Evolve or die: CSB/SJU’s identity crisis

Editor’s Note: This opinion column is the first in a series seeking to provide perspective on changes that will be inacted this semester and other aspects of the CSB/SJU experience.

We are now in arguably the most consequential time period in CSB/SJU history.

This spring, the College of St. Benedict and St. John’s University will become more closely intertwined than ever before, shifting from a “Coordinate Relationship” to a system of “Stronger Integration,” led by a single president. Aspects of the Academic Prioritization Plan will enact changes to majors, minors, pre-professional programs, graduate programs and most notably faculty, some of whom will likely lose their jobs.

In the midst of all this change, one thing is becoming abundantly clear: CSB/SJU has an identity crisis, specifically a misalignment between the student experience and how we promote that experience.

When we show up to campus next fall, we will have one president, one board of trustees, one faculty, one academic curriculum and more that is shared between the two colleges than separate.

To cite The Record Editorial Board from back in 2011, “Is a midnight bus essentially the only thing to remind students we aren’t truly joined?” Nearly all students regard this as one experience, not two separate ones. This fall, that idea will be more formally realized than ever before.

With that being said, the first qualifier for admission to CSB/SJU should be on the basis of academic excellence, not gender. Currently, there are two separate applications: one for the College of St. Benedict and one for St. John’s University. This dual-application system can prove confusing during the application process, and more importantly excludes students who identify as non-binary or are transgender.

The solution is quite simple: have one application. Admissions already functions as a shared entity, and the admissions standards of CSB are no different than the admissions standards of SJU, meaning that such a change would not hinder their operations. What it would do is make a positive lasting impression on students who are considering applying to CSB/SJU, particularly students who do not identify with the gender binary or are transitioning.

However, emphasis on the gender binary plagues the schools earlier than the application. The CSB/SJU website reads, “together, the College of St. Benedict, for women, and Saint John’s University, for men, form a one-of-a-kind partnership of two top colleges—combining the abundant opportunities of a larger university with the smaller class sizes and personal attention of an exceptional liberal arts college.”

Similarly, advertisements distinguish CSB as a school for women and SJU as a school for men. Why does our selling point hinge on the basis of gender when nearly all students would classify this as one experience?

A much better marketing strategy would be to acknowledge the separate histories and traditions of the schools while emphasizing the shared experience of our community. It’s important to address the joint relationship that CSB and SJU have, but characterizing this as two separate experiences is fundamentally wrong and exclusionary.

Labeling ourselves as “single-sex” institutions is also hindering recruiting efforts. St. John’s is one of only four colleges classified as “male-only” in the United States, and out of the four the only one with religious affiliation. Meanwhile, St. Ben’s is one of approximately 30 colleges with the same distinction for women.

Looking specifically at St. John’s and the other three all-male schools (Hampden-Sydney College, Morehouse College, and Wabash College), all four institutions experienced enrollment decline between 2012 and 2019. On average, enrollment declined by 7.19% during that time period, and SJU notably experienced the largest loss of students with 229.

Similarly, this fall The Record reported that since 2018, CSB enrollment rate has decreased 11%. These numbers support the idea that, while promoting CSB and SJU as separate but connected institutions may appear unique and an advantage to boosting enrollment, it in fact has the opposite effect, making CSB and SJU appear out of date and undesirable for prospective college students.

If the inclusionary motivation isn’t enough to produce positive change, economic motivation should serve as a nice secondary reason.

Regardless, attending either CSB or SJU is not a single gender experience, and we need to stop treating it as such. It’s time we started championing people as individuals.