CHOICE is a double-edged sword. In a university setting, students are supposed to be free to make their own choices and learn from their mistakes. One of the most important decisions students make is with whom they associate. Unfortunately, the University administration and many student leaders think students don't deserve the freedom to make this choice. They bemoan the self-segregation of the student body along ethnic lines and see this as a mandate to strip students of their liberties.
Two weeks ago, the University decided that rising first-years are no longer allowed to choose their dorms. In an interview with The Cavalier Daily, Angela Davis, director of resident life, argued that the current arrangement creates an "artificial separation by area." Making this decision for students "will increase diversity within first-year dormitories." The 800-pound gorilla hiding in her remarks is the well-known stereotype of Old Dorms as white and Greek-oriented, while New Dorms is less so.
The existence of this divide shouldn't be surprising. In his famed 1971 paper "Dynamic Models of Segregation," Nobel laureate Thomas Schelling demonstrated that a small preference to live near people of the same color can result in total segregation. Using sophisticated computer models, he showed that a positive feedback develops causing mixed neighborhoods quickly to become segregated. People feeling slightly more comfortable around those of the same race quickly results in a segregated community.
But is this enough of a reason to restrict choice? The University's proposed solution is to prevent people from acting on their individual preferences. On the other hand, some people are actually very happy with this outcome. Minority Rights Coalition Co-Chair Patrick Lee, for instance, told The Cavalier Daily that he thinks minorities purposely choose to live in New Dorms to be together. Ethnic differences across housing areas are not an excuse to restrict students' freedoms; rather, they are a chance to expand them. Instead of decreasing students' choices, the University should tell incoming students the facts about race and housing ?so that they can make informed choices. If people knew where their decisions would take them, they may well change what they do.
In the social arena, the issue becomes even thornier. As Schelling demonstrated, all it takes is a slight preference for associating with those of a similar race to quickly produce the self-segregation we see at the University. Yet whereas the administration wants to randomize dorm selection, it celebrates students' decisions to only hang out with those similar to themselves: Witness the institutionalization of ethnic groups ranging from the Organization of Young Filipino-Americans to the Indian Student Association. Paradoxically, the same student leaders and administrators who celebrate this self-segregation in the name of diversity then bemoan the lack of inclusiveness at the University. It is contradictory simultaneously to enshrine minority identity while criticizing self-segregation as it is the very preference to socialize with people of the same ethnic group that causes the segregation.
Too many columns on these pages blame the majority for not getting out and attending minority events. But this fails to recognize that self-segregation is a two-way street. People may feel more comfortable around those of similar background to themselves, but both minorities and the majority need to make an effort to expand their horizons. Just as with dorm selection, if people understand how their mild preferences can lead to big results, maybe we'll see some more white people at ethnic events and more minorities at fraternity parties. The way to ameliorate self-segregation is not class requirements or obligatory diversity pledges; it's by informed choice.
Self-segregation is a problem in of itself, but it has tangible effects on the University through self-selection. It is well known that many important organizations on Grounds, such as the Honor Committee, are disproportionately white. Similarly, there is currently just one black student living on the Lawn. Some see this as institutional racism. Just last week Ryan McElveen wrote that "bigotry is sewn into the fabric of this institution." I find this wholly implausible. A much more likely explanation for this outcome is that minorities are simply not applying for these groups and honors. Brooke Howard, political action co-chair of the Black Student Alliance, has argued with respect to The Cavalier Daily that "with such a low number of black staff writers, members of the black community cannot blame anyone but themselves for not trying to change what they believe to be the status quo."
Howard is right and McElveen is wrong. Too many minorities choose not to join major organizations and don't apply for prestigious honors. But self-selection is the natural result of self-segregation. If we truly want to change the University, we need to make students understand the implications of their choices. More informed choice, not restricting choice, is the best solution.
Josh Levy's columns appear Mondays in The Cavalier Daily. He can be reached at jlevy@cavalierdaily.com.
Read More
EDITORIAL: Celebrating and reflecting on The Cavalier Daily’s independence
By Editorial Board | 5 days agoOur independence grants us the ability to ask the hard questions and to say what University representatives cannot.
ARRAS: U.Va. must revise the Sexual Assault Prevention Training module
By Aoife Arras | 6 days agoIn addition to its failures in interactivity, the module lacks details specific to the University and discusses key concepts in universal terms.
EDITORIAL: Pedestrian safety is an institutional imperative
By Editorial Board | April 15, 2024Amid a national crisis of pedestrian safety, Charlottesville and the University are also struggling to properly maintain pedestrian safety.
