Are dormitories with ethnic themes segregationist?

Great Debates
1

A study by the New York Civil Rights Coalition says that programs set up to help minority students are a form of racism and have led to segregation at many universities. The study says that ethnicity-themed dorms, multicultural offices and centers, minority-specific orientation programs, and courses and departments with a politically correct slant encourage separatist thinking among minority students.

E.g., at Stanford U., the ethnic dorms are: Muwekma-tah-ruk is Native American, Ujamaa is African-American and Casa Zapata is Chicano/Latino. The Asian-American house is called Okada, named for the author of a book about the treatment of Japanese Americans during World War II, when they were sent to live in ethnic-themed resettlement camps.

The Stanford Daily defends their ethnically themed dorms. They point out that the NYCRC study was done by student interns from Harvard and NYU, who simply looked at bulletins, course catalogs, publications and official Web sites of several universities without studying the programs themselves or speaking to students. The movement to create the houses was mostly student-driven, so it’s not “paternalistic.” Most students who have lived in an ethnic theme dorm have also spent a considerable part of their college lives in other housing. Also, 50% of the residents in each house are not members of the ethnicity that the house celebrates.

I find that last point an excellent defence. OTOH from other things I’ve read, my impression is that there are dorms at Cornell that are nearly 100% African American.

So, do ethnic theme houses segegate? And, more generally, are ethnic theme houses a good idea or a bad idea?

For the record, I think they’re a bad idea. I think these segregated houses, along with other items mentioned in the first sentence, tend to deprive minority students of equal education. I think the broad acceptance of ethnically-themed houses amoung academics is a regressive trend.

2

How? Do they assign classes based on what dorm you live in?

3

Should a Chinese female not request that only other Chinese females respond to her apartment-sharing ad? Note that your link says it is a student initiative on the same lines as student associations found all over campuses for specific people wanting to get together.

And, multicultural offices serve a completely different purpose. They are explicitly out there to promote understanding of cultures and I have personally benefitted from them. The exact opposite of segregation.

Also, from the main link in the OP:
<snip>
The report, “The Stigma of Inclusion: Racial Paternalism/Separatism in Higher Education,” analyzed bulletins, course catalogs, publications and Web sites of 50 public and private colleges and universities, to see how they described their minority programs and service.
<snip>

What sort of survey is that? Did they talk to anyone to put these programs in context or at least find out their effects on, you know, real people?

4

I beleive it is. The rights of these people are not being infringed, but when we all decide to seperate ourselves from what is “different” we end up reinforcing the aforesaid differences. You can see the same sort of ethnic/racial differentiation in every facet of popular culture. Someone might come on here and say “well they chose to live that way.” IMO its still a wrong choice to make.

5

As long as it’s optional–as long as all the Chinese students aren’t forced to live in the “Chinese” dorm, all the blacks in the “black” dorm, etc.–I don’t see any problem with it.

Another non-issue.

6

I wouldn’t call it a ‘non issue’. I observed long ago that given a chance to self-segregate, many people will do so.

(Aside: I first noticed this when I took the bus (not the school bus…a public transit bus) to school in high school. All the young black guys would automatically sit (ironically) in the back of the bus. I was clearly not welcome back there, being the pasty-faced teen that I was.)

So that’s an issue. Getting past that desire to self-segregate is a real challenge in society. We’ll never truly embrace diversity (a worthy goal) until most of us are as comfortable with people we define as ‘other’ as we are with people we define as ‘self’.

So it’s worth discussing…just not as a constitutional issue but more as a sociological issue.

7

I’m with you, Jonathan. Although DDG has a point about it being optional, still the fact that the University officicially has such dorms, with ethnic names and accutrements, means that students are officially encouraged to live there.

BTW, DDG, I hope you would not be happy with a ethnically white dorm (Trent Lott House :eek:), even if it were optional and allowed some non-whites. This shows that optionality isn’t enough to make this a non-issue. Furthermore, by siphoning other ethnicities to their own dorms, this is more-or-less what Stanford seems to have created. So, white students there lose some of the benefit of diversity.

pepperlandgirl, my impression is that this separation by ethnicity is not particularly related to academics. E.g., consider the African-American dorm Ujamaa at Stanford. Because of that name, I assume that they have some focus on African heritage. OTOH I bet they have no focus at all on Dynamic Programming, a field of higher mathematics co-invented by David Blackwell, who happens to be African American. If every student at Ujamaa were encouraged to learn enough mathematics to understand Dynamic Programming, that would be a different story.

There’s another thread here on whether one is defined by one’s sexuality. An ugly aspects of these ethic dorms is the assumption that one is indeed defined by one’s ethnicity. This is a traditional core belief underlying racism. If a college chooses to separate students somehow (which I disapprove of), perhaps it would make more sense to put the math geeks together in one dorm, the pre-meds in another, the psych majors in a third, etc. Learning, not skin color, ought to be the central aspect of a college.

8

I dunno. I could imagine some dorks at a university somewhere setting up the Society for Creative Anachronism dorm, which would be de facto a European culture dorm and would be overwhelmingly white. I wouldn’t see such a dorm as unethical.

OTOH, I agree with you and with Chance that self-segregation is often a bad idea. Although I’m not sure the university should be involved at all (by discouraging or encouraging culturally-themed dorms), I do think the students would probably do well to force themselves to integrate.

Daniel

9

It is nothing of the sort. IT’s a very significant issue.

It may not be illegal or unConstitutional to choose to associate with people of the same race, but it’s sure as hell an ISSUE. Common acceptance of voluntary segregation can and does lead to segregation of a more damaging and public sort. There isn’t much travel between “I want only Chinese roommates” and “As landlord, I will rent this apartment only to Christian renters” (and yes, I’ve seen ads like that recently.)

Voluntarily avoiding other ethnicities may be legal, but it’s not a good thing. One of the good things I found at university was that I was exposed to other cultures, especially in terms of living arrangements - you don’t spend that much time in class, ya know. This was invariably to my benefit, and, from what I could tell, the benefit of others.

10

No, she shouldn’t – any newspaper with a grain of sense would reject such an ad. Ethnic discrimination in housing is illegal.

I’m uncomfortable with the idea – even if no students are forced to live, or forced not to live, in these dorms – because it doesn’t seem appropriate for college-sponsored housing. If students want to establish an Asian-American house off campus, at their own expense, that’s their business, but it shouldn’t be the university’s business to support them. Otherwise, the university is opening up a whole can of worms by giving into every student demand about housing. If the Sons of the Confederacy, or the Heterosexual Men’s Safe Zone, or the Utopian Bong Society decides next year that they want a theme house, things could get ugly indeed. (Yeah, I know the Utopian Bong Society probably already has a house somewhere in Frat Court, but IMHO, universities should get out of the business of housing fraternities and sororities anyway.)

I’d make an exception for themed housing that serves a definite academic purpose, such as a French House or a Chinese House where people actually speak French or Chinese, but otherwise, diverse housing is almost always in the best educational interests of the student. Let 'em live with it or move off campus.

11

FP: I’d make an exception for themed housing that serves a definite academic purpose, such as a French House or a Chinese House where people actually speak French or Chinese

I think most such “themed housing” does subscribe to that principle, at least technically. That is, the point of Native American, Chicano/Latino, South Asian, etc. housing is not to herd together members of those ethnic groups, but to focus on the culture and history of those groups. Such housing groups often host events for traditional holidays of those cultures, sponsor speakers on historical or political aspects of those societies, and so forth. I don’t think that most university administrators would look with favor on ethnic-themed housing that had no official purpose except to let students of that ethnicity live together.

12

OK, Kimstu I see your point – but I’m wondering how, say, an “Asian-American house” would further those ends when there are dozens, if not hundreds, of different Asian cultures that have little in common with one another. Most of us, I think, would support the idea of a German House but be a bit uncomfortable with the idea of a Euro-American House, and I don’t see why the rules should be any different for non-European ethnicities.

13

Uh, how is wanting to live in a dorm themed around a certain culture tantamount to defining yourself by that culture? And how do you extrapolate that to racism?

As long as anyone can live in a themed dorm, I don’t see why it’s such a big deal. Actually, I can see how it would promote the exchange of culture. A themed dorm could be a center where people can come together and fellowship in culturally-specific ways, without being seen as outsiders. And if you are an outsider, maybe you would be able to learn some things about another culture that you wouldn’t be able to pick up otherwise.

On the other hand, I can see how it could seem divisive, but from my experience on homogenous college campus, there isn’t a lot of cultural awareness going on when there isn’t culturally themed housing. One could argue that no matter how hard you try, people will–at some basic level–always self-segregate. Perhaps themed housing is a way to make self-segregation educational. It may also help minority students feel less alienated.

14

Psst, FP, discrimination in housing is perfectly legal if, as in this instance, the rentee is going to share the apartment with the renter.
I don’t know the precise cut-off, but in instances where in-house rooms/apartments are for rent and a few other circumstances, discrimination is allowed under the law.

If it weren’t, females looking to share an apartment would be forced to accept a male roommate, and vice versa.

As for the OP, if Stanford were a public college, there would be a problem. As it is, this truly is a non-issue.
We may not like it when people self-segregate, but there is a whole bunch of things that people do that we don’t like - but it ain’t any of our business.

Sua

15

I think you need to meet the needs of the students. Going from the inner city to a homogenized dormitory might be too much of a culture shock for some. For those students, it might be a good idea to live in themed housing with others of the same ethnicity. For others, it would be better to homogenize. Offer both options and give people a choice.

16

Wow, throw out the word “segregationist” and all the PC Nazi’s fly out of the woodwork.

This really is a non-issue

Excellent observation, did you ever notice how people seem to segregate themselves along lines of age, tastes, hobbies, sexuality, etc? That’s because “given the chance to self-segregate,” people will divide themselves into the groups they feel most comfortable in. And though it may offend your sensibilities, people have the right to associate with whomever they want.

Is that what is happening here? Not even.

:from Stanford’s defense cite:

When did we get so PC that even learning about other cultures is to be considered segregationist? Should Stanford pretend that ethnic differences do not exist because someone might one day get the impression that “one ethnic group isn’t as equal as the others?” Of course not.

Anyone with a grain of sense wouldn’t have such a kneejerk reaction. If the Chinese student were the one renting out the apartment then discrimination would be illegal, instead this student is merely demonstrating a preference for a roomate. This is not illegal and hopefully you can see the difference.

Sure if it were a white person saying that only white people should apply then we might look askance at the ad, but the fact remains that the white person is not the landlord and is not setting policy (might as well consider it a warning that this person is an ass you wouldn’t want to live with anyway).

In the case of the Chinese student, this person may be very new to the country and may feel uncomfortable not living with someone who at least understands her first language. It could be any reason, the fact is it is not for you to force diversity on such a person.

But these dorms are not forced upon minorities and neither are they exclusive to minorities. That gives you very little to complain about except that you don’t like how people in general self-organize. Well tough.

Learning about other cultures is obviously not an academic purpose in your book then, but others would disagree with you.

Ethnicity, like sexuality, doesn’t define you unless you let it. There is no assumption that one is defined by ethinicity here, you are the one making that assumption. You seem to be assuming that the only people who would want to live in such dorms are the people who already belong to that ethnic group, this is not the case. Some may not to live in a place where their culture has been reduced to a “theme,” others might take pride in sharing their cultures with others. Just think about it for a moment, ethnicity is not always a devisive factor. And yet it seems like some of you have been so trained in sensitivity that any mention of ethnicity cannot help but become such.

17

Because I suspect that the “themes” involve only a small part of life. Most of us study, eat pizza, study, drink beer, study, date, study, have bull sessions, and study. Not much of one’s time is actually spent celebrating Hanukah or Kwanzaa or Tet or whatever.

Because the underlying theory seems to be uncomfortably close to the assumption that all (Asians, Blacks, Hispanics,…) are similar and ought to live separately from other people – the ugly idea that, “Those XXXs are all the same.”

Note Fretful Porpentine’s point that there is nothing remotely like a single culture for Asians. So the culture excuse has no basis at all for an Asian dorm.

I’ll buy that. BTW, do you, or any other poster, have actual experience living in an ethnic dorm? I’d love to read some first person experiences.

I also wonder what the reputation is of these ethnic dorms among students who don’t live in them? Any first person experience here?

Sua, I disagree that legal actions are ipso facto non-issues and none of our business. Americans live in a single culture. The discriminatory actions of Bob Jones University or Augusta National Golf Club impact on our conciousness. Universities have traditionally been considered sources of wisdom and moralilty. I think it’s especially important if a substantial number of them are on the wrong ethical track.

18

I don’t live in dorms on my campus, and the closest thing we have to “ethnic dorms” is the International Floor where all the exchange students from around the world live, so maybe that’s why I’m missing your point. How does what a dorm focus on affect the academic achievements of the students? Why would a African-American Theater major, History major, Art major, Political Sciene major, English major etc be forced to understand Dynamic Programming because of where they live? They are all required, by the school or their programs, to take math courses…why do you think there should be this added requirement based on Dorm Living?
I understand that ethnically themed dorms are supposed to teach a student about their culture and heritage, etc, but that’s secondary to what they are there for…going to class and earning a degree.

19

By that logic there is also nothing remotely like a singe Native-American culture, African culture, or Latin culture. You might expect the dorms to reflect that sort of diversity within diversity.

20

My point was that it’s a “segregation” issue as such ONLY if the entire student body is being arbitrarily divided up into the various ethnicities and then all being forced into ethnic dorms.

Which apparently they aren’t.

They can choose whether they want to “self-segregate” or not, so the only issue here is whether it’s a good thing to self-segregate, and whether it’s a good thing for the college to allow them to self-segregate.