Interview Analysis Essay

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.