity of BC. They acknowledge that universities can play an integral role in reversing the dehumanizing struggles experienced by the oppressed (presumably, the “others”). Yet they also understand the tendencies of universities to “tailor their programs to market demands, compete for scarce resources from government and private donors, and woo students with consumer amenities.” The Jesuits do not provide answers to the seeming paradox of humanity and capitalism, a disaccord that continues to fork the vision of BC today. However, they remain confident that harmony is possible—that “a university can express a profound humanism, constituted by the desire to understand the world and the direction of our lives … to achieve justice.”
Twenty-one years after the paper was published, BC has only regressed in solving this inconsistency between humanity and capitalism. From where I stand in 2015, BC’s identity crisis as a money-hungry Catholic university manifests itself most evidently in the socioeconomic homogeneity of its student body. We do not reflect an understanding of the world. Rather, we reflect an understanding of the hierarchy of boarding schools in the Northeast United States. We understand the connotations of our hometown zipcodes. We understand the world we occupy: the world of the privileged white.
To cater to the desires of our status-at tuned administration and cushion-accustomed undergraduates, the University has placed an insularity-perpetuating $186,680 price tag on BC’s four-year undergraduate Jesuit education. Complemented by scholarships, the main source of tuition subsidization is through financial aid. However, the average financial aid package subsidizes a four-year undergraduate education by less than 20 percent (and the average scholarship even less so)—an amount that is not enough to support a truly global and cross-cultural student body. These figures makes one wonder where exactly the $425 million annual gross tuition revenue and the vaguely allocated alumni donations are actually going (beyond, of course, the religious upkeep of grounds).
At some point, BC’s administration will get back to its Jesuit roots. It will realize that educational efficacy is not achieved by tightening acceptance rates, nor climbing the ranks of US News & World Report, nor buying up more land. Rather, it is achieved by taking financial risks and making creative efforts to broaden the talent pool from which BC recruits. This is more than catering to minorities. It is about composing a student body that reflects the groups of people we, the men and women of BC, are supposedly serving. If BC wants to truly improve, it needs to welcome students who represent the innumerable facets of diversity that can advocate for all brackets, classes, races, and corners of the world.
This is not to say that BC’s current approach is completely ineffective—as a white female from an affluent suburb outside Rochester, N.Y., I find BC’s volunteer programs in Boston and abroad integral in awakening students to both their own privilege and the world’s plight. Yet, in light of the resources at BC’s disposal, notably the recent $1.5 billion fundraised by the Light the World campaign, it seems that the approach of mere contact to the gritty reality of the world is cutting corners. Imagine the richness of each student’s world perspective if BC fostered an inclusive culture, where the privileged and disenfranchised sat alongside one another in classrooms, receiving a high-level education, feeling comfortable contributing personal anecdotes, and building solutions together. BC has the sufficient monetary and human capital to make this a reality. Yet, in the years that I have attended the University, BC has seemingly made no advances to diversify its socioeconomically homogeneous student body.
The administration can continue to revel at the satisfactory chunk of the pie chart they’ve allotted to AHANA students. They can fall asleep at night under the impression that the access they provide to volunteer programs is enough to move humanity forward. But until BC’s leaders engage in the dialogue that the Jesuits encouraged more than two decades ago—until we, as a University, address Dr. Martin’s question of, “Who are we serving?” and subsequently make efforts to reflect these people in the composition of our student body—we shan’t be citing the blasphemy that a BC Jesuit education produces “men and women for others.” Perhaps “white and privileged for others” would be more honest.
Featured Image by Francisco Ruela / Heights Graphic
Honestly, I think that the tailgating structure at BC is the most significant manifestation of its money hungriness. But in regards to homogeneity ln campus, I think you are contradicting yourself when you attack BC for reaching out to alumni and collecting an unprecedented donation campaign and for its high tuition. Where do you think the resources come from to pay for a more diverse student body to come to BC? Its donations which you highlight and a redistribution of tuition. The tuition is high to allow the University to subsidize the tuition costs of underprivileged students with the tuition of more privileged students. So if you were to control for the amount of wealthy students who do not need financial aid and therefore receive none, I would expect that the statistics you cite would be much more reflective of BC’s true efforts to try to bring more underprivileged students to BC through financial aid resource allocation. This is an important missed step in your critique.
You make the assumption that simply because one is “white” they are “privileged”. First off, there are different shades of “white” and the color of one’s skin does not indicate one’s financial standing in life. My daughter graduated BC recently . My husband is a first generation American. I am the descendant of immigrants. We are of European decent. The color of our skin would be considered white. My husband and I each work full-time and then have additional jobs to help pay for our children’s college education. Both we and our children have outstanding student loans to pay. We all made sacrifices as a family to ensure that our children received the education they desired. We have raised our children to be thoughtful, charitable with their time and talents, and to have a good work ethic. Ultimately BC’s motto of “Men and Women for others” is one that aligns well with our personal values. I will also let you know that during my daughter’s time at BC, she did have friends who would not be classified as white and yet there families were in a significantly better financial situation than ours. The thought that all people with light skin are privileged and all people of color are disadvantaged, is not only out dated, it’s insulting to all. I suggest that next time you look around at the students at BC, instead of making racist assumptions based on the color of their skin, you instead ponder the ways that these students circumstances may differ from the racist dialogue that you have been fed by the liberal media.
I am incredibly saddened by the fact that you do not understand the privilege that accompanies the pigment of your complexion. You are right. Not all people who are of caucasian descent are from affluent backgrounds. But you do benefit from other privileges that are not and will never be associated with other races. I believe this is the privilege that the writer is referencing when she talks about privilege. And so I would also like to make a suggestion, dear “BC Alum Parent”, that next time you decide to comment on anything similar to this or the subject of white privilege, you instead ponder on how ignorant you may end up sounding rather than deeming anything as “racist dialogue”.
There are pros and cons to being any race, gender, enonomic class, whatever. We all deal with the hand we’re dealt unfortunately.
Very good point.
Araba, This is clearly NOT the privilege that this writer references. She clearly makes a connection between socioeconomic status and whiteness, without regard to the complexities of privilege. She does not care to unravel the difference between white privilege and affluence. It’s undeniably true that white people are afforded certain privileges just by being white (like seeing people that look like you in commercials and magazines, not being turned away from interviews because of the sound of ones name, not feeling out of place in places like BC, or perhaps not being assumed to be of a lower class because of one’s skin), but depending on one’s background, these privileges may or may not affect socioeconomic status.
Because the writer specifically makes the connection between socioeconomic status and white privilege, it’s safe to assume that she assumes that whiteness has a direct connection to affluence, which is what BC Alum Parent is rightfully criticizing. Read carefully.
Also, the next time you decide to comment on anything similar to this, or the subject of white privilege, or the subject of a parent who is expressing frustration at the fact that she had to sacrifice much to send her daughter to BC, remember not to be an asshole. BC people don’t treat each other this way — we treat each other with respect and address disagreements respectfully — please check your attitude and tie up your high horse.
Araba: Caucasian is a proper noun and should be capitalized. While there are always exceptions to every rule, U.S. English always puts quotation marks after commas and periods. Whether Caucasians benefit from anything or things that Mongoloids and Negroids will “never” be associated with is debatable. Never is a very long time and Genghis Khan and King Shaka of the Zulus might just take issue with that statement and with you. What I take issue with – and what prompted me to reply to you – is your patronizing language: “dear ‘BC Alum Parent’, [sic] and suggesting that someone ponder how ignorant s/he may sound is not polite, much less professional, speech. To put it bluntly, it makes you look young and uneducated. I cringe at the thought that you may some day have, or already have, a degree from BC and thus be someone who represents BC. I hope that working in the real world for a decade or two will file down those rough edges.
Firstly, you have a grave misinterpretation of the motto “Men and Women for Others.” It does not mean Men and Women for the “other” (to use sociological terms), but men and women for all others, regardless of who we are and regardless of who they are. That’s the first thing.
Secondly, you may be right that Boston College has made little efforts to diversify its “socioeconomically homogenous” population, but it’s incorrect to assume that even if it were to diversify that population, that that population would be palpable, visible, or noticeable. You make a (false) necessary connection between socioeconomic status and skin color. While it’s true that many people of color (AHANA students, if we want to use BC’s horribly divisive term), tend to fall into lower socioeconomic brackets, socioeconomic status is not entirely divided on racial lines. It’s likely that the racial diversity you want to see more of at Boston College wouldn’t do much to solve the socioeconomic inequity at BC, and it’s likely that the diversity that’s already there doesn’t do much to satisfy your craving for a more populist BC. Take 5 AHANA students and I almost guarantee that 3 of them are the children of finance professionals, politicians, or lawyers.
I agree with you that BC, as a school that seeks to reflect Jesuit values, should actually do so, but this does not come from forced diversity and a beefed up AHANA program. It comes from fairness in admissions and careful distribution of financial aid. Do you know what would make BC seem less like an elite boarding school? More middle and working class white kids. More kids whose parents just moved here. More kids whose parents are just getting by, regardless of skin color.
Unfortunately, BC values visible diversity over true heterogeneity, and extends financial aid in dubious ways and values adding more races and more colors instead of actually adding more socioeconomic diversity. (This is not to argue, however, that diversity in itself is not positive, but in an effort to create socioeconomic diversity, as you argue, it’s not necessarily effective).
Your mentality is precisely the problem — that adding more people of color (and less “white” kids) — will make BC more socioeconomically diverse, but that’s not entirely true.
In no way was I shaped by the elite boarding school culture you reference, nor did BC make it easy for me to attend. In creating socioeconomic diversity, I’m the type of student you would want, but I got no help because I’m white. Meanwhile, some of my very best friends and roommates who were AHANA students were solicited with scholarships and assistance programs (obviously and insultingly based only on their last names and skin colors), but their parents were exceptionally well-off. How is that helpful?
While I agree that BC values admitting students with privileged backgrounds (it beefs up the endowment fund and allows BC to admit students without privileged backgrounds) and wish that this were changed, it’s frustrating to a) blame the people whose money pays for scholarships and b) think that race and ethnicity is the solution. If BC were to sincerely admit students from across the sociological spectrum, from all parts of the country, you’d see a beautiful cross-section of what America really looks like, and it would naturally assimilate people of all races and ethnicities instead of forcing these together, or hoping to achieve socioeconomic diversity through race. Achieve socioeconomic diversity, and a diverse spectrum of students will naturally follow.
I’m sure that as a white girl from an affluent suburb outside of Rochester, it’s easy for you to see the ills of society and use your elite whiteness to condemn white oppression in a way that seems less like complaining about white people and more like dismissing the privilege that has been afforded to you, and I’m sure it’s easy for you to assume that everyone who shares your skin color is as privileged as you, but unfortunately your understanding of whiteness is frustratingly simplistic. I’m glad that BC’s volunteer programs have opened you up to a bigger, more accepting worldview, but I would encourage you to continue to reflect on it.
My time at BC was filled with similar reflections and I was fairly involved in discussions on race and class, often the only white girl in the sociology classes that addressed those topics. In those, I both learned of my own privilege and recognized that mine was a lot less than others with who I would normally associate. I tried to be part of the elite culture at BC because, well, I was a white girl, but soon recognized that I really wasn’t one of them. I grew in my compassion for others and grew in understanding, I began to unravel the problems I see in life, and gained a more complex understanding of the race and class issues that are no stranger to BC.
I’m now a Master’s candidate, pondering these same questions, and have caught many a professor making these same kinds of simplistic assumptions that you do. I once read an article in a journal that explained the dynamic between domestic workers and their employers — it limited domestic workers to women of color — and I wondered, where do the white domestics (like my grandmother) fit into this structure? With the white people who employ them? It was then I realized that there is a more complex web of connections between class and race, and while whiteness may afford certain privileges, it doesn’t afford all.
I will ask you the same question you posed at the end of your piece — by viewing the world in simplistic terms of “white oppression” and “others” — who are we serving?
well said
Pamela: the “seeming paradox of humanity and capitalism” is not paradoxical to me at all. There are more types of capitalism in the world than you can name, I’m willing to wager, and you are parroting one particular point of view, cobbled together from a handful of likeminded sympathizers or perhaps authors you’ve read and admired. Humanity is a concept much too grand to be discussed in a newspaper column, and capitalism is a massive topic that has occupied the minds of countless brilliant economists, philosophers, politicians and world governments for centuries now; as yet, there does not seem to be a consensus. I applaud your courageousness and audacity in attempting to use a 1994 paper (written by a handful of Jesuits) to create a new universal theory. Maybe 21 years from now another BC student will use your column in an attempt to create a new universal theory, but in the meantime I think you should do more reading and less writing. Try to sample as many different viewpoints as you can find. Live a little, and then see what you think and how you feel.