Newsletter

February 2007
Op-Ed: Adversity for Diversity
Seeyuen Lee, Intern Class of 2000

Several months ago, I read in the local newspaper that one of the state universities in Massachusetts had plans to eliminate self-segregated, minority-dominated housing. It came as a surprise to me, as I remembered colleges touting language and culture halls as an important asset when recruiting students. Discussing the article over lunch with a few coworkers, I found myself torn between what appeared to be the principle behind the policy and the potential fall-out this fall when the policy will be implemented. “There’s nothing healthy about segregation,” a university official was quoted as saying. True, but at what point does the policy reflect integration, and when does it become forced assimilation?

This particular school set up the policy from a perspective that aimed to treat all students equally and created an environment where minority students would not need the comfort of segregated dormitories because there was no discomfort to begin with. One of my coworkers, one of a small fraction of minorities to graduate from this institution recently, disagreed. The policy’s vague stipulation that minority students be discouraged from living with students with whom they identify would only make students more conscious of being minorities when having to deliberately choose a different roommate, and, in conjunction with other recent activities to remove minority programs, the school was openly denying the importance of diversity.

The arguments stuck with me because I have always personally held great importance in diversity and equality. To find the two principles juxtaposed against one another brought me to question: are equality and diversity mutually exclusive? The university seems to think so, but I believe that this is not the case and in fact, the two are inextricably linked. The distinction here lies in how equality and diversity are applied and interpreted. I would say that equality is not defined by the lack of preferential treatment, but by the lack of inferior treatment towards any individual or group. For example, the controversy over affirmative action revolves largely around whether minorities should be given preferential treatment to achieve numbers in academics that are proportional to the general population. An opponent might argue that many people are at a disadvantage due to affirmative action. I, even though I suspect that I am not a beneficiary of the policy, disagree. I prefer to view it as delivering at one hundred percent to the overall population, but putting forth a hundred and ten percent for some minority groups who would otherwise flounder. Philosopher Charles Taylor believed that the way for society to avoid a second-class of citizens was through recognition of differences and recognition that each individual’s culture and identity was entitled to the same amount of respect. I embrace this thinking because it resolves the conflict between equality and diversity. One cannot exist without the other.

This conflict is not new, but this university’s actions served as a reminder to me that there has been no resolution and people frequently still consider the loss of cultural identity as a trade-off for societal integration. This is an unfortunate perspective. Recently I wrote an op-ed article that encouraged minorities to be proactive in integrating into the society while protecting their identities. It is a small measure, with circulation just to the members of a local Asian American organization. At the same time, I think it is a good first step. I hope that over the course of my lifetime I will have the opportunity to convince a few more individuals of the value in both integration and retention of cultural identity.

Seeyuen Lee graduated in 2005 from Wellesley College and recently graduated from Boston University School of Public Health. She looks forward to attending medical school this fall. Her roommate criteria is just one that will take out the trash.