We have been debating program houses since their inception. What are we actually arguing about?

Proponents of program houses, including fellow columnist Navid Farnia ’09, have argued that they allow students to “reaffirm cultural unity and identity” amidst, in Farnia’s words, a normative “white” culture. They believe that the reevaluation of Ujamaa, Akwe:kon and the Latino Living Center reflects a widespread desire to forcibly assimilate “distinct” students into the general culture.

Opponents, on the other hand, criticize these houses for promoting a “self-segregation” counter to the very concept of the University.

However, it seems understandable that students of color, an obvious minority on campus, would wish to form a distinct, tight-knit community. Such allows them to maintain — and indeed, affirm — their cultural identity in the non-reinforcing college environment.

However, is this concern held exclusively by students who live in program houses? What about the rest of us?

If we use the jargon of program house supporters, we would assume that this phenomenon pertains only to the black community as contrasted against the “normative” student body. However, one need only take a stroll on the Arts Quad to see that this is plainly not the case.

There is a panorama of cultural expression present on campus. Our “culture” is in fact constituted by many divergent, seemingly incompatible sub-groups: the artsy students, the Orthodox Jews, the fraternity guys. And so on.

Furthermore, if we look closely, an interesting pattern emerges: These groups engage in the same sort of “self-segregation” practiced by the students of color. Orthodox Jews have the Center for Jewish Living, fraternity guys have their houses and artsy students have Risley Hall. Thus we see that mostly every group shares the same concern as the students of color, namely, to create a common space where group identity is reinforced.

However, rarely do we hear the critique that fraternity houses promote a separatist “bro culture,” or that artsy students insulate themselves from the general campus culture, or that Orthodox Jews “ghettoize.” Indeed, we seem to generally accept that groups with the same interests and concerns will tend to stick together, and, in fact, “self-segregate.”

Why, then, is the critique limited to program houses?

One explanation is that the loudest contingent of people inevitably attracts the most frequent critique. Indeed, it is likely that if Orthodox Jews were constantly demanding reaffirmation of their “distinct cultural identity” the same critique of “self-segregation” would be leveled more frequently.

However, there are potentially more substantive concerns at hand. Perhaps critics of program houses are responding to the incongruity between the rhetoric and actual practice of the proponents of the houses. Indeed, is it not somewhat disingenuous for the proponents of program houses to constantly claim, on the one hand, that the University ignores the needs of students of color, while, on the other, fostering a community so insular that few students on the “outside” can appreciate those needs?

A related criticism can be made within the context of affirmative action policies. Indeed, these programs were intended to benefit not only blacks, but also the student body, who were to learn and grow by living in a “diverse” campus. Thus, can we consider these programs successful if black students have been cut off from those whom they have been brought to educate?

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, there is the concern rooted in historical context. We instinctively react to questions about race through the prism of the Civil Rights movement that saw integration as the ideal. Given that our educational system depicts this historical moment as the realization of our founding principles, we understandably bristle at any value counter to those of this period. Hence the problem with program houses, which, with their stated objective of “reaffirming” a “distinct” cultural identity, seem a repudiation of the moral vision of Martin Luther King Jr.

How, then, can we move forward in this seemingly interminable debate? Perhaps both sides must first recognize that the use of facile terms like “self-segregation” and “forcible assimilation” obscures their substantive concerns, making it impossible for those on the one side to truly understand what the other is saying. If we wish to create a political language that better reflects these concerns, we must move beyond these platitudes. Perhaps then we will remember why we were arguing in the first place.

Judah Bellin is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences. He may be reached at

judahbellin@cornellsun.com. For Whom the Bellin Tolls appears alternate Mondays this semester.