I. Introduction

The physical divide of the Earth’s seven continents, from its geographical diversity to its cultural uniqueness, serves as a metaphor for the couching of race-defined segregation by hosting both the differences of skin color and attitudes. As such, this analogy marks an ideological divide between the diverse indigenous peoples who populate and thereby define these regions culturally.   All-the-while, these ideologies highlight and value distinct characteristics of “differences.” As such, there exists, in the hierarchical makeup of society, a complex relationship between physical human characteristics and the values ascribed to them within and between cultures.  This social construct, defined as the basic foundation for social inequality, promotes social institutions for the maintenance of the status quo through constructing discriminatory attitudes and treatment of different races.   This reification of ‘status quo’ of the concentration of political and societal power articulates the cultural worth of specific “socially desirable” characteristics.  Thusly, who is valued is determined, not by effort but rather, prescribed as a factor of birth. 

Social institutions, in this hierarchy of valuing, promote benefit for an elite; thereby defining structured and culturally enmeshed classes of winners and losers.  As such, disparity is merely symptomatic of a cultural construction, not merely delineating a lack of raw materials but rather suggestive of an endemic causal link between race and class stratification because historically, some races were more financially and socially successful, and those past circumstances have been ingrained in many minds.  Income, an example of disparity, through its ability to articulate one’s place along the continuum of public access, marks the material disparity between non-belonging and unfettered entrance.  Those who are enabled to use or receive the more highly valued economic resources form their own strata. As a result, they play a major role in shaping policy by exerting power over public affairs. Wealth plays a role in influencing politics because there are intricate policy planning networks that involve corporate business leaders and executives—the very epitome of wealth. Exemplifying this assertion is that fact that the majority of the Senate earns incomes that are many times the amount of the poverty line in the United States. The control of public policy, which extends its reach in shaping aspects of life to the citizens of a country, is one way to define power. Those with power implement social institutions in order to maintain the status quo as demonstrated by the historical discrimination against people of color.  That being said, people of color have not had equal opportunity for upwards social mobility. In addition, statistics prove that minorities are still at an economical disadvantage in comparison to Caucasians—especially African-Americans.  In the past, the government has institutionalized discrimination and segregation, leading to the difficulty of minorities to achieve economic equality relative to Caucasians, which constitute the majority face.  Thereby, we live in a society that is hierarchical in structure which can be related to skin color.

I live in the United States, where the pigment of one’s skin may have social repercussions with regard to differential treatment.  Historically, skin color has been a source of inequality. Slavery, for example, which entails a person serving another without monetary compensation, has spawned off the difference in skin color.  In the present, although the Thirteenth Amendment outlawed slavery, the United States still faces issues dealing with race such as affirmative action and de-facto segregation. Other races of different skin color have been affected by certain inequalities in America. With examples such as slavery, Japanese internment, the xenophobia of Asians in the late 1800s, and the Zoot Suit Riots involving Latinos, the United States has a history of segregation, discrimination and racism. As such, the United States, although claiming equality for all in the Declaration of Independence, has not had a history of completely equal opportunity in facets ranging from the workplace, schools, and therefore in society.

The United States operates as a democratic society which allows policy to be manipulated through complex political processes, and certain legislative decisions have been enacted to combat racism and segregation; many landmark court cases ended institutionalized segregation. With that being said, there still persists another form of racial separation, called self-segregation. Although the Brown v. Board of Education of Topeka, Kansas court case set the precedent that segregation, in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, would be illegal on the basis that separation was not inherently equal, voluntary segregation still ensues today.  By casual observation of the social interaction patterns of college students collectively, self-segregation becomes apparent.

Caption for above photograph: Outside class -- in the student union, in the cafeteria -- 'self-segregation' is evident on U.S. college campuses. (CNN)

II. The Issue

Self-segregation, defined as the voluntary separation of groups of people with different racial compositions, is the issue that I am addressing. As seen in a typical college lunchroom, the signs of self-segregation become visible—oftentimes, by casual observation, students of similar races congregate together, forming a lunchroom seating pattern.  As a result, diversification, one of the main goals on a college campus, becomes increasingly harder to achieve. Although a university claims to be diverse from strictly a statistical standpoint, closer scrutiny will reveal that the goal of diversification has not been achieved. Many universities have already recognized this growing trend, and in effect, have tried to enforce mandatory diversity training programs, but have received a negative response from students, claiming self-segregation is not a problem in the first place, and therefore does not need to be addressed.

Apparent in virtually every university are cultural or ethnic associations or clubs, such as the ASA, and BSA. Clubs such as these often have gatherings in which students celebrate aspects of their cultural upbringing such as the Mid-Autumn Moon Festival and Chinese New Year. These associations indirectly advocate racially-similar conglomeration, but at the same time, cultural organizations promote campus involvement which greatly promulgates cross-cultural interactions.

III. Schools of Thought

In a society that allows freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, there exist two schools of thought that express conflicting viewpoints with regard to self-segregation.

A) Proponents of Self-Segregation

Racial supremacy groups, such as the Ku Klux Klan (KKK), advocate a “White Christian America.” As outlined in their goals, the KKK emphasizes the importance of “White pride” and expresses prejudice, and outright disdain for non-European (non-white) races. [] With an anguished cry, the KKK “intend[s] to put Klansmen and Klanswomen in office all the way from the local school board to the White House!” [] As such, the KKK fervently condones the self-segregation of Whites away from other races on a college campus.

In the United States, there exist camps of ethnicities that self-segregate based on past differences and conflicts—one example includes the strained racial relations between Chinese-Americans and Taiwanese-Americans. The tension stems from the events that took place in 1949, when the Nationalist Party fled to the island of Taiwan as the Communist Party took control over China. The People’s Republic of China, which is still lead by the Communist Party, believes that Taiwan can be considered a part of China while Taiwan believes that Taiwan is an independent nation with no political ties to China except a common ancestry.

Also causing strained relations is the fact that, as stated in the United States Department of State’s official website, is that “On January 1, 1979, the United States changed its diplomatic recognition from Taipei to Beijing. In the U.S.-PRC Joint Communiqué that announced the change, the United States recognized the Government of the People's Republic of China as the sole legal government of China and acknowledged the Chinese position that there is but one China and Taiwan is part of China.”  [] The diplomatic recognition only exacerbated the mutual resentment of the Taiwanese and China towards each other. Thusly, as citizens from both Taiwan and China immigrated to the United States, Taiwanese and Chinese students often encounter one another in the schooling system.  In effect, Taiwanese and Chinese students, although speaking a common language and having similar appearances, frequently self-segregate from one another. As a product of historical and political reasons, some Taiwanese and Chinese students prefer self-segregation.

B) Opponents of Self-Segregation

Proponents of the elimination of self-segregation on campus believe that increased interracial interaction will be of benefit to a college student. Racial self-segregation is so prevalent on many school campuses that many social scientists have taken the initiative and have conducted multiple studies of lunchroom segregation patterns and have made suggested that self-segregation promotes intolerance, prejudice and racism.  The advocates of the abolition of self-segregation instead prefer diversification.

Diversification, the antithesis to self-segregation, involves more than casual interaction with outside races. Diversification should spawn friendship, markedly different from acquaintanceship, which entails intimate relationships which include the sharing of personal stories rather than the limited interaction spawned by forced interaction in the classroom.

IV. Faulty Causality on Both Sides

Both sides of the controversy, when presenting their argument, do not demonstrate flawless causality in their logic of either promoting self-segregation or supporting diversification. 

A) Proponents of Self-Segregation

For example, the KKK believes that Whites should distance themselves from other “inferior” races since they believe that since America was founded as a White and Christian nation, certain measures should be enacted to “protect the security” of America’s White citizens. Although it is true that America was founded upon Christian ideas and the Founding Fathers were predominantly White, the KKK only focuses upon that aspect and ignores the larger context.  Up to present day, America has been, and continues to be an immigrant nation. Many other races other than the whites have contributed to America’s current superpower standing. For example, in the beginning stages of America’s formation, immigrants were needed to build the basis of America’s infrastructure, such as the transcontinental railroad. In effect, the fact that America was founded as a White and Christian nation has no bearing in deeming the White superior to other races.

B) Opponents of Self-Segregation

Proponents of the abolition of self-segregation advocate more campus diversity by discouraging the racial homogenization of cliques.  This camp believes that exposure to a single race is detrimental because it believes the implications of non-integration has consequences in the future. However, while only examining one facet of self-segregation, they ignore the self-autonomy of every college student. Simply, every college student has the choice of interacting with whom they wish and can meet other individuals who differ in race by their own volition.  Also, by supporting diversification, anti-self-segregationists do not take into account preserving the different cultural values of each individual race. The concept of cultural diversity is fundamental to the United States, as the US is an immigrant nation. The United States, which cannot be labeled as having a sole identity, includes cultural diversity as one aspect of its makeup.

V. The Same Argument but in a Different Form?

Both sides in this issue argue for the betterment of the quality of life in the future. In understanding why their views on self-segregation differ, one must recognize that both camps interpret the definition of a “better quality of life” in dissimilar ways.   For example, a group of racial supremacists such as the KKK support self-segregation because they believe that distancing Whites from other races produces a positive “White Christian revival” and a “healthier America” with no unchristian impurities such as homosexuality and race-mixing. They argue that interracial-mixing promotes genocide and thus the destruction of the White race. In order to avoid what the KKK believes to be a better future, Whites must self-segregate.

For the advocates of the abolition of self-segregation, they label prejudice and inequality as a societal evil that must be eliminated. In effect, this side defines a “better quality of life” as attaining a tolerating and unprejudiced mindset that contains no preconceived notions. Proponent of this camp believe that diversifying should lead to positive benefits as stated by the speaker of the Duke University Diversity Committee Rex Adams, “Diversity is not an add-on or afterthought or a matter of mere enrichment, but rather an essential factor of critical importance to our success in all aspects of university life.” [] When a student attends an institution of higher education, they accumulate more knowledge with respect to the areas he or she has chosen to study. In effect, the knowledge gained at a university, if the student chooses to pursue a career, further enhances the student’s chances for attaining his or her selected career. Therefore, a student attends university to achieve a “better quality of life” in the future in terms of their chosen career. If diversification is “an essential factor of critical importance to success in all aspects of university life,” given that attendance at a university improves a student’s future chance of accomplishing his or her future career goals, then advocates of the abolition of self-segregation, like the proponents of self-segregation, believe their method improves one’s quality of life in terms of the future.

The two opposing schools of thoughts cannot agree because they differ in their definitions of a “better future.” Because they will not accede to the other side in their beliefs and values, there can be no compromise or middle ground. Both believe their side is correct and indisputable, and although they may understand each others’ argument, their deep-rooted beliefs cannot, and should not attempt to be shaken.

VI. Questions that need to be addressed

How does "diversity" apply to a college campus with regards to one's pre-existing cultural traits and traditions? Does self-segregation undermine the concept of diversity in a college campus? When a group of Latinos, African-Americans, or Asians congregate together, why do societal norms label the occurrence as “self-segregation” while finding nothing problematic with a group of Caucasian students grouping collectively? Does the term “self-segregation” have deeper implications based on the context it is used in?

Credits for above photos:

2.) Hands symbolic of interracial interaction from Baylor College of Medicine