By Kye Lippold '10, David Foster '10, and Bret Turner '13
A survey conducted last week by HamPoll: Hamilton's Polling Organization, a student group that queries the student body about important topics, found that most students were not offended by the recent contentious party invitations on campus. However, students expressed considerable concern about the latest incident of campus vandalism, strongly supported a Statement of Community Values being distributed to first-years, and expressed plurality support for a Cultural Education Center.
The survey was open to the entire student body and received 584 responses. The survey sample was self-selected and thus differs slightly from the overall population; specifically, the sample includes a greater proportion of women than the student body at large and contains slightly lower percentages of multicultural students and varsity athletes. Also, 24% of students who responded reported attending a campus discussion or protest related to the incidents, which likely reflects a higher response rate among students who felt passionately about the invitations. Results are expressed in terms of percentages of respondents, and may not add to 100% due to the exclusion of “don't know” responses.
Overall, survey respondents were not offended by either the recent “Golf Pros and Tennis Hos” party invitation or last semester's contentious “Mexican Night” party invitation, which aroused protests from students and discussion by faculty. For both invitations, 18% of respondents indicated they were offended. However, while 69% of respondents indicated they were not offended by the “Golf Pros” invitation (the remaining responses consisted of “not sure” responses or responses from individuals who had not heard of the invitations), fewer (55%) of students were not offended by the “Mexican Night” invitation. The difference can be primarily explained by the fact that 17% of students had not heard of the “Mexican Night” invitation (of which 80% were first-year students); excluding first-year students, 66% were not offended. Thus, neither party invitation aroused substantial offense.
In line with these results, respondents generally viewed the student body's reaction to the invitations as an over-reaction, with 59% taking this view for “Golf Pros” and 57% for “Mexican Night.” Views of the administration's response were split between over-reaction (36% and 40%, for “Golf Pros” and “Mexican Night” respectively) and “about right” (28% and 42%). Faculty responses were only queried in the case of “Mexican Night,” as that event involved discussion at a faculty meeting; 40% of respondents thought the faculty over-reacted, while 27% though the response was about right. Fewer than 10% of respondents viewed any of the groups' reactions to either party as an under-reaction, respectively.
Breaking down results by various demographic groups revealed some important differences in reactions to the party invitations. Sixteen percent of students who identified only as Caucasian were offended by “Mexican Night,” but 26% of students from other or multiple ethnic groups were offended; the results were similar for “Golf Pros.” A smaller but significant division was observed for men and women, with women 8% more likely (21%) to view the invitations as offensive relative to men (13%). Women were also more likely to be unsure about their level of offense, as 65% of men viewed the invitation as not offensive, versus only 48% of women. Students who identified as lesbian, gay, or bisexual were significantly more likely to be offended by the “Golf Pros” invitation, expressing offense at rates of 38% versus 17% of heterosexual students.
In addition to these divides among identity groups, several campus demographics reported different responses to the invitations. Students on financial aid were more likely to be offended by both invitations (25% each) than students not on financial aid (about 10% each); this result held after controlling for race, sex, and other variables in a linear regression. Varsity athletes were less likely to report offense at both invitations, with a mere 9% reporting offense relative to 22% of non-athletes. These results were almost identical to those for members of Greek organizations, who reported offense at rates comparable to athletes.
Responses to the incident in which a car was vandalized with a homophobic slur were much more uniformly disapproving. 75% of students were offended by the incident, while only 15% were not offended. Differences among demographic groups were more muted on this question, with no clear racial differences and strong majorities offended overall. However, lesbian, gay, and bisexual students were almost universally offended by the slur (91%), 10% more women were offended than men, and 10% more varsity athletes reported being not offended than non-athletes. Students thought that reaction to the vandalism was about right on the part of both the student body (50%) and the administration (59%); 33% and 24% viewed the response as an under-reaction, respectively.
Finally, the survey provided a measure of student support for a variety of proposals related to diversity and community values. Over 60% of students were opposed to the prospects of both a Diversity Intensive requirement (described as a “course requirement which would function similarly to the Writing Intensive requirement but would be applied to courses in which students studied issues related to other cultures or diversity”) and requiring party invitations to be approved by an administrator. Conversely, 67% of students supported a plan to “distribute a Statement of Community Values to incoming freshmen which would articulate shared values for behavior at Hamilton.” Support for a Social Honor Code (described as “a binding statement which would require students to confront one another by initiating respectful dialogue about offensive acts, or face judicial consequences”) and a “Cultural Education Center whose goal would be to encourage discussion about diversity” were both closely split; 40% of respondents supported the Social Honor Code, with 45% opposed; and 42% supported a Cultural Education Center, with 30% opposed and 26% having no opinion.
Respondents also supported the prospect of increasing the number of cameras in parking lots, with 21% supporting more cameras to prevent future hate crimes, 33% supporting them for another reason, 21% opposed to new cameras, and 21% holding no opinion.
Overall, Hamilton students who responded to the survey indicated a sense that the response to party invitations was overblown. However, an overwhelming majority of students were offended by the incident of vandalism, and support is strong for some form of action in the form of a Statement of Community Values. Respondents demonstrated differences based on their race, sex, sexual orientation, financial aid status, athletics participation, and Greek organization membership; these divergences in opinion provide an insightful look at the factors that influence attitudes at Hamilton.
HamPoll welcomes student feedback at hampoll@hamilton.edu. The organization meets Wednesdays at 8pm in KJ 103.
