An argument for cultural houses

As a response to why cultural groups need residential space, my understanding is that a student who opts into one of these houses will choose to live with people who share his or her interests and have his or her best interests in mind. This social support fosters rapport that will enable trust, which in turns leads to personal growth. These houses will foster a depth of relationships, understanding of self and a sense of home. However, this result is the goal of many selective living groups. To be specific and distinct from current SLGs, there is something to be said about providing an opportunity to further appreciate identity. The cultural groups are intentional about providing an opportunity for students to further develop their identity(ies) and garner an appreciation for their respective culture. Adding cultural houses enables the collective experience of exploring identities and culture and allows others to intersect the community in educational and positive ways. And if we understand these cultures to be more than monolithic, then we understand that exploring diasporic identity transcends racial and ethnic categories. Lastly, transformative social interactions happen outside of the classroom and student organizations. Students should have more than a couple of ways to experience community. Should there be a limit for this type of interaction? Sometimes the most profound and engaging conversations happen at midnight.

On another point, viewing this adaptation of our house model as self-segregation is problematic for many reasons. The argument of self-segregation is a projection of majority students onto students of the multicultural community. As a campus, we cannot be uncomfortable with certain students congregating but comfortable with other students who have been congregating in highly racially homogenous environments for decades. Students have no right to dictate how other students want to navigate their educational experience at our University and deny them the collective agency to shape it. Therefore, for some students to suggest that others cannot congregate in an educational living space is to unfairly police the activities of underrepresented populations. And let us not confuse what the current housing scheme provides students for multicultural interaction. As a person of color, you can live next door to me, but if we do not interact in meaningful ways, there is no educational benefit. We should be cautious of upholding the status quo of superficial relationships as a hallmark of diversity and inclusivity in our housing model. If we rely on proximity without communication to assuage the lack of meaningful interaction, we are doomed at the start.

With that said, I suggest we continue conversations about the many ways diversity and inclusivity can be achieved. These cultural groups are intentional and unapologetic in what they are doing to add to campus culture. There is a missed opportunity when not thinking more deeply and critically about what culture truly means and how students want to delve in that conversation.

Ubong Akpaninyie
Trinity ’12
DSG Director of Multicultural Outreach and Affairs