Diversity Isn't Just Skin Deep

We all know the stereotypes: Adams is home to artsy, alternative types; Mather's for the jocks; Eliot is snobby and Dunster is just plain weird. "No longer!" gloats the administration. In an attempt to fight the polarization that has supposedly taken over the College and thus increase the diversity within the campus, the administration has decided that upper-class housing should not be a matter of choice (not even the four-house non-ordered variety).

By the time the guinea pigs of 1999 graduate from Harvard, the hope is that even the memories of distinct house characters will be secondary and vague--and all the students of Harvard will be living together in true harmony. (If only NATO could randomly assign housing...)

However, before we allow ourselves to indulge in over-idealized visions of future coexistence at Harvard, two highly related and somewhat troubling occurrences must be noted. First, the most glaring result of randomization to date is that the gender balance, once the only control imposed by the University, is terribly skewed. It's rumored that the incoming residents of Pforzheimer and Eliot are 70 percent male and only 30 percent female. Strike one for randomization.

Second, and more significant, is that the class of 1999, responding to the cry of randomization and freed from the fear of being quadded, chose to live in larger blocking groups than any class in recent history. Blocking groups of more than 12 were commonplace for the first-years.

Is it possible that this move to larger blocking groups represents an attempt to create smaller communities in place of the community once provided by the houses? Even if most first-years would not have explained their choice to live with 15 of their closest friends as emblematic of their search for community, there is a strong possibility that randomization coupled with large, socially self-sufficient blocking groups will result in a splintering of house life into smaller, more exclusive cliques, utterly undermining the potential for meaningful interaction within the houses.

A more serious problem is that randomization represents a stifling of student choice and autonomy. Although the University does have a responsibility to create an environment of open and interesting interchange, one would be hard-pressed to justify a limitation of choice in the pursuit of openness, especially since it is not clear that the goals and potential results of randomization balance such blatant disregard for our freedom of choice.

Even if we ignore the question of student control and autonomy, what kind of statement is the administration making about our school if they must resort to forced randomization of legal adults to create the type of diverse atmosphere they are seeking? Although the University's vision of diversity is problematic in and of itself--and I will address it momentarily--there is no guarantee that randomization is the way to achieve it. A quick look at our own Harvard experience reveals that forced housing is not a particularly efficacious means of fostering meaningful diversity. All first-years are randomly assigned not only housing, but roommates. During the first and arguably most influential year of college, every student lives with people he or she did not choose, in a dormitory with other randomly assigned people. Even were we to ascribe to the University's vision of diversity, the fact that the randomization of every first-year has not accomplished this goal is suspicious at best.

Perhaps more telling is the national attempt at social engineering. Forced school busing is a perfect example. In an attempt to increase diversity and open up homogenous communities, the government instituted the busing of African-American students to primarily white schools. Sound somewhat familiar? Despite the similarities, the argument for the social necessity of busing was much more compelling than Harvard's claim: before busing, there was a strong likelihood that members of the different communities may never have crossed paths, let alone have meaningful interaction. Harvard, on the other hand, prides itself on providing regular opportunities for significant interchange--we are a campus that is thriving with vibrant diversity of all kinds. But back to our instructive example. The incontrovertible failure of the busing program and its subsequent abandonment should offer us a powerful lesson about the unforeseen results and deep complexities of forced interaction. The issues of integration are multifaceted, and while a superficial means of dealing with them--and randomization is nothing if it isn't superficial--may create more colorful house life, it does not address the underlying problems.

Beyond the issues of practicality and the effectiveness of randomization is the more significant question of the true meaning of diversity. The goal of randomization is that each house should have the "right" breakdown of different groups represented on campus. What is troubling is not the administration's commitment to a rich, varied atmosphere--there is no question that one of the most enticing social and educational qualities Harvard offers is the unique opportunity to interact with exciting, interesting and different people of diverse backgrounds and experiences. The failure of the University's recent policy lies in the definition of diversity that has guided the move to randomization.

Underlying the University's decision is a superficial, check-list notion of diversity. As opposed to looking at the individual person and his or her personal qualities and interests, the University has reverted to a group-identity form of diversity where two people from the same area and the same socio-economic milieu, interested in similar academic and extra-curricular activities, of different races are more "diverse" than two people from different parts of the country, with radically different family backgrounds and interests, of the same ethnicity. This is not to say that race does not play a central role in the formation of identity. What I am arguing is that no single characteristic is the pivotal shaper of self. People are much more complicated amalgamations of the infinite forces, nurtured and natured, that have molded them. This personal complexity translates into a profound diversity that exists even among seemingly homogenous groups.

Although randomization may add to the diversity on campus, it is based on a simplistic assumption that denies the real richness of character that makes Harvard such an interesting and diverse place to live. And to justify the diminution of student autonomy, the administration is going to have to do better than that.