It’s pretty well-established that being an editor at the Harvard Crimson is a meaningless, strictly resume-padding distinction. (The relevant headline: Harvard Crimson Has 800 Editors. Literally.) But being the president of the Crimson is, at least as far as these things go, significant. The Crimson reports (via Romenesko):

Malcom A. Glenn ’09 will lead the newly elected 135th Guard of The Harvard Crimson, the paper’s outgoing president announced Friday.

Glenn, a history concentrator from Denver, Colo. and Leverett House, has served as an associate on the Sports board since February … [and] will be the first black president of The Crimson in more than a half-century.

First off—and set aside the Crimson’s relentless pretensions (must a student newspaper have a frickin “Guard”?)—congratulations to Glenn on his ascension. Second, I’d like to underscore just how remarkable that last line is: “the first black president of The Crimson in more than a half-century.” This is a milestone, but, in some sense, a sad one. I wrote about this on CP over the summer:

I’m gonna have to agree with Phi Beta Cons’ George Leef’s disbelief on this one:

An organization called the National Association of Student Personnel Administrators has come up with and markets THE GAME OF OPPRESSION. …

If you want to see for yourself, or perhaps buy a copy, go here.

And this, from the official description, just smacks of self-parody:

The game provides a "safe space" for authentic dialogue around the issues of oppression.

Unfortunately NASPA’s image for the game board is too small to make out every square, but there appears to be an “Oppression” deck of cards, a “Reality Check” deck, and a “Moment of Privilege” deck.

Unlike Leef, I fully appreciate the importance of various kinds of diversity. But, in my experience, these heavy-handed, regimented, top-down schemes to “foster” “diversity” or “dialogue” or whatever are bound to be painful for all involved.

Jeff Chester makes a good point about the post-Imus discussion over diversity of ownership in media, namely that we ought to be concerned about the online media as well:

If we are to ensure that the new media landscape in the U.S. doesn’t repeat the same market models and homogeneous control we have with broadcasting, cable, and satellite, action is required—now. Powerful media behaviors are being developed that connect young people to the “always-on, always connected” online world. We must make sure that the public interest—especially diversity of ownership—is a fundamental part of this system.

This question of ownership, however, may miss the mark. The internet by nature is open to anyone, and most of the content online is user-generated. If Chester's other efforts to oppose an inequitable internet infrastructure succeed, this shouldn't change. But user-generated content is only as "diverse" (some of the worst English usage in the progressive movement) as the users are.

And users in the United States are disproportionately likely to be white. Seventy-two percent of white adults use the internet, versus 58 percent of black adults, according to the Pew Internet & American Life Project. (Pew has a category for English-speaking Hispanics, of whom 69 percent use the internet, but there is no figure for Hispanics over all or other groups.) It's not exactly a new idea, but this is the digital divide. Chester's focus on ownership is a useful point, but the user base is the root of the problem.

An article in my school’s daily paper addresses efforts by international students to change the college’s admissions policy. Currently, the applications of all North American (US, Canada, Mexico) students are processed independently of their financial aid applications. This is not true for international students. At a quick glance, only Harvard, Princeton, Yale, Williams, and Middlebury provide need-blind admission to international students.

 On its face, the argument seems pretty simple. As the college seeks to diversify its student body with international students, there is little to be gained for the college or the students by a policy that selects for wealthier applicants. This is especially true considering the low price-tag (at least in Dartmouth’s case, at $1.2 million) of the policy change.

Of course, it comes down to an issue of priorities. I think it’s a fair argument, but in my ironically (my parents immigrated on student visas) ethnocentric way, I think activist energy and college resources should be focused towards improving access to higher education, larger aid packages, and better recruiting among socioeconomic and racial groups that are disadvantaged in America. They aren’t mutually exclusive, but academic institutions are conservative (reluctant to change) by nature, and in the rare event of a dialogue leading to policy change, I think it is important to keep the larger picture in mind.