Segregation Won't Return. It's Already Here.
The first part of a transcribed conversation with Michael Jerome Wolff on the new push to racially segregate in the name of safety.
On June 29th 2023, breaking news alarmed millions of American millennials; Affirmative Action had been struck down by the Supreme Court. For some, the decision was a stepping stone towards merit-based opportunity for all, while others who were disheartened by the news—in context of other unfavorable Supreme Court decisions—took to social media to vent.
One celebrity I adore and follow, Keke Palmer, uploaded a video to voice her concerns:
"...Like how are y'all overturning Roe vs. Wade? How are y'all overturning Affirmative Action? At this point are we about to be segregated again?!"
Keke has every right to express her take on politics and pop culture. However, I found it ironic that her segregation fear was vocalized in light of the SCOTUS decision that removed race as a factor for college admissions. I also found it doubly ironic because, well, segregation is already here.
It just isn't going by the same name, nor is it coming from the villains we love to hate.
I thought this would be a fitting opportunity to showcase just one of many instances where neo-apartheid is taking place, and so I transcribed portions of a conversation I had with Michael Jerome Wolff concering the construction of 'affinity' housing at Western Washington University in Bellingham, where he's an Associate Professor of Political Science. While I have been a part of a racially-segregated affinity group myself, I'd never heard of initiatives backed by a budget as large as this one, so I was curious to understand the mechanics behind this Bull Connor fantasy.
Affinity Groups
Kimi: We recently connected over an interesting topic that you brought to my attention. And this is something that came about, I believe, late [2021] on the campus of Western Washington University, which is a $40 million investment into black and LGBTQ affinity housing. Could you tell us more about that, and everything surrounding it?
Michael: So, you know, the financial specifics are a little bit hard to get at. There's a new dormitory that was constructed with a budget of $40 million, from what I understand. And within that dorm there is a floor—one floor that is specifically designated to what they call Black Affinity Housing. Apparently there are 40 beds available there.
And the ethical justification is that black students on campus need a living space as well as other spaces. And that is geared specifically towards affirming their black identity and allowing them to celebrate black culture and identity together without the interference of the larger cultural environment on campus. So I don't know exactly how much money is spent on this specific floor.
I think there's probably four or five floors, so it won't be $40 million total, but it's a substantial investment nonetheless. And the website that we have on the campus insists that it's not a segregated space. Because technically, you don't have to be black to apply to live there. But this is obviously a technicality. And it is, in a de facto sense, a segregated space.
[Their aim is] to make them safe from the vagaries of the larger cultural environment. And race is sort of like the primary point of societal delineation, if you will. In the United States, at least, we've gone in that direction of actually racially segregating spaces, but doing so in a way that there's a technical loophole that says we're not segregating spaces. Technically.
Kimi: So, before I ask my next question, I'd just like to state my general opinion on affinity spaces. Not specifically with this case, but I am actually very much a huge fan of the core principles behind affinity spaces, especially when it relates to like women's spaces or girls skateboarding—something I'm very passionate about. But my big caveat with that is that it should act as training wheels.
I don't really believe that we should be kept there. And I'm currently a part of an inclusion program, which I love. I have also created curricula for affinity groups as well, so that is something that I do care about. However, there was something that didn't sit right with me when I read this [Black Affinity Housing] page.
And coming back to your point about how it says it's not really for black students—like anyone can apply—why not just call it housing if it isn't really for black students only? What is the motive there?
Michael: What I think about it is that it is for black students only. It's not for non-black students to live there. I think what you'll see is that lots of non-black students end up out there, you know, attending events there and stuff like that. So it's not like the kind of segregation you would see in 1940s or 50s American South, where whites and blacks literally can't go to the same bathrooms and things like that.
You're not going to get that kind of segregation. You're going to get the kind of segregation in which essentially all of the students there will be black or black identifying, and they'll be at events that bring in non-blacks, students from outside, but which are nonetheless focused on affirming black cultural identity.
So it's not that crude, terrible segregation of the past, but I think it has the potential to have lots of negative consequences in the medium and long term, which I think aren't discussed, because I think these are the products of a political moment in which universities, like so many other institutions, feel an enormous amount of pressure. And sometimes passion, I would say too, to fight the good fight as it's defined by the contemporary political milieu, if you will. And that good fight is fighting racism.
It's, How To Be An Anti-Racist. It's that doctrine that is being so passionately and firmly embraced—and that's the reason. There's not a lot of science behind this, in terms of empirical evidence, to suggest that these are better outcomes for black students.
But we have listed on our webpage that there's been a small handful of black affinity housing projects that have already been initiated in some elite universities in recent years, and that these apparently show good results. This is definitely not a broad, rigorous, empirical study that, yes, this is good for black students. It's too new. There are too few and far in between to be able to make that assessment yet.
But they haven't yet produced a disaster that is easily recognizable. And so we can say, okay, you know, students at this point like them, this isn't a disaster. So this is our empirical justification to move forward.
Kimi: And I would love to read that section actually, on the website. It reads:
"What is affinity based housing and why do we have it? Affinity based housing is an institutional structure designed to assist members of historically marginalized identities in supporting each other. It helps to create an added level of psychological comfort and safety"—which I want to touch on in a second—"such as an added sense of belonging and proximity to others who share that desire."
"Studies show an increase in persistence from members in these communities." So the first thing is ‘studies.’ That last sentence doesn't have any link. There is no footnote as to what these studies are. The second is what does an increase in persistence mean—what is it referring to?
Safetyism
Kimi: That was something I found a little bit suspicious, which I'm guessing that's what you're referring to, that like the small handful of studies, but also psychological comfort and safety. There has been a rise in this concept of safetyism across campuses in America. Have you noticed that this ideology has increased and become more common and rampant on campuses across the US—maybe even in your university as well?
Is there a sense of fragility that is increasing? Have you noticed that where people are triggered more easily by, say, ideas or people with different opinions or even visiting speakers and trying to bar them from speaking? And do you think this is the type of safety that they're referring to, safety from ideas, safety from differing opinions—different political stances?
Michael: Well, it's a really interesting question, because the discourse around the concept of safety usually is hyperbolic, so it exaggerates the need for safety by describing it as something that is literally a threat to one's body and physical well-being, as well as their mental well-being. So the discourse doesn't allow for a discussion of whether or not it's a safety from ideas.
That's the criticism from the outside. From the inside, the discussion is there are things like microaggressions that in effect, represent something tantamount to physical violence against one's species' being, if you will, like their very essence, including their physical essence. And so safety—or a safe space—is something that is to protect them against that. I say that's hyperbolic because, well, my own opinion is that there isn't a safety problem on campuses for the most part.
You know, we don't see people getting attacked, mauled, at all. I mean, we have differing ideas. In my first year here, for example, I had one Trump supporter—this is back in 2016 during the election campaign—one Trump supporter who was open about his opinions, and he wore a Donald Trump shirt. And that provoked one activist student to write me a letter, who got it signed by four or five other students of color, and accused me of fostering an environment of hostile racism because I didn't make him take that shirt off and I didn't make him shut up.
And [the Trump student] basically had classical conservative commentary to make on a daily basis. But that was about it. And what I saw then is what people are understanding as a threat to their well-being, were actually just ideas and symbols, but it's understood in this particular context as real threats to their lives, happiness and well-being.
Kimi: I can definitely say, that would have been me in 2016. I would have been the student writing you a letter reading like, how dare you? This is physically—physically—harmful for me. After Trump's inauguration, I had to ask for a two week extension on a final project.
I had to turn it in like two weeks after my final for this one particular class, simply because of the “harm” that I had experienced. I totally understand what being in that mentality is like. In fact, if it was 2016 and I went to this [Black Affinity Housing] page and read, "it helps to create an added level of psychological comfort and safety."
[In that mindset] I would have been like, "yes, I absolutely need this." But does that then make any conversation on anti-fragility, which is exposing yourself to stressors in order to become stronger—like in my case, going to skate parks as a woman of color and fortifying myself against being triggered by microaggressions—unwelcome on campus?
Michael: I think so. I mean, what I see is a complete absence of that argument on campus, right? Nobody has those ideas in their head—that we should fight fragility by exposure, for example—to help us grow internally and become more confident in our own abilities. Nobody has expressed that argument in the last while.
Well, at least since I've been here, and I've been here for six years. And so what I see is like a very one-sided argument. Yeah, I would say that one case where, in 2016, the students submitted this letter to me, I asked the five or six students who signed it to stay after class one day and tell me what they meant, because what they said is that they felt unsafe because of the presence of this [Trump Supporter.]
And then I asked them what they meant by unsafe, and all of them said, "Well, we don't actually feel unsafe. We just can't stand the guy." And honestly, nobody could stand the guy. It was annoying. But it was annoying in a time when Donald Trump was so out of the norm that it was really, really hard to accept that he was a legitimate presidential candidate.
I still have a hard time accepting that, but in any case, when I actually had that conversation with him, he was like, "No, we don't feel unsafe." And then I talked to him about the need to go beyond your comfort zone to actually intellectually grow. And they all agreed. So everybody agreed and they're like, "okay, wow, nobody disagrees!"
Ego
Michael: The other thing I learned from that is the student who organized this and wrote the letter and had it signed—he dropped the class immediately after that. He never came back. And the students who signed it later told me they didn't really read it. And what that told me is that, okay, there's an element in political activism that is driven by human ego in a profound way.
And meanwhile, everybody wants to fight the good fight. So let's say an activist comes, and the activist wants to produce some change because this is going to make that person feel important. Now, they are going to convince a bunch of other people to sign on. They're going to jump on to this revolutionary moment and participate.
What the activist perhaps is looking for isn't necessarily the better world that he's claiming to seek, but some type of achievement with which he can help his personal status grow. So I think there's an element of that. It's not all of it. Obviously lots of activists do set out to make the world a better place. But there is probably inescapably that element that is going to manifest frequently in any type of institutional environment.
Look out for part two, where Michael and I discuss symbolic harm, the Boy Who Cried Wolf phenomenon, and better solutions for honoring the marginalized. Subscribe to stay in the loop.
Allow me to enlighten you just how widespread this neo-segregation is on campus:
* Segregated graduations: https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/02/us/black-commencement-harvard.html
* Segregated PE Classes: https://cornellsun.com/2021/05/04/students-and-instructors-defend-bipoc-p-e-class-after-online-controversy/
* Segregated parties: https://web.archive.org/web/20180414062756/https://claremontindependent.com/scripps-hosts-segregated-pool-party/
* Segregated yoga classes for students: https://archive.is/KXTv9
* Segregated orientations: https://www.thecollegefix.com/university-san-francisco-host-blacks-student-orientation/
Also: https://www.thefire.org/news/investigation-portlands-lewis-clark-college-mandates-racial-segregation-orientation
* Segregated conferences: https://www.eventbrite.ca/e/honest-conversations-race-power-digital-justice-a-bipoc-mini-conf-tickets-55452423692
And it's happening at the elementary and high school level too:
* Segregated faculty meetings: https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/03/illinois-public-school-segregated-staff-meetings-equity-education-agenda/
* A segregated elementary class: https://atlantablackstar.com/2021/08/10/it-was-just-disbelief-parent-files-complaint-against-atlanta-elementary-school-after-learning-the-principal-segregated-students-based-on-race/
* Segregated math classes: https://archive.md/UuTzr
* Segregated playgrounds: https://twitter.com/realchrisrufo/status/1470799371255967746
* Segregated student meetings: https://www.firstcoastnews.com/article/news/education/douglas-anderson-plans-cancels-segregated-diversity-meetings/77-3d293413-e8a8-43b7-b4c8-5e548a54c3c7
This is an excellent segment, Kimi. Thank you for your and MJW's contributions to this topic. It is telling that safetyism is the justification behind many of these racial affinity initiatives. It reminds me of Nassim Taleb's research on these trends in his book "Antifragile."