<p>o.k. o.k.! It has been a hard week!</p>
<p>RoRosen: RoRosen, it’s Saint Patrick’s Day…just start drinking some green beer while eating a little corned beef and cabbage and <em>keep</em> drinking…your wish will be granted.</p>
<p>…in honor on this St. Patricks Eve, I’m switching from the Jazz Messengers to the Chieftains and tip my hat to the green people. The purple ones live overseas.</p>
<p>As a former international student, I can see both sides (don’t I always? :)) of the issue. My college had a wonderful scholarship program for foreign students. The aim was to educate both the foreign students and the American ones. By and large, I think it succeeded. Still, the international students often hung out together, though they were not housed together. Not because we had lots in common–after all, we came from all over the world. Sometimes, however, we were tired of being expected to represent the viewpoints of all our fellow citizens, or being told “you are a credit to your race” or some such comment. So I can see that students from a particular background who are in a minority in a college might want a space where they can be themselves and not be expected to stand in for everyone of the same background.</p>
<p>There are many kinds of self-segregation. Before Harvard instituted random housing, some houses were known as “jock Houses” others as “arty Houses.” Some were thought to be more welcoming to URMs than others; men who were willing to live in former Radcliffe Houses were often teased by those who lived in river Houses. This was not the doing of the housing deans, but the result of students’ housing preferences. </p>
<p>I just read the Crimson online today. Some students are agitating for coed housing.</p>
<p>To me, the problem is not unlike that suffered by many rivers rushing through communities that have been over-dam-ed. Clearly, these things are done with good intentions, but they are also clearly over-thought, overwrought and over-worked. These good-intentions have created as many if not more ills then they aimed to cure: storming the village.</p>
<p>Now-a-days, there seems to be no good and pro-active administrator that does not believe all that is needed is a bit more social-adjusting and engineering–from tweeking the levers to erecting whole new social edifices outta whole-cloth: ethnic/racial/cultural housing.</p>
<p>If diversity is the goal, then diversify. </p>
<p>Segregation by housing is something that was fought tooth and nail in the last quarter of the last century; from neighborhoods to schools to churches. The fight continues, but segregation is wrong no matter that your intentions are right.</p>
<p>As to jock-houses and arty-houses it is not clear to me that there is a history of discrimination against jocks or artistes, there has been and is however discrimination against racial, ethnic and religious groups.</p>
<p>I belong to a racial and religious minority, but I would not want to marginalize myself anymore than society (not people–just institutions) already forces it upon me even with the best of intentionsno matter how important or necessary it makes any sociologist/administrator/do-gooder feel.</p>
<p>I say, if you don’t mind carrying around little bags of poop, get a dog; it will love you no matter what–you will be important and special.</p>
<p>One school on my school’s list went way up when they discussed coed housing but in the end it wasn’t that high on his list. </p>
<p>Even though he is a US citizen he went in with the internationals this fall and hung out with them for a couple of weeks and then moved on, made friends with his dorm mates etc. has met up with a darling girl from Minnesota, and hasn’t looked back.</p>
<p>That said, beyond college, he is very interested in revisiting South Texas. I am all for it.</p>
<p>is coed housing really that unusual?
My D school not only has co-ed housing but co-ed bathrooms.
Her roommate in her college owned two bedroom flat is a boy.
( they have 1 & 1/2 bathrooms)
You should see their upstairs- look to the left you see a very neat and organized room, bed made , everything lined up on the desk- look to the right and you see bed not made, piles of stuff on the desk ( let alone the floor).
Guess which one is my daughters :rolleyes:</p>
<p>In the end, radical self-segrationist “diversity” advocates are really just a bunch of racist fascists. </p>
<p>Just compare the “look” (and content) of this website: </p>
<p><a href=“http://uchostileclimate.blogspot.com/[/url]”>http://uchostileclimate.blogspot.com/</a></p>
<p>To this one: </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.americannaziparty.com/[/url]”>http://www.americannaziparty.com/</a></p>
<p>i think by purple and green the poster was trying to emphasize the absurdity of classification by color. you have to admit calling people yellow is kind of odd. as is white and black.</p>
<p>My point is that in most cases, students choose to self-segregate on the basis of different criteria–not just gender or race. S1, for example, chose to live in a substance-free dorm. </p>
<p>Colleges may wish to enable such self-segregation or not. I do not think any college forces students to live in dorms that are self-segregated (unless they are single sex dorms). Until random housing, Harvard allowed students to self-segregate on the basis of being arty, jock what-have you; it no longer does. When random housing was introduced, there was a howl from students about Harvard’s social engineering. That defect is, of course, in the eyes of the beholder.</p>
<p>EK: Coed housing is probably not unusual. S1 lived in a coed dorm with coed bathrooms. S2 is in a dorm with single sex floors (and the doors to each suite–2 per floors-- have automatic locks).</p>
<p>My confusion doesn’t stem from my institutional affiliation. I’m not sure the significance of that. I think it mostly stems from the fact that I don’t think the examples, even as overdrawn as they were in the article, represent tyranny on the part of institutions or student organizations. </p>
<p>On a personal, confessional note: I wouldn’t mind being a robber baron, though.</p>
<p>I guess I worry about segregating based on “what you are,” rather than what you do, like or long to become–the common denominator amongst students and seekers. </p>
<p>“If you build it they will come” </p>
<p>…and if you don’t come, many will wonder why you dont, thus the imperative of the dictum above. </p>
<p>There is certainly a conventional coercion involved…sometime subtle… sometime brutal–Always uncalled for.
Discrimination is rarely tyrannical (except in Hollywood), its usually subtle, subconscious and, too often, beguiling</p>
<p>FS:
The problem is who is the “you” and who are the “they”?</p>
<p>Presumably, colleges do not intentionally build segregated dorms a priori then force cerain groups of students to live in these segregated dorms against their wills. Presumably, they sought to address a desire, a demand for such dorms. Is that a bad thing? In a different context, this would be seen as addressing consumer demand rather than practicing socialist economic planning.</p>
<p>The pressure exerted on some students to live in certain dorms or to behave in certain ways surely comes from other students rather than the colleges? </p>
<p>Let me be clear: I would rather my kids live in diverse environments (and they did or do). I did mix with students not of my own background and I am very grateful for that experience, even though I was sometimes exasperated at having to serve as a kind of cultural ambassador and spokesperson for my entire country. But I wonder why colleges are being blamed for students’ preferences and prejudices. The students are neither blank slates nor sheep.</p>
<p>On a humorous note: Wes, I believe, had a clothing-optional dorm. I am glad the clothing-optional students chose to live in that dorm and not be scattered among the other co-ed dorms. :)</p>
<p>“Wes, I believe, had a clothing-optional dorm”</p>
<p>I’m rather fond of the “race” optional dorms.;)</p>
<p>…seems almost utopian.</p>
<p>(…always enjoy your intelligent perspective Marite–even when I’m not quite with it) :)</p>
<p>FS:</p>
<p>I believe that the race-optional dorms are the overwhelming majority of dorms on even the most PC campuses. But I’m sure glad that the clothing-optional dorms are not!</p>
<p>It feels like a false dichotomy has been proposed. This is not an strict either/or–where either you have complete and total mixing in dorms, clubs, classes, individual roommate choices, dining hall seating, etc…or you have discriminatory, segregationist, do-gooder tyranny and a complete failure of the goals of “diversity.”</p>
<p>I think institutions promoting diversity want to have thriving, integrated campuses, but also recognize that in achieving that, students want to be able to occasionally congregate in groups of their own choosing. Indeed, in some cases (for example, where students feel marginalized, or have to struggle to assert their identity) letting them do so may be key to their continued success and their ability to contribute optimally to the campus as a whole. Perhaps colleges feel that to deny them such a chance is to risk decreased satisfaction and cross-cultural interaction, and to risk increased dropout, transfer, attrition from majors, etc. </p>
<p>Let me choose an example that might be a little less politically charged. Consider a Women in Science in Engineering program like the one here (since U-M has been singled out). It’s not designed to parcel the women off, deny them access to male science students and vice versa. It’s designed to support them as a group of students who are somewhat unique in their fields and who are at higher-than-usual risk of leaving it for reasons that have nothing to do with their aptitudes or abilities. The University lets them live together on a common floor (if they choose to–it’s not obligatory), and facilitates study groups and mentoring between them. Does this make the University a fascist organization who is hampering diversity? I guess that’s a matter of opinion, but I’d argue no.</p>
<p>I found myself wondering whether the author of that article had, in fact, spent much time on a college campus. It just isn’t a realistic picture painted there–and I’d hate to see discussants here buy into that.</p>
<p>I think it’s worthwhile to debate the merits of ceremonies and organizations that seem separatist. However, I’m not sure it can be productively done in the framework proposed by the author.</p>
<p>One part of the article I REALLY don’t get is the statement that Brown’s policy of having a reception for minority students and their parents after the all-inclusive graduation is “arguably worse.” Why? </p>
<p>I know that several of the religious groups at Brown have special receptions graduation weekend for graduating seniors and their parents, usually held after the religious services. Is it wrong for Hillel to have a special reception for Jewish kids and their parents? Isn’t it probable that the kids who have been active in Hillel for 4 years have formed a special bond? The Catholic community has a graduation mass followed by a reception too. Same rationale–many of the kids have been very active in the Catholic community and it gives them a chance to say good-bye to the chaplains and others of their faith on a busy weekend. </p>
<p>What’s the difference between these receptions and those for African-American kids or Mexican kids and their parents? Should they all be banned? </p>
<p>Most of the departments also have special receptions for graduates in that department. </p>
<p>At my D’s college, there was a special reception for Phi Beta Kappa members and their parents graduation weekend. Is that wrong? </p>
<p>I don’t like segregated college housing. But several colleges that have residential college systems–which don’t permit for self-segregation by race-- have such receptions. Graduation weekends are often two or three days long. Having a get together for a couple of hours during that weekend doesn’t seem like a problem to me. A separate graduation ceremony is somewhat more problematic to me–at least at those colleges where there is one big graduation. </p>
<p>I think it’s a huge leap to say that the fact that colleges host these events segregate students for all 4 years. Sometimes, that’s true. Other times, it isn’t. One of my D’s junior year roommates–they all had singles as seniors–was African-American. The junior year roommates all marched together in the actual graduation. The African-American one and her family went to the African-American reception. It was one of many events held over the course of a three day graduation weekend. Why is this a problem? I REALLY do not get it.</p>
<p>
Ideally (of course!) there would be enough students of all backgrounds so that one student would not serve as a cultural ambassador. Alas, that is never the case. (Diversity can exist in all forms, by the way: I’m the only one from a very “blue” state in a conservative legal group, and they sometimes look to me to explain my state. I get inklings of what it must be like for others.)</p>
<p>Jonri,</p>
<p>I think the gut-level difference between departments/religion and race is that (at least in theory) a student chooses his major or chooses to be very active in church, while he is born with his race. Now, I understand that most people stay with the religions they are born into and some students (like your kids, as I recall) are required by their parents to attend Mass as a part of their responsibilities while at college; however, there is still some element of choice - to be active in church; to get to know the congregation, the priest; or to volunteer to teach CCD. One does not so choose his race and how “representative” of that race he is - his ticket in the door is the colour of his skin, not academic passion or depth of belief.</p>
<p>There is also a huge difference between “one of many” events and one, single reception. Maybe it’s just me, but I do feel like there should be a college-wide celebration and reception at some point, not one broken down by major, race, religion, or athletics. </p>
<p>“Immediately after graduation” is, IMO, poor timing for separate ceremonies. All that stuff should be done during the day before - parents can meet your priest, professors, fellow Sanskrit majors, and Ultimate Frisbee team at other points during the weekend, but graduation and the attendant ceremonies are a campus activity. You go to school as a community and should so graduate. </p>
<p>Graduation is also the tip of the iceberg. There is also the issue that colleges have created those tight-knit racial communities by sponsoring segregated housing - my alma mater did that, and it was a good way for juniors & seniors, who were not guaranteed dorm rooms, to get on-campus accomodations. Is it any wonder then that there is a close community upon graduation that wants to celebrate together?</p>
<p>Nobody forces African-American or Latino students to participate in organizations based on their ethnicity. It’s wholly voluntary. Many students of color choose not to do so. For example, some second and third generation Latinos speak limited or no Spanish and thus are often uninterested in such organizations. (Additionally, being Latino is not a matter of the color of your skin; it’s not a race.) And depth of religious belief is not a prerequisite to membership in campus religious groups. Indeed, on graduation weekend, I’m sure there are many students there with families who have not a clue how rarely the students attended religious services during the previous 4 years.
(My own beloved college chaplain used to announce the weekend before parents weekend that he would be available to any non-practicing Catholic student who wanted to come in to introduce himself/herself before the next weekend, so he would be able to say “Hi, __!” to him/her in front of the 'rents.)</p>
<p>I don’t see why it matters one iota whether the get together is that day or the day before. The article didn’t say the Third World reception at Brown was immediately after graduation and I didn’t say that the African-American reception at my D’s school was right after graduation either. But if the last universal event is a common graduation, then why is it wrong for some groups to stay behind afterwards for special celebrations? (I suspect that some colleges prefer this scheduling so that everyone isn’t trying to leave campus at exactly the same time; departures end up being staggered a bit.) What if the ethnic celebrations would conflict with the departmental celebrations if they were held the day before graduation? Or what if that would make them conflict with other special events, like sports banquets for graduating athletes? </p>
<p>I don’t think there’s a necessary connection between ethnic housing and ethnic receptions on graduation day. My D’s college had separate ethnic receptions during graduation weekend, along with many other special events for particular groups. It does not have ethnic housing. It does have African-American, Mexican-American, Chinese-American, and many other ethnically based student associations. </p>
<p>At many schools, the only thing that most people are doing right after the graduation ceremony is lugging the last of the stuff out of their dorm rooms; what’s so awful about having special receptions for some ethnic groups during this time period? </p>
<p>I already said I dislike the idea of separate graduations. I just didn’t get why the author of the article thought that having a separate reception after a common graduation was “arguably worse” than having separate graduations. I still don’t.</p>
<p>the author of this article is totally distorting the intention of college administrators, they just understand that it may be difficult for a minority to immerse him or herself into the college envrioment because of socio-economc difficulties and is trying to smooth the transition, and by the way, want to see the how the conservatives would have dealed with minorities, anyone heard of Jim Crow Laws?</p>