Spectrum focuses on issues irrelevant to selective housing

Last Thursday, my lunch in the Cambridge Inn was interrupted when my eye caught the headline of that morning's Chronicle: "Spectrum urges abolition of selective housing: Organization's leaders claim system constitutes institutionalized racism."

If you missed the article in question, the gist was the feeling among the officers of Spectrum Organization, a feeling presumably shared by others (although I'm not sure who), that the selective housing system at Duke discriminates against minorities. And because selective houses get preferential housing on West Campus, minorities are inevitably condemned to Central Campus and Trent Dormitory, where they are left out of many important aspects of Duke life.

Although these views are not novel at Duke, they are nonetheless disturbing not only due to the argument itself, but because of the race- and group -dominated rhetoric in which the argument is couched.

My first complaint is the simple validity of the argument. To be sure, the selective system has translated to a white/fraternity-dominated West Campus. But the officers of Spectrum have committed the fallacy of attempting to judge the mechanics of the system by simply looking at the results. Co-president Dagmawi Woubshet proclaimed that "the system segregates on the basis of income, race, gender, sexual orientation-you name it." I find this statement to be not only incorrect, but extremely irresponsible. My English class is predominately white. Does that mean that ACES was discriminatory in whom it allowed to register for the class? Last time I checked, all races were allowed to sign up for, rush and become members of every single selective living group. Nor can I think of a way in which income and sexual orientation are remotely taken into account in the selection process.

I was particularly perplexed by the comments of Spectrum Co-president Rhonda Binda, who bemoaned that the University takes part in a system that segregates its students. Perhaps a better question would be why Rhonda herself takes part in such a system: She is a member of the selective house Cleland. Although the de facto segregation of Duke by campus may be a lamentable fact, we may have to face up to the idea that things ended up this way on their own, not as a result of majority prejudice. Most Central Campus residents actually choose to live there; they like being away from the fraternity-dominated West Campus scene. As Black Student Alliance President Tobie Wilder stated in the Chronicle article, "...a lot of minority students just don't care to live on West."

But my problem goes beyond my personal disagreements with the arguments advanced by Spectrum. The system is not perfect, and I encourage anyone to express possible improvements. The problem arises when people make every issue into one of race, gender or sexual orientation; suggesting that whenever a particular status quo produces less than ideal results, somebody, somewhere, is obviously being racist or sexist. When Woubshet laments that there is no "policy" to back up talk of better race relations, or when people talk of a campaign to "Desegregate Duke," I cringe. Talk like this just makes everyone more, rather than less aware, of their association with a particular group, at the cost of robbing them of their identities as individuals.

Kenneth Jernigan, president of the National Federation for the Blind, stated this belief eloquently, saying, "Legislation cannot create understandingÉ. We must move beyond minority mentality and victim thinking. This will be difficult in today's society, where hate and suspicion are a rising tide, and where members of minorities are encouraged to feel bitterness and alienation, and members of the majority are encouraged and expected to feel guilt."

It's a shame that Duke is not more "integrated," but we must allow for the possibility that this simply a natural outcome, rather than pointing fingers and retreating to the safety of group- and victim-thinking.