Should we be proud of the SC community?

This opinion piece was originally published in The Santa Clara on Nov. 7, 1985. Steve Oddo questions the Santa Clara community’s commitment to diversity, activism and Jesuit principles

By Steve Oddo

Volume 64 No. 7, Nov. 7, 1985

Everyone likes to think of his/her own school as something special, as something worthy of praise and a decision made in younger days to attend. In fact, it's important for students, faculty, and administrators to have confidence and pride in their institution. 

In order for members of a university community to have this type of pride, however, a constant dialogue must exist, a constant re-evaluation, and a constant improving of every aspect of that community. With this in mind, and in light of circumstances on campus, it might be time to ask: Can we be proud of our university community here at SC? 

Should we be proud of a community in which racial diversity is practically non-existent, and in which minorities must integrate in order to be accepted? Of the 3609 students at SC, the vast majority, 2673 or 74 percent, are from white middle to upper class backgrounds. Black and Hispanic enrollment is so low, only 57 black students or 1.6 percent, and 284 Hispanic students or 8 percent, that minorities are practically invisible on campus. With cliques dominating the social scene, there is very little room for those who find themselves outside of the white majority, unless they adapt, and even at times forsake or forget about their heritage. Should we be proud of this type of subtle racial segregation? 

Should we be proud of an administration which feels satisfied with this lack of diversity and which continually fails to mount any kind of serious minority recruitment program? No practical minority recruitment program has existed here in years, and the decline of enrollment in black students decries this fact Black undergraduate enrollment has dropped from 129 in 1974 to the current number of 57, while Hispanic enrollment has remained right around its low percentage. The situation will only worsen as prospective minority students undoubtedly view SC as a hostile, closed environment. Should we be proud of this type of limiting policy?

Should we be proud of an institution in which the Ethnic Studies Program is a low priority, in which subtle racism dominates interracial activity among students and faculty, and which makes cultural diversity in its curriculum and policies a low priority as well? The Ethnic Studies Program is simply not respected as a viable educational entity by the administration, and this is in part due to the overriding belief that minority history and culture are not as important as the dominant white history and culture. Are SC graduates prepared to deal with culturally distinct people after coming from such a limited campus, and perhaps only taking a token Ethnic Studies course to fill a requirement? Clearly a complete picture is not being painted here, and the culture shock of the real world will be a harsh one for people leaving SC. Should we be proud of this educational flaw? 

Should we be proud of a campus on which student activism and social concern are prevalent only when they are in the current trend or fashion? Concern over the South African apartheid issue disappeared with the warm weather, and there's been more discussion over the campus convenience store than a racial injustice issue which still exists and was so prominent last spring. Likewise, cultural and charity events draw crowds many times smaller than those of drinking parties, movie nights, or comedy nights. Should we be proud of this inconsistent and even apathetic behavior? 

Should we be proud of a Jesuit institution which, contrary to the fundamental social principles of the Jesuit order, consciously or not, subtly promotes the ideals of wealth and success as primary components of a happy life? Starting salaries and entry level positions dominate the concerns of most seniors, while any kind of social commitment, inherent in the Jesuit way of life, seems to be lost or overshadowed. Consciences' can be soothed through a checkbook in the years to come. Should we be proud of this type of attitude? 

Should we be proud of an administration so bent on avoiding the "party school" label, that they call the police in on their own students to break up parties which the police can't believe they were called to break up? The SCPD even seems to have an arrangement with the University which gives them the power to threaten students they arrest on alcohol-related incidents with expulsion. Is this the type of behind-the-scenes policy-making we should be proud of? 

Should we be proud of an administration which seems to have forgotten that it is here for the students rather than the opposite? The proper role of a university administration, especially the president and his vice presidents, is to work with the students, not behind their backs, to provide the best education possible, to provide guidance in career choices, and in the case of a Jesuit institution, to provide the spiritual guidance needed to interact socially. While SC does work towards these ends in certain areas, the overriding feeling around campus is that the administration controls and mandates the education, almost in a forcible manner, as student input in such areas as tenure and curriculum is limited. Education shoud be a learning experience, not an imposition. Should we be proud of anything less than what we deserve? 

These questions are not intended to be guilt trips, nor to condemn studeats, faculty or administrators, but are intended to be an opportunity to look at where we are as a university and to find those spots improvements are needed. SC posseses many strong points as a university, but it seems the areas where it needs improvea are being ignored. Until these issues are addressed, it remains difficult to say decidedly and emphatically, "Yes, I am proud of the SC educational community."

Steve Oddo is a senior English major