Like every other year, this year’s room groups run the gamut between heterogeneity and homogeneity. While the College works to foster diversity, it cannot expect to stop self-segregation, which often manifests itself in housing decisions. However, we believe the College should abandon those of its practices that promote further self-segregation within the student body and that advance division on campus. Institutions such as ethnically and racially based theme housing reinforce the de facto segregation of portions of campus life without providing cultural experiences for the larger community.

Each year, the Office of Admission crafts exceptional classes defined by a multiplicity of people from different races, socioeconomic backgrounds, regions of the globe and life histories. We all value the irreplaceable experience of living in the first-year dorms with a remarkably diverse group of students. Enforced contact with individuals from backgrounds very different from their own leads students to develop the broad range of friendships and conversations that are a hallmark of life at Amherst. However, as the time comes to select our sophomore housing, too often we choose to live with those similar to ourselves. Obviously, Amherst cannot continue to recreate the diversity of the first year without violating the free will of its students. Nonetheless, it does not need to maintain official venues that in essence encourage some students to self-segregate based on race.

Theme housing like the Asian Culture House, Charles Drew House and La Casa mostly caters to two groups of students. Some enter the theme houses out of a desire to live with others of their race and ethnicity. While that is their prerogative, the wish to escape from a diverse housing environment is not one that should be facilitated by the College, with its stated institutional focus on creating a pluralistic social environment. Others choose to apply to these houses because of the increased likelihood of acquiring a single room. While that is a perfectly understandable aspiration, there is no reason why these individuals should be allowed to game the system by professing a sudden admiration for a certain culture. To be sure, there are many who enter theme houses out of a genuine interest in expanding their cultural horizons. However, these students can do so through involvement in campus affinity groups—which, unlike fixed residences, do not cultivate enduring isolation.

Ethnically based theme houses provide no independent benefit to the campus’ cultural diversity. They fulfill no function on behalf of affinity group programming that cannot be performed by the B.S.U., La Causa or the A.S.A.. Unlike the language houses, the Marsh Arts House and other theme houses, they do not serve an express academic purpose. Like the now-defunct Greek system, these houses do little beyond increasing the homogeneity of residential interaction.

As the College reconsiders theme housing, it should also reflect on its approach to such events as the Diversity Open House Weekend. This event, which is meant to attract underrepresented minority students to the campus, effectively singles out students based on race or socioeconomic background from the beginning of their interaction with the College, thus giving the process of self-segregation a head start against Amherst’s attempt to nurture a truly diverse community. While the administration should not remove support from students desiring help in adjusting to life at the College, it should be more cognizant of the effects of its practices. If we, as a community, are serious about attempting to engage in a comprehensive dialogue on integration at Amherst, including the creation of a multicultural center that holds promise for inter-ethnic dialogue, we should be equally committed to exorcising areas where we institutionalize and unwittingly promote division.