Each consisting of a small group of incoming first-year students, a faculty advisor, and an upperclass mentor, First-Year seminars acquaint students with one another through the exploration of an academic topic. Seminars are meant to be “academically rigorous, limited in size, and designed to enhance the new student’s abilities in critical analysis, writing, discussion and debate, and research and information literacy.”[1. Trinity College First-Year Program, “Starting Out: The First-Year Seminar Program”, 2011, http://www.trincoll.edu/Academics/FYP/Starting/Documents/SOfirstyearseminar.pdf.]However, though this required course succeeds in helping students hone the necessary skills to survive the rigor of a college curriculum, it does little to introduce new students to their role as active members of the Trinity community. Also, few First-Year seminar advisors facilitate dialogue that explores first-year students’ perceptions of race and social class. Because of these shortcomings, students lack knowledge about how to bridge racial and socioeconomic gaps, as well as the kind of responsible attitude that would motivate a student to care about improving student interactions in this way. Such is the cause of issues involving race and social class among Trinity students. In order to reach the level of acceptance and understanding that must exist in an ideal campus environment, first-year seminars must be re-vamped to include components that actively engage them with the campus community. Additionally, they must collaborate with other seminars to learn how to constructively discuss the issues of racism and classism that undoubtedly plague our campus.
Though topics studied can be as complex as “Modern Classical Liberalism” or as casual as “Beatles and the 60’s,” few have the objective of exploring their topic in the context of the campus community. Of the 36 seminars offered in the Fall 2011 semester, only two seminars—“Color and Money” and “Dangerous Decisions or Cheerful Choices”—explicitly mention using situations specific to Trinity as a framework or actively collecting data from students to enhance their research. Additionally, a third—“We Don’t Need Your Education”—requires students to study student movements in preparation for a culminating activity where individuals must conduct their own campus demonstration[1. Trinity College, “Course Schedule”, Fall 2011, http://internet2.trincoll.edu/ptools/CourseListing.aspx.] In his recent “white paper,” President James F. Jones Jr. expresses his desire for every Trinity student to “recognize the intrinsic merits of the diversity of humankind in the broadest possible connotations of the word” after four years.[1. Jones, James F. Jr., “To Reweave the Helices: Trinity’s DNA by Our Two-Hundredth Birthday” , 2011. College Archives – Documents. Paper 5. http://digitalrepository.trincoll.edu/trinarchives/5, pg 7.] The small First-Year Seminar groups are meant to establish an environment within which students can comfortably challenge or embrace an array of new ideas. It is here that students should begin to discover what it means to be the open-minded, active community members that Jones envisions. However, with only three of 36 seminars broadening their focus to the college and its inner-workings, many students are missing out on opportunities that could engage them with the campus in meaningful ways. Additionally, without a basic understanding of how to respectfully acknowledge different cultural and socioeconomic perspectives, students cannot interact with their peers in ways that contribute to the development of an inclusive student body.
Despite the lack of many seminars that introduce students to the realities of campus culture, a complete reconstruction of each seminar’s curriculum is not necessary. Rather, the addition of a component that focuses strictly on each topic’s connection to Trinity and relevant campus issues such as race and social class should be considered. For example, seminars like “Global Challenges of the 21st Century” or “T-Lab: Technology for International Development” that focus on global issues could also consider studying how certain international issues compare to the issues that members of different cultures in the United States face. Students can also draw parallels or make distinctions between the areas they studied and those that exist in the city of Hartford or in their own hometowns. Students could even survey students around campus and ask them to do the same. In this way, students in these seminars would be actively engaging with campus, as well as enhancing their study of their topics by using students as first-hand resources. Similarly, role-playing seminars like “Athens and Rome” and “Religion, Politics, and Power” could enrich their knowledge by exploring what vestiges of the historical eras they study still exist today. Between the amount of United States citizens and international students who attend Trinity, a rich discussion of how political, social, intellectual, cultural, and economic components of those areas might have influenced other cultures to which Trinity students might belong could result.
In addition to promoting more peer-to-peer interaction, seminar advisors could also promote an intrapersonal approach to bettering the Trinity community. President Jones follows his wish to nurture an attitude of acceptance amongst students with an expressed desire for each student to fulfill his or her duty as “an integral, contributing member of a small, tightly-knit college community founded upon shared meritocratic values”.[1. Jones Jr., 8.] This desire necessitates the addition of a component that teaches students what it means to be an active member of the campus community. Such a program proves to be successful at the University of Washington, where every first-year student is required to take “General Studies 199: The Campus Community.” Much like Trinity’s first-year seminars, first-year students participate in discussions, on-campus and off-campus projects and activities that assist them in their transition to college. However, this course exceeds our program in that it leads students in “beginning to understand their role as learners within the larger university, and how that role compares with their previous educational experiences, and understanding the value of being an active participant in the campus community and beyond”[1. University of Washington First Year Programs, “General Studies 199: The University Community Course Materials” (University of Washington, Autumn 2010), http://fyp.washington.edu/figs/downloads/coursepack.pdf.]Activities include reflecting upon one’s personal goals for academic and social success and completing a project that involves exploring a Seattle neighborhood and comparing it to one’s own racial and socioeconomic experience. Briefly stepping away from the seminar topic to engage students in curricular activities that mirror that of the University of Washington’s course could effectively introduce students to the idea of being more than just another face on Trinity’s campus.
The responsibility of introducing students to the idea of social accountability on campus rests primarily on each seminar’s faculty advisor. However, the fact that each faculty member is at liberty to decide upon his or her own seminar topic could mean that sensitive topics like race and social class might be easily avoided if it is not regarded as a priority by the majority of faculty members. As it stands, though the majority of faculty members desire a cohesive campus, the amount of passion they have towards the subject differs. Thus, their resulting approaches differ, as well. While some side with students in favor of an active response, others have a fear of overreacting. For instance, in the wake of an incident that occurred in Spring 2011, where a White student allegedly threw a beer can and shouted racial slurs at a minority student, Professor Samuel Kassow highlights a tendency for faculty to label students as unruly and close-minded and voiced his preference for a more careful, reflective approach. “Careful policy, based on facts, will achieve much more than jeremiads about racism or frog-marches into courses about “diversity,” Kassow wrote. “We need to look at our peer colleges and carefully assemble data”.[1. Kassow, Samuel. “Halt! Let’s Understand This FIRST! by Professor Kassow.” 4legs. 29 Apr 2011.http://www.4legs.org/2011/04/halt-lets-understand-this-first-by-professor-kassow/] In contrast, Professor David Cruz-Uribe suggested action as an alternative to Trinity’s usual research-driven response strategy. Cruz-Uribe wrote, “I believe that Professor Kassow’s assertion that we need further studies to determine what “factors contribute to tension and alienation” only contributes to the problem…I believe that the college needs to confront it head on”[1. Cruz-Uribe, David, SFO. “BASTA! Enough!” 4legs. 2 May 2011. http://www.4legs.org/2011/05/basta-enough/] In order to effectively address issues of race and social class on campus, there needs to be shared sentiment in regards to the urgency of these issues, as well as a consensus about the measures that should be taken to address them. At Amherst College, for instance, the student body consisted of 40% students of color and 10% international students in 2010—the same year the institution was ranked third for “Economic Diversity Among Top-Ranked Schools: Liberal Arts Colleges” in 2010 by U.S. News and World Report. In addition to re-vamping recruitment methods, instituting a need-blind/ no-loan admissions policy, and broadening their standards for merit aid, researchers contribute Amherst’s success in this regard to establishing institutional support.[1. Rubin, R. B. “Recruiting, Redefining, and Recommitting: The Quest to Increase Socioeconomic Diversity at Amherst College.” Equity & Excellence in Education v. 44 no. 4 (October 2011) p. 512-31] Similarly, in order to enhance First-Year seminars in a way that promotes diversity and community effectively, all faculty members should speak often and openly about various approaches until there is a unified stance. This will only strengthen the initiative and increase its likelihood of resonating with both incoming and returning students alike.
Such a unified perspective among the faculty can be exemplified for first-year students by way of colloquial activities between seminars. According to a 2008 student survey study conducted at the University of California, students’ academic disciplines can shape their perceptions of race and social class even moreso than ethnicity, socio-economic standing, or political affiliation.[1. Peter Schmidt, “Much Research on Campus Diversity Suffers From Being Only Skin Deep, New Studies Suggest,” The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 13, 2010, sec. Students, http://chronicle.com/article/Much-Research-on-Campus/65051/.] Therefore, it would be beneficial for about three or four seminars from multiple disciplines to form “clusters” on a bi-monthly basis, wherein they would share what they have learned about their topic through the lens of the Trinity-specific component. Students would also share what they have learned in regards to the component that would focus on the self and the campus community. It is here, in these “clusters,” that dialogue centering around race, class, gender roles, and other sensitive topics that require genuine, constructive discourse would be discussed. In his “white paper,” President Jones proposes the creation of a reading list of fifteen or so works, including classics like Candide, To Kill a Mockingbird, and “The Book of Exodus.” Seminars, which would be newly regarded as Understandings in Common, would read one book per week in preparation for faculty-facilitated discussions as a way of “dealing with ethical dilemmas concomitant with our students’ experiences at Trinity” and to explore “the theoretical and the actual, as ethics and postmodern events in real time coincide and collide”[2. Jones Jr., 19-20.] Such a suggestion aligns with the idea that students at Trinity are already adequately stimulated to debate current events using theory as a framework for the stances they choose. However, relating these events with students’ experiences at Trinity using literature as a springboard could add dimension to the kind of critical thinking that is already taking place in first-year seminars. The concept of Understandings in Common would undoubtedly work just as in “clusters” just as effectively as it would in individual seminars, since a variety of different perspectives often provides access to more modes of thinking than expected.
Exposure to a multitude of varying views and opinions is one of the most effective ways to resolve the ignorance that motivates issues related to race and social class. As a program that is known to orient incoming first-year students to college, first-year seminar advisors should not be reluctant to introduce students to the specific issues that are relevant to Trinity and the appropriate resources to combat them. Such resources exceed physical locations, such as the Counselor’s office or the Office of Multicultural Affairs. Rather, they extend to the tools of communication and active listening, as well as the potentially groundbreaking concept of “self” as it relates to campus community and culture. By instituting campus-wide support in the initiative to teach students how to access these tools as early as the First-Year seminar, Trinity could be well on its own way to meeting its goal of becoming an actively inclusive campus.