Talk:Earlham College

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
WikiProject United States / Indiana (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Indiana (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Christianity / Quakers (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) (marked as Mid-importance).
WikiProject Higher education (Rated C-class)
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Higher education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of higher education, universities and colleges on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.

Conflict Resolution Day[edit]

Does anyone know why Earlham College does not participate in Conflict Resolution Day? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:19, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Major Revision: 2 Oct. 2007[edit]

Campus, Curriculum and Community: removed advertisement tag after rewording and thinning useless and trivial factoids. Facts which would be stated in one of the college's brochures, or on the college's website as a promotional means to gather the attention of prospective students, were removed. Notable facts and figures were preserved; however, Wikipedia is [href= not a directory], among other things. Student/faculty ratio was moved to the facts box. The diversity paragraph was removed due to uncited facts and the fact that Wikipedia is not a soapbox (specifically, see self-promotion). The following sentence was removed due to being obvious and superfluous: The faculty at Earlham provide a rigorous curriculum and engage students in collaborative research. References to high numbers of things are all over the place, and have been removed unless specific numbers of frames of reference can be cited.

Athletics: Earlham is not an "outstanding" school for athletics, just like Wikipedia is <a href="">not for advertising</a>. Championship wins need to be cited. A reference to the frisbee team was removed; every college has one. It's like citing that bread has grain in it.

The Hash: merged edits to reflect information removed by someone claiming to be Cathy, Director of Campus Security & Safety. Wikipedia is <a href="">not a soapbox</a>, specifically for reasons of advertisement, self-promotion and - in the case of the censure - opinion. It is a pertinent campus issue, and attempts to replace its identification with statements of concern is tantamount to disemmination of false information. This page will be tagged for vandalism if this continues to be a problem.

Student Life issues: relocated reference to alternative college housing to Campus, Community and Culture.

Visiting Speaker: section removed; it was nothing but name-dropping. The exception was the Kristol bit, which was appended to Student Life issues.

Notable Earlhamites: this section, while in desperate need ot pruning, was preserved. It was also tagged as Cleanup/Rewrite and Importance due to it's name-dropping nature. Is noting oneself as "founder of a website for gay Christian singles" really that important?

HTML doesn't read through, but I'm too tired to change it all. (TSS, 3:45 Earlham time, 2 October 2007)

Almost two-thirds of Earlham students go on a semester-length off-campus program to such destinations as Mexico, Vienna, Martinique, Northern Ireland, Great Britain, France, Germany, Spain, New Zealand (formerly, the Southwestern U.S.), Japan and Tanzania.

The way this reads now (I don't know if it's your edit or not) is that New Zealand was formerly the Southwest U.S. Which is an amusing thought, but probably not the intended meaning. swain 14:53, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Ha! No, that was how it always read. Good catch. [User:Thesnowysoviet|TSS]], 3:38 5 October 2007. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 07:38, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

The Hash[edit]

As a current student, I'd very much like to know why any mention of a fellow student's death two years ago on Wikipedia gets deleted. He died while "running The Hash," after being left alone by a crowd of drunk Hashers. Please, I know that his story doesn't bring the best publicity to the college, but deleting his name and ignoring the problem will not help anyone. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by (talk) 14:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC).

I'm not sure which comments you're referring to, I did a quick review of the edits back to the end of March, and I didn't see any changes to the "Hash" section. Honestly, I'm not sure that section needs to be there at all, but given that state of the article it's not the worst problem I see. In general events like the death of one student are not notable over the history of an institution as old as Earlham, unless it brings about some major change to college campus. Often events like you describe end up on the Wikiedpia pages for a few months and then are removed when they are no longer major factors in how the college is viewed. For example, a fight on the Guilford College campus this past year, caused a large number of edits of a section that has since been removed. Keeping or removing a section like that should not be about helping anyone, rather a measure of what is important to the school's history and current atmosphere. If this student's death has an ongoing impact on the direction the college is moving, than it belongs in the article. All that said, the death of a student is always tragic, and has a major impact on the students and faculty around them, particularly on small campuses; I'm sorry for your loss. --Ahc 17:15, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Added into "The Hash" section. Since this article appears to be maintained (and now, thankfully, properly tagged) as advertising, I imagine that someone there must visit this page on a regular basis. Countdown until the college's brushing-under-the-mat of a student's death begins.... now.—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)
I haven't seen much evidence that the article is currently monitored by anyone on the campus. In fact, I seem to be the one keeping closest eye on it at the moment, and I have very little personal connection (my father's an alumni, and I've had several friends attend). I suspect it was largely written by either a student or someone else close to the school, and the section marked as advertising needs to be fixed, but currently there are few editors and even fewer showing strong pro-Earlham bias. --Ahc 13:17, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
The student who died was a close friend of mine. He was not "left alone." He was watched closely by friends who didn't understand that his fall had caused internal bleeding. He didn't die solely because of his fall. He had advanced mononucleosis, which had caused his organs to swell and be vulnerable to injury. We were all devastated to lose such a wonderful friend and member of our community. The college isn't ignoring it or brushing his death under a mat. I think mention of his death is extremely inappropriate for Wikipedia. Many memorial sites have been set up. I agree with the previous poster who questioned the importance of having a section on the Hash in the first place. I understand if you have issues with the college. Who doesn't? But bring them up in the appropriate place, and with the appropriate people.

Okay, now this section has been edited by College officals: --Ahc 20:43, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Undid that section, but I'll add the CS&S concerns to the rewriting (see above discussion section). That change was completely unnecessary, and showed no motivation other than to censor information about the college. Again, the additions will be included in the revision, but there's no reason for the institution itself to take out bad press and insert its own proclamation of concern. --TSS 02:34, 2 October 2007 (EDT)


A useful start, but this is an encyclopedia, not People Magazine. Kind of a cross between a recruiting blurb and an undergraduate "look at us" piece. POV rampant if nonetheless interesting. Name-dropping is not, however, attractive in any venue. IMHO. --Buckboard 04:32, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


"Engagement with a Changing World" is the college's current slogan, or whatever you want to call that, but I am pretty sure their actual motto is "Vita Lux Hominum," which appears on the college's seal. 05:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hustlin' Quakers[edit]

The article says that the team was called the Hustlin' Quakers in the 1980s. This may be true but it extended past that. During my tenure at the school (1992-1996) the team name was still officially the Hustlin' Quakers. No one actually used that name in conversation (everyone said "Quakers" or "Quake") but it appeared on official publications during those years. I don't want to edit the entry because I can't verify the actual years that they used that name (if indeed they no longer use it).

There are some other things in the article that I find dubious and possibly in need of citation. One has to do with the "Fight, fight, inner light" chant. This seems to be a campus legend more than an actual practice. I never heard anyone actually use it, but everyone knew it and claimed that it had previously been used (some even thought it had previously been an official fight song!). 05:27, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, students at Earlham do sing that chant. The first version listed is more widely known. It is not official, just popular. Also, so far as I understand all our athletic teams are currently called the Hustlin' Quakers. (allegedly changed from the Fighting Quakers, but that particular rumor seems odd considering the Quaker traditions here) I'm sure that if someone searches EC's website or the Earlham Word (the college paper), there will be articles citing the changing of the team names. - An Earlham College senior- Sat, Nov 11, 2006

The Fightin' Quakers was a "fake" mascot name we used to use when I went there--kind of a little joke on the pacifist Quaker roots. The real mascot is definitely the Hustlin' Quakers. Does anyone know if they still have that guy/girl run around with the Quaker outfit on? It was pretty funny. Publicus 15:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Can't see any evidence of Earlham chants in current use on YouTubeVernon White . . . Talk 14:03, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


A primarily pretentious article about a pretentious, smile-in-your-face, backstabbing place. I never met more phonies in my life (this includes students and faculty) than I did when I was at Earlham College. (There were exceptions, of course). I was there in 1979. My only friends in Richmond were not Earlhamites, but Richmondites, who I worked with in my job scraping excess food off of dishes in the Earlham College cafeteria. These guys weren't pretentious, snotty phonies. The worst staff member of all? A fuckin' pretentious turd named Bob Uebelohde (sic) who wasn't a professor, but was in charge of "Supported Services." He was definitely the phoniest and most fucked-up asshole I have ever met. Is it any wonder that most citizens of Richmond, Indiana despise snotty, pretentious, holier-than-thou Earlham College? The answer, of course, is no. The part of the article that I get the biggest kick out of is the statement that describes how at Earlham (the college with a difference), students call their professors by their first names!!!!!! (Big deal). That statement just goes to show how Earlhamites are pretentious to the point that they'll go out of their way to show the world how unpretentious they are!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Slater79 (talkcontribs) So, I forgot to sign my name! Doggone! Speaking of "pretentiousness"! With "Friends" like that, who needs enemies??! Slater79 09:39, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I attended Earlham from 1972-1976, and we were the "Hustlin' Quakers" then, and will remain so to me, forever. I think it is likely that the "Hustlin'" part was changed from "Fightin'" sometime in the 1960's, (not the 1980's) but I don't have any direct knowledge of this. 18:39, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

They will always be the "Fighting Quakers" to me. 00:21, 27 September 2007 (U

Christ Jesus, that was 30 years ago. Get over it already. (talk) 00:27, 7 May 2011 (UTC)


The above comment, though a bit vitriolic, is not uncommon among some Earlham College graduates (including myself). Most students get a great academic experience. However, there have been various faculty and support staff who viewed students more as objects than students. The pretentiousness is not common but pervasive enough that once experienced, one is tainted forever. This is due in part I feel to the small size of the community and the closeness whether desired or not. This is unfortunate as many good faculty and staff members get painted with the same broad brush.

In my four years I witnessed unguarded anti-semitic remarks by a high profile faculty member/administrator and several episodes of administrative ineptness regarding terrible sexual behavior by students in one case and by faculty/staff in another. The latter impacted many students who had to live through the emotional detritus of the involved faculty members. In my case this meant an insufferable humanities professor who played the "guess what I am thinking game" to such an extreme that several of us had to confront him (with mixed results). That is the good thing about a place like Earlham; we felt free enough to bring the issues before him and not fear retribution.

The most telling case for me however involved a different humanities professor who was actually a language professor but decided to grace us with his wisdom in the humanities. The professor thought very highly of my writings during the course (A or A+) until my final, major project. At that point he gave me a C- on a paper that I had gone to even greater lengths to research and write. The author I analyzed was a current hot writer from Europe and acquiring current critical literature was very time consuming. I did just that using libraries all over the US (Michigan, Yale, Harvard). The bad grade was due to his view that I had plagiarized or simply made things up.

This is critical because if he thought that was indeed what I had done he should have reported me for one or more HONOR violations. He did not and when I talked with him about the paper he was evasive. He would not let me show him my references and cowed me, a freshman, into accepting his position (wisdom?). To this day I question my self for not taking him to the administration for a form of "educational castration". At that point I decided to change majors from the study of English/Humanities to several other areas. This person left a few years later and then, last time I looked, has returned to Earlham College.

As the father of several very bright, academically successful children I never even gave Earlham College a thought as a possible college for them. Perhaps it is a matter of drinking the koolaid and having to keep liking it enough to keep drinking it as a graduate. I did not like the flavor left in my mouth after four years at the place and fully understand the misgivings of others such as the above writer. Respectfully and anonymously submitted after all these years. Call me Leo.

Comment from current student[edit]

I would like to comment that Earlham as a college is very different today than it was in the past. I wouldn't judge the college based on biased opinions from decades prior. It is by no means a perfect place, but I have never even heard of instances like those mentioned above during my four years here. -- ScaldingHotSoup (talk) 04:20, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Howard Richards[edit]

The link from Dr. Richards is clearly to a different Howard Richards. Does anyone know how to fix that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hastern (talkcontribs) 21:06, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Does the college have any history?[edit]

Does the college have any history? For instance,

  • Why is it called "Earlham".
  • Why was it founded in 1847?
  • What are the Quaker roots referred to?
  • Is there any link with Earlham Hall, near Norwich, UK, the home of the Gurney family, including Joseph John Gurney and Elizabeth Fry.

Vernon White . . . Talk 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I found this page on the college website [1]. In short - named for Earlham Hall in honour of Joseph John Gurney, founded for the children of the Quaker migration to Indiana in the early C19. DuncanHill (talk) 08:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for this link. The author has given permission for it to be copied into the WP site, which I have done. Vernon White . . . Talk 18:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Notable alum list[edit]

I cleaned it up a bunch -- random CEOs, college presidents, government workers, and so on are not notable without more information. I think there's still room to clean out more. See more at Wikipedia:Notability. --AW (talk) 04:27, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Notable alum list should have people with current wikipedia articles, and no red links. That distinguishes notability - it's okay if they are "random CEOs, college presidents, government workers" as long as they have an article already. Jooojay (talk) 00:01, 15 November 2019 (UTC)
The broader Wikipedia community has rejected the idea that embedded lists must only include subjects with "current wikipedia [sic] articles." The current standard is: "WP:LISTBIO|Inclusion in lists contained within articles should be determined by WP:SOURCELIST, in that the entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines" (emphasis in original). ElKevbo (talk) 11:56, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Forbes College Rank[edit]

The article notes the 2009 Forbes College Ranking in the first paragraph. Since then it has dropped to a staggering #376 (2011 list). Is that drop noteworthy? Is the 2009 ranking even appropriate?— Preceding unsigned comment added by Thrawst (talkcontribs) 18:17, August 8, 2011

Good question. The ranking shouldn't really be in the lead anyway even if it is up-to-date. I've removed it from the article. ElKevbo (talk) 02:40, 9 August 2011 (UTC)

Notable people[edit]

The Notable alumni and faculty sections have been moved to List of Earlham College people. I removed many people that didn't have a reference that were red linked. I also removed the red linked ones that did have a reference, and made them bold to make it look better. I removed them entirely from this article and added the {{main}} template and renamed the section "Notable people". Corkythehornetfan(talk) 01:34, 4 April 2014 (UTC)