I’ve continued to discuss the program house situation with various people, and each time my stance on the subject becomes a little bit more revised. While this is a situation especially prone to partisanship and generally just two views, this is where I currently stand, and it incorporates some elements from both sides:

The way they currently are, I am not in favor of the program houses.  The question really comes down to their purpose – what are we trying to accomplish by establishing them? Cornell’s housing says the mission statement is as follows:

Residential Programs furthers the academic mission of Cornell University. By providing a safe, diverse, purposeful living and learning environment, we support student involvement and active citizenship

So basically this is very vague and we can’t draw too much from it. The latter parts about ‘purposeful living and learning environment,’ and ‘support[ing] student involvement and active citizenship’ seems applicable to every residence hall. The beginning segment seems to be directed towards the program houses specifically: ‘providing a safe, diverse’ place to live. It also seems reasonable to conclude that this is referring to the racially-focused houses; I don’t think music students in JAM have any overwhelming fear about safety or diversity in instruments (or at least they aren’t verbal about it). So according to this excerpt the program houses are about safety and diversity.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

Safety

From what I learned at the ‘funeral march’ a few weeks ago, this issue of safety refers not so much to physical safety but more about social support and support groups for people who have another dimension of stress here at Cornell (which must refer to minorities in these houses). I can understand this – I do not object whatsoever to having places where people can get help and support from people with similar backgrounds, cultures, and customs. Who better to help than somebody with a similar background? That being said, this support can easily be located or found in other places – it doesn’t necessitate an entire living center dedicated to that one minority group.

I also have a strong objection to the use of the word ‘safety.’ To ensue that without program houses minorities would not be safe here seems rather absurd. I would go so far as to say that tolerance, acceptance, and diversity are the most valued and prized qualities at Cornell, and the atmosphere most certainly reflects it. These values are instilled in us from day one of orientation week with Tapestry and we know the reprimands if we aren’t accepting.

If Cornell really wants to make a program house for another significant minority that does not receive the same acceptance and does feel persecution and opposition on a much more regular basis than any Blacks, Hispanics, Asians, or American Indians, then where is the White Protestant Christian program house? I’m not joking – once we have a program house for that group, then I may consider using the word ‘safe’ as a selling point for PH’s.

Saying that program houses are successful because they provide peer support to a minority group is one thing; saying they are the only safe solace for the targeted group is far-fetched.

Diversity

I used to never put a great deal of thought into the proclaimed diversity that Cornell always raved on about in the pre-freshman acceptance packages and preparatory documents; it seemed no matter what they sent me every week before coming to Cornell, there was always at least one segment bragging about the diversity of people, ideas, and interests.

When I came to Cornell, I was less aloof and much more appreciative of the diversity of people and the collaboration of thoughts and perspectives that could be made – just in one hall in Clara Dickson. Why is this? Because I was in a hall surrounded by people from all different places, and we all intermingled and shared ideas. Did we learn from one another? Yes. Did we adopt certain aspects of each other’s beliefs and cultures? Probably most of us. Were we segregated based upon our race or where we came from? Absolutely not.

How are we as a people supposed to appreciate different customs and grow, if we are separated and surround ourselves with more people that are just like us? This is extremely counter-productive if we expect to understand and be able to relate to each other. Every culture has something to contribute, so once this interaction happens, people become naturally tolerant and therefore, that desired ‘safe’ environment is created.

—————————————————————————————————————————————————-

So, if the objective is a safe place for minorities and a diverse student population, why not consider the following proposal (it is still in the works but could be a step in the right direction)? If we must have houses dedicated to specific underrepresented groups, then how about we create houses where the majority of residents are randomly chosen and a large minority, say 15-20% of students are of a designated minority status?

The same support efforts would still exist for students, but the new houses would be a mixture of students that are more exposed to the cultures offered by the targeted minority group in their respective house. This would eliminate the isolation of minorities created by the current program houses, the awkwardness of students who unwillingly get stuck in PHs, and be an opportunity for the residents to opt to take part in activities, socials, and events inspired by each house’s base minority group.

Be sure to check out more of my thoughts on the program house funeral march in the coming week’s Cornell Review.