Sometime on Tuesday, the search engine gank.princeton.edu listed 21 Asian surnames, taken from draw groups posted that morning, with the following questions: "aZn self-segregation? Spelman internment camp? Why do we bother with diversity?"
On this matter I do not pretend to speak for the Asian community, or, with 800 words, even to do more than briefly express my own opinion.
The next day, after many complaints, the posting was removed and replaced with an apology. But it seems Jerry Falwell-esque to make a statement that hurt a lot of people and then, after it's too late, retract it with an explanation like well, self-segregation "continuously frustrates me." Although an important campus issue has been resurrected for discussion, this favorable outcome does not diminish the degree of insensitivity.
Referring to Spelman as an internment camp, even (or especially) as a joke, trivializes the pain of over 110,000 Japanese Americans. Singling out specific minorities or people, for whatever purpose, implicitly blames them for a problem that is widespread throughout the Princeton and world communities.
The list is selective. Instead of listing entire draw groups, it leaves out a few Caucasian surnames and a not-so-obviously Asian one. Perhaps for privacy reasons, there are no first names — but not only are the identities clear to many anyway, the effect is alienating. There are no first names, therefore no familiar American names. Every name is monosyllabic, characteristic of Chinese and the Korean family lines.
The gank posting, regardless of its intention, is an unpleasant reminder that even those born in America who have perfect English and all sorts of other "American" interests and qualities will still be judged by tired stereotypes based on their names. Their names alone are enough for some to conclude that they are all the same.
People say that college isn't just about academics but about learning from others who are different from you. But — as I shouldn't have to say or explain — race is a superficial determiner of differences. And rooming is only one of a multitude of aspects in one's social life. If someone judged me solely based on those I eat with, they might say I discriminate against everyone who lives up-campus. Based on those I talk to on AIM, they might say I discriminate against everyone who goes to bed early. Based on who — you get the point.
However, my biggest complaint is not in the stereotyping or the insensitivity, but rather in the third posed question. The conclusion drawn from a perceived self-segregation is, "Why do we bother with diversity?"
There are obvious problems with this conclusion, such as failing to recognize other rooming situations that are homogenous in different ways, or putting the responsibility of integration on minorities. But the main problem is in an implication about diversity.
Yes, diversity does give students the experience of learning from different people. Yes, such interaction pulls people out of their limited perspectives and is undoubtedly valuable. But even if the campus was completely segregated, self or not, this would not be a reason to stop "bothering" with diversity.
If segregation makes diversity meaningless, the implication is that diversity is for the benefit of the majority. If Asians or other minorities seclude themselves and don't interact with the majority, then, it is suggested, there is no point in having minorities in higher education at all. But minorities are not in higher education so that others can obtain exposure to them; minorities are in higher education for their own benefit. Diversity not only allows for a beneficial interaction between different groups of people; more importantly, it gives those people opportunities.
It is easy to make generalizations based on appearances, but in doing so there is a failure to reach true understanding. Statements such as "They aren't open to friendships with other races," in my opinion, are on the same level as statements such as "The unemployed don't truly want to work" or "People are poor because they're lazy."
In the upcoming weeks as campus groups such as Whig-Clio and AASA debate campus self-segregation, I encourage you to participate, listen and approach the issue with sensitivity.
Julie Park is a sophomore from Wayne, N.J.
Read More
For a more effective USG, train newly elected members on the bureaucracy
Luqmaan BambaFor student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.
For student representatives to make the change we can through the systems we have, we need a more onboarding process that prepares us to navigate these byzantine processes.
Go big or go home: the case for a single Lawnparties
Sarah ParkConsolidating the fall and spring budgets into one would reinforce the position of Lawnparties as a quintessentially Princeton tradition and a mainstay of the social experience.
Consolidating the fall and spring budgets into one would reinforce the position of Lawnparties as a quintessentially Princeton tradition and a mainstay of the social experience.
Princeton must retire the Atatürk Professorship
Greg ArzoomanianWhile no professor has held the title since Atatürk Professor of Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies emeritus Heath W. Lowry departed in 2013, the position remains open for new candidates. Just as Princeton exempted Wilson’s name from celebration due to his racist ideologies, it must do the same for the Atatürk Professorship: It must be retired.
While no professor has held the title since Atatürk Professor of Ottoman and Modern Turkish Studies emeritus Heath W. Lowry departed in 2013, the position remains open for new candidates. Just as Princeton exempted Wilson’s name from celebration due to his racist ideologies, it must do the same for the Atatürk Professorship: It must be retired.