Author: Colin Cahill

Recently our seminar class interviewed a series of sophomore Trinity students on the impacts of race and socio economic status on campus. Our interviewees consisted of students from different financial backgrounds and races, which helped us to identify several important themes in student interactions around campus. To investigate this topic, our seminar conducted an interview-based study of students’ perceptions of race and social class at Trinity. Our interview guide posed ten open-ended questions and three demographic questions that explored topics, such as personal awareness, social interactions, and other students’ assumptions regarding racial and social class differences at Trinity. The Office of Institutional Research and Planning provided our professor with a stratified random sample of 55 sophomores from the Class of 2016, categorized by race (white or non-white) and first-year financial aid status (receiving or not receiving). Our professor sent personalized email invitations to this group, and assigned each of us to conduct an interview with all who responded and agreed to participate. The typical interview lasted about ten minutes, and was transcribed by the interviewer. The final sample consisted of 18 interviews: 10 students who received financial aid (4 white and 6 non-white), and 8 students who did not receive financial aid (4 white and 4 non-white). All names are pseudonyms and personally identifiable details have been masked, in accordance with our research ethics confidentiality agreement approved by the Trinity College Institutional Review Board. From the responses gathered in these interviews, we were able to identify several common themes that correlated with the findings from Paying for a Party, Why are all the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? and Unraveling the Model Minority Stereotype, which we read in class.

 

One common theme that we found was that Trinity students were made extremely aware of their own family’s wealth and the impact it may have on those around them who are less fortunate. Often times students may not be doing this on purpose it is just how they have always acted. One interviewee stated that she became more aware of her socio economic class because people at Trinity can be  “very pretentious” or “flash off their wealth.” (Kirsten, 16)  In Paying for the Party, Armstrong and Hamilton explain how students often take a different path through college depending on their family’s financial standing because their family’s finances can affect their social interactions. [1] This is further reinforced by one students interview response she stated that when she was dressed well people were more likely to be friendlier to her than if she was dressed like a slob. (Yvonne, 20) On Trinity’s campus, students judge others who aren’t well dressed, making the assumption that those students are from a lower economic class. This impacts how students interact, and as seen above, often students will not even be courteous to those that they perceive are from lower financial standing. Unlike Armstrong and Hamilton, we traced the impact of socio economic status into students’ interactions with athletic coaches. One interview participant stated that coaches “assume” he’s from a lower class and that impacts “how they speak to him.” (Fred, 22) Another student sheds light onto how prevalent financial status can be in social interactions saying that “being able to expend money on dinner with friends… having a car on campus…can sometimes divide who you do or no do not hang out with.” (Victoria, 24) As a Trinity student, I have seen a myriad of these examples myself, as friends who often cannot or choose not to spend as much money in social situations can fall out of a group relatively quickly. After reading Paying for the Party it was clear that socio economic status played a larger role in student’s social interactions on Trinity’s campus than it did at Midwest University, where Armstrong and Hamilton completed their study. This may be because there are “very few people coming from very low social classes” as one interviewee believes. (Jim, 27) One possibility is that kids from the upper class are more social because they feel less pressure from their parents, who have the ability to pay for their schooling. This parallels the findings by Armstrong and Hamilton, who noticed that upper class kids were more likely to choose the party path through college than those from lower social classes.[2] One interviewee, who was a transfer, noticed that both at his previous college and Trinity, kids on scholarship generally worked harder than the kids whose parents paid for it. (Ruby, 29) From our findings we were able to conclude that socioeconomic standing plays a vital role in how one is perceived and interacted with while on Trinity’s campus. Both students and faculty at Trinity pass judgment on students regarding their financial standing, and both have been proven to treat students thought to be from lower classes differently.

 

Another key theme we found was the impact of race in social interactions on Trinity’s campus. Often times, these may go unnoticed, but 11 out of the 17 interviewees actually had a high perception of the racial barriers present at Trinity College. In the book Why Are All the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? Tatum outlines the stages of racial identity formation and how that impacts a child as they advance through the stages.[3] In her theory Tatum outlines how a child of color initially has very little understanding of their racial identity. As a child ages, they become more aware of the impact of racism and begin to disassociate themselves with the dominant white culture. Finally the child, now a young adult, emerges through the closing stage committed to the greater African American community, but also accepting of white people and white culture.[4] One of the themes from her book applicable here at Trinity is the actual cafeteria stereotype itself. Nearly every interviewee mentioned something about the racial divide in Mather Hall, and how there is one side typically used by white – athletic students and one side for the minority students. (Kirsten, 18) One possible explanation could be that race can be a dividing factor because “people tend to gravitate towards people of their own background or ethnicity.” (Serafino, 34) This could be amplified by the small percentage of minority students on campus, however. Our findings demonstrate how the immersion/emersion phase of Tatum’s racial identity development theory can impact social interactions amongst students on Trinity’s campus. Students of color begin to realize the racism in their society and tend to hang out with only those of their own race and avoid white culture, which could prove to be the explanation for the segregation found in Mather.[5] However, the segregation on campus will not end until students of both races take the initiative to put aside any and all racial assumptions and make an effort to interact with members of the community who are of different races. Without this, no progress will ever be made and the segregation found around Trinity’s campus will continue to be perpetuated.

 

Another common theme is that the interviewee’s play down the prevalence or effects of racism on campus; some white students even had very little recognition of racial barriers on campus whatsoever. Our findings in this instance are consistent with those of Lee in Unraveling the Model Minority Stereotype. One reason that many white students may not realize the racial barriers present for minority students at Trinity is that they are unaware that racism is existent at Trinity.  In her study, Lee uncovered that many white students “spoke proudly of the diversity of the student population and boasted that students of all races got along with each other.” [6] In all actuality, however, many of the students that Lee interviewed participated in “busting,” a form of passive racism, which is essentially a form of bullying through racial jokes. The white students viewed this as acceptable because it signified “good interracial relations.”[7] However, the reality was that minority students were actually extremely offended by the jokes. We also uncovered several examples of this. One non-white student illustrated just how prevalent passive racism is on Trinity’s campus stating that “people tend to assume incorrectly that I automatically have certain interests. Which isn’t true.” (Juan, 4) This type of racism generally is not done maliciously or on purpose, but rather it exists due to a general acceptance of racial stereotypes by white students. It is possible that many of the students at Trinity are from primarily upper class areas and have little experience with diversity. The absence of consistent interaction with students of other races could explain why passive racism is so widespread at Trinity. However, as stated above, many minority students also play down the impacts of racism on Trinity’s campus. One non-white student laughed after being asked if she had experienced any racism in her daily interactions at Trinity saying: “Not so much people are like – like, blatantly racist. You know, but they make assumptions that people are Asian they’re gonna be great at, like, the sciences and, yeah.” (Ruby, 30) When minority students play down the impact of passive racism it just perpetuates the racial stereotypes present at Trinity and reaffirms the dominance of white culture on Trinity’s campus.

 

Socioeconomic status and race are crucial in the social fabric of Trinity’s campus. From our class readings: Paying for a Party, Why are all the Black Kids Sitting Together in the Cafeteria? and Unraveling the Model Minority Stereotype; we were able to identify several themes regarding socioeconomic status and race that parallel our findings from interviews conducted with Trinity sophomores. Students have been proven to perpetuate racial stereotypes both through general assumptions and daily interactions, while treating those who are perceived to be from lower socioeconomic statuses differently from those assumed to be upper class.  It is evident that race and social class play a defining role in ones social life on campus at Trinity College. Although this discrimination is often passive, and can come in many different forms, it is prevalent nonetheless, and is negatively affecting Trinity students. One must only look around or listen to a conversation to find this to be true, and unless students of all races take considerable action, the culture on this campus will not change.

This essay was assigned to be written from the perspective of a race advocate, and does not necessarily represent the views of the author.

Colin Cahill

10/1/13

Color and Money

Race in Admissions Considerations

“The issue of affirmative action at our nation’s top universities excites much interest and controversy in part because it goes to the very heart of what Americans mean by equal opportunity and meritocracy.” [1] For citizens of the United States today, admission to college, and more specifically an elite university, is the gateway to the American dream.[2] A degree from an elite institution brings with it not only prestige, as well as increased employment and wage opportunities, but is what Americans view as the driving force behind social mobility today. However, even with the continued use of affirmative action at elite schools, there is still little racial diversity; calling into question whether the current system of college admissions today allows for higher education to be the great equalizer, or in contrast, acts as a format to benefit wealthier and predominately white applicants.  In the last several weeks, our seminar class was given an intimate look at the college process from the admission’s officer’s viewpoint. We undertook the challenge of reading through the applications of fifteen students applying to “The College,” placing a numerical ranking on them, and deciding whom to admit, deny or waitlist. We created a rating system by which each application was given a series of points correlating with various traits such as: GPA, test scores, extracurricular activities, race, demographics, etc. As an admissions team, we did not create as diverse of a class as we had hoped, but we did succeed in creating equal opportunity for minority students, and constructed a process for legally considering diversity in our admission system.

College admissions officers today face a daunting task. Hundreds of thousands of students apply to American universities each year, and it is the task of these officers to utilize an incredibly complex system of variables to decide the fate of each applicant. In the United States, about 15 percent of all students who graduate from high school are black; however, out of the colleges contacted in a recent New York Times poll, just one institution boasted a graduation rate above 70 percent with as many black students enrolled in its freshman class.[3] Hispanics are even more underrepresented at elite institutions, as they are more likely to attend two year, community colleges.[4] To remedy this, colleges across the United States have made use of affirmative action to place more priority on minority applicants.

As an admissions team, we were also presented with the challenge of creating an admissions system that factors diversity into our decisions. As we learned from Regents of the University of California v. Bakke, it is illegal to have a set percentage of minority students that gain acceptance in collegiate institutions, as any fixed percentage or number is a quota system. [5] However, in Grutter v. Bollinger, the judges upheld that the use of a “plus system” was in fact legal, and the importance of affirmative action was also reaffirmed.[6] We ultimately created a more advantageous approach to color conscious admissions by utilizing our own “plus system.” To do this, we assigned a numerical value from one to three, to be used in the applicants’ total points ranking, based on racial diversity. This allowed one’s ethnic background, and other diversifying traits such as sexuality and nationality, to benefit minority applicants in the admissions process.

After analyzing the data used in our admissions process, it is evident that the value given to applicants’ diversity was a deciding factor in how applicants were ranked, and ultimately, in whom we chose to admit. By eliminating the diversity value placed on each applicant, I found that thirteen of the fifteen applicants would have had different rankings. Only two of the top five ranked applicants were still present in the top five, while the fifth applicant’s cumulative ranking placed him tied for eighth with what was previously the twelfth ranked applicant.[7] This further reinforced the necessity to include a diversity quotient in admission considerations as the average diversity value of the top five rated applicants was 2.2, while the average diversity value of the top five rated applicants without the diversity quotient included was just 1.7. [8]

Our admissions team offered nine applicants admission, with three being admitted outright in the first round and six off the waitlist. In the initial rounds of waitlist applicants, diversity was of foremost consideration. We took into account that many of the minority students applying were from low socioeconomic backgrounds and attempted to create as much equal opportunity as possible.[9] However, as we progressed, our team became less concerned with diversity or equal opportunity and more concerned with accepting the best holistic applicant that would accept our offer of admission, and therefore diversity was not as strongly emphasized. However, we were left with a substantial financial aid budget, and realized that applicants that were of low socioeconomic backgrounds and required ample financial aid were more likely to accept.[10] Therefore, we did put added emphasis on those who were of lesser means, and in doing so strove to create more equal opportunity for those of lower financial standing in our applicant pool. Nonetheless, two of the three applicants that enrolled, Caitlin Quinn and Jazmine Hope-Martin, had diversity quotients of one and were from upper and middle class financial standing.[11] This is not to say that the incoming freshman from this pool of applicants are not diverse, as diversity is constituted by many variables from ethnicity to geographical location and even political beliefs, but the diversity score of the applicants that were enrolled is lower than what we had hoped.

Our admission’s team unfortunately did not succeed in creating as diverse of a class as we had intended, however we attempted to admit as many students of a diverse background as possible and create equal opportunity for the students in our applicant pool. Future admissions officers of “The College” may be better served to assign a higher quotient range for diversity in their ranking systems. This would allow diversity to then play a larger role in admissions decisions and create more opportunity for students of diverse backgrounds to be ranked higher and thereby have a greater chance of being accepted in the first round.[12] Although the diversity quotient of our freshman class was lower than what we had hoped, we succeeded as an admissions team in creating an admissions process that legally factored diversity into admissions considerations. We drew up our own “plus system” after learning, from the Grutter v. Bollinger case, that it is legal to use race as a factor in admissions.[13] In addition, we attempted to create as much equal opportunity as possible by using race and socioeconomic standing as deciding factors in our decisions. Even though our admissions team may not have succeeded in creating the most diverse freshman class, I feel that those who did enroll in “The College” have much to offer both the school and its community.

Colin Cahill’s sample post.