Ben Gottesdiener | Student Life

Students participate in the national Mix It Up at lunch day, an event that encourages students to meet new people and cross social boundaries. Mix It Up is an annual nationwide event. Student Involvement and Leadership and Connect4 hosted the event this year.

The students went to the DUC on Tuesday to participate in a diversity experiment known as Mix It Up, a national event that Washington University has taken a part in for the past two years.

Mix It Up at Lunch Day, the national event, is held at schools and colleges all over the nation. Last year, more than 100 University students, faculty and staff attended the event. Organizers hoped to attract more people this year by publicizing through Facebook and e-mail and offering an impressive new menu of food from all over St. Louis.

The event was originally created by Teaching Tolerance, a project of the Southern Poverty Law Center. The non-profit which lays out the main ideas for the event and suggests activities, but each school puts its own twist on the idea, according to the event’s organizer, junior Nikki Desai.

The University’s Mix It Up was a collaboration between Connect 4 and the Student Involvement and Leadership Office.

The event was formulated to randomize each table: Each attendee would walk in, put his or her name on a name tag, and take a piece of candy from a big bowl. Each type of candy corresponded to a table where the attendee would sit. Food was served buffet style, including sandwiches, breakfast for lunch, tapas and more. After serving themselves, attendees would ideally sit down at these randomly “diversified” tables and meet new people whom they normally wouldn’t sit with at lunch.

There was a line of people going out the door and chatter filled the room. Students and faculty members of all different races and ages sat together.

In the hopes of attracting more people, the organizers set out to advertise to as many people as possible.

“We pretty much told every single student group, every single freshman floor, every single person that we physically, possibly could,” Desai said.

Sophomore Camille Young, one of the organizers of the event, said that the more people they attracted to the event, the more diversity and new connections there would be.

This year’s new feature was to serve food from all over St. Louis, which Desai says helps add to the community-unification aspect of the day.

Some students who showed up didn’t even know what the event was for.

“I’m here because someone told me there was free food,” freshman John Rincon said. Event organizers recognized the draw of food and even counted on it as a factor to help bring out more students.

“We want to reach everyone from different student groups, different activity groups—even just people that are hungry,” Young said.

Regardless of their reasons for coming, the attendees seemed to realize that the event was intended to take them out of their comfort zones.

“I think there is a bubble mentality. It’s much easier to be around people that are similar to you,” said junior Rebecca Slotkin, who attended the event.

“I think it’s going to take more talking about it instead of just watching it happen to change things,” sophomore Christine Diepenbrock said.

Dialogue, according to Young, is the main purpose of the lunch.

“Our goal is to get people to reach outside their comfort zone, to meet people they normally wouldn’t have,” she said.

Slotkin felt that the event was effective.

“Every year, you get a class of a thousand or so students, and the whole student body changes,” she said. “It’s really interesting to meet different people from all different backgrounds.”

Young says that although this event acts as a starting point, it’s really up to the attendees to make a change.

“Mix It Up puts the question out there of ‘Who am I hanging out with? Who am I spending my time with?’ From there, it’s an individual effort,” Young said.

“It makes you wonder what it is that causes our tuition to be so high in the first place,” she said. “Yes, education is incredibly expensive, but what are we doing that makes it so expensive?”

It’s official: Wash. U. ain’t cheap. The University recently made the top 35 schools in CampusGrotto’s ranking of most expensive schools, thanks to a total yearly price tag of $51,918.

Wash. U. certainly isn’t unique in its high cost. Nearly 50 colleges and universities in the CampusGrotto ranking topped the $50,000 mark, and 43 more demand upwards of $40,000. Nationwide, average college tuition has increased at three times the rate of inflation for the last two decades. And strikingly, despite its high cost, only about 60 percent of Wash. U. students receive financial aid.

Statistics have revealed the magnitude of the problem; now we need Wash. U. administrators to step up with solutions. Much has been made of the apparent lack of socioeconomic diversity on campus, but we feel that little has been done.

True, the University began a financial aid and scholarship initiative “Opening Doors to the Future” just over one year ago, with the ultimate goal of raising $150 million from alumni and friends of the University. But if costs for undergraduates continue to rise at the approximately 4 percent rate of the last couple of years, this money will hardly make a dent over the long term. Wash. U. needs to be attracting a greater number of students from middle-class and low-income backgrounds; instead of doing so, the money will probably end up assisting prospective and current students from the upper middle class, who are nevertheless on the financial margin of being able to afford a Wash. U. education.

We encourage the University to continue this scholarship initiative to raise the target amount of fundraising, but further steps are needed to move forward on socioeconomic diversity among undergraduates. For one, Wash. U.’s ostentatious facilities (think of the plasma TVs at Bear’s Den and the DUC) are not only unnecessary, they may turn lower-income students off. Though we appreciate how hard our University works to make campus beautiful, we can’t help but presume that some visiting students are overwhelmed by the excessive display of wealth.

We also feel that admissions officers should visit high schools that are more socioeconomically diverse and reach out to students from a broader spectrum of financial backgrounds. The Office of Alumni and Development targets a specific network of schools, many of which are high-caliber “feeder” high schools. Reaching out to students from different backgrounds—who are less likely to have heard of Wash. U. in the first place—will enhance opportunities for these students.

Most importantly, we want more information about where money is being spent and how the University plans to move forward. As Challa indicates, students have little idea of how our tuition money is used. More transparency won’t necessarily reduce the burden our families bear, but it will help generate ideas among the student body about what is and isn’t needed. That way, we can finally move forward.

Neighborhood relations.

Last year, conflicts evolved between students living north of campus and their University City neighbors over a “zero tolerance” noise policy under which the University City Police Department issues a summons every time a police officer received a noise complaint. This summer, students have worked to make peace with their neighbors and reduce the number of citations and arrests, but the quarrel is by no means over. The role that the University will play in its resolution remains to be seen.

The environment.

Even as new LEED-certified buildings continue to be constructed, Wash. U.’s Board of Trustees contains leading executives from Peabody and Arch Coal, two major St. Louis-based players in coal production. This affiliation has proved to be a controversy among students, reaching a head last year when Student Union passed a resolution decrying the University’s leadership role in the Consortium for Clean Coal Utilization. As a leading research university, Wash. U.’s stance on the environment has the power to affect not only the University itself, but St. Louis, our nation and our world.

Student and faculty diversity on campus.

Last year, Student Union brought to bear several initiatives that aim to promote increased student and faculty diversity. U/FUSED, a new multi-campus group, aims to promote socioeconomic diversity. The Diversity Affairs Council (DAC) aspires to allow the student body better to react to issues of prejudice. These initiatives are still in developing stages, and their assessment of and impact on campus diversity will continue to evolve next year.

The undergraduate experience at Wash. U.

Though it is by nature and definition a research university, Wash. U. devotes vast quantities of resources to improving the four-year experience for its undergraduates. With the construction of College Hall, the Residential College system may become a more fundamental aspect of campus life—and the ways in which the undergraduate community relates to the intellectual community of our faculty will continue to evolve.

Washington University in St. Louis?

This spring, a tobacco ban will take effect for both St. Louis City and St. Louis County, following already-enacted bans on Wash. U.’s campus and in the nearby suburb of Clayton. The ways in which students react to the campus tobacco ban will continue to develop, but perhaps more interestingly, Wash. U.’s influence on the community tobacco ban was large, representing a public health initiative driven by our medical school. Other agendas such as public transportation have been heavily promoted by the administration, and we have no doubt that Wash. U. will continue to interact politically with the St. Louis community next year.

The vote was 7-6-1. A two-thirds majority, or 10 votes, was needed to pass the legislation.

Earlier that evening, Treasury had gone through the legislation’s articles and approved each one individually. When Treasury voted on the entire legislation, however, it did not pass.

“From a legislative perspective, it’s nothing I’ve ever seen before,” said Senate Speaker Chase Sackett, a senior.

Treasury Representative Ehi Okoruwa, a sophomore, said part of the problem stemmed from representatives’ uncertainty about what they were voting on.

“A lot of people were confused on whether we were going to discuss the structure, whether we were going to discuss the value this brings to campus, etc.,” Okoruwa said. “Many people were just not on the same page.”

Among the concerns that representatives raised were that the council (DAC) added to the complexity of SU, that this council would allow other groups to unduly influence the executive branch of SU, and that there seemed to be no guarantee that the DAC would accomplish its goal.

SU Senate passed the same legislation last week 22-2-1.

According to the legislation, the DAC aims to “foster connections between members of the campus community, and address issues so as to bring diversity to the forefront of campus-wide and administrative concerns.”

Diversity refers to that of sex, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, age, class and philosophy, among many other ways of judging people.

After the vote, DAC supporters left the room.

Diversity Affairs Council: From beginning to legislation

Senior DeAndrea Nichols, president of Connect 4, raised the question of diversity last summer to find groups beyond Connect 4 that addressed the issues of diversity. She said the conversation eventually reached senior Jeff Nelson, student body president.

“He said that there’s nothing in SU that focuses on diversity,” Nichols said. “This is despite the fact that our larger University constantly states that we care about it.”

Sackett, Senior Class Council President Fernando Cutz, Coordinator for Student Involvement and Multicultural Leadership Naomi Daradar Sigg and other student leaders on campus eventually took up the issue.

After drafting the legislation, SU held a Legislative Leadership Council meeting at the beginning of this semester to discuss the legislation.

“Treasury reps saw this very early in the semester and had the opportunity to give input,” Sackett said.

Cutz pointed out that the legislation went through 13 drafts before appearing at the Senate’s University Initiatives Committee, which approved the legislation 10-0 and moved it on to Senate and Treasury.

Reactions

“Quite frankly, I’m really upset right now,” Student Union Senator Betel Ezaz, a sophomore, said during the open forum portion of Treasury.

Cutz’s criticism of Treasury was much harsher.

“I think Treasury has shown a fundamental incompetence at representing the will of the student body,” Cutz said. “I think they were not voting according to their constituents’ wants.”

But Sackett was quick to point out that 50 percent of the body did support the legislation on Tuesday.

“We absolutely do commend the half of the body that did vote to support the legislation,” Sackett said. But he added, “I’m still unclear as to what the reasons were for voting against it [were].”

After the Treasury meeting, Treasury Representative Peter Glaser, a junior, said it was unfair to criticize Treasury for being insensitive to diversity when the body approves events promoting diversity on a weekly basis.

Jack Kider, a Treasury representative and Budget Committee co-chair, said the DAC legislation failed because its supporters failed to explain why its goals could not be met through school organizations that already exist.

“I believe that many Treasury representatives did not wish to pass legislation that creates more bureaucracy and another organization within Student Union, while there are many institutions within and outside of Student Union that already exist to address the same issues that the DAC would have addressed,” Kider wrote in an e-mail to Student Life.

Next steps

Now, supporters of the legislation are trying to obtain 900 signatures by Monday so that this issue can go before the whole student body in spring elections.

“We want to give the student body a chance to show they care that SU should make diversity a part of its intrinsic structure, and I think that students do believe that,” Sackett said. “And that’s why we’re so confident and that’s why we’ve been working on this for so long.”

Last week in Senate, the new legislation for the creation of the DAC passed with 22 votes in favor, two against and one abstention.

According to the new legislation, the DAC’s mission is to “foster connections between members of the campus community, and address issues so as to bring diversity to the forefront of campus-wide and administrative concerns.”

Diversity refers to that of sex, gender, ethnicity, sexual orientation, religion, age, class and philosophy, among many other ways of judging people.

People who supported the legislation hope that by having a council, SU will be able to focus its attention on diversity in a long-term, institutionalized way instead of simply throughout the next year or two until current SU officials have moved on and new ones have come in, bringing a whole new set of issues with them.

According to Sackett, the DAC will have several purposes.

“The DAC has three purposes: to serve as a nexus for student groups and students interested in issues of diversity, to work with Senate to implement policy changes related to diversity, and to help coordinate diversity training efforts present on campus,” Sackett said.

Sackett mentioned issues such as the Mothers bar incident and Celebration Weekend as some topics that have recently spurred discussion.

“[It will enable] rapid action planning for instances like racial profiling,” said senior De Nichols, president of Connect 4.

Further, there is redundant programming and overprogramming on campus, Nichols said.

“[The DAC will] unite and possibly combine some ideas and efforts,” Nichols said.

In regards to the diversity training on campus, the DAC will become a resource in addition to a collaboration center.

Student groups such as Safezone, SARAH, Mixed and Uncle Joe’s all provide diversity training, but supporters say that this will allow them to be better coordinated.

Nichols hopes that Greek Life will also be a part of this collaboration too.

The next step comes Tuesday when Treasury votes on the new legislation.

According to Sackett, a change in the constitution requires a two-thirds vote in both Senate and Treasury.

“This is an opportunity for Treasury to show the student body whether they’re committed to diversity,” said Senior Class President and Fernando Cutz, co-chair of WU/FUSED.

Sackett, Cutz and Nichols all hope that Treasury votes in favor of the DAC, but they will have to wait until Tuesday to see what happens.

“I expect that they’ll pass it because I have faith that Treasury wants to have student groups they fund work together,” Sackett said.

Cutz agreed with Sackett but also mentioned that they have been a bit less certain about the creation of the DAC.

“It is my greatest hope that they’ll pass it,” Cutz said. “I think that Treasury has been a little more hesitant with the DAC and we’re not exactly sure why.”

Cutz did mention, however, that if the Treasury does not give this legislation two-thirds of the votes, there would be alternative ways of making sure the DAC is formed.

“We have backup plans if they don’t [pass it],” Cutz said.

If the legislation is passed, the DAC will be formed in late March, once the next administration is and sworn in. They then will appoint a DAC chair who will have to be approved by both Senate and Treasury.

This process has been a long one, making the passed version of the legislation the 13th draft.

When Jeff Nelson was originally approached about the issue, according to Nichols, he said that there was not anything in SU about “diversity affairs” yet.

Before being passed in Senate, the legislation previously passed the University Initiatives Committee with 10 votes in favor and zero votes opposing it.

“This has been a long process and a lot of people have been involved,” Sackett said.

Connect 4 proved to have a strong purpose and need at our school. As we like to say, we are the only “non-cultural, cultural group” around. Instead of celebrating one specific culture or heritage, we strive to celebrate them all. Instead of focusing on what divides us, we strive to focus on what brings us together. Our programming has been hugely successful on campus and has taught students to better embrace and celebrate diversity, dialogue, understanding and change within our community.

Recently, however, we have seen that programming alone is not enough. With the Mother’s Bar incident, the discussions of racial profiling on campus and the dialogue dealing with WU/FUSED and socio-economic diversity issues all having been prominent this past semester, we have come to realize that policy aspects are equally important to truly addressing issues of diversity and discrimination at Wash. U. The University administration, understandably, tends to work with Student Union, not specific student groups, on issues of policy that affect the student body. That is why I plan to strongly advocate for the creation of the Diversity Affairs Council (DAC) within Student Union.

Compared to our sister schools, Washington University’s student government is one of the very few that doesn’t have a diversity position within it. It is imperative that we change this. The DAC would be responsible for working with the many student groups and with SU to have policy-level input on all kinds of issues of diversity. It would advise both SU Execs and Senate and would use SU’s legitimacy and infrastructure to facilitate dialogue and co-programming between the many diversity groups on our campus and between the appropriate diversity-oriented members of the University administration.

Connect 4 will continue to exist as a student group and will continue with its mission. But the DAC is an essential addition to the structure of SU that will allow diversity to be furthered on our campus, and issues of hate, discrimination and prejudice to be dealt with more effectively in the future. I strongly support the formation of the DAC and encourage you to express your support for it at an upcoming Senate meeting as well!

Fernando Cutz
Senior Class President, Class of 2010

Recently, we have noticed several large-scale events that demonstrate particularly effective forms of this type of collaboration. In particular, we want to commend the organizers of Hip-Hop Week, The Solution and Pluralism Week for their comprehensive efforts at uniting the interests of different student groups, and encouraging partnerships that are substantive and meaningful.

With hundreds of student groups and countless student interests, it is inevitable that good programs will overlap and students will be forced to choose between them. Rather than limit student programming, we believe that student groups should work together in innovative ways to create connected events that make an impact.

It is difficult to get the student body to unite behind large events—a cursory observation of attendance at our football games demonstrates this. However, programming such as The Solution, which took place in the Gargoyle last Friday and combined the efforts of Sigma Chi and ABS along with cultural groups such as Ashoka, combines the resources necessary to promote interactions between diverse members of our student body.

An attitude that embraces collaboration between student groups with diverse yet intersecting interests is becoming more commonplace on this campus, and we feel that this attitude is a move in the right direction for the student body. New programming for this year—specifically, Hip-Hop Week and Pluralism Week—brings together not only the planning efforts of different student groups, but unites the student body behind performances and events that hold mass appeal.

The collaboration behind these events goes beyond simply slapping as many group names onto a flyer as possible—instead, it comes from real and concerted dialogue between student leaders about what will best unite and entertain the student body. Additionally, groups have been asked to contribute according to their unique focus, rather than simply providing financial support. The events taking place during Hip-Hop week utilize the unique resources of different student talents, such as WU Cypher’s break-dancing performance and a fashion show featuring clothing designed by Wash. U. art students.

Large-scale, coordinated events that seek to unite the student body in such a way demonstrate what we hope is the beginning of enhanced dialogue and interactions within our student body, enabling us to embrace diversity in practice as well as in name.

Associate Director of Cornerstone Harvey Fields speaks at Thursday’s discussion about socioeconomic diversity. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

Amid a relaxed atmosphere, Controversy N’ Coffee and WU/FUSED hosted a multicultural panel on the topic of socioeconomic diversity to a group of nearly forty students Thursday evening.

The panel was composed of John Berg, Vice Chancellor of Admissions; Pam Hansen, Associate Vice Chancellor for Alumni & Development Programs; Harvey Fields, Assistant Director of Academic Programs, Center for Advanced Learning and senior Cristina Woodhouse, president of the Association of Latin American Students (ALAS) and TRiO.

The panel introduced the subject with a discussion of the University’s Pell Grant awards, leading into a larger conversation on socioeconomic diversity.

The University ranks lowest among the top 25 universities as a recipient of Pell Grants. This statistic is problematic and discourages many potential students from applying, some students said.

“A lot of my peers did not apply to Wash. U. because of upfront costs,” Woodhouse said.

The administration also acknowledged that many students do not apply due to tuition rates.

“People feel as though this is an expensive institution,” Henson said. “Overcoming that perception can be very challenging.”

Berg noted that the University’s low rank is due in part to the specificity of Pell Grant stipulations.

“Federal guidelines are very strict on who is eligible for a Pell Grant…If you fall literally one penny from the amount, you are not eligible,” he said. “We help many families that fall just above the Pell Grant guidelines to afford Washington University.”

Associate Vice Chancellor for Admissions John Berg speaks at Thursday’s discussion. The panel was hosted by student group Controversy N’ Coffee. (Matt Mitgang | Student Life)

Moreover, according to Berg, only 8 percent of students who are eligible for Pell Grants apply to top tier universities.

Panelists said socioeconomic diversity is a crucial topic for the University to address.

“We want to be at a university that is diverse in every sense of the word—that’s why we work [at WU],” Berg said.

While students said they feel that the University is multiculturally diverse, most said they believe the University is lacking not only socioeconomic diversity but also awareness on the issues related to it.

“I think that compared to multicultural diversity and other initiatives, I don’t think that [socioeconomic diversity] is given the attention that it deserves, and I think it’s one of those often overlooked factors,” said sophomore Kellie Moore, internal vice president of CNC.

Students also expressed concern that opportunities for financial support are not well publicized, and few said they are aware of available financial help.

“Even though there have been initiatives toward promoting [opportunities], there’s always room for improvement, and we should definitely make more of an effort to promote awareness to our students of the financial resources available to them,” said sophomore Mariana Oliver, president of CNC and panel moderator.

Students in attendance said they were less than satisfied with the panel discussion.

“It was an informative session, but I felt like there was so much pre-decided conversation,” sophomore Baltazar Benavides said. “There wasn’t enough peppering back and forth between students and panelists, so some topics students wanted to hear weren’t even addressed. It was helpful overall, but I would have liked it if we could have gone into greater depth on a few issues.”

Freshman Jaclyn French agreed that the discussion did not delve far enough into the issue.

“I think that it could have gone a little bit deeper,” French said. “I think that a lot of the panelists were agreeing with each other and didn’t get to the meat of the issue, but it was definitely a good start.”

French emphasized the value of having a discussion about socioeconomic diversity on campus.

“At this caliber of university where there are a good deal of rich students, I think [socioeconomic diversity is] something that can easily be overlooked, and I think that it’s something there can be a stigma about,” she said. “I know that Wash. U. has a little bit of a stereotype of being a country club, so while there is a range of students, I think it could be more visible.”

I recently moved off campus to a block north of the Loop, which is considered to be a dangerous, poor neighborhood. It has been one of the more eye-opening things I’ve experienced. After only four months, my perception of it changed from a crime-ridden, imposing menace to what I’m learning more about every week—a fairly average neighborhood, full of lots of families and with excellent parks.
The preconceptions we have that aren’t always challenged are the ones that are especially important to examine. For instance, everyone complains about the “Wash. U. bubble,” but it doesn’t seem to me like anyone ever gets very far in dissecting this elusive problem. Could it be we’re approaching it wrong?

I won’t use the imagery of a Wash. U. bubble anymore, because I personally think that the metaphor has become clichéd to the point of meaninglessness.  Instead of talking about this abstract idea that we can’t quite pin down, why not take it apart further?  What do people mean when they talk about a bubble?  It means people aren’t going off campus, aren’t interacting with the neighborhood.  So that pins it down a little—why aren’t people going off campus? Why aren’t they interacting with the neighborhood?

I honestly believe that, for 90 percent of people, the answer is simple—the drinking age, unfortunately, is 21 in that killjoy dimension of reality that is St. Louis minus Wash. U.  And also, we are busy, either working or pretending to work. We have our own communities within Wash. U. I completely understand. Trust me.

However, I think that even beyond those very valid reasons, there is hesitancy that deserves to be examined. Think about this: The Schnucks on Olive, which is clean, well stocked, orderly, well-lit and down the street from a swimming pool, tennis courts and a bike trail, is colloquially called “Ghetto Schnucks.” Why? The store isn’t as big as the one in Clayton, the food is cheaper, the store is older, and it has a different clientele than what a lot of students are used to. Are these good reasons for being dismissive?

Moving into the area and using primarily Olive Schnucks for my shopping made me re-evaluate the validity of that label. It was an excellent, albeit possibly painful, way of actually challenging myself to rethink the way I see people and places. At the same time, I became more self-aware about my attitudes, some of which are subconscious. I was surprised at how radically my views changed and at how many prejudices were narrowing my options without my being aware of it.

No, University City is not 100 percent safe, but then again, you can’t always have WUPD looming over your shoulders on Segways. Besides, I’m not trying to paint it into a utopia of bliss. It is a very real area and a very foreign one to most of us. It doesn’t always fit into what we are comfortable dealing with.

It’s worth remembering that different ways of life don’t always come packaged nicely into festivals where we can gorge ourselves on ethnic food. There is economic diversity as well as cultural diversity. Yet if one deserves respect and understanding, then the other does too. So, go back to ghetto Schnucks—you know, the one some of you only use to buy alcohol because it’s cheaper and you assume that they’ll go easier on your fake, because they’re somehow sketchier—and maybe notice something else about it, such as its utter normalcy.

In his sophomore year, Lin moved to a six-person suite made up of students from four different ethnic backgrounds.

“It was really good because we would go out to all these different kinds of ethnic restaurants, and then we would have lots of discussion about politics and just general views on life,” Lin said. “It was actually a pretty richly rewarding experience.”

Lin is one of many University students to live with students of another race in residential housing. Over the summer, interracial roommates came into prominence in the media after several high-profile studies were published about them.

One study at Ohio State University found that having a roommate of another race can reduce students’ prejudices and broaden their friend circles.

Senior Heather Skanes, last year’s director of Black Anthology, said she agrees with this finding. Skanes, who is black, had a white roommate freshman year and said this led her to meet more white friends than she otherwise would have.

“I feel like at Wash. U., it’s really tempting to just be friends with people of your own culture,” Skanes said. “The fact that I had a roommate who was white led me to meet white friends that I otherwise wouldn’t have met.”

Skanes said her freshman roommate also connected with Skanes’ black friends, so the Ohio State study’s findings can go both ways.

The same study at Ohio State also found that black freshmen with high standardized test scores who room with white students earn better grades, even if their white roommates’ test scores are low. This was not true of white students or black students with low test scores. The study’s authors suggested that this effect might occur because having a white roommate could help black students adjust to studying at universities made up mostly of white students.

Skanes said her grades do correspond with these findings—she earned her highest GPA in her first semester freshman year—but that she does not feel her freshman roommate was a factor in her studying.

Skanes is a pre-med student, and her freshman roommate was in the art school. Skanes said she studied more when she lived in an all-black suite, mostly because she had a roommate at that time who would go to the library with her.

“I feel like I definitely did my best studying when I roomed with three black girls,” Skanes said. “It’s more about the person [you live with].”

Not all the findings on interracial roommates were positive. Another study at Indiana University found that three times as many randomly assigned interracial roommates had broken up by the end of their first semester, as compared to a control group of white roommates.

According to this study, white students’ prior negative attitudes about race were successful indicators of these breakups.

Jill Stratton, associate dean of students in the Office of Residential Life (ResLife), said that in her 17 years of working at the University, she can recall a few incidents of roommates separating due to racial problems. But she said such occurrences have tapered off in recent years.

“In the last five years, I’ve not been aware of a specific incident that dealt with roommates moving out or changing roommates because of racial problems,” Stratton said.

Stratton cites the University’s commitment to diversity and the visibility of this to prospective students as a reason the University experiences fewer racial problems in housing than other universities.
As for interracial roommates who stay together, Associate Director of Residential Life Josh Walehwa said these students should “take full advantage” of their experiences.

Walehwa, who advises the diversity committee in ResLife, said he feels that students stand to benefit from having their pre-existing attitudes about race challenged by their roommates.
“I believe that we benefit from people who might have different ideologies, backgrounds, beliefs,” Walehwa said. “That’s what college really is all about.”