The appearance of fliers last week saying "Stop Self-Segregating" on the Class of 1948 bench has rekindled campus debate on the issue of "self-segregation."
This debate stems from the idea that the social scene at Duke is segregated along lines of race, culture and ethnicity-that a certain group is willingly isolating itself from the rest of the groups on campus.
The causes of this "self-segregation" are usually thought to be strong cultural organizations, misguided University policies and racism. While all of these reasons need to be considered in a campus debate, the real issue at hand often remains hidden.
The entire discussion of this issue is skewed by a faulty assumption about the definition of "self-segregation." The assumption is that a certain group in this situation is specifically responsible for a lack of interaction and communication is simply flawed. There is a very real possibility that some types of segregation occur naturally, independently of any racism or campus policy.
This segregation occurs as a simple result of the fact that most people prefer to be in contact with at least some people of their own race, ethnicity and culture. When people spend time with specific members of their own group a social network of common rituals and ideas develops and binds people together. An ethnic or racial group sticks together much like any other distinct group on campus such as a fraternity or a selective house.
The mechanism by which this segregation occurs is described in a very simple model created by Thomas Schelling. Schelling, who was just awarded the Nobel Prize in economics, is specifically known for his work in applying game theory and mathematical modeling to relevant issues in the world.
One of his most famous creations is a simple model that illustrates how a community of multiple, non-racist and evenly distributed subgroups can quickly segregate themselves.
This spatial model of segregation assumes that each person has at most eight neighbors on a square grid. Each person prefers that a certain number of his neighbors are members of the same group that he is. If there are not enough members of his group among his neighbors, then he moves to an area in which there are.
As this process runs over time, people who once had a sufficient amount of same-group members no longer do because some of the neighbors move out. As the neighbors move out, each area becomes more homogenous until there is a very clear-cut separation between the area occupied by one group and the area occupied by another group.
Schelling has other models of segregation that result in similar outcomes. His conclusion is that people of different groups naturally separate so long as they slightly prefer members of one group to members of another group. Thus, it is very difficult, if not impossible, to remix an unmixed population.
This result has implication for campus debate and administrative policy. Firstly, because it is normal for people to prefer to be friends with others who share their upbringing, traditions and culture, some form of on-campus segregation is inevitable. This means that it is fruitless to lay the blame for "self-segregation" on campus on any single group. If one group dominates a bench, it is only in contrast to another group that dominates another bench. The reason that one group is "self-segregated" is at least in part due to the fact that every other group is "self-segregated."
Secondly, Duke's administration and Duke Student Government are very limited in the manner in which they can decrease "self-segregation." A lot of mechanisms already in place have the effect of keeping segregation in check.
These mechanisms include but are not limited to: an all-freshman East Campus, the randomized housing lottery and multicultural organizations and events. Any more intervention by the administration into campus social life would be unjustifiably intrusive and would most likely do nothing to ease the problem.
The student body needs to determine what level of splintering among ethnic, racial and cultural lines is acceptable. Then it needs to evaluate how close Duke is to the acceptable level. Only when nthere is some consensus on these levels can action be taken.
After all, there is a very real possibility that the level of "self-segregation" at Duke is perfectly natural and acceptable.
Andrey Fradkin is a Trinity sophomore. His column runs every other Friday.
Get The Chronicle straight to your inbox
Signup for our weekly newsletter. Cancel at any time.