The below post was actually written in response to something posted to an alum listserv that has taken up this issue.
---
So I want to respond to the claim that it is inappropriate for Smith guys to host high school girls. I want to know what makes that inappropriate? Because of the possibility of sexual contact between the prospective and their host? Doesn't that assume a sexual identity for Smith guys? I mean some of those guys could have absolutely no interest in girl prospective students sexually. And even if they were/are attracted women, why is there an assumption that there would be some kind of inappropriate behavior? Does this mean that les/bi/queer women who have sex with women should also not host prospective students because of the potential (in this logic) for sexual attraction and exploitation.
And if we aren't saying that there most definitely would be misconduct, we are doing what? Trying to protect the reputation of the prospective students from potential implications of their character after staying with guy students? Again, doesn't this same logic mean that we would also have to 'protect' prospective students from potential implications of staying with 'known' les/bi/queer women as well.
I was very active in hosting students while I was at Smith, and I had more than one prospective student who became visibly uncomfortable when they realized they were staying with a bisexual woman. Now I could have said forget it I just won't host students because I don't have to do deal with the (extremely erroneous) assumption that my sexual identity some how made me a potential predator of prospective students. It was an insulting implication. However, I knew (from being told directly) that many young women, especially young women of color, who visit Smith are never told about the presences of les/bi/queer community on campus and felt lied to about the nature of the school when they arrived. My position was that by hosting prospective students (and organizing events during prospective weekends) I was helping potential future smithies make more informed decisions about the institution they would be joining.
However, it was never my intent or desire to make prospective students feel uncomfortable during their stay. If a student expressed (or I perceived) a discomfort with having to sleep in my dorm I would talk with them and then make alternative arrangements. Most of us lived in houses with common areas (living rooms, study rooms) where prospective students can and do stay in already. Creating alternative sleeping arrangements did not mean abandoning my prospective students. I still checked on them, took them to meals, and tried to answer their questions about Smith.
My point is this, to me the point of the hosting program isn't to 'protect' the prospective students from the different kinds of people that the might encounter while at Smith. Yes, I believe that we should strive to connect prospective students with people who share interests with that student. Gender identity and sexual identity aren't interests. I hosted plenty of straight identified prospective students (as well as students who were of different racial, ethnic, socio-economic, and/or religious backgrounds) because we had common Smith-specific interest.
The assumption that the *only* thing that is going to be important to prospective students when they get hosted at Smith is the gender identity of their host seems counter intuitive to me. And even if that is something important to a prospective student or some prospective students doesn't mean it will be for all. We can (and should) have strategies to deal with students who decide that they don't want to be hosted by a Smith guy but I don't think we have to take guys out of the hosting pool altogether. I think that sends the wrong message about the unity within Smith community. It to me says there are certain differences which are too unique to be overcome by our Smithie commonalities.
0 comments:
Post a Comment