Introduction
As Julia completed the intentions of access during Hamilton’s founding, I am reflecting on the current relationship with the school around access from a social justice lens. This is in two pieces: 1) the current relationship with the Oneida people, as Hamilton founding members insisted access as part of their mission, and 2) accessibility for disabled members of the Hamilton community.
Context
To provide methodology, it is important that I clarify that Hamilton has abysmal recent connections to access the Oneida people. It is recognized by the community that the initial mission failed and little to no Oneida children attended the school. As this relates to sourcing materials on indigenous belonging on campus, there is none. This could be because the word choice related to physical attendance and efforts such as “access” and “belonging” are significantly more aligned with other efforts at the school – disability access and diversity, equity, inclusion, and belonging, respectively. Alternatively, it could be indicative of the settler-colonial efforts that Hamilton and its Public Relations and Communications team have committed to. This can be corroborated by the state-wide efforts towards Oneida displacement and erasure.
Source Analysis
Julia’s interpretations of Hamilton’s founding | Finn’s interpretations of Vassar’s sources
My data visualization and interpretations are in three parts: Hamilton’s current accessibility standards and efforts as promoted by the institution, criticized by the student body and community members, and by the joint reflection of the relationship with the Oneida people.
In exploring the current (and recent) significance of Hamilton’s communication with and commitment to the Oneida people, I chose to interpret it all together in visualization. This is due to the spectrum of contributors. While my other two visualization and the sources used for them could be easily split into the institution and community, the discussions of Oneida’s commitment and action are shared amongst the institution, campus organizations (Student Assembly and Shenedoah-Kirkland Initiative), and community publications. Each of these has separate but ever-changing commitments to its stakeholders and incentives, which shapes its rhetoric.
The Hamilton-Oneida tie is strong throughout the sources, and much can be drawn from this visualization. I want to focus on “land”, “Oneida”, and “community” for this paper. First, it is worth noting that there are minimal ties between “Oneida” and “students”, likely because there is no evidence that Hamilton ever admitted Oneida students. Instead, students are centering the Hamilton community, largely not from the local area (JOB (Just Outside of Boston)-predominant). The offshoot terms from Oneida relate to historical terms, such as “Samuel” and “Shenandoah”, figures in the founding History of Hamilton. “Academy” relates to Hamilton’s founding as the Hamilton-Oneida Academy. This is all historical, centering Hamilton as the product of this relationship. Much of the language alludes to the consent and passivity of the Oneida people. This frames the Oneida people as historical (ie. non-existent in the present-day), and “spiritual” linked to “community” is othering, especially as the college recently fired Chaplain Jeff McArn – without due cause – who has historically navigated the campus community as an advocate for Indigenous rights. The other term related to community “members” is potentially problematic. The community members in the Shenandoah–Kirkland Initiative, or SKI, are the official liaisons with the Oneida Nation. However, they have had recent turmoil infor inconsistent promotions of efforts and initiatives, specifically regarding land acknowledgments. The other use of members is discussing the Oneida people. Like every other United States-recognized Indigenous tribe, Oneida people must register with their nation with the US government. This system only recognizes some tribes, nations, and people and has been criticized for multiple unethical practices in documentation and representations. The conversation relating to access to the Oneida people is non-existent and the current relationship with the Oneida nation is flawed at best.
As Hamilton interacts with accessibility in the present day, it is worth noting the significant use of “support”, “accessibility”, “resources”, and “services”. While this could indicate ample evidence of these words’ availability to the Hamilton community, some of the less frequently mentioned terms, such as “apply”, “search”, and “center”, resonate more with the experiences that students speak to.
In student-published work, albeit mostly from the activist-oriented paper, the Monitor, much of the language contributes to themes of mobilization, demanding better of the school. Hamilton’s word choice paints a more passive approach to support. This indicates that accommodations come with evidence and submitted application(s), both of which are subject to bureaucratic and inequitable processes. The student publications discuss a reconsidered relationship to accessibility, where resources are practively available and provided. This can be seen in “receiving” and “extended” in relation to “accommodations” and “require”, “soon”, and “wide” as linked to “community”. I would argue “effort” supports this interpretation as well.
