Discussing the diversity of class

There isn't much people don't talk about at Princeton. Even if we're not as "liberal" as other universities, you can usually find someone to talk to about anything, no matter how inane or controversial (or both). Hell, I was at an hour-long talk last week about the Harry Potter series and The Vagina Monologues played here a few months ago. There really isn't anything we won't talk about if it's interesting to somebody. Or is there?

Do you know what your friend's parents do for a living? Or how much their parents make? How many of your friends are on financial aid? I'm guessing you don't know the answer to any of these questions. None of the people I asked did, and one of them even said, "Why would I bring it up?" Of course, there's no reason to bring it up. I like people because of who they are, not who their parents are or where they're from.

Yet the University itself seems to think that it's important to bring in a diverse class. While the official Princeton policy is that admissions is not biased on the basis of sex, race, geographic location or socioeconomic class, we do reconcile this to various kinds of affirmative action (keep in mind that I say this as a female engineer), and I can't believe that finding some brilliant kid succeeding despite coming from a very poor family and school isn't going to excite Fred Hargadon. It doesn't happen that often (but that's a topic we like to discuss).

So socioeconomic class is important. It's as much a part of someone's identity as geographic region (or, in other words supposedly, equally unimportant in determining merit for admission to a university). No one flinches when you ask where they're from, but try even asking someone what their father (or mother) does and most people will wonder (if not ask) why you want to know. So then you say, "Why does it matter, anyway? Even if it's part of your identity, we're all in the same spot now. We're all in the same class . . . we're all students." And that is true to a certain extent. The University does a great deal to eliminate class: financial aid makes it possible for everyone to attend Princeton without even paying loans, student housing is billed at a flat rate, even health insurance is mandatory and paid by the University for many students on financial aid.

The problem with doing this is the underlying implication. We're trying to get rid of class, so there must be something wrong with it. If someone is poor, he probably fits into certain categories. Quick, let's pretend we don't notice. We don't want him to know he's different, because that's not OK, so let's keep the shame to a minimum. And even if that girl is a Rockefeller, we don't want her to feel special. She probably doesn't have any unique experiences, and I for one am not at all interested in hearing about her extensive first class travels. Class is gone; it was bad but is no longer anything. We don't have to have class in our world, so let's not. It's much better that way, right?

Think about what happens when we all end up in the same class: we eliminate class. What do we have to talk about if we're all the same? It's a complete success . . . which distinction is next. Shall we get rid of gender? Geography? Race? Are none of these ok? Why are we replacing the rugged individualism academia has heralded ever since the Renaissance with the nonsense our parents spent the 60s rebelling against?

I'm not saying we have to talk about it all the time, I'm just wondering why we never do. Aileen Ann Nielsen is from Upper Black Eddy, Penn. She can be reached at anielsen@princeton.edu.