In the first place, I was disappointed that there was no representative from the administration to moderate the discussion. This suggested that this forum would essentially be no more than a conversation amongst students and little, if anything, would be changed by this discussion. Of the estimated 60 students present at the meeting, approximately 80 percent were minority students. As the meeting progressed, I was not surprised to see that the "discussion" had degenerated into Drew House-bashing, with the majority of counter-arguments being made by current or previous occupants of this theme house. A few attempts to steer the conversation towards the utility of the language houses or the necessity of a LGBTQ theme house were quickly overcome.
When I returned from the debate, I conducted a little research, and was amazed to discover that only 19 students live in Drew House, the majority of whom, but certainly not all are black. Nineteen is a small number-just a little over 10 percent-of the total population of black students at Amherst and quite a negligible portion of the entire school. Many of the arguments that have been made about theme housing contributing to self-segregation seem to suggest that it does not encourage honest dialogue about race and diversity, since the students interested in conducting such conversations live together and thus do not enrich the rest with their views. However, I think that if frank dialogue about race on campus is infrequent, theme housing, and especially Drew House, is certainly not to blame. The students who live in Drew now are mostly sophomores. This means that there are many other black students on campus no longer living in Drew who are as interested in racially-themed dialogues. Their dispersion from the theme house into normal college housing should then have spawned fervent discussion. Evidently, it has not. Maybe it's because no one is ready to listen.
When a sensitive subject like this one is brought up, people are quick to change the subject. At the discussion last Tuesday, a friend suggested that the root of the problem was actually racism on campus, with minorities constantly having to defend themselves from criticism by the majority. Her argument was pointedly ignored as others strove to make cogent arguments on the importance of an actual physical space for effective theme housing. Even though I could not blame them, I felt a twinge of regret for what might have been if the discussion had veered off into this seemingly taboo area. As distressing as it would have been for many of us, it might also have been a lot more effective than the conversation that ensued which merely affirmed, for many of us, the wisdom of our decision to live in theme housing.
I remember the campaign for racial tolerance a few weeks ago at Amherst, which included large white sheets on which people were asked to sign their names in support of the cause. I also remember quite deliberately walking by these sheets without signing my name. I did this because I wanted the space I would not use to be taken up by another person who would contribute more significantly to the cause. Let me clarify: I do not think it is up to me, as a minority, to promote "racial tolerance" at Amherst.
In his speech at Amherst on Oct. 26, 1963, President Kennedy remarked, "Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility." During his inauguration speech, President Marx quoted this line, and also spoke extensively on social responsibility. Even though this may be interpreted in a number of different ways, I hope it will not be too farfetched to give one of these interpretations as, say, with the privilege of being a majority comes the responsibility to respect minorities. I think it is crucial that those who are not directly victims of racial prejudice take a stand against it because without them, any efforts made by the oppressed will be for naught. The feminist movement could not have gotten very far if men had not actively joined the campaign. Along the same lines, the formation of a Men's Group at Amherst to protest violence against women is a perfect example of this ideal. The principle could be applied to many other forms of human rights activism. For example, if conversations on class at Amherst included more affluent people, they would not devolve into the "whining about rich kids" forum that many expect them to be. Simply put, any efforts to address the issue of racism are undermined without the participation of the majority group. If this does not happen anytime soon, then we will talk till we are blue in the face about self-segregation, or 'theme housing,' without achieving anything.
It is rather idealistic, if not a tad ridiculous, to assume, as some people seem to do, that cultural theme housing significantly promotes self-segregation at Amherst, and that its abolition will magically produce a happy, racially-integrated student body. A search on Google for "self-segregation college" turned up many hits, quickly dispelling any notions I might have had that ours was the only campus with this phenomenon. The quest for diversity that leads many college admissions officers in search of a critical mass of qualified minority students invariably results in self-segregation. Moreover, the utopian ideal of a campus in which black and white, athlete and geek, rich and poor and gay and straight have all managed to put aside their differences and successfully integrate is, quite frankly, unattainable. This is probably because at the end of the day, all of us live in a "real world" in which we do not usually interact with those from 'the other side,' but because it is on a much larger scale, we do not recognize self-segregation for what it is. However, within our small community, it should be possible to control the extent to which self-segregation plays a significant role, and this is what we should strive for.
It is time that the majority took upon themselves the burden of self-criticism that minorities have borne for so long. Every time the issue of affirmative action comes up and fingers are pointed our way, we wonder if we truly belong here and what is the best way to prove our worth to others. When the issue of self-segregation is brought up, we ask ourselves how we can open ourselves to the majority, and may literally bend over backwards in the effort-according to a student senator at Tuesday's meeting, BSU organizes the greatest numbers of events on campus. The onus is always on us to justify our presence on, and our contribution to, this campus. However, if there is anything to be learned from all this, it is that minorities are always going to be a part of Amherst. It is time that others begin to ask themselves why we don't seem to fit in quite so well, and what their responsibility is to make us feel welcome. We've done enough.