Last term, The Dartmouth ran a series of articles evaluating the state of race relations on campus. The campus social culture the Greek scene in particular was depicted as racially exclusionary or segmented, while minority students were portrayed as alienated and disillusioned. One article quoted a student who said "Of most of the people I've talked to who are minorities here, 75 to 80 percent have started thinking about transferring or sent in an application" ("Students manage social lives amidst diversity," Nov. 11). The Editorial Board echoed the idea that campus culture breeds poor race relations, and argued that "we as students have cultivated a culture of avoidance" ("Verbum Ultimum: Beyond Acceptance," Nov. 12). While I acknowledge that elements of racism and segregation persist on campus, our constant debates over diversity eschew acknowledgement that this segregation stems from the insular social attitudes of some students. We thus create a faux controversy by condemning the student body as a whole for the self-segregating tendencies of a few.
I've met many students here who express a desire to maintain a connection to their ethnic identities, but refuse to define their social circle by any particular racial community. This is the kind of attitude that can lead us towards becoming a more inclusive community while preserving the dynamism of cultural diversity. Unfortunately, these peers have encountered hostility from other members of the same minority group for socializing across ethnic lines. Minority students who seek to carve out an identity independent of their ethnic heritage face prejudice for their willingness to interact with and learn from other cultures. This is a form of bigotry that occurs within, rather than between, racial groups.
In fact, I would argue that the Greek system is far more conducive to racial integration than, say, affinity housing. I understand that many minority students come from a specific cultural environment, and that these students find a familiar social network in affinity housing and racial fraternities and sororities. However, such a system will inevitably cause social insularity. Although one could argue that fraternities are equally insular, there is a crucial difference between the two: Membership in Greek organizations is not predicated upon belonging to a specific ethnic group or cultural background. In fact, during the civil rights era, many of Dartmouth's fraternities disassociated from their national organizations in protest of their racially exclusionary policies. Minority Greek organizations and affinity houses, on the other hand, are social communities structured around a specific ethnic identity. It is within the context of these culturally homogeneous social spaces that racial tension is born.
I particularly take issue with the notion that differences in race somehow supersede all of the other things that bind people together. It is indisputable that the population of your average frat basement will be predominantly white. However, the fact that I'm Indian doesn't inherently make me uncomfortable in this environment. Those who suggest that minorities are made to feel out of place miss the fact that differences in skin color do not automatically preclude similarities in personality and background. I grew up in suburban New Jersey, and most of my closest high school friends are white. It would be absurd to view the broad range of their interests and identities, which form the foundation of our friendships, through a solely racial prism.
My closest friends here at Dartmouth include a WASP, a Jew and a Mexican-American. We can appreciate the diversity of each other's backgrounds, while still recognizing that our commonalities transcend our racial differences. I do not pretend to be post-racial. We all have our own stereotypes and prejudices. But race itself is a superficial physical difference between people. The concept of ethnicity has no real meaning until it is considered in the context of cultural background. It is exposure to these differences in background and experience that leads us to promote diversity in our communities. A campus dialogue focused on physical racial diversity (or lack thereof) is both misguided and counterproductive. Such an approach, on some level, implies that the color of one's skin will define who a person is. We should emphasize perspective and experience, not race. Self-segregation will cease to be an issue when we all acknowledge the absurdity of structuring social communities on superficial physical traits.
