Mirza Summit on Personal and Social Responsibility
Discussions Analysis: 4/14/14
Mirza discussions were held at six different times in late February and early March, each
involving a range of students representing diverse interests and experiences (e.g., traditional students,
transfer students, international students, student leaders), as well as staff, faculty, and alumni. The
discussions centered around four questions prepared by a committee in response to student and
faculty/staff concerns regarding student life at CMC. Conversations were two hours in length. In
each discussion, all participants contributed and exhibited attentive interest to what others had to say.
In-depth notes were taken of each conversation and the data were corroborated for accuracy by the
faculty moderator of each discussion. Additionally, 16 individual webform responses to the same
questions were collected. Together, the data were analyzed for themes and patterns in content,
utilizing FileMaker Pro to create summarizing phrases encapsulating the main point of all statements
made in the discussions and webforms. As these points were repeated during the conversations, a
simple tally was kept in order to determine the strength of consensus of each theme across all the
discussions.
The statements made during the discussions and on the webforms were divided most simply
into statements defining the challenges and issues that CMC currently faces in regard to student life,
possible solutions to those challenges, and the strengths of the CMC experience. Additionally,
participants provided insight into the mechanisms driving student action, as well as the role of
institutional structures and student agency in either perpetuating or disrupting the culture and social
climate at the school. All of these will be considered in this report.
Dialectical Relationship between Perception and Action
One of the interesting outcomes of the Mirza discussion groups involved reflection by
participants on the perceptions that exist within and outside CMC regarding its students and its social
climate, and how these play into the actions students take. What was described was a dialectical
relationship between perception and action (Figure 1): largely simplified, students take action in
response to perceptions about what will benefit their interests and purposes at the institution, and in
turn, student actions reinforce certain perceptions about the college. As an example, the perception
that switching to an econ/finance major and abandoning one’s initial academic goals will result in
greater social, academic, and career opportunities leads students to change to that major; the
aggregate effect of students declaring an econ/finance major then reinforces perception that this
pathway offers the best chance at opportunity both within the institution and after college. Similar
processes occur in the social scene. For example, the perception that so-called “blackout” drinking
(signifying intoxication to the point that students don’t remember what they did the next day) will
help students to fit in and to find a social circle of friends encourages partying in this way, which
then reinforces the perception that blackout drinking is socially encouraged. In another example, one
member of the LGBTQ community on campus told her group that she has not personally experienced
any homophobia on campus, and felt that the perception of homophobia, much more than any actual
disdain for LGBTQ students, drives gay and lesbian students to avoid “coming out”—but those
actions further reinforce the perception of homophobia. Though her assertion of a lack of
homophobia on campus was countered multiple times by other students, her story serves as an
example of this dialectical relationship.
Participants noted that this dialectical relationship is not completely self-perpetuating;
institutional structures and student agency both mitigate this relationship and have a part in either
reinforcing or disrupting the cycle. For example, the fact that the Career Services Center has many
well-developed internships and opportunities within the econ/finance/consulting sector but fewer in
1
Student Agency
Perception
Structures
medicine or the humanities structurally reinforces the perception-action relationship and encourages
the preponderance of econ/finance majors. Also, student agency—students’ ability to make their own
observations and decisions regarding their interests and actions in each case—plays an important
role. The belief of participants in the discussions was that currently, students’ agency is most often
directed at maintaining their competitiveness and social acceptance at CMC. Both institutional
structural change and an adaptation in students’ understanding of their own agency in changing
campus culture have a role in creating a better student life experience, promoting more responsible
behaviors, and engaging students more fully in fulfilling their true potential.
Action
Figure 1. The dialectical relationship between perception and action, mediated by institutional
structures and student agency.
The following sections will detail specific challenges, mechanisms of change, and current strengths
related to the student experience at CMC. Within these sections, the role of perception in driving
action (and vice-versa) as well as the role of student initiative and institutional structures in
perpetuating the status quo or driving change will be seen.
Challenges Facing CMC
Lack of Diversity
Broadly conceived, the need for greater diversity was by far the most common challenge
discussed in the conversations about student life issues at CMC. This is particularly noteworthy,
because diversity was not specifically targeted as a point of discussion in the guiding questions. The
diversity issue did not only concern racial and ethnic diversity on campus, but also diversity in the
interests and opportunities reflected in the campus culture.
Narrow campus culture. The most often-cited problem discussed in the Mirza conversations
involved a singular socio-cultural focus on happiness, success, and leadership as defined through
what was perceived by many as a white, male, “Wall Street-oriented” paradigm. Participants referred
consistently to a “bro” culture on campus that encouraged a very pragmatic, results-oriented
relationship with schooling (e.g., putting only that effort into coursework required to get good grades
as opposed to putting efforts into coursework out of a real intellectual curiosity) as well as a “work
hard, party hard” philosophy. Student participants reported feeling pressured to switch to an
econ/finance major in their first years of college, and a common complaint involved structures that
fed into this pressure, such as the Robert Day School and the Career Services Center, which
incentivize research and careers related to this field. The stereotype of the CMC student conformed
to this focus in many ways as well, helping to perpetuate the sense of pressures to always work
toward a successful career in the finance or consulting sector, through work in Research Institutes,
2
internships, or the like, on top of the normal course load. Many felt this pressure also contributed to a
latent homophobia and lack of awareness or discussion of race and gender issues.
Participants noted that the narrow focus of campus culture had important personal socioemotional ramifications for students. Many students reported feeling that they had to “lay aside”
some of their interests and passions in order to pursue “success” in the way that is recognized at
CMC. This was true both because they simply lacked the time to pursue those interests in order to
remain competitive, and because some interests (particularly in fields of the arts) are not valued by
the campus culture. While many students felt genuinely happy most of the time at CMC, there was
also a consensus that pressures to “have it all” and be “happy at all times” left students feeling like
failures at times when they struggled. Being surrounded by talented students as they are, participants
felt that the competitive atmosphere to be the best at everything made them feel very uncomfortable
admitting when they were grappling with difficulty, either academically or emotionally. Because
most students share this reticence to be vulnerable, many reported feeling very alone in their
struggles. At least some of the binge-type drinking was attributed to the sense of depression and
avoidance of dealing with pain that students feel. Students expressed that, though they rarely have
deep or vulnerable conversations with one another, they have a desire to engage their fellow students
as well as adults on campus (through structures not currently available) in this way.
Diversity in ethnicity, race, gender, sexual orientation, and socio-economic background
among students, faculty, and staff. In every Mirza discussion, the need for a more diverse student
body as well as increased diversity among faculty and staff (but particularly faculty) was discussed.
Participants noted the preponderance of white students, particularly from wealthy families, as one
mechanism perpetuating the narrow campus culture. They especially called for students from lowincome backgrounds as well as minority students to be admitted in larger numbers. Several
participants felt that current admissions standards cater to the wealthy because parents with the
means can give their children the background that “looks good on paper.” There was a consensus that
heavy recruitment and admission of minority and low-income students would help improve the
campus climate both by infusing different perspectives into the academic and social milieu of the
institution and by spurring conversations that often go unspoken (about issues of class, race, gender,
and sexual orientation equity).
In a similar vein, in every discussion, participants recognized the need for increased diversity
in the faculty and staff, particularly among faculty. The fact that students could easily complete a full
four-year career at CMC without having a single female professor or a professor of color remains a
key concern of stakeholders on campus. Though participants understood the difficulties inherent in
recruiting quality and diverse faculty members, they underscored the need to continue to seek such
individuals out. The addition of such individuals, it is believed, could spur changes to the curriculum
and the perspectives that students are exposed to in their academic work.
Bifurcation of the Student Body
Adding to the difficulty students feel in engaging with others in deep and vulnerable
conversation is a sense of bifurcation of the student body into separate groups that do not often
mingle. Participants spoke of several large-scale groups: “wet” and “dry” students (e.g., wet: those
who drink, and dry: those who abstain from alcohol), students living on north and south campuses,
athletic team members, and upper- and underclassmen. In each of these cases, there exist structures
that separate rather than bring these groups together. Additionally, smaller social groupings exist
within the student body and many times students have a hard time breaking away from those groups,
due to the strong stigma on campus toward “being alone” (which both signified being by oneself –
even walking alone on campus or spending an afternoon alone—and also not belonging a social
group).
3
In terms of bifurcation of wet and dry students, many pointed to the isolationism of students
in the Stark dorm. However, in each conversation, students from Stark opposed this stereotype,
saying that though they rarely go out onto other areas of campus at night due to being uncomfortable
around the messy dorms and loud, drunk people, they see many students from outside Stark attending
their events or visiting their common area, which is well known to be the nicest and best-kept on
campus. There was agreement that the common areas of dorms where drinking is allowed are in
disrepair and commonly are very unpleasant, but many participants who identified themselves as
both wet and dry believed that dry students should be encouraged to attend wet events and mingle
outside of their normal social circles, and vice versa. Some students said that a stigma against dry
students exists on campus, and that this adds to the exclusion of such students from “wet student”
social circles, but others disagreed. There was consensus, however, on the fact that events on campus
are consistently labeled wet or dry, contributing to the bifurcation of the student body along these
lines, as it is rare that students from one camp will attend events of the other camp if the events are
labeled accordingly.
Another area of bifurcation on campus occurs between upperclassmen and underclassmen.
Participants cited few opportunities to develop close relationships along these lines, partly because of
how courses are arranged into upper- and lower-divisions, and partly due to the fact that upperdivision students, particularly seniors, tend to live in different areas of campus than underclassmen,
especially freshmen. This also related to the north and south campus separation. Some participants
noted a change in senior culture over time as contributing to the separation; some years ago it was
common for upperclassmen to leave their doors open and for underclassmen to visit. These
participants also noted that at that time, each dorm had more of a mix of different years of students
than now exists. There was consensus that this bifurcation also limited especially incoming students’
exposure to perspectives and relationships that would benefit their development.
Social Life Issues
Partly owing to the fact that the campus culture is so narrow, participants felt that social life
lacks general balance—there is little to do at night but party, and students generally stick to what
they termed the “CMC bubble” rather than explore the area or involve themselves in the larger
community. Also, students noted a lack of venues that encourage students to get to know people
outside of their current social circles.
Conversations on campus were described as surface-level. Discussions that touch on topics of
alcoholism, drug use, and sexual abuse are almost nonexistent, though some participants reported a
nascent understanding on campus of sexual assault due to the notices that had been emailed to
students this academic year. There was consensus that forums requiring students to consider these
issues, particularly for freshmen who often have not established a sense of themselves, are lacking
and may contribute to alcohol and drug abuse, sexual assault, and a reticence to step into or report
potentially problematic situations that students might observe.
The lack of mentorship opportunities for incoming students was cited as one reason for
imbalance in partying that particularly affects the freshman class. Several participants noted that
most of the students who had to be transported to hospitals for alcohol poisoning were freshmen, and
students also mentioned that freshman women are often the target of advances by older male students
because they are less likely to know how to handle themselves. The fact that incoming students do
not have built-in mechanisms of ongoing support by older students or “adults” on campus may
contribute to their vulnerability to dangerous behaviors.
Partying on Campus
There was broad support for the social scene and availability of parties on campus; however,
there was also broad agreement that the current party culture is too focused on getting blackout drunk
4
rather than on getting to know people and having fun. In fact, many students reported that the campus
culture equates fun with being blacked out and provides positive reinforcement for having gotten to
that state. Participants also cited structural contributions to irresponsible partying. Specifically, the
fact that all parties occur at night, that they involve loud music and dark rooms, and that they are
tightly fenced, which forces students wanting to drink to do so in their rooms where there is less
accountability—all were described as factors involved in perpetuating the blackout/binge drinking
culture.
While blackout drinking is considered to be “fun” socially, students noted that, in fact, the
noise and level of drunkenness at parties actually makes getting to know people and having genuine
fun very difficult. Thursday Night Club (TNC) was one exception; students seemed to feel that the
TNC social scene was more relational.
Also contributing to the blackout/binge drinking culture is the general cultural climate
described earlier, in which students are encouraged to seek opportunity and become focused on
working hard for self-gain rather than to enhance their ability to understand and contribute to the
world. Two mantras common to this culture: “work hard, play hard” and “you only live once”—were
described by some students as contributing to less responsible partying. While neither of these
mantras was seen as negative in and of itself, many CMC students define “play” as “party,” and
indeed identified few alternatives to relax and unwind. Additionally, “you only live once”, while
serving for some as a reminder to make the most of each day, has been used by some students to
promote unnecessarily risky behaviors.
The use of drugs on campus was another common theme with regard to the party culture.
While it is not universally socially acceptable to use drugs on campus and most students vehemently
oppose the practice, it was also reported by many that drug use has been increasing, and that the
social acceptability of using even hard drugs such as heroin, ecstasy, cocaine, and meth has also been
growing. Students believe that limited drug education and a lack of discussions at CMC surrounding
drug use suggest little is being done to curb such behaviors.
Administrative and Structural Issues
In many conversations, administrative or structural forces on campus were described as
having a negative impact on student life at CMC. It must be stated here that overall, students were
happy with the administration; these issues were not prominent but were voiced often enough to
warrant discussion. The most common of these was the sense that the Dean of Students office works
against rather than with students when determining policy for parties on campus. Students cited
instances such as the sudden closure of parties with no explanation as well as tightening of fences
around parties without allowing students to appeal the policy, as examples. According to some
participants, the fear that the social scene is becoming more controlled and the knowledge that beer
would be largely or completely unavailable at parties contributes to a felt need to hide drinking in
rooms, and to drink harder liquors rather than beer, in order to get drunk faster and cheaper.
Another campus structure that was criticized in multiple discussions was the Robert Day
School. Students felt that RDS contributes to competitiveness and a culture that is narrowly focused
on success through an econ/finance pathway. Many students also objected to the fact that funds from
RDS are dispersed to already wealthy students. There was acknowledgement that the distribution of
funds may be highly restricted by the donor, and some comments about RDS were positive, but the
overall consensus considered RDS one institutional structure that they would like to see modified or
balanced with others to diversify campus culture.
Existing institutional structures that have at their core the goal of assisting students in
acculturating themselves to college life and getting support for their academic plans were described
as inadequate overall. Orientation was seen by many as woefully unhelpful; the skits that are
supposed to engender awareness of issues were described as a “joke”. Sponsor groups were deemed
5
unhelpful as well; several students had never met with or even knew who their sponsors were, and
many felt that some sponsors signed up just for the perk of being able to move back to campus early.
Advisement by faculty members was very uneven; some students had developed good relationships
with advisors and felt they represented a key resource in their academic and personal development,
while others had never met with their advisors personally (in these cases, the administrative tasks of
advising were handled by email alone). RAs were not directly criticized, but there was mention of the
fact that students generally would not go to RAs for help, particularly for drug and alcohol issues, for
fear of getting in trouble with the Dean of Students, to whom they knew RAs would have to report. It
is also important to note that students revealed that Monsour was inadequate as a resource for mental
health issues, mostly because of severely limited staffing that cannot address near the number of
students that need its services. In general, the perception of stigma related to reporting drug and
alcohol abuse by other students was quite strong, possibly leading to less socially responsible
behaviors when help was needed.
Several participants also noted a lack of funding for certain activities that would broaden the
campus culture and get students out of the “CMC bubble.” Specifically, music practice rooms and
venues for student performances in the arts are lacking (though there was acknowledgement that “the
CAVE” is a good start in this endeavor), venues to get the outside community on campus are rare,
and funding to get students off campus to explore museums, concerts, sporting events, beaches, and
trails in the greater LA area are believed to be nonexistent. Several participants reported that in past
years, off-campus trips had been provided, and that the loss of funding for such activities had a
somewhat negative impact on student life overall.
Mechanisms for Improvement
Alongside discussions about issues facing CMC were conversations about possible
mechanisms for improvement of the student experience. Most of these mechanisms involved
enabling deeper and more vulnerable relationships among all students, as well as between students
and faculty/staff/alumni, to promote positive development and broaden the campus culture.
Promoting Deep Conversations
Citing the Mirza discussions as a model, participants called for the creation of structures—
such as invited conversations, structured discussions at snack or mealtimes around topics of
intellectual or social interest—to promote a culture in which deep, vulnerable, and intellectually
stimulating conversations could occur among students from different social circles. This was by far
the most commonly proffered mechanism for improvement. Students also drew upon experiences
abroad in calling for the creation of a pub-like atmosphere in which casual drinking—not to get
drunk but to relax and enjoy conversation—could enable better and longer socializing between
students. Other ideas included asking specific students to act as social “ambassadors” to promote
social networks between different groups of students on campus, and utilizing recruitment days and
orientation to “advertise” and promote a culture of conversation across campus. In general, all
participants were highly encouraged by the success of the Mirza conversations and believed that
more discussions like them would engender a greater desire among the student body to participate in
positive ways.
Increasing and Celebrating Diversity & Diverse Interests
Continued efforts to increase socio-ethnic diversity among students, faculty, and staff were
deemed important. There was consensus that students would support changes in how Admissions
looks at student files in order to accomplish this endeavor. Continued efforts to recruit and hire more
diverse faculty were also highly encouraged by participants.
6
In order to celebrate and encourage the diverse accomplishments and interests of students,
several measures were suggested, including: offering student performance venues; leading or
offering guided conversations like the Mirza discussions that would involve a wide range of students;
providing more venues for artistic pursuits, such as suitable music practice rooms and kitchens for
student use; and providing more convenient times for students to use sports facilities for individual
practice.
Students also suggested that diverse perspectives could be introduced and considered in
academic classes by revising the course requirements to allow for a more diverse range of classes,
including those from international or non-canonical perspectives. Additionally, career support for
pathways outside of econ/finance—including medicine, careers in the humanities, education, and
social entrepreneurship—would help students to consider their first passions to be more viable as
long-term pursuits.
Mentorship
Students especially expressed a desire for mentorship opportunities across campus. They felt
that more and deeper social relationships with older students or adults on campus (faculty, staff, and
alumni) would greatly facilitate their development and give them a safe space to “vent” or express
their struggles and receive advice and help. For example, many students felt that changes to WOA
groups and sponsor relationships could provide mentorship between older and younger students.
Some pointed to the Pomona College model as an example. At Pomona, sponsor groups become a
key social network across all four years, and sponsors themselves live with “sponsees” in the first
year, providing consistent support for social/emotional adjustment to college life. Students also
suggested changes to advisor relationships and better utilization of alumni as a social resource to
enhance their student experiences. APAM was offered as a model for mentorship, though some
students noted that even the APAM mentoring did not last through all four years, which would be
ideal.
Offering Daytime and “Unlabeled” Events
Because students who drink tend to avoid dry events and vice versa, many students wished
for events that were simply “fun” and that didn’t carry the label “wet” or “dry.” They also called for
more events during the daytime. Examples could include pick-up sports, game activities (board
games, physical games), and offering more community events such as the Humane Society’s event
bringing animals on campus or the International Festival. Such events could bring together students
from different social circles and diversify the types of activities by which students can relax, destress, and have fun together.
Increase Awareness of Opportunities across the 5Cs
Participants stated that the current email system of notification of events and opportunities
for engagement in extracurricular activities is overwhelming. They agreed that a better system of
communication should be explored. Ideas included the use of flyers instead of emails; asking for
more descriptive subject lines in emails; consolidating events by type (e.g., club news, research
institute events, talks, etc.); having a centralized calendar; having a central place to go listing the
events for the day across the campuses; and making club entry information available either several
times a year or year-round. The fact that club information is currently only available at the beginning
of the year when incoming students are just learning how to navigate the institution means that many
miss out on opportunities to join clubs that might cultivate their passions and interests.
7
Getting Students Off Campus
Because CMC is situated within the Greater LA area, many opportunities exist to enjoy a
wide range of activities. Participants felt that providing opportunity for “field trips” to museums,
concerts, sporting events, beaches, and mountain areas (for hiking or skiing) would help students
escape the “CMC bubble”. Even first steps in the form of establishing such things as message boards
for people who may carpool to places and events off campus, or public transit maps and route
information, could encourage students to take advantage of the richness of their surroundings more
fully.
Improving Perceptions of the Dean of Students Office
Students were generally understanding of the role that the Dean of Students office plays on
campus and aware of the need for rules and regulations for the social scene on campus. However,
they also hoped to see some changes to policies and practices in this area, to demonstrate the Dean’s
desire to work with students in decision-making. These changes included making rules more explicit
to students, enforcing those rules more consistently, communicating to students the reasons why
decisions are made, and creating a climate in which students feel comfortable getting help for
themselves or others for alcohol- or drug-related problems. Participants proposed a “sanctuary”
program, which would impose harsh penalties for being caught with drugs but immunity for those
who come forward voluntarily for help. Also, participants reported that they wished to see the Dean
of Students’ office facilitate more integration in planning for campus events between SLC and SAC
leaders, to help the school become less bifurcated between wet and dry students.
Increasing Student Initiative
There was some concern during discussions that the nature of the conversations could lead
students to fail to acknowledge their own agency and responsibility when it comes to changing
campus culture. While structural changes certainly were seen to have a role in affecting change, the
students’ role in adapting their own perspectives and perceptions, as well as engaging in new
activities and actions, must be highlighted as well. Students often stated that much of the proposed
change in culture will be up to them, and that this fact needs to be a part of any discussion about the
needs of the school going forward.
Areas of Strength at CMC
While the Mirza discussions were focused on identifying areas for improvement at CMC,
there was definitely consensus among participants that overall, CMC is a great school with a lot of
strengths, including in its social scene, which students hoped would not become denigrated as a result
of the Mirza Summit process. This report will close with a brief overview of the most commonly
cited institutional strengths at CMC. It was believed that awareness of strengths would help to
balance the focus on areas for improvement during this process.
Opportunity to Pursue Passions
When discussing their personal passions, students revealed a wide range of interests that they
felt they were able to cultivate at CMC, either directly through sports, clubs, and research institutes at
the college, or through opportunities available through the other Claremont campuses. Students
expressed a preference for opportunities on the CMC campus over those available at other
institutions, but felt that they were, by and large, supported in pursuing their areas of interest. This
was particularly true for those who took initiative to either find existing places to pursue their
passions, or to create new organizations to fulfill them (for example, clubs related to outdoor activity
or community service).
8
Quality of Students, Faculty, and Staff
One area of strength that was discussed at each meeting involved the quality people at CMC.
All stakeholders agreed that CMC students are top-notch; that they exhibit qualities of leadership,
genuine concern for others, interest in a variety of topics and issues, and high intellectual capacity.
There was general agreement that the stereotype of the CMC student who “would sell his soul for a
keg and an internship” in actuality does not describe anyone on campus; that on the contrary, each
student represents a wonderfully complex, intelligent, and compassionate person with great potential
to add to the world.
When discussing personal and social responsibility, some groups agreed that responsibility
never enters the discussion on partying when students get together, but the majority of groups felt
that most students exhibit a high level of both personal and social responsibility, and that occurrences
of irresponsibility are relatively rare. There was general agreement that it will be impossible to create
or enforce a climate that will disallow instances of irresponsible behavior; however, opening up
conversations to get students talking to one another across social circles would help curb the
emotional and social issues that are often behind drug and alcohol abuse, sexual assault, and other
damaging behaviors. It was felt that the measures outlined above would prove fruitful for making
necessary changes to the campus culture specifically because of the quality of the student body.
Likewise, faculty and staff were praised for their genuine concern for students and their
commitment to provide the best intellectual and social experience possible. The establishment of the
“CAVE” on campus and plans to build a kitchen for student use were used as examples of positive
changes made by the administration strictly for student benefit in recent years. Students were
generally very happy with and thankful for their experiences at CMC.
Alumni
Strong alumni networks were repeatedly discussed as both a current and possible resource. It
was noted that alumni continue to invest in the school both financially and with their time and
interest, and many students felt that alumni could serve an important role in enhancing student life on
campus if opportunities to serve were offered.
The Educational Experience
There was strong consensus that the academic component of the CMC experience is a
strength of the institution, due to both faculty and student engagement in coursework and discussion.
Participants felt that the liberal arts education provided by the school was particularly important for
those headed for the public and finance sectors.
The Social Scene
While the focus of the Mirza discussions involved improvement needed to the social scene,
particularly with the party culture, participants by and large agreed that they enjoy the fact that CMC
has a vibrant social scene, and that they participate in this social scene regularly and safely. There
was concern that the talks would focus on curbing alcohol use to the detriment of the overall campus
climate. Even students who do not drink at all were supportive of those students for whom drinking
is a way to relax and have fun in an effort to balance the hard work of their college lives. Improving
the social scene and increasing responsibility, it was believed, is more a matter of creating a more
honest and open campus climate rather than tightening policies related to partying.
9