 |
| Author | Post |
|---|
Chedva
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 553 |
| Mana: |    |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14th, 2006 05:43 pm |
|
From the New York Times today (3/14/2006):
(March 14) - Facing threats of litigation and pressure from Washington, colleges and universities nationwide are opening to white students hundreds of thousands of dollars in fellowships, scholarships and other programs previously created for minorities.
Southern Illinois University reached a consent decree last month with the Justice Department to allow nonminorities and men access to graduate fellowships originally created for minorities and women.
In January, the State University of New York made white students eligible for $6.8 million of aid in two scholarship programs also previously available just for minorities. Pepperdine University is negotiating with the Education Department over its use of race as a criterion in its programs.
"They're all trying to minimize their legal exposure," Susan Sturm, a law professor at Columbia University, said about colleges and universities. "The question is how are they doing that, and are they doing that in a way that's going to shut down any effort or any successful effort to diversify the student body?"
The institutions are reacting to two 2003 Supreme Court cases on using race in admissions at the University of Michigan. Although the cases did not ban using race in admissions to higher education, they did leave the state of the law unclear, and with the changing composition of the court, some university and college officials fear legal challenges.
Link to article (which I found on AOL):
http://articles.news.aol.com/news/article.adp?id=20060314092309990002&ncid=NWS00010000000001
|
CarolynLawrence
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 3191 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14th, 2006 10:52 pm |
|
| This truly troubles me. Colleges have scholarships for artists, athletes, musicians, students from certain geographic areas, and all sorts of other "special" categories that make them unavailable to everyone. If the playing field is truly going to be "leveled" then ALL scholarships based on a unique talent or student characteristic would need to be opened to everyone. No more athletic scholarships. No more debate scholarships. No more geographic diversity scholarships. This is just insanity in my opinion.
|
Laurel
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 42 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14th, 2006 11:29 pm |
|
I disagree, Carolyn. There is a fundamental difference between the race-based scholarships and the scholarships you mentioned. Is the "student characteristic" that is being rewarded something that is behavioral, or purely genetic?
My kid might become a Nobel prize winner, but he has no chance of being black or American Indian, or Hispanic, no matter how hard he works at it. A "minority kid" might not have to work at anything, or even have an interest in anything, or even care about his heritage at all in order to qualify for that money.
Yes, talents are a factor--my kid is a nerd, someone else's is an athlete or musician, but none of them get credit for that without some effort involved. There's no talent or effort involved in being a certain race or ethnic background.
Times have changed a lot since most of these sorts of scholarships were originally instituted. It's no longer a matter of giving a little extra consideration to a minority kid in order to level the playing field and make an opportunity available to a financially stressed kid. Now the selective colleges are using this money to compete for the minority kids who are already qualified, and often are perfectly capable of paying full freight. Like my son's friend who is a very good student at a selective prep school, and whose father is originally from Puerto Rico, and is a plastic surgeon. And I'm glad he was accepted at Yale, even though it was a surprise to everyone, including his family.
Anyway, I think these sorts of scholarship programs are from the past, and their time is over.
|
CarolynLawrence
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 3191 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 15th, 2006 03:02 pm |
|
I want to remind everyone posting here, however, to keep in mind that this is a sensitive subject, so please be extra careful in how you word your replies AND be open to considering other points of view. Please also try to back statements up with data whenever possible.
Laurel,
I understand what you're saying, and certainly in some cases, the minority students receiving racially-based scholarships *may* come from well-off families. However, we need to be careful not to say or imply that because we know of one, or several, situations that fit that category that *all* of these scholarships are going to such kids. It would be helpful if we had hard data, instead of taking individual cases and applying them to the population at large. Unfortunately, I don't have such data. If you do, please feel free to share it.
In any case, you brought up a good point about special talent scholarships not exactly correlating with racially-earmarked scholarships. So lets put special talent scholarships aside and look at this from several different angles.
First, if an endowed scholarship has been set up specifically for minority students, should the school be forced to go against what the donor intended? (I'm not saying that all minority scholarships are this way, but many are at quite a few colleges).
Second, how about scholarships that are restricted to students from certain geographic areas, religions, etc? Should those be eliminated as well?
Third, what ultimately is the purpose of a merit scholaship? Is it to meet the institution's goals/objectives for enrollment/revenues? If so, is it wrong to allow individual institutions to decide what those objectives are and how they will use their funds to obtain them?
Fourth, putting the race issue aside, should students from wealthy families also be disqualified from eligibility for merit scholarships? After all, students can't "choose" the family financial circumstances they're born into either, so isn't the practice used by many schools of offering merit scholarships which are basically discounts for full-payees unfair as well?
Finally, Laurel raised the question of whether some racial groups are still under-represented. The DOE just issued a report on enrollments in higher education yesterday. I will pull the numbers so we are talking about statistics, not just making assumptions.
Carolyn
Last edited on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 04:17 pm by CarolynLawrence
|
CarolynLawrence
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 3191 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 15th, 2006 03:57 pm |
|
Ok, here are the numbers from the Enrollment in PostSecondary Institutions study just released yesterday by the Dept. of Education (link: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2006/2006155.pdf) For comparison, I'll also include the census data breakdowns by race for the overall population.
There are currently 8,235,301 students enrolled as undergraduates at 4 year institutions. Of those:
63.5% are white, non hispanic
11.4% are African american
7.7% are Hispanic
5.4% are Asian
.89% are Native American
6.7% are classified as Race unknown
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Of those attending 4 year institutions, approximately 65.6% attend public insititutions. The breakdown of public insitutions is:
White 66%
African American 11.1%
Hispanic 8%
Asian 6.3%
Native American 1%
Unknown 4.5%
Of those attending 4 year schools, Approximately 28.5% attend private not-for-profit schools. The breakdown by race:
66% White, non hispanic
11.2% African American
5.8% Hispanic
4.7% Asian
.6% Native American
8% Race Unknown
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
According to US Census data, the racial breakdown of the US as a whole:
75% White, non-hispanic
12.3% African American
12.5% Hispanic
3.6 Asian
.9% Native American
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So, a few interesting data points come out of looking at the numbers:
The percentage of African Americans enrolled in 4 year colleges is actually quite close to the percentage of African Americans in the general population. The percentage of Asians enrolled in 4 year colleges is higher than the percentage of asians in the general population. The percentage of Hispanics and Whites enrolled in 4 year colleges are below their percentages in the general population.
Now, let's look at graduation rates. I particularly like the way the DOE did this study because they track the percentages who actually graduate in their degree program - that accounts for programs that take longer to complete, like engineering.
The graduation rate for ALL students at 4 year institutions: 55.3%
White, non-hispanic graduation rate: 58.2%
African American grad rate: 39.7%
Hispanic grad rate: 45.8%
Asian grad rate: 63.7%
Native American 36.5%
Race Unknown 51.7%
Last edited on Wed Mar 15th, 2006 04:01 pm by CarolynLawrence
|
Chedva
Member
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 553 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 15th, 2006 05:23 pm |
|
First, if an endowed scholarship has been set up specifically for minority students, should the school be forced to go against what the donor intended? (I'm not saying that all minority scholarships are this way, but many are at quite a few colleges).
Putting my (former) lawyer's hat on now: If a donor stated his/her intention, and specified to whom the funds should go, a college in most jurisdictions can't change the terms of that gift/bequest. In order to do so, the school must go to the Probate Court (or whatever it's called in that jurisdiction) to get the trust revised. A number of schools have done so when the original donor's intent can no longer be fulfilled for whatever reason (including even subsequent illegality). And sometimes the courts have ordered that, if you can't fulfill the intent, you have to give the money back to the donor's heirs!
However, if the school itself has set up the restrictions on the scholarships, without a specific instruction, it can change the terms of those scholarships at any time.
|
westkymom
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 15th, 2006 05:30 pm |
|
I would like to begin with a comment on a sensitivity issue. Many, many years ago I had an Internet conversation with a English professor from Florida State University who self identified as a "Black American"and who gently educated me in some of the terms that people use to identify themselves as "African" Americans and "Black" Americans.
He said that "African" Americans either have recently come from Africa and are part of the new African diaspora or they are descendents of former slaves who still wish to identify with Africa. "Black" Americans identify not with African but with the unique culture or cultures that have arisen in the New World African diaspora. These descendents of Africa (he said) see themselves as culturally separate from Africa. He also said that "Black" should be capitalized because it refers to a cultural identity, not a color of skin.
My argument had been, I am not white (I can accept "mostly of European descent, with a bit of Chickasaw thrown in"), why should I label anyone else as "black?" I told him that I was personally offended by the practice of identifying someone by the color of their skin (should be shades of brown). He stated that "Black" refers only to a self-professed cultural identity, not to skin shade or necessarily country of origin. Some people in America have chosen to be "African Americans" and some have chosen to be "Black Americans," and they are quite separate groups.
For all I know, he is not an expert and these are his opinions. You can certainly look at books and scholarly papers on the subject and there is not agreement on whether to capitalize "Black." But as a sensitivity issue, there are people who prefer it.
Regarding college admission, because there is an increasing number of Tiger Woods (25% this, 25% that, etc) and the cultures and genetics of people are becoming increasingly mixed, I suggest that race is becoming more impossible to determine in increasingly larger segments of the world's populations. While I am concerned the statistics show Hispanics are underrepresented in college attendance, I have a feeling we need to pour our efforts into how they are arriving at the decision not to attend college rather than band-aid the process at the college door.
Also, as much as a child cannot choose to a color of skin in order to have an advantage in applying to a college, he/she also cannot choose his economic status. I personally support eliminating race as a basis for aid/scholarships, but I do support need and merit based aid -- give a leg up to those who need it, reward those who work hard for it. Anyone who wants to go to college and is willing to work for it deserves a chance to go. IMO.
--Rhonda
|
CarolynLawrence
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 3191 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Wed Mar 15th, 2006 07:28 pm |
|
Rhonda,
Thank you for bringing up some important points.
Your post did raise an additional, perhaps broader, question in my mind. As parents of (hopefully) future/current college students, it's easy to get caught up in thinking that everyone is going on to college. I was surprised to see that there are only 8.2 million students enrolled in 4 year colleges when I looked that the DOE study (link above). There are also 6.6 million enrolled in 2 year schools. I checked with the census bureau and there are currently 27 million people between the ages of 18-24 in the U.S. So, it's fairly safe to say that only about 30% or so of kids that are "of college age" are actually attending 4 year schools, regardless of race.
Which brings me to my broader question: As a society, how should we/do we value access to higher education? Is it something we believe every person should have access to? And, if so, then I think Brenda was very astute in saying: "I have a feeling we need to pour our efforts into how they are arriving at the decision not to attend college rather than band-aid the process at the college door. " Quite clearly, there are an awful lot of students who aren't even arriving at the college door, regardless of the race issue. Just food for thought.
|
Laurel
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 42 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Mar 16th, 2006 12:15 am |
|
Carolyn, of course I didn't, and don't, mean to be insensitive to anyone. You said
the minority students receiving racially-based scholarships *may* come from well-off families. However, we need to be careful not to say or imply that because we know of one, or several, situations that fit that category that *all* of these scholarships are going to such kids
Of course not all of these scholarships are going to these kids. I don't think it's insulting or offensive to anyone, though, to suggest that there has been great progress over the last 40 years, that there are many more middle class minority students than ever before. In general, there are more highly qualified minority applicants than ever before.
But we shouldn't overlook truths in the analysis of the situation because we're afraid what someone might think. That doesn't make progress. I think there are several points we should recognize.
First, your statistics prove flat out that this is not a racial issue, but a cultural one. Everyone agrees that Asians are over-represented compared to their population, and the more selective the school, the bigger the differential. In California, it's even worse--it's my understanding that it's a disadvantage if you're applying to Berkeley.
Second, since it is a cultural issue, then we have to acknowledge that there are some cultures which suppress college attendance. I have personal experience with this, as I used to recruit for my undergrad alma mater when I lived in Phoenix about 20 years ago. Year after year I found Hispanic girls, even 3rd & 4th generation, who were certainly qualified, and interested in more education, but they and their families wouldn't dream of having them go to college. I'm not saying there are no Hispanic families who value a college education, just that overall, on average, there are other cultural values that take precedence. This is changing, but it is gradual.
Third, especially with Hispanics, you must realize that the constant, huge influx of immigrants is an absolute guarantee that statistically it may be literally generations before there is equilibrium between population figures and college attendance.
Fourth, money is fungible. If I hand you two dollar bills, and tell you that one of them is only for a non-white applicant, can you tell me which dollar is which? Of course not. There are usually more applicants than money, so the designation of "this dollar" for "this race of applicant" doesn't really mean anything anyway. Which brings me back to my original post....
Finally, it's one thing for a very selective college to reserve money for kids from underprivileged backgrounds, kids who have worked hard, had few resources, and are reaching for the stars. It's another thing entirely for a very selective college to admit and support minority students who are completely qualified, both financially and otherwise, and then use those students as evidence of a commitment to "diversity." I guess I'm cynical. I just think that by typing these kids by race, it allows them to manipulate the outcomes.
|
CarolynLawrence
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 3191 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Mar 16th, 2006 12:35 am |
|
In California, it's even worse--it's my understanding that it's a disadvantage if you're applying to Berkeley.
Just a point of clarification but the UC system is forbidden by law to consider race in admissions. They do, however, consider evidence of economic diversity - i.e., coming from a low performing school, being first generation college student, etc.
I do agree with you Laurel that we need to separate out the issues of economic diversity and racial diversity. They are two different issues, and, as Mini's "pell grant" research often showed, it's entirely possible for a school to be increasing one without increasing the other. Of course, merit scholarships aren't typically given because one comes from a low income family (and many would/have argued that merit scholarships are increasingly used to attract high income students).
Last edited on Thu Mar 16th, 2006 12:40 am by CarolynLawrence
|
westkymom
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Mar 16th, 2006 06:24 pm |
|
I think I'm hearing a lot of agreement on this issue really. I'm sure we all agree that colleges actively try to manipulate the outcome of the admissions and aid award process to optimize their image and ranking (by diversity, student:teacher ratios, etc), for purely fiscal reasons if nothing else. I think I'm hearing that we agree that typing students by race is not useful even to them. We agree need based aid is vital, though unfortunate reality is financial aid is not an unlimited resource. We agree we can assist students by trying to understand the cultural issues that affect their decisions to attend college -- and complete college, I might add. Simply understanding why something happens often starts a move in the "right" direction. (Of course I AM biased; I think college is beneficial for everyone and knowledge is important for its own sake and that education should never end. Call me ethnocentric but I think this premise is right for everyone.)
I also think I'm hearing agreement that scholarships for dancers, atheletes, etc, should be preserved (and they are certainly not a "protected class"); and, merit aid is for merit, not need.
Scholarships for minority applicants is "institutionalized" selectivity. I'd like to point out that, for example, if a school decides SAT or ACT scores are not needed, that is one more objective variable that does not enter the equation. So, the admissions officers who are in a round table discussion to determine "fit" are engaged in a subjective selectivity that we know is designed to benefit them financially. Is getting rid of the SAT/ACT score requirement really a good thing for the students? For example, now many colleges are giving men extra advantages in the college admissions process because so many more women are going to college and the male/female ratio is becoming increasingly unbalanced. Good for my son, bad for Carolyn's daughter -- again for a trait the student has no control over (and gender is a protected class).
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/education/2002534398_gender02m.html "In 1975, women constitute 45 percent of all U.S. college students. This year [2005], they represent 57.6 percent. The U.S. Department of Education estimates that, by 2014, women will earn 60 percent of all bachelor's degrees and will earn a majority of professional and doctoral degrees. Yet U.S. Census figures show 51 percent of adults under 35 are men."
I have seen in this forum and elsewhere that a school's statistics may be heavily manipulated and not really representative of what is actually happening at the school. I have also read that many colleges are moving toward admitting students who can fully pay for their entire education, in anticipation of the decrease in the incoming freshmen population after 2008 and the ensuing financial downturn. This move will also affect what segments of the population gain admittance.
I agree with you, Laurel; typing by race is manipulating the outcome. I guess I am concerned with the overall subjectivity of the selection process. The original article states (paraphrased): Susan Sturm, a law professor at Columbia University, said about colleges and universities, "The question is how are they [opening to white students hundreds of thousands of dollars in fellowships, scholarships and other programs previously created for minorities], and are they doing that in a way that's going to shut down any effort or any successful effort to diversify the student body?" I agree with her that we need to keep diversity as one of our top goals and watchdog the process of removing "race" from the Scholarship process.
Chedva, thank you for balancing the issue with the legal aspects.
--Rhonda
|
westkymom
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Thu Mar 16th, 2006 09:49 pm |
|
Everyone,
This topic can be so tense, I just wanted to share a light moment with you. I picked up my son (high school sophomore) from school this afternoon, and I asked him, "Can you share any comments or any thoughts about this trend toward more women than men in college? I mean think about it. By 2014, six out of every ten college students will be female. What do you think?"
He got a big smile on his face and said, "I think it's good." 
--Rhonda 
|
Laurel
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 42 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Fri Mar 17th, 2006 11:05 pm |
|
Some very good points, Rhonda (and I like your S's attitude!).
I'm sure I am going to be doing more thinking on this, considering some of the comments on the thread. I think there are a lot of unanswered questions about race or culture based scholarships; in fact I think there are many other issues lurking under the surface, and there are many inherently contradictory values that need to be examined.
If you'll bear with me, go back to my experience trying to recruit hispanic girls for a small NE women's college in the 80's. Today, the conventional wisdom is that racial diversity is a good thing, and multiculturalism is a primary value of our country. But what if the cultural norm for a certain group frowns on college attendance? Not only that but after actually attending this college, those girls have been changed forever. Does this mean that their original culture was somehow inferior? That judgment doesn't meet the current standards of acceptance of other cultures.
I think we all need to not only think about them, but have the courage to discuss these issues. It's important to come to the table believing that all the others in the conversation are of good will. To that end, it is quite unproductive to become "offended." No one learns anything that way. Instead, I suggest asking"what do you mean? Explain further."
|
westkymom
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Mar 18th, 2006 08:16 am |
|
Laurel,
I agree with the "what do you mean, explain further" rule. Another thing we agree on! I can be very logic oriented in these discussions, please give me feedback if my communications or communication style is failing (ie, I offend someone). I also agree that we must come to the table believing that others speak from a standpoint of good will. I personally will not discuss this or similar issues if emotion replaces reason -- it becomes unproductive and harmful.
Nevertheless, to attempt to approach this topic without recognizing what values we bring to the table invites emotional conflict. I accept the following premises: 1) diversity is good and desirable [embracing differences and similarities -- where it does not directly conflict with my non-negotiable values, like educating females too and valuing life]; 2) empowering an individual with knowledge and skills gives them a survival advantage; 3) education and any ensuing financial prosperity buys life opportunities for the individual and often his/her descendants. I could not continue the discussion with anyone who disagrees with premise number one -- it would be unproductive as it is a non-negotiable value for me.
I still propose need based aid for those who want to go to college and are willing to put the effort into it (and we should pour our efforts into helping them develop the skills/maturity/whatever to put the effort into it), and merit based aid for those who earn it. In order to provide opportunities and administer them fairly, we must continue to address (heavy sigh -- it's such a hard issue) the quality of education K-12 everywhere in the United States.
I think the question "Does that mean their original culture was inferior somehow" implies that it is appropriate to form a value judgement on a culture. That stance may seem cold-hearted, especially considering some of the torture practices of the Mayan culture during their heyday. What if we reframed that consideration to "Does the practice [in our case, attending college] somehow provide a survival advantage to that culture?"
I have read something amazing recently in Nicholas Ostler's _Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World_. The Assyrians brought the whole of the Fertile Crescent under their control, and during 744 BC to 681 BC, 1) ruinous tribute was demanded from the defeated, at the point of a sword, and 2) "...vast numbers of the conquered populations were led off to some other distant part of the empire." The author states results included the spread of Aramaic, which became the spoken language of the region, and the extinction of Phoenician and Hebrew, the latter two being languages of ancient Canaan. Hebrew ceased to be a spoken language but "its written and ritual use by Jews as the sacred language of Judaism had never lapsed. This underground existence was protected by a tradition of teachng in schools, and persistent reading, exposition and copying of the Jewish texts, of which the Bible's 'Old Testament' is quite a small part" [page 70]. The author states that Hebrew is spoken in the streets of Israel today; Hebrew's sister language Phoenician has left no surviving artistic literature. The argument being the Jewish tradition of teaching gave at least one element of their culture (their language) a survival advantage. Of course Ghengis Khan (conquest) and early USA Americans (incredible population growth) have employed other survival advantages.
Regarding the question of differing cultural values and "what if the cultural norm for a certain group frowns on college attendance?" In other words, do you force college on that culture? I would suggest that the answer must be "no," since we do not force parents of certain religions to provide medical care to their children.
It is my understanding that the percent of Hispanic Americans in college is deeply affected by the dramatic increase in the percent of Hispanics (due partially to immigration?) in the general population. It seems to me that changing demographics is the heart of the underrepresentation issue in this case. I think the statistics may be presented in a way that does not take the whole picture into account. I suggest that we must ask, given the changing demographics, how do we measure the progress of this group of people toward economic prosperity and "success" in the context of the mainstream culture? I suggest that it is possible that the growth of Hispanic college students in the USA may not be able to keep pace with the increase in the Hispanic population in the USA -- for now. I don't think this means the college system is failing them -- it just may take more time for the numbers to reach equilibrium. Two perhaps contradictory cliches come to mind: 1) If you build it, they will come (keep promoting college); 2) You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make it drink (we cannot force people to go to college). However, keep recruiting Hispanic girls -- it is often tough on the breakthrough generation in a family. But, I think that family's prospects for survival and prosperity will have increased (statistics say people with college degrees earn more than people without -- on the average). Further, I think I can see an increase (since I was young) in Hispanic influences in the USA today. I am guessing that Spanish is the most frequently taught foreign language in this country; I am delighted by Dora the Explorer; both my 15 yr old and my 7 yr old have studied Spanish in elementary school -- and we live in western KY! I feel that time will solve many of the "typing of people" problems as the population unifies.
Conversely, I am deeply concerned that time will only aggravate the male/female ratio problem. And while there is progress on "how boys learn," I don't think we have a handle on this problem at all.
Thank you for discussing these issues with me.
--Rhonda
|
CarolynLawrence
Administrator
| Joined: | Sun Mar 5th, 2006 |
| Location: | USA |
| Posts: | 3191 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sat Mar 18th, 2006 05:07 pm |
|
Laurel and Westkymom,
Thank you for the open and calm manner in which you are discussing this topic. I appreciate it, and especially like the suggestions you have both made about how we can handle sensitive topics here in this community in a way that respects the opinions of others, yet allows us to maintain our own opinions with dignity. Some of the suggestions you have both made are so good that I am going to use them to create a list of "discussion guidelines" for the community rules. If anyone else has any suggestions, please let me know. However, for having the intelligence and courage to lay the groundwork for future sensitive discussions, I am going to name you both  for the day and add to your manna. Thank you.
|
westkymom
Member
| Joined: | Mon Mar 6th, 2006 |
| Location: | |
| Posts: | 304 |
| Mana: | |
|
Posted: Sun Mar 19th, 2006 12:11 pm |
|
Thank you, Carolyn, for the kind words.
--Rhonda
|
Current time is 06:34 am | |
|
|
|
|
