Talk:Claremont McKenna College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

I feel we should remove the section on the water fight. The incoming freshmen shouldn't know about it before they get here. Half the fun is showing up with your trash cans and not knowing what's going on.

[edit] Rape Allegations

What is the point of the rape allegations section? It really should have some context, if it is relevant to the school.

---

"alleged rumors, and nothing else i don't think it is relevant, despite whomever's personal biases against the college are listed above. three "rapes" (especially only non-prosecuted rapes, date rapes, etc.) in a period spanning over 10 years is not terribly uncommon for a US college or university. i think the section should be taken out, as it only serves as an attack on the school's reputation. (This is coming from a female student's point of view.) 24.199.117.240 23:50, 26 December 2005 (UTC)

alleged rumors, and nothing else Please be more specific. Do you believe that the statistic provided by the Dean of Students is an “alleged rumor” and “nothing else”?

i don't think it is relevant Relevant to whom? I think most people would find the Rape Allegations section more relevant to their lives than, say, the Dropouts section.

three "rapes" (especially only non-prosecuted rapes, date rapes, etc.) in a period spanning over 10 years is not terribly uncommon for a US college or university. The section (before you deleted it) listed three excerpts--not three rapes. In the interest of time and space, the excerpts were kept to a minimum. Apparently, that didn’t stop some people from merely glancing over them.

i think the section should be taken out, as it only serves as an attack on the school's reputation. I know this might be hard for you to understand, but CMC does not own Wikipedia. People are allowed to post information that reflects negatively on CMC. It’s okay. It’s perfectly natural. Some might even say it’s healthy.

(This is coming from a female student's point of view.) Oh, okay. That changes everything.

---

The rape section does sound like an attack on the school's safety, when in fact the annual crime staticstics reports, which all colleges are required by law to provide, show that crime at the school is pretty normal for a school its size. And while 'People are allowed to post information that reflects negatively on CMC,' that information must still meet the requirements of NPOV, and the section as it stands does not. -- Vary | Talk 05:44, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The rape section does sound like an attack on the school's safety… Only the Claremont Port Side excerpt concerns the quantity of acquaintance rape cases. The other excerpts concern the handling of acquaintance rape cases.

when in fact the annual crime statistics reports… The Department of Education does not vouch for the crime statistics, as the “crime data reported by the institutions has not been subjected to independent verification.” … The crime statistics available do not differentiate between acquaintance rape and stranger rape.

which all colleges are required by law to provide… The CMC administration does not abide by all laws. (Two words: underage drinking.)

show that crime at the school is pretty normal for a school its size.

The CMC administration does not report all "incidents" as offenses. For instance, the burning of a stolen 11-foot-tall cross by four Claremont Colleges students in 2004 was not classified as an act of arson, theft, or hate. “I don’t call it a cross burning,” said CMC President Pamela Gann. “I call it burning a piece of outdoor sculpture that was in the shape of a cross" (St. Petersburg Times 6/6/04). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.13.145.210 (talk • contribs) .

I think the sections on sexual assault and gay and lesbian issues is unnecessary. when looking up Claremont McKenna in a true encyclopedia, i doubt that a school newspaper article written in 1982 (over 20 years prior to the encyclopedia's publishing) that included the word "faggot" would appear. Furthermore, I agree with Vary that the section on sexual assault should not be included.Geltoorch 07:56, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

I think the sections on sexual assault and gay and lesbian issues is unnecessary.

Those issues might not be important to you, Gelt, but they are to some people. That’s why The Princeton Review (which you love so much) also has lists like “Gay Community Accepted” and “Alternative Lifestyles Not An Alternative.” … Did you forget to mention the “2004 Hate Crime” section? Since the incident was revealed to be a hoax, I guess that makes the section okay. Otherwise, it would also be “unnecessary.”

• • • Did the section on sexual assault and gay and lesbian issues disappear on this page? A similar issue was recently discussed on the page of Ohio Wesleyan University where one user opposed mentioning that Ohio Wesleyan was gay-friendly when in fact both the students and the administration actively recruit among the LGBT community.

when looking up Claremont McKenna in a true encyclopedia, i doubt that a school newspaper article written in 1982…that included the word "faggot" would appear.

Most "true encyclopedias" would not have an entry for CMC. Should we delete the CMC Wikipedia page? … The 1982 item provides historical perspective. It shows that recent use of the word “faggot” at CMC is not isolated—indeed, that it can be traced back over time. Isn’t it interesting how history repeats itself? Not to some people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.13.145.210 (talk • contribs) .

The full text of the article you cited [1] makes it clear that the burning of the sculpture was not a hate crime. The students vandalized the object because they were bored. It was a stupid, childish thing to do, but it was not a hate crime. The quote was entirely accurate - it was not a cross burning. The object was not a cross, but looked like one.

The cited article centers around the discovery (mentioned in this article) that a visiting professor who had spoken extensively on the subject of hate crime vandalized her own car to make it seem as if it had been an attack by intolerant students.

Underage drinking is a problem at all colleges, so I'm not sure what that is meant to say about the administration. Can you give specific support to allegations of law violations by CMC administration? And the statistics include all reported crimes, not just those that resulted in charges, so it doesn't matter if the accused students were ever prosecuted. Otherwise, crimes by unknown assailants would not be included at all.

The only current example given is from 1992, and a point is made of the fact that at that time, there was no specific sexual assault section in the student code of conduct. There is now, and so far as I can tell, has been ever since the cited case - it appears to have been added specifically because the student couldn't be charged with sexual assault by the CMC disciplinary system, because that charge did not yet exist. The student in question was instead charged with physical assault, which has happened in other cases at other universities, especially in the 1980's and early 90's, when young women stopped keeping quiet about sexual assaults, and charges were brought against students for the first time at many institutions.

The references to anti-gay activities in the 1980's and early 90's are give more importance than they deserve relative to attitudes on campus today. Unfortunately, these sorts of problems were common all over the country at that time, and listing these incidents mixed in with current ones again gives the reader the impression that incidents of that same severity are occurring today as 20 years ago. That's not saying that the things that happened in the 1980's were acceptable; they were terrible, but they weren't unique, and I don't think that's a good reflection of the campus today.

Rather than another revert, which I don't think would be productive, I'm tagging the article as POV until the issue is resolved. But IP 66.13.145.210; all in all, you seem to have very strong personal feelings about CMC, which is never a good thing when editing a Wikipedia article. If you must continue to add material, please try to make it meet the NPOV criteria. -- Vary | Talk 04:00, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Well said. I think it's clear that there is a strong bias against the subject of the article by one user. Unfortunately, CMC is a very small college and I doubt many of the students, alumni, and people with extensive knowledge of the college know little about this article and therefore will not contribute to this consensus. I'm relatively new to wikipedia, but I think Vary has covered everything necessary to revert the article back and take out the controversial/biased sections? Geltoorch 19:10, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

---

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.173.160.113 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] New Sections

Are any of the publications cited in the new text that was just added by IP 66.13.145.210 available online? If so, they need links. -- Vary | Talk 14:33, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

I've gone on a CMC student message board and requested some additional student opinions on the problem we're having. They already had a thread discussing the article, and there were a few negative comments about its accuracy. Hopefully a few more people who are familiar with the college will swing by and help us round out this article. -- Vary | Talk 16:34, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Vary, please check your phrasing and your link [2]: “According to the American Association of University Professors, the same is true of most college [higher education?] professors [faculties?] nationwide. [1]” [Incorrect link? Link does not verify statement.] -- Threestates 20:55, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tyra Banks?

What I know of Tyra Banks' life it dosen't seem possible that she was ever associated with CMC. OSt of the other internet sources don't seem very reliable. Does any have a source to back-up her inclusion on the Droupouts line? (I am very concerned since I'm a CMC student.) --chemica 04:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)