The Cornell Daily Sun has the story. On June 29, Cornell informed Kenneth Glover, the residential housing director of Ujaama Residential College that he was going to be reassigned to supervising High Rise 5. After a considerable number of students voiced their opposition to this move, Cornell temporarily reinstated Glover for at least this upcoming academic year.

I don’t know enough about the residential housing programs or the university’s finances to speculate on the original decision, but I do find it odd for two reasons. While I have not personally met Mr. Glover, I have seen him several times in the Ujamaa building. In fact, if I recall correctly, all three times that I was at Ujamaa this year I saw Mr. Glover either working with or assisting students. I also saw him a lot at Nasties, and he seemed like a really nice and amiable guy. Based on my limited interaction with him, he seems like the last employee who needs to be moved to another position. Second, why move him to High Rise 5? Maybe it’s because I failed to “capitalize on the resources available to me” at Cornell, but the only interaction that I had with my residential director at High Rise 5 last year was when I was lobbying to get my wrongfully confiscated power cord back after Winter Break. Oh yeah, I think she also accused people on our floor of throwing fruit off the balcony.

Any thoughts from Ujamaa residents or people who are on campus this summer?

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.

Ho Plaza hosted yet another demonstration allegedly instigated by financial cutbacks yesterday- this time, in the form of a mock funeral for the death of “safe spaces at Cornell.” The march began at Sibley hall and speeches were made at Ho Plaza denouncing the administration’s approach to program houses. Afterward, the group of people proceeded to Day Hall, where last words were spoken for the said “safe spaces.”

Students gather on Ho Plaza to hear the eulogies. Photo Credit: Oliver Renick

The procession, as outlined in a pamphlet provided at the scene, was to “honor and celebrate the lives of Ujamaa, Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Support Services, Asian and Asian American Center, Akwe:kon, [and the] Latino Living Center.” Obviously, the funeral was symbolic, and meant to be indicative of the impending doom presented by the University’s recent statements by President Skorton that, in light of economic hardships, the school will be reviewing many facets of the institution that could be eligible for change or improvement.

The main concern conveyed by participants of the march was that the University is neglecting its responsibility to uphold its commitment to diversity by ‘killing’ the program houses under the false pretenses of fiscal responsibility. As outlined in the funeral’s pamphlet, “in the year 2009, under the guise of financial hardship, the University took this opportunity to knock down these safe spaces, one by one.”

Zachary Murray ‘12 reiterated this point, saying that “the University is using the financial collapse as an excuse.” He also brought up another reoccurring point that “[those taking part in the march] want to demand the University to begin a discussion about program houses, and the issue of minorities in general.”

While one participant dramatically banged a gong between speeches and another hoisted a sign which read “R.I.P Safe Spaces at Cornell,” the speakers recalled the takeovers of Willard Straight Hall and Day Hall as monumental events which began the awareness of under-represented students at Cornell.

“We want to begin an honest discussion about the past,” Murray told Cornell Review reporters. “Discuss the affirmative action for whites which existed for such a long time. [Minorities] aren’t represented according to the global population.”  In an example of how to begin this discussion, Murray called upon listeners in the crowd to write editorials, speak out, write to administrators, and, specifically, write to the Bully Pulpit.

Discussing the potential effects of closed program houses, Jonathan Pomboza ‘10, pointed out that these cuts “will be felt more intensely [than other budget cuts]. They are not more important than others, but this is a concern for us, so we raise awareness. Students who go to the program houses for resources will feel [the absence of programs].” Pomboza then talked about the way program houses encourage their members to get out into the community, saying that many program houses provide funding for events that occur across campus, which help students experience all sorts of different cultures and lifestyles.

Bhavna Devani, an ‘09 graduate student, who took part in the funeral march, discussed the meaning of the sign which claimed “safe spaces at Cornell” are dead. “Sometimes it’s about physical safety. Other times it’s about social support, unique needs, the need for general support. Cornell is already stressful, and minorities have another dimension of stress.”

In response to the accusations brought up by the funeral march, Susan Murphy, chief of student affairs at Cornell, said that “none of these spaces they are concerned about are in jeopardy. In tough economic times, you have to be vigilant. There is a review of the program houses just like everything else.”

As this is a topic of constant discussion here at Cornell, we encourage Cornell readers (and our outside readers, as well) to contribute their thoughts / questions / concerns about this subject in the comments section below.