Last June, along with the University of Michigan, Stanford celebrated the Supreme Court’s decision to uphold affirmative action practices throughout the nation. Stanford’s position of support for this ruling is two-fold: not only do Stanford officials maintain the questionable opinion that universities have an obligation to help minorities by lowering admissions standards for them, but they can always fall back on their concept that a more diverse student body is beneficial to the entire academic community. Stanford claims that by bringing minorities into the school, all students can benefit from exposure to their diverse backgrounds. The school’s reliance on this logic would be credible but for one glaring contradiction: the segregation that is ethnic theme housing.
Stanford’s four ethnically themed residences - Ujamaa, Casa Zapata, Okada, and Muwekma-tah-ruk - stand as symbols of segregation that defy any notion that the University is truly interested in a unified student body with diverse backgrounds. Instead, they represent an institutionalized cloistering of minorities that reinforces the idea that minorities truly are different from other people. If Stanford will join the University of Michigan in an affirmative action battle on the basis that exposure to different cultural backgrounds benefits all students on campus, then it should not allow minorities to effectively tell other students that they have a special need to be surrounded by students who share their “differences”.

Not only does ethnic theme housing encourage perceptions of minorities as distinctly different humans, it also denies the true nature of a college experience to its residents. Such a living arrangement discourages the exposure to diverse cultures and ideas that Stanford’s diversity initiatives, such as affirmative action, seek to promote. While Hispanic residents living in Casa Zapata can immerse themselves in Hispanic culture and heritage, it is questionable as to what motivation they would have to learn about Asian culture, for example, when the programming in their residence consistently celebrates only Hispanic culture. People who are surrounded by others of their same background will feel comfortable in that environment and will be understandably reluctant to seek out new cultures and experiences. Exposure to new experiences, cultures, and ideas is an integral part of the college experience, and one that Stanford espouses with zeal. Therefore, any university housing policy that supports the current situation must be questioned.

When examining the relationship between ethnic theme houses and the rest of campus, it is easy to overlook the third party involved aa the non-minority students who are assigned to live in ethnic theme houses. Many students in such a situation feel socially and culturally ostracized. One sophomore who lived in Ujamaa last year said, “Being forced to associate myself with a culture was not my idea of a pleasurable experience.” He claims that he felt clearly unaccepted by many of his fellow residents and was forced to find a social network in the other residences of Lagunita. Rather than being exposed to a diverse group of people, this student felt forcibly immersed in one dominant culture, with few outlets to other perspectives. It simply is not fair to deny such students the diverse residential environment that most other students are allowed to enjoy.

The University likes to remind students that culturally-based residential programming is open to all residents, not just those of the favored minority. The school will contend that this facilitates the exposure to diverse backgrounds that is the goal of its emphasis on diversity. The tragic irony is, of course, not only that exposure is more forcible than might be appropriate, but that this facilitation only works one way. Students of ethnically themed dorms are denied the chance to experience the great diversity that exists in most other dorms. Such students are placed in an environment where they are encouraged to immerse themselves only in the culture with which they are familiar. While there is certainly nothing wrong with a support network being available for ethnic students, immersion in this network should not be so intense that it distances these students from other cultural experiences.

Furthermore, there is a problem in the housing provided for these ethnically themed houses. While Ujamaa, Okada, and Casa Zapata cannot be considered premier housing, the fact that Native American students can be almost guaranteed a spot in a house of supreme location such as Muwekma-tah-ruk based simply on their race is truly unjust. The University is reluctant to grant row housing to fraternities because this makes prime housing exclusive and less available to the general student body. Yet, tragically, the administration clearly has no trouble making housing exclusive if it is exclusive on the basis of race. The fact that a student can be virtually guaranteed such a premier housing assignment simply because he or she is one-eighth Native American, while other students must suffer through the housing draw without advantage, is an insult to all Stanford students. Furthermore, it is highly unlikely that students with distant ancestors from a wide range of Indian tribes really have any common cultural bond. The Native American tribes who dominated North America centuries ago covered as broad a cultural spectrum as the one found in America today. To set aside a superb house such as Muwekma-tah-ruk under the auspices of a common cultural theme is a farce, and one that has negative consequences for the entire university.

Rather than support this segregation of cultures from each other, Stanford should promote a unified student body composed of diverse pieces. To go to such pains to create a diverse student body and to then allow it to segment itself upon arrival is counterproductive. Instead, Stanford should place all students in similarly diverse situations. It has been argued that minorities cannot handle the shock of being placed in a drastically new environment and need the support of a culturally common residence. This view devalues the individualism of these students. The reality is that such a shock is the purpose of a college experience and the reason it can be so enriching. Stanford should be challenging minority students to confront new perspectives, rather than suggesting that they are incapable of taking on such challenges and that they should consider the safer alternative of an ethnic theme house. Giving all students such a challenge would be the epitome of equality and a celebration of the fact that people of all cultures can learn much from each other. Instead, Stanford continues to promote a segregationist housing policy that is detrimental to all Stanford students.