Black Only Housing at Colleges

[goldberry]

I confess I totally don't get how this is legal or moral.  Can someone enlighten me?

 

http://www.aol.com/article/2016/09/07/california-university-latest-to-establish-black-only-housing-f/21467349/

Edited September 7, 2016 by goldberry

[Monica_in_Switzerland]

Nothing could possibly go wrong with that.  Another great idea from California!

[Bluegoat]

I don't really like that idea much, but it doesn't surprise me.  I know there is here a group of people who would like to see black-only public schools, and the reasons do have some good data to back up why this might be a good educational choice.

[Guest]

I read the article and cringed. It's only inappropriate and immoral segregation when someone else does it to you, apparently it's just gravy if your group spearheads it.

 

Because some whites never said anything like that in previous decades :huh:

 

ETA - here is the article I saw on it yesterday

http://www.thecollegefix.com/post/28906/

Edited September 7, 2016 by Arctic Mama

[goldberry]

People who want white only areas have and had what might seem like valid, non-racist reasons.  I thought we already determined as a society that whatever those reasons were did not outweigh the ultimate end result and moral implications.

[goldberry]

Oh, I guess this is why it's legal.  Hmm.  Not sure if that changes how I feel about it.  Still doesn't seem like a good idea.

 

While these housing options are technically open to all students, they’re billed and used as arrangements in which black students can live with one another.

[shinyhappypeople]

I don't see how it's legal.  http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/renters-rights-book/chapter5-2.html

 

I'm sure there's a loophole somewhere, though.

 

Good grief.  Just escort yourselves to the back of the bus, I guess.

 

This quote sums it up for me: ""If they wanted to go to an all-black institution, there are plenty of historically black colleges that still exist," Innis told FoxNews.com. "But if they want to go to an institution that is racially diverse and integrated, then racial diversity and integration is part of it. To have a university-sanctioned segregation or separation is, to me, a bit troubling.""

 

This makes me really sad.

[shinyhappypeople]

Oh, I guess this is why it's legal.  Hmm.  Not sure if that changes how I feel about it.  Still doesn't seem like a good idea.

 

While these housing options are technically open to all students, they’re billed and used as arrangements in which black students can live with one another.

 

So that's the loophole, eh?

 

Imma gonna call BS on their reasoning.  To quote the nolo link: "an apartment ad that says “safe Christian community†violates federal law, since applicants might reasonably conclude that Christians are preferred as tenants.
"  

[Bluegoat]

I don't know that I'm necessarily against arrangements that allow groups of students to find people who they share some commonality with to live with.  I've known of groups that were all of the same religious group, or language, or all from the same country.   

[Farrar]

I'd love to see a take on this that isn't from a conservative leaning source to get a sense of why they did it. I agree that it seems problematic on its face. I think there are good things about trying to make "safe spaces" work and not good things... my knee jerk reaction is that this is one of the not good ones, but I'd like to hear the other side. It makes me a little uncomfortable that this was apparently covered in tabloids like the Daily Mail, and lots of conservative sources but there's no corresponding article I could find on the other side.

 

I once read about a couple of programs to encourage Black students to be able to finish college (completion rates, especially for smart, good grades Black kids from lower performing schools tend to be not great, especially when they're at institutions that are overwhelmingly white) so there are some colleges that began bringing African-American students in as a group, housing them together (though I don't think in dorms that were all Black), giving them special services together, just generally trying to build a culture of support and it was paying off, helping those students have better completion rates. I thought that was great, but I could see how it could be spun poorly by people with a certain agenda.

 

ETA: Okay, I see how it's billed and why it's legal. I like that reasoning.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Farrar

[regentrude]

I'd love to see a take on this that isn't from a conservative leaning source to get a sense of why they did it. I agree that it seems problematic on its face. I think there are good things about trying to make "safe spaces" work and not good things... my knee jerk reaction is that this is one of the not good ones, but I'd like to hear the other side. It makes me a little uncomfortable that this was apparently covered in tabloids like the Daily Mail, and lots of conservative sources but there's no corresponding article I could find on the other side.

 

I once read about a couple of programs to encourage Black students to be able to finish college (completion rates, especially for smart, good grades Black kids from lower performing schools tend to be not great, especially when they're at institutions that are overwhelmingly white) so there are some colleges that began bringing African-American students in as a group, housing them together (though I don't think in dorms that were all Black), giving them special services together, just generally trying to build a culture of support and it was paying off, helping those students have better completion rates. I thought that was great, but I could see how it could be spun poorly by people with a certain agenda.

 

I think this is problematic even with out a "conservative agenda".

I get where the motivation is coming from, but as soon as group A gets to do something group B would NOT get to do, that is problematic on a fundamental level. I understand the historic developments of all black and all women's colleges, but I do not believe that we can say dsicrimination is OK if it goes one way but not the other. So, if we do find it OK to have all black or all female whatever, we need to permit all white or all male whatever as well.  Or not allow any such voluntary seggregation at all.

 

[mamiof5]

Not sure how this works out, but can't imagine the uproar if white students demanded white housing only? Or Hispanics, Asians etc? Puzzling 😵. This has the potential for trouble. Who knows whose great idea was it :(

[goldberry]

Yeah, it's troubling to me and I am pretty liberal in my societal viewpoints.  

[Bluegoat]

I think this is problematic even with out a "conservative agenda".

I get where the motivation is coming from, but as soon as group A gets to do something group B would NOT get to do, that is problematic on a fundamental level. I understand the historic developments of all black and all women's colleges, but I do not believe that we can say dsicrimination is OK if it goes one way but not the other. So, if we do find it OK to have all black or all female whatever, we need to permit all white or all male whatever as well.  Or not allow any such voluntary seggregation at all.

 

 

Lots of places have all male or all female housing though.  Most of the housing at my college was one or the other, there was only a small co-ed area.

 

There are student housing options at some universities, sometimes run by monastics, that are for students who share their religious life.

[goldberry]

I don't know that I'm necessarily against arrangements that allow groups of students to find people who they share some commonality with to live with.  I've known of groups that were all of the same religious group, or language, or all from the same country.   

 

I agree with this also... but then can't other racial groups say the same, that whites for example just want some commonality?  Or that they feel "microaggression" from other races and need a place they can be free from them?

 

The reasons don't justify what the end result is, which is ultimately encouraging segregation.

 

ETA, clarifying that it seems this is an area that needs extra caution due to our history and social issues.

Edited September 7, 2016 by goldberry

[goldberry]

I'd love to see a take on this that isn't from a conservative leaning source to get a sense of why they did it. 

 

I didn't think aol was particularly conservative?

[Bluegoat]

I agree with this also... but then can't other racial groups say the same, that whites for example just want some commonality?  Or that they feel "microaggression" from other races and need a place they can be free from them?

 

The reasons don't justify what the end result is, which is ultimately encouraging segregation.

 

ETA, clarifying that it seems this is an area that needs extra caution due to our history and social issues.

 

I think the argument would be that kind of thing just isn't a reality for white students in a mixed environment, while it is for black students, so the different attitude is justified concretely.  At least in the US.  In other places whites might have a very different experience that has parallels to the black experience in the US. 

 

That being said, I am still not crazy, and I do think it's something where it would be a good idea to think hard about the larger consequences or message.  But I think there can be situations where we say,  maybe this is a good idea in these circumstances for specific reasons but it is something we would not want to have as the norm for the long term.

 

My observation has been in the communities I've lived in that were considered "black" (though actually they were mixed) that while purposefully withdrawing from the non-black community was largely self-protective and did create a very tight black community, it also had really significant downsides.

[cabritadorada]

An alternative viewpoint. 

 

The idea is that it's a "themed living community" for students who share a common interest--in this case, black culture and issues--black skin is not a requirement to live there. Only 24 students live there. 

 

At my college there was an honors dorm, a Spanish House, and Italian House, a French House and a Vegan House...that were all officially school sponsored housing. I don't think there's much fuss to this. 

[Ravin]

There is a distinction that can be made between segregation enforced by group with all the power, and self-segregation by a minority group for their own comfort and well-being, especially when majority spaces tend to exclude, either consciously or otherwise.

[Guest]

An alternative viewpoint.

 

The idea is that it's a "themed living community" for students who share a common interest--in this case, black culture and issues--black skin is not a requirement to live there. Only 24 students live there.

 

At my college there was an honors dorm, a Spanish House, and Italian House, a French House and a Vegan House...that were all officially school sponsored housing. I don't think there's much fuss to this.

Food and language study dorms are a bit different than one based on sexual preferences, religion, or ethnicity. These have been blocked before. You say being black isn't a requirement to live there, but what is the effect in selection of students in the application process? If the net outcome is the same because of how they are approving students for occupant the problem remains.

 

Themed housing in and of itself isn't the problem so much as what the themes actually entail and how they are enforced or selected. That's the rub. If the housing was instead focused around black studies majors it would probably pass muster.

[goldberry]

There is a distinction that can be made between segregation enforced by group with all the power, and self-segregation by a minority group for their own comfort and well-being, especially when majority spaces tend to exclude, either consciously or otherwise.

 

It's just that when we reach a point where white is a minority (which will undoubtedly happen at some point) I don't think it would be treated the same way.  I also liked Bluegoat's comment here:

 

      My observation has been in the communities I've lived in that were considered "black" (though actually they were mixed) that while purposefully withdrawing from the non-black community was largely self-protective and did create a very tight black community, it also had really significant downsides.

 

I could see it having short-term positive outcomes but long-term negative outcomes.

Edited September 7, 2016 by goldberry

[goldberry]

An alternative viewpoint. 

 

The idea is that it's a "themed living community" for students who share a common interest--in this case, black culture and issues--black skin is not a requirement to live there. Only 24 students live there. 

 

At my college there was an honors dorm, a Spanish House, and Italian House, a French House and a Vegan House...that were all officially school sponsored housing. I don't think there's much fuss to this. 

 

I understand the idea of themed living.  That's why I'm trying to examine why this "feels" so different, at least to me.

 

This statement below from the article, makes it sound like more that just sharing interests or community. It just seems much more like encouraging an us vs them stance.  Also, many of the reasoning statements focused on having a "safe place", as if they are not "safe" within the white community.  That also is more than just shared interests or themes.

 

Reed College in Portland, Ore., offers an "intentional living community" for "students of color to heal together from systemic white supremacy," and the themed housing focuses on black and indigenous voices, according to the college's website.

[cabritadorada]

@Artic Mama Based on what I've read about the UCLA house and my basic knowledge of Civil Rights Law--skin color has no bearing on the application process, but realistically there is self-selection going on among applicants.

 

This is pretty normal. Amherst College has Theme Houses - see https://www.amherst.edu/campuslife/housing-dining/residential-life/housing/theme Including the Charles Drew House that is traditionally Black. Again, skin color and identity are not part of the application process. 

 

Another example, currently New York City has a Men TEACH initiative to try to encourage more men (especially minority men) in college to train to become teachers, but the program itself is open to all.

 

I think affinity groups are often a good thing *IF* they are optional and a person can place themselves rather than being told where they belong. It can be pretty isolating to be in a minority (religious, gender, skin color, country of origin, etc...) especially in a new setting like college. 

 

[goldberry]

Food and language study dorms are a bit different than one based on sexual preferences, religion, or ethnicity. These have been blocked before. 

 

Do you have examples of this?  That would be very contradictory if that is true.

[cabritadorada]

I understand the idea of themed living.  That's why I'm trying to examine why this "feels" so different, at least to me.

 

This statement below from the article, makes it sound like more that just sharing interests or community. It just seems much more like encouraging an us vs them stance.  Also, many of the reasoning statements focused on having a "safe place", as if they are not "safe" within the white community.  That also is more than just shared interests or themes.

 

Reed College in Portland, Ore., offers an "intentional living community" for "students of color to heal together from systemic white supremacy," and the themed housing focuses on black and indigenous voices, according to the college's website.

 

The above Reed College quote is similar to the original AOL article that claims (notably without quoting) that the new UCLA Black Living-Learning Community was created to provide students "safe refuse from micro-aggressions and other forms of racism present in campus culture." This "safe from micro-aggressions" angle is the journalist's gloss on the story--not coming from UCLA or even the Black Student Union. 

 

As for Reed...it's a very unique college where "systemic white supremacy" and "Western Civilization" are pretty much synonymous...I suspect no enrolled students would be offended by the idea that students of color might want their own house to heal together.

 

For the rest of us, I think it's pretty normal to get one's hackles up about the implication that one group *needs* a house to keep it safe from the rest of the college community--even if there's a kernel of truth to it. It feels uncomfortable. 

[Guest]

I don't know that I'm necessarily against arrangements that allow groups of students to find people who they share some commonality with to live with.  I've known of groups that were all of the same religious group, or language, or all from the same country.   

 

I think interest-group community is often very beneficial to those living in it, and as anyone can be *interested* in something, it is not technically exclusionary.

 

Race-based community?  Exclusionary.  

 

From-the-same-country?  Exclusionary unless there is room for (name that country)-philes.  Again, choice. 

 

Just musing...

[Guest]

I think the reason it seems so uncomfortable on the surface is because it appears to reverse what the civil rights movement tried to accomplish: full integration and inclusion.

[Bluegoat]

I think interest-group community is often very beneficial to those living in it, and as anyone can be *interested* in something, it is not technically exclusionary.

 

Race-based community?  Exclusionary.  

 

From-the-same-country?  Exclusionary unless there is room for (name that country)-philes.  Again, choice. 

 

Just musing...

 

And yet it is very common for a group of, say, international students to look to find housing together, and I think in many ways it can be very practical.

 

I've known people for example who studied abroad and lived at the International student house.  It included people from various countries, but you did actually have to be from away.  And the same is true I think when you get a house of students from one country. 

[kubiac]

Stanford has had a large number of theme houses for many years, including four with an "ethnic/cross-cultural theme."

 

Casa Zapata (Chicano/Mexican-American Theme House in Stern Hall)
Muwekma-Tah-Ruk (American Indian/Alaska Native Theme House located on the Row)
Okada (Asian-American Theme House in Wilbur Hall)
Ujamaa (Black/African-American Theme House in Lagunita Court)

 

https://rde.stanford.edu/studenthousing/theme-and-focus-houses

Edited September 8, 2016 by kubiac

[poppy]

Oh my goodness I forgot about Reed. I knew a guy from Reed . Very intense, very smart, very miserable.  It was no surprise to me to learn Reed has (or at least had) the highest suicide rate of all college.

 

I don't see how it's legal.  http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/free-books/renters-rights-book/chapter5-2.html

 

I'm sure there's a loophole somewhere, though.

 

Good grief.  Just escort yourselves to the back of the bus, I guess.

 

This quote sums it up for me: ""If they wanted to go to an all-black institution, there are plenty of historically black colleges that still exist," Innis told FoxNews.com. "But if they want to go to an institution that is racially diverse and integrated, then racial diversity and integration is part of it. To have a university-sanctioned segregation or separation is, to me, a bit troubling.""

 

This makes me really sad.

 

Historically black college aren't "all black" . This guy has no idea what he's talking about.
 

It's a completely optional housing opportunity .... who cares? It seems to me it's just a way to reinvigorate criticism against black student unions.  The old "If I can't have it, why can they" argument.   To those people I say, do you really want a whites only student union or student housing? Do you think it would improve anything?   Really? 

[goldberry]

I think the reason it seems so uncomfortable on the surface is because it appears to reverse what the civil rights movement tried to accomplish: full integration and inclusion.

 

That's part of it I guess.

 

I think of the first little black girl that went to the white school.  There was aggression there, and not micro either.  I'm sure she didn't feel especially comfortable. 

 

It's seems like it disregards all that effort.  Well, now we are welcome but we don't want to be because we are more comfortable being somewhere else. 

 

And yet, I can see why they have the right to make that choice.

 

 

Again, just trying to sort this out in my head.

[KungFuPanda]

From the kids' perspective, I can see why they'd ask for it. They're leaving home. They've adjusted to being the "other" whenever they leave the house, but your own home should be a place to relax, recharge, and not be expected to constantly defer to another culture. Maybe they don't want to be "on" all the time and just want to let down their defenses and concentrate on their work. I mean, you don't always have to go to a women's college to live in a women's dorm and it doesn't necessarily set feminism back to do so. Who am I to tell these kids what they want is wrong? I imagine they've given it a lot more thought than I have.

[Sneezyone]

It's also not a "black only housing" option. It is open to all students who are interested in what is, increasingly on CA's state university campuses, a small/niche interest group.

[goldberry]

From the kids' perspective, I can see why they'd ask for it. They're leaving home. They've adjusted to being the "other" whenever they leave the house, but your own home should be a place to relax, recharge, and not be expected to constantly defer to another culture. Maybe they don't want to be "on" all the time and just want to let down their defenses and concentrate on their work. I mean, you don't always have to go to a women's college to live in a women's dorm and it doesn't necessarily set feminism back to do so. Who am I to tell these kids what they want is wrong? I imagine they've given it a lot more thought than I have.

 

I wouldn't guarantee that.  Sometimes things that seem good short-term also have longer term effects that may not be so good. 20 year olds aren't known for their foresight! ;) This seems like it might be one of those areas.  It just seems like there is reason to be cautious.  There are greater issues at play than comfort.

[goldberry]

It's also not a "black only housing" option. It is open to all students who are interested in what is, increasingly on CA's state university campuses, a small/niche interest group.

 

The article mentioned there is already a waiting list.  I wonder what the reality is of someone who is not black being admitted.

[Sneezyone]

The article mentioned there is already a waiting list.  I wonder what the reality is of someone who is not black being admitted.

 

You can always call and ask? In the alternative, you could assume it's like most things on campus...lottery or first-come, first-served.

[Pam in CT]

This idea is... not new.  

 

I went to college in the 1980s and there was then, and has remained up through today, one house which largely, not entirely, self-selects for something like "people interested in African-American identity, culture and politics."  It is non-exclusionary -- the occasional white person did (even in my day) and still does live there.  But it is a sanctuary for black students who I know then felt, and I imagine still do feel today, that they could use a sanctuary given how much was thrown at them all.the.time.

 

 

There's a vegan house and an environmental house and a Republican house too.  And several all-male and all-female dorm floors.  Shrug.

[Guest]

I think the reason it seems so uncomfortable on the surface is because it appears to reverse what the civil rights movement tried to accomplish: full integration and inclusion.

 

Not all of the key people involved in the Civil Right's Movement for black people in the US had these specific goals, particularly the bolded.

[goldberry]

This idea is... not new.  

 

I went to college in the 1980s and there was then, and has remained up through today, one house which largely, not entirely, self-selects for something like "people interested in African-American identity, culture and politics."  It is non-exclusionary -- the occasional white person did (even in my day) and still does live there.  But it is a sanctuary for black students who I know then felt, and I imagine still do feel today, that they could use a sanctuary given how much was thrown at them all.the.time.

 

 

There's a vegan house and an environmental house and a Republican house too.  And several all-male and all-female dorm floors.  Shrug.

 

I get that it is not new.  

 

And I don't see it being the same as vegans, environmentalists, knitters, or whatever other interests there might be.  Anyone can CHOOSE to be a vegan, an environmentalist, or a knitter.  You can't CHOOSE to be black or hispanic or native american.  You can choose to be interested in those cultures** but if the primary consideration is to given to those who are actually of those cultures, then yes it is exclusionary.  Whether it is new or not doesn't change that.

 

** It seems like lately that even choosing to be interested in a culture you cannot claim an "official" part of gets a lot of push back, like you are trying to steal something that doesn't belong to you.  Didn't we have someone recently asking if it was okay to expose their children to native american culture and talk about having a history in their family, even though they didn't have enough to be "officially" native american? That a question like that even had to be asked shows that being interested in a culture isn't always allowed to be a simple choice.

[ktgrok]

Not sure how this works out, but can't imagine the uproar if white students demanded white housing only? Or Hispanics, Asians etc? Puzzling 😵. This has the potential for trouble. Who knows whose great idea was it :(

 

 

These dorms are not black only, but they are a place for black people to congregate and possibly be the majority for a change. Given that white people are already the majority in the rest of the dorms, they already have what the black students are getting. 

SaveSave

[Sneezyone]

There's also nothing in any of the reports to suggest anyone will receive preferential treatment in this housing assignment on the basis of race. 

[ktgrok]

Not all of the key people involved in the Civil Right's Movement for black people in the US had these specific goals, particularly the bolded.

 

This is a very very very good point. Separatism isn't a new thing. 

[Pam in CT]

re choose-ability

I get that it is not new.  

 

And I don't see it being the same as vegans, environmentalists, knitters, or whatever other interests there might be.  Anyone can CHOOSE to be a vegan, an environmentalist, or a knitter.  You can't CHOOSE to be black or hispanic or native american.  You can choose to be interested in those cultures** but if the primary consideration is to given to those who are actually of those cultures, then yes it is exclusionary.  Whether it is new or not doesn't change that.

 

** It seems like lately that even choosing to be interested in a culture you cannot claim an "official" part of gets a lot of push back, like you are trying to steal something that doesn't belong to you.  Didn't we have someone recently asking if it was okay to expose their children to native american culture and talk about having a history in their family, even though they didn't have enough to be "officially" native american? That a question like that even had to be asked shows that being interested in a culture isn't always allowed to be a simple choice.

 

 

I agree it's not the "same" as other interest-led or affinity-based collections of people that are based on choice.  

 

(Well, I suppose all-male or all-female dorms or floors are the closest analogy... but there are differences there too.  No analogy is ever an exact match.)

 

But that no-choice, no-ability-to-opt-in aspect about race cuts both ways, doesn't it.  On those days when enduring the social nonsense or in-classroom nonsense or driving while black nonsense or whatnot gets old, it's not like opting out of race is an option either.   Back when I was in college I was originally troubled by the separate housing too, for some of the same reasons you're articulating.  But I really do understand the idea of sanctuary.

[Dmmetler]

I would imagine this already exists on campuses which provide on-campus housing blocks for Fraternities and Sororities. Heck, when I was in college, there was one sorority block that an outsider could easily have interpreted to be restricted to "tall blonde girls who wear a lot of pink". The same campus had an AKA block that was a lot more diverse on body shapes and hairstyles.

Edited September 7, 2016 by dmmetler

[Sneezyone]

I get that it is not new.  

 

And I don't see it being the same as vegans, environmentalists, knitters, or whatever other interests there might be.  Anyone can CHOOSE to be a vegan, an environmentalist, or a knitter.  You can't CHOOSE to be black or hispanic or native american.  You can choose to be interested in those cultures** but if the primary consideration is to given to those who are actually of those cultures, then yes it is exclusionary.  Whether it is new or not doesn't change that.

 

** It seems like lately that even choosing to be interested in a culture you cannot claim an "official" part of gets a lot of push back, like you are trying to steal something that doesn't belong to you.  Didn't we have someone recently asking if it was okay to expose their children to native american culture and talk about having a history in their family, even though they didn't have enough to be "officially" native american? That a question like that even had to be asked shows that being interested in a culture isn't always allowed to be a simple choice.

 

This is a ludicrous representation of what's actually going on. INTEREST has never been controversial. If you're referring to APPROPRIATION, as in the taking/adoption of something that doesn't belong to you without attribution, yes, that is receiving a lot of push back. Being interested in living among others isn't and never has been controversial. Taking over their spaces/things has always been controversial. 

[SKL]

I was raised to believe that de facto segregation is not a good thing.  In fact, the whole business of "busing" in the north was to fight de facto segregation.  And although I think that was handled very poorly, it did help people grow more comfortable with each other.

 

Where I'm from, black people tend to congregate together because they feel more comfortable doing that for whatever reasons.  In high school, all the black kids chose to sit at the same lunch table.  In law school, the same.  Even at a professional conference I recently attended, where people came to DC from all around the country, many meeting for the first time, there was a de facto black-only table at the post-meeting cocktail hour.  I understand wanting to gravitate toward people you feel comfortable with, but I don't see that furthering the larger goals that I thought we were supposed to be working toward.  So while I can understand feeling tired of being "other" and just wanting to blend in for a while, I don't agree with institutions providing an official framework for this.  I think it is regressive.  As a society, we need to keep moving in the direction of integration, even if individuals feel the need to check out from time to time.

 

Yes, I know there are other groupings based on commonalities on campuses, but most of them don't have the negative, hurtful history that this one does.

[Sneezyone]

I was raised to believe that de facto segregation is not a good thing.  In fact, the whole business of "busing" in the north was to fight de facto segregation.  And although I think that was handled very poorly, it did help people grow more comfortable with each other.

 

Where I'm from, black people tend to congregate together because they feel more comfortable doing that for whatever reasons.  In high school, all the black kids chose to sit at the same lunch table.  In law school, the same.  Even at a professional conference I recently attended, where people came to DC from all around the country, many meeting for the first time, there was a de facto black-only table at the post-meeting cocktail hour.  I understand wanting to gravitate toward people you feel comfortable with, but I don't see that furthering the larger goals that I thought we were supposed to be working toward.  So while I can understand feeling tired of being "other" and just wanting to blend in for a while, I don't agree with institutions providing an official framework for this.  I think it is regressive.  As a society, we need to keep moving in the direction of integration, even if individuals feel the need to check out from time to time.

 

Yes, I know there are other groupings based on commonalities on campuses, but most of them don't have the negative, hurtful history that this one does.

 

Except, institutions have provided the same de facto comforts for majority groups all along. Still are. I don't see large numbers of people suggesting that white folks, for example, are regressive for self-segregating in their affinity groups or housing choices. Do you think those folks had an obligation to integrate your conversational groups? Or did you have an obligation to integrate theirs? It works both ways.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Sneezyone

[Guest]

Except, institutions have provided the same de facto comforts for majority groups all along. Still are. I don't see large numbers of people suggesting that white folks, for example, are regressive for self-segregating in their affinity groups or housing choices.

What housing choice offered to college students is segregating in terms of whiteness? I cannot think of a single one, not at any schools I attended or even heard about. Even the ones in a majority Caucasian area (not where I'm originally from) have specific policies preventing housing discrimination and in fact giving preferential treatment to minorities.

 

What de facto comforts are you speaking of?

[Sneezyone]

What housing choice offered to college students is segregating in terms of whiteness? I cannot think of a single one, not at any schools I attended or even heard about. Even the ones in a majority Caucasian area (not where I'm originally from) have specific policies preventing housing discrimination and in fact giving preferential treatment to minorities.

 

What de facto comforts are you speaking of?

 

None are officially segregated in terms of whiteness. Neither is this one officially segregated on the basis of blackness. Anyone is welcome to live there. It's not like it's a secret, however, that certain fraternities, campus organizations, housing areas, etc. are primarily white or Asian or Hispanic or Jewish, etc. That is de facto.

Edited September 7, 2016 by Sneezyone

[Guest]

These dorms are not black only, but they are a place for black people to congregate and possibly be the majority for a change. Given that white people are already the majority in the rest of the dorms, they already have what the black students are getting.

 

Save

Save

Blacks arent homogenous. Neither are whites. They all have subgroups where they will be comfortable and feel like they are 'back home'. Mix with another subgroup and that home feeling wont be there. My subgroup is military brat...we come in all colors and shades.

 

So my question, is this setting for urban blacks with single moms, middle class married health care workers children, sub-saharan african immigrant children, carribean island 2nd gen (just to describe some of the black subgroups here)....what is the criteria for 'black'?

Edited September 7, 2016 by Heigh Ho