Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woke and woker. Hard to tell which school hates Jews and Israel the most right now, but I think Haverford is currently in the ascendancy, given that a bunch of its Jewish students are suing the entire college for fostering an extremely anti-Semitic campus: https://www.inquirer.com/education/haverford-college-antisemitism-lawsuit-20240516.html

I don’t think a Jewish student would feel comfortable at haverford right now.

My Jewish kid is going to BMC next year, and I've been following all the stuff going on. Have not been thrilled---to say the least. However, there seem to be more Jewish students than I thought, and it looks like a fair number of them have been participating in the protests. It seems like only the minority are not participating.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Last year when I toured with my kid it was the only school that started the tour with an acknowledgement of stolen land AND made us wear masks on the tour even while outside. To me it felt a bit much.“

We’re registered Dems and it’s too much for us, too. I guess it’s very generational, but I also find that the more white the organization, the more likely there are these performative declarations. Will be visiting both next week.

2 other schools that have the land acknowledgement in recent visits:

Michigan
Colorado State

All govt sponsored meetings in Australia (both parties) start with a land acknowledgement. It is totally a thing.

UVA stolen land plus slaves lived under this building. So performative. Obnoxious. Give it back then.

I do not know exactly where I stand on land acknowledgment. It does seem performative. But there is a wide gap between “go back to how things were 500 years ago” and acknowledging that there was harm done to the original Americans.

What we choose to celebrate does say a lot about us. If we decide we no longer wish to honor confederate generals, that indicates that society is moving toward a different understanding of its past. Same with the land acknowledgment. Doesn’t mean that to contextualize our past and our history means that we have to give up our present.

The irony is that the original Americans weren't exactly peace-loving people. Any existing tribes at the time of the first colonial settlements replaced earlier tribes through warfare and conquests and wars among the tribes were commonplace enough. So who was really the "first" is always an unknown.

There is no irony, what happened on this continent before Europeans got here doesn't matter at all. (And why do people feel the need to bring this crap into any thread where native Americans are mentioned?) Europeans decided that they were entitled to take over America because the people on this continent were both culturally inferior and as heathens, not endowed by God to manage the fruits of the land. They made an argument based on white/Christian/European supremacy, not the traditional historical argument of different groups of people meeting and either merging or fighting to see who would win and that argument cannot be used post hoc. Modern Europeans decided to treat people in the Americas and Africa and Australia like lesser beings to justify the seizure and extraction of natural resources. I'm so sick of this "people everyone fight each other for land" argument. All exploration on this continent was justified based on cultural supremacy, not military supremacy.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I chose Swarthmore (not pronounced Swath-more, at least by students) over Haverford many years ago so I assumed things would be a lot different now. But reading this thread it really doesn’t sound like too much has changed.

I liked Swarthmore’s campus more and it just seemed a little bigger than Haverford. I also liked that there was a train station on campus to go into Philly. There isn’t much to do in the surrounding area but you don’t really need to go off campus for much. You can even take a walk in the woods and still be on campus.

Haverford is right next to Bryn Mawr and close to Villanova so there is probably more of a college scene than there is at Swarthmore.

There was a decent amount of interaction between Swarthmore, Haverford, and Bryn Mawr. I went to some good free concerts on the Haverford campus. We also trekked over for some heated basketball rivalry games.

In terms of the grind, Swatties sort of dig into the reputation but there were plenty of chill people around who enjoyed having fun. That was more my crowd. I can’t think of any PhDs from my friend group but lots of JDs, MDs, and a couple of MBAs.

It was really hard to get an A, which may not be the case any more. For me, it was good mental preparation for the law school curve. If you can’t stomach the thought of ever getting a B, then it may not be the right place for you. But when you get an A you know you’ve earned it.

Also the honors program with small upper level seminars and external examiners is unique to Swarthmore.

Please tell me you only use "Swat" with your fellow alum. It's so obnoxious to use with folks who have nothing to do with the school - as if we're supposed to know your inside language. It's like the old money New Englanders and NYers who ask, "and where did you summer?"

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:“Last year when I toured with my kid it was the only school that started the tour with an acknowledgement of stolen land AND made us wear masks on the tour even while outside. To me it felt a bit much.“

We’re registered Dems and it’s too much for us, too. I guess it’s very generational, but I also find that the more white the organization, the more likely there are these performative declarations. Will be visiting both next week.

2 other schools that have the land acknowledgement in recent visits:

Michigan
Colorado State

All govt sponsored meetings in Australia (both parties) start with a land acknowledgement. It is totally a thing.

UVA stolen land plus slaves lived under this building. So performative. Obnoxious. Give it back then.

I do not know exactly where I stand on land acknowledgment. It does seem performative. But there is a wide gap between “go back to how things were 500 years ago” and acknowledging that there was harm done to the original Americans.

What we choose to celebrate does say a lot about us. If we decide we no longer wish to honor confederate generals, that indicates that society is moving toward a different understanding of its past. Same with the land acknowledgment. Doesn’t mean that to contextualize our past and our history means that we have to give up our present.

The irony is that the original Americans weren't exactly peace-loving people. Any existing tribes at the time of the first colonial settlements replaced earlier tribes through warfare and conquests and wars among the tribes were commonplace enough. So who was really the "first" is always an unknown.