TWTP... is it worth it?

Colleges and Universities A-Z Brown University
21

<p>My responses:</p>

<p>"It is not the white members of the Brown community who are "oppressing" the minority members." Are you kidding me? When a Brown student asks me whether I go to Brown before letting me in to my dorm that is oppressive. I'm not talking chains or whips, I'm talking racism as a means of marginalization by normalizing whiteness. </p>

<p>"Brunonian2010: good lord did I register for the same TWTP you're describing?" Yes you did. And because you registered there will be one less person of color at TWTP. Because TWTP is capped the more white students there are the less students of color. We in the community of color call this "the colonization of TWTP." How selfish, insensitive, and problematic can a person be to deny a student of color the chance to be empowered when said person is a beneficiary of white priveledge.</p>

<p>"brunonian2010, when was a black person beaten simply for being black on campus?" Where you not on campus during Fall 06. His face was beaten in. Demonstrators wore bandages under their eyes to commemorate his stitched up face. ACLU</a> questions role of outside officers in Sept. 10 incident - Campus News</p>

<p>As for the white girl ...do you really want to compare statistics of police brutality in the black community versus that of the white?</p>

<p>Fireandrain read my response to Sectumsepra.</p>

<p>arapollo I can't to see you at TWTP we have a lot to discuss. I am happy you saw the truth behind my strong rhetoric. I completely agree that white students need to have conversations with people of color about systems of oppression. But I don't think that TWTP is the place for that type of dialogue. Some of my closest friends are white and they understand the need for people of color to have a safe space for themselves. You may or may not agree with me on this by the end of your TWTP experience.</p>

22

<p>I’m going to be blunt and honest here because this is an anonymous forum.</p>

<p>I’ve had serious issues with TWTP for more than 30 years. If it were up to me, I would eliminate the program, have a preorientation (or longer orientation) for everyone, and include some sessions – open to everyone – on diversity issues. I would offer sessions for international students and first generation students, and for people of color, too. But I strongly believe that a separate program for students of color, arriving on campus several days before everyone else, is a mistake. I have always felt this way.</p>

<p>When I attended Brown, there was a quadrant of the Ratty where many of the black students ate. This was their section, and everyone knew it. They ate together and socialized together all the time. I was disappointed. I thought I was attending Brown to interact with a range of people – black, Hispanic, Asian; Californians, Oklahomans, New Yorkers; rich, poor, filthy rich; Catholic, Jewish, Buddhist … etc. Instead – and yes, I do partly blame TWTP for this – the black students made their friends before any other students arrived on campus, and did not interact with other students. TWTP provided a foundation for them that separated them from the rest of the students. </p>

<p>Current students I’ve spoken to tell me a similar situation exists today for many Asian and Indian students. They hang out together, and have done so since TWTP.</p>

<p>I have no problem empowering black students, or any students of color. Heck, everyone should be empowered. But I believe a separate program offered before everyone else arrives on campus is not the best format to accomplish this. I have problems with any program that excludes people. </p>

<p>Brunonian2010, I am white so I can never fully understand your experiences or your perspective. I’m sorry that you feel so angry about how people of color are treated at Brown. I’m glad TWTP was a good experience for you, but I think it just leads to more divisions on campus. That’s my opinion, and we can agree to disagree.</p>

23

<p>Thank you fireandrain! It is sad that you had to open your post as if you had to hide in the anonymity of this forum, but I am doing the same thing! I am a parent of a current Brown student, and I totally agree with your sensible and logical post. My D feels that way as well. I think this program is divisive and conveys the opposite of what the college experience is meant to teach. But, I, like you, am not a person of color. So, maybe it is easy for us to say. I can't walk any distance at all in another person's shoes, so are we ignorant? Perhaps. But I can't help but feel that this promulgates racism on all sides.</p>

24

<p>"Brunonian2010, I am white so I can never fully understand your experiences or your perspective. I’m sorry that you feel so angry about how people of color are treated at Brown. I’m glad TWTP was a good experience for you"</p>

<p>Thank you so much for at least meeting me half way. The quote of yours, which I posted above, is the first part of the idea I am trying to get white members of the Brown community to understand.</p>

<p>But let's look at the other premises of your argument. You wrote, "When I attended Brown, there was a quadrant of the Ratty where many of the black students ate. This was their section, and everyone knew it. They ate together and socialized together all the time." This is true. But what about the other 9/10ths of the ratty that housed all the white tables? In other words why is it that when white America talks about self segregation the fault somehow lies on people of color? That is an example of white privilege operating. The fact that you blame TWTP for "self segregation", instead of advocating for promotion of more dialogue for race at Brown is problematic (i use the term very loosely) is oppressive. </p>

<p>Like I have said earlier. I think that white students need to have a conversation about race. I detest self segregation as it limits our understading of one another. But I don't think TWTP is the place for such dialogue. It is a place where people of color who have and still are oppressed in American society can be empowered. Three days is all we're asking. Three days to talk about how we can heal .....and somehow that troubles white students. Let's question that.</p>

25

<p>Brunonian2010, I think you're really missing the point, big time.</p>

<p>There are many factions of Brown which one can say would benefit from a longer period of acculturation to the Brown community and additional support structures within the university to ensure they have equal opportunity for success while at Brown and fireandrain has identified some of those groups.</p>

<p>The truth is, TWTP as it is currently designed is frowned upon by many white students because we see it as the first step in separating races at Brown that appears to continue far too strongly beyond orientation. The idea of being "race blind" is utterly hopeless, but planting the seed of self-segregation so early at Brown is something that I know I've felt was detrimental to the community at large, a sentiment with which I do not stand alone.</p>

<p>Honestly, I'm happy to have a multiracial group of friends, but I also feel it's not a coincidence that none of my friends of color attended TWTP freshman year.</p>

26

<p>I feel the need to jump in on this conversation due to the blatant racism that I see here. </p>

<p>Blatant racism. </p>

<p>As in most of the post here are very racist.</p>

<p>Thank you Brunonian2010 for speaking your mind despite the fact that the university and most of the people in it do not see the value of TWTP.</p>

<p>I am going to be honest here because this is an anonymous forum. I want to preface what I’m saying with the fact that I am speaking only for myself, my experience at Brown, and the way I view what TWTP is and should be about.
In terms of silencing, clearly, the more racist anti-twtp voices are NOT silenced in this forum. If anything MY voice is silenced here as it is at Brown and the world outside of Brown. Already this forum has numerous people taking the more assimilationist/racist side of things. If I speak strongly it is only to try to counterbalance the points that so many people are WRONGLY stating about TWTP.</p>

<p>The fact that there is such debate about a concept so very simple only helps to illustrate the way racism has colonized our minds. Whiteness has been defined as inclusive and integration has become interpreted to mean assimilation. No racial difference, ever. Ultimately to be anti-racist we need to acknowledge and love difference, not ignore difference and not even just to "tolerate" difference. We need to appreciate it and not try to force each other to be the same. The debate over TWTP is created from a place of racial hatred and extreme colorblindness—it is created from people not wanting to acknowledge racism in our society and not wanting to acknowledge racial difference, ever. People want to think that race-less-ness is the answer. Well race-less-ness is not reality and also not the ideal. Martin Luther King was never talking about race-less-ness, no one who knows anything about race on a deep level would chose a race-less society. Colorblind is racism and wanting to end/dismantle/colonize TWTP is racist.</p>

<p>If your thought is that to do anything (a targeted mailing, a discussion, a program, affirmative action, ect) based on race will increase racism or keep racism/segregation alive (as if it’s going anywhere, as if it can die), than you are confused, really confused, or you are racist. We cannot become anti-racist if we don't see that racism is there. Deep thought and discussion about race in different settings with different people needs to happen. We need different discussions and forums on race. We need large conversations and small conversations. We need conversations among people of color AND we need conversations among different ethnic groups AND we need conversations with white people.</p>

<p>The key word is AND people</p>

<p>We need both</p>

<p>There needs to be a space like twtp but there also needs to be a space for conversations about race that can include white people.</p>

<p>It is not either / or</p>

<p>We should not take away or replace we should ADD. </p>

<p>There are many many places for general racism &/ or oppression conversations and we can add more if people want/need. It is easy to set up an event on Brown’s campus. Anyone who wants to can start up a club or host a discussion or create a workshop. These things do not have to be in place of TWTP. TWTP is a place for a certain kind of racism and oppression conversation. Having this conversation among people of color is not bad. It is not evil. It is not “reverse racist” it does not add to people of color sitting together in the cafeteria. If anything it breaks away from that because one of the things talked about at TWTP is self-empowerment. A self-empowerment that allows for the knowledge, the ability, and the courage to put oneself out there and form new relationships with others. I've heard about one study done of Brown that said that over 90% of people of color leave with at least one close friend who is white. White students, about 70% leave with at least one close friend who is of color. Who then is doing the self-segregating? As people of color, we do a better job of having white friends than whites do of having friends who are people of color. Why is it always on the person of color to integrate/assimilate? Why can’t more white people come to some of the MANY third world center events, clubs, and programs that ARE meant for them instead of spending time and energy fighting to destroy the one program that isn’t. </p>

<p>This talk of a space that is “open” is only another part of the power dynamic at Brown and in general. It is the voice of white entitlement that states everything must be open, because to be white and be unable to do something/go somewhere is too much to handle. God forbid that white people, entitled to everything in the world, not be able to do one, short, 3 day pre-orientation program.</p>

27

<p>it's not that TWTP is against white people, it's just not for white people. Again, the either/or thinking needs to stop. If you are white. TWTP is just not about you. is it ok to have a conversation that's not about you? For those who are of color and disagree. fine. don't go. but must everyone infrindge on the rights of those of us who want to empower ourselves as people of color and talk about race in a different, anti-assimilationist way for a change? The conversation is different with whites in the room. It's not good, it's not bad but it is different and on a campus/in a world where everyting, everywhere is conversation type A, can some of us not be allowed to have a different conversation? you might not agree, it's not about agreement. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO THIS SPACE. WE HAVE A RIGHT TO HAVE TWTP. and if you think we don't have that right than you need to SERIOUSLY consider why a groug of poeple having created a space by and for themselves, to have a conversation about themselves as people of color is so toublesome to you. when, in fact, like I said, its a conversation that's not even about you.</p>

<p>There should be NO white students at twtp. period period. </p>

<p>Just because you “can” go does not mean you should go. </p>

<p>If you are white and you are reading this than please know: the program is “open” because of racist legal and university policies that promote a system of whiteness as normalcy and refuse to acknowledge racial difference. To be white and to come to TWTP is to uphold racism. </p>

<p>Morally, white people should stand in solidarity with those of us who chose to identify as people of color.</p>

<p>Morally, white people should think about themselves and their whiteness critically instead of placing blame on people of color for having a safe space.</p>

<p>Morally, white people should be able to deconstruct racism BOTH on their own and in racially mixed spaces. Not in spaces like TWTP which are meant for students of color and which are limited in size, funding, and number. Is it so much—too much—to ask for 3 days?! </p>

<p>Three
… the first day is just moving in</p>

<p>Three days </p>

<p>Three</p>

<p>My god people. Three days out of our entire time at Brown. Students of color take the time and space to talk to other people of color and form our identities/talk about self-definition, empowerment, and history. Three days out of our ENTIRE TIME AT BROWN to talk about our ENTIRE EXPERIENCE AS PEOPLE OF COLOR in a room that has a different dynamic than anywhere most of us have ever been.</p>

<p>The conversation is not the same with white people in the room. To have them there is unfair to us and unfair to them. </p>

<p>Whites at TWTP are basically in a space where they don’t belong. Now, what is the problem is a white person wanted to come and just listen? Well, what they will listen to is a conversation about claiming our racial identities from oppressive histories and empowering ourselves as people of color. It seems like an odd conversation for a white person to sit in on. It could be silencing and isolating to them and it could mean people of color in the room being less honest and upfront about their personal experiences. </p>

<p>Still the bigger problem of the momen is that due to money and space, that white person chilling in the room, learning about racial self-empowerment and claiming their identity as a person of color is taking the spot of someone who actually IS a person of color, who could actually benefit from deeper conversation and exploration about racial SELF-empowerment. There is no way around this. the program already doesn't have enough space for even half of the incoming students of color to attend and we are talking about self-empowerment, by ourselves for ourselves, intigrating our cultures instead of assimilating our cultures. The key word in all this is SELF. As in its about us. As in its not about you. Can we get 3 days in a room where we don't have to address white people? 3 days to talk about ourselves and our own issues, concerns, problems, identities as people of color. Can we not have that right? god, racism is alive and well.</p>

<p>The goal of TWTP is doing, creating, learning about and for ourselves. As in having something (even just a small something…even just three days of something) that is created for us and by us as people of color. As in integrating (as in NOT assimilating or catering to whites) our beleifs, perspectives, and identities. TWTP is not a "diversity" program, it is a step towards anti-racism and anti-colorblindness.</p>

<p>Whites should stand in solidarity with us.</p>

<p>join the other conversations, workshops, events during the year</p>

<p>help us defend our right to a program like TWTP</p>

<p>I recognize this is the harder, more controversial, more difficult position to take, especially for white people, but it is only through a coalition and collaboration like this that we can promote anti-racism. promoting colorblindness in the way race is talked about and the way racism is organized against by stating that EVERY SINGLE CONVERSATION/EVENT/PROGRAM MUST INCLUDE WHITE PEOPLE is only a step backwards.</p>

28

<p>You can come but you SHOULD, instead, spend that time at home and read/learn about your feelings of white entitlement. Here are some things you can study to help you deal with your racism:
1)Fanse Fanon. Anything Fanse Fanon
2) “unpacking the invisible knapsack of white priveledge”
3) Malcolm X
4) Martin Luther King… but look at something beyond his “I have a dream speech” and interpret him correctly cause he is continuously co-opted for arguments of colorblindness</p>

<p>White people can AND SHOULD go to…
- BUAD (building understanding across difference)
- Ethnic Studies
- Africana Studies<br>
- Latin American Studies
- The Center for Race and Ethnicity
- The Third World Center sponsored Convocations (every month)
- The Third World Center sponsored history series and events (usually at least one a week if not more)
- The Third World Center sponsored BBQ
- The cultural shows, forums, workshops, and speakers brought to campus by various groups/clubs housed under the Third World Center
- Third World Action (newly revived): a multi-racial (including white) coalition that puts on its own events and focuses on service to the providence community.</p>

<p>White people can but SHOULD NOT go to…
TWTP</p>

29

<ul>
<li>sorry meant Frantz Fanon</li>
</ul>

30

<p>If I understand your post right, you're calling out on people who are saying that it's terrible to separate the races or acknowledge difference.</p>

<p>That's not really the argument I'm making against TWTP, or even what I see as a difficulty of the program.</p>

<p>Because TWTP occurs before orientation students of color, regardless of what the conversation they're having is about and what its importance is, tend to make very close and strong connections with other students of color. This serves as a way to create strong ties at a time when all people at Brown are seeking to make strong friendships some of which will last, some of which won't. The first day of the actual orientation program white students come onto campus and have a major hurdle to overcome when meeting TWTP students. They already go out for dinner with their close friends with which they've shared an important experience already. Etc, etc etc.</p>

<p>I had a very close freshman unit. I had friends of all races and kinds in that unit. There were three students that I still have never said more than a few words to that never really made friends with anyone else who lived around us.</p>

<p>They were three students who were TWTP attendees. Is it possible this is completely from chance? Yes. But my experience is simply that TWTP not because of it's content, not because of it's message, not because of it's importance, but because of its timing serves to help segregate some students from the rest of the population at Brown initially, sometimes with a barrier that's higher than can seemingly be surmounted. That to me, is a problem. It stifles the conversation you already admit must happen across racial lines and it makes it more difficult for the communities to interact when it's perhaps most important-- from day one.</p>

<p>I'm not saying TWTP is purposeless or even inessential, what I'm saying is I think the timing of TWTP hurts the cause.</p>

31

<p>sorry i meant Frantz Fanon</p>

32

<p>I wasn't necessarily thinking that you were directing it towards me, but articulating what I think is a fatal flaw in the design of TWTP.</p>

33

<p>I completely disagree.
First - others comes early<em>Athletes come</em>some drama students come* international students come* UCAAP students come</p>

<p>Do you suggest that every single student on campus arrive at the exact same time?</p>

<p>And is there some kind of cap on friends cause I’ve never heard of one?</p>

<p>Also, your argument is part of the racism I’m talking about. </p>

<p>Why is there this stupid idea </p>

<p>Stupid, stupid and racist idea</p>

<p>that students of color being drawn together is CAUSED by TWTP. </p>

<p>It’s caused by racism.</p>

<p>Racism brings us together</p>

<p>And racism separates us</p>

<p>Not TWTP</p>

<p>Don’t blame the program for a much larger institutional and societal problem
The issue of “self segregating” as you and others put it (a racist term in and of itself) is NOT CAUSED BY TWTP. IT WOULD BE THERE ANYWAY. ITS THERE IN OTHER SCHOOLS THAT DON’T HAVE A TWTP.</p>

<p>Even if it happened during the year, the bonds formed by such an intense and personal combination of workshops would still “hurt the cause” as you put it. Because the fact is the bond is there, the connection is there and “self-segregation” is there. You can pretend its not. You can blame it on TWTP being early on. You can blame it on TWTP, But the sad truth is there would be a rift anyway. Because there is a rift. There is. It’s there. It exist. TWTP didn’t cause it. It was always there.</p>

<p>Coming early is an excuse whites use to say that because some students have met already, they don’t need to interact with them. How dare they, the ones who came on time (again white entitlement) have to go out of there way to meet people? Somehow those students of color are that met already are at fault just for having met each other!? I don’t think so. White people should make the effort, as I said, to get to know those who were at TWTP and actually learn what the program was about. White students should also make the effort to get to know people through ALL THE OTHER EVENTS I LISTED. All these things cause bonding and form friendships, people meet new people after TWTP all the time but it is usually through TWC events that bring the community together. Maybe if you actually went to some of the events you would meet people. How do I know you haven’t gone? You attitude shows that to me.</p>

<p>Finally, the last thing I want to say, and, wow, I know it’s a crazy concept but, does every person of color have to have lots of white friends?? As in shouldn’t those, that chose to, that want to, chose their friends? As in is it so terrible if 3 people from your dorm decide their just not interested? Granted, you don’t have to agree with them. I don’t agree with them but, they do have that right. If I as a person of color want to surround myself with people of color, that is my choice and my right. It is not evil. It is not reverse racism. It’s a choice. But if I as a person of color want to surround myself with white friends, I can do that too. And if I choose to do both, I can do that too. That’s what true integration is and means. It’s a choice, it’s different options, it’s not about forcing everyone to be everyone’s friend, that is assimilation. This is what I mean when I say that those against TWTP take integration and interpret it as assimilation. Not everyone needs to be with everyone all the time, people should have options and make choices and you shouldn’t fault those in your dorm for making a different choice. You don’t have to agree, as I have said already, but they have the right to make that choice and there is reason behind it. Time and energy should have been put into thinking about how you and your friends could create a more anti-racist dorm environment/how you could bridge the gap if you were so concerned about connecting with them. </p>

<p>Still, if you tried and it didn’t work then, gotta tell ya, those people would probably not be interacting with you anyway. You also don’t know what they were doing outside the unit and who their friends were. They just weren’t friends with you and that made you feel bad and you need something to blame so you’re blaming twtp.</p>

<p>You should not blame the program for the rift that larger societal and social factors causes.</p>

<p>And you should not blame people for making their own choices in friends</p>

<p>And you really should not be delusional enough to think that ending TWTP or moving it to later in the year will end “self-segregation” (again, “self-segregation” is a problematic term)</p>

<p>Please do read the sources I suggested.</p>

34

<p>Holy ****. You're an angry person. If you haven't noticed, I'm not really attacking you or the program in any sense. All I'm saying is that for me, in my experience, it's served to help to reinforce separation.</p>

<p>Separation is fine, sometimes natural, sometimes required due to common experiences in the world we live in. I think that UCAAP and athletes coming early causes the same problem. But we weren't talking about those programs, we were talking about TWTP. Part of the reason why TWTP is so visibly riled against in this case is because it's a lot easier to "see" the effects-- yeah I said it. Visibly you can see that suddenly that first night of orientation there's a pattern already, very fast. It can be intimidating and tough. Does it end my ability to interact with students of color at Brown? Not based on the make up of my current group of friends.</p>

<p>From my perspective, from what I see, from how I experienced my first week at Brown and time since, there is a negative aspect of TWTP that doesn't have to do with it excluding white people whatsoever. It's not even that I think that self-segregation is preventable or needs to be prevented. It's simply that I think that this program's design can sometimes lead to separation when there is perhaps the greatest potential for discourse. Disagree with me all you want, but some of the most meaningful conversations about life and the world around me came out during Orientation as I met people and we poured out who we were to figure out where we feel we belong in the next four years. Disagree with me all you want, but you don't have to lecture me on racism because that's not at all what my opinion is based upon. One of my best friends at Brown is an athlete I didn't meet until Spring semester freshman year despite his living two doors away. He was at Brown early, made his friends, and combined with a busy workout schedule, didn't really explore other people until much later. It's not about a cap on friends, but I actually feel less close to him because of when I met him and because of how established I felt at Brown already when I met him. That's a shame. And I think that many of the pre-orientation programs have the potential to create this situation and I don't always think that these programs all have benefits which outweigh that negative.</p>

<p>Am I certain? No. But generally, this is the perception I have had. You can fight with me all day that I haven't read enough Malcom ****ing X. I don't need to justify what experiences or knowledge I have on the internet because I point out the fact that TWTP can inspire separation of races in a rare and precious time where young bright minds are particularly flung open.</p>

35

<p>Let’s take a look at our cohort.</p>

<p>At Columbia there is self segregation
<a href="http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/51731%5B/url%5D"&gt;http://www.columbiaspectator.com/node/51731&lt;/a&gt;&lt;/p>

<p>At Cornell there is self segregation
CNN</a> Story Sparks Debate | The Cornell Daily Sun</p>

<p>At Dartmouth there is self segregation
TheDartmouth.com</a> | Self-segregation at Dartmouth</p>

<p>At Harvard there is self segregation
The</a> Harvard Crimson :: News :: Candidates Debate Self-Segregation</p>

<p>At Penn there is self segregation
Nicolas</a> Rodriquez: Examining self-segregation at Penn - Opinion</p>

<p>At Princeton there is self segregation
Not</a> just 'self' segregation - The Daily Princetonian</p>

<p>At Yale there is self segregation
Yale</a> Daily News - ?Self-segregation? myth affects all groups</p>

<p>But none of these schools have TWTP or comparable programs except for Yale’s Cultural Connections. I’d like to reiterate ladyj10026’s argument. </p>

<p>“Don’t blame the program for a much larger institutional and societal problem. The issue of “self segregating” as you and others put it (a racist term in and of itself) is NOT CAUSED BY TWTP.”</p>

36

<p>TWTP DOES NOT CAUSE THE SEPARATION. period period</p>

<p>"Holy ****. You're an angry person"</p>

<p>"Malcom ****ing X"</p>

<p>Now let's break that down. Why am I angry? cause i'm honest and call you racist when you are? </p>

<p>First, if you note I also mentioned Martin Luther King. why is he not " ****ing ".</p>

<p>It all has to do with this concept of being “angry”. What is “anger”? You are using the label and concept of “anger” as a tool for racial oppression in your comments.</p>

<p>The assertion commonly made about Malcolm X and other “radical” (we can break that down to) people of color are “angry” for asserting their rights is also racist. The very concept of "angry", who is considered angry and what makes someone legitimately angry is also racist. The idea that no one should be angry, ever - or that no one should even really show emotion is all part of a dominate, whit-centric, model for “success”. It is the culture of oppression of which you are a part. "Not being angry" is used to create complacency and subjectivity. This is not to say that everyone should be angry all the time but simply to say that, when, if ever, is it acceptable to be angry? </p>

<p>Is there ever a justification for anger?</p>

<p>I fell like most would say yes. Now, people may disagree about when and at what it is acceptable to get angry at but the fact is, I also have a right to get angry and your inability to see the anger as part of a sound and rational argument only further illustrates your racism. Your inability to see my anger as justified or rational is based on what qualifies as unjustified anger to you. Being angry about a safe space being violated is somehow unjustified? Like Malcom X being “angry” is somehow unjustified? Should people never be angry? </p>

<p>The fact that you see my arguments as only emotional outburst further illustrates your racism.</p>

37

<p>The anger comes from your tone which has been on the attack whereas I feel that other posters in this thread have tried to keep a more level tone. The cursing in my previous statements were more out of frustration since I feel you're actually making this conversation less fruitful and more difficult because of how you feel the need to express yourself.</p>

<p>You can think I'm racist. You can think I think your arguments are only emotional. Or you can accept that I am suggesting something far more simple and with far less wide a reach than you're assuming, and accept that I see your arguments not as purely emotional, but as being weakened by what I'm reading as a hyper-emotional state.</p>

<p>You come riding in here on a horse to save TWTP and refuse to accept that it's possible the program is not organized ideally. Rather than address the concerns I had about the program by talking about how your experience helped you to transition and did not have any of the effects that I have seen, albeit anecdotal, you have decided I'm a racist unfamiliar with a body of literature and a cultural problem that exists.</p>

<p>You're taking language and assuming a far deeper intent and assuming that it's loaded. When I say "self-segregation" I refer to the fact that white sits with white the same way black sits with black. I'm not referring to a problem that the black community is too insular or that it should be accepting my values or my culture or is thwarting the influence of good white culture, I'm simply saying people separate themselves. When I say angry, I refer to your tone right here in this thread, and not some stereotypical vision of the angry militant African American.</p>

<p>Not every word everyone says is loaded or filled with personal motivations. Sometimes, people describe the situation right in front of them.</p>

<p>You know, it's funny. I'm Jewish. I've been massed-murdered. I'm responsible for the "holistic admissions" approach to keep Jews out of Harvard and the Ivy League. I've got 150 family members that my grandma can recall the names of who were lost in the Holocaust. One of my favorite quotes is Lyndon B. Johnson justifying Affirmative Action by saying, "You do not take a person who, for years, has been hobbled by chains and liberate him, bring him up to the starting line in a race and then say, 'you are free to compete with all the others', and still justly believe that you have been completely fair."</p>

<p>But apparently, I have never taken the time to understand, don't want to understand, and in fact, deep down, hate you all because of a stupid three day pre-orientation program, and I'm a racist, in the non-all-inclusive, very much intentional kind of way because I said you're angry when you clearly are right here in this thread.</p>

<p>The fact that you dismiss my response as a white racist motivated rebuke of what I supposedly see as typical black vitriol serves only to further illustrate your racism.</p>

38

<p>Oh, and for what it's worth, I'm expressing myself rather non-anonymously. My name is easy to find both on this forum and out in the world. I really have no shame or cowardice or wall behind which I'm hiding on this issue. So if you're prepared to discuss this, lets. But before you go off continuing to accuse me of racism and then suggest I only feel comfortable saying these things as I type away on a computer behind a veil of secrecy, know that I am not.</p>

39

<p>"I've heard about one study done of Brown that said that over 90% of people of color leave with at least one close friend who is white. White students, about 70% leave with at least one close friend who is of color. Who then is doing the self-segregating?"</p>

<p>There are more white students than students of color. You are simply more statistically likely to befriend someone who is white than someone who is of color. If we follow your logic(that having more students of the 'opposite' category indicates more of an effort), it would actually indicate that whites are making more of an effort than students of color are. According to the Brown website, only 29% of Brown students are of color. If you selected a random person at Brown to befriend, 70% of the time that person would be white. And that isn't oppressive either if you consider that 74% of the United States is white. Yes, white individuals make up the majority of Brown students...but they also make up the majority of the nation. </p>

<p>For the record, Brown categorizes me as a person of color and I was invited to TWTP for my freshman year, but I didn't go. I don't feel discriminated against or stereotyped or oppressed and don't feel ugly and haven't "internalized" messages that I'm ugly. ]I don't feel a need to be self-empowered. I feel great already.</p>

40

<p>After TWTP ends, are there other chances throughout the year for the cohort that formed at the opening three day sessions to continue to meet? If so, and if it were an on-going group, then it would feel different to me than if it were just a one-shot deal, just at the beginning of the first year. If it just meets once at the beginning of the first year, then I would worry that the institution would feel, "There, we've done our part." If, however, the group continues to meet, and perhaps would extend sincerely open invitations to the entire community, thereby dispelling the possible exclusionary, divisiveness that is obviously occurring, then maybe positive results could be attained all around.</p>